Tell es-Safi/Gath II: Excavations and Studies 9783963271281, 9783963271298

Citation preview

Ägypten und altes TestamenT 105 ÄAT 105 Tell es-Safi/Gath II • Excavations and Studies

Tell es-Safi / Gath II Excavations and Studies Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Joe Uziel

www.zaphon.de

Zaphon

ÄAT-Tel-es-Safi-II-Cover.indd 1

14.10.2020 10:47:21

Tell es-Safi/Gath II Excavations and Studies

Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Joe Uziel

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

ÄGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT Studien zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Ägyptens und des Alten Testaments

Band 105

Gegründet von Manfred Görg Herausgegeben von Stefan Jakob Wimmer und Wolfgang Zwickel

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Tell es-Safi/Gath II Excavations and Studies

Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Joe Uziel With contributions by Shira Albaz, Donald T. Ariel, David Ben-Shlomo, Daphna Ben-Tor, Rebecca Biton, Elisabetta Boaretto, Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Amit Dagan, Marina Faerman, Suembikya Frumin, Manfred Görg, Rainer Grün, Shira Gur-Arieh, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Les Kinsley, Mordechai E. Kislev, Ely Levine, Merav Y. Levmore-Raziel, Yael Mahler-Slasky, Francesca Manclossi, Yoel Melamed, Henk K. Mienis, Ian Moffat, Steven A. Rosen, Itzhaq Shai, Patricia Smith, Philipp W. Stockhammer, Josephine A. Verduci, Ehud Weiss, Malte Willmes, Eric L. Welch and Stefan J. Wimmer

Zaphon Münster 2020

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Illustration on the cover: Aerial view of the Upper City of Tell es-Safi/Gath, looking west (photographer: A. M. Maeir)

Ägypten und Altes Testament, Band 105 Tell es-Safi/Gath II: Excavations and Studies Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Joe Uziel

© 2020 Zaphon, Münster (www.zaphon.de) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 ISSN 0720-9061 Printed on acid-free paper

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Introduction and Overview Aren M. Maeir ................................................................................................................................3 Chapter 2: Ḥorvat Shimon: An Eighth Century BCE Site on the Periphery of Tell es-Safi/Gath Ḥorvat Shimon: An Eighth Century BCE Site on the Periphery of Tell es-Safi/Gath: The Site and Finds Amit Dagan and Aren M. Maeir ..................................................................................................55 Petrographic and Chemical Analysis of Pottery from Ḥorvat Shimon David Ben-Shlomo .....................................................................................................................103 Chapter 3: Area C: The Siege Trench and Features in its Vicinity The Excavations in Area C Shira Gur-Arieh and Aren M. Maeir..........................................................................................117 Petrographic Analysis of Pottery from Area C David Ben-Shlomo .....................................................................................................................189 The Shells from Area C Henk K. Mienis ...........................................................................................................................191 Chapter 4: The Excavations in Cave T1, Area T The Excavations in Cave T1, Area T: Background and Stratigraphy Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir .....................................................................................................199 The Pottery from Cave T1 Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir .....................................................................................................205 The Human Remains from Cave T1 Marina Faerman and Patricia Smith .........................................................................................221 Radiocarbon Dates from Cave T1 Elisabetta Boaretto ....................................................................................................................235 Strontium Isotope Investigation of Human Mobility based on Teeth from Cave T1 Ian Moffat, Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Les Kinsley, Malte Willmes and Rainer Grün .................237 The Faunal Remains from Cave T1 Liora Kolska Horwitz and Rebecca Biton ..................................................................................245 The Iron Age I/IIA Jewelry from Cave T1 Josephine A. Verduci..................................................................................................................251 Seals and Amulets from Cave T1 Stefan J. Wimmer and Manfred Görg † .....................................................................................271 Concluding Remarks Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir .....................................................................................................279 Chapter 5: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Area F-Upper, Strata F4–F8a The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Area F-Upper, Strata F4–F8a Jeffrey R. Chadwick and Aren M. Maeir....................................................................................291 Chapter 6: Middle Bronze Age Fortifications and Finds in Area F Middle Bronze Age Fortifications and Finds in Area F Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Eric L. Welch, Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir...........................................345 Petrographic Analysis of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Area F David Ben-Shlomo .....................................................................................................................377

V

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CONTENTS Chapter 7: The Late Bronze Age Remains in Area E: Final Report The Late Bronze Age Stratigraphy and Architecture Itzhaq Shai, Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir .................................................................................381 The Aegean-Type Pottery Philipp W. Stockhammer ............................................................................................................399 Jewelry from Stratum E4 Shira Albaz .................................................................................................................................405 An Additional Scarab from Area E Daphna Ben-Tor ........................................................................................................................417 Late Bronze Age Figurines from Area E Joe Uziel and Itzhaq Shai...........................................................................................................421 Ground Stone Objects from Stratum E4 Merav Y. Levmore-Raziel ...........................................................................................................427 The Second Millennium BCE Lithic Assemblage from Area E, Seasons 2005–2011 Francesca Manclossi and Steven A. Rosen ................................................................................441 Canaan’s Staples, Seasonal Vegetables and Luxury Fruits: Finds from Stratum E4 Suembikya Frumin, Yoel Melamed and Ehud Weiss ..................................................................459 Appendix 7.1: Supplementary Table of Mahler-Slasky and Kislev 2012 Yael Mahler-Slasky and Mordechai E. Kislev ...........................................................................489 The Shells from the Late Bronze Age in Area E Henk K. Mienis ...........................................................................................................................493 Overview of the Late Bronze Age Remains from Area E Itzhaq Shai, Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maeir ................................................................................499 Chapter 8: Balance Weights Balance Weights Ely Levine...................................................................................................................................521 Chapter 9: Coins from Tell es-Safi/Gath (1996–2010) Coins from Tell es-Safi/Gath (1996–2010) Donald T. Ariel ..........................................................................................................................543 Author Affiliations .............................................................................................................................547

VI

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW AREN M. MAEIR

T

he present volume is the second volume in the series of final reports1 of the Tell esSafi/Gath Archaeological Project.2 In the first volume (Maeir 2012c), various studies and reports on and relating to the project were presented, up until the 2010 season. In the current volume, jointly edited by Joe Uziel and myself, an assortment of excavation reports and topical studies of finds are presented.3 This includes: 1. Chapter 2 is the final report, by Amit Dagan and Aren M. Maeir, on Ḥorvat Shimon, a small Iron IIB site, located ca. 1 km to the west of Tell es-Safi/Gath. This site was first discovered several decades ago, by the late Moshe Israel (z"l), an avocational archaeologist from Kibbutz Kfar Menahem, who conducted some initial excavations at the site (Israel 1963). Subsequently, in 2001, salvage excavations were conducted at the site by Yigael Israel of the Israel Antiquities Authority, when a large water reservoir was constructed, which eventually covered and destroyed this site. After the excavation, the responsibility for the analysis and publication of this interesting site was taken on by the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project. The analysis of the remains from this site was conducted in the framework of Amit Dagan’s MA thesis (Dagan 2008; see as well Dagan 2011; Dagan and Cassuto 2016). 2. Area C – Chapter 3, by Shira Gur-Arieh and Aren M. Maeir. In this chapter, we discuss the excavations at various locations along the Iron IIA (9th century BCE) Aramean siege system. In addition to the elements relating to the siege system itself, other finds that were discovered, primarily in Area C6, are described and discussed. Here too, the

3.

4.

5.

6.

1

Volume III in the series, which is in advanced stages of preparation, jointly edited by I. Shai, H. Greenfield and A. M. Maeir, will deal with the Early Bronze Age finds at the site. Additional volumes are in the initial stages of preparation, and will include final reports on various areas of excavation, as well as studies on a variety of topics and finds relating to the project. 2 From winter 2014 until summer 2016, the project was renamed the “Ackerman Family Bar-Ilan University Expedition to Gath” in recognition of a substantial donation from the Ackerman family of South Africa. We

finds formed the basis of S. Gur-Arieh's MA thesis (Gur-Arieh 2008). In addition to this, the solid basis for the identification of the siege system as such is discussed, in light of doubts that have been expressed about this. Area T – Chapter 4, by Joe Uziel et al., is the final publication of a late Iron I/early Iron IIA tomb, excavated in 2006. This chapter is an expansion and update of the previously published preliminary report (Faerman et al. 2011; Uziel and Maeir 2018b). The report includes studies on the human remains, isotopic analyses on these remains, pottery, radiocarbon dating, faunal analysis, and the jewelry and amulets discovered in the tomb. Chapter 5, by Jeffrey Chadwick and Aren M. Maeir, is the final report on the stratigraphy and architecture of the excavations in Upper Area F, near the summit of the site. Chapter 6, by Jeffrey Chadwick, Joe Uziel, Eric Welch and Aren M. Maeir, discusses the Middle Bronze Age at the site. In this chapter, a general survey of the MB on Tell es-Safi/Gath, based on materials found in the surface survey and the excavations in Area F is presented. Chapter 7, by Itzhaq Shai et al., is an updated summary and final report on the Late Bronze Age finds from Area E. The report includes a variety of studies on the remains from the LB, including the stone implements, shells, beads, a scarab, the imported pottery, figurines, lithics and the archaeobotanical remains. In addition, Appendix 7.1 presents archaeobotanical data by MahlerSlasky and Kislev, which had inadvertently not been included in the relevant chapter in

wish to express our deep thanks and gratitude to the Ackerman Family for their generosity. 3 I would like to thank the authors of the various chapters for their contribution to this volume. In addition, the staff of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project were instrumental in the successful preparation of the volume. In particular, I would like to thank Shira Albaz, Maria Eniukhina, J Rosenberg and Kristina S. Reed for their excellent work and assistance in the production of the volume.

3

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW the first volume (Mahler-Slasky and Kislev 2012). 7. Chapter 8, by Ely Levine, presents an analysis of stone weights found in the excavations up until the 2014 season. 8. Chapter 9, by Donald Zvi T. Ariel, presents the relatively small amount of coins found during the project, including surface finds and finds from the excavations. Importantly, these coins have provided data on the Hellenistic period which is poorly represented in the excavations, and on the dating of some of the graves found in Area F (see Chapter 5), which had been thought to be earlier (Maeir 2012a) and can now be securely dated to the late Islamic periods. In the introductory chapter of the first volume (Maeir 2012a), I presented a summary and overview of the results of the project from 1996 to 2010. This included both a review of the finds and results (in chronological order), but also regarding aspects of methodology, site identification, as well details regarding the project staff, support and other issues. In the following pages, I will present a further update of the project results, based and building on previous publications, and in particular, the first volume (Maeir 2012c). Readers should read the following pages in relation to these previous publications.4 Before this, I would like to thank all those who played a role and/or assisted in enabling the ongoing success of the project. This includes project staff and team members, both during the season and in between, as well as the financial and material support received from diverse sources.

cavation team members return year after year, creating a unique atmosphere of ongoing camaraderie, which extends far beyond the excavation season. One cannot but stress what a central role the excavation team has had, not only in the actual work during the seasons, but in how they empower and enable the project to succeed (see Fig. 1.1–Fig. 1.8 of team members of the 2011–2018 seasons). Below is a list of the members of the supervisory staff who took part in the 2011–2018 seasons: 2011: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: S. Albaz, E. Arnold, D. Cassuto, J. R. Chadwick, T. Cheney, S. Crooks, A. Dagan, B. Davis, M. Ellingsen, M. Eniukhina, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, L. A. Hitchcock, M. Im, M. Jenkins, Z. Margulies, E. McGowan, E. Merav, C. Neufeld, D. Smith, S. Staub, J. Verduci, E. Welch, A. Zukerman; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: S. Yogev; Surveyor: Y. Shapira; Architect: J. Rosenberg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina, R. Wiskin; Major Domo: Y. Yogev; Archaeological Science: S. Weiner, A. Eliyahu-Behar; Archaeobotany: E. Weiss, S. Frumin; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Horwitz, H. Greenfield, A. Brown, R. Kehati; Geoarchaeology: O. Ackermann; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, Y. Asscher; Phytolith Analysis: D. Cabanas. 2012: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: S. Albaz, E. Arnold, M. Barraclough, J. Beller, D. Cassuto, J. R. Chadwick, T. Cheney, S. Crooks, A. Dagan, B. Davis, M. Eniukhina, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, L. A. Hitchcock, M. Im, M. Jenkins, J. Katz, E. Levine, M. Levmore, E., McGowan, C. Shafer-Eliot, I. Shai, B. Stachowski, S. Staub, J. Verduci, A. Zukerman; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: S. Chertov; Surveyor: Y. Shapira; Architect: J. Rosenberg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina, R. Wiskin; Major Domo: A. Singer; Archaeological Science Coordinator: A. EliyahuBehar; Archaeobotany: E. Weiss, S. Frumin; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Horwitz, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, A. Brown, R. Kehati; Geoarchaeology: O. Ackermann, N. Greenbaum, N. Porat, F. Neumann; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, Y. Asscher; Phytolith Analysis: D. Cabanas.

PROJECT STAFF AND TEAM MEMBERS The ongoing success of the excavation project is largely due to the motivated and dedicated work of the large team of excavators (usually more than 100 participants each season) who join the project every year. This team includes students, volunteers and researchers from all over the world, and a wide variety of backgrounds, whether coming as part of a group or as individuals. Many of the ex-

4

Most of the project related publications are available online at: https: //biu.academia.edu/AMaeir.

4

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.1: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2011 season.

Fig. 1.2: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2012 season.

Fig. 1.3: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2013 season.

5

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.4: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2014 season.

Fig. 1.5: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2015 season.

Fig. 1.6: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2016 season.

6

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.7: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2017 season.

Fig. 1.8: Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation team of the 2018 season.

Arnold, A. Brown, S. Holt, R. Kehati; Geoarchaeology: O. Ackermann; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, Y. Asscher, J. Regev. 2014: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: S. Albaz, E. Arnold, J. Beller, J. R. Chadwick, A. Dagan, B. Davis, M. Eniukhina, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, L. A. Hitchcock, S. Holt, M. Im, J. Katz, S. Klavins, Z. Margulies, J. Mather, L. Meiberg, C. Nelson, J. Ros, S. Staub, J. Verduci, E. Welch, D. Wing; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: J. Pincus; Surveyor: Y. Shapira; Architect: J. Rosenberg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina; Major Domo: A. Singer; Archaeological Science Coordinator: A. Eliyahu-Behar; Archaeobotany: E. Weiss, S. Frumin; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Horwitz, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, E. Arnold, A.

2013: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: S. Albaz, E. Arnold, M. Barraclough, J. Beller, D. Cassuto, J. R. Chadwick, A. Dagan, B. Davis, M. Eniukhina, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, L. A. Hitchcock, S. Kisos, L. Landy, M. Maoz, M. Im, J. Katz, E. Levine, M. Levmore, E. Levi, L. Meiberg, E. McGowan, J. Ross, I. Shai, B. Stachowski, J. Stratford, S. Staub, J. Verduci, E. Welch; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: M. Levmore; Surveyor: Y. Shapira; Architect: J. Rosenberg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina, R. Wiskin; Major Domo: A. Koren, Archaeological Science Coordinator: A. Eliyahu-Behar; Archaeobotany: E. Weiss, S. Frumin; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Horwitz, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, E.

7

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Brown, S. Holt, R. Kehati; Geoarchaeology: O. Ackermann; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, Y. Asscher, J. Regev. 2015: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: E. Arnold, J. Beller, J. R. Chadwick, A. Dagan, M. Eniukhina, K. Fowler, S. Fried, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, S. Guterman, E. Hall, L. A. Hitchcock, S. Holt, M. Im, J. Katz, J. Mather, L. Meiberg, C. Nelson Olson, J. Ross, D. Stuart, E. Welch, D. Wing; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: J. Pincus; Architect: J. Rosenberg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina; Major Domo: A. Singer; Archaeological Science Coordinator: A. EliyahuBehar; Archaeobotany: E. Weiss, S. Frumin; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Horwitz, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, E. Arnold, A. Brown, S. Holt, R. Kehati; Geoarchaeology: O. Ackermann, N. Greenbaum, M. Osband; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, Y. Asscher, J. Regev. 2016: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: S. Albaz, E. Arnold, J. Beller, J. R. Chadwick, A. Dagan, M. Eniukhina, F. Fustinoni, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, S. Guterman, L. A. Hitchcock, M. Im, M. Jenkins, J. Katz, D. Kotter, W. Krieger, J. Mather, L. Meiberg, C. Nelson Olson, J. Parker, J. Ross, A. Squitieri, D. Stuart, D. Warner, E. Welch, V. Workman; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: D. Levine; Architect: J. Rosenberg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina; Major Domo: M. Gassenbauer; Archaeological Science Coordinator: A. Eliyahu-Behar; Archaeobotany: E. Weiss, G. Hedges-Knyrim; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Horwitz, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, E. Arnold, A. Brown, R. Kehati; Geoarchaeology: O. Ackermann; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, J. Regev. 2017: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: M. Aeschlimann, S. Albaz, E. Arnold, E. Ausen, J. Beller, I. Berko, A. Buessecker, E. Buschman, J. R. Chadwick, C. Clouse, A. Dagan, B. Davis, D. Frese, F. Fustinoni, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, M. Harris, L. A. Hitchcock, M. Jenkins, C. Jones, J. Katz, D. Kotter, W. Krieger, G. Lee, A. McInnes, C. Nelson Olson, T. Okaluk, N. Orbach, S. Richardson, J. Ross, S. Sasson, E. Welch, V. Workman; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: D. Levine; Architect: J. Rosenberg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina; Major Domo: H. Gassenbauer; Archaeological Science Coordinator: A. EliyahuBehar; Archaeobotany: S. Frumin, G. HedgesKnyrim, E. Weiss; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Horwitz, H. Greenfield, T. Greenfield, E. Arnold, A. Brown, S. Holt; Geoarchaeology: O. Ackermann; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, J. Regev; Remote Sensing: A. Creekmore.

2018: Director: A. M. Maeir; Supervisors: M. Aeschlimann, J. R. Chadwick, B. Davis, M. Eniukhina, J. Katz, D. Kotter, G. Lee, E. Meer, A. McInnes, N. Orbach, S. Rodriquez, S. Sasson, N. Shahar, V. Workman; Registrar and Volunteer Coordinator: B. Soibleman; Architect: J. Rosenberg; Photographer: M. Eniukhina; Major Domo: R. Liran; Archaeological Science Coordinator: A. Eliyahu-Behar; Archaeobotany: S. Frumin, E. Weiss; Zooarchaeology: L. K. Horwitz, R. Kehati; Geoarchaeology: O. Ackermann; 14C Dating: E. Boaretto, J. Regev; Remote Sensing: A. Creekmore. Between the excavation seasons, ongoing research and technical support is carried out by the dedicated project staff, at Bar-Ilan University, in the project laboratory. From 2011 through 2018, the laboratory staff included: S. Albaz, K. Arbiv, O. Avidan, N. Bar-David, T. Blumhof, D. Cassuto, D. Castel, A. Dagan, M. Edrei, A. EliyahuBehar (archaeological science coordinator), M. Eniukhina (photographer), S. Lendenberg, E. Levi, Y. Levi, M. Levmore, D. Levin, L. Maidens, M. Maoz, V. Naikhin, N. Ohrbach, J. Pincus, K. Reed, Y. Rudman, I. Shai, S. Simchi, B. Soibelman, N. Tarsish, A. Touitou, L. Tramer, J. Uziel, V. Workman, and E. Zwiebel. Support for the project, during these years, was provided by various institutions and funding sources, including: Institutions: First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the wide ranging support from many people and offices at Bar-Ilan University, including: Prof. M. Kaveh (former president, BIU), Prof. D. Hershkowitz (former president, BIU), Prof. A. Zaban (president, BIU), Prof. H. Teitelbaum (former rector), Prof. M. Faust (current rector), Prof. E. Assis (former Dean, Faculty of Jewish Studies), Prof. Y. Harel (current Dean, Faculty of Jewish Studies), Prof. B. Zissu (former Chair, Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology), Prof. L. Rosenberg (Chair, Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology), Dr. N. AlpersonAfil (Head, Institute of Archaeology), the staff and members of the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology (in particular, T. Magen-Elbaz and T. Schlossberg), the superb staff of the Bar-Ilan University Research Authority (directed by Dr. E. Even), and many of the administrative and technical staff of Bar-Ilan University. In addition, I would like to thank the staff of the Israel Exploration Society for assistance in handling a substantial portion of the project’s budget. The Israel Antiquities Authority and the 8

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and their devoted and dedicated workers, who not only provided the licensing for work at the site, but they also assisted the project in many ways over the years, and I am grateful for this. During the excavation seasons, the excellent R&B services provided by Kibbutz Revadim (2012–2016), the Neve Shalom Hotel (2017), and the Zafit Regional School in Kibbutz Kfar Menahem (2018), must be thankfully noted. Finally, thanks to the Yoav Regional Council, and its head, Dr. Mati Harkabi, for various assistance given during and between the seasons. I would also like to thank the following academic institutions for their support of the expedition, in various manners: Brigham Young University, Colorado Christian University, Evangel University, Grand Valley State University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Open University of Israel, University of Kansas, University of Kentucky, University of Melbourne, University of Northern Colorado, University of Rhode Island, Weizmann Institute of Science, William Jessup University, Yeshiva University. Grants: Israel Science Foundation (Personal Grants [to A. Maeir: no. 32/10 – 2010–2013; no. 100/13 – 2013–2017; 911/18, 2018–2021]); Bikura/FIRST Grant [to A. Maeir, E. Weiss and L. Horwitz, no. 32/11, 2012–2014]; Equipment grant [to A. Maeir, B. Zissu and R. Kent, no. 2251/17, 2017); German-Israel Foundation for Science and Research (to A. Maeir and J. Maran, no. 1080– 132.4/2009); Institute for Aegean Prehistory (joint grants to A. Maeir, L.A. Hitchcock and L. Meiberg, 2012–2016); Australian Research Council (joint grant to L.A. Hitchcock [PI] and A. Maeir [CI], no. DP1093713 – 2010–2013); Canadian Social Science and Humanities Research Council Major Grant (joint grant to H. Greenfield and A. Maeir; 2012–2018); Minerva Center for the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times (co-directors, A. Maeir and A. Berlejung, 2015–2020); Minerva Stiftung Equipment Grant (to A. Maeir, 2017, 2018). Donations and Financial Assistance: Ackerman Family of South Africa; ADAR Foundation; Mr. Sam Turner (Esq.), Bar-Ilan University (President’s office, Dept. of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Koschitzky Fund, Moskowitz Chair in Biblical Archaeology; Development office); ExxonMobil corporation (2014–2017; facilitated

by C. Schwanke), the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (through J. Parker), and additional private donors. TELL ES-SAFI/GATH THROUGHOUT THE AGES – AN UPDATE The following pages are an update on the current understanding of the cultural history of the site and its surroundings, based on research conducted since the publication of the first volume (Maeir 2012c). As noted above, this section should be read in close conjunction with the first volume, and in particular, the introductory chapter, as the extensive description of the history of the site will not be repeated, but rather updated, revised and expanded based on the newer finds and analyses.5 The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project has now entered its third decade. Current plans are to complete 25 seasons of excavation, which commenced in 1997 and should be completed in the coming years. Since the last report (Maeir 2012a), excavations on the site (Fig. 1.9) continued in various excavation areas on the upper city (A, E, F, J, P) and in the lower city (D, K, K2, M, Y). The 2017 season was the final season of excavations in the upper city, and from 2018 and until the end of fieldwork, excavations will focus on various areas in the lower city, between the upper city and the Elah Valley riverbed. In the following pages, an update on the finds from recent seasons will be presented, in chronological order, from earlier to later phases (for the comparative stratigraphy and dating of the various excavation areas, see Table 1.1). Early Bronze Age Impressive evidence of an EB city at Tell esSafi/Gath was discovered in several areas on the upper tell. The most extensively excavated EB strata were exposed in Area E, where, as previously reported, a series of EB levels were discovered. These levels represent various stages of a domestic quarter with several distinct strata (E5a, E5b, E5c, E6, E7; E8; E9; Table 1.1; Fig. 1.10, Fig. 1.11: 1–6), seemingly representing 3 phases (Strata E5a-5c) of the late EB III, three of the midEB III (Stratum E6–E8), and apparently, one of the transition between the EB II and EB III (Stratum E9).

5

For an extensive overview of the project, see the numerous articles in the two issues of Near Eastern

Archaeology that were dedicated to the Tell esSafi/Gath Archaeological Project (Maeir 2017/2018).

9

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Area Period Mandate/ Ottoman Mamluk

A

C

A1

D

E

F

G

J

K

D1

E1

F1; F2 F3

G1

J1

K1

Crusader

M

P

T

Y

P1

F4

Early Islamic Byzantine

C6–1

Roman

F5

Hellenistic Persian

F6

Iron IIC Iron IIB

A2

Iron IIA

A3

Iron I/II

A4

Iron IB

A5

Iron IA

A6

LB II

A7

C6–2a; C6–2b C6–3

D2; D3 D4

E2

D5

E3

F7; F8 F9

P2 J2

K2

M1

F10

T1

F11

P3

Y1

F12 C6–4

E4

F13

LB I

F14

MB IIB/C

F15

P4

MB IIA EB IV/MB I EB III EB II

C6–5 A8

E5– E8 E9?

F16; F17

G2?

J3

P5; P6

EB I

Table 1.1: Comparative stratigraphy and dating of the various excavation areas.

most likely due to its role in overland transport, but also perhaps due to its ceremonial functions. Several interesting studies were carried out on these animals. This includes isotopic evidence that the first donkey found was born and bred in Egypt and was then brought overland to Tell esSafi/Gath (Arnold et al. 2016; 2017; Arnold and Greenfield 2018), which demonstrates the cultural and economic connections between Egypt and the Levant (and Gath in particular) during this phase, as opposed to the accepted paradigm that there were no direct connections between Egypt and Canaan during the EB III (e.g., de Miroschedji 2012; 2015). It should be noted that in addition to the donkey, isotopic analysis indicated that one of the goats at Tell es-Safi/ Gath was also of Egyptian origin, most probably indicating long-range pastoral movement (Arnold and Greenfield 2018). Further hints to these inter-regional relations are found in various non-local objects

Only Strata E5a through E6 were excavated in extensive areas and a relatively clear picture of the features in Area E can be seen (Fig. 1.11: 1– 6). Strata E8–E9 were exposed in a very limited fashion, in a deep probe in the southern part of Area E down to bedrock (Fig. 1.11: 4–6), so only the basic stratigraphy and chronology is known. Importantly, the lowest stratum, E9, is built on bedrock, so it is quite clear that at least in this part of the site, the earliest phase with substantial architecture dates to the late EB II or early EB III. Several interesting discoveries can be noted: 1. Several ritual depositions of a donkey below floors of R5c houses. One was discovered in the 2008 season, and several more were discovered in the 2016 season (see Greenfield, Shai and Maeir 2012; Arnold et al. 2016; Shai et al. 2016b; Greenfield, Greenfield et al. 2018). The remains of these donkeys, and other donkey-related finds (bones, figurines) indicate the importance of the donkey in the EB III, at Gath specifically and in the Levant in general,

10

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW found in these EB III levels (such as the ground stone objects – Beller, Greenfield, Fayek et al. 2016; Beller, Greenfield, Shai et al. 2016; Beller et al. 2019). An additional find from the donkey which was of interest was evidence of bit use in the first donkey, most likely the earliest reported evidence of equid bit use in the Levant (Greenfield, Shai et al. 2018). 2. Numerous domestic installations of various functions, including for storage and cooking (Eliyahu-Behar, Shai et al. 2016; Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2017). 3. The possibility, based on the donkey (and other donkey related remains) and some imported objects, that this neighborhood was the abode of merchants (Shai et al. 2016b; Arnold et al. 2017). 4. Published (Shai et al. 2014), and unpublished (Regev and Boaretto, pers. comm.) 14C dates from this sequence support the proposed “High Chronology” for the EB (e.g., Regev, de Miroschedji and

Boaretto 2012; Regev et al. 2012), with the EB III ending ca. 2500 BCE. Analysis of the finds from this neighborhood provided insights on a broad range of issues, including: various technologies being used (Brown and Greenfield 2018; Eliyahu-Behar 2017; Eliyahu-Behar, Elbaz et al. 2016; EliyahuBehar, Shai et al. 2016; Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2017; Albaz 2018); game boards (Albaz, Geenfield et al. 2017; Albaz, Shai et al. 2017), administration (Albaz et al. 2017a), animal husbandry (Greenfield, Shai and Maeir 2102; Greenfield, Brown et al. 2018; Shai et al. 2016b; Arnold and Greenfield 2017; 2018; Arnold et al. 2016; 2018); function and provenance of ground stone vessels and tools (Beller, Greenfield, Fayek et al. 2016; Beller, Greenfield, Shai et al. 2016b; Beller et al. 2019); EB potter's marks (Kisos 2014); pottery technology (Ross 2018; Fowler et al. 2019) and the practical application of LiDAR technology in archaeological excavations (Greenfield et al. 2015; in press).

Fig. 1.9: General plan of Tell es-Safi/Gath with excavation areas (updated to the 2018 season).

11

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.10: Aerial view of Area E at the end of the 2017 season, with 1 marking the deep sounding to bedrock.

polity in southern Canaan (e.g., de Miroschedji 2006; 2015)? In light of the size of Gath at the time, the possibility that these two sites should be seen as competing polities should be considered, and not that one (Yarmuth) dominated the other (Gath), as usually assumed.

Early Bronze Age remains were discovered in other areas as well, including in Area A (Fig. 1.12), below the early Iron Age and sparse LB levels; evidence of a fortification wall in Area P, and an apparent earlier EB phase below this wall (Fig. 1.13); and evidence of at least two stages of fortifications in Area F, on the western part of the upper tell (see this volume, Chapter 6). The stratified evidence from the various excavation areas, along with the remains from the survey (Uziel and Maeir 2012), and more recently, the excavation of an additional section of the EB fortification wall on the eastern side of the upper city (Area J, which is below and to the east of Area E; Fig. 1.14), indicate the relatively large size of the EB city (at least during the EB III), perhaps more than 15 hectares in size (Shai et al. 2016a; Welch et al. 2019; Fig. 1.15). The discovery of portions of the city’s fortifications in various areas (all with very similar inset/offset construction), strengthens the assumptions regarding the importance and position of the city of Gath at the time. It seems safe to assume that Gath was one of the primary, or at least secondary, tier polities in the EB III in southern Canaan. One might add that the relationship with Tel Yarmuth is not that clear. Was Gath dominated by Yarmuth, the latter usually assumed to be the dominant EB III

Middle Bronze Age During this period (in fact during the second half of this period), the settlement at the site, though fortified, was limited to the immediate surroundings of the peak of the upper tell. Evidence of the reuse of the EB fortification was found in Area F, including not only the rebuilding of the wall, but the laying of a glacis on its exterior, made of fine yellowish kurkar sand. Excavations during the 2016 season revealed, for the first time, late MB levels inside this wall (for additional discussion of the MB in Area F, see Chapter 6, this volume). As previously discussed (Uziel and Maeir 2007), the small size of the MB finds at Tell es-Safi/Gath can be related to the large size of nearby Tel MiqneEkron at the time, and the ongoing "seesaw" relationship that existed between these two sites during the Bronze and Iron Ages (but see below regarding the Iron I).

12

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.11: Schematic plans of the Early Bronze Age strata in Area E; 1 – E5a; 2 – E5b; 3 – E5c; 4 – E6; 5 – E7; 6 – E8 and E9.

13

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.12: View, looking north, of the western side of Area A with the EB remains (1) below the early Iron Age temple (2).

Fig. 1.13: View, looking west, of the EB city wall (1) and LB structures built against it (2) in Area P.

14

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.14: View, looking north, of the EB city wall in Area J.

15

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.15: Suggested extent of the EB fortifications of Tell es-Safi/Gath.

contexts. In Area F, evidence of the reuse of the EB city wall, both in the MB (above) and in the LB can be seen, as well as several phases of the early and later stages of the LB (see Chapter 6, this volume). One of the more interesting LB finds has been revealed in Area P. As mentioned above, a fortification wall dating to the EB was discovered in this area. This fortification wall was reused in the LB, as a series of rooms with LB finds were discovered built up against the inner side of the EB wall. Two possible interpretations to this can be suggested: 1) That during the LB, the EB fortifications were reused (as seen in Area F), and if so, this indicates that in the LB, most of the upper tell was fortified; 2) That the EB fortification wall was used as an outer wall of these LB structures, and the wall itself did not serve as a fortification in this area at the time. While we tend towards the first suggestion, these two possibilities will be further examined in the future, in the analysis of the finds from Area P for the final publication. The end of the LB at Tell es-Safi/Gath presents a complex picture (Shai et al. 2017). Finds from the final stages of the LB (in my view dating to the late 13th century BCE, and not to the early 12th century BCE [such as espoused by Kleiman,

Late Bronze Age It is quite clear that during the LB, Gath was an important site (Maeir et al. in press). This is seen, inter alia, in the written evidence from the Amarna letters (see Maeir 2012a: 16; but see cautionary remarks by Rainey 2012), the evidence from the survey (Uziel and Maeir 2007; Uziel and Maeir 2012; Dagan and Uziel 2018: 426–27), and from the excavations as well (see Chapter 7, this volume). Somewhat surprisingly, the excavations thus far have not revealed a complete stratigraphic sequence of the LB in any of the excavation areas, although all stages of the LB are represented at the site, as seen in the pottery (such as the imported Late Helladic pottery – see Stockhammer, Chapter 7, this volume). In the last few seasons, while still far from providing a full sequence for the LB, remains from this period have been found in several areas. In Area E, additional remains dating to the final stages of the LB and a large so-called “patrician house” were discovered (see Chapter 7, this volume; see Shai et al. 2011; 2017). In Area A, beneath the stratified early Iron Age remains, contexts with LB pottery were repeatedly found, although as of yet, all seem to have been fill-like 16

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Gadot and Lipschits 2016; Gadot, Kleiman and Lipschits 2018]) have been found in several areas. The terminal LB finds in Area E have been previously published (Shai, Uziel and Maeir 2012; Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012); In Area A, finds from the final stages of the LB were found below the early Iron Age levels and above EB III levels (e.g. Boaretto et al. 2019); As mentioned above, late LB remains were found in Area P, built up against and reusing the EB city wall; In Area F, terminal LB finds were discovered in several locations, and a clear change in architectural traditions is seen between the LB and later early Iron Age wall construction methods. In addition, in Area F, a room, with apparent cultic use dating to the terminal LB, was cleaned out and filled at the end of the period (Shai et al. 2017: 294); And finally, in Area D, and in particular in the fills relating to the Iron IIA gate (see below), substantial amounts of LB sherds and other finds were found (Maeir 2017c: 216). While there is, as of yet, no evidence of a LB stratification and occupation in the lower city, the large amount of LB finds in secondary and tertiary contexts may hint at some sort of LB activity in the lower city. I believe that all these finds indicate that during the final stage of the LB, the city of Gath was quite large. This phase seems to have ended in some areas in destruction (Areas E and P), and perhaps abandonment (Area F and maybe A), which would fit in well with our understanding of the appearance of the Philistine culture (see below). At Gath and other sites, there was not a major destruction, rather some parts of the site were destroyed (perhaps the elite zones) while others continued to exist.

istine culture, as identified at other sites in Philistia can be delineated. With this in mind, several important aspects of the earliest stages of the appearance of the Philistine culture at Tell esSafi/Gath should be noted. Dating of the earliest appearance of the Philistine culture: In two separate studies on the 14C dating of stratigraphic sequences of the LB/Iron I transition at Tell es-Safi/Gath, one conducted on the LB/Iron I levels in Area F (Toffolo et al. 2012) and one conducted on LB/early Iron Age levels in Area A (Asscher et al. 2015; Asscher and Boaretto 2019; Boaretto et al. 2019), possible evidence dating the first appearance of the Philistine culture in the 2nd half of the 13th century BCE was raised. This dating is earlier, by several decades, than the dating usually suggested for the appearance of the Philistine culture (e.g., Mazar 1985; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007).6 We believe though that this may be explained in several ways: 1) Late 13th century or very early 12th century BCE 14C dates have been suggested for other examples of the LB/Iron I transition (e.g., Kaniewski et al. 2011) in the northern Levant, and this may be part of a similar phenomenon; 2) The possibility of an earlier appearance of the Philistine culture, based on the stylistic analysis of certain motifs in the early Philistine pottery was already suggested by Yasur-Landau (2007); 3) Finally, if one sees the appearance of the Philistine culture as part of the long, drawn out, and complex set of processes, with influences and processes deriving from various regions in the Mediterranean and beyond (e.g., Cline 2014; Hitchcock and Maeir 2013; 2014; 2016a; 2016b; 2017a; 2017b; Maran 2018; and see further discussion below), then it is possible that the very earliest manifestations of the Philistine culture began to appear a few decades before the main phases of this initial stage. This does not mean that the main “thrust” of the appearance of the Philistine culture appeared already during the late 13th century BCE; rather, this earlier time frame may be the first hints to a long, complex and drawn out process (for similar comments on the extended span of the LB/Iron Age transition, commencing in the late 13th century BCE, see, e.g., Knapp and Manning 2016: 134; Manning, Kerans and Lorentzen 2017: 108). The fact that early Philistine

Iron Age I While the dating and processes occurring during the LB/Iron Age transition are highly debated (regarding Philistia and other regions of the eastern Mediterranean), at Tell es-Safi/Gath, we consider the beginning of the Iron Age based on the appearance of material culture typical of the early Philistine horizons, such as Philistine 1 (Myc IIIC) pottery, and other typical finds. From this phase onwards, the developmental sequence of the Phil-

6

See Yasur-Landau 2007 who suggested that the earliest stages of the Philistine (and related) migration(s) may have commenced already in the late 13th century BCE. It should be noted that despite Finkelstein’s (2016; 2018; see as well Kleiman, Gadot and Lipschits

2016; Gadot, Kleiman and Lipschits 2018: 216) reservations regarding the validity of the early dating suggested in Asscher et al. (2015), we retain this dating in a recent response (Boaretto et al. 2018).

17

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW culture is not seen at adjacent sites, such as Tel Azekah, should not be seen as contradicting this interpretation (as suggested by Kleiman, Gadot and Lipschits 2016; Gadot, Kleiman and Lipschits 2018), but perhaps stress the complex processes involved in the appearance of the Philistine culture. It should be stressed that the earliest stages of the Philistine culture, reflected in the Philistine 1 (Myc IIIC) pottery has been found in several areas on the tell, including in clear stratigraphic, and in some cases domestic contexts (contrary to, e.g., Koch 2012: 53–54; Finkelstein 2016; Gadot, Kleiman and Lipschits 2018: 213). Philistine I (Myc IIIC) pottery in stratified contexts have been found in Area F (e.g. Toffolo 2012; Shai et al. 2017: 294), in Area A (Boaretto et al. 2019), and in Area E (unpublished), as well as various examples in secondary, tertiary or unstratified contexts in various areas in the lower and upper tell. Clearly then, there was a substantial amount of activity on the site during the earliest phases of the Philistine culture, and there is no reason to suggest that the site became a substantial Philistine site only later on in the early Iron Age. The character of the early Philistine culture: The study of the early Philistine material culture at Tell es-Safi/Gath, in conjunction with studies of other Philistine sites (and related issues) by other scholars, have brought to the forefront the necessity to revise some of the commonly accepted views on the origins and early development of the Philistine culture. In a series of studies deriving from the project (e.g., Hitchcock and Maeir 2013; 2017a; 2018a; Maeir, Hitchcock and Horwitz 2013; Davis, Maeir and Hitchcock 2015; Maeir et al. 2015; 2019 Hitchcock, Maeir and Dagan 2016; Hitchcock, Maeir and Harris-Schober 2019; Maeir and Hitchcock 2017a; 2017b; Maeir, Davis and Hitchcock 2016; Maeir 2017b; 2019b; see as well Stockhammer 2017a; 2017b; 2018; Sala 2018), we have suggested that the early Philistine culture and its subsequent development should be seen as an “entangled” culture. In other words, this is opposed to previous suggestions in the

literature (continuing to this day; e.g., Faust 2015a; 2015b; Niesiołowski-Spanò 2016; Master and Aja 2017), that assumed that the Philistines were primarily an invading group (most probably from a specific origin in the Aegean region) who captured and destroyed the Canaanite cities in the southern Coastal Plains (Philistia), creating a new, largely non-Levantine culture. According to this traditional view, with time, the Philistines assimilated/ acculturated with the local populations, losing their non-local attributes. In our new analyses we demonstrated several points: 1) Few, if any, Canaanite cities were destroyed by the Philistines; 2) The Philistine culture is hardly monolithic, and one cannot identify a single place of origin. Rather, the foreign components within the early Philistine culture derive from diverse regions. At same time, when these non-local groups settled in Philistia, they settled alongside local Canaanite elements. All these different foreign and local components become what is known as the Philistine culture, a very entangled cultural entity;7 3) While much of the nonlocal facets of the Philistines disappear in Iron II, the Philistines nevertheless do retain certain aspects of the non-local facets of the culture into Iron II and even to the very end of the Iron Age. Thus, it is mistaken and overly simplistic to assume that the Philistine culture was dominated from the 10th century BCE onwards by the Judahite kingdom, and lost its cultural uniqueness (e.g., Faust 2013; 2015a; 2015b). Another aspect relating to the early Philistines which has been expanded upon by L.A. Hitchcock and myself (Hitchcock and Maeir 2014; 2016a; 2017a; 2018b; 2018c) is the possibility that a major component of the early Philistine culture can be connected to pirate-like groups active in the eastern Mediterranean in the transition between the LB and the Iron Age. During a time of socio-political unrest as during this period of transition, pirate-like groups, led by charismatic leaders are known from many historical periods (see as well Maran 2018). We suggest that some of the non-local components of the early

7

bly dating no earlier than the very late 12th or 11th centuries BCE. While the processes occurring in the ‘Amuq region may be similar to those occurring in Philistia, influx of Aegeanizing cultural elements, those occurring at Tell Tayinat appear to occur at a later point in time. On this, see Maeir 2018c, as well as Koehl 2017: 285; Meijer 2017 (thanks also to P.W. Stockhammer for discussing this topic with me). For a more minimal interpretation regarding the possible appearance of Sea Peoples in Cilicia, see Lehmann 2017.

See now Welton et al. 2019 with a somewhat similar view on the societal complexity in early Iron Age Tell Tayinat, the ‘Amuq Valley. It should be stressed though that while Welton et al. (ibid.) define the Aegeanizing pottery from Tell Tayinat as “Late Helladic IIIC style”, in fact, it should be seen as a substantially later phenomenon than the LH IIIC/Philistine I pottery from Philistia (either “LH IIIC Late,” or perhaps “SubMycenaean” or “early Protogeometric”), most proba-

18

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW was little connection with regions outside of Philistia. Recent research has demonstrated that this is hardly the case, and while the volume of trade and cultural connections during the Iron I in Philistia is smaller than in the LB or the Iron II, nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence for ongoing contact, trade and cultural influences. At Tell esSafi/Gath, explicit evidence of this can be seen in the decorated ivory bowl which was discovered in Area A (Fig. 1.16), which has been shown to be virtually identical to several ivory bowls found in the well-known terminal LB/early Iron I ivory hoard from Megiddo (see discussion in Maeir et al. 2015).

Philistines may derive from such groups. This would explain the multi-cultural facets of early Philistine material culture; similarly, the biblical term for the Philistine leader, seren, which in the past has been connected to Greek tyrannos (=tyrant), should preferably be connected to Luwian tarwanis (=military leader), a title befitting leaders of pirate-like groups (Maeir, Davis and Hitchcock 2016). Interconnections between Philistia and other regions during the Iron I: Much of the earlier literature on the Philistines assumed that during the early and mid-stages of the Iron I, following the initial arrival of the immigrating Philistines, there

Fig. 1.16: Decorated elephant-ivory bowl from an Iron I deposit (L16A80B07) in Area A.

19

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Our studies have also noted the importance of feasting in early Iron Age Philistia (and other contemporaneous cultures and regions). Evidence of feasting and ritual drinking can be seen from the early Iron Age levels in Area A (e.g., Hitchcock et al. 2015; see as well Faust 2015a; Stockhammer 2017a; 2017b; 2018). It has been suggested that during the Iron I, when the Philistine culture was in the midst of intense formative processes, diacritical feasting fulfilled an important role in the construction of social cohesion and identity formation. The size, role and importance of Iron I Gath: The large size and probably lofty status of Gath during the Iron IIA has been extensively discussed (see additional comments on this below). On the other hand, the status of the site during the Iron I is less clear. Previously (e.g., Maeir 2012a; Boaretto et al. 2019), we demonstrated that the earliest stages of the Philistine culture (e.g., Philistine 1 pottery and other aspects) are found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, and that from the earliest stages of the Iron Age, it was a central Philistine site. Similarly, we suggested, based primarily on the survey remains (Maeir and Uziel 2007), that during the Iron I Tell es-Safi/Gath was similar in size to Tel MiqneEkron, in fact the only period in which both sites were simultaneously large. At that point, we had not yet demonstrated, in the actual excavations, that Gath had a similar, or perhaps even more dominant, status as early Iron I Tel Miqne-Ekron. Thus, for example, Koch (2017; 2018; see also Finkelstein 2017: 385–86) argued that during the Iron I, Tel Miqne-Ekron was the dominant polity in eastern Philistia/western Shephelah, dominating, inter alia, the site of Gath.

This viewpoint though is in need of reassessment, in light of the most recent results of the excavations in the lower city of Gath. Research, in the last decade in the lower city, has demonstrated the existence of extensive remains over a large expanse. The Iron IIA remains, which were previously noted (Maeir 2012a; 2017b) have been further exposed (see below), but more importantly, extensive evidence of Iron I remains, including architecture and stratigraphy have been uncovered. In Area D West, clear stratigraphic and architectural evidence was uncovered that the lower city was occupied prior to the Iron IIA (10th–9th centuries BCE). Below the late 9th century BCE destruction level (attributed to Hazael, ca. 830 BCE),8 at least two earlier phases were discovered. This included a phase dating to the transitional Iron I/II (ca. 10th century BCE), and below this, a phase in which Philistine 2 (Bichrome) pottery was discovered, dating to ca. the 11th century BCE. Significantly, evidence of earlier stages of the Iron IIA temple in this area were discovered, indicating substantial cultic activities in this area in the Iron IB and Iron I/II (see Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018; Maeir 2019a). These results were further accentuated in the 2016–2018 seasons in the eastern portion of Area D (Area D East), with the discovery of fortifications and an apparent gate, first built in the Iron I, and continuing in use, with alterations, during the Iron IIA. Additional evidence of the Iron I activity in the lower city was revealed in the 2018 season, in Area Y, situated ca. 300 m to the east of Area D (Fig. 1.17). There, a large mudbrick building, dating to the Iron I, possibly associated with the production of fired bricks9 and other construction-related materials,10 was discovered.

8

destruction level at Tell es-Safi/Gath (see Namdar et al. 2011: 3477; Shahack-Gross 2019: 92–93). 10 This may be a location for the production of a unique plaster-like material found in various Iron Age contexts at Tell es-Safi/Gath. This “plaster,” which is made of “unburnt pulverized chalk” (Shahack-Gross 2018: 809) may very well be a “lost technology,” whose exact production methods, and usage, are not completely understood. Shahack-Gross (2019: 89-90) notes that this material appears to have been used in various Bronze and Iron Age contexts in the Southern Levant. Faust’s recent understanding of the use of a such a “plaster,” in a supposed purity-related ritual in an Iron Age building at Tel 'Eton, requires a bold, and ultimately baseless, interpretative leap (Faust and Katz 2016: 15–16; Faust 2019: 62). An extensive critique of Faust’s suggested connection between the “Four Room House” and ritual impurity relating to menstruation

As previously discussed in quite a few places, the attribution of this widespread destruction to Hazael of Aram Damascus, is based on the mention of the conquest of Gath by Hazael in 2 Kings 12:18, as well as an assessment of the historical probability of other scenarios. While this suggestion is the most likely one that has been raised, clearly, until an actual inscription describing this event is found, the association with Hazael is not proven beyond any doubt (for reservations on this, see, e.g., Hafthórsson 2006: 164; Garfinkel, Kreimerman and Zilberg 2016: 113; Zwickel 2019: 278). That said, due to lack of any viable alternatives, and the overall “fit” that the suggested scenario offers on a broader scale, I see no compelling reason to doubt that Hazael is responsible for this destruction. 9 While fired bricks are not common in the Iron Age Levant prior to the arrival of the Assyrians, previously we reported examples of fired bricks in the Iron IIA

20

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 2012a: 26), have been extensively excavated. As noted above, it is now possible to define that the lower city was extensively settled in the Iron IIA (10th and 9th centuries BCE), as well as during the Iron IA (11th century BCE). Between 2008 and 2017, extensive excavations in the lower city were conducted (Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018). The exposure of the lower city commenced in the excavations of Area D West, where several phases were uncovered (Fig. 1.18): Stratum D1 – Minimal modern (Ottoman period) features were found in Area D1. This included remains of one small building and several garbage pits. It should be stressed that these remains did not disturb most of the earlier Iron Age remains in Area D1. Stratum D2 – A briefly occupied squatters’ phase, built immediately above the 9th century BCE destruction level. This post-destruction phase was found only in a limited area in Area D1, and thus far has not been identified in any of the other areas that have been excavated throughout the site. We assume that this is a short-lived, and unsuccessful, attempt by some of the former inhabitants of Gath to resettle the site, following the Hazael destruction. The location, in Area D1, might be due to the vicinity of the water sources in the Elah Valley riverbed, or perhaps, an attempt to return to the vicinity of the Stratum D3 cultic structure (see below), due to its symbolic importance.

Thus, there is clear evidence that the lower city of Gath was settled, and substantially fortified, already during the Iron IB (11th century BCE), and may have reached a size of over 20–30 hectares. In addition to the new evidence of the fortification of the lower city in the Iron IB, it has now been clearly demonstrated in Area F that the fortifications that were first built in the EB, and reused in the MB and LB, continue to function in the Iron I and into the Iron II (see below). Accordingly, based on its large size and impressive fortified urban character, we believe it is highly likely that Tell es-Safi/Gath was at least on par with Tel Miqne-Ekron during the Iron IB (contra, e.g., Koch 2017; 2018; Finkelstein 2017: 385–86). In fact, it may very well be that Gath dominated Ekron at this stage, with Gath becoming the primary city-state in this region already during the Iron IB. Iron Age IIA New finds from the Iron IIA: Since the overview that appeared in the first volume (Maeir 2012a), various important new finds dating to the Iron IIA were discovered in the excavations, in various parts of the site. In the upper city, in Area F, we discovered clear evidence of the continued use of the fortifications during the Iron IIA. The Iron IIA remains in the lower city, which were only briefly mentioned in 2012 (Maeir

cannot be presented here (perhaps to be done in the future), but some comments are warranted. The very assumption that the biblical “regulations” regarding menstrual pollution, separation and purity rituals actually reflect a realistic system relating to praxis during a certain period, and not an ideological and literary creation, and that these texts (and in particular those in Leviticus) date to the Iron Age cannot be accepted at face value. As previously noted (Maeir 2013), when attempting to correlate between the archaeological remains and biblical texts, Faust often espouses a simplistic and straightforward interpretation, disregarding various and up-to-date biblical research on the relevant topics. In the case of biblical texts relating to menstruation, much has been written in recent years, and many of these studies are ignored by Faust (e.g., Erbele-Küster 2008; 2012; 2015; 2017; Nihan 2012; Lemos 2013; Cranz 2014; Hieke 2014: 522–66; 2015; Klawans 2014). No less important are the very assumptions relating to the functional interpretation of the “Four-Room House” that Faust uses as the basis for this understanding, in which he argues that the

planning of this house type facilitates gender separation (e.g., Bunimovitz and Faust 2003 and other publications). As stressed before (Maeir 2013), other interpretations of this plan are possible (e.g., Avissar Lewis 2018), which call for completely different views of the function and meaning of this house type. Finally, the assumption that post-Iron Age interpretations of biblical texts, and concomitant praxis, relating to menstrual impurity and purification, can be reflected back to the Iron Age is highly problematic at best, naïve and/or tendentious at worst. The significant ongoing changes and developments in Jewish purity practices in the early, late and post- “Second Temple” periods, and their reflection in the archaeological remains (e.g., Amit and Adler 2010; Zangenberg 2012; Rogan 2018; Erbele-Küster 2019), indicate that purity traditions and practice went through significant changes, and one should be very cautious, if at all, when attempting to make a direct connection between the biblical purity texts and the Iron Age archaeological remains.

21

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.17: Area view of Area Y (north on right side), with Iron I features. 1: Brick oven (?); 2: concentrations of crushed chalk.

Fig. 1.18: Schematic plan of Area D West with the various phases of Iron I–II architecture. Note the location of the metallurgical area (1) and the Iron I–IIA temples (2).

22

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.19: View, looking west, of the group of cultic vessels (L16D93D05) from Stratum D4 in Area D West.

Fig. 1.20: Plan of Iron IIA (Stratum D3) from Temple 149807 and associated features in Area D West.

Stratum D3 – The 9th century BCE (Hazael) destruction level, parallel to the destruction level seen in other parts of the site (such as Stratum A3 in Area A). In most cases, this stratum was found immediately below (or even on) the present-day surface. The two main elements in this stratum were a large cultic building and surrounding features, and an area with metallurgical production (see further discussion regarding this stratum below).

Stratum D4 – A late Iron I/early Iron IIA level (ca. 10th century BCE) was revealed immediately below the 9th century BCE level. Clear evidence of earlier cultic activities, preceding those of the 9th century BCE D3 level, was found. Among other finds from this stratum are a collection of cultic objects, including several votive vessels and a Tonna Galea conch (Fig. 1.19), and several concentrations of animal bones. Stratum D5 – Scant remains of an Iron IB level, in which Philistine 2 (Bichrome) pottery was associated. We assumed that this stratum is evidence of

23

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW the earliest phase of the settlement in the lower city (and see below regarding the earliest fortifications from this phase). The Stratum D3 remains: Because the most impressive and well-preserved remains in Area D1 derive from Stratum D3, I will describe them briefly. The main feature from this stratum was a stone-built structure with large amounts of culticoriented objects. Based on this, I assume that this is a cult building, or even a temple.11 The structure includes an outer courtyard, three parallel rooms, and a broad room (Fig. 1.18, Fig. 1.20). In the center of the broad room, there was a stone altar (Fig. 1.21). This stone altar (Maeir 2012b; 2019a; Hitchcock, Maeir and Dagan 2016; Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018) is of much interest. Its dimensions are 50×50×103 cm. It is made of single stone block, partially decorated on its front, sides and top. Of particular importance is the fact that the altar has two and not four horns, as common in most altars from the Iron Age Levant. Several interesting points can be noted about this altar: 1) The general shape and decoration of the altar are very reminiscent of stone and ceramic altars known from many Iron Age contexts (e.g., Gitin 1989a; 1992; 2009);12 2) The altar’s dimensions are quite similar to the dimensions of one of the altars that are described in the biblical Tabernacle (Exodus 30:1), perhaps indicating that such dimensions were of symbolic significance in various Iron Age cultures; 3) The fact that the altar had only two, and not four horns is of importance. As opposed to other Iron Age horned altars that have four horns, we believe that the altar from Area D may reflect non-local, cultic traditions, as two horned altars, and the wellknown two horned “horns of consecration” motif, are known from the Aegean and Cypriote world

(see Hitchcock, Maeir and Dagan 2016; Hitchcock 2018). I would like to stress that it can be clearly seen that this altar never had four stone horns, but only the two in the front (Fig. 1.21). On the back part of the altar, the original quarrying marks are visible, without any evidence of the original existence of two horns that fell off or were removed at some later stage. In light of this, Faust and Lev-Tov’s (2014: 17, n. 32) and Nigro’s (2014: 3, n. 9) suggestions (based solely on a picture in a preliminary, popular publication) that this was originally a four-horned altar, and that later, two of them were removed, are without basis. In light of the above, this altar is an example of “material entanglement” (e.g., Stockhammer 2012), an object that embodies in itself, the mixed, “entangled” nature of the early Philistine culture (e.g., Hitchcock and Maeir 2013; 2018a; Davis, Maeir and Hitchcock 2015; Hitchcock, Maeir and Dagan 2016; Maeir and Hitchcock 2017a; 2017b; Maeir, Davis and Hitchcock 2016; see as well Sala 2018: 361–62), incorporating both “western” and “eastern” (Levantine) traditions.13 In and around this cultic structure, in addition to the altar, a large selection of cult-related objects were found (see Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018: figs. 22–25; Maeir 2019a: figs. 9–11). This includes several figurines (Fig. 1.22; e.g., Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018: fig. 9), collections of astragali (e.g., Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018: fig. 6), two inscriptions (Maeir and Eshel 2014; fig. 23), large quantities of ceramics, including chalices (Fig. 1.25), a cultic stand and other vessels, two maṣṣeba stones (e.g. Fig. 1.24), deposits of animal bones (Kehati, Dagan and Horwitz 2018), large amounts of loom-weights (Cassuto 2018: 57), and a hoard of metal arrows (Maeir 2018b: 164, Fig. 1).

11 A detailed discussion of the definition and function of this structure will appear in the future in a detailed discussion of the finds from Area D1. For a preliminary overview, see Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018. 12 Among the many altars reported by Gitin (1989a; 1992; 1993), most are much smaller than the altar discussed here. That said, at least two of the altars from Tel Miqne-Ekron are large monolithic blocks of stone, reminiscent of the Tell es-Safi/Gath altar. One example is noted by Gitin in his typology of the Tel MiqneEkron altars (Gitin 1989a: 56* [Altar J], fig. III.2: J), which has four horns, and is larger than the altar from Area D at Tell es-Safi/Gath (122X199X116 cm). Another example was only published in a photograph (Gitin 1990: 42), amongst a group of altars from Tel Miqne-Ekron, mostly of the small standard size. Interestingly, while this partially published example has

only two horns, it appears that originally, there were four, and two were broken off. Thus, it would seem that the tradition of such large, monolithic stone altars was not solely characteristic of Philistine Gath. In addition, one can wonder whether the intentional breaking of two of the horns might be of some sort of symbolic significance (thanks to J. Chadwick for this reference), whereas the example from Tell es-Safi/Gath was originally constructed with only two horns. 13 The appearance of this altar in Iron IIA Philistia runs contrary to Gitin’s (1989a: 61*) suggestion that such altars appear in Philistia due to the influx of Israelite influences, brought by Israelite refugees, following the Assyrian destruction of the Northern Kingdom in the late 8th century BCE. Clearly, such altars, and related traditions, existed in Philistia beforehand.

24

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW hint to different, perhaps foreign technological traditions (perhaps connected to the foreign origins of some of the Philistines?) in use at Iron Age Tell es-Safi/Gath. From the 2015 season onwards (so far up to the 2018 season, but to be continued), particular focus was placed on the excavations of the remains of the fortifications of the lower city, located in Area D East (directed by A. Dagan [2015–2017]; J. Chadwick [from 2018]). Here, impressive remains of large-scale fortifications made of massive stone and mudbrick structures were discovered (Fig. 1.27–Fig. 1.29). This includes over 60 m of built wall, and an apparent (minor) city gate, perhaps located here in relation to a water source, most probably marked by the modern well, which still has water in it, situated to the north of the gate, on the other bank of the Elah Valley riverbed (Fig. 1.28, Fig. 1.36). While the overall plan of the fortifications is still not completely clear (as of the end of the 2018 season), several issues can be stressed: 1)

Just to the east of the temple and associated structures, an area (encompassing ca. 100 m2) with evidence of metallurgical activities was discovered (Fig. 1.26). While the study of these remains is only at a preliminary stage, several aspects can be noted: 1) The remains date to the 9th century BCE destruction, quite similar to the late 10th/early 9th centuries BCE metallurgical area previously discovered and reported in Area A (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2012; Eliyahu-Behar and Yahalom-Mack 2018a; 2018b; Eliyahu-Behar and Workman 2018; Eliyahu-Behar, Workman and Dagan 2019; Maeir et al. 2019). As such, these two production zones will provide important insights on the metallurgical technology and its development at Tell es-Safi/Gath; 2) Similar to what was seen in Area A, both iron and copper-based objects were being produced; 3) Based on a very preliminary analysis, it would appear that the technologies used in both metal production areas are slightly different from those known at other metallurgical production areas in the Iron Age Levant. This may

Fig. 1.21: View, looking west, of the monolithic two-horned altar in Temple 149807 of Stratum D3, Area D West.

25

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.24: Views of maṣṣebah stone (B. 16D04D047) found in a structure (L16D04D09) to east of Temple 149807 of Stratum D3, Area D West.

Fig. 1.22: Views of a chalk dog figurine (B. D15BS015) from Temple 149807 of Stratum D3, Area D West.

Fig. 1.23: Jar with inscription found near the altar in Temple 149807 of Stratum D3, Area D West. Fig. 1.25: Decorated chalice (B. 16D04B077) from Temple 149807 of Stratum D3, Area D West.

26

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Eniukhina) revealed well-preserved remains dating to the late 9th century BCE (the Hazael destruction) right below surface (Fig. 1.32). Noteworthy is the discovery of additional Iron IIA olive oil production installations in Area M (Fig. 1.32), similar to those already discovered in Area K (Welch 2018) and in Area A (Zukerman and Maeir 2012: 196, pls. 9.34–9.35; Szanton 2017). This Iron IIA production is preceded by evidence of late Iron I/early IIA olive oil production at the site (Zukerman and Maeir 2012: 189; compare Beeri 2008). All this indicates the importance of olive oil production in Iron I and Iron IIA Gath (Maeir et al. 2019), which clearly negates suggestions (e.g., Finkelstein 1994; Gitin 1989b; Faust 2011) that the growth of olive trees, and the production of olive oil, was atypical of this region, and only became important in this region during the late Iron Age. This raises the possibility that olive oil production might have been one of the economic mainstays of Philistine Gath, similar to its role in Iron IIC Tel Miqne-Ekron (Gitin 1989b; 1990). As mentioned above, in the coming seasons, we plan to concentrate on the exploration of the lower city, expanding existing areas and opening others. Due to the remains that have already been uncovered, and their preservation and closeness to surface, along with the impressive evidence of the remote sensing, there are good prospects to be able to paint a vivid picture of an extensive portion of the lower city of Iron Age Gath. In addition to the new finds from the Iron IIA described above, several more general issues relating to Gath during the Iron IIA, and its relationship with other cultural and political entities in the region, can be noted. Firstly, the geopolitical status of Gath during the Iron IIA is important to discuss. Recently, a debate has been raging as to the date in which the Kingdom of Judah expanded westward into the Shephelah. Some scholars posit that already in the 10th century BCE, the Judahite kingdom expanded into the Shephelah, to its northern, central and southern regions (e.g., Faust 2013; 2018; Tappy 2011; Garfinkel, Kreimerman and Zilberg 2016; Lederman and Bunimovitz 2014; Hardin, Rollston and Blakely 2014). These views suggest that during the Iron IIA, the political power of the Judahite kingdom expanded, and at the same time, the Philistine cities were weakened, subjugated and dominated by the newly ascending Judahite kingdom. Other scholars have argued that the Judahite kingdom’s expansion westward, at least as far as the central Shephelah, occurred much later,

The final phase of the fortifications were destroyed and went out of use in the 9th century BCE (Hazael) destruction; 2) Prior to the destruction, perhaps in preparation for the Aramean siege, rooms adjacent to the gate and the fortification were filled in with sediments, in an apparent effort to strengthen the fortifications in this area; 3) As noted above, in addition to the 9th century BCE phase, two earlier phases were seen as well, one dating to the 10th century BCE (parallel to Stratum D4 in Area D West) and an earlier one dating to the Iron IB (11th century BCE), parallel to Stratum D5 in Area D West). Fig. 1.29 presents a preliminary schematic stratigraphy of the architectural elements in the area of the gate and related features. In any case, these fortifications clearly demonstrate that the city of Gath was a large, prosperous and heavily fortified city in the Iron I and Iron IIA. To capture these impressive defenses, a major siege would be required, as seen in the Iron IIA siege system surrounding the site (for additional discussion of this issue, see Chapter 3, this volume). In addition to the excavations in Area D West and Area D East, as of the 2016 season, other areas were opened in the lower city. In 2016–2017, excavations commenced in Area K, ca. 250 m to the east of Area D2. In this area (directed by E. Welch; see Welch 2018; Maeir et al. 2019), several structures and agricultural installations, most likely related to olive oil production, were uncovered right below the surface (Fig. 1.30). These features are associated with pottery dating to the late Iron IIA, and can be safely connected to the 9th century BCE destruction level. Just to the north of Area K, on the southern bank of the Elah Valley riverbed, impressive stone masonry can be seen (Fig. 1.30, Fig. 1.31), most likely a continuation of the massive fortifications of the lower city seen in Area D. During the 2017 season, Area K2 (directed by B. Davis) was opened to explore this possible fortification. Initial results indicate that there are several lines of large, at times “megalithic” masonry on the southern bank of the Elah Valley riverbed. Thus far, Iron IIA pottery was found in association with these architectural features. Further exploration in these areas is planned in the coming seasons. During the 2017 season, remote sensing (magnetometry) was conducted as well (by A. Creekmore). The results of the remote sensing show substantial subsurface remains in many portions of the lower city, including extensive building, roads and other features. In fact, in the 2018 season, excavations in Area M (directed by M. 27

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW perhaps even after the conquest of Gath by Hazael (e.g., Koch 2012; Sergi 2013; Lehmann and Niemann 2014). In this context, I would like to reiterate the dominant role that Gath played in the region until its destruction by Hazael in ca. 830 BCE. Not only was the city of Gath most probably the largest city in the Southern Levant up until this destruction, there is now clear evidence that the entire city, including the extensive and impressively fortified lower city to the north (Fig. 1.33), flourished until this destruction, a situation that apparently commenced in the Iron IB. It should be stressed that after more than two decades of excavations in the Iron Age layers at the site, there is no evidence of a major destruction at the site, from the early Iron Age until the Hazael destruction; similarly, there is no evidence of distinct and/or sudden changes in the material culture and its orientation. In light of the size, power (e.g., extensive fortifications), and continuity, and the very fact that the site was seen as a such a major goal for conquest by Hazael, there can be little doubt that the kingdom of Gath was the dominant polity in the central and northern parts of the western Shephelah (and eastern Philistia) until the late 9th century BCE. This would effectively block any attempts on the part of the incipient Judahite kingdom from expanding westward.14 The dominant status of Gath cannot be explained away, as Faust (e.g., 2013) tries to, claiming that Gath should be seen as being a unique case in Philistia, while other parts of Philistia were dominated by the Judahite kingdom. One cannot simply sweep the major polity in the region under the carpet! One can also add that simplistic depictions of the relations between Gath in particular, and the Philistines in general, with the early Israelites are in need of reassessment. While often, the Philistines are seen solely through the lens of the fulfilling a role of mortal enemies of Israel/Judah, it would appear that the actual relationship was more nuanced (e.g., Pioske 2018), while the very portrayal of the Philistines as a highly martial society may be, largely, a literary creation (Maeir 2018b).

Similarly, claims that Khirbet Qeiyafa is evidence of the expansion of the early Judahite kingdom (e.g., Garfinkel, Kreimerman and Zilberg 2016) should be viewed in a proper perspective. While I do tend to accept that Khirbet Qeiyafa is a Judahite site (see Maeir 2012a: 24–25; 2017a), it is important to stress that the site was abandoned soon after its construction (e.g., Garfinkel, Kreimerman and Zilberg 2016: 94–96).15 The abandonment of such a significantly constructed site must have had a substantial reason behind it; the omnipresent threat of the Kingdom of Gath just to the west can be seen as the most likely cause. Thus, while Khirbet Qeiyafa may very likely be an attempt of the early Judahite polity to expand into the central and western Shephelah, this was quickly curtailed by the dominant polity in the region, the kingdom of Gath. An interesting question is how one explains the emergence of Gath as the primary polity in this region during the late Iron I and Iron IIA. Gath’s location on the border between Philistia and the Judean Shephelah, its vicinity to major transportation routes, and access to various agricultural lands, clearly played a role. That said, there must have been more specific reasons for this ascendancy. While olive oil production (as mentioned above) may have been a factor in its economic wealth, other reasons most likely positioned Gath as such a primary player in the region. A very likely explanation is Gath’s role in inter-regional trade, and specifically, in metal. Fantalkin and Finkelstein (2006) first raised this suggestion, and at first, I was skeptical of its relevance (Maeir 2012a: 27–28). I believe though that new evidence, both at Tell es-Safi/Gath and other sites, appears, largely, to support this view. To start with, there is the evidence of metal production at Tell es-Safi/Gath, in two locations (see discussion above). Of particular interest is the fact that isotopic analyses have shown that the bronze from Iron IIA Tell es-Safi/Gath (as at many sites in the region during this period) derives from the Arabah (Eliyahu-Behar and Yahalom-Mack 2018a; 2018b). To add to this, as nicely summarized most recently by Ben-Yosef and Sergi (2018), the dating of the activity and cessation of Iron IIA metal

Nevertheless, it may be possible that the Judahite Kingdom did expand into the Southwestern Shephelah prior to the Hazael campaign. The dating of the earliest Iron II Judahite levels at Lachish, may give some indication of this. 15 While the excavators suggest that the Iron IIA phase of Khirbet Qeiyafa was abandoned, in light of the large

quantity of finds found in this level, including smashed cultic objects, one can wonder whether this stratum perhaps ended in a destruction. In any case (abandonment or destruction), there are very good chances that the underlying causes behind the end of this phase may very likely have been pressure from, if not direct conquest by, Gath.

14

28

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW industry in the Arabah Valley fits in well with the role of Gath. Gath may have served as a hub in the transport of copper from the Arabah Valley sites (e.g., Faynan and Timna) westward. Recent isotopic evidence of the importation of Arabah copper to Greece at this very time (Kiderlen et al. 2016) on the one hand, and the Greek early ProtoGeometric sherd found at Tell es-Safi/Gath (Maeir, Fantalkin and Zukerman 2009) on the other hand, strongly support such a connection.16 Thus, Gath’s dominant role in the Southern Levant during the late Iron I and early Iron IIA, up until the Hazael destruction, may perhaps be linked to the metal trade. Similarly, one of the prime reasons for Hazael’s siege and conquest of Gath may have been his wish to cut off, or at least control, the trade in Arabah copper. Another point worth noting regarding the early Iron IIA is whether or not there is any evidence at Gath that can be connected to the Sheshonq/Shishak campaign (ca. 925 BCE; see, e.g., Wilson 2005; Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006; Morenz 2008; Levin 2010; Ben-Dor Evian 2011; James and van der Veen 2015).17 To start with, as noted above, as of now, there is no evidence of a major destruction, or any other sitewide traumatic event, from the early Iron Age until the Hazael destruction, including anything that might represent a late 10th century BCE event relating to this campaign. While it has been suggested to identify the destruction of Tel MiqneEkron, Stratum IVA, with the Sheshonq/Shishak campaign (e.g., Finkelstein 2002: 116; tentatively also Ben-Shlomo 2013: 365), this cannot be ascertained. The excavators themselves (e.g., Gitin 1998: 167; 2010: 334, 340) have suggested an early 10th century BCE dating for this destruction. One might add that this stratum could have been destroyed in other circumstances as well, perhaps even by nearby Gath, which most likely was a rival, neighboring peer-polity at this very time. It would seem that the lack of a destruction level at Tell es-Safi/Gath dating to the late 10th century

BCE (and for this matter during the entire 10th and early 9th centuries BCE up until the late 9th century BCE “Hazael” destruction) accords well with the lack of mention of sites in Philistia in the list of toponyms in the Sheshonq/Shishak campaign. As previously suggested (e.g., Finkelstein 2002: 116; Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006: 28), this lack of Philistine toponyms may hint to amicable relations that existed between Egypt and the cities in Philistia at the time. In fact, the existence of Egyptiaca at Tell es-Safi/Gath (e.g., the Egyptian amulets in Area T, Cave T1 – see, e.g., Uziel et al., Chapter 4, this volume; Egyptian glyptics – see, e.g., Münger 2018; an Egyptian bulla from early Iron IIA, Area A – Hitchcock et al. 2015: 15, fig. 5) and other Philistine sites during the late Iron I and early Iron IIA (e.g., Tel Miqne-Ekron – Dothan 1998), may hint to the existence of close connections between Egypt and Philistia at the time. Finkelstein (2013: 147; see as well Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006: 28) suggested that as a result of the Sheshonq/Shishak campaign, the Kingdom of Gath ascended in importance (following the supposed destruction of Tel Miqne-Ekron in this campaign). While this may be true, as noted above, one should keep in mind that Gath had already expanded to the lower city and was fortified during the Iron IB, and thus Gath most likely had an elevated political status prior to the Sheshonq/ Shishak campaign. Another important topic reflected in the finds at Tell es-Safi/Gath is the cultural influences between Gath and Judah. There is no doubt that throughout the Iron Age, there were ongoing influences on the Philistine culture from other surrounding cultures. While the timing and meaning of these influences are at times debated, it is quite clear that from its earliest, formative stages and until the end of the Iron Age, evidence of ongoing Levantine influences can be seen in Philistine culture. On the other hand, the influences in the other direction, from Philistia to other Levantine cultures, has been of much less focus.

16

BCE copper mining activities in the Arabah (e.g. BenYosef et al. 2012; Levy, Najjar and Ben-Yosef 2014). 17 Note that I adhere to the traditional identification of Sheshonq I with Shishak of the biblical narrative (e.g., Sagrillo 2015), but an elaboration on this is beyond the scope of this chapter.

Recently, von Bredow (2017) claimed that there were no substantial connections between Greece and the Southern Levant in the Iron IIA. This though is hard to accept in light of the evidence noted here, published prior to von Bredow’s volume. This includes the Greek sherd from Tell es-Safi/Gath (Maeir, Fantalkin and Zukerman 2009), the evidence of Arabah copper at Olympia (Kiderlen et al. 2016), and even the 10th century

29

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.26: Aerial view, looking west, of the metallurgical production zone (18D95C07) in Area D West (1). The Iron I–IIA temples are on the upper part of the picture (2).

Fig. 1.27: View, looking east-southeast, of Area D East and the area of the Iron I–II city gate and fortifications.

30

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.28: View, looking west, of Area D East and the area of the Iron I–II city gate and fortifications.

Fig. 1.29: Schematic plan of Area D East and of the various Iron Age phases of the fortifications and the gate.

31

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.30: Aerial view (end of 2017 Season; north at right) of Area K (1) and K2 (2) in the Lower City. Note the stone installations in Area K, most probably related to olive oil production.

Fig. 1.31: View, looking south, of the Iron Age fortifications in Area K2, with the Elah Valley riverbed in the foreground.

32

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.32: Aerial view (north at bottom) of Area M at the end of the 2018 season. Note the stone installations, most probably related to olive oil production.

Fig. 1.33: Aerial view, looking west, of the Upper City (1) and Lower City (2) of Tell es-Safi/Gath.

33

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Iron IIA, with, inter alia, continuity of Iron I symbolism (e.g., Maeir and Shai 2015), but mutual influences between the Judahite and Philistine cultures continued, with each culture influencing the other, and not one dominating the other. This is seen, without a doubt, until the fall of Gath in the late 9th century BCE, and very likely in later phases of the Iron Age as well. Interestingly, recent provenance studies on the pottery of Jerusalem demonstrate that pottery produced in Philistia reached Jerusalem primarily in the 9th century BCE, largely ceasing to arrive in subsequent Iron Age levels at the site (Ben-Shlomo 2018a; 2018b; Ben-Shlomo and Mommsen 2018). This may indicate a possible close relationship between Jerusalem, the capital of the Judahite kingdom, and Gath, which ceased after its destruction by the Arameans. One may wonder whether the biblical traditions of close relations between David and the “Gittites” is a reflection of these connections (e.g., Na’aman 2002; Finkelstein 2013; see as well Pioske 2018). The effect of the destruction of Gath by Hazael was not limited to the geo-political sphere (see above). In studies of the environs of the site, clear evidence of the environmental effects of the destruction of the site were seen (Ackermann, Greenbaum, Ayalon et al. 2014; Ackermann, Greenbaum, Bruins et al. 2014; Ackermann, Greenbaum et al. 2015). Previously, we had pointed out that the siege had a clearly discernable environmental effect (Maeir, Ackermann and Bruins 2006). Similarly, in recent inter-disciplinary studies of sediments from deep trenches that were excavated in the vicinity of the site (Ackermann, Greenbaum, Ayalon et al. 2014; Ackermann, Greenbaum, Bruins et al. 2014; Ackermann, Greenbaum et al. 2015), evidence was found that the destruction of the site, and the processes that subsequently occurred, had a clear effect on the surroundings of the site. Due to the lack of human activity on the site following the destruction, evidence was seen of higher levels of erosion from the mound, including materials connected to the destroyed mudbrick structures on the tell. This serves as a nice example of the effect that an ancient site had on its surroundings, not only when the site was occupied, but also during periods of abandonment.

Over the years, various suggestions have been raised to identify Philistine linguistic influence on Israelite/Judahite culture, as seen in biblical and other textual materials (e.g., Rabin 1974; see now Niesiołowski-Spanò 2016). That said, there has been very little discussions on such influences as manifested in the material remains. Several years ago (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008), we pointed out that the so-called “cooking jug,” a vessel type which appears in early Iron Age Philistia with clear parallels from the Aegean Late Helladic cultures, and which is often seen as a fossile directeur of early Philistine culture, subsequently appears in various late Iron I and Iron II cultures in the Southern Levant (Fig. 1.34). It was suggested that food preparation techniques typical of the Philistine culture may have been adopted, or appropriated, by other Levantine Iron Age cultures, and to do so, they incorporated the cooking jug into their repertoire. Recently, Kisilevitz (2015: 166–68; 2016) published several figurines from an Iron IIA temple at Moza, near Jerusalem, which appear to have similarities to Philistine figurines in their decorations. This is additional evidence of influence on the Levantine cultures, and in this case, in the cultic realm. Similarly, other Philistine influences in pottery and cultic objects have been reported from the City of David, in Jerusalem (Mazar and Karlin 2015; Uziel, Szanton and Cohen-Weinberger 2015; Cohen-Weinberger, Szanton and Uziel 2017; Uziel and Szanton 2015; 2017; Ben-Shlomo 2018a). To the list of bidirectional influences in cultic milieu between Philistine and Judah, one can now add a jar, made in the region of Jerusalem, with an apparently Judahite inscription on it (Maeir and Eshel 2014; above, Fig. 1.23), which was found in the Iron IIA temple in the lower city of Gath, right next to the two-horned monolithic stone altar noted above, which likewise shows a combination of local and non-local influences in Philistine cult (Maeir 2012b; Hitchcock, Maeir and Dagan 2016). Thus, it appears that at least until the 9th century BCE, and most likely in later phases of the Iron Age as well, ongoing bi-directional cultural influences existed between Philistia and Judah (and other regions in the Southern Levant as well). There is no reason to assume that the Philistine culture lost its unique characteristics and was culturally dominated by the Judahite culture from the 10th century BCE onwards (as, e.g., Faust [2013; 2015a] suggests). Not only did the Philistine material culture continue to retain specific material manifestations following the Iron I and into the

34

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Iron Age IIB

Medieval Period

As previously discussed (Maeir 2012a: 49–50; see now Raphael and Agnon 2018: 777; this volume, Chapter 5), possible evidence of an earthquake dating to the mid-8th century BCE was found in Area F. Since then, additional walls that seem to have collapsed during a seismic event were discovered in Area F. In the earlier report (Maeir 2012a: 50), it was suggested to link this with the so-called “Amos earthquake,” ca. 759 BCE. Although there is evidence of two seismic events during the 8th century BCE (e.g., Migowski et al. 2004: 306–07, table 2; Agnon 2014: 235–36, table 8.1), one of a larger magnitude (ca. 7.3, probably the 759 BCE event) and one smaller (somewhere in the 8th century BCE), one could question whether the evidence at Tell es-Safi/Gath is connected to the larger one. Due to the relatively distant location of Tell es-Safi/Gath in relation to the epicenter of such an event, somewhere within the “Dead Sea Transform,” and thus, the effect that such an earthquake would have on more distant regions, it would seem more likely to link this evidence with the higher magnitude event (of 759 BCE) and not of a small, lesser-known event. Additional evidence of the late 8th century BCE Judahite phase at the site was uncovered in Area A (Stratum A2), similar to other finds from this period and stratum previously reported in Area A (see now Shafer-Elliott 2018 on household archaeology of this phase in Area A). In Chapter 5, a detailed discussion of finds from Area F that date to this phase (in fact, two strata dating to the late 8th century BCE) is provided. As previously noted (Maeir 2012a: 50–56), this most likely can be connected to the westward expansion of the Judahite kingdom towards the end of the 8th century BCE, particularly in the reign of Hezekiah. The two destruction levels dating to this period in Area F, may be related to the Assyrian campaigns known from this period, that of Sargon II in 713 BCE and of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (for further details, see Maeir 2012a: 50–56; Dagan 2014; see as well Aster 2018).

The primary addition to what we know about Tell es-Safi/Gath during the medieval period are the additional parts of the 12th century CE Crusader Blanche Garde castle that were uncovered in Area F. Apart from the northwestern tower of the outer fortifications of the castle, as well as possible remains of the moat and counter scarp, discovered in previous seasons (Maeir 2012a: 58; fig. 1.34), a section of the northern wall of the outer fortifications, which connects to the aforementioned tower, was discovered in Area F (for further details, see this volume, Chapter 5).

18

19

Modern Period In the first volume, several photographs of Tell esSafi/Gath during the first half of the 20th century CE were published (Maeir 2012a: figs. 2A.5–8). Recently, while going through the photographs of the late David Perlmutter (z”l),18 two photographs of Tell es-Safi/Gath and its northern vicinity were located (Fig. 1.35–Fig. 1.36).19 These photographs, dating to sometime in the 1940's, show members of Kibbutz Kfar Menachem on a walking tour in the vicinity of Tell es-Safi/Gath, on the northern side of the site. In the first photograph (Fig. 1.35), three kibbutz members are walking eastward in the fields to the north-northwest of Tell es-Safi/Gath (to the north of the Elah Valley riverbed). The north-facing slope of the upper tell can be clearly seen and the highly visible white chalk cliffs, as well as the modern village of Tell es-Safi, which is located on the NW portion of the upper tell. Note that there are very few modern buildings of the village on the northern slopes of the mound, and in particular, in the area of the “lower city.” In this picture, there is no evidence of the village mosque, which existed in the village prior to 1948 (see Maeir 2012a: fig 1.35), and was situated to the east of the village (the palm tree that can be seen in the middle of the tell in this photograph is located near the mosque).

The late David Perlmutter (1914–1993) was a wellknown Israeli photographer who was a member of Kibbutz Kfar Menachem. He took many photographs of pre-state Israel, including many of the early years of Kibbutz Kfar Menachem. See: http://tnuathaavoda. info/people/home/people/1249245886.html?cat=12.

I would like to thank Shlomo (Shlemeleh) Broideh, of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem, who is in charge of the Kibbutz’s historical archive, for informing me of the existence of these photographs and locating copies, and for providing permission to publish them here.

35

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.34: Group of Iron I and Iron IIA cooking jugs from Tell es-Safi/Gath.

Fig. 1.35: View towards Tell es-Safi/Gath, looking southeast, taken in the late 1940s by the late David Perlmutter. Note the white chalk cliffs of the site (1). Reproduced with the permission of the archive of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem.

36

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.36: View of parts of the Lower City (center) and eastern part of the Upper City (background) taken in the late 1940s by the late David Perlmutter. Note the group of members of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem walking by the site, and local villagers of the village of Tell es-Safi looking at them. In the center-right (1), the Saqiya (waterwheel) can be seen, and a path leading from the waterwheel towards the village is located in the Iron Age gate passage in Area D East (2). Reproduced with the permission of the archive of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem.

similar to the situation seen in the photograph of the lower city area in Maeir 2012a: fig 2A.6. This latter point is an important detail, confirming that there were very few post-Iron Age remains in this part of the site, as seen in the excavations in the various areas in the lower city (Areas D, M, Y, K), in which Iron Age remains were discovered right below surface. Another point worth stressing relates to the dating of the burials in Area F. These burials were originally dated from the Crusader through to the Ottoman period (see, Chapter 6, this volume). Based though on the numismatic finds (this volume, Chapter 9), some of these graves discussed in the past as dating to the Crusader period are of a later date, and should be attributed to the Ottoman period, part of the extensive late cemetery on and around the summit of the site.

In the second photograph (Fig. 1.36), a group of Kibbutz Kfar Menachem members are out on a hike, just to the north of Tell es-Safi/Gath. The group is walking towards the structure of the saqiya waterwheel (Fig. 1.36: 1) – the elongated stone wall with arches supports the water channel, which pours water onto the wooden water wheel that can be seen on the southern side of the structure (right above the Elah Valley riverbed). On the other side of the riverbed, one can see one of the paths leading up to the village (Fig. 1.36: 2). This is where Area D East is currently located, and this path most probably retains the line of the entrance into the city through the Iron Age city gate (currently being excavated; see above). Several of the inhabitants of the village of Tell es-Safi can be seen in the picture, looking at the visiting group from various points. Note that there is only one modern structure in this portion of the lower city,

37

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Fig. 1.37: Map depicting the tactical actions during the capture of the village of Tell es-Safi by the Givati Brigade of the Israel Defense Forces, on July 8–9, 1948 (revised after Eilon 1963: 253; reproduced with the permission of Maarchot Publishers).

(Eilon 1963: 252–56, map on p. 253; see Fig. 1.37). Interestingly, as after the late 9th century BCE conquest of Gath by Hazael, in which the site was abandoned for quite a few decades, Tell esSafi/Gath was not reoccupied after the Israel Defense Forces captured the village in 1948 (see Horwitz, Winter-Livneh and Maeir 2018). During the 1950’s it served as a training ground for the Israeli Army, after which it became a site for tourist visits, and in the last decade or so, a national park of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, the Tel Zafit National Park.

The cessation (as of now) of permanent human settlement at Tell es-Safi/Gath occurred in 1948. During the Israeli War of Independence, the village of Tell es-Safi was captured by the Givati Brigade of the Israel Army, on July 8–9, 1948. As part of Operation An-Far (“Anti-Farouk”), the First Battalion of the Givati Brigade captured the village, approaching it from the southwest in the dark, in the early morning hours of July 9th. During the relatively brief battle, the Arab inhabitants abandoned the village. Recently, I became aware of a detailed tactical description of the Israeli actions in the battle and the capture of the village

38

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW in Israel [as coined by Sergi and Gadot 2019: 7]), and has produced some exceptional research. By and large, these methods (first implemented on a large scale at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Megiddo, and a few other sites) have set the standard for archaeological research in the Southern Levant and beyond. I believe, and hope, that many more such studies will continue to be carried out and published in the coming years.

Environmental Studies of the Site and its Environs From the very early stages of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project, a broad range of studies relating to the environmental history of the site and its environs have been conducted (e.g., Ackermann et al. 2012), and similar studies continued between 2010 and 2016. These studies include: Perspectives on the environmental history of the site, based on interdisciplinary analyses of samples taken from trenches dug in the vicinity of the tell (e.g., Ackermann, Greenbaum, Ayalon et al. 2014; Ackermann, Greenbaum, Bruins et al. 2014; Ackermann, Greenbaum et al.2015; Ackermann, Weiss et al. 2017; Ackermann, Greenbaum et al. 2017; Fuks et al. 2017); Analysis of the ecology of the tell and its surroundings (Olsvig-Whittaker et al. 2015; Ackermann, Weiss et al. 2017; Ackermann, Greenbaum et al. 2017; Ackermann, Maeir et al. 2017; Fuks et al. 2017; Frumin, Melamed and Weiss 2018; Horwitz, Winter-Livneh and Maeir 2018); A comparison between the plant use seen at the site, in Philistia, and in the Southern Levant in general during the Bronze and Iron Ages, which enabled to define changes in plant species and plant use in relation to the appearance of the Philistine culture (Frumin et al. 2015; Frumin and Weiss 2018); A study of the ancient DNA of wild boars from the site, and from other sites in Philistia and the Southern Levant, which demonstrated that non-local, European pigs appeared in Philistia during the Iron Age, indicating that these pigs were imported by the non-local population within the Philistine culture (Meiri et al. 2013; 2017; see as well Horwitz et al. 2017); And most recently, a ground-breaking study in which ancient yeast cells from Philistine beer vessels were isolated and regrown (Aouizerat et al. 2019). All told, these and other publications, conducted in the framework of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project, cover a broad range of topics and inter-disciplinary collaborations. These studies, in which scholars from various fields, disciplines and conceptual approaches work together (see, e.g., Maeir 2015; 2018a; 2017/2018; Weiner and Boaretto 2018), are prime examples of the integrative research methodology, with a central focus on the incorporation of exact and life science perspectives, which is a corner stone of the project (the so-called “scientific turn” in the archaeology

Future Plans In closing, I would like to mention the plans for the future of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Project, as currently envisioned. In 2019, the project was in its 23rd year in the field, and the long-term viability of continuing such an endeavor is something to consider. Do potential archaeological finds in future seasons justify continuing such a project without limitation? I believe not, and I think that it would be reasonable to continue field work on this project for a few more years, mainly to try and answer some “pressing” and well-defined questions, and deal with various issues that still require further research. Currently, perhaps the biggest and most interesting research questions relate to our understanding of the lower city, when was it originally settled; what was its size at the various stages of its use; and what urban functions can be identified. On the other hand, I believe that the study of the upper city, which has been the focus of research for most of the duration of the project, has fulfilled its potential within the context of the present project. Thus, the excavations in the upper city ended in the 2017 season, while the excavations in the lower city will continue for a few more years. Following this, the current plan is that field work of the present Tell es-Safi/Gath project will come to an end (ca. 25 years after commencement of the project), and focus will be placed on publication of the finds. There are plans, now in the process of development, for the conservation, restoration and enhancement of the visitor experience at the site, which will hopefully come to fruition in the next few years. But let there be no doubt. Tell es-Safi/Gath, and the various periods, cultures and phenomena that are represented and that left their mark at the site, have yet much to yield. Perhaps, sometime in the future, once the present project ends in a few years, other research projects will return to the site, to continue to reveal the fascinating history of this site.

39

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW REFERENCES Ackermann, O., Greenbaum, N., Ayalon, A., BarMatthews, A., Boaretto, E., Bruins, H., Cabanas, D., Horwitz, L. K., Neumann, F., Porat, N., Weiss, E., and Maeir, A. M. 2014 Using Palaeo-Environmental Proxies to Reconstruct Natural and Anthropogenic Controls on Sedimentation Rates, Tell es-Safi/ Gath, Eastern Mediterranean. Anthropocene 8: 70–82. Ackermann, O., Greenbaum, N., Bruins, H., BarMatthews, M., Almogi-Labin, A., Schilman, B., Ayalon, A., Horwitz, L. K., Weiss, E., and Maeir, A. M. 2014 Palaeoenvironment and Anthropogenic Activity in the Southeastern Mediterranean since the Mid-Holocene: The Case of Tell esSafi/Gath, Israel. Quaternary International 328–329: 226–43. Ackermann, O., Greenbaum, N., Osband, M., AlmogiLabin, A., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, A., Boaretto, E., Bruins, H. J., Cabanas, D., Horwitz, L. K., Neumann, F. H., Porat, N., Schilman, B., Weiss, E., and Maeir, A. M. 2015 Chapter 19: Soil and Sediments as an Archive of Landscape History: The Case Study of Tell es-Safi/Gath, in the Eastern Mediterranean. Pp. 281–94 in Soils and Sediments as Archives of Environmental Change. Geoarchaeology and Landscape Change in the Subtropics and Tropics, eds. B. Lucke, R. Bäumler and M. Schmidt. Erlanger Geographische Arbeiten Band 42. Erlangen: Palm und Enke Verlag. Ackermann, O., Weiss, E., Zhevelev, H., Maeir, A., Frumin, S., and Horwitz, L. K. 2015 Key Points in the Paleo-Anthropocene Period in Israel: Past Human Activity as the Designer of the Present-Day Landscape (In Hebrew with English Abstract). The Geography Network 8: 61–74. Ackermann, O., Greenbaum, N., Bruins, H., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Cabanas, D., Horwitz, L. K., Neumann, F. H., Osband, M., Porat, N., Weiss, E., and Maeir, A. M. 2017 Ancient Environment and Human Interaction at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 244–46. Ackermann, O., Maeir, A. M., Frumin, S., Svoray, T., Weiss, E., Zhevelev, H., and Horwitz, L. K. 2017 The Paleo-Anthropocene and the Genesis of the Current Landscape of Israel. Journal of Landscape Ecology 10(3): 109–40. Agnon, A. 2014 Chapter 8: Pre-Instrumental Earthquakes along the Dead Sea Rift. Pp. 207–61 in Dead Sea Transform Fault System: Reviews, eds. Z. Garfunkel, Z. Ben-Avraham and E. Kagan. Modern Approaches in Solid Earth Sciences 6. Heidelberg: Springer.

Albaz, S., Greenfield, H. J., Greenfield, T. L., and Maeir, A. M. 2017 Evidence for Administration and Leisure/Recreation at Early Bronze Age Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 270–72. Albaz, S., Shai, I., Greenfield, H. J., and Maeir, A. M. 2017 Board Games in Biblical Gath. Biblical Archaeology Review 43(5): 22, 68. Amit, D., and Adler, Y. 2010 The Observance of Ritual Purity After 70 CE: A Reevaluation of the Evidence in Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries. Pp. 121–43 in “Follow the Wise”: Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine, eds. Z. Weiss, O. Irshai, J. Magness and S. Schwartz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Aouizerat, T., Gutman, I., Paz, Y., Maeir, A. M., Gadot, Y., Gelman, D., Szitenberg, A., Drori, E., Pinkus, A., Schoemann, M., Kaplan, R., Ben-Gedalya, T., Coppenhagen-Glazer, S., Reich, E., Saragovi, A., Lipschits, O., Klutstein, M., and Hazan, R. 2019 Isolation and Characterization of Live Yeast Cells from Ancient Vessels as a Tool in BioArcheology. MBio 10: e00388-19. Arnold, E. R., Beller, J., Behar, A., Ben-Shlomo, D., Greenfield, T., and Greenfield, H. J. 2017 Interregional Trade and Exchange at Early Bronze Age Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 264–67. Arnold, E. R., and Greenfield, H. J. 2017 Isotope Analyses of Early Bronze Age Fauna at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 261–63. 2018 Understanding Animal Movement and Urban Provisioning Through the Integration of Zooarchaeology and Isotopic Analyses: A Case Study from Early Bronze Age Tell esSafi/Gath, Israel. Pp. 816–38 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Arnold, E. R., Greenfield, H. J., Hartman, G., Greenfield, T. L., Shai, I., Carter-McGee, P. M., and Maeir, A. M. 2018 Provisioning the Early Bronze Age City of Tell es-Safi, Israel: Isotopic Analyses of Domestic Livestock Management Patterns. Open Quartenary 4(1). https: //www. openquaternary.com/articles/10.5334/oq.35/

40

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Arnold, E. R., Hartman, G., Greenfield, H. J., Shai, I., Babcock, and Maeir, A. M. 2016 Isotopic Evidence for Early Trade in Animals between Old Kingdom Egypt and Canaan. PLOS ONE 11(6): e0157650. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157650. Asscher, Y., Cabanas, D., Hitchcock, L. A., Maeir, A. M., Weiner, S., and Boaretto, E. 2015 Radiocarbon Dating Shows an Early Appearance of Philistine Material Culture in Tell esSafi/Gath, Philistia. Radiocarbon 57(5): 825–50. Aster, S. Z. 2018 The Historical Background of the Destruction of Judahite Gath in 712 BCE. Pp. 436– 44 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Avissar Lewis, R. S. 2018 A Matter of Perception: Children in Pre-Israelite and Philistine Houses During the Iron I. Pp. 242–53 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament. Münster: Zaphon. Beeri, R. 2008 Round Oil Presses of the 13th–10th Centuries BCE in Palestine and Their Implications: Chronology, Function and Geographical Distribution. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 140(3): 155–58. Beller, J. A., Greenfield, H. J., Fayek, M., Shai, I., and Maeir, A. M. 2016 Provenance and Exchange of Basalt Ground Stone Artefacts of EB III Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 9: 226–37. 2019 Raw Material Variety and Acquisition of the EB III Ground Stone Assemblage of Tell esSafi/Gath (Israel). Pp. 121–50 in Stone Tools in the Ancient Near East and Egypt: Ground Stone Tools, Rock-Cut Installations and Stone Vessels from the Prehistory to Late Antiquity, eds. A. Squitieri and D. Eitam. Oxford: Archaeopress. Beller, J. A., Greenfield, H. J., Shai, I., and Maeir, A. M. 2016 The Life-History of Basalt Ground Stone Artefacts from Early Urban Contexts: A View from the EB III of Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Journal of Lithic Studies 3(3): 31–55.

Ben-Dor Evian, S. 2011 Shishak’s Karnak Relief - More Than Just Name Rings. Pp. 11–22 in Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature. Proceedings of a Conference at the University of Haifa, 3–7 May 2009, eds. S. Bar, D. Khan and J. J. Shirley. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 52. Leiden: Brill. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2013 Ekron. Pp. 363–70 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology, ed. D. M. Master. New York: Oxford. 2018a Judah and the Philistines during the Iron I and Iron IIA. Pp. 269–82 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. 2018b Petrographic and Technological Analysis of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Pottery. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 63–65. Ben-Shlomo D., and Mommsen, H. 2018 Pottery production in Jerusalem during the Iron Age: A new compositional profiling. Geoarchaeology 33: 349–63. Ben-Shlomo, D., Shai, I., Zukerman, A., and Maeir, A. M. 2008 Cooking Identities: Aegean-Style and Philistine Cooking Jugs and Cultural Interaction in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age. American Journal of Archaeology 112(2): 225–46. Ben Yosef, E., and Sergi, O. 2018 The Destruction of Gath by Hazael and the Arabah Copper Industry: A Reassessment. Pp. 461–80 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Ben-Yosef, E., Shaar, R., Tauxe, L., and Ron, H. 2012 A New Chronological Framework for Iron Age Copper Production at Timnah (Israel). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 367: 31–71. Boaretto, E., Asscher, Y., Hitchcock, L. A., Lehmann, G., Maeir, A. M., and Weiner, S. 2019 The Chronology of the Late Bronze (LB)Iron Age (IA) Transition in the Southern Levant: A Response to Israel Finkelstein’s Paper. Radiocarbon 61(1): 1–11. Brown, A., and Greenfield, H. J. 2017 Microdebris Analysis from the Early Bronze Age Levels at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 259–60.

41

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Bunimovitz, S., and Faust, A. 2003 Building Identity: The Four-Room House and the Israelite Mind. Pp. 411–23 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, May 29–31, 2000, eds. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cassuto, D. 2018 Textile Production at Iron Age Tell esSafi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 55–58. Cline, E. H. 2014 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cohen-Weinberger, A., Szanton, N., and Uziel, J. 2017 Ethnofabrics: Petrographic Analysis as a Tool for Illuminating Cultural Interactions and Trade Relations between Judah and Philistia during the Iron II. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 377: 1– 20. Cranz, I. 2014 Priests, Pollution and the Demonic: Evaluation Impurity in the Hebrew Bible in Light of Assyro-Babylonian Texts. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 14(1): 68–86. Dagan, A. 2008 The Kfar Menachem Site (In Hebrew with English abstract). Unpublished master’s thesis. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University. 2011 Negebite Pottery beyond the Negev. Tel Aviv 38: 208–19. 2014 Between Judah and Philistia in the 8th Century BCE: The Material Culture of Tell esSafi/Gath as a Test Case for Political and Cultural Change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan. Dagan, A., and Cassuto, D. R. 2016 Horbat Shim`on: An Eight-Century BCE Textile Workshop in the Southern Coastal Plain. Israel Exploration Journal 66(1): 35– 54. Dagan, A., Eniukhina, M., and Maeir, A. M. 2018 Excavations in Area D of the Lower City: Philistine Cultic Remains and Other Finds. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(4): 28–33. Dagan, A., and Uziel, J. 2018 Surveying the Survey: A Contemporary View on Past Results. Pp. 414–23 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon.

Davis, B., Maeir, A. M., and Hitchcock, L. A. 2015 Disentangling Entangled Objects: Iron Age Inscriptions from Philistia as a Reflection of Cultural Processes. Israel Exploration Journal 65(2): 140–65. de Miroschedji, P. 2006 At the Dawn of History: Sociopolitical Developments in Southwestern Canaan in Early Bronze Age III. Pp. 55–78 in “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. A. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2012 Egypt and Southern Canaan in the Third Millennium BCE: Uni’s Asiatic Campaigns Revisited. Pp. 265–92 in All the Wisdom of the East: Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren, eds. M. Gruber, S. Ahituv, G. Lehmann and Z. Talshir. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 255. Fribourg: Fribourg Academic Press. 2015 Les Relations entre l’Égypte et le Levant au IVe et IIIe Millénaires à la Lumière des Fouilles de Tell es-Sakan. Compte Rendu de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2015(II): 1003–38. Dothan, T. 1998 An Early Phoenician Cache from Ekron. Pp. 259–72 in Hesed Ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, eds. J. Magness and S. Gitin. Atlanta: Scholars. Eilon, A. 1963 The Givati Brigade against the Egyptian Invader (In Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Marachot. Eliyahu-Behar, A. 2017 Archaeological Science in the Early Bronze Age Levels. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 276–78. Eliyahu-Behar, A., Elbaz, S., Shai, I., Maeir, A. M., and Greenfield, H. J. 2016 Faience Beads from Early Bronze Age Contexts at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 7: 609–13. Eliyahu-Behar, A., Shai, I., Gur-Arieh, S., Frumin, S., Elbaz, S., Weiss, E., Manclossi, F., Rosen, S., Greenfield, T., Greenfield, H. J., and Maeir, A. M. 2017 Early Bronze Age Pebble Installations from Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel: Evidence for Their Function and Utility. Levant 49(1): 46–63. Eliyahu-Behar, A., Shai, I., Regev, L., Ben-Shlomo, D., Albaz, S., Maeir, A. M., and Greenfield, H. J. 2016 Early Bronze Age Pottery Covered with Lime-Plaster: Technological Observations. Tel Aviv 43: 27–42. Eliyahu-Behar, A., and Workman, V. 2018 Iron Age Metal Production at Tell es-Safi/ Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 34– 36.

42

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Eliyahu-Behar, A., Workman, V., and Dagan, A. 2019 Comparative Metallurgy in the Iron Age Levant: Early Philistine Iron Production at Tell es-Safi/Gath vs. Canaanite (Israelite?) Megiddo. Pp. 269–80 in Research on Israel and Aram: Autonomy, Interdependence and Related Issues. Proceedings of the First Annual RIAB Center Conference, Leipzig, June 2016, eds. A. Berlejung and A. M. Maeir. Researches on Israel and Aram in Biblical Times (RIAB), Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Eliyahu-Behar, A., and Yahalom-Mack, N. 2018a Metallurgical Investigations at Tell es-Safi/ Gath. In Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament. Münster: Zaphon. 2018b Reevaluating Early Iron-Working Skills in the Southern Levant through Microstructure Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 18: 447–62. Eliyahu-Behar, A., Yahalom-Mack, N., Shilstein, S., Zukerman, A., Shafer-Elliott, C., Maeir, A. M., Boaretto, E., Finkelstein, I., and Weiner, S. 2012 Iron and Bronze Production in Iron IIA Philistia: New Evidence from Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(2): 255–67. Erbele-Küster, D. 2008 Körper und Geschlecht. Studien zur Anthropologie von Lev 12 und 15. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 121. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen. 2012 Die Körperbestimmungen in Lev 11–15. Pp. 209–24 in Menschenbilder und Körperkonzepte im Alten Israel, in Ägypten und im Alten Orient, eds. A. Berlejung, J. Dietrich and J. F. Quack. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2015 Comment dire l’interdit? Le tabou linguistique et social de la menstruation en Lévitique 11–20. Pp. 181–90 in Tabou et transgressions: Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 11–12 avril 2012, eds. J. M. Durand, M. Guichard and T. Römer. Orbis Biblical et Orientalis 274. 2017 Body, Gender and Purity in Leviticus 12 and 15. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 539. New York: T&T Clark. 2019 Archaeological and Textual Evidence for Menstruation as Gendered Taboo in the Second Temple Period? Pp. 169–84 in Gender and Social Norms in Ancient Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity: Texts and Material Culture, eds. M. Bauks, K. Galor

and J. Hartenstein. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 28. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Faerman, M., Boaretto, E., Uziel, J., Maeir, A. M., and Smith, P. 2011 “…In Their Lives, and in Their Death…”: A Preliminary Study of an Iron Age Burial Cave at Tell es-Safi, Israel. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina Vereins 127(1): 29–48. Fantalkin, A., and Finkelstein, I. 2006 The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th Century BCE Earthquake: More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I– IIA. Tel Aviv 32(1): 18–42. Faust, A. 2011 The Interests of the Assyrian Empire in the West: Olive Oil Production as a Test-Case. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 54: 62–86. 2013 From Regional Power to Peaceful Neighbour: Philistia in the Iron I–II Transition. Israel Exploration Journal 63: 154–73. 2015a Pottery and Society in Iron Age Philistia: Feasting, Identity, Economy, and Gender. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 373: 167–98. 2015b The Bible, Archaeology, and the Practice of Circumcision in Israelite and Philistine Societies. Journal of Biblical Literature 134(2): 273–90. 2016 Canaanites and Israelites in the Southeastern Shephelah: Results of Ten Seasons of Excavations at Tell ‘Eton (In Hebrew). Qadmoniot 152: 82–91. 2018 The Land of the Philistines? Reexamining the Settlement in the Periphery of Philistia (In Hebrew with English Abstract). Eretz Israel (Stager Volume) 33: 195–204. 2019 Purity and Impurity in Iron Age Israel. Biblical Archaeology Review 45(2): 36–43, 60– 62. Faust, A., and Katz, H. 2017 The Archaeology of Purity and Impurity: A Case-Study from Tel ʿEton, Israel. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27: 1–27. Faust, A., and Lev-Tov, J. 2014 Philistia and the Philistines in the Iron I: Interaction, Ethnic Dynamics and Boundary Maintenance. HIPHIL Novum 1(1): 1–24. Finkelstein, I. 1994 The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh. Pp. 169–87 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, eds. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum and L. Stager, E. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster. 2002 The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine: A Guide to the 10th Century BCE Polity. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 118(2): 109–35.

43

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 2013

Geographical and Historical Realities behind the Earliest Layer in the David Story. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 27(2): 131–50. 2016 To Date or Not to Date: Radiocarbon and the Arrival of the Philistines. Ägypten und Levante 26: 275–84. 2017 What the Biblical Authors Knew About Canaan Before and in the Early Days of the Hebrew Kingdoms. Ugarit-Forschungen 48: 173–98. 2018 Philistine Chronology: An Update. Israel Exploration Journal 68(2): 221–31. Finkelstein, I., and Piasetzky, E. 2007 Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat. Ägypten und Levante 17: 74–82. Fowler, K. D., Walker, E., Greenfield, H. J., Ross, J., and Maeir, A. M. 2019 The Identity of Potters in Early States: Determining the Age and Sex of Fingerprints on Early Bronze Age Pottery from Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/ s10816-019-09419-9. Fuks, D., Ackermann, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Bar-Oz, G., Levi, Y., Maeir, A. M., Weiss, E., Zilberman, T., and Safrai, Z. 2017 Dust Clouds, Climate Change and Coins: Consiliences of Paleoclimate and Economic History in the Late Antique Southern Levant. Levant 49(2): 205–23. Gadot, Y., Yasur-Landau, A., and Uziel, J. 2012 Chapter 14: The Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area E, Stratum E4. Pp. 313–64 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gadot, Y., Kleiman, S., and Lipschits, O. 2018 A Tale of Two Cities: Tel Azekah and Tell es-Safi/Gath during the Late Bronze Age. Pp. 206–21 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Garfinkel, Y., Kreimerman, I., and Zilberg, P. 2016 Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Gitin, S. 1989a Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah: Context and Typology. Eretz Israel (Y. Yadin Volume) 20: 52*–67*. 1989b Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron II Period. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 49: 23–58.

1990

Ekron of the Philistines, Part II: Olive-Oil Suppliers to the World. Biblical Archaeology Review 16(2): 32–42, 59. 1992 New Incense Altars from Ekron: Context, Typology and Function. Eretz Israel (A. Biran Volume) 23: 43*-49*. 1993 Seventh Century B.C.E. Cultic Elements at Ekron. Pp. 248–58 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1998 Philistia in Transition: The Tenth Century and Beyond. Pp. 162–83 in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2009 The Late Iron II Incense Altars from Ashkelon. Pp. 127–36 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2010 Philistines in the Book of Kings. Pp. 301–64 in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception, eds. A. Lemaire and B. Halpern. Supplement to Vetus Testamentum 129. Leiden: Brill. Greenfield, H. J., Brown, A., Shai, I., and Maeir, A. M. 2016 Preliminary Analysis of the Fauna from the Early Bronze Age III Neighbourhood at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Pp. 170–92 in Bones and Identity: Archaeozoological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Asia, eds. N. Marom, R. Yeshurun, L. Weissbrod and G. Bar-Oz. Oxford: Oxbow. Greenfield, H. J., Brown, A., Shai, I., and Maeir, A. M. 2018 Unravelling the Meaning of Faunal Assemblages in an Early Urban Domestic Neighbourhood: Worked Bone Frequencies from the Early Bronze Age III Neighbourhood at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi, Israel. Pp. 109–22 in Archaeozoology of the Near East XII. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium of the ICAZ Archaeozoology of Southwest Asia and Adjacent Areas Working Group, Groningen Institute of Archaeology, June 14–15 2015, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, eds. C. Cakirlar, R. Berthon and J. Chahoud. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing. Greenfield, H. J., Greenfield, T. L., and Brown, A. 2017 Animal Food Production and Consumption in Stratum E5 at Early Bronze Age Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 255–58. Greenfield, H. J., Greenfield, T. L., Shai, I., Albaz, S., and Maeir, A. M. 2018 Household Rituals and Sacrificial Donkeys: Why Are There So Many Domestic Donkeys

44

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Buried in an Early Bronze Age Neighborhood at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath? Near Eastern Archaeology 81(3): 202–11. Greenfield, H., Shai, I., Greenfield, T., Arnold, E., Brown, A., Eliyahu-Behar, A., and Maeir, A. M. 2018 Earliest Evidence for Equid Bit Wear in the Ancient Near East: The “Ass” from Early Bronze Age Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel. PLoS One. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196335 Greenfield, H. J., Shai, I., and Maeir, A. M. 2012 Being an “Ass”: An Early Bronze Age Burial of a Donkey from Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Bioarchaeology of the Ancient Near East 6: 21–52. 2017 The Early Bronze Age at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 247–54. Greenfield, H. J., Wing, D., and Maeir, A. M. 2015 LiDAR Technology as an Analytical Tool at Tell es-Safi, Israel. Pp. 76–85 in Breaking Barriers: Proceedings of the 47th Annual Chacmool Conference, November 7–9, 2014, eds. R. Crook, K. Edwards and C. Hughes. Calgary: University of Calgary. Greenfield, H. J., Wing, D., Shai, I., and Maeir, A. M. In press Terrestrial LiDAR Survey as a Heritage Management Tool: The Example of at Tell es-Safi/Gath. In Proceedings of the Syrian Heritage Symposium ICAANE Vienna, 2016, eds. M. Silver and M. Doneus. Vienna: Institute for Oriental and European archaeology. Gur-Arieh, S. 2008 Siege Systems in the Ancient Near East: A Case Study from Tell es-Safi/Gath (MA thesis, Hebrew with English summary). RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University. 2018 Cooking Installations through the Ages at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 66–71. Hafthórsson, S. 2006 A Passing Power: An Examination of the Sources for the History of Aram-Damascus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century B.C. Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series, 54. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International. Hardin, J. W., Rollston, C. A., and Blakely, J. A. 2014 Iron Age Bullae from Officialdom’s Periphery: Khirbet Summeily in Broader Context. Near Eastern Archaeology 77(4): 299–301. Hieke, T. 2014 Levitikus 1–15. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. 2015 Menstruation and Impurity: Regular Abstention from the Cult According to Leviticus 15: 19–24 and Some Examples for the Reception of the Biblical Text in Early Judaism. Pp. 54– 70 in Religion and Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments, ed. G. G.

Xeravits. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 28. Berlin: De Gruyter. Hitchcock, L. A. 2018 ‘All the Cerethites, and All the Pelethites, and All the Gittites’: An up-to-Date Account of the Minoan Connection with the Philistines. Pp. 304–21 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Hitchcock, L. A., and Maeir, A. M. 2013 Beyond Creolization and Hybridity: Entangled and Transcultural Identities in Philistia. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28 (1): 51–74. 2014 Yo-Ho, Yo-Ho, a Seren’s Life for Me! World Archaeology 46(3): 624–40. 2016a A Pirates’ Life for Me: The Maritime Culture of the Sea People. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 148(4): 245–64. 2016b Pulp Fiction: The Sea Peoples and the Study of ‘Mycenaean’ Archaeology in Philistia. Pp. 145–55 in RA-PI-NE-U. Studies on the Mycenaean World Offered to Robert Laffineur for His 70th Birthday, ed. J. Driessen. AEGIS (Aegean Interdisciplinary Studies) 10. Louvain: Presses Univesitaires de Louvain. 2017a Hesperos and Phosphoros: How Research on Aegean-Eastern Interactions Can Inform Studies of the West. Pp. 253–60 in Hesperos: The Aegean Seen from the West, eds. M. Fotiadis, R. Laffineur, Y. Lolos and A. Vlachopoulos. Aegaeum 41. Leuven: Peeters. 2017b Lost in Translation: Settlement Organization in Postpalatial Crete, a View from the East. Pp. 289–333 in Minoan Architecture and Urbanism: New Perspective on an Ancient Built Environment, eds. Q. Letesson and C. Knappett. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2018a New Insights on the Philistines in Light of Excavations at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 6–14. 2018b Pirates of the Crete-Aegean: Migration, Mobility, and Post-Palatial Realities at the End of the Bronze Age. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of Cretan Studies, Heraklion, 21–25 September 2016. Heraklion: Cretan Historical Society. Hitchcock, L. A., Horwitz, L. K., Boaretto, E., and Maeir, A. M. 2015 One Philistine’s Trash is an Archaeologist’s Treasure: Feasting at Iron I, Tell es-Safi/ Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 78(1): 12– 25.

45

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Hitchcock, L. A., Maeir, A. M., and Dagan, A. 2016 Entangling Aegean Ritual in Philistine Culture. Pp. 519–26 in Metaphysis: Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age, eds. E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. DegerJalkotzy, R. Laffineur and J. Weilhartner. Aegaeum 39. Liège: Liège University Press. Hitchcock, L. A., Maeir, A. M., and Harris-Schober, M. 2019 Tomorrow Never Dies: Post-Palatial Memories of the Aegean Late Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Pp. 543–49 in MNEME: Proceedings of the 17th Aegean Conference, eds. E. Borgna, I. Caloi, F. Carinci and R. Laffineur. Liege: Université de Liege. Horwitz, L. K., Gardeisen, A., Maeir, A. M., and Hitchcock, L. A. 2017 A Brief Contribution to the Iron Age Philistine Pig Debate. Pp. 93–116 in The Wide Lens in Archaeology: Honoring Brian Hesse’s Contributions to Anthropological Archaeology, eds. J. Lev-Tov, P. Wapnish and A. Gilbert. Archaeobiology 2. Atlanta: Lockwood Press. Israel, M. 1963 Survey and Study in the Kfar Menahem Region (In Hebrew). Teva Va-Aretz 5(5): 2–4. James, P., and van der Veen, P., eds. 2015 Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology. Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium Held at Sidney Sussex Collage, Cambridge 26–7 March, 2011. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2732. Oxford: Archaeopress. Kaniewski, D., Van Campo, E., Van Lerberghe, K., Boiy, T., Vansteenhuyse, K., Jans, G., Guiot, J., Nys, K., Weiss, H., Morhange, M., Otto, T., and Bretschneider, J. 2011 The Sea Peoples, from Cuneiform Tablets to Carbon Dating. PLOS One. DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0020232. Kehati, R., Dagan, A., and Horwitz, L. K. 2018 Iron Age Animal Husbandry at Tell esSafi/Gath: Notes on the Fauna from Area D. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 41–44. Kiderlen, M., Bode, M., Hauptmann, A., and Bassiakos, Y. 2016 Tripod Cauldrons Produced at Olympia Give Evidence for Trade with Copper from Faynan (Jordan) to South West Greece, c. 950– 750 BCE. Journal of Archaeological Science, Reports 8: 303–13. Kisilevitz, S. 2015 The Iron IIA Judahite Temple at Tel Moza. Tel Aviv 42(2): 147–64. 2016 Terracotta Figurines from the Iron IIA Temple at Moza, Judah. Les Carnets de l’ACoSt 15. https: //journals.openedition. org/acost/980.

Kisos, S. 2014 The Definition and Understanding of Marks on Pottery from the Early Bronze II in the Southern Coastal Plain of Canaan: A Case Study from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Unpublished master’s thesis. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University. Klawans, J. 2014 Concepts of Purity in the Bible. Pp. 1998– 2005 in The Jewish Study Bible, eds. A. Berlin and M. Z. Brettler. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kleiman, S., Gadot, Y., and Lipschits, O. 2016 A Snapshot of the Destruction Layer of Tell Zakarīye/Azekah Seen Against the Backdrop of the Final Days of the Late Bronze Age. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 132(2): 105–33. Knapp, A. B., and Manning, S. W. 2016 Crisis in Context: The End of the Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean. American Journal of Archaeology 120(1): 99–149. Koch, I. 2012 The Geopolitical Organization of the Judean Shephelah during Iron I–IIA (In Hebrew). Cathedra 143: 45–64. 2017 Settlements and Interactions in the Shephelah during the Late Second through Early First Millennia BCE. Pp. 181–207 in The Shephelah during the Iron Age: Recent Archaeological Studies, eds. O. Lipschits and A. M. Maeir. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2018 The Egyptian-Canaanite Interface as Colonial Encounter: A View from Southwest Canaan. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 18: 24–39. Koehl, R. B. 2017 Were There Sea Peoples at Alalakh (Tell Atchana)? Pp. 275–95 in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, eds. Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz and A. S. Gilbert. Leiden: Brill. Lederman, Z., and Bunimovitz, S. 2014 Canaanites, “Shephelites” and Those Who Will Become Judahites (In Hebrew). Pp. 61– 71 in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, Vol. 8, eds. G. Stiebel, O. Peleg-Barkat, D. Ben-Ami and Y. Gadot. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Lehmann, G. 2017 The Late Bronze - Iron Age Transition and the Problem of the Sea Peoples Phenomenon in Cilicia. Pp. 229–55 in The Sea Peoples Up-To-Date: New Research on the Migration of Peoples in the 12th Century BCE, eds. P. Fischer and T. Bürge. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 81, Contributions to the

46

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 35. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Lehmann, G., and Niemann, H. M. 2014 When Did the Shephelah Become Judahite? Tel Aviv 41(1): 77–94. Lemos, T. M. 2013 Where There Is Dirt, Is There System? Revisiting Biblical Purity Constructions. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37(3): 265–94. Levin, Y. 2010 Sheshonq I and the Negev Ḥăṣērîm. Maarav 17(2): 189–215. Levy, T. E., Najjar, M., and Ben-Yosef, E. 2014 New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan. Vols. 1–2: Surveys, Excavations, and Research from the University of California, San Diego-Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Edom Lowlands Regional Archaeology Project (ELRAP). Monumenta Archaeologica 35. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles. Maeir, A. M. 2012a Chapter 1: The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project 1996–2010: Introduction, Overview and Synopsis of Results. Pp. 1–88 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996– 2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2012b Prize Find: Horned Altar from Tell es-Safi Hints at Philistine Origins. Biblical Archaeology Review 38(1): 35. 2012c Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2013 Review of: A. Faust. 2012. The Archaeology of Israelite Society. Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN. Review of Biblical Literature. http: //www.bookreviews.org. 2015 Micro-Archaeological Perspectives on the Philistine Household throughout the Iron Age and Their Implications. Pp. 307–19 in Household Studies in Complex Societies: (Micro) Archaeological and Textual Approaches, ed. M. Muller. Oriental Institute Series 10. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2017a Khirbet Qeiyafa in Its Regional Context: A View from Philistine Gath. Pp. 61–71 in Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah. Papers Presented at a Colloquium of the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies Held at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014, eds. S. Schroer and S. Münger. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 282. Fribourg: Academic Press.

2017b Philistine Gath After 20 Years: Regional Perspectives on the Iron Age at Tell esSafi/Gath. Pp. 133–54 in The Shephelah during the Iron Age: Recent Archaeological Studies, eds. O. Lipschits and A. M. Maeir. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2017c The Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project: Overview. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 212–31. 2017/2018 The Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project. Near Eastern Archaeology 80/4– 81/1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. 2018a Integrating Micro- and Macro-Archaeology at a Multi-Period Site: Insights and Outcomes from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Pp. 35–50 in Cyber-Archaeology and Grand Narratives: Digital Technology and Deep-Time Perspectives on Culture Change in the Middle East, eds. T. E. Levy and I. W. N. Jones. One World Archaeology. Cham: Springer. 2018b The Philistines Be Upon Thee, Samson (Jud. 16: 20): Reassessing the Martial Nature of the Philistines – Archaeological Evidence Vs. Ideological Image? Pp. 158–68 in Change, Continuity and Connectivity: North-Eastern Mediterranean at the Turn of the Bronze Age and in the Early Iron Age, eds. L. Niesiołowski-Spanò and M. Węcowski. Philippika 118. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2018c Review of Janeway, B. 2016. Sea Peoples of the Northern Levant? Aegean-Style Pottery from Early Iron Age Tell Tayinat. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 7. Harvard Semitic Museum: Cambridge, MA. Review of Biblical Literature 2018(02). http: //www.bookreviews.org. 2019a Burial and Worship in Tel Tzafit/Gath in the Early Iron Age: Evidence for the Diverse Sources of the Philistine Culture (In Hebrew). Pp. 99–112 in Worship and Burial in the Shfela and Negev Regions throughout the Ages. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Southern Conference, eds. D. Varga, Y. AbadiReiss, G. Lehmann and D. Vainstub. Beersheba: Israel Antiquities Authority and BenGurion University. 2019b Iron I Philistines: Entangled Identities in a Transformative Period. Pp. 310–23 in The Social Archaeology of the Levant: From Prehistory to the Present, eds. A. Yasur-Landau, E. H. Cline and E. Rowan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

47

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Maeir, A. M., Ben-Shlomo, D., Cassuto, D., Chadwick, J. R., Davis, B., Eliyahu Behar, A., Frumin, S., GurArieh, S., Hitchcock, L. A., Horwitz, L. K., Manclossi, F., Rosen, S., Verduci, J., Welch, E. L., Weiss, E., and Workman, V. 2019 Technological Insights on Philistine Culture: Perspectives from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 7(1): 76–118. Maeir, A. M., Davis, B., and Hitchcock, L. A. 2016 Philistine Names and Terms Once Again: A Recent Perspective. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage 4(4): 321–40. Maeir, A. M., Davis, B., Horwitz, L. K., Asscher, Y., and Hitchcock, L. A. 2015 An Ivory Bowl from Early Iron Age Tell esSafi/Gath (Israel) - Manufacture, Meaning and Memory. World Archaeology 47: 414– 38. Maeir, A. M., and Eshel, E. 2014 Four short alphabetic inscriptions from Iron IIA Tell es-Safi/Gath and their contribution for understanding the process of the development of literacy in Iron Age Philistia. Pp. 69– 88 in “See, I Will Bring a Scroll Recounting What Befell Me” (Ps 40: 8): Epigraphy and Daily Life – From the Bible to the Talmud Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Hanan Eshel, eds. E. Eshel and Y. Levin. Journal of Ancient Judaism, Supplements, Vol. 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Maeir, A. M., Fantalkin, A., and Zukerman, A. 2009 The Earliest Greek Import to the Iron Age Levant: New Evidence from Tell es-Safi/ Gath, Israel. Ancient West and East 8: 57–80. Maeir, A. M., and Hitchcock, L. A. 2016 “And the Canaanite was then in the Land”? A Critical View on the “Canaanite Enclave” in Iron I Southern Canaan. Pp. 209–26 in Alphabets, Texts and Artefacts in the Ancient Near East: Studies Presented to Benjamin Sass, eds. I. Finkelstein, C. Robin and T. Römer. Paris: Van Dieren. 2017a The Appearance, Formation and Transformation of Philistine Culture: New Perspectives and New Finds. Pp. 149-62 in The Sea Peoples Up-To-Date: New Research on the Migration of Peoples in the 12th Century BCE, eds. P. Fischer and T. Bürge. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 81, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 35. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. 2017b Rethinking the Philistines: A 2017 Perspective. Pp. 249–67 in Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein, eds. O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot and M. J. Adams. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Maeir, A. M., Hitchcock, L. A., and Horwitz, L. K. 2013 On the Constitution and Transformation of Philistine Identity. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32(1): 1–38. Maeir, A. M., and Shai, I. 2015 The Origins of the “Late Philistine Decorated Ware”: A Note. Tel Aviv 42(1): 59–66. Maeir, A. M., and Uziel, J. 2007 A Tale of Two Tells: A Comparative Perspective on Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tell esSâfi/Gath in Light of Recent Archaeological Research. Pp. 29–42 in Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, eds. S. Crawford, A. BenTor, J. P. Dessel, W. G. Dever, A. Mazar and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Mahler-Slasky, Y., and Kislev, M. 2012 Preliminary Archaeobotanical Research at Tell es-Safi/Gath: The 1997–2002 Seasons. Pp. 579–87 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. Ägypten und Alten Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Manning, S. W., Kerans, C., and Lorentzen, B. 2017 Dating the End of the Late Bronze Age with Radiocarbon: Some Observations, Concerns, and Revisiting the Dating of Late Cypriote IIC to IIIA. Pp. 95–110 in The Sea Peoples Up-To-Date: New Research on the Migration of Peoples in the 12th Century BCE, eds. P. Fischer and T. Bürge. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 81, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 35. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Maran, J. 2018 Goliath’s Peers: Interconnected Polyethnic Warrior Elites in the Eastern Mediterranean of the 13th and 12th Centuries BCE. Pp. 223– 41 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Master, D. M., and Aja, A. J. 2017 The Philistine Cemetery of Ashkelon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 377: 135–59. Mazar, A. 1985 The Emergence of the Philistine Material Culture. Israel Exploration Journal 35: 95– 107. Mazar, E., and Karlin, M. 2015 A Fragment of a Lion-Headed Rhyton. Pp. 539–40 in The Summit of the City of David, Excavations 2005–2008. Final Reports Volume 1, Area G, ed. E. Mazar. Jerusalem:

48

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Shoham Academic Research and Publication. Meijer, D. J. W. 2017 The Archaeological Ramifications of ‘Philistines’ in Aleppo. Pp. 257–62 in The Sea Peoples Up-To-Date: New Research on the Migration of Peoples in the 12th Century BCE, eds. P. Fischer and T. Bürge. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 81, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 35. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Meiri, M., Huchon, D., Bar-Oz, G., Boaretto, E., Kolska Horwitz, L., Maeir, A. M., Sapir-Hen, L., Larson, G., Weiner, S., and Finkelstein, I. 2013 Ancient DNA and Population Turnover in Southern Levantine Pigs- Signature of the Sea Peoples Migration? Scientific Reports 3: 3035. DOI: 10.1038/srep03035. Meiri, M., Stockhammer, P. W., Marom, N., Bar-Oz, G., Sapir-Hen, L., Morgenstern, P., Macheridis, S., Rosen, B., Huchon, D., Maran, J., and Finkelstein, I. 2017 Eastern Mediterranean Mobility in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages: Inferences from Ancient DNA of Pigs and Cattle. Scientific Reports 7: 701. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-01700701-y. Migowski, C., Agnon, A., Bookman, R., Negedank, J. F. W., and Stein, M. 2004 Recurrence Pattern of Holocene Earthquakes Along the Dead Sea Transform Revealed by Varve-Counting and Radiocarbon Dating of Lacustrine Sediments. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 222: 301–14. Morenz, L. D. 2008 Reconsidering Sheshonk’s Emblematic List and His War in Palestine. Pp. 101–18 in Moving Across Borders. Foreign Relations, Religion and Cultural Interactions in the Ancient Mediterranean, eds. P. Kousoulis and K. Magliveras. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 159. Leuven: Peeters. Münger, S. 2018 Seals and Sealings at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 72–76. Na’aman, N. 2002 In Search of the Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbors. Israel Exploration Journal 52(2): 200–24. Namdar, D., Zukerman, A., Maeir, A. M., Katz, J. C., Cabanas, D., Trueman, C., Shahack-Gross, R., and Weiner, S. 2011 The 9th Century BCE Destruction Layer at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel: Integrating Macroand Microarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(12): 3471–82. Niesioĺowski-Spanó, L. 2016 Goliath’s Legacy. Philistines and Hebrews in Biblical Times. Philippika - Altertumswis-

senschaftliche Abhandlungen / Contributions to the Study of Ancient World Cultures 103. Harrassowitz. Nigro, L. 2014 David e Golia: Filistei e Israeliti ad un tiro di sasso. Recenti scoperte nel dibattito sull’archeologia in Israele. Quaderni di Vicino Oriente 8: 1–17. Nihan, C. 2012 Forms and Functions of Purity in Leviticus. Pp. 311–67 in Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism, eds. C. Frevel and C. Nihan. Dynamics in the History of Religions 3. Leiden: Brill. Olsvig-Whittaker, L., Maeir, A. M., Weiss, E., Frumin, S., Ackermann, O., and Horwitz, L. K. 2015 Ecology of the Past – Late Bronze and Iron Age Landscapes, People and Climate Change in Philistia (the Southern Coastal Plain and Shephelah), Israel. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology 13: 57–75. Pioske, D. 2018 Material Culture and Making Visible: On the Portrayal of Philistine Gath in the Book of Samuel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43(1): 3–27. Rabin, C. 1974 The Origin of the Hebrew Word Pi*leges*. Journal of Jewish Studies 25(1974): 353–64. Rainey, A. 2012 Possible Involvement of Tell es-Safi/Gath in the Amarna Correspondence. Pp. 133–40 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Raphael, K., and Agnon, A. 2018 Earthquakes East and West of the Dead Sea Transform in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Pp. 769–98 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Regev, J., de Miroschedji, P., and Boaretto, E. 2012 Early Bronze Age Chronology: Radiocarbon Dates and Chronological Models from Tel Yarmuth (Israel). Radiocarbon 54(3–4): 505–24. Regev, J., de Miroschedji, P., Greenberg, R., Braun, E., Greenhut, Z., and Boaretto, E. 2012 Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology. Radiocarbon 54(3–4): 525–66. Rogan, W. 2018 Purity in Early Judaism: Current Issues and Questions. Currents in Biblical Research 16(3): 309–39.

49

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Ross, J., Fowler, K., Shai, I., Greenfield, H. J., and Maeir, A. M. 2018 A Scanning Method for the Identification of Pottery Forming Techniques at the Mesoscopic Scale: A Pilot Study in the Manufacture of Early Bronze Age III Holemouth Jars and Platters from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 18: 551–61. Sagrillo, T. L. 2015 Shoshenq I and Biblical Šîšaq: A Philological Defense of Their Traditional Equation. Pp. 61–81 in Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology. Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium Held at Sidney Sussex Collage, Cambridge 26–7 March, 2011, eds. P. James and P. van der Veen. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2732. Oxford: Archaeopress. Sala, M. 2018 Beyond Dagon: Resilience and Entanglement of Canaanite Backgrounds in Sacred Buildings and Cult Practices in Early Iron Age Philistia. Pp. 353–74 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Sergi, O. 2013 Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context. Tel Aviv 40: 226–46. Sergi, O., and Gadot, Y. 2019 The Rise of Ancient Israel in the Iron I–IIA: The Need for a Closer Look. Near Eastern Archaeology 82(1): 5–7. Shafer-Elliott, C. 2018 Coming Home Again: Household Archaeology at Judahite Gath. Pp. 424–35 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Shahack-Gross, R. 2018 Micromorphological Insights Into Construction Materials and Their Manufacture at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Pp. 799–810 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. 2019 Fire and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean: A Diachronic View with a Microachaeological Focus. Pp. 86–97 in The

Social Archaeology of the Levant: From Prehistory to the Present, eds. A. Yasur-Landau, E. H. Cline and E. Rowan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shai, I., Chadwick, J. R., Welch, E., Katz, J., Greenfield, H., and Maeir, A. M. 2016 The Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 148(1): 42–58. Shai, I., Greenfield, H. J., Brown, A., Albaz, S., and Maeir, A. M. 2016 The Importance of the Donkey as a Pack Animal in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant: A View from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina Vereins 132(1): 1–25. Shai, I., Greenfield, H. G., Greenfield, T., Arnold, E., Albaz, S., and Maeir, A. 2017 The Importance of the Donkey in the Early Bronze Age in Light of the Excavations at Tel Zafit (In Hebrew). Qadmoniot 154: 88– 91. Shai, I., Greenfield, H. J., Eliyahu-Behar, A., Regev, J., Boaretto, E., and Maeir, A. M. 2014 The Early Bronze Age Remains at Tell eṣṢāfi/Gath, Israel: An Interim Report. Tel Aviv 41(1): 20–49. Shai, I., Maeir, A. M., Uziel, J., and Gadot, Y. 2011 Differentiating Public Buildings from Residencies: A Case Study from Late Bronze Age II Tell es-Safi/Gath. Pp. 107–31 in Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond, eds. A. Yasur-Landau, J. R. Ebeling and L. B. Mazow. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 50. Leiden: Brill. Shai, I., Uziel, J., Chadwick, J. R., and Maeir, A. M. 2017 The Late Bronze Age at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 292–95. Shai, I., Uziel, J., and Maeir, A. M. 2012 Chapter 10: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of Area E: Strata E1–E5. Pp. 221–34 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Stockhammer, P. W. 2012 Entangled Pottery: Phenomena of Appropriation in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. Pp. 89–103 in Materiality and Social Practice: Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters, eds. J. Maran and P. W. Stockhammer. Oxford: Oxbow. 2017a How Aegean is Philistine Pottery? The Use of Aegean-Type Pottery in the Early 12th Century BCE Southern Levant. Pp. 379–87 in The Sea Peoples Up-To-Date: New Research on the Migration of Peoples in the 12th Century BCE, eds. P. Fischer and T. Bürge. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 81, Contributions to the Chronology of the

50

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MAEIR: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Eastern Mediterranean 35. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. 2017b Late Helladic Imported Pottery at Tell esSafi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 296–97. 2018 Rethinking Philistia as a Contact Zone. Pp. 375–85 in Tell It in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Szanton, N. 2017 Ninth Century BCE Pottery from Tell esSafi/Gath (Stratum A3), 2006–2012 Seasons: Expanded Typology and Spatial Distribution (In Hebrew with English summary). Unpublished master’s thesis. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University. Tappy, R. 2011 The Depositional History of Iron Age Tel Zayit: A Response to Finkelstein, Sass, and Singer-Avitz. Eretz Israel (A. Ben-Tor Volume) 30: 127*–43*. Toffolo, M., Maeir, A. M., Chadwick, J. R., and Boaretto, E. 2012 Characterization of Contexts for Radiocarbon Dating: Results from the Early Iron Age at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Radiocarbon 54(3–4): 371–90. Uziel, J., and Maeir, A. M. 2012 Chapter 8: The Location, Size and Periods Settlement at Tell es-Safi/Gath: The Surface Survey Results. Pp. 173–81 in Tell es-Safi/ Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2018a Philistine Burial Customs in Light of the Finds from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(4): 19–21. 2018b The Survey of the Site and Its Insights. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 4–5. Uziel, J., and Szanton, N. 2015 Recent Excavations near the Gihon Spring and Their Reflection on the Character of Iron II Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 42(2): 233–50. 2017 New Evidence of Jerusalem’s Urban Development in the 9th Century BCE. Pp. 429–39 in Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein, eds. O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot and M. J. Adams. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Uziel, J., Szanton, N., and Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2015 From Sea to Sea: Cultural Influences and Trade Connections between Judah and Philistia in the Iron II, in Light of Petrographic Study of Late Philistine Decorated Ware from the City of David. Innovations in the

Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Environs 9: 74–87. von Bredow, I. 2017 Kontaktzone Vorderer Orient und Ägypten: Orte, Situationen und Bedingungen für primäre griechisch-orientalische Kontakte vom 10. bis zum 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Geographica Historica, 38. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Welch, E. L. 2018 Area K at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 45–47. Welch, E. L., Chadwick, J. R., Shai, I., Katz, J., Greenfield, H., Dagan, A., and Maeir, A. M. 2019 “The Limits of the Ancient City”: The Fortifications of Tell es-Safi/Gath 115 Years after Bliss and Macalister. Pp. 151–66 in Exploring the Holy Land: 150 Years of the Palestine Exploration Fund, eds. D. Gurevich and A. Kidron. London: Equinox. Welton, L., Harrison, T., Batiuk, S., Ünlü, W., Janeway, B., Karakaya, D., Lipovitch, D., Lumb, D., and Roames, J. 2019 Shifting Networks and Community Identity at Tell Tayinat in the Iron I (ca. 12th to mid 10th Century B.C.E.). American Journal of Archaeology 123(2): 291–333. Wilson, K. A. 2005 The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2, Reihe 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Yasur-Landau, A. 2007 Let’s Do the Time Warp Again: Migration Processes and the Absolute Chronology of the Philistine Settlement. Pp. 609–20 in The Synchronization of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th May – 1st June 2003, eds. M. Bietak and H. Hunger. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean IX. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Zangenberg, J. K. 2012 Pure Stone: Archaeological Evidence for Jewish Purity Practices in Late Second Temple Judaism (Miqwa’ot and Stone Vessels). Pp. 537–72 in Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism, eds. C. Frevel and C. Nihan. Dynamics in the History of Religions 3. Leiden: Brill. Zukerman, A., and Maeir, A. M. 2012 Chapter 9: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Area A (Strata A5–A1). Pp. 183–220 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

51

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Zwickel, W. 2019 Borders between Aram-Damascus and Israel: A Historical Investigation. Pp. 267–335

in Aramaean Borders: Defining Aramaean Territories in the 10th–8th Centuries B.C.E., eds. J. Dušek and J. Mynářová. Leiden: Brill.

52

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2 ḤORVAT SHIMON: AN EIGHTH CENTURY BCE SITE ON THE PERIPHERY OF TELL ES-SAFI/GATH

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

ḤORVAT SHIMON: AN EIGHTH CENTURY BCE SITE ON THE PERIPHERY OF TELL ES-SAFI/GATH: THE SITE AND FINDS AMIT DAGAN AND AREN M. MAEIR

T

he site of Ḥorvat Shimon, located in the agricultural fields south of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem (Map Ref. 133600–112479/ 133560–112475), was first discovered by Shimon Pash, a member of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem, while plowing a field. Following the discovery, Moshe Israel, an avocational archaeologist from the kibbutz, unofficially named the site after him and conducted a limited excavation at the site (1963; 1964).1 In 2001, prior to the construction of a water reservoir, salvage excavations were conducted at the site (Fig. 2.1), directed by Y. Yisrael, on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (License # 4391).2 An excavated area of 160m2 lies on the southern slope of a hill, about 1 km north of the Elah Valley riverbed and 2 km northwest of Tell es-Safi/Gath. The excavation revealed part of an Iron Age II structure, built of mudbricks, with a rectangular plan divided into four main rooms (labeled A–D). Each of these rooms was further divided into three sub-areas (Fig. 2.2). In each of the four units, a rich assemblage of pottery was found, including burnt, deformed vessels and handmade vessels, as well as stone vessels, grinding implements, loom weights and other objects. Outside of the structure, large amounts of ash were noted (marked on Fig. 2.2), with large amounts of crushed chalk to the west of the structure.3

structure is unknown due to the restricted area of the excavation. The eastern outer wall of the structure was exposed in the excavation, revealing an inset-offset plan. The outer wall is made up of five segments, three of which are oriented north-south (W7, W2, W21), and whose widths are about 1.5 m, and 3.75 m, 9.5 m, and 7.90 m long respectively. Two walls (1.52 m wide and 4 m long) are bonded to these walls, oriented east-west (W3 and W20). The structure is divided into four units (A– D) arranged symmetrically on both sides of W1, which runs east-west. Rooms A and D are located north of W1, while Rooms B and C are located to its south. The walls were preserved to a height of 4 courses. Three walls, oriented east-west, abut the outer wall and divide the structure into four units. The width of these three walls (W29, W1 and W19) is 1 m, and their lengths are 3.25 m, 7.5 m and 3.75 m respectively. To the west, the structure is enclosed by three walls (W6, W5, and W15), with a width of 1.10 m and lengths of 4 m, 1.75 m and 5.25 m. Since the eastern, outer wall is considerably thicker than these walls, it is most likely that the building’s western edge was not fully exposed in the excavation. Furthermore, the thickness of the walls and the scattering of the finds inside the structure attests to the presence of a collapsed second floor. As mentioned above, four wings were revealed, with two distinct phases discerned. Although the stages cannot be distinguished chronologically, the adjustments made to the architectural units likely indicate a change in the function of the rooms.

STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE In the excavations, a large mudbrick structure was exposed. Based on the finds described below, this structure dates to the Iron Age IIB and had two building stages. The building plan (Fig. 2.2) appears to be of a long structure, built on a northsouth axis. Eighteen meters of the building’s eastern wing were exposed. The original length of the 1

Ḥorvat Shimon was not officially recognized as this site’s name by the Israel National Naming Committee. 2 We wish to thank the Israel Antiquities Authority, and particularly Dr. Yigal Yisrael, for allowing us to analyze and publish the material from the excavation, as well as for his help during the preparation of the publi-

cation. This report is an adapted version of the MA thesis of the first author, written under the supervision of the second author, and submitted to Bar-Ilan University (Dagan 2009). 3 Identification of the chalk was conducted by Prof. S. Weiner of the Kimmel Center for Archaeological Science at the Weizmann Institute of Science of Rehovot.

55

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON

Fig. 2.1: Map showing the location of Ḥorvat Shimon

Fig. 2.2: Plan of Phase 1

56

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS

Fig. 2.3: Plan of Phase 2

Fig. 2.4: View of basins sunk into W14

57

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Phase 1 (Fig. 2.2)

Building Technique

Each of the four rooms was divided into three units, following the same structural plan of a large central unit with two smaller units at its rear, separated by thin (0.20 m wide) brick partition walls. Rooms A and B have an east-west orientation, while Rooms C and D have a north-south orientation. Table 2.1 presents the dimensions of the different rooms. In Room B, only Wall W4 was positively identified. The excavator suggested that two more walls, which created a division into three wings (just as in the other rooms), were removed as a result of the architectural changes that the room underwent in Phase 2, as well as damage caused by a later disturbance.4

The walls of the structure were constructed with various-sized mudbricks of three sizes: 1. 0.27–0.33 x 0.10–0.12 x 0.46–0.48 m 2. 0.54 x 0.35–0.39 x 0.10–0.15 m 3. 0.34 x 0.28 x 0.1 m According to the excavator, the bricks were fabricated in molds. On some of the bricks, finger impressions were observed, likely caused by the use of the hands to consolidate the brick material prior to firing. The bricks were joined with plaster, and the walls were coated with a 0.01–0.03 m thick layer of plaster.

Room Room A

Room B

Room C

Room D

Unit Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

Length 2.5 m 1.8 m 1.7 m 2.5 m 1.8 m 1.7 m 2.6 m 1.3 m 1.8 m 2.2 m 1.3 m 1.3 m

CERAMIC TYPOLOGY Despite the fact that two architectural phases were defined in this structure, the pottery is discussed as one assemblage. This is because the excavator did not define any loci with ceramic finds as being specifically related to either of the phases. The types were divided according to basic forms. These forms were further divided according to rim form or special features, such as handles and bases. The analysis was primarily based on complete vessels, although sherds were used when necessary, in order to create a complete ceramic profile of the site. Parallels for the ceramic assemblage are primarily brought from nearby Iron Age sites. The primary sites used are listed in Table 2.2.

Width 2.6 m 1.5 m 1.0 m 2.6 m 1.5 m 1.0 m 2.2 m 1.8 m 0.9 m 2.8 m 1.5 m 0.8 m

Table 2.1: Dimensions of various rooms and units

Phase 2 (Fig. 2.3)

Bowls (Fig. 2.5–Fig. 2.6)

In Phase 2, structural modifications were made in Rooms A and B. In Room A, a square installation (L55) was identified, with a round-shaped hearth next to it (L56 – elevation 113.86 m asl). In Room B, modifications were noted in the filling in of the eastern side of the room between W14 and W4 and the creating of a raised platform paved with burnt mudbricks (L31). On the south side of W4, two handmade basins were sunk into the wall (L43 and L15 – see Fig. 2.4). Additionally, a mudbrick partition wall, running north-south, divided the room into two parts (B4 and B5). Three large basins were integrated into the wall (L37). At the southwest end of B4, there was a rectangular mudbrick feature (L66).

The bowls were divided into 16 types and subtypes. BL1 – An open bowl with rounded walls. All of the complete examples of this type have a ring base. One bowl in the assemblage is red-slipped. Three variations of rim types were defined. BL1.1 – An open bowl with a plain rim and a ring base. A parallel for this type was found at Gezer, Stratum VIb. According to Gitin, this bowl appears already in the 9th century BCE, noting that this is a northern type, which attests to the close relations between the lowlands and the north of the country in the mid-9th–8th centuries BCE (Gitin 1990: 181–82). Additional parallels were found at Tel Batash, most common in Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 36–37).

4

The excavator claimed that this disturbance was caused by a test trench excavated by the Department of Antiquities in the 1950s.

58

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS Site Tell es-Safi/Gath

Stratum/Level A3

Date 9th Century BCE

Ashdod Tel ‘Ira

A2 IV III II IV III II II I II I VIII VII–VII

8th Century BCE 9th Century BCE 8th Century BCE 7th Century BCE 10th Century BCE 8th Century BCE 7th Century BCE 9th Century BCE 8th Century BCE 8th Century BCE 7th Century BCE 8th Century BCE 9th–8th Century BCE

Beer-Sheba

II

Gezer

VIIa VIb VIa 3a–b

Lachish

Tel Batash

Tell Tel ‘Eton Tel Miqne-Ekron

Kadesh Barnea

10th century BCE 9th Century BCE 8th Century BCE 8h Century BCE

Reference Shai and Maeir 2012 Maeir 2001 Avissar and Maeir 2012 Zimhoni 2004a Zimhoni 2004b Zimhoni 2004b Mazar and Panitz Cohen 2001 Mazar and Panitz Cohen 2001 Mazar and Panitz Cohen 2001 Zimhoni 1997 Zimhoni 1997 Gitin 1998 Gitin 1998 Dothan 1971 Freud 1999 Beit Arieh, Freud and Baron 1999 Aharoni 1973 Singer-Avitz 1999 Gitin 1990 Gitin 1990 Gitin 1990 Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007

Table 2.2: Iron Age sites and their dates in the vicinity of Ḥorvat Shimon

Class BL1.1

Site Gezer

Stratum VIb

Tel Batash

IV

Ashdod Tel Batash

X–IX IV

Tel ‘Eton Tel Batash

I

BL1.2 III–II

BL1.3 Tel ‘Eton

II

coastal sites throughout the 8th century BCE (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 39–40). This form was found at Tel ‘Eton, Stratum II (Zimhoni 1997: 182–83, 208). An additional subtype was found, with a hammerhead rim and a ridge below the rim (BL1.3.1).

Parallel Gitin 1990: pl. 13: 4 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 100: 4 Ben-Shlomo 2005: fig. 3.82: 22 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 82: 11 Zimhoni 1997: fig. 4.4: 9 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 13: 24 Zimhoni 1997: fig. 4.3: 8

BL2 – Platter with plain rim Bowls of this type appear in Gezer in the 9th and 7th centuries BCE. Gitin noted that parallels to these types of vessels were found in Turkey and Transjordan. The bowl first appeared in the north, and spread to sites in the south of the country during the 8th century BCE. It is important to note that beginning in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, this type is common in sites in the south and not in the north (Gitin 1990: 182–85). Two additional parallels occur at Lachish, Level III (Zimhoni 1997: 212–19) and Beer-Sheba, Stratum II. SingerAvitz proposed that this bowl is typical at Judahite sites (Singer-Avitz 1999: 13).

Table 2.3: Parallels for BL1

BL1.2 – An open bowl with an everted rim. This type appears at Tel Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 36–37). Zimhoni describes it as the most common type at Lachish, Level III. Parallels for this type were also found at Tel ‘Eton, Stratum II (Zimhoni 1997: 182–83; 208). Another variant of this bowl appears in the Kfar Menahem assemblage with ridges below the rim (BL1.2.1). BL1.3 – A rounded bowl with hammerhead rim. At Tel Batash, this type first appears in Stratum IV. It becomes common in Stratum III and very prevalent in Stratum II. According to the excavators, this bowl was mostly common in sites in Judah, but it also appears in both the northern and

Class BL2

Site Gezer

Stratum VIb

Lachish

III

BeerSheba

II

Parallel Gitin 1990: pl. 14: 15 Zimhoni 1997: fig. 5.4: 10 Singer-Avitz 1999: fig. 2: 1

Table 2.4: Parallels for BL2

59

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON

Fig. 2.5: Bowls from Ḥorvat Shimon

60

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS

Fig. 2.6: Bowls from Ḥorvat Shimon

61

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON BL3 – Bowl with inverted rim

were found in Stratum A3 at Tell es-Safi/Gath (Maeir 2001: 122).

This type is only represented in rim fragments. The example shown has traces of red slip on the interior and exterior. Parallels for this type were found in Gezer, Stratum VIb. Gitin mentions a type similar to BL3, but without the surface treatment, appearing already in the 10th century BCE and having Phoenician origins. In fact, most vessels of this type found in the country are imitations of this Phoenician type (Gitin 1990: 166–65). Additional parallels were found at Tel Batash, Stratum IV, where the excavators noted that 81% of bowls of this type are red-slipped and burnished on the interior and exterior. This type is common in Stratum III, 66% of which were red-slipped and burnished on the interior, with fewer examples having exterior slip and burnishing (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 34). Class BL3

Site Gezer

Stratum VIb

Parallel Gitin 1990: pl. 14: 11

Tel Batash

IV

Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 85: 1, pl. 101: 4

Class BL4.1

BL4.2

BL4.3

Site Tel ‘Eton

Stratum I

Tel ‘Ira Lachish

VIII V–IV

Ashdod

3

Parallel Zimhoni 1997: fig. 4.1: 8, 4.5: 9 Freud 1999: fig. 6.73: 1 Zimhoni 1997: fig. 3.14: 7 Dothan 1971: fig. 39: 14, 18, 20 Gitin 1990: pl. 20: 3 Avissar and Maeir 2012: pl. 15.9: 4 Maeir 2001: fig. 6:11

Gezer VIa Tell esA2 Safi/Gath Tell esA3 Safi/Gath Table 2.6: Parallels for BL4

BL5 – Carinated bowl All of the complete examples have a ring base. BL5.1 – A carinated bowl with an everted rim. One of the examples is slipped and burnished on the interior and exterior. Parallels were found at Gezer, Strata VIIa and VIa. Gitin mentions that this type was mainly prevalent in the south and in lowland sites (Gitin 1990: 189–90). An additional parallel was found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A2 (Avissar and Maeir 2012: 367). BL5.1.1 is a subtype, with a hammerhead rim. BL5.2 – A carinated bowl with thickened, everted rim. A number of parallels were found at Tel ‘Ira, Strata VII–VI. Freud (1999: 195) noted that these bowls are imitations of Assyrian bowls. Several variants of this bowl were defined there. The Stratum VII rims are more sharply everted than the rims from Stratum VI. Parallels for this type were found at Tel Miqne-Ekron, Stratum I as well (Gitin 1998: 167). Additional parallels were found at Tel Batash, mostly in Stratum III, with a few from Stratum II. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen (2001: 42–43) claimed that these bowls allude to trade connections between Assyria, Israel and Judah, as well as the administrative presence of an Assyrian garrison. It is important to note that all of the examples from Tel Batash are local imitations of the Assyrian vessel, as are most of the examples in the country.5 BL5.3 – A carinated bowl with rounded sides and an everted rim. One of the examples is slipped on the interior and exterior. At Ashdod, Area H, Stratum 2, a parallel for this type was found (Dothan 1971: 163–64). Additional parallels were found at Tel Batash, Strata IV and III. Most of the bowls of

Table 2.5: Parallels for BL3

BL4 – Deep bowl BL4.1 – A bowl with thickened, inverted rim and a ring base. At Tel ‘Eton, Stratum IV, a parallel to this vessel was found. Zimhoni (1997: 182–86, 208–09) stated that this type continues into the first half of the 8th century BCE. An additional parallel was found at Tel ‘Ira, Stratum VII (Freud 1999: 193). This type was also found at Lachish, Levels V–IV (Zimhoni 1997: 85). BL4.2 – A bowl with inverted rim and a ridge below the rim. A parallel appears in Ashdod, Stratum 3b. Dothan (1971: 94–97) noted that this type is characterized by a red slip either on the entire vessel or part of it. According to Gitin (1990: 166– 67), this bowl, found in Stratum VIa at Gezer, is a rare type. Additionally, he claimed that this type of bowl only appears in southern coastal and lowland sites in the second half of the 8th century BCE. In Stratum A2 at Tell es-Safi/Gath, only one bowl of this type was found (Avissar and Maeir 2012: 368–69). BL4.3 – A bowl with straight sides with a hammerhead rim and ridges below the rim. Parallels

5

For a discussion of imitation Assyrian-style bowls, see Na’aman and Thareani-Sussely 2007.

62

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS this type at Tel Batash were found in Stratum III. According to Mazar and Panitz-Cohen (2001: 41– 42), it seems that the shape of the bowls evolved from the earlier S-shaped bowls. Class BL5.1

BL5.2

BL5.3

Site Gezer

Stratum VIIa, VIa

Tel ‘Ira

VII

Tell esSafi/Gat h Tel Batash Tel MiqneEkron Tel ‘Ira

A2 III

VI–VII 2

Tel Batash

III

Parallel Gitin 1990: pl. 10: 15, 20: 13 Freud 1999: fig. 6.74: 2 Avissar and Maeir 2012: pl. 15.8: 3

Class BL7.2

Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 26:20 Gitin 1998: pl. 3: 10

I

Ashdod

well as fragments of the legs of several additional vessels of this type. No parallel was found for BL7.1. This vessel may have been inspired by three-legged stone mortars (Gal and Alexandre 2000: 123, fig. 96: 3). A subtype of this vessel was also found, which was shallow with straight sides and a simple rim (BL7.2). Type BL7.2 is more delicate than the other examples. A parallel was found at Tel ‘Ira, Area E, Stratum VII (Freud 1999: 198).

Both examples shown are of a Phoenician type of vessel from the “Black-on-Red” (BoR) family.6 They can be described as a shallow bowl with a simple rim and sides straightening as they reach the top part of the vessel. A parallel was found at Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit, Stratum 2b that was dated to the 9th century BCE. Bowls of this type are not common in sites in the south (for an extensive discussion, see Schreiber 2003: 212–219).

These small bowls look like a cup, and are defined by their shape and assumed function. Common to these vessels are their thin, perforated sides. One of the examples shown has a round vertical handle. The best parallel for the vessels found here was found at Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit in Area B, defined as an olive oil production area dating to the 8th century BCE (Gal and Alexandre 2000: 170: 185–86). At Hazor, Area Q, in a cemetery dating to the 9th and 8th centuries BCE, a vessel similar to BL6 was found. This vessel has a tripod base (Ben Tor 1996: 69). Stratum Area B Area Q

Parallel Freud 1999: fig. 6.74: 6

BL8 – Black-on-Red bowl

Freud 1999: fig. 6.67: 6; 6.69: 3 Dothan 1971: fig. 88: 7 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 28: 1

BL6 – Perforated Bowl

Site Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit Hazor

Stratum VII

Table 2.9: Parallels for BL7

Table 2.7: Parallels for BL5

Class BL6.1

Site Tel ‘Ira

Class BL8

Site Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit Achziv

Stratum IIb

Parallel Gal and Alexandre 2000: fig. III: 77: 12

Tomb Z I

Dayagi-Mendels 2002: fig. 3.1: 14

Table 2.10: Parallels for BL8

Funnel (Fig. 2.7) This vessel is unique, with no parallels. The side of the vessel has two identical holes in its center, made prior to firing. The base of the vessel is open at its base, suggesting it may have been used as a type of funnel, but the exact method of usage is unclear. The vessel lacks decoration.

Parallel Gal and Alexandre 2000: fig. VI: 11: 30 Ben Tor 1996: fig. 2: 6

Table 2.8: Parallels for BL6

Lamps (Fig. 2.7)

BL7– Bowl with a tripod base BL7.1 – A bowl with a carination on the upper part of the vessel, straight sides, a simple rim and thick legs, was found in the 1960s and were displayed at the now defunct “Museum of the Shephelah” in Kfar Menahem. In the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage, several such bowls were discovered, as

Three types and subtypes of lamps were noted. L1.1 – A shallow, pinched lamp. This lamp is typical of all stages of the Iron Age. Parallels for this type appear for example in Tel Batash, Strata IV– II. Predominant in Stratum IV, dating to the 10th century BCE, its appearance decreases in Stratum III, and more so in Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-

6

KM54 and KM55; see Ben-Shlomo, this volume).

The vessels were identified as imports through petro– graphic analysis by D. Ben-Shlomo (example number

63

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Cohen 2001: 134–35). It also appears in Gezer in the middle of the 8th century BCE, continuing in the 7th century BCE (Gitin 1990: 225). In Tell esSafi/Gath, a parallel was found in Stratum A2 (Avissar and Maeir 2012: 377–78). L1.2 – A deep, pinched lamp. A single parallel to this type was found in Gezer, Stratum VIB. Gitin noted that the clay is typical of the 9th and 8th centuries BCE (Gitin 1990: 225–27). L2.1 – A pinched lamp with thickened, rounded base. This type is similar to L1 in its shape, but is smaller and its base is thicker. This lamp is similar in shape to L1, but with a thickened base.7 Due to its relatively small size, the possibility that it is a votive vessel should be considered. While lamps with thickened disk bases are common in the Iron IIC (e.g. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 134), the Ḥorvat Shimon lamp does not have such a base and is most probably a variation of L1.1. Class L1.1

L1.2

Site Tel Batash

Stand (Fig. 2.7) Only one stand (height 5.5 cm; upper diameter 10.5 cm and lower diameter 13 cm) was found in the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage, although its context was not clear, having been found in the 1960s exploration of the site. Parallels to this type were found at Iron Age II Ashdod and Tel Batash. In the latter site, it is also noted that this is the most common type throughout the Iron Age II (Mazar and Panitz Cohen 2001: 137). A parallel to this type was found in Stratum A3 at Tell es-Safi/Gath (Shai and Maeir 2012). Class ST

Stratum III

Parallel Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 92: 14 Gezer VB/VA Gitin 1990 pl.19: 7 Tell esA2 Avissar and Maeir Safi/Gath 2012 Gezer VIB Gitin 1990: pl. 11: 8 Table 2.11: Parallels for Lamps

7

Parallel Dothan 1971: fig. 44: 8 Tel BaII Mazar and Panitztash Cohen 2001: pl. 38: 15 A3 Shai and Maeir Tell es2012 Safi/Gath Table 2.13: Parallels for Stand

KR1 – Long-necked closed krater (Pl 2.15: 1– 2) Two variants of this type were defined. KR1.1 – A closed krater with straight neck and everted rim. The rim diameter is approximately 20 cm. A parallel appears in Ashdod, Stratum 3a (Dothan 1971: 104). KR1.2 – A closed krater with inverted neck and hammerhead rim. The rim diameter is approximately 22.5 cm. A parallel appears at Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 3a-c, dating to the second half of the 8th century BCE. The excavators noted that this type is not common at the site, but is typical of other Negev sites in this period (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 145). KR2.1 – A krater with thickened, everted rim. The rim diameter is about 17 cm. Both examples of this type are hand burnished, typical of the Iron Age IIA. At Tel Batash, this vessel is found mainly in Stratum IV, but continues to appear scarcely in Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 63–64).

Two chalice fragments were found, representing parts of a base (CH1.1) and a bowl (CH2.1). The fragments of the chalices are covered with a thick patina and no decoration could be identified. CH1.1 – A chalice with a sharply carinated, stepped base and an open bowl. The leg of the chalice is 8 cm, as is the diameter of the base. The base was found during the excavation in the 1960s. While no exact parallel for this base was found, Dothan (1971: 100) noted that the bowl of the chalice found in Ashdod, Stratum 3b is the most typical in the region with minor changes throughout the period. Site Ashdod

Stratum 3b

Kraters (Fig. 2.8)

Chalice (Fig. 2.7)

Class CH1.1

Site Ashdod

Stratum 3b

Parallel Dothan 1971: fig. 44: 4 Table 2.12: Parallels for Chalice

For further discussion, see Amiran 1969: 292–93.

64

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS

Fig. 2.7: Funnel, Lamps, Chalice and Stands from Ḥorvat Shimon

65

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON KR3 – A closed krater, with a short neck and plain rim, thickened in its outer part. The rim diameter is about 20–25 cm. No parallels were found for this type. KR4 – Open krater. The rim diameter is about 25– 30 cm. This type has two variants: KR4.1 – A krater with round sides and a hammerhead rim. All examples shown have two handles extending from the rim of the vessel to the shoulder. Parallels for this type were found at Ashdod, Stratum 3b-1. Dothan noted that this type is typical of the Iron Age II in Ashdod (Dothan 1971: 107). At Tel Batash, this vessel is found mainly in Stratum IV, but continues to appear scarcely in Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 63– 64). KR4.1.1 – This type is identical to type KR4.1, except for the slight carination in the body of the vessel. An identical parallel was found in Ashdod, Area K, Stratum 6, dating to the Iron II (Dothan 1971: 169). In Gezer, Stratum VIA, a parallel for this type was found. Gitin mentioned that this type is an evolvement of an earlier krater with a thickened rim (Gitin 1990: 205). Class KR1.1

Site Ashdod

Stratum 3a

KR1.2

Kadesh Barnea

3a – b

KR2.1

Tel Batash

IVB

KR4.1

Ashdod

3a, 2–1

KR4.1.1

found in Ashdod, Strata 2–1, dating to the Iron Age II, although they lack handles. According to Dothan, this type is very common (Dothan 1971: 109). CP2 – Closed cooking pot CP2.1 – A closed cooking pot with inverted neck and a thickened, grooved rim. In Ashdod, throughout all of the Iron Age Strata, cooking pots are uncommon, however Type CP2.1 is one of the only variants found there. This type is typical of the south and is dated to the 8th century BCE (Dothan 1971: 98). A similar type was found in Lachish, Level III (Zimhoni 1999: 221). CP2.2 – A cooking pot with a carination on its upper part with a ridge on its outer thickened rim. At Tel Batash, this type begins to appear in Stratum IV, is most common in Stratum III, and continues into Stratum II, although in lesser quantities (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 83–84). A parallel to this type was found at Tel 'Ira, Stratum VII. According to the excavators, this is the most common type in Judah (Freud 1999: 201). Cooking pots of this type were found in BeerSheba, Stratum II. Singer-Avitz suggested that this was a Judahite type (Singer-Avitz 1999: 14).

Parallel Dothan 1971: fig. 50: 9 Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pl. 11.33: 1 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 4: 5

Class CP1

Parallel Dothan 1971: fig. 55: 7–8 CP2.1 Ashdod 3b Dothan 1971: fig. 40: 11 Lachish III Zimhoni 1997: fig. 5.6: 2 CP2.2 Tel BaIII Mazar and Panitztash Cohen 2001: pl. 28: 8; 7: 1–3 Tel ‘Ira VII Freud 1999: fig. 6.84: 10 CP2.3 Ashdod 2 Dothan 1971: fig. 55: 2, 4 Tel BaIII Mazar and Panitztash Cohen 2001: pl. 23: 13 Table 2.15: Parallels for Cooking Pots

Dothan 1971: fig. 50: 6; Dothan 1971: fig. 54: 12 Tel BaIII Mazar and Panitztash Cohen 2001: pl. 25: 9 Ashdod 6 Dothan 1971: fig. 94: 1 Gezer VIA Gitin 1990: pl. 21: 6 Table 2.14: Parallels for Kraters

Cooking Pots (Fig. 2.9) The cooking pots were divided into four types and subtypes.

Site Ashdod

Stratum 2–1

CP2.3 – A closed cooking pot with a low neck and a ridge on the rim. A parallel for this type of cooking pot appears in Ashdod, Stratum II. Dothan noted that as opposed to the other types of vessels found in Ashdod, cooking pots have parallels from Judahite sites with strata from the same time periods (Dothan 1971: 108).

CP1 – Rounded cooking pot with a thickened, grooved rim and four handles. Only one such vessel was found in the excavations. The diameter of the vessel’s rim is 40 cm, and its size is significantly larger than other cooking pots at the site. No exact parallel was found, but similar characteristics appear in cooking pots

66

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS

Fig. 2.8: Kraters from Ḥorvat Shimon

67

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Storage Jars (Fig. 2.10–Fig. 2.11)

SJ2 – Jar with flaring rim

The assemblage of storage jars included a large number of types, although only three complete jars were found. For this reason, the typology of the jars was based solely on the shape of the rims. The assemblage was divided into 12 types and subtypes.

A parallel to this jar was found in Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 3a–b, dated to the second half of the 8th century BCE, in Silo L675 (Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007). Class SJ2

SJ1– Elongated Jar with a short neck The shoulder of the jar is either carinated or rounded. The rim of the jar is simple, usually straight, although in several cases it also leans outward. In some of the jars of this type the rim is thickened in its lower part, causing an inner protrusion where the rim and shoulder connect. All three complete jars found at the site were of this type, all with two handles extending from the shoulder towards the body of the jar. These jars appear at Tel Batash, Stratum III, although they are most common in Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 98–99). Parallels were also found in Lachish, Level III. Zimhoni noted that while this type is coastal, in the 8th century BCE appears in sites in the interior of the country as well. Throughout the 7th century BCE, a modification occurred to the shape of the jar, expressed in the extended height and width of the vessel (Zimhoni 1997: 235). These storage jars are very common in Strata A3 (Shai and Maeir 2012: 329) and A2 (Avissar and Maeir 2012: 372). Class SJ1

Site Tel Batash

Site Kadesh Barnea

Stratum 3a–b

Parallel Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pl. 11.52: 12 Table 2.17: Parallels for SJ2

SJ3 – LMLK 8 and LMLK-like jars: Jar with inverted neck and a simple rim Several variants of this type appear, including: a thickened rim on the outer part, a groove under the rim and a hammerhead rim. Zimhoni (1997: 221– 32) differentiated the “LMLK” jars and the “LMLK-like” jars based on two criteria: 1. “LMLK” jars are characterized by brownreddish clay and white temper, as opposed to “LMLK-like” jars that are made of light brown-yellowish clay. 2. “LMLK-like” jars have a ridge on the shoulder of the vessel. Shai and Maeir (2003) suggested identifying the type that Zimhoni termed “LMLK-like” as “pre-LMLK,” and state that this type first appeared already in Stratum XII in Arad, dating to the 10th century BCE. Gitin suggested defining this type of jar and its related variants as “oval jars.” This stems from the fact that this type of jar appears even before the 8th century BCE and continues into the 7th century. Therefore, the name LMLK should not relate to the entire family, since the seals appear on the handles of some of them only in the 8th century BCE. Gitin also suggested dividing the LMLK family of jars into six types (Gitin 2006: 505–24).9

Stratum III

Parallel Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pls. 20: 3; 88: 6 Lachish III–II Zimhoni 1997: fig. 5.18: 4; 5.19: 4 A2 Avissar and Maeir Tell es2012: pl. 15.2: 13 Safi/Gath Table 2.16: Parallels for SJ1

8

9

One should note that “LMLK” handles were not found at the site. Therefore, the suggested identification is based on shape and pottery fabric.

For additional discussions on the dating and definition of the “LMLK jars” at Lachish, see Ussishkin 2004; 2011; 2012; Lipschits 2012; Lipschits et al. 2010; 2011; Sergi et al. 2012.

68

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS

Fig. 2.9: Cooking Pots from Ḥorvat Shimon

69

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON

Fig. 2.10: Storage Jars from Ḥorvat Shimon

70

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS

Fig. 2.11: Storage Jars from Ḥorvat Shimon

71

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON SJ3.1 – A jar with inverted neck and simple rim. This type appeared in Tel Batash already in Stratum IV, but only in small quantities. It primarily appears in Stratum III, decreasing in quantity in Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 93– 96). Gitin dated the main appearance of this type in Gezer to the second half of the 8th century BCE, and the end of its appearance no later than the beginning of the 7th century BCE (Gitin 1990: 123– 24). At Tell es-Safi\Gath, this type appears already in Stratum A3 and continues into Stratum A2 (Avissar and Maeir 2012: 370–71).10 Zimhoni stated that the two types (LMLK-like and LMLK) cannot be chronologically distinguished (Zimhoni 1997: 221–32). Several variants were classified: SJ3.1.1 – A jar with inverted neck and thickened rim on the exterior. SJ3.1.2 – A jar with inverted neck, simple rim and a groove below the rim). Note that the example shown here is the only example of a LMLK jar, according to the type of clay. SJ3.1.3 – A jar with inverted neck and hammerhead rim. Class SJ3.1

SJ3.1.1 SJ3.1.3

Site Tel Batash

Class SJ4

Site Ashdod

Stratum 3

Tel Batash

III

Parallel Dothan 1971: fig. 38: 4 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pls. 17: 10; 20: 1–2

Table 2.19: Parallels for SJ4

SJ5 – Jar with short, ridged neck and a grooved rim A parallel for this vessel was found in Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 3b, dating to the second half of the 8th century BCE (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 152). Another parallel was found at Lachish, Level III (Zimhoni 2004: 1802–03). Class SJ5

Site Kadesh Barnea

Stratum 3b

Lachish

III

Parallel Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pls. 11.40: 6; 11.41: 23 Zimhoni 2004: fig. 26.13: 8

Table 2.20: Parallels for SJ5

SJ6 – Jar with very short neck and thickened rim on its exterior

Stratum III

Parallel Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 16: 2 Gezer VIa,VIb Gitin 1990: pls. 16: 1;15: 12 Tell esA3, A2 Shai and Maeir Safi/Gath 2012; Avissar and Maeir 2012 Tel BaIII Mazar and Panitztash Cohen 2001: pl. 16: 5 Lachish III Zimhoni 1997: fig. 5.15 : 1 Table 2.18: Parallels for SJ3

This type appears in Lachish, Locus 4595, Stratum III (Zimhoni 2004: 1842). In Ashdod, Area M, Stratum 8, this type appears as a variant of the large, sack-shaped jar. Dothan and Porath (1982: 31–32) suggested that this type had four handles. Class SJ6

Site Lachish

Stratum III

Ashdod

8

Parallel Zimhoni 2004: fig. 26.24: 8 Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 16: 4

Table 2.21: Parallels for SJ6

SJ4 – Jar with inverted short neck and thickened rim

SJ7 – Jar with straight neck, thickened rim with an external groove

A parallel was found in Ashdod, Stratum 3. Dothan noted that this jar is typical of 8th century BCE Ashdod, and continues appearing with slight modifications in the 7th–6th centuries BCE as well (Dothan 1971: 95). At Tel Batash, Stratum III, this type beings to appear, and becomes more common in Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 98).

Only one example was found in the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage, with no parallels. SJ8 – Jar with a short, ridged neck and a hammerhead rim A similar vessel from the 8th century BCE was found in Ashdod, Stratum 3 (Dothan 1971: 95). At

10

It should be noted that “LMLK” handles were not found during the recent excavations at Tell esSafi/Gath. A few such handles were found by Bliss and

Macalister (Bliss 1899: 193; Bliss and Macalister 1902: 106–23), and Maeir (2012: fig. 1.31).

72

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS Tell es-Safi/Gath, this type appears in Stratum A2 (Avissar and Maeir, 2012: 372). Class SJ8

Site Ashdod

Stratum 3

Tell esSafi/Gath

A2

•

JG2.1.2 – A jug with inverted neck and rim leaning inwards, with handle protruding from the rim to the side of the vessel. • JG2.1.3 – A jug with straight neck leaning inwards with thickened rim towards the exterior. Such jugs appear at Tel Batash, Strata IV–II, where it constitutes about 60% of all of the jugs found in Stratum III. In Stratum II, this type constitutes about 50% of all of the jugs (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 111–12). This type was also found in Ashdod, Stratum 3a (Dothan 1971: 99). In Lachish, Level III, Zimhoni presents a type identical to this jug, but with no parallels (Zimhoni 2004: 1865). About 69% of the assemblage of jugs in Stratum A3 at Tell es-Safi/Gath belong to this type, which is the most common according to Shai and Maeir (2012). The earlier form of this type (9th century BCE) has a rounder body than the vessels from the 8th–7th centuries BCE, which have an oval body and a thinner wall. Ben-Shlomo et al. (2008) suggested that this type was used in the Iron Age II as a cooking jug, explaining the rarity of cooking pots in this stratum at Tell esSafi/Gath (Shai and Maeir 2012: 334; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008).

Parallel Dothan 1971: fig. 38: 5 Avissar and Maeir 2012: 373

Table 2.22: Parallels for SJ8

SJ9 – Holemouth Jar This type has a flat horizontal rim. A parallel to this holemouth was found in Ashdod, Area D, Stratum 2, dated to the Iron Age II. Dothan (1971: 110) noted that this type differs from those in Stratum 3 in the shape of the rim and its diameter. Class SJ9

Site Ashdod

Stratum 2

Parallel Dothan 1971: fig. 57: 2

Table 2.23: Parallels for SJ9

Jugs (Fig. 2.12, Fig. 2.13) The jugs found at Ḥorvat Shimon were divided into 18 types and subtypes. JG1 – Straight-necked jug with plain rim, a handle extending from the rim to the shoulder, and a disc base

Class JG2

Only one whole vessel of this type was found at Ḥorvat Shimon. A parallel to this type was found in Ashdod, Stratum 3b, where it was very common. Dothan mentioned that the vessel appears in several variants and sizes (Dothan 1971: 99). Zimhoni presented examples of this type in Lachish, Level III (Zimhoni 2004: 1834). Class JG1

Site Ashdod

Stratum 3b

Lachish

III

Site Tel Batash

Stratum III

Ashdod

3a; 3b

Lachish

III

Tell esSafi/Gath

A3; A2

Parallel Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 21: 10, 11 Dothan 1971: fig. 51: 1, 2; Dothan 1971: fig. 42: 2 Zimhoni 2004: fig. 26.39: 11 Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.17: 10; Avissar and Maeir 2012: pl.15.8: 9

Table 2.25: Parallels for JG2

Parallel Dothan 1971: fig. 42: 1 Zimhoni 2004: fig. 26.18: 15

JG3 – Short-straight necked jug with upper thickened rim

Table 2.24: Parallels for JG1

This type appears at Tel Batash solely in Stratum IV, and seems to be rare. The excavators suggested that although the clay that the jug is made of is not typical of a cooking vessel, it can belong to the cooking jug family, typical of assemblages from the 10th–8th centuries BCE (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 109–11). Another parallel was uncovered at Tel Lachish, Stratum III. Zimhoni (2004: 1834) identified this type as a cooking jug.

JG2 – Jug with inverted neck This type has several variants in the rim form: • JG2.1 – A jug with inverted neck and hammerhead rim, with one handle protruding from the rim to the shoulder. • JG2.1.1 – A jug with inverted neck and folded, rounded rim.

73

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Class JG3

Site Tel Batash

Stratum IV

Lachish

III

JG6 – Jug with long, arched neck and inverted rim

Parallel Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 81: 8 Zimhoni 2004: Fig. 26.18: 15

The vessel has two handles protruding from the rim to the side of the vessel, and a ring base. One jug of this type was found in the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage. The jug is distorted, probably from exposure to high temperatures.12 The vessel is decorated in the LPDW style. A parallel was found in Stratum A3 at Tell es-Safi/Gath, where one example of this type was found. As opposed to the ring-shaped base of the jug from Ḥorvat Shimon, the base of the jug from Tell es-Safi/Gath is rounded (Maeir and Shai 2012: 338–39).

Table 2.26: Parallels for JG3

JG4 – Straight-necked jug with gutter rim This jug, with a straight neck and spouted, plain rim, was also found at Tel Batash, Stratum IVb, dating to the 10th century BCE (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 13). Class JG4

Site Tel Batash

Stratum IVB

Parallel Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 5: 9

Class JG6

Table 2.27: Parallels for JG4

JG5 – Jug with long, narrow, ridged neck

Site Tell esSafi/Gath Beth Shemesh

Stratum A3

Parallel Maeir and Shai 2012: pl. 14.9: 6 Amiran 1969: Photo 240.

Table 2.29: Parallels for JG6

This type has two variants: simple rim and outerthickened rim. JG5.1 – A jug with long, narrow, ridged neck and simple rim. A parallel for this type was found in Stratum III at Tel Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 45). JG5.2 – A jug with long, narrow, ridged neck and thickened rim. One of the examples of this type is decorated with vertical burnish lines, and three black horizontal bands below the rim. This style of decoration is related to the Late Philistine Decorated Ware (LPDW; see Ben-Shlomo, Shai and Maeir 2004). One parallel for this type was found in Tell es-Safi/Gath, in Stratum A2; although the decoration is different, it has a very similar shape (Avissar and Maeir 2012: 374).11 An additional parallel was found in Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni 2004: 1719–21). Class JG5.1

Site Tel Batash

Stratum III

JG5.2

Tell esSafi/Gath

A2

Lachish

IV

JG7 – Long-necked jug with folded, everted rim Only one item of this type appears in the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage, and it is decorated in LPDW style. A parallel was found in Ashdod, Stratum 2. The excavator noted that this is a type with an unusually shaped rim (Dothan 1971: 109). Another parallel was found in Gezer, Stratum VIIA (Gitin 1990: pl. 19: 11). Class JG7

Site Ashdod

Stratum 2

Gezer

VIIA

Parallel Dothan 1971: fig. 56 : 26 Gitin 1990: pl. 9: 11

Table 2.30: Parallels for JG7

JG8 – Jug with narrow neck and flaring rim This vessel has a handle extending from the center of the neck to the shoulder. The body of the vessel is round, and it has a ring base. The example shown here is decorated in LPDW style. Parallels for this vessel were found at Gezer, and in Ashdod, Stratum 3b (Dothan 1971: 99). Shai and Maeir (2012: 335) published an identical vessel from the Iron IIA assemblage at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A3 (Shai and Maeir 2012).

Parallel Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 21: 20 Avissar and Maeir 2012: pl. 15.6: 4 Zimhoni 2004: fig. 25.19: 3, 25.20: 21

Table 2.28: Parallels for JG5

11

12

The excavators suggested that this jug was used for cooking, due to the soot marks identified on the base of the vessel (Avissar and Maeir 2012: 374).

The cause of the high temperature is not clear, whether intentional or not, or whether related to a conflagration.

74

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS Class JG8

Site Gezer Ashdod

Stratum

Tell esSafi/Gath

A3

3b

decoration may hint to a Cypriot origin (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 151).

Parallel Gitin 1990: pl. 45: 2 Dothan 1971: fig. 41: 24 Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.12: 5

Class JG10

Table 2.31: Parallels for JG8

JG9 – Narrow-necked jug with pinched rim

Site Achziv

Stratum Tomb ZR XXXVI

Stratum VA 3a–b

Parallel Gitin 1990: pl. 25: 1 Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pl. 11.33: 7

Table 2.33: Parallels for JG10

The vessel has a handle extending from the rim to the shoulder. The body is round and it has a ring base. A parallel to this vessel was found in Achziv, Tomb ZRXXXVI, dated from the 10th century until the 7th century BCE. There, it is defined as a subtype of JG2 (Type JG2 IV), and is characterized by a lack of decoration and difference in the shape of the neck (Dayagi-Mendels 2002: 124). Morphologically, however, this vessel is clearly influenced by the “Achziv vessel” family.13 Class JG9

Site Gezer Kadesh Barnea

JG11 – Long, narrow-necked jug with a round body and pinched rim The handle of this vessel rises above the height of the rim and attaches to the vessel’s shoulder. The vessel is red-slipped and vertically burnished, with black bands on the center of the body, typical of the LPDW style. This is a variant of the Achziv jugs, dating from the 8th century to the 7th century BCE (Dayagi-Mendels 2002: 124). Amiran mentioned that this type is typical of the ceramic culture of the northern Levant, and included it under the title “Phoenician vessels” (Amiran 1969: 272).14

Parallel Dayagi-Mendels 2002: fig. 4.27: 17

Table 2.32: Parallels for JG9

Class JG11

JG10 – Narrow-necked jug with everted rim This jug has a ring base and a neck with a ridge in its center, out of which a handle extends to the shoulder. The four vessels of this type in the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage are decorated in the LPDW style. JG10 as well as JG11 (see below) are types in which a clear northern influence can be seen. Yet, although their shape is similar to “Achziv vessels,” the clay and the style of decoration are local. JG10 appears in the Gezer assemblage in a later stratum, where it is rare, but Gitin suggests that it belongs to an earlier period according to its morphological similarity to vessels from Lachish and Ashdod which date to the Iron Age IIB (Gitin 1990: 152–53). In Kadesh Barnea, a similar vessel was found, dated to the end of the Iron Age. The excavators noted that the shape and

Site Hazor

Stratum IX–X

Achziv

Z XX

Parallel Amiran 1969: pl. 92: 1 Dayagi-Mendels 2002: fig. 3.16: 12

Table 2.34: Parallels for JG11

JG12 – Straight-necked jug with ridged rim A parallel for this type was found in Gezer, from the middle of the 8th century BCE. Gitin stated that this type only appears in the lowlands and interior of the country, and no parallels were found in the coastal sites, Phoenicia and Transjordan (Gitin 1990: 146–47). Since his publication though, parallels have been found in the region of Philistia. An example was found at Tel Batash from the 10th century BCE, where it constitutes 10% of the assemblage of jugs, and this type continues to appear in Stratum III as well.

13

For discussions on the “Achziv Vessels,” see Amiran 1969: 272–73; Dayagi-Mendels 2002. 14 For an extended discussion about the relation and influence of “northern” vessels on the LPDW style, see

Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004; Maeir and Shai 2015; contra Faust 2015.

75

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON

Fig. 2.12: Jugs from Ḥorvat Shimon

76

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS

Fig. 2.13: Jugs from Ḥorvat Shimon

77

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON

Fig. 2.14: Juglets from Ḥorvat Shimon

78

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS JL2.1 – An elongated dipper juglet with a straight neck and plain rim. Another subtype of this form was defined, having a trefoil rim (JL2.1.1) Parallels for JL2.1 can be found in Stratum VIA in Gezer (Gitin 1990: 157). Juglets of this style were also found in Ashdod, Stratum 3a–b (Dothan 1971: 101–02). A parallel to type JL2.1.1 was found at Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2, dated to the end of the 8th century BCE. The excavators noted that juglets of this type are more common in Judah than in the south (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 162) JL2.2 – A dipper juglet with a squat body and simple rim. Parallels for this juglet were found in Kadesh Barnea, beginning with Stratum 4 (10th century BCE), but common throughout the entire Iron Age II (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 135–36). A similar juglet was found in Ashdod, Stratum 3a–b (Dothan 1971: 101). JL2.3 – A globular dipper juglet with a long neck, an everted rim, a wide mouth, and a handle that rises above the rim. Although these types of juglets are defined as dipper juglets, they are different than the other dippers in that the sides of the vessel are thin, and the neck constitutes about 50% of the vessel’s size. Only a single juglet of this type was found in the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage. Parallels were found for this vessel, including a vessel of similar proportions in Ashdod, Stratum 2 (Dothan 1971: 109).

Mazar and Panitz-Cohen (2001: 112–130 stated that this is a rare type that sometimes appears with burnishing. At Tell es-Safi/Gath, one such vessel was found in Stratum A2 (Avissar and Maeir 2012). It has been suggested that these jugs continue the tradition of earlier cooking jugs from Philistia (see Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008). Class JG12

Site Gezer Tel Batash

Stratum VIA III

Tell esSafi/Gath

A2

Parallel Gitin 1990: pl. 19: 6 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. :21 19, 26: 6 Avissar and Maeir 2012: fig. 15.6.12

Table 2.35: Parallels for JG12

JG13 – Short-necked jug with a thickened, everted rim No parallel was found for this type. JG14 – Narrow-necked jug with a gutter rim The jug has a handle extending from the middle of the neck. In the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage, only one rim from this type of vessel was found. A parallel for this type appears in Stratum 3a–b at Kadesh Barnea, dated to the second half of the 8th century BCE (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 151–152). Class JG14

Site Kadesh Barnea

Stratum 3a–b

Parallel Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pl. 11.33: 8

Class JL2.1

Table 2.36: Parallels for JG14 JL2.1.2

Juglets (Fig. 2.14) The Ḥorvat Shimon juglet assemblage is divided into 12 types and subtypes. JL1 – juglet with spouted, pinched rim, long neck and ring base

JL2.2

JL1 has a handle with a worn-out plastic decoration. The juglet is decorated in the LPDW style. The shape of the vessel and the style of decoration are identical to JG11, distinguished only by its smaller size (see discussion on JG11 above).

JL2.3

Site Gezer

Stratum VIA

Ashdod

3a

Kadesh Barnea

3a–b

Tel Batash

IV

Ashdod

3b

Kadesh Barnea

3a–b

Ashdod

2–1

Parallel Gitin 1990: pl. 19: 10 Dothan 1971: fig. 50: 12 Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pls. 11.68: 1–2; 11.99: 12 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 8: 10 Dothan 1971: fig. 45: 16–17 Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pl. 11.33: 1 Dothan 1971: fig. 56: 5

Table 2.37: Parallels for JL2

JL3 – Juglet with spherical body and plain rim JL2 – Dipper juglet This type has several variants: JL3.1 – A juglet with a spherical body, a round base and a simple, pinched rim. No parallels were found for this type in the Shephelah. A similar

This type appears in three main forms: elongated, squat and globular.

79

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON JL4 – “Black juglet” – spherical juglet with a long, narrow neck and plain rim

vessel was found in the assemblage of Grave Z XIV at Achziv. The pottery assemblage in the grave was dated from the 8th–6th centuries BCE (Dayagi-Mendels 2002: 62). JL3.2 – A spherical juglet with a ring base, long neck and plain rim. Only one vessel of this type was found in the assemblage, decorated with red and black paint. The decoration is divided into three registers, alternating between panels of parallel lines, divided by a wavy vertical line. Horizontal black lines are also painted on the handle. A similar vessel was found at Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2, dated to the 7th–6th centuries BCE (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 163). The example from the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage is decorated with red and black lines that form a kind of grid. It seems that this decoration is irregular and no parallel was found at other sites. JL3.3 – A spherical juglet with a plain rim and a spout protruding from the body of the vessel. Such juglets either have a round or ring base. This type is similar in shape to JL3.1, other than the spout protruding from the body of the vessel at a 90° angle to the handle. Parallels to this vessel were found in Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 4 (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 4–5), Tel Batash, Stratum IVB (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 4–5), and Gezer, Stratum VIB. According to Gitin, this vessel appears during the 11th–6th centuries BCE. The earlier vessels have a wide neck as opposed to the later vessels that have a narrow neck. It seems that the vessels found in the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage are of the later type (Gitin 1990: 162– 63). Class JL3.1

Site Achziv

Stratum ZR XIV

JL3.2

Kadesh Barnea

2

Kadesh Barnea

4

Tel Batash

IVB

Gezer

VIB

JL3.3

Juglets of this type are usually made of gray-black colored clay and burnished, although some examples were made of light-colored clay. Several such juglets were found at Tel Batash, Strata III–II (four in Stratum III, two in Stratum II). The excavators noted that these juglets are very typical of settlement and burial contexts. They first appear in the 10th century BCE and become common throughout the 9th–8th centuries BCE. The type is mainly common in Judah, although they are also found in sites in the north, in coastal sites, and even in Transjordan. Based on the division presented by the excavators at Tel Batash, the juglet from the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage is typical of the mid-8th century BCE (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 127). A similar juglet was reported from Ashdod, Area D, Stratum 3. Dothan mentioned that these juglets are very rare in Philistine sites, appearing in the region towards the end of the Iron Age (Dothan 1971: 95). In the south as well, at Tel 'Ira, the juglet appears in late 8th century BCE contexts, such as Graves 14–15 and Stratum 7 (Beit Arieh et al. 1999: 149–55, 205). In Tombs 6 and 101 at Tell Beit Mirsim (dated to the 9th and 8th centuries BCE), a number of black juglets were found as well (Ben Arieh 2004: 20– 21, 31–32). Class JL4

Parallel Dayagi-Mendels 2002: fig. 5.8: 5 Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pl. 11.75: 6 Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pl. 11.2: 13 Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 1: 21

Site Tel Batash Ashdod

Stratum II

Tel ‘Ira

VII

Tell Beit Mirsim

Tomb 14, 15 Tomb 6, 110

3

Parallel Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pls. 29: 18; 38: 7 Dothan 1971: fig. 38: 7 Beit Arieh et al. 1999: figs. 4.29: 5–6; 4.33: 11–15 Freud 1999 fig. 6.80: 12 Ben Arieh 2004: figs. 2.47: 26–29; 2.82: 15, 16, 18

Table 2.39: Parallels for JL4

Pyxis (Fig. 2.14)

Gitin 1990: pl. 12: 26

Table 2.38: Parallels for JL3

Two types of pyxides were found which can be dated to the Iron Age II based on their degenerated shape and size. PY1.1 – A pyxis with two carinations, one on the shoulder of the vessel and the other near the base. The vessel has two vertical handles located on the shoulder, and a plain, straight rim. Parallels to this type were found at Tell Beit Mirsim and at Achziv

JL3 juglets are unique in the assemblage of juglets from Ḥorvat Shimon. The shape is similar to the dipper juglets, but the relationship between the size of the body and the neck is more similar to a jug.

80

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS in a grave dating to the 8th century BCE (DayagiMendels 2002: 89–90; Amiran 1969: pl. 96). PY2.1 – A small pyxis with a rounded body and plain rim. One vessel of this type was found, decorated in LPDW style. This vessel has no handles and its rim is simple and straight. No parallel was found for this type. Class PY 1.1

Site Beit Mirsim Achziv

Stratum B Tomb ZR XXXVI

was part of a set of ritual vessels that were exposed in a cultic corner (for further discussion see Maeir 2012: 37–38). Amiran noted that the origin of the shape of this vessel comes from the Mycenaean-Minoan world (Amiran 1969: 303).15 Class KER

Parallel Amiran 1969: pl. 96: 22 Dayagi-Mendels 2002: fig. 4.27: 79

Tell esSafi/Gath

A3

Parallel Dothan 1971: fig. 71: 1–5 Maeir 2012: fig. 1.24

Stoppers/lids (Fig. 2.16) Three types of stoppers/lids were found:

Flask (Fig. 2.14)

STP1 – Mushroom-shaped stopper

A single flask was discovered at Ḥorvat Shimon. Of the entire vessel, only the body was preserved, and it seems to have been burnished. The sides of the vessel are not symmetrical, and one of the sides is more arched than the other. Flasks of this type are typical of the Iron Ages IIB–IIC. Amiran (1969: 276) noted that this type of flask is common in the south, especially in Iron Age IIB. Site Ashdod

Stratum 3b

Table 2.42: Parallels for the Kernos

Table 2.40: Parallels for the Pyxis

Class FL1

Site Ashdod

Stratum G

The upper part of the stopper is wider in diameter from the jar neck and rests on the top of the rim. The lower part is slightly narrower than the width of the neck in order to seal the jar. STP2 – Dome Shaped stopper One stopper of this type was found in the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage. Since the stopper was shaped as a result of sealing a jar with soft clay, it is unlikely that the lid was intentionally burnt during its production, and it might have been burnt during the possible destruction of the site.

Parallel Dothan 1971: fig. 74: 14

Table 2.41: Parallels for the Flask

Kernos (Fig. 2.15)

STP3 – Lid with a handle

Portions of a kernos were found in the excavations at Ḥorvat Shimon, including the ring and one of four libation spouts in the form of a bull’s head. Other fragments of such a vessel were found in the 1960s at Ḥorvat Shimon. During the restoration work, we were able to connect the pieces from the former and recent excavations. Parallels to this vessel are well-known (see Dever 2001). For example, a parallel was found at Ashdod, Area D, Strata 3b-1 (Dothan 1971). Another parallel was found in Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A3, where it

This object is handmade, and the fabric originally contained a substantial amount of organic material. Its diameter is about 18 cm.16 No parallel was found for this type. Class STP1 STP2

Site Tel Batash Lachish

Stratum II III

Parallel Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 75: 10 Sass 2004: fig. 28.1: 9–11

Table 2.43: Parallels for the Stoppers

15

For additional discussions on kernoi, see Hachlili 1971; Bignasca 2000. 16 This vessel is discussed here because of its functionality, but regarding the material and production method

(unfired handmade vessel), it can be attributed to the handmade vessels discussed below. Note that the treating of this vessel as a lid stems only from its shape; this vessel may have been used for a different function.

81

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON

Fig. 2.15: The Kernos from Ḥorvat Shimon

82

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS

Fig. 2.16: Stoppers and Handmade Vessels from Ḥorvat Shimon

83

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Handmade Vessels (Fig. 2.16)

were made in workshops in the Negev Highlands and were distributed from there (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004: 141). Haiman and Goren (1992: 149) suggested that the lack of typological changes in the shapes of the vessels comes from the lack of change in nomadic socio-economic status over time. In the past, when handmade vessels were found in Iron Age contexts along with standard pottery imported from Judah, this was understood as indicating that the Negebite vessels were made mostly for food production, because of their high durability to temperature changes, while imported vessels were used for other household functions. Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg (2007: 210) suggested that these vessels were made locally for personal household needs. The picture that the excavators have presented fits the information from the findings and the stratigraphic analysis of Ḥorvat Shimon. In other words, these simple vessels were made at the site itself, in order to meet the immediate needs of the site’s inhabitants (for further discussion, see Dagan 2011).

In the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage, a large amount of low-quality, handmade pottery was found. These vessels, fired at a low temperature, are similar in shape, clay composition, and formation technique to Negebite vessels.17 The Handmade Vessel (HMV) assemblage was divided into four different types: • HMV1 – A basin. Large bowl with flat base and straight sides. This type appears in two variants: simple rim and thickened rim in its inner part. • HMV2 – A deep bowl with straight sides and simple rim. • HMV3 – A jar with simple, everted neck • HMV4 – A barrel. A large receptacle with straight sides leaning towards the interior of the vessel. This type appears in two variants in the assemblage: four-handled barrels and barrels with no handles. The assemblage of handmade vessels should be attributed to the Negebite family, despite being found outside of the Negev. The resemblance between the vessels suggests that this was not a regional phenomenon as suggested by the name given to the vessels. Rather, the discovery of a large amount of such vessels at Ḥorvat Shimon suggests that there is a need to explain their presence in a different manner (Dagan 2011). Since these vessels appear from the 14th century BCE up until the Persian period, Cohen and Cohen-Amin claimed that the Negebite vessels are not chronologically indicative. They proposed that when dating the “Negebite” vessels, they should be dated according to the accompanying ceramic assemblages (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004: 140–41). Since the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage is dated to the Iron Age IIB, the handmade vessels from the site should be attributed to this time period. Different suggestions have been made regarding the origin and function of vessels of this type. Wooley and Lawrence were the first to identify this type of vessel in 1905 (Haiman and Goren 1992: 143). Following the excavations at Tell elKhuleifa, Glueck suggested that desert nomads made the vessels (Glueck 1959: 931). Aharoni also thought that these vessels were made by nomad potters, who wandered from place to place selling their wares (Aharoni 1975: 73–74). Cohen and Cohen-Amin suggested that these vessels

Class HMV1.1

Site Kadesh Barnea

Stratum 3b

Tel Batash HMV2.1

Kadesh Barnea

3b

HMV3.1

Kadesh Barnea

3c–3a

HMV4.1

Kadesh Barnea

3a

Parallel Cohen and BernickGreenberg: 2007 pl. 12.8: 9 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 59: 13 Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pl. 12.5: 20 Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pl. 12.20: 2 Cohen and BernickGreenberg 2007: pl. 12.20: 4

Table 2.44: Parallels for the HMV

OTHER FINDS Stone Objects (Fig. 2.17–Fig. 2.18) Several stone objects were found at Ḥorvat Shimon. Some 70% of the entire corpus of stone objects, including numerous stone vessels, grinding stones, mortars, and pestles, were found in Room C, indicating that the main activity here involved some sort of extensive grinding.

17

For extended discussions on the Negebite vessels, see Aharoni et al. 1960; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004; Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007.

84

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS Grindstones (Fig. 2.17: 4–8)

Stone Weights (Fig. 2.18: 1–2)

The upper grinding stone is a handheld millstone, with two main shapes: loaf-shaped and rounded. Most of the grinding stones that were exposed are loaf-shaped. This form is very common.

Two uninscribed stone weights were found. Weights of this type are typical for Judah at the end of the 8th century BCE until the beginning of the 6th century BCE (Kletter 1991: 47–48; 133– 34).19 Two types were distinguished: WT1 – a dome-shaped weight, weighing 90 grams (Fig. 2.18: 1); WT2 – a cube-shaped weight, weighing 83.5 grams (Fig. 2.18: 2).

Mortars and Pestles (Fig. 2.17: 3, 9) A number of mortars and pestles made of limestone were exposed at the site. Hovers (1976: 176) distinguished between stone bowls and mortars by checking the proportions of the depth of the vessel, compared to its diameter, with the higher the relative proportions, the more the vessel resembles a mortar.18 Based on this diagnostic method, only stone bowls were found in the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage.

Stone Box (Fig. 2.18: 4) A unique rounded stone cylindrical box and its lid were uncovered at the site. The box is made of a non-local stone identified as soapstone\steatite.20 The upper part of the lid was decorated with concentric circles, though their asymmetry may attest to its production or at least its decoration by an untrained hand. A shallow hole in the center of the lid indicates the use of some sort of compass to create the lines. On one side of the box and the lid respectively there are two engraved grooves. One can suggest that these grooves were used as a mechanism to lock the box. Two perforations were made in the lid. One is adjacent to the grooves, apparently drilled for the axis. The second hole in front of the central axis probably functioned as a hole for a handle. As soapstone is not locally found, the origin of the object must have been from another region. Natural quarrying sources for soapstone are known in Egypt, Asia Minor, Cyprus and Crete. The use of soapstone in ancient Egypt was very common, where the raw material was used for scarabs (Aston et al. 2000:58–59; Bard 2005: 667). According to Bard (2015: 164), soapstone and carnelian were the preferred stones for bead artisans. From the 3rd millennium BCE, faience was preferred as the raw material for small objects, overshadowing the use of soapstone (Tite et al. 2002: 587). No parallel was found from Egypt for this type of pyxis. It seems that the object should be related to a northern influence, based on nearly identical parallels that were exposed in Tell Judaidah and Çatal Hüyük, Turkey dated to the Amuq Phase O (Iron Age II– III, 900–550 BCE – Herrmann and Schloen 2015: 114–115). These parallels are important for

Scrapers (Fig. 2.17: 1–2) Two scrapers were found, in the vicinity (Rooms A and C) of the loom weights. Several suggestions for the function of these tools have been made. Gal and Alexandre (2000: 127) suggested that these tools were used for burnishing or pulverization. Cohen-Weinberger suggested that they were used for scrubbing the skin while bathing, or for scrubbing clothing while doing laundry (CohenWeinberger 2001: 229). Following Cohen-Weinberger’s second suggestion, we believe that in the case of Ḥorvat Shimon, these objects were used as part of the process of washing or fulling textiles, probably in the same fashion that teasels were used for raising the nap of woolen cloth by the fullers in pre-Roman Italy (Gleba 2008: 154; Goldman 2007). Parallel instances where such scrappers were found in the vicinity of loom weights can be seen at Tell esSafi/Gath in Areas A and D (unpublished); at Tel Amal (Edelstein 1971); at Tel Burna, where one was found in a courtyard in the vicinity of loom weights and some sort of drainage installation (I. Shai, pers. comm.); at Beth Shean, Stratum P-7, where Yahalom-Mack and Mazar (2006: 493) suggest linking them to household laundering or washing; and at Hazor, Area B, Stratum Va, in L 3100 (Yadin 1959: 57).

18

Cohen-Weinberger (2001: 226) showed that this diagnostic method is difficult to implement. 19 According to Kletter (1998: 141; see also appendix 4), 1 shekel=10.8–11.9 grams. In Judah, they used a

system based on multiples of two, four and eight. Based on this, our weights are equal to eight shekels. 20 The stone type was identified by O. Ackermann. For additional discussion, see Rapp 2009: 125–128; Connor et al. 2015.

85

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Loom weights and Spindles (Fig. 2.19)21

understanding the position of the handle and the locking mechanism. According to Herrmann and Schloen, these types of boxes are common luxury items in the Syro-Hittite kingdoms in the Iron Age. They also noted that these types of boxes appear on several stone stelae that commemorate feasting scenes (e.g., the “Katumuwa Stele” from Samʾal/Zincirli, dated to the reign of Panamuwa II, mid-8th Century BCE [Schloen 2015: 37]; the Neo-Assyrian relief of Ashurbanipal from the North Palace in Nineveh, dated to the 7th century BCE [Feldman 2015: 67]). Taking this into consideration, they suggested that these stone boxes may have been used for unique food types.

Approximately 150 loom weights,22 as well as several spindles, were found at the site. These findings attest to fabric production at the site. The process of producing fabric includes two main stages: spinning – turning fibers into threads; and weaving- turning threads into fabric. Spindle/distaff (Fig. 2.19: 8–9) Two types of spindles were discovered at the site: elliptical (SP1, Fig. 2.19: 8) and lens shaped (SP2, Fig. 2.19: 9). Research shows that the size of the spindle whorl was suited to the type of fiber being weaved. Meaning, for a more delicate thread, a lighter weight would be used, and vice versa (Avitzur 1976: 173; Brumfiel 1991: 228–21; Barber 1992: 52). The use of spindles and distaffs began in the Neolithic period, and they are still used today in developing societies (Barber 1992: 51; Shamir 2002: 24). As mentioned above, the purpose of the spinning process is to create a strong, flexible thread out of the fibers. The spindle is made of a wooden stick,23 no longer than 25–30 cm, with a weight set on top, shaped like a ring/disc, called the spindle whorl (Avitzur 1976: 173; Edelstein 1969: 19). Using weights allows for a fast, rotating motion of the stick, which causes the fiber to wind and become thread. Archaeological excavations show that the spindle whorls can be made of limestone, basalt, fired clay, wood etc. and they usually way 5–30 grams (Shamir 2002: 23).

Figurine (Fig. 2.18: 3) A broken faience figurine representing the bottom portion of a standing human was discovered. It appears that the figure was at least partially coated with a red color, as indicated by the trace remains between the toes of the left and right feet. Although broken, it appears that a stand was situated between his legs, as evidenced by a rectangular broken portion at the base between the two feet. The left leg is positioned forward, while the right foot is behind. According to Aldred (1980: 56), this position of the body is typical of Egyptian art. He noted that the stance of the figures is gender specific, with men standing with the left foot forward, while women are depicted with both feet together. In Canaanite, Hittite and Aegean cultures, the adoption of this Egyptian characteristic is notable. The common figure of Pharaoh standing with his front left foot forward, a hand raised above the head holding a club, receives renewed interpretation in the Canaanite, Hittite, and Aegean cultures in the image of the “smiting god” (for further details, see Münnich 2013; Klingbeil 1999: 165–178, 241–249, 264). Unfortunately, the remains of the figurine do not allow us to attribute its characteristics accurately, although it seems that it should be considered as an object imported from Egypt, based on the material from which it is made (turquoise-colored faience), and on the basis of the iconographic analysis.

Loom weights (Fig. 2.19: 1–7) A large assemblage of loom weights, including 120 artifacts (Fig. 2.19), were found in clusters, mostly in Areas A and B (Fig. 2.2–Fig. 2.3). The loom weights demonstrate a diversity of forms that are not commonly found in 8th century BCE sites in this region (Shamir 1996: 147–48; Friend 1998: 9, Dagan and Cassuto 2016). Three types were defined: “doughnut” shaped (LM1, Fig. 2.19: 1–2), conical (LM2, Fig. 2.19: 3–5) and “cigar-like” (LM3, Fig. 2.19: 6–7).

21

22

We thank Debi Cassuto for her help in defining the loom weights and spindle whorls. For further discussion, see Cassuto 2012: 467–79; Dagan and Cassuto 2016.

For an alternative explanation, see Lapp 1969: 47; Gal 1989. 23 There is evidence for the use of other materials for making a spindle stick. For example, at Tel Amal, an ivory spindle stick was found (Edelstein 1969: 20).

86

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS The presence of various types of weights at the site, of different sizes, is explained by the numerous fabrics of varying delicacies used in their production (Shamir 1997: 7). Two main groups were found: 1. In Unit A3, 32 “doughnut” shaped loom weights were exposed (L14). 2. In Unit B5, 65 loom weights were exposed, of all three types (L26). Thus, if there was weaving activity at the site, it most probably took place in Unit B, either on the ground or second floor.24

cm long. The entire object is perforated, suggesting its use as a straw. Maeir and Garfinkel (1992: 219–20) suggested that this type of object was used for filtering drinks. DISCUSSION OF THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE Chronology of the Assemblage Based on the comparison of the assemblage to other well-dated strata, it appears that the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage should be dated to somewhere in the 8th century BCE. While quite a few parallels with late 8th century BCE (e.g. Lachish, Level III) can be found, some of the attributes may point to a slightly earlier data (e.g.: BL3; BL4; significant amounts of LPDW; examples of preLMLK jars). One should note that this lack of clarity on the exact dating might be connected to the fact that two architectural phases were noted, but, as mentioned above, the excavators did not separate pottery from these two phases.

Metal Objects Arrowheads (Fig.2.20: 1–5) Five arrowheads (Fig. 2.20: 1–5), and an additional metal object which may be an arrowhead, were discovered. The latter object was found in poor condition, making it difficult to determine its original form. The presence of arrowheads can strengthen the suggestion that the cause of the cessation of settlement on the site was due to a destruction. Despite this, the small amount of arrowheads perhaps can be seen as being part of the everyday items found in the building – whether for military function or for hunting. The other arrowheads may be divided into two types: leaf-shaped (AH1 – Fig. 2.20: 1–2) and elongated (AH2 – Fig. 2.20: 3–5). The leaf-shaped arrowheads have a rounded rear end, are wide at the base and a narrow front part. The elongated arrowheads are narrow and elongated with a narrow rear. It should be noted that the so-called “Scythian” arrowheads, often associated with the Assyrian army (see Gottlieb 2004), were not found. Class AH 1

Site Lachish

Stratum III

AH 2

Lachish

III

Ceramic Regionalism Several types found at Ḥorvat Shimon indicate coastal influence. This group includes jars known as “coastal jars” (Fig. 2.10: 1–3), typical of coastal sites in the Iron Age IIB (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 207; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 100; Zimhoni 1997: 235). Other vessels in which a coastal orientation is evident are the vessels influenced by the Philistine culture, such as the cooking jugs (Fig. 2.12: 1–4), and the vessels decorated in LPDW style (Figs. 2.19: 9; 2.20: 1–3, 5– 6). Additionally, northern coastal influence is evident in the so-called “Achziv Vessels” (Fig. 2.13: 5–6). The presence of these vessels at the site attests to the Phoenician influence in the southern Coastal Plain (e.g., see discussion regarding JG11.1). More examples of coastal influences in the ceramic assemblage of Ḥorvat Shimon can be seen in the two imported vessels of the BoR ware (Fig. 2.6: 12–13). Bowls of this type have only been found thus far in small quantities in sites in the south of the country, and their presence at Ḥorvat Shimon is very important for dating the assemblage, since this specific type dates to the Iron Age IIB (Schreiber 2003: 212–219). It also attests to the socio-economic ties between the inhabitants of this site and cultural entities beyond its immediate vicinity.

Parallel Gottlieb 2004: Fig. 27.4: 11 Gottlieb 2004: Fig. 27.12: 16

Table 2.45: Parallels for Arrowheads

Metal Straw (Fig. 2.20: 6) This is a cylinder-shaped object, wide (ca. 1.5 cm) at the top and narrow at the bottom. It is about 6.5

24 Loom work is not possible in Unit A3 due to its small dimensions.

87

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON

Fig. 2.17: Stone Objects from Ḥorvat Shimon

88

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS

Fig. 2.18: Stone Objects from Ḥorvat Shimon

89

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON

Fig. 2.19: Loom Weights and Spindles from Ḥorvat Shimon 90

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS

Fig. 2.20: Metal Objects from Ḥorvat Shimon 91

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Alongside coastal types, several vessels typical of Judahite sites were found in the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage. Parallels to types BL2.1 (Fig. 2.5: 8) and CP2.1 (Fig. 2.9: 3) were found in Level III of Lachish, and in Beer-Sheba, Stratum II (Singer-Avitz 1999: 13–14). The “LMLK-like” and “LMLK” type jars are Judahite, typical to the 8th century BCE. Although stamped LMLK handles were not found, the vessels were identified based on their clay and morphology, following Zimhoni’s categories (1997: 231–32). These vessels support dating the assemblage to the 8th century BCE. A change in the affiliation of the material culture at nearby Tell es-Safi/Gath – from a coastal/Philistine orientation to that of an inland/ Judahite one – ocurred between the late 9th and 8th centuries BCE, most likely due to a Judahite settlement of the site (Maeir and Uziel 2007; see also Zukerman and Shai 2006). At Ḥorvat Simon, there seems to be a slightly different situation. While there is some evidence of Judahite material culture, the absence of well-known markers, such as pillar figurines and LMLK handles may indicate that the use of the Ḥorvat Shimon site and its destruction occurred before the end of the 8th century BCE (and the Judahite occupation of Tell es-Safi/Gath). Another possible explanation for the presence of many coastal-oriented finds (spools, loom weights, Achziv vessels, BoR vessels etc.) alongside the Judahite vessels, is that the site was inhabited by a population with a coastal/Philistine cultural orientation, which at this time was under Judahite influence, due to the expansion of the Judahite Kingdom into eastern Philistia at the time.

The Variety of Types The analysis of the ceramic assemblage also raised an interesting issue regarding the variety of types in the site. A wide variety of different types has been identified, many of them represented by merely one item (BL3, BL5.2, SJ1.1.3, SJ5–10, JG11, JG14, JL1, JL2.3, CP1, KR1.1, CH1, FL1, ST1, FU1, KER1). Two explanations can be offered for this phenomenon: 1) the nature of the excavation; 2) the site’s function and location. As mentioned above, the excavation was in a limited area, and thus information is incomplete. Additionally, the presence of many production tools (such as loom weights, grindstones, etc.) attest to industrial activities at the site (see further discussion below). The nature of the site and its location on the border between Philistia and Judah may explain the diversity of the vessels, as a result of trading activity. From a functional point of view, much of the assemblage is of a quotidian nature (see also discussions in Stager 1985: 11–12; Singer-Avitz 1996: 170). That said, many of the artifacts accompanying the pottery vessels (the grinding stones, the handmade vessels and the loom weights) attest to significant industrial activity in this structure (see also discussion in Gal and Alexandre 2000). The lack of animal bones, flint implements and cooking facilities weaken the identification of the site as a domestic structure. The unusual architectural plan of the structure also strengthens the suggestion that it was not used for dwelling, but rather for industry/production. GENERAL DISCUSSION We suggest that the systematic layout of the architecture and the thick walls indicate that the structure had been built for a very specific purpose. The site was first identified as a potter’s workshop (Ben-Shlomo 2006: 106, 189). Comprehensive and renewed analysis of the excavation results (Dagan 2009) determined that this was not the case, as noted in the following reasons: 1. The architectural plan of the building is not compatible with a potters' kiln. 2. No evidence of an underground cavity or retaining walls/columns to support the floor of the kiln were found. 3. No remains of ash were found in the rooms that were suggested to be the fire chambers. 4. The small size of the firing chambers is not consistent with industrial kilns.

Slip and Burnish Red-slip and burnish is a well-known surface treatment, which began to appear in limited amounts in the Iron Age I, and became popular in the Iron Age II. Two different techniques can be observed, hand and wheel burnishing, which are used to chronologically distinguish between the Iron Age IIA and Iron Age IIB (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 277–81). At Ḥorvat Shimon, it was difficult to distinguish the type of burnishing, due to the thick patina covering the vessels. Therefore, this distinction cannot be used to date the Ḥorvat Shimon assemblage, and it is necessary to rely on the morphology of the vessels.

92

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS 5. There is unambiguous evidence of a residential second-story, which immediately negates the existence of a potter's kiln inside the building. 6. Petrographic analysis showed a lack of homogeneity in the clay source of the vessels, contrary to what is expected from a ceramic production site (see Ben-Shlomo, this volume). We suggest that the function of this structure is connected to textile production. The distribution and character of the finds, in conjunction with the architectural elements, seem to indicate that the Ḥorvat Shimon structure did not function as a domestic dwelling. To this we can add the large number of loom weights, found in a limited area, and the diversity of their forms. In particular, the large quantities of loom weights found in Rooms A and B indicate that substantial weaving activities were carried out on site. At Ḥorvat Shimon we can identify two main clusters of loom weights. In Area A3, 32 loom weights of the doughnut-shaped type were found (L14), and in Area B5, 65 loom weights (L26) of various types: doughnut, pyramidal and spoolshaped together. The diversity in loom weight types, sizes, and weights indicates that a variety of different cloths was produced here, most likely by different weavers. The final stage of textile production is known as fulling, or laundering to remove any excess filth, and tighten the weave.25 Linen cloth was bleached and scrubbed to soften it (Wild 1970: 84–85; Gleba 2008: 154). Fulling, a process carried out on woolen cloth, entailed agitating the textile in a solution of water mixed with detergent in basins in order to clean the fabric, and set the weave (Barber 1991: 216; Wild 1970: 86; Mazow 2008). The only way to differentiate between dyeworks and fullery in the archaeological record is the evidence of dye-stuffs (Andersson-Strand 2010: 19–21). Both installations require ample water installations for washing, as well as grinding and pounding tools for the preparation of dyes, mordants or detergents and heat sources for heating the immersion solutions. No dye matter was discovered at Ḥorvat Shimon. However, this is not surprising in light of the poor preservation of the site and the organic nature of the dyes. Yet, despite the absence of organic fibers, dye-stuffs and mordants at Ḥorvat Shimon, it may be possible to

identify some of these production stages through their association with specific architectural features and tools found at the site, in addition to the spindle whorls and loom weights, clearly associated with textile production. One such tool is the scraper, a distinctively formed object of light weight pumice or of a pumice-like stone. Two scrapers (Fig. 2.18: 1–2) were found in the vicinity of the loom weights at Ḥorvat Shimon. Different suggestions have been posited for the function of these objects. Gal and Alexander (2000: 127) suggest that they were used for polishing or grinding, and Cohen-Weinberger (2001: 229) proposes that they were used for the removal of dead skin while bathing or for the scouring of clothes. Following Cohen-Weinberg’s second suggestion, we believe that in the case of Ḥorvat Shimon, this object was used as part of the process of washing or fulling textiles, probably in the same fashion that teasels were used for raising the nap of woolen cloth by the fullers in pre-Roman Italy (Gleba 2008: 154; Goldman 2007). In many cases, the various functions of artifacts may lead the archaeologist towards an interpretation which may not necessarily be the only one. Such is the case with the stone grinding and pounding tools found at Ḥorvat Shimon (Fig. 2.17). Some 70% of the entire corpus, including numerous stone vessels, grinding stones, mortars, and pestles, was found in Room C indicating that the main activity here involved some sort of extensive grinding. These are generally assumed to be used for bread and food preparation, however they would have just as likely been used in the preparation of dyes, mordants and detergents necessary for the preparation of textiles. It is worth noting that there is a large variety of types of vessels, but the quantity of each type is small. Furthermore, the analysis of the assemblage does not give a clear indication of the function of the structure as a whole, but certain activities can be reconstructed in the different units. Among these activities, one must include weaving, as well as activities requiring the grinding of substances. The location of Ḥorvat Shimon in the close vicinity of Tell es-Safi/Gath could imply that in the 8th century BCE, the building could have been some sort of a satellite site of Gath.26 As archaeology in Philistia has been predominantly tel-

25

density, homogenous lifestyle, and an absence of hierarchy within the community. He differentiates between four types of rural settlements: villages,

This discussion is based on Dagan and Cassuto 2016. For example, see Joshua 19: 6–9; for further discussion see Gophna 1966: 28–33. Faust (2005: 189–91) defines a village as a small area, with low population 26

93

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON based, our knowledge of peripheral activities is limited. At the end of the 8th century BCE, as a result of the Assyrian campaigns to Israel, the number of settlements in Judah greatly diminished (Dagan 2000: 207–08). Shavit (2003: 167, 181) notes that in the southern Coastal Plain there was no significant harm to the agricultural front. Finally, the lack of architectural parallels to the site should be noted. On the one hand, no local sites (Philistine, Israelite, Judahite) display similar architectural features. This being the case, one wonders whether a comparison to Assyrian architecture might be in place, especially in light of extensive evidence of Assyrian activities in this region in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, and in particular the Assyrian fortresses in the region, such as Tell Jemmeh (Ben-Shlomo 2014), Ashdod (Kogan-Zehavi 2005), and Rishon Letziyon (Levy et al. 2004). While the mudbrick architecture of our structure may vaguely recall Assyrian building techniques, the similarities stop there. Overall, the architectural plan, the brick-laying technique and brick size (e.g. Stern 2001: 23–31), and more importantly, the overall nature of the material culture (such as lack of Assyrian or Assyrian-like pottery, “Scythian” arrowheads, etc.) does not support an identification of this site as being related directly to the Assyrians.

It is impossible to pinpoint the exact nature of the structure, but it seems to have been of an industrial character. Surveys in northeast Philistia show growth of the rural settlement in the 8th century BCE. According to Dagan (2000: 45, 200– 07), there was a growth of rural settlement around the large cities. The beginning of this process was in the 9th century BCE, with the strengthening of the Judahite kingdom in the area, which brought with it development of the rural areas and the exploitation of lands for agriculture in the eastern Shephelah. This process reached its zenith at the end of the 8th century BCE. Shavit’s study (2003: 162–64) shows a similar picture. In the area of Tell es-Safi/Gath, there were only three rural settlements in the 10th century BCE. During the 9th century BCE there were four, and then during the 8th century BCE, the number of settlements grew by 125%. We suggest that this process of growth in the rural periphery of Tell es-Safi/Gath during the 8th century BCE is related to the situation in the region after the 9th century BCE, subsequent to the Hazael campaign. This event brought about a decline in the rural makeup of the region and a weakening of the eastern border of Philistia. Taking advantage of this, the kingdom of Judah extended its borders to the west under the reign of Uzziah or his successors (see Maeir 2012: 49–55; Koch 2012; Finkelstein 2013: 126–27; Lehmann and Niemann 2014: 87–89; Dagan 2014: 56; for a different opinion, see Na’aman 2009). Archaeological evidence of this is evident in the material culture of the 8th century BCE strata at Tell esSafi/Gath (Avissar and Maeir 2004; Zukerman and Shai 2006; Chadwick and Maeir 2012; Dagan 2014), in the establishment of the Judahite settlement at Tel Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 279–81), and Tel Zayit (Tappy et al. 2006: 8–9), as well as the discovery of Judahite material culture in the lower city of Tel Miqne-Ekron (Field IV; Gitin 1998: 167). All of this has been interpreted as evidence for the western expansion of the Kingdom of Judah, particularly in the time of Hezekiah. We believe that the finds at Ḥorvat Shimon attest to this process of the expansion of the kingdom of Judah, and the development of the periphery of Tell es-Safi/Gath area specifically, and in northeast Philistia in general. The lack of some of the typical aspects of the late 8th century BCE Judahite material culture though (such as

CONCLUSIONS From the excavation data, a picture emerges of a symmetrical structure with repetitive interior division. The structure was well-planned, and two stages of activity were identified within it, expressed by functional changes in one of the units. No architectural parallels to the structure were found, but its shape and quality of the construction indicate that this structure should not be identified as a domestic structure. Typological analysis of the ceramic assemblage dates the structure to somewhere in the 8th century BCE. The ceramic assemblage includes coastal vessels alongside Judahite vessel. This might be related to the Judahite control of this region during the late 8th century BCE, but other possible interpretations were suggested above. Additionally, a rich assemblage of HMV was identified at the site.

fortified villages, large villages or towns, and farms – known in the biblical text as ‘Ḥaẓerot’ or ‘Ḥaẓerim’. The latter were structures or an accumulation of

structures built in the heart of agricultural lands, in which extended families resided.

94

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS We suggest that the site ceased to function due to a destruction. Hints to this can be found in the many fire-deformed vessels and the burnt stopper,27 the arrowheads, the large quantity of complete vessels, and extensive burnt mudbrick fragments – which appear to represent destruction by fire. To this we can add that both M. Israel (1963) and Y. Israel28 reported that human remains were found in the excavations. Since it is difficult to further pinpoint the date of the assemblage within the 8th century BCE, there are many known and unknown historical circumstances in which this site may have been destroyed, such as the various Assyrian campaigns in the region during the 8th century BCE (e.g. Tadmor 1966).29

LMLK handles), may indicate that this site is to be dated to an earlier phase of the 8th century BCE. Or, perhaps, as evidenced by the mixed influences effecting the site, both coastal and Judahite. In conclusion, Ḥorvat Shimon provides further evidence of non-urban settlement and production in the Iron Age IIB. The character of the structure and the finds strongly suggests that it functioned as a textile production center. It may have been part of an adjacent rural settlement, or a farmstead associated with one of the urban centers in the region. If one dates the site to the late 8th century BCE, it may have been part of the territory of Judahite-controlled Gath, but if a slightly earlier date is preferred, it may have been associated with one of the other urban entities in this region (e.g. Tel Miqne-Ekron, Ashdod, etc.).

REFERENCES Aharoni, Y. Evenari, M. Shanan, L. and Tadmor, N.H. 1960 The Ancient Desert Agriculture of the Negev. Israel Exploration Journal 10: 223– 40. Aldred, C. 1980 Egyptian art in the Days of the Pharaohs 3I00–320 BC. London: Thames and Hudson. Amiran, R. 1969 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press. Andersson Strand, E. 2010 The Basics of Textile Tools and Textile Terminology: From Fibre to Fabric. Pp. 10–22 in Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC, eds. C. Michel and M. L. Nosch. Oxford: Oxbow. Aston, B. G., Harrell, J. A. and Shaw. I. 2000 Stones. Pp. 5–77 in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, eds. P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Avissar, R. and Maeir, A. M. 2012 Iron Age Pottery from Stratum A2. Pp. 365– 82 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. Maeir. Ägypten und Alten Testament. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Avitsur, S. 1976 Man and his Work: Historical Atlas of Tools and Workshops in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Carta (Hebrew). Barber, E. J. W. 1992 Prehistoric Textiles. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bard, A. K. 2005 Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. New York: Routledge. Beit-Arieh, I. 1999 Tel ‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. The Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 15. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Beit-Arieh, I., Freud, L., and Baron, G. 1999 The Cemetery. Pp. 129–69 in Tel ‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. ed. I. BeitArieh, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 15. The Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Ben-Arieh, S. 2004 Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim. IAA Reports 23. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

27

29

The excavator had suggested that the presence of the deformed vessels is evidence that it served as a potter’s workshop, but as discussed above, this interpretation is hard to accept. 28 In Y. Israel’s excavation diary, he reports the discovery of skeletons of a female and an infant in the building. Unfortunately, further details are unavailable.

The dating of the ceramic assemblage precludes connecting the destruction of the site to the mid/late 9th century BCE destruction of Gath (by Hazael; e.g. Maeir 2004; 2012).

95

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Ben-Shlomo, D. 2006 Decorated Philistine Pottery. BAR International Series 1541 Oxford: Archeopress. Ben-Shlomo, D. Shai, I. and Maeir, A. M. 2004 Late Philistine Decorated Ware (“Ashdod Ware”): Typology, Chronology, and Production Centers. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 335: 1–35. Ben-Shlomo, D., Shai, I., Zukerman, A. and Maeir, A.M. 2006 Cooking Identities: Aegean-Style Cooking Jugs and Cultural Interaction in Iron Age Philistia and Neighboring Regions. American Journal of Archaeology 112/2: 225–46. Ben-Shlomo, D. and Van Beek, G. W. 2014 The Smithsonian Institution Excavations at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990. Washington: Smithsonian Scholarly Press. Ben-Tor, A. 1996 Hazor Excavations in Memory of Yigael Yadin: Aims and Preliminary Results. Eretz-Israel 25: 67–81 (Hebrew). Ben-Tuvia, A. 1982 On the Taxonomic Classification of the Fish Weight. P. 100 in Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M, The Fortifications of the Lower City, eds. M. Dothan and Y. Porath. ‘Atiqot English Series XV. Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities and Museums. Bignasca, A. 2000 I Kernoi Circolari in Oriente E in Occidente Strumenti di Culto E Immagini Cosmiche. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 19. Fribourg: Universitäts-verlag. Bliss, F. J. 1899 First Report on the Excavations at Tell esSafi. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 31: 183–99. Bliss, F. J. and Macalister, R. A. S. 1902 Excavations in Palestine during the years 1898–1900. London: PEF. Bonatz, D. 2015 Katumuwa’s Banquet scene, Pp. 39–44. In Remembrance of Me: Feasting with the Dead in the Ancient Middle East, eds. R.V. Herrmann and J. D. Schloen. Oriental Institute Museum Publications 37. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Brumfiel, E. M. 1991 Weaving and Cooking: Women’s Production in Aztec Mexico. Pp. 224–51 in Engendering Archaeology, Women and Prehistory, eds. J. M. Gero and M. W. Concey. Oxford: Wiley. Cassuto, D. 2012 Weaving Implements. Pp. 467–84 in Tell esSafi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Chadwick. J. R., and Maeir. M. A. 2012 A Case Study in Household Archaeology at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel: How Households Can Illuminate the Historical Record: The Judahite Houses at Gath of the Philistines. Pp. 501–19 in Household Archaeology: New Perspectives from the Near East and Beyond, eds. B. Parker and C. and Foster. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Cohen, R. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2007 Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el Qudeirat) 1976–1982. IAA Reports 34. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Cohen, R. and Cohen-Amin, R. 2004 Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands. The Iron Age and the Persian Period. IAA Reports 20. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2001 Stone Objects. Pp. 225–37 in Timnah (Tel Batash) II. The Finds from the First Millennium BCE, eds. A. Mazar and N. Panitz-Cohen. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Connor, S. Tavier, H., and De Putter, T. 2015 Put the Statues in the Oven: Preliminary Results of Research on Steatite Sculpture from the Late Middle Kingdom. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 101: 297–311. Dagan, A. 2008 The Rural Settlement in Iron Age 2 Philistia: The Kfar Menahem site (Ḥorvat Shimon) as a Case Study. Unpublished MA Thesis, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan (Hebrew). 2011 Negebite Pottery beyond the Negev. Tel Aviv 38/2: 208–19. 2014 Between Judah and Philistia in the 8th Century BCE: The Material Culture of Tell esSafi/Gath as a Test Case for Political and Cultural Change. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Dagan, A. and Cassuto, D. 2016 Ḥorvat Shimon: A Small-scale 8th Century BCE Workshop for Textiles in the Southern Coastal Plain. Israel Exploration Journal 66/1: 34–54. Dagan, Y. 2000 The Settlement in the Judean Shephelah in the Second and First millennium B.C.: A Test-Case of Settlement Processes in a Geographic Region. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Dayagi-Mendels, M. 2002 The Achziv Cemeteries, The Ben-Dor Excavation, 1941– 1944. IAA Reports 15. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

96

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS Dever, W. G. 2001 Iron Age Keroni and the Israelite Cult. Pp. 119–34 in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, ed. S.R. Wolff. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Dothan, M. 1971 Ashdod II–III The second and Third Season of Excavation 1963, 1965. Atiqot IX–X. Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums. Dothan, M., and Ben-Shlomo, D. 2005 Ashdod VI: The Excavation in Areas H and K (1968–1969). IAA Reports 24. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dothan M., and Porath, Y. 1982 Ashdod IV. Atiqot XV. Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums. Edelstein, G. 1969 A Weavers Settlement from the Time of the United Monarchy: Five Seasons of Excavation at Tel Amal. Nir David: Mediterranean Musem (Hebrew). Faust, A. 2005 Israelite Society in the Period of the Monarchy. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi (Hebrew). 2015 The Bible, Archaeology, and the Practice of Circumcision in Israelite and Philistine Societies. Journal of Biblical Literature 134/2: 273–90. Feldman, H. M. 2015 Religious, Communal, And Political Feasting in The Ancient Middle East. Pp. 63–68 in Remembrance of Me: Feasting with the Dead in the Ancient Middle East, eds. R. V. Herrmann and J. D. Schloen. Oriental Institute Museum Publications 37. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Finkelstein, I. 2013 The Forgotten Kingdom. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Freud, L. 1999 The Iron Age. Pp 189–289 in Tel ‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. ed. I. BeitArieh. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 15. The Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Friend, G. 1998 The loom weights. Pp 13–77 in Tell Taannek 1963–1968 III: The Artifacts 2: The Loom Weights, ed. G. Friend. Excavations and Surveys, Palestinian Institute of Archaeology. Birzeit: Birzeit University. Gal, Z. 1989 Loom Weight or Jar Stoppers? Israel Exploration Journal 39/3–4: 281–83.

Gal, Z. and Alexander, Y. 2000 Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. IAA Reports 8. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Gitin, S. 1990 Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. 1998 Philistia in Transition: The Tenth Century and Beyond. Pp. 162–83 in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2006 The lmlk Jar Form Redefined: A New Class of Iron Age II Oval Shaped Storge jar. Pp. 505–24 in “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, eds. A.M. Maeir and P. de Mirosshedji. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Gleba, M. 2008 Textile Production in Pre-Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxbow. Goldmann, A. 2007 Erste Versuche beim Aufrauen von Wollgeweben. Pp. 224–29 in Archäologische Textilfunde – Archaeological Textiles. NESAT IX, Brauwald, 18–21 Mai 2005, eds. A. RastEicher and R. Windler. Ennenda: ArcheoTex. Gophna, R. 1966 Iron Age I Ḥaserim in Southern Philistia. ‘Atiqot 3: 44–51. Gottlieb, Y. 2004 The Weaponry of the Assyrian Attack- Section A: The Arrowheads and Selected Aspects of the Siege Battle. Pp. 1907–69 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Glueck, N. 1959 The Negev. Biblical Archaeologist 22: 82– 97. Hachlili, R. 1971 Figurine and Kernoi. Pp. 125–35 in Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Season of Excavation 1963, 1965, ed. M. Dothan. ‘Atiqot IX–X. Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums. Haiman, M. and Goren, Y. 1992 “Negbite” Pottery: New Aspects and Interpretations and the Role of Pastoralism in Designating Ceramic Technology. Pp. 143–

97

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON 51 in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives, eds. O. Bar-Yosef and A. Khazanov. Monographs in World Archaeology 10. Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Herrmann, R. V. and Schloen, J. D. 2015 Remembrance of Me: Feasting with the Dead in the Ancient Middle East. Oriental Institute Museum Publications 37. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Hovers, E. 1996 The Groundstone Industry. Pp. 171–202 in Excavation in the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol IV, eds. D. T. Ariel and A. de Groot. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Israel, M. 1963 Survey and Study of the Kfar Menahem Region. Teva Va-Aretz 5: 234–38 (Hebrew). 1964 Ḥorvat Simon. Kfar Menahem: Ha’shfela Museum Publication (Hebrew). Kletter, R. 1991 The Inscribed Weights of the Kingdom of Judah. Tel Aviv 18: 121–63. 1998 Economic Keystones. The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judea. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Klingbeil, M. 1999 Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography. Fribourg: Fribourg University Press. Koch, I. 2012 The Geopolitical Organization of the Judean Shephelah during Iron Age I-IIA. Cathedra 143: 45–64 (Hebrew). Kogan-Zehavi, E. 2005 An Assyrian Building South of Tel Ashdod. Qadmoniot 38: 87–90 (Hebrew). Lapp, P. 1969 The 1968 Excavation at Ta’annek. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 169: 2–49. Lehmann G. and Niemann, H. M. 2014 When Did the Shephelah become Judahite? Tel Aviv 41: 77–94. Levy, Y., Peilstöcker, M. and Ginzburg, A. 2004 An Iron Age Fortress in the Sand Dunes of Rishon Letzion. Qadmoniot (37): 92–94 (Hebrew). Lipschits, O. 2012 Archaeological Facts, Historical Speculations and the Date of the LMLK Storage Jars: A Rejoinder to David Ussishkin. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12: Article 4. Lipschits, O., Sergi, O., and Koch, I. 2010 Royal Judahite Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions. Tel Aviv 37: 3–32.

2011

Judahite Stamped and Incised Jar Handles: A Tool for the Study of the History of Late Monarchic Judah. Tel Aviv 38(1): 5–41. Maeir, A. M. 2001 The Philistine Culture in Transformation: A Current Perspective Based on the Results of the First Seasons of Excavations at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Pp. 111–29. in Settlement, Civilization and Culture: Proceedings of the Conference in Memory of David Alon, eds. A. M. Maeir and E. Baruch, E. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University (Hebrew); 2012 Introduction. Pp. 1–88 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Maeir, A. M., and Garfinkel, Y. 1992 Bone and Metal Straw-tip Beer-strainers from the Ancient Near East. Levant 24/1: 218–23. Maeir. A. M. and Uziel, J. 2007 A Tale of the Tells: A Comparative Perspective on Tell Miqne-Ekron and Tell esSafi/Gath in Light of Recent Archaeological Research. Pp. 29–42 in Up to the Gates of Ekron; Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, eds. S. Crawford, A. BenTor, J. Dessel, W. Dever, A. Mazar and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Mazar, A., and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II. The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Mazow, L. B. 2008 The Industrious Sea Peoples: The Evidence of Aegean-Style Textile Production in Cyprus and the Southern Levant. Pp. 291–321 in Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the Eastern Mediterranean: Regional Perspectives of Continuity and Change, ed. T. Harrison. Scripta Mediterranea XXVII–XXVIII. Toronto: Canadian Institute for Mediterranean Studies. Münnich, M. M. 2013 The God Resheph in the Ancient Near East Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck Na’aman, N. 2009 The Growth and Development of Judah. Revue Biblique 116/3: 312–35. Na’aman, N., and Thareani-Sussely, Y. 2006 Dating the Appearance of Imitations of Assyrian Ware in Southern Palestine. Tel Aviv 33: 61–82. Rapp, G. 2009 Archaeomineralogy. Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag.

98

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS Sass, B. 2004 Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia. Pp. 1983–2058 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Schreiber, N. 2003 The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age. Leiden: Brill. Schloen, J. D. 2015 The City of Katumuwa: The Iron Age Kingdom of Samʾal And the Excavation of Zincirli. Pp. 27–38 in Remembrance of Me: Feasting with the Dead in the Ancient Middle East, eds. R.V. Herrmann and J.D. Schloen. Oriental Institute Museum Publications 37. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Sergi, O., Karasik, A., Gadot, Y. and Lipschits, O. 2012 The Royal Judahite Storage Jar: A Computer-Generated Typology and Its Archaeological and Historical Implications. Tel Aviv 39/1: 64–92. Shamir, O. 1996 Loomweights and Whorls. Pp. 135–69 in Excavation in the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh IV, eds. D. T. Ariel and A. de Groot. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. 1997 Loomweights of the Persian Period from Khirbet Nimra. ‘Atiqot 32: 1–7. 2002 Textile Production in Eretz-Israel. Michmanim 16: 19–32. Shai, I., and Maeir, A. M. 2003 Pre LMLK Jars: a New Class of Iron Age IIA Storage Jars. Tel Aviv 30: 108–23. 2012 The Late Iron Age IIA Pottery Assemblage from Stratum A3. Pp. 313–65 in Tell esSafi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. Maeir. Ägypten und Alten Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Shavit, A. 2003 Settlement patterns in Israel’s southern coastal plain during the Iron Age II. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Singer-Avitz, L. 1996 Beer-Sheba: A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 26: 3–74. 2008 Household Activities in Beer-Sheba. Eretz Israel 25: 166–74 (Hebrew). Stager, L.E. 1985 The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260: 1–35.

Stern, E. 2001 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Vol 2. London: Yale University Press. Tadmor, H. 1977 The Assyrian Campaigns to Philistia. Pp. 261–86 in The Military History of the Land of Israel in Biblical Times, ed. J. Liver. Jerusalem: Israel Defense Force. Tappy, R. 2006 An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century BCE from the Judaean Shephelah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 344: 5–46 (Hebrew). Tite, M. and Bimson, M. 1989 Glazed Steatite: An Investigation of the Methods of Glazing Used in Ancient Egypt. World Archaeology 21: 87–100 Tite, M., Shortland, A. and Paynter, S. 2002 The Beginnings of Vitreous Materials in the Near East and Egypt. Accounts of Chemical Research 35: 585–93. Ussishkin, D. 2004 The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish. Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. 2011 The Dating of the LMLK Storage Jars: Rejoinder to Lipschits, Sergi and Koch. Tel Aviv 38: 220–40. 2012 LMLK Seal Impressions Once Again: A Second Rejoinder to Oded Lipschits. Antiguo Oriente 10: 13–24. Wild, J.P. 1970 Textile Manufacture in the Northern Roman Provinces. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Dunayevski, E. Dothan, T., Amiran, R and Perrot, J. 1959 Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yahalom-Mack, N. and Mazar, A. 2006 Various Finds: Clay, Stone, Ivory Bone and Faience Objects and Vessels. Pp. 468–504 in Excavation at Tel Beth Shean 1989–1996. Vol 1, ed. A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and The Hebrew University. Zimhoni, O. 1997 Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological and Chrono-logical Aspects. Tel Aviv Occasional Publications 2. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. 2004 The Pottery of Levels III and II. Pp. 1789– 899 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

99

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Zuckerman A. and Shai I. 2006 The Royal City of the Philistines in the Azekah Inscription and the History of Gath in the Eighth Century BCE. Ugarit-Forschungen 38: 729–816.

100

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

DAGAN / MAEIR: THE SITE AND FINDS APPENDIX 2.1: LIST OF LOCI, ḤORVAT SHIMON Locus 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

Room A, D, E A, D, G E, A A, B, G A3 B1 B A1 A, B, G A, D A, E B, A A2 A1 D2 D1 B1 B1, E E E G B B D3 B G B1 B1 A, E A1 A1 B1 B1 B1 E, A D2 D3 A3 A2 E E A3 B1 F C, B A1 A1 C1 F C1 F F, B C C2, C3

Description Topsoil

UL 114.72

LL 114.05

Topsoil

114.58

114.23

Topsoil Topsoil

114.58 114.38

114.26 113.98

Below L.13 north of W1 Below L.13, installation made of mud Below L.13, south of W1, east of W4 Below L.12 Dismantling balk between squares A1 of B1

113.98 113.58 113.95 114.29 114.38

113.71 113.95 113.62 113.98 114.19

Dismantling balk between squares A1 of A2 Dismantling balk between squares A2 of B2 Dismantling balk between squares B2 of B1 North of W8, South of W3 West of W11, North of L.17 East of W6, North of W3 East of W6, North of W10 South of W1, below partition L.21 West of L.26 Below L.12 Below L.10, West of W6 Below L.11, East of W7 Floor of burnt bricks Below L.31, modern disturbance Below partition, East of W13, West of W7 West of W13 East of W2 Dismantling handmade vessel and partition between L.26 and L.27 Depression in floor below L.36 Below L.20 Below L.17 Below L.17 and L.23 Floor of L.26 and dismantling floor Floor below L.41 Cleaning installation and handmade vessel assemblage Continuation of L.38 Below L.24 Below L.33 Below L.14 Below L.22 Below L.28, remains of plaster Below L.29, remains of plaster Below L.47 Below floor L.42 Topsoil Topsoil Remains of installation Hearth on floor Below L.54 Below L.53 Below floor L.57 Below L.58 Dismantling partition between L.53 to L.16 Dismantling partition between L.54 above W19 Between W21 to W22

114.58 114.72 114.38 114.19 114.19 114.5 114.5 114.26 114.26 114.26 114.5 114.23 113.87 113.76 114.41 113.14 114.07 114.13

114.04 114.02 114.12 113.78 113.98 113.85 113.85 113.75 113.71 114.21 114.45 114.02 113.62 113.41 113.21

113.81 114.53 114.06 113.98 113.81 113.59 113.95 114.53 113.95 113.72 113.71 113.78 114.35 114.58 113.5 113.59 114.19 114.21 113.86 113.86 114.8 113.83 113.78 113.52 114.19 114.21 114.2

113.68 113.09 113.09 113.86 113.59

101

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Plan

113.73 113.81

113.81 114.25 113.51 113.07 113.05 113.07 114.21 114.43 113.32 113.83 114.24 113.08 113.08 113.78 113.52 113.38 113.23 113.08 113.32 113.89

Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.3

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Locus 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 W1

Room C3 C2 B1 C1 C2 D1 C4 A1 C4 D1 D1 E

Description Below L.63, west of W24 Below L.63, east of W24 Installation Below L.59 Below L.65 North of L.25 South of L.65 Excavating L.55 Below L.70, south of W25 Floor below L.69 Below floor L.73 Square in the corner below L.49 Mudbrick wall, EW

UL 113.89 113.89 114.06 113.38 113.8 114.91 114.05 113.87 113.86 114.53 114.53 114.21 114.05 UL2: 114.24 114.10 UL2: 113.73 114.23

LL 113.79 113.08

114.53 113.86

113.82 LL2: 113.70 113.32 LL2: 113.32 113.70

W2

Mudbrick wall, abutting W1

W3 W4 W5 W6

Mudbrick wall, abutting W2 Narrow mudbrick wall abutting W1 from south Mudbrick wall abutting W1 from north Mudbrick wall continuation of W5

W7

Mudbrick wall, abutting W3 from the north side

W8

Mudbrick wall between W1 and W3

W9 W10 W11

Mudbrick wall continuation of W8 Mudbrick wall between W6 and W12 Mudbrick wall, abutting W3, W8, W9

W12 W13 W14 W15

Mudbrick wall abutting W3 and W10 Mudbrick wall between W10 to W7 Mudbrick wall, continuation of W2 Mudbrick wall near the southern edge of the excavation

W16

Mudbrick wall between W8 and W1

W17 W18 W19

Wall? Pieces of chalk lined up with plaster between them Wall? Pieces of chalk similar to W17 Mudbrick wall, north of L.57

W20

Mudbrick wall, north of L.58

W21

Mudbrick wall, west of L.58 and east of L.57

113.79

113.45

W22

Mudbrick wall, west of L.57

113.85

113.67

W23

Mudbrick wall, south of L.57

113.90

113.60

W24

Mudbrick wall, abutting W23 from the south

113.82

113.69

W25

Mudbrick wall, south of W24, W22, W21

W26 W27 W28 W29

Mudbrick wall, continuation of W21 Mudbrick wall? West of W20 Wall? Installation? Stone pieces? Similar to W17 and W18 Continuation of W2, west of L.24

114.45

113.59

W30 W31 W32 W33

Continuation of W23 Partition made of mudbricks

102

Plan

114.19

114.04

114.52

114.03

Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3 Phase 2 Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3

Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3

Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3

PETROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF POTTERY FROM ḤORVAT SHIMON DAVID BEN-SHLOMO

A

coastal Group 2, although only one of these, a LPDW JG4 jug, was also classified to a coastal petrographic group. A perforated weight (KM19) was designated Chemical Group 7 (it appeared as a loner when ‘simplified mahalanobis’ distance was used). Sample KM2, an LPDW JG4 jug is a loner (initially grouped with Group 2 but excluded on account of marginal values), while Sample KM10, a juglet, is an outlier with a high Ca value (above 24%). But despite the high calcite dilution, it still has high Cr and V values (136 and 134 ppm respectively), and relatively high values of Er, Yb and Y (2.66, 2.3 and 29.5 ppm respectively) as well.

ltogether 67 samples were analyzed from the site of Ḥorvat Shimon. In the first stage, 18 vessels were analyzed from the site (KM1–KM19), of which 14 were chemically analyzed and a partially different set of 14 samples were analyzed using Thin Section Petrographic Analysis (TSPA) (Ben-Shlomo 2006: 187–9). Most of the vessels analyzed were undecorated pottery types such as bowls, kraters, jugs and jars. A doughnut-shaped weight and a Handmade Vessel were also sampled. In addition, two Late Philistine Decorated Ware (LPDW) vessels were sampled, as were three Phoenician style bowls and ‘Black-on-Red’ (BoR) forms. At least four of the vessels (KM1 and KM14, KM15 and KM16) were covered with pottery slag and could possibly be considered wasters. Many of the sherds were covered by a thick whitish layer of patina, which may have affected some of the archaeometric results (as the carbonatic infilling may have penetrated deep into the sherd).

METHODOLOGY OF THIN SECTION PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Chemical analysis was obtained using ICP-AES and ICP-MS. A detailed description of ICP analysis procedures was published in Ben-Shlomo 2006: 122–26; Ben-Shlomo 2012: 383–385. The procedure includes sample extraction, sample preparation, running of the instrument and calibration, choice of elements, treatment of the raw data and statistical analysis. The chemical results reveal quite a high variability in clay composition, which is even unusual for such a small sample at a regular site, let alone a production site (as originally suggested by the excavator). Three of the samples belong to Chemical Group 1 and three to Group 3; these include the three wasters, though they do not all group together. Moreover, Samples KM1 and KM3 have marginal values for Group 1. Surprisingly, five samples were grouped with the

Samples were obtained by thin sectioning the pottery sherds. First a slice, several mm thick, is cut from the sherd. One side is flattened and affixed with transparent epoxy to a microscope slide. After hardening and drying, the other side is thinned to a thickness of 0.03 mm (30 microns) in which most of the minerals are transparent.30 The slides are examined through a petrographic polarizing microscope (in this study Nikon and Zeiss [for photography] models were used, magnifications of X25–X400). The fabric description of the slides includes general characteristics of the matrix (when identified as calcareous, ferruginous etc.), optical activity, inclusion spacing, percentage of voids and general description of the silt component of the matrix.31 A definition of the type of local soil is given when applicable (mostly according to descriptions in Goren 1996; Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004; Goren and Halperin 2004, and according to soil maps, as Dan et al. 1972; Shahar et al. 1995). Inclusions are listed according to minerals and the description includes percentage

30

31

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

In this study rather basic equipment was used to make the slides: a water-cooled brick diamond saw for cutting and initial thinning and “water paper” of various grain size (150–400 mesh) for final thinning. This technique can be termed as “manual” and may result in a small percentage of lower quality and/or small slides.

Grain size is defined using the Udden-Wentworth scale (Adams, MacKenzie and Guilford 1984): sand: 2000–62 microns; silt: 62–4 microns; clay: under 4 microns.

103

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON (which is of the slide area, according to percentage charts; see, e.g., Bullok et al. 1985), sorting, size ranges and texture, shape and various special features (cracks in crystals, etc.). Components under 1% of the total slide area are termed as “several,” “rare” or “very rare” according to their relative frequency. Other notes, such as orientation of inclusions, shape of voids,32 decomposed material or organic material are mentioned (Table 17.2).33

Kfar Menahem is situated on the border between the Judean Shephelah and the southern Coastal Plain/Shephelah. The geological setting of the site and its vicinity includes the Pleshet Formation (a kurkar conglomerate), present on the upper parts of Tell es-Safi/Gath, as well as other elements of conglomerate formations containing limestone, chalk and chert appearing as nodules (the Adulam, Zor’a-Maresha, and Ahuzam formations; Buchbinder 1969: Kfar Menahem sheet; Sneh, Bartov and Rosensaft 1998: sheet 2; see also Ackerman, Maeir and Bruins 2004: 313; 2012; Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 280). This is an area where the coastal plain and the Shephelah meet, a transitional area where the aeolian–alluvial grumusol and brown/dark brown soils of the quaternary coastal plain and the brown rendzina and pale rendzina soils of the chalk-nari Shephelah meet and are mixed (Dan et al. 1972: 33–35; Dan et al. 1976; Dan, Ya’alon and Fine 2002: 308–12; Ackerman, Maeir and Bruins 2004: 313; 2012). The variety of exposures of geological formations in the vicinity of Tell es-Safi/Gath and Kfar Menahem could explain the occurrence of various soil types in the pottery thin sections and the difficulty in obtaining a viable chemical profile as a reference for this site (see also Master 2003: 55; Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 280). In the southern Coastal Plain, dark brown and gray/brown soils are common; both originate from loess, but are considered as distinct soil types (Dan et al. 1972: 33, 42; Wieder and Gvirtzman 1999: 233–34; Dan, Ya’alon and Fine 2002: 309–10: tables 1–2).34 In the inner plains and the Shephelah, pale and dark rendzina calcareous soils are also found. More common in these areas are brown rendzinas, which are made of soft chalk and marl, with the nari lime crust (Dan et al. 1972: 35, 38; 1976: 6). Although both contain similar

GEOLOGICAL SETTING The geological setting of Kfar Menahem is quite similar to that of Tell es-Safi/Gath which is about 2.5 km to its east. The eastern part of Philistia borders the western part of the foothills (the Shephelah), which lies to the east. The soil is defined as dark brown or brown soil. The eastern part of this area, however, shows a change in the geological formation exposing calcareous sedimentary Eocene formations with rendzina soils, chalk and limestone. However, as this is a geological border zone and several rivers (some adjacent to the Philistine sites) carry clays from the inner plains to the coastal area, the situation may be more complicated and mixtures occur (for such a loess-rendzina mixture, see Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 281–82). To the south of Tell es-Safi/ Gath, loess soils are more common (Ben-Shlomo 2006: figs. 3.6–7; see also Goren and Halperin 2004: 2555), although the exact limit of loess soils in this area is not conclusive (compare, e.g., Ravikoitch 1970; Goren 1996; Master 2003; Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: fig. 14:1). In the inner Coastal Plain and the Shephelah, the loess or wind-blown silt component of the soil tends to have more calcareous inclusions, such as limestone, chalk and chert of the Eocene formations. Note that the northern Shephelah soils are reported to be less calcareous than the southern Shephelah soils (Goren and Halperin 2004: 2554). 32

For classification of voids, see Bullok et al. 1985: 43–47. 33 A major difference from Whitbread’s system (1995) is that all percentages are given of the total area of the slide. Although in this way it is difficult to express accurately relative abundances of rarer inclusion types, it has other advantages. This description is more faithful to the appearance of the slide (and in the detailed description, it is important to give as much raw data as possible without interpretation); relative percentages can usually be calculated from these numbers if needed; it is easier to obtain using percentage estimation charts. The b-fabric type system was not employed

in this study; however, more emphasis was given to the description of the shape (roundness and sphericity of grains) as this proved to be more crucial in the description of the petrographic groups (generally following Bullok et al. 1985: 20–38). 34 Wieder and Gvirtzman (1999: 236) defined three stratigraphic layers in the southern Coastal Plain of Israel: 1) grumusolic dark brown soil; 2) beneath it, quartzic brown soil; 3) and below it, buried hamra or husmas soil. It seems probable that only the upper two layers could have been exposed during the Iron Age (see also Dan, Ya’alon and Fine 2002: figs. 14–15).

104

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

BEN-SHLOMO: PETROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF POTTERY The fine silt component of the matrix is very poor to non-existent and voids are less than 20%. Silty quartz inclusions are moderately to well sorted and very high in relative quantity at 30–50% of the slide area (reaching also 45% is sized coarse silt or very fine sand, 30–100 microns) and angularly shaped. Ferrous/opaque minerals are common, usually 1–2%, with coarse silt-size and sub-rounded. Silt-sized mica, shell and feldspars also occur. The matrix is in some cases similar in its appearance to hamra soil; hamra soil is used for clay at LB Ashdod (Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 292–94, pl. 12: EA294, EA296). However, the quartz inclusions are smaller than known in regular hamra soils, but this could be caused by levigation (see Goren 2004: 292–93). Hamra soils are common in the vicinity of Ashdod (but also as far north as Caesarea (Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 292), and also occur near Tell es-Safi/Gath and Tel Miqne-Ekron; it rules out the southern coastal area of Ashkelon. It may be suggested that Petrographic Group 1c represents clay derived from some regional brown soil that was not as well levigated, thus, retaining the dominant, well-sorted quartz fine sand component.

major mineralogical components (quartz and various calcite forms), they are distinct. Terra rossa soils are the most common in the hilly areas of Israel, made of hard limestone and dolomite with inclusions of chalk, nari, marls and calcareous shales (Dan et al. 1972: 35; Goren and Halperin 2004: 2555–56). The Coastal Plain loess or loess-derived soil can often be identified by its calcareous matrix and the presence of a large number of wind-blown fine sand-sized particles, along with various other fine sand particles, including angular quartz, hornblende, clinopyroxene, olivine, and feldspar (Dan et al. 1976: 5; Master 2001: 34). This mixture of two components of the quartz (aeolian and coastal sand) gives the soil its bimodal texture. The subject of soil and clay types in the region of southern Israel in general and Philistia in particular was addressed in several occasions. As noted, Goren usually views the area of southern Philistia as dominated by homogeneous loess clay (e.g., Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004), while Master (2003: 55) suggested a more subtle distinction between different alluvial and loess soils in both coastal and inner Philistia. PETROGRAPHIC GROUPS

Group 2

Although the majority of the samples fall into two main groups with several subgroups, there are also other clay types represented including a few unidentified fabrics.

Petrographic Group 2 (Ben-Shlomo 2012:391, figs. 16.20–16.21) represents clays derived from various types of loess soil and includes about 9 samples. This fabric is characterized by a “carbonatic”/calcareous matrix, slightly active to active optically, moderately to highly silty, with particles double to open spaced. The voids are usually 5–15% from the slide area, though in a third of the samples are higher at 20–30%; thus, the porosity is quite variable. The inclusions are dominated by quartz, being 15–20% of the slide area in most cases (with few samples having marginal quartz compositions of 5–10% and 25–30%). This fabric is divided into three subgroups according to the characteristics of the inclusions. Group 2a has a bimodal texture of the quartz population, quite similar to Fabric 1a (silt—angular and medium sand—rounded quartz inclusions). Calcareous inclusions are relatively rare and other inclusions include feldspar of coarse silt to fine sand size, silty mica and heavy minerals as hornblende, rutile and zircon. Group 2c has a poorly to moderately sorted quartz population. In addition, the group shows coarse silt to fine sand calcareous particles, including sub-angular limestone, rounded chalk and foraminifers. These are up to 5–10% of the

Group 1 This is the largest petrographic group, with 38 samples in three different subgroups (1a, 1b, 1c). This fabric that probably represents an array of pastes derived from brown soils, was defined as Petrographic Group 1 (Ben-Shlomo 2012:389– 391). The subdivisions of this group are mainly determined according to the characteristics of the quartz and calcareous inclusions. Eleven samples belonged to Fabric 1a (the most common appearance of Group 1, Ben-Shlomo 2012: 389, fig. 16.25), 14 to Fabric 1b, showing higher amounts of calcareous inclusions (Ben-Shlomo 2012: 390, figs. 16.6–16.8), and 13 to Fabric 1c (Ben-Shlomo 2012: fig. 16.9), a somewhat different variant that will be described below. Fabric 1c: Fabric 1c, with 13 examples, is characterized by an inactive non-carbonatic coarse matrix, very rich in well-sorted quartz coarse angular silt. The matrix is often dark, more packed than other fabrics with single to close spacing.

105

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON slide area. There are also more cases of traces of disintegrated calcite. Ferrous/opaque minerals are often common in this group, with a frequency of 1–2% of the slide area. The inclusions are similar to those in Groups 1b and 1c, thus, this subgroup is more likely to be of inner plains provenance; it is very similar to Fabric 1c, as noted above. Group 2b is an intermediate group with samples illustrating mixed properties, such as bimodal quartz with high quantities of calcareous inclusions. Petrofabrics derived from loess soils were widely reported from studies of pottery from the northern Negev, the southern and inner Coastal Plain and the Shephelah (e.g., Goren 1996: 54; Master 2003: 55; Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 9, 112; Goren and Halperin 2004: 2554–55; see Ben-Shlomo 2012: 391). Firing temperatures of the vessels from Groups 1a, 1b, 1c, 2– is high, estimated around 850°C or slightly higher. Several bowls of type BL1.3.1. (KN56, KM62, KM63, KM68) with calcareous ‘milky’ texture possibly show a transformation of loess clay because of firing, and lime exposure.

Group 5

Group 3

Two BoR bowls (KM54 which seems to be an imitation, and KM55 which appears to be an imported ‘BoR’) are probably both imported. They are made of a totally different fabric, characterized by a dense, possibly micaceous matrix, dominated by coarse silt-sand sized foraminifera and slight inclusions of quartz, opaque minerals and chalk. This was defined as Group 6. The origin of this group may be from Cyprus; apparently the seemingly imitated bowl (KM54) is also imported.

Petrographic Group 5 is not a very distinctive group and includes up to nine examples (see BenShlomo 2012: 394, fig. 16.11); in many cases the samples do not vary considerably from the various fabrics as 1a and 1b and are therefore inconclusive. Although Group 5 is somewhat close to Groups 1a and 1b, as the many indecisive samples can attest, it may be tentatively seen as representing a clay derived from a different soil, possibly of terra rossa with sand-sized chalk and quartz of the upper Shephelah (Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 284–85; Goren and Halperin 2004: 2555–56), or a mixture of Shephelah soils with dark brown soil.35 This clay, with its reddish hue given by the ferrous minerals, is common to the Shephelah and Judean hills; terra rossa could be found, though, on the site-catchment limits of Tell es-Safi/Gath (Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 284). Group 6

Petrographic Group 3 (Ben-Shlomo 2012:392, fig. 16.12) represents a finer clay, highly calcareous and less porous marl (‘marly soil’, cf. Porat 1989: 26–29); one or two examples belong to this group. The matrix is usually active, particles are double to open spaced, the fine silt component is moderate to very high and the voids are lower than previous groups at 5–15% in most cases. This could be some sort of clay derived from of a mixture of soils occurring in the border zone between the coastal plains and the southern Shephelah: brown/dark brown soil, loess, and pale rendzina. Only three vessels were made of this fabric (KM26, KM38, KM42), two of which are jars.

Results according to pottery types As can be seen in Table 2.46, most of the bowls belong to the various fabrics of Group 1, yet eight belong to other fabric including two imported BoR bowls (Group 6, KM54–KM55), and four BL 1.3.1 of loess or undetermined fabrics. The four kraters sampled were also quite variable in their fabrics, while four cooking pots were made of brown soil, rich in silty quartz (Groups 1a and 1c). The 18 jars sampled were relatively homogenous in their fabric: 11 are made of brown soil with Fabrics 1a, 1b and 1c represented; five were

Group 4 Only one or two samples (KM25, KM31) are made of a different soil, which derives from some type of calcareous marl (Taqiye?), defined as Group 4 here. KM31 shows a few inclusions of silt-sized dolomite.

35

M. Wieder noted that some of the slides that represent this group may include husmas soil, which is a deeply buried hamra soil with effects of secondary cal-

careous sedimentation. Husmas soil can be often characterized by quartz grains with a calcareous coating (Wieder and Gvirtzman 1999: 220–22). I wish to thank Dr. Wieder for this observation.

106

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

BEN-SHLOMO: PETROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF POTTERY site, as originally designated by the excavator. However, the existence of several vessels made of clay mixtures may not be surprising in this case. Several vessels were also imported from distant areas. Yet the jars are relatively homogeneous, which may indicate that the site did not import commodities from distant regions. If this is a pottery production site with pottery coming from kilns, it may be possible that various clay recipes were used, thus resulting in a higher compositional variability. Perhaps some of the samples that were grouped as coastal reflect a different type of clay used more rarely in the workshop and not commonly used by other regional workshops. Also possible is that to a certain extent, the various firing conditions are responsible for the discrepancies in chemical and petrographic grouping (especially in relation to the latter). This phenomenon is known to occur mostly in the alkaline elements K, Rb, and possibly Na (Kilikoglou et al. 1988; Cogswell et al. 1996). The phenomenon of various degrees of compositional variabilities in production centers has been previously encountered, even in cases when most of the samples were defined as wasters (see Buxeda I Garrigos et al. 2001, in the Late Bronze Age kiln at Kommos Crete, and Buxeda I Garrigos et al. 2003, in a modern production center). In any case, the compositional results of the samples from Ḥorvat Shimon do not strengthen the proposed identification of the site as a pottery workshop on the one hand, while on the other hand may illustrate the problems that can arise from assigning pottery from kilns as definitive reference material.36

made of calcareous or other fabrics. The jugs and juglets were also quite variable with a high percentage made of fabrics representing soils not common to the vicinity of the site. Several samples all show high firing temperature with many traces of decomposed calcite, while sandy and silty quartz also occurs. This clay was possibly quarried from the Elah Valley (possibly related to husmas soil, see above). Thirteen samples were classified as Group 1c. The two coarse ware samples (KM17 and KM19) vary chemically, but according to TSPA were made of loess type clay of Fabric 2c (inner plains inclusions?). Sample KM10, as noted above, was indicated to be a loner by TSPA as well (Ben-Shlomo 2006: fig. 4.38:4). Several samples may indicate a mixture of clays, usually quartzic brown soil clay and some type of calcareous rendzina type clay (these include KM61, KM62 and KM65). Most of the samples indicate a high firing temperature of above 850–900°C and were covered by thick encrustation. Several vessels show a ‘milky’ calcareous matrix texture (as KM27, KM62 and KM65), also likely caused by the exposure to high temperature and post-depositional effects. It is difficult to interpret these samples because of this. DISCUSSION The variability of the chemical and petrofabric profiles of the pottery from Ḥorvat Shimon is notable. Although a large group is made of brown soil of different fabric, many other fabrics are also represented. This phenomenon is especially strange if we are dealing with a pottery production

36

Editors’ note: It should be stressed that the identification of the site as a pottery workshop has been questioned. See Dagan and Maeir, above.

107

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Group

Bowl

Krater

Cooking pot

Jar

Jug

Juglet

Other

Total

1a

0

1

2

3

5

0

0

11

1b

5

2

0

5

2

0

0

14

1c

2

3

2

3

1

1

1

13

2

3

1

0

2

1

0

2

9

5?

1

1

0

1

3

3

0

9

Other

4

2

0

4

1

0

0

11

Total

15

10

4

18

13

4

3

67

Table 2.46: Petrofabrics at Ḥorvat Shimon according to pottery forms.

20

other 5? 2 1c 1b 1a

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Bowl

Krater Cooking pot

Jar

Jug

Juglet

Other

Figure 2.21: Petrofabrics at Ḥorvat Shimon according to pottery forms.

Sample

Type

Basket

Soil Terra rossa?

TS Group/notes 5b?

ICP group 1

KM1

JG 4.1

181

KM2

JG 10.1

KM3

Fig. 2.12:7

225

Terra rossa?

5a

Loner

Fig. 2.13:5

JGT 2.1.2

173

Terra rossa?

5a, inner plains

1

Fig. 2.14:3

KM4

BL 1.1

142

Brown?

1c, coastal?

2

KM5

JR 2.1

185

Brown

1b, local

-

KM6

BL (Phoenician)

186

Terra rossa?

5b?

-

KM8

JG1

158

Terra rossa?

5a, coastal?

2

KM9

JGT

162

Terra rossa?

5b?

2

108

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Figure

BEN-SHLOMO: PETROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF POTTERY Sample

Type

Basket

Soil ?

TS Group/notes Loner

ICP group Outlier

KM10

JGT 2.2

302

KM11

KR?

KM12

242

Terra rossa?

5a

-

JR1

354

Terra rossa?

5a

-

KM13

BL

187

Brown

1b, local?

2

KM14

JR1

181/b

Brown

1b, local

1

KM15

JGT

181/c

Terra rossa?

5b?

3

KM16

KR?

181/d

Brown?

1c, local

3

KM17

Basin? (coarse)

204

Loess?

2c, inner plains?

3

KM18

JG4 (LPDW?)

251

Brown

1a, coastal

2

KM19

Weight

164

Loess

2c, Shephelah

7

KM20

Jar 1.1

195

Brown

1a, local

Fig. 2.10:2

KM21

Jar 1.1

223

Brown

1b, local

Fig. 2.10:3

KM22

Jar 1.1

146

Brown

1b, local

Fig. 2.10:1

KM23

Krater

292

Brown?

1c, local

KM24

Krater

202

Brown

1b, local

KM25

Krater

143

4?

KM26

Jar

194/3

Calcareous marl (taqiye?) Rendzina?

KM27

Jar

210

?

?

KM28

Jar

240

Brown?

1c, local

KM29

Jar

133

Brown?

1c, local

KM30

Jar 3.1.2

194/1

1c/5?

KM31

Jar/jug

216

Brown/ terra rossa Marl?

4?

KM32

Jar

223

Loess

2

KM33

Jar

119/2

Brown

1a, local

KM34

Jar

119/1

2?

KM35

Jug/amphora

127/1

Loess/ rendzina? Brown

1a (HF)

KM36

Jug 2.1

185

Loess

2a, local/coastal

KM37

Jar

132

1a?, local?

KM38

Jug

239

Hamra/ brown Rendzina

3, Shephelah

KM39

Jug

133

Brown

1b, local

109

Figure Fig. 2.14:4

3?

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Fig. 2.11:4

Fig. 2.12:2

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Sample

Type

Basket

Soil

KM40

Jug

263

Brown?

TS Group/notes 1c, local

ICP group

KM41

Cooking pot 2.3

121/2

Brown?

1c, local

KM42

Jar

121/4

Rendzina?

KM43

Jar

121/1

Brown

3b? Shephelah?? 1b, local

KM44

Juglet

146/2

Loess/brown

2a

KM45

Jug

187

Brown

1a, local

KM46

Jug

241

Brown

1(a?), local

KM47

143

Brown?

1c, local

KM48

Holemouth jar SJ9 Cooking pot 2.2

186

Brown

1(a?), local

KM49

Krater

121/21

Loess

2a

KM50

Krater 2.1

181

Brown

1a, local

KM51

Bowl?

121

Loess

2b, coastal?

KM52

Cooking pot 2.2

144

Brown?

1c

KM53

Open bowl

142

Brown?

1c, local

KM54

Bowl 'BOR'

249/1

X1

6, import

Fig. 2.6:12

KM55

Bowl BOR

242

X1

6, import

Fig. 2.6: 13

KM56

Bowl 1.3.1

153

Brown

1b

KM57

Bowl 1.3.1

130

Brown

1b/1c, local

Fig. 2.5:5

KM58

Bowl 1.3.1

201

Brown

1b, local

Fig. 2.5:7

KM59

Cooking pot

187

Brown

1a, local

Fig. 2.9:4

KM60

Bowl 1.3.1

183

Brown

1b/1c, local

KM61

Krater 3.1

221

1b(+)

Fig. 2.8:5

KM62

Bowl 1.3

198

2(+)

Fig. 2.5:4

KM63

Bowl 1.3

194

Brown (mixed?) Loess/ rendzina? ?

?

Fig. 2.5:5

KM64

Bowl 5.1

131/1

Loess

2b, coastal?

Fig. 2.5:7

KM65

Jug 2.1.3

263

1b?(+)

Fig. 2.12: 5

KM66

Krater 1.1

111

Brown (mixed?) Brown

1a, local

Fig. 2.8:1

KM67

Krater

141

Brown?

1c, local

KM68

Bowl 4.3

101

?

?

KM69

Krater

245

Calcareous?

?

Table 2.47: Analysis of samples form Ḥorvat Shimon

110

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Figure

Fig. 2.9:7

Fig. 2.11:11

Fig. 2.8:4

Fig. 2.6:1

BEN-SHLOMO: PETROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF POTTERY Sample KM20

Type Jar

Basket 195

KM21

Jar

223

KM22

Jar

146

KM23

Krater

292

KM24

Krater

202

KM25

Krater

143

KM26

Jar

194/3

KM27

Jar

210

KM28

Jar

240

KM29

Jar

133

KM30

Jar

194/1

KM31

Jar/jug

216

KM32

Jar

223

KM33

Jar

119/2

KM34

Jar

119/1

KM35

Jug/ amphora

127/1

KM36

Jug

185

KM37

Jar

132

KM38

Jug

239

Soil Brown

Matrix Dark, inactive, ss, 25% voids

Inclusions QZ: 25% bimodar, 30–150 a, 250–1000 sa-r; Several: Mica 40–120 sa-sr, Feldspar 40–100 sa-a; Rare: Hornblende 80–100 sa Brown Dark, inactive, ss, QZ: 30% 30–200, a-sa, several 400–800 25% voids sr-r, several zoned/cracked; Several: LS/CC 80–400 sr, Mica 40–100 sa, OP 30–80 r-sr; Rare: Feldspar 40–80 sa, Chert 100–300 sa-a Brown Dark, inactive, ss, QZ: 25% poorly sorted 30–300 a-sa, sev15% voids eral zoned; Several: CC 80–250 sr, feldspar 60–120 sa, OP 30–60 r; Rare: Mica 30–60 sa Brown? Inactive, cs, 20% QZ: 50% moderately sorted, 50–150 avoids sa; Several: CC/LS 60–120 sa-sr, OP 30– 60 r, Mica 40–100 sa-sr Brown Dark, inactive, ss, QZ: 25% poorly sorted 30–450 a-sr, 25% voids some cracked; Several: CC 60–300 sr, Mica 40–100 sa, OP 20–60 r, red OP 80– 150 sr Marl Slightly active, ds, Chalk/CC: 25% 200–1000 r-sr, LS: 5% (taqiye?) 10% voids, silty 100–500 sr, Bone/shell 3% 100–600 rect., QZ 3% 20–50 sa-a; Several: OP 50–250 sr-r Rendzina? Slightly active, ds, QZ: 15% poorly sorted, 30–250 a; LS/CC 25% voids, silty 3% 100–1000 poorly sorted sr; Several: OP 40–80 r; Rare Mica 30–60 sa ? Dark/calcareous, ss, QZ: 15% moderately sorted 30–100 a; 20% voids, silty LS: 5% 80–300 sa-sr; Several: feldspar 40–80 sa, Op 30–60 sr-r Brown? Dark, inactive, cs, QZ: 40% moderately sorted, 40–400 a-sa, 15% voids few sr; LS: 1% 100–500 sa-sr; Several OP 30–80 r; Rare: Mica 30–60 sa Brown? Inactive, cs, 10% QZ: 40% moderately sorted, 40–100, a, voids few 100–300 rounded; Several: CC 100– 400 sr, OP 40–120 sr-r, Mica 30–80 sa Brown Slightly active, QZ: 30% poorly sorted 30–150 a-sa, few ss/cs, 10% voids, 300–400 r; CC: 20% 200–1500 r; OP: 3 silty % 50–250 r; Several: LS 80–350 a-sa, Chalk 200–400 sr RenActive, ds, 25% CC(?): 20% 150–1500 r; Several: QZ dzina/marl voids, silty 30–80 a, OP 30–80 r, LS 50–120 sr-sa, ? dolomite(?) 30–60 rhomb Loess Slightly active, ds, QZ: 15% well sorted 20–100 a; Several: 20% voids, silty CC 100–200 r, FR 60–120 r, Mica 30–80 sa-a, feldspar 30–60 a, OP 30–70 r Brown Dark, inactive, cs, QZ: 30% poorly sorted 30–400, a-r, few 10% voids cracked/zoned; CC: 8% 100–400 r; OP: 3% 40–120 r; Several : Mica 40–100 sa-a Loess? Active, ss/cs, 15% QZ: 25% poorly sorted 20–250 a; CC: voids, silty 2% 100–300 r; Several: Mica 30–100 sasr, OP 30–100 r, feldspar 40–120 sa-a Brown Dark, ss, 30% voids QZ: 20% bimodal 20–80 a, 120–700 sr-r, many cracked, zoned; Several: OP 30–80 r, Mica 40–100 sa, CC 100–200 r Loess Dark, ss, 25% voids QZ: 25% bimodal 20–80 a, 150–600 r, several zoned; Several: mica 30–80 sa, OP 30–100 r; Rare feldspar 40–80 sa Hamra/ Reddish, inactive, QZ: 25% bimodal 20–80 a, 100–500 r; brown? 25% voids Several: Op 30–150 sr, CC 100–250 r, feldspar 40–80 sa Rendzina Slightly active, ss, QZ: 25% bimodal 20–60 a, 100–300 r, 20% voids, silty several zoned; FR: 3% 50–500 r, several types; Several: OP 40–80 r, LS 50–80, Chalk 400–500 sr; Rare Mica 40–80 sa

111

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Notes

Group 1a

1b

1b

1c 1b

4?

Decomposed calcite

3/4? ? 1c 1c 1c

Decomposed calcite

4? 2 1a 2?

HF

1a

Added QZ

2a

Added QZ

1a

Added QZ?

3

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON Sample KM39

Type Jug

Basket 133

Soil Brown

Matrix Dark, ss-cs, 10% voids

KM40

Jug

263

Brown?

Dark, inactice, cs, 20% voids

KM41

Cooking pot 121/2

Brown?

Dark/reddish, inactive, cs, 15% voids

KM42

Jar

121/4

Rendzina? Slightly active, ss, 25% voids, silty

KM43

Jar

121/1

Brown

Dark, ss, 10% voids

KM44

Juglet

146/2

Loess/ brown

Slightly active, ss, 10% voids, silty

KM45

Jug

187

Brown

Dark, inactive, ss, 30% voids

KM46

Jug

241

Brown

Dark, inactive, ss, 35% voids

KM47

Holemouth jar

143

Brown?

Inactive, ss-cs, 25% voids

KM48

Cooking pot 186

Brown

Dark, ss, 25% voids

KM49

Krater

121/21

Loess

Slightly active, ss, 20% voids, silty

KM50

Krater

181

Brown

Dark, inactive, ssds, 20% voids

KM51

Bowl?

121

Loess

Slightly active, cs, 10% voids, silty

KM52

Cooking pot 144

Brown

Inactive, ss-cs, 25% voids

KM53

Open bowl

142

Brown?

Dark, inactive, sscs, 15% voids

KM54

Bowl 'BOR'

249/1

X1

Slightly active, micaveous(?), ds, 10% voids, silty

KM55

Bowl BOR

242

X21

Micaceous, slightly active, ss-ds, 10% voids, silty

Inclusions Notes QZ: 35% moderately sorted a; CC: 5% 100–500 r; Several: Mica 40–80 sa, OP 30–80 r QZ: 50% moderately sorted, 30–100 asa; CC: 2% 150–600 r-sr; Several: OP 40–100 r, Mica 30–80 sa QZ: 40% moderately/well sorted, 30–150 a, some 200 r-sa; CC/LS: 3% 80–250 srr; Several: OP 40–80 r, FR 40–100 r, Mica 30–80 sa; rare: feldspar 40–60 sa FR: 20% 50–200 r various types; LS/calcite: 20% 50–150 sa; Chalk: 5% 200– 1500 r; LS: 2% 80–200 sr-sa; Several: reddish calc. Incl. 250–600 r, OP 40–80 r-sr, reddish mineral 80–180 sa, QZ 30– 80 a QZ: 25% bimodal(?) 30–80 a, 150–400 (few 600) sr-r; CC/LS: 2% 100–400 r; Several: OP 40–120 sa-r, Mica 30–60 sa QZ: 30% well sorted 30–80 a; Several: CC 100–200 r, OP 30–80 r-sr; Rare; feldspar 40–80 sa, bluish mineral 60–80 sr QZ: 25% bimodal, 20–100 a, 150–800 srr, several zoned; Several: LS 100–200 sasr, OP 30–80 sr QZ: 25% bimodal 30–100 a, 150–500 sr- High temp. r, many cracked; Several: Op 30–80 sr, CC 60–150 sr, Mica 40–60 sa QZ: 35% poorly sorted, 30–400, some cracked/zoned; Several: LS 60–130 sr-sa, Mica 40–80 sa, OP 30–60 r; Rare: feldspar 250–300 sr QZ: 30% poorly sorted/bimodal, 20–400 a-r, some zoned; Several: Mica 40–150 sa-sr, CC 100–180 sr, feldspar 40–100 sa, OP 30–60 r QZ: 25% bimodal, 30–70 a, 100–500 srr, several zoned; Several: LS 60–120 srsa, Op 30–80 r; Rare: feldspar 30–50 sa QZ: 20% bimodal 20–80 a, 120–350 sa-r; Several: Op 30–60 r; Rare; feldspar 30– 50 sa QZ: 40% well sorted 20–80 a, few 150– 200 sa-sr; CC: 2% well sorted 50–120 sr; LS: 2% well sorted 40–100 sa-sr; Several: OP 30–80 sr, Mica 30–80 sa; Rare: feldspar 30–60 sa, chert 60–100 sa-sr, FR 40–60 r QZ: 35% moderately sorted 30–150 a; Several: OP 30–80 sr-r; Rare: Clay ball 900–1000 r, LS/CC 60–120 sr, Mica 30– 60 sa, feldspar 30–50 sa QZ: 40% well sorted 30–100 a-sa; Several: OP 30–100 sr-r, Clay balls 100–300 r, CC 80–150 sr; Rare: Mica 30–50 sa FR: 25% 80–400 r-cell; QZ: 3% 40–120 sa-a; Op: 3% 30–100 red/black sa-sr; Several: CC/LS 50–150 sa-sr, Mica 50– 80 sa FR: 20% 100–400 r (chalk chunk); LS: 5% 250–600 sr-sa; Mica: 2% 50–150 sa; Chalk: 2% 80–250 sr; Several: OP 30– 100 sr-r, QZ 50–100 a

112

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Group 1b 1c 1c

3b?

1b 2a 1a 1(a?) 1c

1(a?)

2a 1a 2b

1c

1c 6

6

BEN-SHLOMO: PETROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF POTTERY Sample KM56

Type Bowl 'Safi'

Basket 153

Soil Brown

Matrix Dark, inactive, ss, 30% voids

KM57

Bowl 'Safi'

130

Brown

Dark, inactive, cs, 25% voids

KM58

Bowl 'Safi'

201

Brown

KM59

Cooking pot 187

Brown

KM60

Bowl 'Safi'

183

Brown

KM61

Krater

221

Brown

KM62

Bowl 'Safi'

198

Loess/ rendzina

KM63

Bowl 'Safi'

194

?

KM64

Bowl 'Safi'

131/1

Loess

KM65

Jug

263

Brown?

KM66

Jug/krater

111

Brown

KM67

Krater

141

Brown?

KM68

Bowl (Safi?) 101

?

KM69

Krater

?

245

Inclusions QZ: 25% poorly sorted 30–300 a-sr; CC: 5% 150–400 r; Rare: Mica 30–50 sa

QZ: 35% poorly sorted 30–300 sa-a, few 300–400 r; CC: 3% 300–1600 r-sr; Several: OP 30–80 r, Mica 20–50 sa; Rare: feldspar 40–60 sa Inactive, cs, 10% QZ: 30% moderately sorted a-sa, few voids 150–250 sr; LS: 1% 50–120 sa; Several: CC 50–100 sr, Mica 30–60 sa, OP 30–80 r Dark, inactive, ss, QZ: 30% bimodal(?) 30–80 a, 150–500 25% voids sr-sa; Several: OP 30–80 sr, CC 40–140 sr; Rare: Mica 30–50 sa Inactive, cs, 20% QZ: 50% moderately sorted 30–180 a; voids LS: 5% 80–200 sr-sa; Several CC 80– 120 sr, OP 30–60 sr; Rare: clay balls 200–250 r Dark, inactive, ss, QZ: 25% poorly sorted 230–350 a-sr; 40% voids Several: CC 60–160 sr, Op 50–80 sr, 1 Chalk chunk 2500 Active, milky texQZ: 20% poorly sorted 20–350 a-sa; CC: ture, ss, 15% voids, 5% 200–3000 sr-r; Several: OP 30–80 r; silty Rare: feldspar 40–60 sa, Mica 30–60 sa, FR 30–60 r Dark, inactive, ss, QZ: 25% poorly sorted 40–400 a-sa, 30% voids many cracked; Several: CC 150–500 srsa, OP 30–60 sr-sa Active, ss-ds, 20% QZ: 20% poorly sorted, 30–300, sa-sr; voids, silty Several: CC 150–600 r, OP 30–80 sr, LS 40–100 sa, FR 40–120 r Dark, inactive, ssQZ: 25% poorly sorted 40–500 sa-r; Sevds, 30% voids eral: LS/CC 60–200 sa-sr, OP 30–100 sar Dark, inactive, ss, QZ: 25% poorly sorted/bimodal 30–500 25% voids a-r, some zoned; Several: OP 30–80 sasr, feldspar 40–100 sa-a, LS 40–80 sa Inactive/reddish, ss- QZ: 35% well sorted 30–80 a, few 120– cs, 10% voids 200 sr; Several: CC 150–400 sr-r; Rare: OP 30–60 r, Mica 30–50 sa Dark, inactive, ss, QZ: 30% moderately sorted 20–100 a, 30% voids few 150–200 sa (1800, quarzite??), few cracked; Rare: OP 30–60 sa-sr, Mica 30– 50 sa, CC 50–100 sr Dark/reddish, inac- QZ: 25% moderately sorted 20–150 a-sa; tive, cs, 15% voids Clay balls 3% 500–1500 r; CC: 2% 50– 250 sr-sa; Several: OP 30–80 sa; LS 40– 100 sa; Rare: Mica 40–80 sa

Notes

Group 1b 1b/1c

1b

1a 1b/1c

High temp. Damaged slide

1a 2

? 2b Mixed?

1a? 1a 1c ?

?

Table 2.48: Descriptions of thin sections from Ḥorvat Shimon

REFERENCES Ackermann, O., Maeir, A. M., and Bruins, H. J. 2004 Unique Human-Made Catenary Changes and Their Effect on Soil and Vegetation in the Semi-Arid Mediterranean Zone: A Case Study on Sarcopoterium Spinosum Distribution near Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Catena 57: 309–30.

Adams, A. E., MacKenzie, W. S., and Guilford, C. 1984 Atlas of Sedimentary Rocks under the Microscope. Hong Kong: Longman Scientific and Technical. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2006 Decorated Philistine Pottery: An Archaeological and Archaeometric Study. BAR International Series 1541. Oxford: Archaeopress.

113

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 2: ḤORVAT SHIMON 2012

Archaeometric Analysis of Pottery. Pp. 383– 426 in A. M. Maeir, Excavations at Tell esSafi/Gath, Volume 1. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz. Buchbinder, B. 1969 Geological Map of Hashephela Region, Israel. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel. Bullok, P., Federoff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G., and Tursina, T. 1985 Handbook for Soil Thin Section Description. Wolverhampton: Waine Research Publications. Buxeda I Garrigós, J. 1999 Alteration and Contamination of Archaeological Ceramics: The Perturbation Problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 295– 313. Buxeda I Garrigós, J., Kilikoglou, V. and Day, P. M. 2001 Chemical and Mineralogical Alteration of Ceramics from a Late Bronze Age Kiln at Kommos, Crete: The Effect on the Formation of a Reference Group. Archaeometry 43/3:349–71. Buxeda I Garrigós, J., Cau Ontiveros, M. A. and Kilikoglou, V. 2003 Chemical Variability in Clays from a Traditional Cooking Pot Production Village: Testing Assumptions in Pereruela. Archaeometry 45/1:1–17. Dan, J., and Bruins, H. J. 1981 Soils of The Southern Coastal Plain. Pp. 143–87 in Aridic Soils of Israel, eds. J. Dan, R. Gerson, H. Koyumdjisky, and D. H. Yaalon. Beit Dagan: Volcani Center. Dan, J., Raz, Z., Ya’alon, D. H., and Koyumdjisky, H. 1975 Soil Map of Israel. Jerusalem: Ministry of Agriculture. Dan, J., Yaalon, D. H., Koyumdjisky, H., and Raz, Z. 1972 The Soil Association Map of Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 21: 29–49. 1976 The Soils of Israel. Pamphlet 159. Beit Dagan: Volcani Center. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I., and Na’aman, N. 2004 Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology

Monograph Series 23. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Goren, Y., and Halperin, N. 2004 Selected Petrographic Analyses. Pp. 2553– 86 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Master, D. M. 2003 Trade and Politics: Ashkelon’s Balancing Act in the Seventh Century B.C.E. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 330: 47–64. Nir, D. 1989 The Geomorphology of the Land of Israel. Jerusalem: Hebrew University (Hebrew). Porat, N. 1989 Composition of Pottery – Application to the Study of the Interrelations between Canaan and Egypt during the 3rd Millennium B.C. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Ravikovitch, S. 1970 Soil Map. Atlas of Israel. Tel Aviv: Survey of Israel. Shahar, A. ed. 1995 The New Atlas of Israel. Tel Aviv: Israel Mapping Center. Sneh, A., Bartov, Y., and Rosensaft, M. 1998 Geological Map of Israel. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel. Whitbread, I. K. 1986 The Characterization of Agrillaceous Inclusions in Ceramic Thin Sections. Archaeometry 28: 79–88. 1995 Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study. Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4. Exeter: The British School at Athens. Wieder, M., and Gvirtzman, G. 1999 Micromorphological Indications on the Nature of the Late Quaternary Paleosols in the Southern Coastal Plain of Israel. Catena 35: 219–37.

114

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3 AREA C: THE SIEGE TRENCH AND FEATURES IN ITS VICINITY

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C SHIRA GUR-ARIEH AND AREN M. MAEIR 24005, 24006 and 24007 respectively; see Fig. 3.3). Initially, excavation exposed the road’s foundation, made of fieldstones of various sizes. The findings below the road were scarce and included a few indicative sherds dating to the Roman-Byzantine period, as well as one potsherd that dated to the Ayyubid period and a coin dating to the Crusader period. These later remains are most probably evidence of later repairs and reuse of the Roman road during the Crusader period. Unfortunately, the terminus ante quem for the quarrying of the trench provided by this road only delimited the time of the quarrying to the preCrusader period.

INTRODUCTION

A

t the onset of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project, in the summer of 1996, while examining aerial photographs of the site and its vicinity, a clearly noticeable feature was seen on the eastern, southern and western sides of the site (e.g., Maeir 2012; Fig. 3.1). This feature, labeled Area C, was tentatively identified as a siege trench that had been quarried during a military campaign, likely part of a siege of one of the phases of settlement on the tell. Subsequently, the discovery of what appeared to be a Roman period road, crossing over this trench, strengthened the assumption that the feature should be given an early date, and left the possibility open that it was connected to Assyrian or Aramean military activity. Following a surface survey of this feature and its vicinity, excavations were conducted at various points along its path and surroundings (Area C) during the 1998–2009 seasons, with the various areas labeled Areas C1–C6 (Fig. 3.2). As part of this work, several sections were dug, both using mechanical equipment and manually. This chapter presents the findings of these excavations.1

Area C2 Area C2 is located southwest of the tell, adjacent to the quarried trench (Fig. 3.2). This area was also excavated in the 1998 season by I. Shai and A. Levy-Reifer, after a rectangular structure made of large boulders was identified in the surface survey. Two 4.5x4.5 m squares were excavated (Fig. 3.4-Fig. 3.6). The structure was built of massive stones with dimensions of 4.2–5.4x8.9–11 m (Fig. 3.4). North of the structure, a terrace wall (W25008) which was made of medium-sized fieldstones was discovered. This wall may have served as a support wall for the tower, or a later terrace wall, that can be dated to the Ottoman period, as indicated by the complete Ottoman period jug found right next to the wall.2 Although both squares were excavated to bedrock and the sediments were sieved, no indicative finds were recovered other than the jug. Although the lack of relevant finds does not allow us to determine this unequivocally, it seems most likely that the tower was related to the trench, as indicated by its position along the outer edge of the trench, similar to the structures discovered in Area C6 (see below).

STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Area C1 Area C1, excavated in the summer of 1998 by I. Shai and A. Levy-Reifer, is located south of the tell, adjacent to the quarried feature (Fig. 3.2). The purpose of the excavation was to excavate beneath the road that crosses through the trench, which was believed to be the Roman road leading from Eleutheropolis (Beit Guvrin) to Diospolis (Lod) (Roll and Dagan 1988). A 3.5x7.07 m area was excavated beneath the road, which was built at an elevation of 169.82 masl. The exterior and interior curbstones of the road were already visible on the surface (Loci 1

2

The finds of this chapter were analyzed as part of an M.A. thesis (Gur-Arieh 2008) written by the first author, under the supervision of the second author, and submitted to Bar-Ilan University.

Unfortunately, this jug could not be located during the preparation of this publication.

117

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C

Fig. 3.1: Vertical aerial photograph (British Royal Air Force, 1945) of Tell es-Safi/Gath with locations of excavation areas. Note the dark colored elongated, semi-circular feature surrounding the tell, from the east, south and west sides, marking the siege trench and its related features, and Areas C1–C5.

Fig. 3.2: Map of Tell es-Safi/Gath showing the location of the various excavation areas. Note Area C, with the various subareas marked, positioned along the siege trench (marked by a dashed line).

118

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.3: Plan of Area C1.

Fig. 3.4: Plan of Area C2.

119

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C

Fig. 3.5: Aerial view of Area C2 (north at top of photo): 1) the tower; 2) the trench; 3) the terrace or support wall.

Fig. 3.6: Aerial view of Area C2, looking east.

120

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.7: Area C3 section – east (top) and west (bottom).

area supervisor, with the aim of answering specific stratigraphic questions prior to the completion of the excavations in this area. Area C6 can be divided into three subareas, described below from south to north: The southernmost area (C6S herein) includes one square excavated in the 2000 season. The square was 5x2.5 m and most of the finds in it were dated to the Iron Age IIA. Northwest of C6S and parallel to it, subarea C6W is an 11x7x5 m square located in the trench itself, yielding finds from the Iron Age IIA and Byzantine periods (see below). The northernmost subarea is located east of the quarried trench (C6E herein). This area, excavated from 2001 to 2009, includes 12.5 5x5 m squares (Grid 250, Squares 9C-D, 18A-D, 19A-D, 28B and 29A, C), with a stratigraphic sequence spanning from the EB IV/MB I through to the Iron Age IIA. The vicinity of Area C6 is characterized by patches of exposed bedrock with soil pockets in between. This was important in defining Area C6E for excavation, since it was the only space on the ridge where an extended area without exposed bedrock was located (Fig. 3.10). The main architectural finds in the area consist of two structures, both dating to the Iron Age, with the later of the two cutting into the earlier structure. Evidence for human activity in the EB IV/MB I was also found, but this was limited to the area to the north of the Iron Age structures. A possible shaft tomb of this period may have been located in the vicinity. Due to the nature of the area discussed above, the stratigraphic interpretation presented below is based on the ceramic finds, as well as on the

Area C3 Area C3 was a probe dug with a backhoe within the quarried feature, west of the “Roman” road during the 1998 season. The probe was 13.5 m long, 1 m wide and 2.94 m deep. In both sections of the probe, the excavators recognized the nari (a calcareous caliche crust) sitting on top of white chalk, beneath which was a backfill of quarried chalk chips. As seen in subsequent seasons, chips, which originated from the trench quarrying, were dumped to the side of the trench creating a berm, from which they eroded into the trench as a backfill that was stratified on top of the bedrock (Fig. 3.7; see Ackermann et al. 2003; 2005). Areas C4 and C5 Areas C4 and C5 were probes dug by a tractor during the 1998 season, in the quarried trench west (C4) and east (C5) of Area C1. Nothing of archaeological significance, however, was found in these probes. Area C6 Area C6 is the largest of the excavation areas related to the trench, located on a northward sloping ridge, about 100 m east of Tell es-Safi/ Gath (Fig. 3.2, Fig. 3.8). Although the area is topographically lower than the tell (203 masl; Fig. 3.9), it is quite elevated in comparison to the lower city which is situated to the north of the tell (Uziel and Maeir 2005: 55). The area was excavated between 2000 and 2009. Z. Zwieg served as the area supervisor in 2000, followed by I. Bordowicz during the 2001– 2008 seasons. In 2009, S. Gur-Arieh served as the 121

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C poorly preserved and their stratigraphic relationship was not clear. These features are made of medium-sized fieldstones (20x15 cm), with their orientation not clearly defined. Feature 80033 is 1.3 m long and 0.8 m wide, while Features 80034 and 80035 were 0.95x0.8 m and 0.7x0.36 m respectively. These three features do not create any recognizable structure (Fig. 3.11). On the bedrock, two quarried features were found. The first is Cupmark 90021 that was found underneath the balk between Squares 18B and 19A. It is 14 cm deep and 20 cm in diameter. Another cupmark (100011) that measures 20 cm in diameter and 15 cm deep, was found in Square 18C. Also found in these squares was a quarried installation (L100029) made of two features, one oval and the other square, connected by a channel (Fig. 3.11). There may be a connection between the installlation and the cupmark(s), but this cannot be proven.3

relationship between the architecture elements. Some of the strata are represented both by architectural features and the accumulation of sediments, while others are represented solely by the ceramic finds. Hence the definition of each will be explained in detail. Table 3.1 presents the different strata, their dates, and the equivalent strata in Areas A and E on the tell. Stratum

Date

C6-1 C6-2a C6-2b C6-3 C6-4 C6-5

Byzantine Late Iron Age IIA Iron Age IIA Iron Age I LB II EB IV/MB I

Equivalent strata in Areas A and E -A3, E2 A3, E2 A4–5, E3 E4 --

Table 3.1: Stratigraphic Sequence of Area C6.

Architectural Elements Lacking Stratigraphic Attribution Several architectural features and cut marks in the bedrock could not be dated or assigned stratigraphically. Three stone features in Square 28B were

Fig. 3.8: Aerial view of Area C6 (left), in relation to the upper tell, looking southwest.

3

For discussions on the dating of cupmarks and the options regarding their possible use, see, e.g., Grossman and Goren-Inbar 2007; 2016.

122

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.9: View of tell, as seen from Area C6 (front), looking west.

Fig. 3.10: View of Area C6, looking north. Note the accumulation of sediments in the northern sections.

123

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C

Fig. 3.11: Plan of Area C6, including architectural elements lacking stratigraphic attribution.

124

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.12: Quarried Feature L90009, Square 9C, looking west.

125

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C

Fig. 3.13: Plan of Stratum C6-5.

126

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.14: View of pottery in situ from Stratum C6-5.

Fig. 3.15: Plan of Stratum C6-3.

127

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C

Fig. 3.16: Area C6 section – east (top) and west (bottom).

Fig. 3.17: View of Wall 80008 cut by the quarried trench of Stratum C6-2b, looking north.

128

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C which indicates human activity in the area during the LB IIB period.

Stratum C6-5 (EB IV/MB I) Stratum C6-5 was unearthed in the northern squares of the excavation area, and it seems that its poor preservation is due to the extensive building activity during the Iron Age (Fig. 3.13). The features assigned to this stratum include the remains of a pebble pavement north of Wall 50022 and a round installation made of fieldstones (80017), 80 cm in diameter. Another feature assigned to this stratum is Wall 60010. The date of the wall is not clear as it was not dismantled, but its location below Walls 50019 and 50022 and its elevation (148.18–148.16 masl) are good indications that it belongs to an earlier stratum. Because of its proximity to the EB IV/MB I remains and the fact that a complete storage jar (see Fig. 3.22) dated to this period was found next to it, it is possible to assign Stratum C6-5 to this period. Several broken storage jars dated to the EB IV/ MB I (Fig. 3.22) were found in situ in relation to these features (Fig. 3.14). In addition to these architectural elements, a quarried feature was found in Square 9C. The feature (90009) is round, 80 cm in diameter, and sealed by an EB IV/MB I fill, indicating it belonged to this period as well. The feature remains unexcavated, but on the basis of its shape, it is possible that it is the upper part of the stonequarried shaft of a shaft-tomb burial, typical of the EB IV/MB I (see, e.g., Greenhut 1995). The poor preservation of the finds from this stratum and their small scale does not allow for a clear reconstruction of the character of the area during the EB IV/MB I, but the finds seem to be of a more domestic nature, indicating that there may have been a small village at the site, with its inhabitants living off of agriculture or animal herding (Herzog 1997; for an EB IV/MB I village and nearby cemetery in the eastern Shephelah, see Paz 2012). An interesting point is the fact that of the ten vessels that were petrographically analyzed, six were produced from Motza marl clay and brought to the site (see Ben-Shlomo, this volume, below). This points to contact between the inhabitants of this site and the Central Hill country during this period.

Stratum C6-3 (Iron Age I) Stratum C6-3 is the best-preserved level in Area C, including remains of a large building (50022) and accumulations relating to it (Fig. 3.15). Building 50022 is a long structure with an east/southeast-west/northwest orientation. The original length of the building is unknown since its western edge was cut by the Stratum C6-2b trench (see below). The building is at least 9 m long and 8 m wide. The entrance to the building was probably from the east but its exact location is not clear. Two walls divide the internal space of the building into two rooms – Room 50019 (4x6 m) to the east and Room 60020 (3.5x6 m) to the west. Wall 50022, which delimits the building from the north is 1.2 m wide, with one course preserved. The wall’s western part was built on bedrock which was leveled in some places, and incorporated into the structure in others. The eastern side of the wall was built on top of the architectural remains and accumulations from previous strata. Most of the wall was built of small fieldstones (average size of 20x20 cm), while the northern face was made from slightly larger stones. The remaining upper part of the wall is level, which suggests that it served as a foundation for a mudbrick superstructure, an assumption supported by the mudbrick debris (60006) along its eastern side. The pottery found within the mudbrick debris dated no later than the Iron Age I. Wall 50022 is bonded with Wall 50019 on its eastern side. The two walls create a 90° angle in the northeast corner of the building. The preserved visible length of the outer face of Wall 50019 is 2 m, but from its inner face, it seems to continue for another 1.3 m, on which Boulder 70004 was placed in a later phase or the following period (Fig. 3.16). The wall’s maximal width is 1.2 m and its construction method is similar to that of Wall 50022, other than the outer lining which is missing. Boulder 70004, which is placed on its flat side on top of the southern end of Wall 50019 is a massive rectangular calcrete stone, whose dimensions are 1x0.80x0.35 m. The inner partition walls of the building (60020 and 100012 from north to south) are similar in construction to Wall 50019. A section in Wall 60026 yielded several sherds dating from the LB IIB and earlier (see Fig. 3.25: 3; Fig. 3.26: 8 and discussion below). Wall 100012 was only partially exposed, but its construction method and

Stratum C6-4 (LB IIB) Stratum C6-4 is only represented by fill layers, with no architectural features related to it. However, the fill is spatially limited to the southern part of the area (Squares 28B and 29C),

129

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C orientation in comparison to the northern half of the building supports the assumption that it should also be associated with Building 50022. If it does belong to the building, together with Wall 60020, it forms a 2 m wide opening between the two rooms. Only the northern face of the southern wall of the building (100013) was exposed, which was also built of small fieldstones. The structure of the southern walls of the building is less clear as the stratigraphy in this area is further complicated by a second wall phase. The lower system of walls includes the southern wall of the building (100013) of which only the northern face was exposed, and the northeast-southwest Wall 100012 that seems to be bonded to it. Walls 100012 and 100013 were preserved to a height of at least one course. Walls 70024 and 70028 that overlie Walls 100012 and 100013 in almost the exact orientation, which makes it hard to decipher their exact layout. Pavement 80040, built of small fieldstones, abuts Wall 100013 from the north. Only a small area of the poorly preserved pavement survived. Beneath the pavement (90019), an Iron Age I ceramic assemblage was found (see Fig. 3.25: 1– 2, 4, and Fig. 3.26: 11). Three other features can possibly be assigned to this stratum: 1. Two thin walls (about 0.5 m thick each) that form a 90° angle were discovered in the southern part of Square 19C. Wall 70031 is 1.4 m long, and Wall 90020 is 1.1 m long. It is not clear if these elements belong to the building, and if so, whether it can be interpreted as an inner partition or some sort of installation. 2. The second feature, found in Square 18CD, is also comprised of two walls that form a 90° angle. Wall 80008 is 3.2 m long and Wall 80013 is 0.5 m long. The walls are 0.5 m and 0.2 m wide respectively. It is possible that the western end of Wall 80008 was cut by the quarried trench of Stratum C6-2b (Fig. 3.17).4 3. It is also not clear that Walls 70024 and 70028 belong to this stratum. The orientation and width (1.1 m) of these walls are

identical to those of Walls 50022, 60020 and 50019. That said, Walls 70024 and 70028 are built of larger fieldstones (28x37 cm as opposed to 18x25 cm), with boulders integrated into the walls. Furthermore, while the walls were not removed, it is clear from the section that these walls overlie a layer of small stones that is contemporary to Walls 100012 and 100013. As no floor or layer with datable finds could be attributed to these elements, their stratigraphic positioning is based solely on circumstantial evidence. The reasons for attributing Walls 100012 and 100013 to Stratum C6-3 are the similarities in building techniques and the orientation of the walls (similar to Walls 60020 and 50022). However, other aspects make this attribution difficult. First, there is no physical connection between the walls and the northern part of the building. Second, while all of the building’s walls are the same width, Wall 100012 may have been 2 m wide, if we assume that it continued west beneath Wall 70024. Finally, the later phase of Walls 70024 and 70028 makes this attribution difficult to accept. Stratigraphically, it is impossible to attribute the layers of excavated fill to the architectural features described above, due to the topography of the area and the difficulty in distinguishing the different layers of earth during excavation. However, the post-excavation examination of the relevant sections (the eastern section of Square 19C and the western section of Square 19D – see Fig. 3.16) revealed the different layers that are described below. The primary level (C6-3) that appears to relate to the structure is comprised of two layers. The lower layer (70025) is a thin layer of dark grey sediment with Iron Age I pottery and well-preserved faunal remains. This layer abuts Wall 50019, likely being the structure’s floor makeup.5 However, due to the poor preservation of the remains, no clear connection was found between this layer and Pavement 80040, despite their similar elevations.6 Locus 70025 is sealed by a thick layer (in certain places close to 40 cm thick) of brown-grey

4

up on the surface. However, as 60021 was only seen to the east of the structure, it is possible to understand its accumulation differently as post occupation activity of debris clearing or leveling that occurred during building activity in Stratum C6-2. 6 Both the pavement’s upper level and that of 70025 are 148.76 masl.

Assigning these two walls to this stratum is based on the cutting of the wall by the Stratum C6-2 trench. 5 Since two layers belonging to this stratum were discerned, the lower one (70025) with well-preserved bones, and the upper one (60021) with crushed bones, it is likely that 70025 is the layer beneath the surface, while 60021 is the layer of occupation debris that built

130

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C materials do not represent an occupation phase but rather an Iron Age IIA fill.

sediment, with small Iron Age I pottery fragments. This layer was exposed within Building 50022 (50008) and to its east (60021). Outside of the building, the layer yielded a large amount of crushed bones, as opposed to within the building, where they were very limited. There are two possible explanations for this difference: it is possible that the bones represent discarded material, disposed of in a layer outside of the building, or that the bones were moved outside of the building during the preparation of the area for the building activities of Stratum C62. Locus 70025 (masl 148.40)7 also appears in the southern section of Square 19A, clearly abutting Wall 50019’s western face. In Room 60020, several layers of fill were discovered, however it was not possible to attribute them to the building stages in a manner that would determine the dates of the phases. As shown above, it is possible to date the Stratum C6-3 building to the Iron Age I. However, parallels for such structures were difficult to find. The character, size and quality of construction indicate that the building is more than a domestic or agricultural structure, and should be interpreted as some sort of public building (see further discussion below).

Phase C6-2b As mentioned above, this phase is represented by sherds found below the quarried chips of C6-2a, which date to the Iron Age IIA (see Fig. 3.27). These finds either indicate that there was some type of activity in this area during the Iron Age IIA which precedes the cutting of the siege trench and the associated features or that they are part of a fill which was dumped during the building activity of Phase C6-2a. Regardless, they provide a terminus poste quem for the construction of the berm in Phase C6-2a. Phase C6-2a

Two phases were identified in Stratum C6-2: 1. Phase C6-2a – this phase represents the period in which the trench was quarried out (Fig. 3.18) and is composed of two main features: the architectural remains found in Squares 18D, 19C and 29A, and the layer of quarried chips of limestone that were removed from Area C6W, and were identified (primarily) in Squares 19A, 19B, 19D, 29A, 29C, 9C, and 9D. 2. Phase C6-2b – this phase is represented by the ceramic finds sealed beneath the quarried chips that were laid out in the next phase. It can either be interpreted as an earlier phase, which refers to the period prior to the quarrying of the siege trench and associated elements or another possible interpretation is that these datable

This phase is associated with the quarrying of the siege trench and other activities and features related to the siege of the site in the mid-late 9th century BCE. Walls 70049 and 70030 are in fact two rectangular monoliths (0.50x1.2x1.45 m and 0.90x1.5 m respectively) that were laid on their flat sides. These two stones, along with Monolith 70004 (see above for the possibility that this monolith belongs to Stratum C6-3),8 form a straight line, which may reflect a poorly preserved, yet massive wall, which represents the eastern wall of Building 70004. The attribution of Monolith 70030 to C6-2a is based on its lower elevation, which is higher than Floor 70025 (Stratum C6-3) to its north. Furthermore, several Iron Age IIA sherds found below this stone (90016; see Fig. 3.27: 2) also help to date this phase. Monolith 70049 was attributed to this phase due to its position, slightly above Walls 70031 and 90017 (C6-3). An additional element that may belong to this phase are joined Walls 70024 (1.6 m long) and 70028 (1.5 m long) described above. These walls are bonded at a 90° angle.9 In addition, Wall 70041 should be attributed to this level, despite the lack of stratigraphic connection between the elements. This wall (4.2x0.59 m), revealed in Square 18A, was poorly preserved. The wall was built of small fieldstones (0.18x0.15 m), with three courses preserved on its north side and only one course preserved to the south. These courses are built upon bedrock,

7

9

Stratum C6-2 C6E

The difference in height is a result of the topography of the hill, which rises to the north. 8 It is possible that this monolith was originally laid in Stratum C6-3, but then reused in Stratum C6-2.

For a more complete description of these walls, see above, Stratum C6-3.

131

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C Fig. 3.19) reveal that the layer of limestone chips is thin when it is close to the building, and then thickens towards the east. In other words, it appears as though the chips were dumped in order to create a flat surface around the building. This stratum is of great importance when trying to link the elements in the different excavation areas, and understand their stratigraphic position. Since it is clear that at the time of dumping the stone chips on the slope the C6W trench cutters were aware of the existence of Building 70004 in C6E, it seems that the two elements were in use contemporaneously. However, the partial coverage of Wall 50019 shows that Stratum C6-3 Building 50022 had gone out of use at this time, or at least – no longer functioned in the same manner. It is possible that Walls 100012 and 100013 were reused, explaining the similar orientation of the buildings in the two strata. The fact that Monolith 70004 is not covered by the limestone chips strengthens its attribution to this phase (see above).

along the edge of the trench. The wall’s position along the edge of the trench indicates its construction after the trench was quarried. Furthermore, the wall also postdates Stratum C6-3 Wall 50022, which is cut by the trench. The postdating of these two features suggests that Wall 70041 should be attributed to Stratum C6-2. However, it is important to stress the lack of a connection between this element and the other C6-2a walls, along with its completely different style of construction, suggests that it is possible that this wall is a much later wall, constructed when human activity was renewed in the area. As mentioned above, an additional element that belongs to this stratum, which originated from within Area C6W (see below), is the layer of quarried chips of limestone in Squares 19A, 19B, 19D, 29A, 29C, 9C and 9D. It is clear that the limestone chips were dumped up slope from the trench, on the slope facing the tell. Furthermore, the chips clearly surround Stratum C6-3 Building 50022, from the east, partially covering Wall 50019. The relevant sections (Fig. 3.16, bottom;

Fig. 3.18: Plan of Stratum C6-2a; grey area marks the layer of quarried chips.

132

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.19: Section of the Siege Trench and its immediate eastern environs, looking south.

Summary of Stratum C62a

adjacent to the trench’s edge that was identified by the excavators. The trench was carved into the bedrock, which is composed of an upper layer of nari (1.5 m thick), with soft white chalk below it. The upper width of the trench is 8 m, narrowing to 4 m at an angle of 45–60° at its base (Fig. 3.21). In the lower part of the trench, the angle sharpens to 90°, creating a straight wall at the bottom. Within the trench, various fill layers were deposited, mainly due to erosion from the east (Fig. 3.19). Eight layers of fill were distinguished, dating from the Iron Age IIA to the Ottoman period, according to both ceramic and geomorphological evidence (Ackermann, Bruins and Maeir 2005: 317). A reanalysis of the ceramic finds allows us to fine-tune this chronological scheme. At the base of the trench, Locus 40020 yielded sherds dating to the Iron Age IIA (see Fig. 3.29: 2, 12), representing the backfill that eroded immediately after the trench’s use. Above this (Locus 40017), a 1.8 m thick layer included material from the Iron Age IIA, as well as some sherds of the Iron Age IIB.10 In addition, this layer included limestone chips that had been quarried out of the trench, and fell back in from the berm

In light of the character of Building 70004, its placement near the trench, and its similarity to the building in Area C2 (Fig. 3.20), it appears that it functioned as a tower that was placed along the edge of the trench and was one of the components of the siege system. It is suggested that during its construction, the builders of the tower made use of portions of the building from Stratum C6-3 below it (see further discussion below). C6W As mentioned above, part of the siege trench (Fig. 3.19) was discovered in Area C6W, and its continuation up to the Elah Valley riverbed was found using ground penetrating radar (GPR) during the 2003–2005 seasons (Pincus 2005; Pincus BenAvraham 2012). This is a unique feature, surrounding the tell from the east, west and south. The trench is 5.5 m deep, with a 4 m wide flat base (Boas and Maeir 1998: 35; Maeir 2004: 323–24; Ackermann, Bruins and Maeir 2004: 422; 2005: 42; Gur-Arieh 2008; Maeir and Gur-Arieh 2011; Maeir 2012). An area of 10x5 m was excavated, 10

Zukerman and Shai (2008) suggested that part of the backfill of the trench was intentional, and carried out by the Assyrian army, which besieged the city in the late 8th century BCE. There are several weak points in their theory. First, the backfilling of the trench had already begun during the Iron Age IIA, as seen in the earlier fill with Iron Age IIA sherds. Secondly, the distance of the trench from the tell suggests that if in

133

fact the Assyrian army had attempted to approach the site, there would have been no need for the trench to be refilled in this area, as the Assyrians could have approached the site from other, more accessible directions. Finally, it would only be necessary to backfill it in a small area to enable access to the tell. Thus, we prefer to understand this refilling as a largely geogenic process.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C to excavate a small area just east of the trench, in order to examine the slope in this area. About 5 m south of C6W, an area of 5x2.5 m was excavated. This area contained a layer of limestone chips, 1.20 m thick. As in Area C6E, this layer was intentionally laid, almost directly on the exposed bedrock, as part of the berm above the trench (Maeir 2004: 324). As in Area C6W, this layer yielded sherds dating to the Iron Age IIA.

above. Two charcoal samples found in this fill (elevations 149.49 and 149.00 masl) were analyzed and 14C dated to 800–680 BCE (Ackermann, Bruins and Maeir 2005a: 316–17). Above this, another layer of fill (Locus 40006) was found, containing sherds dating to the Byzantine period, which was sealed by topsoil (Locus 40001), the latter mostly containing Ottoman pottery. These finds and the analysis of organic materials led Ackermann, Bruins and Maeir (2004a; 2004b; 2005) to conclude that there was a gap of 1000 years in the three main phases of the backfilling of the trench, between the Iron Age IIA and Byzantine period, and then between the Byzantine and Ottoman periods. The dating of the quarrying and use of the trench to a short period of time in the Iron Age IIA was determined according to the pottery found at the base of the trench and on the berm above it (Maeir 2004: 324).

Stratum C6-1 Stratum C6-1 is only represented by fill layers, with no architectural features related to it. However, as the fill is well-defined, it indicates human activity in the area during the Byzantine period. This layer is in essence a backfill deposited into the C6W trench (Fig. 3.19). This fill (Locus 40006), 1.3 m deep, was found in the entire area excavated within the trench. As mentioned above, this fill is the basis for determining that there was a 1000 year gap in human activity in the area, between the Iron Age IIA and the Byzantine period (Ackermann, Bruins and Maeir 2004a; 2004b; 2005; Maeir 2006; Maeir 2008a). It is, however, impossible to classify the type of activity that occurred in the area in this period.

C6S According to the results of the survey in this area, which revealed a dense growth of Sarcopoterium Spinosum L. (Thorny burnet; Ackermann, Bruins and Maeir 2004: 301) that was connected to the human activity in this area (and in particular, the refilling of the trench noted above), it was decided

Fig. 3.20: Aerial view of Area C6, looking east, with Building 70004 and its placement near the trench.

134

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.21: View of a section of the siege trench in C6W, looking south, after excavation.

135

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C THE POTTERY FROM AREA C

Class SJ1

The analysis of the pottery from Area C is based on the typology of ceramic finds found in the various excavation areas in Tell es-Safi/Gath. Since the finds from Area C indicate that the activity in this area was related to the settlement on the tell and its material culture (save perhaps for the EB IV/MB I period), this was the most logical decision. Furthermore, the ceramic assemblages from Area C included only about 15 complete vessels and most of the material was comprised of small sherds, which hardly represent a full ceramic repertoire of the various periods. The pottery presented below includes vessels from the different strata in the area as well as selected pottery from periods which do not have stratigraphic and/or architectural representation, but are relevant to the understanding of the sequence of human activity at the site. The vessels were labeled according to the standard numbering method of the project, and whenever the type found had been identified in the ceramic analyses already published, the type was assigned the published number (see Maeir 2012).

HM1

Site Tell Beit Mirsim Jebel Qa’aqir Khirbat elMas’ud Motza

Stratum Tomb 10

Jebel Qa’aqir

Cave G26

Cave G26

References Ben Arieh 2004: fig. 2.5: 2 Dever 1981: fig. 4: 4–6 Nagorsky 2007: fig. 5: 8 Greenhut and DeGroot 2003: 2: 8 London 1985: fig. A.12: 9

Table 3.2: Parallels for EB IV/MB I Storage Jars.

HM1 – Holemouth jar with a plain rim (Fig. 3.22: 12–13). Two fragments of holemouth jars with a plain rim and a square section, typical of the EB IV/MB I, were assigned to the assemblage. Parallels for this type were found in Cave G26 at Jebel Qa’aqir, from a domestic assemblage dated to the EB IV/MB I period. The Stratum C6-4 assemblage clearly dates to the EB IV/MB I, as indicated by the parallel assemblages from Motza, Jebel Qa’aqir and Tell Beit Mirsim. The vessels of this assemblage are typical to the “Southern group” both in shape and decorative style (see Fig. 3.22: 9, 11).11 Since the assemblage includes only storage jars, it is difficult to determine the nature of the human activity defined in Stratum C6-5.

Stratum C6-5: EB IV/MB I The EB IV/MB I assemblage from Area C6 contained a variety of storage vessels found in situ north of the Stratum C6-3 building and it represents the earliest activity in the area.

Stratum C6-5: The Late Bronze Age As mentioned above, there were no architectural features that could be attributed to the Late Bronze Age, but the discovery of pottery concentrations in a defined area attest to human activity in this period. The assemblage presented below may help in understanding the character and date of this human activity.

SJ1 – Large storage jar with arched neck. Several variants of this type were found in the area (Fig 3.22: 1–8; Fig 3.22: 9 is also likely such a storage jar, although the neck and rim are missing). The jar from Grave 10 at Tell Beit Mirsim is identical to the types of jars found in Stratum H on the tell, dated to the EB IV/MB I (Ben Arieh 2004: 12). Three SJ1 were found in Phase 2 of Cave G26 at Jebel Qa’aqir that was dated by the excavator to the EB IV/MB I (Dever 1981: 27–28). Greenhut and De-Groot (2003: 56*) suggest that the vessels found in the Motza grave are typical of the Central Hill Country area in the EB IV/MB I. It should be noted that according to the petrographic analysis (see Ben-Shlomo, this volume), six of the eight jars that were examined were made of Motza clay, which supports their suggestion.

Bowls BL1 – Bowl with rounded walls and a plain or inverted rim (Fig. 3.23: 1–2). Numerous parallels for this type were found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum E4b, dated to the LB IIB period. According to Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel (2012: 243), these bowls appeared from the second half of the LB IIA period and continued until the end of the LB IIB. Many more parallels were found at Lachish, Level S3–1 (Yannai 2004: 1034).

11

For discussions and definitions of the regionality of the period, see, e.g., Amiran 1960: 213–15; Palumbo 1991: 5–22.

136

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C Class BL1

BL2

BL3

BL5 BL6

Site Tell esSafi/Gath

Stratum E4b

Lachish

S3

Tell esSafi/Gath

E4b

Lachish

VI

Tell esSafi/Gath

E4b

Gezer

6

Tel Batash Tell esSafi/Gath

X

Tell esSafi/Gath

E4b E4b

horizontal handle, with dark brown slip on the interior and exterior (Fig. 3.23: 16). A parallel for this type was found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum E4b, that was dated to the LB IIB (Gadot, YasurLandau and Uziel 2012). BL6 – Miniature bowl with a base ring and plain rim (Fig. 3.23: 17). Bowls of this type were found in different strata and cannot be dated conclusively. It is common to attribute them to cultic use (Edlund-Berry 2001; Horsnaes 2001; Müller 2001; for a different interpretation, see AvissarLewis 2010).

References Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: pl. 12.1: 1 Yannai 2004: fig. 19.1: 5 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: pl. 12.1: 4–10 Yannai 2004: fig. 19.41: 1–6 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: pl. 12.2: 11, 12.4: 11, 12.7: 5 Dever et al. 1970: Fig.29: 3 Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: fig. 10: 9 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: pl. 12.12: 17 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: pl. 12.9: 10

Kraters KR5 – Open krater with straight sides and thickened rim (Fig. 3.24: 1). Parallels for this type were found at Lachish, Level S-3 (Yannai 2004: 1039). Class KR5

Table 3.3: Parallels for Late Bronze Age Bowls.

Site Lachish

Stratum S-3

References Yannai 2004: fig. 19.5: 4

Table 3.4: Parallels for Late Bronze Age Kraters.

BL2 – Open bowl with straight walls and an almost V-shaped profile. This is the most common type of Late Bronze Age bowl in Area C6, as well as in Area E.12 Several variants of this type were defined, including plain rim (Fig. 3.23: 3, 5–6, 14), everted rim (Fig. 3.23: 8–9, 11–12), and inverted rim (Fig. 3.23: 13). BL3 – Bowl with a vestigial carination. The carination is on the lower part of the vessel and is usually so slight that it can be detected solely on the exterior (Fig. 3.23: 4, 7, 10, 15). According to Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel (2012: 245–46), these bowls are typical of the beginning of the LB IIA, but were also found in Stratum E4a dated to the end of the LB II. At Gezer, Area 1, Stratum 6, similar bowls were dated by the excavators to the LB IIB (Dever et al. 1970: 18–20). At Tel Batash, parallels to this type were assigned to Strata XIVIIA, dated from the beginning of the MB IIB until the Iron Age IA periods (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: 40–42). Nonetheless, the vestigial carination of the bowls found in Area C6 suggests a Late Bronze type. BL5 – Imported Cypriot Monochrome C bowl.13 This is an open bowl with a plain rim and

Cooking Pots CP1 – Carinated cooking pot with an everted rim and round profile (Fig. 3.24: 2–4). Parallels to this type were found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum E4b (Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: 247), as well as in the LB II level at Lachish, Fosse Temple II–III (Tufnell et al. 1940: 370). Class CP1

CP2

Site Tell esSafi/Gath

Stratum E4b

Lachish

Fosse Temple 2 E4a–b

Tell esSafi/Gath Gezer

7

References Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: pl. 12.1: 15–17 Tufnell et al. 1940: pl. LVI B: 370 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: pl. 12.1: 18 Dever et al. 1970: fig. 30: 1–3

Table 3.5: Parallels for Late Bronze Age Cooking Pots.

12

13

The open bowls with a plain rim are less common than those with the inner-thickened or outer-thickened rim. Similarly, the examples of open bowls are smaller and deeper than LB I–LB IIA examples. For further discussion, see Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: 243–45.

BL5 seems to be most similar to Russell’s Type C (Russell 1991) dated to the Late Cypriot IIC, although the size of the fragment makes it hard to determine this for certain.

137

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Basket 800133/1 800027/1 800038/3 800114/1 800138/1 800005/1 800206/1 1000016/1 900012/1 900012/2 800038/1

Locus 80003 80003 80003 80003 80003 80003 80003 100002 90005 90005 80003

Class SJ SJ SJ SJ SJ SJ SJ SJ SJ SJ SJ

Type 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

12. 13.

800070/1 800200/2

80003 80003

HM HM

1 1

Remarks Rim and shoulder. Pinkish-grey clay with many inclusions Rim and shoulder. Pinkish-grey clay with many inclusions Rim. Grey clay with many inclusions Rim. Light grey clay few inclusions Rim. Pink clay with light grey core. Few inclusions Rim. Light grey clay with many inclusions Rim. Dark grey clay with many inclusions Rim. Light grey clay with many inclusions Base and shoulder. Pinkish-grey clay with many inclusions Ledge handle. Pinkish-grey clay with many inclusions Shoulder. Grey clay with few inclusions. Combed and imprinted stripes decoration Rim. Light brown clay with many inclusions Rim. Dark grey clay with many inclusions

138

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.22: Pottery from Stratum C6-5.

139

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Basket 800073 1000061/5 800107/2 800073/4 800107/1 800087/2 800087/4 1000061/4 1000065/5 1000061/6 800073/2 800073/1 800072/1 1000061/3 800073/5 500067/55

Locus 80011 100032 80011 80011 80011 80011 80011 100032 100035 100032 80011 80011 80011 100032 80011 50013

Class BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL

Type 1 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 5

17.

500065/2

50013

BL

6

Remarks Rim. Reddish brown clay with few inclusions Rim. Light orange clay Rim. Reddish brown clay with few inclusions Rim. Orange clay with few inclusions Rim. Light brown clay with few inclusions Rim. Orange clay Rim. Brown-greyish clay with few inclusions Rim. Light brown-greyish clay with few inclusions Rim. Light brown clay with few inclusions Rim. Light brown clay Rim. Light brown clay Rim. Orange clay with dark grey core Rim. Light brown-orange clay Rim. Brown-greyish clay with dark grey core Rim. Brown-orange clay with few inclusions Rim. Dark orange clay with dark brown slip on the interior and exterior Complete profile. Dark orange clay with many inclusions

140

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.23: Pottery from Stratum C6-4.

141

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Basket 1000061/2 800120/1 500065/3 1000061/15 800073/3 800087/1 800104/1 801003/1 500065/1 500081/2 500067/32

Locus 100032 80011 50013 100032 80011 80011 80011 80025 50013 50013 50013

Class KR CP CP CP CP CP SJ SJ SJ CH JG

Type 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2

12. 13.

800120/2 500077/2

80011 50013

JG JG

1 1

1

Remarks Rim. Dark grey clay. Few inclusions Rim. Dark grey clay. Few inclusions Rim. Dark brown clay. Many inclusions Rim. Light brown clay with dark grey core. Few inclusions Rim. Dark brown clay. Few inclusions Rim. Dark brown clay. Few inclusions Rim. Light brown clay with black core Rim. Dark brown clay with grey core. Few inclusions Rim. Light brown clay with black core. Few inclusions Body sherd. Orange clay Rim. Orange clay with dark grey core. Black slip on the inner part and on the rim Handle. Brown clay with black core. Black wash Shoulder. Dark orange clay with dark grey core. Black wash on exterior

142

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.24: Pottery from Stratum C6-4.

143

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C Chalice

CP2 – Carinated cooking pot with an everted triangular rim (Fig. 3.24: 5–6). This type of cooking pot has parallels at Tell es-Safi/Gath from Stratum E4a–b, dating from the beginning of the LB IIB until the end of the Late Bronze Age (Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012). Parallels were also found at Gezer, Stratum 7 (Dever et al. 1970: 50–55). Both CP1 and CP2 appear from the MB IIB and onward with no change in form (Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: 247).

A chalice fragment was found in the assemblage (Fig. 3.24: 10). Due to its small size it is impossible to define it typologically or chronologically. Discussion of the Late Bronze Age Assemblage The Late Bronze Age assemblage of Area C6 is very similar to the assemblage found in Area E on the tell. Since it is not a large assemblage, it is hard to date it accurately, but some of the types found support an LB IIB date. The carinated bowls (Fig. 3.23: 4, 7 and 16) display characteristics of the later form of this type, with vestigial carination. BL1 (Fig. 3.23) has a monochrome decoration, as opposed to the bichrome decoration, typical of the earlier stages of the Late Bronze Age. JG1 (Fig. 3.24) is also very typical of the LB IIB, therefore it seems that the assemblage should attributed to this period, although due to the absence of architecture and the small size of the assemblage, it is hard to understand the character of activity it represents.

Storage Jars SJ1 – Jar with long neck and a flaring folded rim (Fig. 3.24: 7–8). Parallels to this type were found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum E4b. Gadot, YasurLandau and Uziel (2012) define this type as the “Canaanite jar,” typical of the Late Bronze Age throughout the Southern Levant. Other parallels were found at Gezer, Stratum 7 (Dever et al. 1970: 50–55). Class SJ1

SJ2

Site Tell esSafi/Gath

Stratum E4a–b

Gezer

7

Tell esSafi/Gath

E4b

Lachish

VIIA

References Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: pl. 12.5: 4, 12.6: 16. Dever et al. 1970: fig. 30: 10–13. Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: pl. 12.6: 16. Yannai 2004: fig. 19.33: 4.

Stratum C6-3: Iron Age I Stratum C6-3 Building 50022 was dated to the Iron Age I based on the assemblage presented below. This assemblage is comprised of sherds from the following loci: Locus 90019, vessels sealed by Pavement 80040 (Fig. 3.25: 1–2, 4); Locus 100026, pottery sealed below Wall 60020 (Fig. 3.25: 3, Fig. 3.26: 8); Loci 70025, 100033, dark grey sediment, Iron Age I occupation debris from Building 50022 (Fig. 3.25: 10, 13, Fig. 3.26: 3, 5); Loci 600016, 70022, 70020, 80018, 50008, sherds from Room 50019 in Building 50022; Loci 70019, 80005 and 80026 (Fig. 3.25: 7, 15, Fig. 3.26: 1, 6), sherds from the occupational debris of Room 60020 in the building; Loci 60021, 70027, 80026, layer of crushed bones east of Building 50022 (Fig. 3.25: 15, Fig. 3.26: 10).

Table 3.6: Parallels for Late Bronze Age Storage Jars.

SJ2 – Jar with elongated neck and inverted thickened rim (Fig. 3.24: 9). Parallels to this type of storage jar were found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum E4b (Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: 249). According to Yannai (2004: 1048), similar jars were found at Lachish, Level VIIA, and were widespread throughout the LB. Jugs

Bowls

JG1 – Base Ring jug with everted rim (Figure 3.20: 11–13). Ben Arieh (2004), who found parallels of this type at Tell Beit Mirsim, pointed out that it was imported in large quantities during the 14th century BCE, while in the 13th century BCE, they become less common. Class JG1

Site Tell Beit Mirsim

Stratum Tomb 100

BL301.1 – Deep round bowl with a simple, rounded rim (Fig. 3.25: 1). These bowls are very common at Tell es-Safi/Gath, as in all of southern Israel. This form appears in the LB IIB and continues until the early Iron Age IIA, when it begins to disappear (Zukerman 2012: 271). One such bowl was found at Tel Qasile, Stratum XII, where it dates to the early Iron Age I (Mazar 1985: 33– 36).

References Ben-Arieh 2004: fig. 2.43: 120–29.

Table 3.7: Parallels for Late Bronze Age Jugs.

144

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C BL313 – Large carinated bowl with outerthickened rim (Fig. 3.25: 7). Similar vessels were found at Tel Batash, Strata X–V, where the excavators indicated that although this type first appears in the Late Bronze Age it becomes more common in the Iron Age, until the middle of the period, and then it disappears (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: 32–36). BL314 – Round carinated bowl, with inverted upper walls (Fig. 3.25: 8). Parallels were found at Tel Qasile, Stratum XI, dating to the second half of the Iron Age I (Mazar 1985: 33–37).

BL301.3 – Round shallow bowl with round rim and concave upper body (Fig. 3.25: 2). Parallels for this type can be found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, in both Stratum A4 and A5, although in smaller quantities (Zukerman 2012: 271). At Tel Qasile, such bowls were discovered in Stratum XI (Mazar 1985: 33–36). BL301.5.1 – Open bowl with straight walls and a thickened rim (Fig. 3.25: 3). Parallels for this type were found at Lachish, Levels P-2 and P-1 in Area P (Clamer 2004: 1221, fig. 20.23: 10), dated from the beginning of the 13th to the middle of the 12th centuries BCE. BL301.6 – Rounded bowl with thickened everted rim (Fig. 3.25: 4). Parallels were found at 12th century BCE Gezer (Stratum X, Gitin 1990). BL310.1 – “Cyma” bowl (Fig. 3.25: 5). Cymashaped bowls first appear in the LB IIB, and continue to be common in the Iron Age I, although their quantities decline towards the end of the period (Zukerman 2012: 276). Similar bowls are found at Tel Qasile, Strata XII–X (Mazar 1985: fig. 11: 7–8). BL311.3 – Philistine degenerated bell-shaped bowl (Fig. 3.25: 6). This type of bowl, found in Stratum A5–A4 at Tell es-Safi/Gath, was defined as belonging to the degenerate Philistine pottery, termed by Zukerman as “Philistine 3.” Such vessels are typical of the second half of the Iron Age I and early Iron Age IIA (Zukerman 2012: 279). At Tel Qasile, parallels were found in Strata XII–X (Mazar 1985: 87–90). Class BL301.1

Site Stratum Tell esA5–A4 Safi/Gath Tel Qasile XII

BL301.3

Tell es-Sa- A5–A4 fi/Gath Tel Qasile XI

BL301.5.1 BL301.6 BL310.1

Lachish Gezer X Tell es-Sa- A4, E3 fi/Gath Tel Qasile XII–X

BL311.3

Tell es-Sa- A5–A4 fi/Gath Tel Qasile XII–X

BL313

Tel Batash V

BL314

Tel Qasile XI

Chalices CH300 – Base of a chalice (Fig. 3.25: 9). No parallels were found for this vessel. Kraters KR301 – Krater with an everted rim (Fig. 3.25: 10). This type was also found in Strata A5–A4 in Area A at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Zukerman (2012: 281–82) dated the appearance of this type to the Iron Age I. At Tel Qasile, these were also found in Strata XII–VIII (Mazar 1985: 45). KR301.1 – Krater with an everted rim (Fig. 3.25: 11). The only parallel for this vessel was found at Tel Batash, Stratum V, dating to the early Iron Age I (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: 61–62). KR301.2 – Carinated krater with an inner thickened rim (Fig. 3.25: 12). This krater is a variant of KR301 (Fig. 3.25: 9), with the inner thickened rim being the only difference between them. At Tel Qasile, such vessels were found in Stratum XII, dating to the first half of the Iron Age I (Mazar 1985: 45–46), while at Tel Batash, they were found in Stratum V, dating to the latter half of the period (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: 57– 60). KR302 – Krater with incurving walls and a hammerhead rim (Fig. 3.25: 13). The example shown here is decorated in Philistine style. A similar vessel to the example shown here was found in Stratum A4 in Area A at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Zukerman determined that this is a variant of a Late Bronze Age krater type. A few examples are known for the early stages of the Iron Age I, although later in the period and in the early Iron Age IIA, it becomes more common (Zukerman 2012: 382). Panitz-Cohen and Mazar (2006: 57– 60) found that this vessel appears at Tel Batash in the same time range – from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age II.

References Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.5: 1 Mazar 1985: fig. 11: 2–3 Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.4: 9, 13.6: 5 Mazar 1981: fig. 24: 1 Clamer 2004: 1221 Gitin 1990: pl. 4: 6 Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.10: 10 Mazar 1985: fig. 11: 7–8 Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.6: 4 Mazar 1985: fig. 11: 13–14 Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: pl. 61: 7 Mazar 1985: fig. 28: 11–12

Table 3.8: Parallels for Iron Age I Bowls.

145

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C No. 1. 2. 3.

Basket 900041/5 900041/3 1000047/1

Locus 90019 90019 100026

Class BL301.1 BL301.3 BL301.5.1

Type Bowl Bowl Bowl

4. 5. 6.

900041/2 600071/2 500085/3

90019 60016 50008

BL301.6 BL310.1 BL311.3

Bowl Bowl Bowl

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

800009/2 600035/13 700157/4 1000063/1 7000137/1 600035/2

80005 60009 70042 100033 70020 60009

BL313 BL314 CH300 KR301 KR301.1 KR301.2

Bowl Bowl Chalice Krater Krater Krater

13. 14. 15.

1000063/10 700120/2 800163/2

100033 70020 80026

KR302 KR305.2 KR306

Krater Krater Krater

Remarks Rim. Light brown clay Rim. Light brown clay with few inclusions Rim. Dark brown clay with dark grey core. Red and black stripes Rim. Brown-greyish clay with few inclusions Rim. Orange clay with light grey core. Few inclusions Rim. Whitish colored clay. Red horizontal stripes and black spiral decoration Rim. Grey clay Rim. Light grey clay Base. Light brown clay with many inclusions Rim. Orange clay with few inclusions Rim. Orange clay with dark grey core. Many inclusions Rim and handle. Light brown clay with dark grey core. Many inclusions Rim. Pinkish clay with white slip and black stripes decoration Rim. Red-orange clay with black spiral decoration Rim. Light brown clay with dark grey core and many inclusions. White slip and remnants of red color on the exterior

146

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.25: Pottery from Stratum C6-3.

147

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C No. 1.

Basket 700136/9

Locus 70019

Class CP301

2.

500096/50

50008

CP302.1

3.

700081/11

70025

CP304.2

4.

500035/11

50008

CP305.1

5. 6. 7. 8.

1000063/2 700136/1 600053/2 1000047/2

100033 70019 60009 100026

SJ301 SJ302 SJ304 JG1

Type Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Jar Jar Jar Jug

9. 10.

800080/1 800163/1

80018 80026

JG2 JG2

Jug Jug

11.

900041/8

90019

JG300

Jug

12.

800080/1

80018

STR

Strainer

Remarks Rim. Pink clay with light grey core. Many inclusions Rim. Light brown clay with light grey core. Many inclusions Rim. Brown reddish clay with few inclusions Rim. Brown-orange clay Rim. Brown orange clay with light grey core Rim. Light brown clay with few inclusions Rim. Light brown clay with light grey core. Many inclusions Rim. Light brown clay with light grey core Body sherd. Whitish clay with red and black stripes decoration Neck. Light grey clay with pink core. Stripes of black and red decoration on interior and exterior Body sherd. Orange clay with dark grey core. Red and black striped decoration Body sherd. Light brown clay with red slip on interior and exterior

148

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.26: Pottery from Stratum C6-3.

149

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C Class KR301

KR301.1 KR301.2

KR302

KR305.2

KR306

KR307

Site Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Qasile Tel Batash Tel Qasile Tel Batash

Stratum A5–A4 XII–VIII V XII V

Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Batash

A4

Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Qasile Tel Qasile Ashdod

A5, E3

V

XI XII XIIa

Lachish

III

Tel Batash

III

Iron Age I. An additional parallel was found at Tel Qasile, Stratum XII (Mazar 1985: 52).

References Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.10: 18 Mazar 1985: fig. 15: 26 Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: pl. 72: 4–5 Mazar 1985: fig. 14: 5 Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: pl. 72: 14 Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.16: 15 Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: pl. 61: 16–18 Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.1: 2 Mazar 1985: fig. 27: 11 Mazar 1985: fig. 16: 25 Dothan and BenShlomo 2005: fig. 3.20: 5 Zimhoni 2004b: fig. 26.29: 21 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 25: 9

Class CP301

CP302.1

CP304.2

CP305.1

Site Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Qasile Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Qasile Tell esSafi/Gath Ashdod

Stratum A5

Tell esSafi/Gath Ashdod

A5

Lachish

V–VI

XII A5 XI A4 11

XI

References Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.2: 17 Mazar 1985: fig. 14: 20 Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.6: 8–9 Mazar 1985: fig. 23: 14 Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.18: 7 Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 3: 12 Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.2: 20 Dothan and BenShlomo 2005: fig. 3.58: 8 Zimhoni 2004a: fig. 25.31: 19

Table 3.10: Parallels for Iron Age I Cooking Pots.

CP302.1 – Cooking pot with a straight, thickened, everted and triangular rim (Fig. 3.26: 2). CP304.2 – Cooking jug with a straight neck and simple rim (Fig. 3.26: 3). Similar vessels were found in Stratum A4 on the tell, where it was suggested that these are cooking vessels (BenShlomo et al. 2008). They were dated to the second half of the Iron Age I, continuing into the Iron Age IIA (Zukerman 2012: 288). In Area M at Ashdod, a similar vessel was found in Stratum XI, dating to the Iron Age I (Dothan and Porath 1982). CP305.1 – Cooking jug with a short, everted neck and inverted rim (Fig. 3.26: 4). The appearance of this vessel in Stratum A5 on the tell, led Zukerman (2012: 288) to conclude that this type appeared primarily in the early Iron Age I, becoming less common towards the end of the period, until its disappearance at the onset of the Iron Age IIA. Other parallels were found at Ashdod, Stratum XI, dating to the 11th century BCE (Dothan and BenShlomo 2005: 151), and Lachish, Level V–VI.

Table 3.9: Parallels for Iron Age I Kraters.

KR305.2 – Philistine Bichrome bell-shaped krater (Fig. 3.25: 14). Many such vessels were found in Stratum A5 and E3 on the tell itself. Zukerman (2012: 285) date this type to the middle of the Iron Age I. Another parallel was found at Tel Qasile, Stratum XI, which was dated to the Iron Age I (Mazar 1985: 90–92). KR306 – Philistine krater with a hammerhead rim. The upper part of the walls is straight and it has a white slip with remnants of red paint (Fig. 3.25: 15). Parallels for this vessel were found at Tel Qasile, Stratum XII (Mazar 1985: 90–92) and at Ashdod, Stratum XIIb, dating to the early Iron Age I (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 93–101). The example shown here is decorated in Philistine 2 style.

Storage Jars SJ301 – Storage jar with an outer thickened rim (Fig. 3.26: 5). Parallels for these vessels were found in Stratum A5–A4 at Tell es-Safi/Gath (Zukerman 2012: 291). Similar vessels were also found at Tel Qasile, Stratum XII (Mazar, 1985). Panitz-Cohen and Mazar (2006: 77–81) showed that this type begins to appear at Tel Batash in the LB IIB, continuing into the Iron Age I.

Cooking pots CP301 – Cooking pot with a thickened, triangular sectioned rim (Fig. 3.26: 1). Parallels for this vessel were found in Stratum A5 on the tell. Zukerman (2012: 286–87) noted that this form continues the Late Bronze Age cooking pot forms, and does not continue into the second stage of the

150

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C Class SJ301

SJ302

Site Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Qasile Tel Batash Tell esSafi/Gath Ashdod

Stratum A5–A4 XII VIII A4 XI

References Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.18: 11 Mazar 1985: fig. 14: 28

Class JG2

Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: pl. 35: 6 Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.7: 20 Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 3: 16–17

Table 3.13: Parallels for Bichrome decorated jugs.

SJ302 – Storage jar with a short neck, and rounded rim thickened on the inside (Fig. 3.26: 6). Similar vessels were found in Area A, Stratum A4 of the Iron Age I and early Iron Age IIA (Zukerman 2012: 292). An additional parallel can be found at Ashdod, Stratum XI, dating to the Iron Age I (Dothan and Porath 1982: 11). SJ304 – Storage jar with a short neck, an outturned rim and a ridge along the rim (Fig. 3.26: 7). No parallels were found for this vessel.

Class JG300

Tel Qasile

XII

A5

Site Tel Masos

Stratum II

References Fritz 1983: taf. 146: 1

Strainer

JG1 –Jug (Fig. 3.26: 8). Such jugs were found at Gezer, Stratum X, dating to the second half of the 11th century BCE (Dever et al. 1974), and Tel Qasile, Stratum XII (Mazar 1985: 175). Stratum X

Tell esSafi/Gath

References Loud 1948: pls. 75: 22, 142: 19 Zukerman 2012: pl. 13.4: 6

Table 3.14: Parallels for the Phoenician Bichrome Jug.

Jugs

Site Gezer

Stratum VIA

JG300 – Phoenician Bichrome Jug (Fig. 3.26: 11). A sherd of a jug belonging to the Phoenician Bichrome style. A similar type of vessel was found at Tel Masos, Stratum II, dating to the Iron Age I (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 166–7) and at Stratum VIA in Megiddo, dated to the Iron Age IB period (Gilboa 1999: 8 Fig 6: 1, 4–5). Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2004: 214–15) pointed out that this type of Phoenician import is typical of the Iron Age I and is not found in Judah from the Iron Age IIA onward.14

Table 3.11: Parallels for Iron Age I Storage Jars.

Class JG1

Site Megiddo

STR – Carinated strainer (Fig. 3.26: 12). Parallels for this vessel were found at Tel Qasile, Stratum XI. Mazar (1985: 79) states that identical bronze vessels are known from the period. It is important to note that this strainer differs from those found in Stratum A3 on the tell, dating to the Iron Age IIA (Shai and Maeir 2012: 325) in that the carination is much sharper as opposed to the more rounded body of the later examples.

References Dever et al. 1974: pl. 11: 13 Mazar 1985: fig. 17: 4

Table 3.12: Parallels for Iron Age I Jugs.

JG2 – Bichrome decorated jug (Fig. 3.26: 9–10). Two sherds with Philistine 2 type decoration were found in the Stratum C6-3 assemblage. While only body sherds of this type of vessel were found, the decoration on the sherds clearly indicates that it belongs to Philistine Bichrome (or “Philistine 2”) ware, typical of the mid-Iron Age I. Vessels with similar decorative elements were also found at Megiddo, Stratum VIA, where they were dated to the 11th–early 10th centuries BCE, and in Iron Age I strata in Area A (A5) at Tell es-Safi/Gath (Zukerman 2012: 294–5).

Class ST

Site Tel Qasile

Stratum XI

References Mazar 1985: fig. 31: 11.

Table 3.15: Parallels for Strainer.

Discussion of the Iron Age I Assemblage According to the typological analysis of the vessels, and comparison to similar forms at other sites in the region, it is possible to date this assemblage to the Iron Age I. This is supported by Iron Age I types, such as KR301.1, CP305.1 and Philistine 2 style decoration. Of great importance are the sherds found beneath Pavement 80040 and Wall 60020 (Fig. 3.25: 1–4, Fig. 3.26: 7) that can

14

The vessel was identified as Phoenician on the basis of the petrographic analysis conducted by David BenShlomo (Sample 165; see Ben-Shlomo, this volume).

For further discussion on Iron Age I Phoenician Bichrome ware, see Gilboa 1999; Gilboa and WaimanBarak 2014.

151

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C BL12 – Open bowl with degenerated bar handles and holes which were drilled prior to firing (Fig. 3.27: 7). No parallels were found, although from the position of the holes along the rim, it appears that they were used for hanging the vessels.

be dated to the early Iron Age I, providing a terminus post quem for the construction of Building 50022. Regarding the pottery from inside the building (Fig. 3.25: 5–6, 9–10, 12–13, 15, Fig. 3.26: 1–5, 8, 11), although some types can be dated to the Iron Age IIA, they are fewer than the Iron Age I vessels, and may have reached the area as a result of intrusion. On the other hand, it is possible that the Iron Age IIA sherds indicate a second stage of use of the building (see discussion above).

Class BL1.2

BL1.3

BL13

Lachish

V

BL14

Lachish

V

BL2.1

Tell esSafi/Gath Lachish

A3

BL3.2

This assemblage consists of pottery from the first stage of the Iron Age IIA, sealed by the berm. In addition, pottery from beneath the large boulder (70030) is included, as it helps date the quarrying of the trench to the Iron Age IIA (90016). BL1.2 – Rounded bowl with a simple rim (Fig. 3.27: 1–2). The latter example presented here is hand-burnished on the interior and exterior. Parallels for this type of bowl were found in the Stratum A3 destruction on the tell (Shai and Maeir 2012: 318). Other parallels were found at Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni 2004a: 1662).15 BL1.3 – Rounded bowl with a simple rim and a ridge beneath the rim (Fig. 3.27: 3–4). The latter example presented is hand-burnished on the exterior. Similar vessels were found in Stratum A3 on the tell (Shai and Maeir 2012: 318), as well as at Tel Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 34–35). BL3.1 – Carinated bowl (Fig. 3.27: 5). The example presented is hand-burnished on the exterior. Similar vessels were found Stratum A3 on the tell (Shai and Maeir 2012: 320), as well as at Tel Batash, Stratum IVB (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 44–45). BL3.2 – Carinated bowl, with an everted upper wall (Fig. 3.27: 6). Similar vessels were found in Stratum A3 on the tell (Shai and Maeir 2012: 320), as well as at Lachish, Level V (Zimhoni 1997: 96).

IV

V

BL3.1

Assemblage 1 – Stratum C6-2, Square 29C, Locus 50010; Square 29A, Locus 70036; Squares 19D, 19B, Loci 60009, 70050

Stratum A3

Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Batash Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Batash Tell esSafi/Gath Lachish

Stratum C6-2: The Iron Age IIA Three assemblages were dated to the Iron Age IIA and assigned to Stratum C6-2. They are discussed separately.

Site Tell esSafi/Gath Lachish

A3 IV A3 IVB A3

IV

References Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.16: 2–3 Zimhoni 2004a: fig. 25.2: 9. Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.2: 4 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 6: 1 Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.2: 9 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 5: 16 Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.2: 8 Zimhoni 1997: fig. 3.21: 10 Zimhoni 1997: fig. 3.30: 6 Zimhoni 1997: fig. 3.10: 1 Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.2: 15 Zimhoni 1997: fig. 3.8: 19

Table 3.16: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Bowls from Assemblage 1.

BL13 – Bowl with straight sides and an everted rim (Fig. 3.27: 8). The example presented here is red-slipped. Similar bowls were found in Lachish, Level V (Zimhoni 1997: 107). BL14 – Closed bowl. The example presented has red slip and burnish (Fig. 3.27: 9). Parallels for this vessel were found at Lachish, Level V (Zimhoni 1997: 81–82). BL2.1 – Rounded bowl with a flattened, everted rim and ridges below the rim (Fig. 3.27: 10). Similar vessels were found in Stratum A3 at Tell esSafi/Gath (Shai and Maeir 2012: 319), as well as at Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni 1997: 78). BL15 – Miniature bowl with a flat base and simple rim (Fig. 3.27: 11). No parallels for this vessel were found. Some term this type of vessel as votive, due to its size (see discussion above). CP2 – Carinated cooking pot with a straight upper wall and an outer-thickened rim (Fig. 3.27: 12). Similar vessels were found at Tel Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 80–81) and Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni 1997: 126–7).

15 For further discussion on the transition from hand to wheel burnishing, see Zimhoni 2004b: 1704–05.

152

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C Class CP2

Site Tel Batash

Stratum IV

Lachish

IV

References Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 79: 13 Zimhoni 1997: fig. 3.41: 3

Class RT

Stratum A3 IVB

Class KN

References Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.5: 6 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 5: 2

Assemblage 2 – Stratum C6-2, Squares 29D, 29A, 19D, 19B, 9D, 9c; Loci 50003, 60007, 70017, 80023. Material from within the berm – early and late Iron Age IIA

CH – Chalice fragments, including the leg and downturned petals (Fig. 3.27: 16–17). Similar chalices were found in Stratum A3 on the tell (Shai and Maeir 2012: 352), as well as at Tel Batash, Stratum IVB-II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 58). Although only a small part of the leaf was found, this is a typical feature of Iron Age chalices (for a detailed study on chalices, see Maeir and Shai 2005).

IVB

References Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: fig. 3.86: 1–6

The typological analysis of the pottery from this assemblage allows us to date the first stage of Stratum C6-2 – that is the stage prior to the cutting of the trench – to the Iron Age IIA. This is attested to both in the morphological features of the vessels, as well as surface treatment, seen in the extensive use of red slip and hand burnishing, typical of the 9th century BCE. It is important to note that numerous cultic vessels were found in this assemblage.

Cultic Vessels

Stratum A3

Stratum X–IX

Summary

SJ5 – Storage jar with out-turned neck and gutter rim (Fig. 3.27: 14). No parallels were found. JG – Body sherd of a Late Philistine Decorated Ware (LPDW) jug (Fig. 3.27: 15). This decorative style is typical of the Iron Age IIA (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004).

Site Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Batash

Site Ashdod

Table 3.21: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Kernos from Assemblage 1.

Table 3.18: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Storage Jars from Assemblage 1.

Class CH

References Albright 1943: pl. 70: 16–18

KN – Kernos. Hollow tube with a cup attached (Fig. 3.27: 19). A parallel for this vessel was found at Ashdod, Strata X–IX, dating to the 10th– 9th centuries BCE (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 197).17

SJ1.2 – Storage jar with simple rim and short neck (Fig. 3.27: 13). Parallels for this type were found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A3 (Shai and Maeir 2012: 329), as well as Tel Batash, Stratum IVB (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 92). Site Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Batash

Stratum A

Table 3.20: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Rattle from Assemblage 1.

Table 3.17: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Cooking Pots from Assemblage 1.

Class SJ1.2

Site Tell Beit Mirsim

Assemblage 2 includes several types already discussed in Assemblage 1: BL1.3 (Fig. 3.28: 1), BL3.2 (Fig. 3.28: 2), BL3.1 (Fig. 3.28: 3), BL2.1 (Fig. 3.28: 4–5, 7), CH (Fig. 3.28: 12–16, 19), SJ1.2 (Fig. 3.28: 18) and STR (Fig. 3.28: 20). Types that were not found in Assemblage 1 include the following: BL16 – Round bowl with inner-thickened rim and a degenerated bar handle (Fig. 3.28: 6). The example here is red-slipped and hand-burnished. Parallels for this vessel were found at Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni 2004a: 1661). Another parallel was found at Tel Batash, Stratum IVA. The excavators note that while this type of bowl is common in Stratum IV, it continues to appear in Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 38–39).

References Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.4: 4 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 2: 22

Table 3.19: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Chalice from Assemblage 1.

RT – Rattle with an hourglass-shaped body. The example presented is red-slipped (Fig. 3.27: 18). A rattle slightly different than the one found here was discovered at Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, dated by Albright to the Iron Age II.16

16 For further discussion, see Rimmer 1969: 20; Fox and Roskop 1999–2000: 16-22.

17 For further discussion, see Hachlilli 1971: 132–35; Bignasca 2000; Dever 2001: 119–33.

153

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C Class BL16

BL17

Site Tel Batash

Stratum IVA

Lachish

IV

Lachish

IV

Summary

References Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 6: 7 Zimhoni 2004a: fig. 25.17: 13 Zimhoni 2004a: fig. 25.19: 15

Following the study of this assemblage, it is possible to date the quarrying of the trench to the Iron Age IIA. This is based on the morphological analysis of the vessels as well as the large amount of red-slipped and hand-burnished pottery, typical of the 9th century BCE. It is important to note here the presence of numerous cultic vessels (Fig. 3.28: 12–16, 19).18

Table 3.22: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Bowls from Assemblage 2.

BL17 – Round bowl with simple rim and a ridge beneath the rim (Fig. 3.28: 8). Similar vessels were found at Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni 2004a: 1660). KR6 – Closed krater with a hammerhead rim (Fig. 3.28: 9–10). Both of the examples brought here are red-slipped and hand-burnished. The first example also has a ridge beneath the rim. Parallels for this type were found in the 9th century BCE destruction level in Area A (Shai and Maeir 2012: 324), as well as at Ashdod, Stratum 8, dating to the Iron Age II (Dothan 1971: 104). Class KR6

Site Tell esSafi/Gath Ashdod

Stratum A3 8

Assemblage 3 – Stratum C6-2, Loci 40017, 40019 – earliest fill in the trench. 50006, 50009, 50014 – winter wash at the base of the trench. These loci provide a timeframe for when the trench went out of use in the Iron Age IIA. BL1.2 – Rounded bowl with a simple rim (Fig. 3.29: 1). The example presented here is redslipped on the interior and exterior (see discussion in Assemblage 1). The presence of hand burnishing indicates that it should be attributed to the Iron Age IIA, late 9th Century BCE horizon at Tell esSafi/Gath (see Shai and Maeir 2012). BL502.1 – Carinated bowl with everted rim. The bowl has a shallow ring base (Fig. 3.29: 2). Parallels for this type were found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A2 (Avissar and Maeir 2012: 367) as well as at Lachish, Levels IV–III, dating to the 9th–8th centuries BCE (Zimhoni 1997: 150–51), although here too, the example is hand-burnished, suggesting a 9th century BCE date. BL1.5 – Rounded bowl with outer-thickened rim (Fig. 3.29: 3). Similar vessels were found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A3 (Shai and Maeir 2012: 318). At Lachish, such vessels were found in Levels V–IV (Zimhoni 2004a: 1661). BL18 – Rounded bowl with flattened, everted rim and ridges below the rim (Fig. 3.29: 4). Parallels for this type come from Lachish, Levels V–IV (Zimhoni 2004a: 1662) and Tel Batash, Strata IV– III, spanning the 10th–8th centuries BCE (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 38–39). BL3.5 – Carinated bowl with a sharp carination on the lower body (Fig. 3.29: 5). Similar vessels were found in the 9th century BCE destruction of Stratum A3 on the tell (Shai and Maeir 2012: 319) as well as at Tel Batash, Strata IV–III, spanning the 10th–8th centuries BCE (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 41–42).

References Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.6: 6 Dothan 1971: fig. 50: 6

Table 3.23: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Kraters from Assemblage 2.

CP3 – Closed cooking pot with a simple rim (Fig. 3.28: 11). Similar vessels were found at Gezer, Stratum VIIA, dating to the 10th century BCE. Gitin noted that this type of cooking pot is a late development of the Late Bronze Age cooking pot (Gitin 1990: 212–13). Class CP3

Site Gezer

Stratum VIIA

References Gitin 1990: pl. 9: 16–19.

Table 3.24: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Cooking Pots from Assemblage 2.

SJ1.3 – Storage jar with a short, out-turned neck (Fig. 3.28: 17). Parallels for this type were found in Stratum A3 at Tell es-Safi/Gath (Shai and Maeir 2012: 329). Class SJ1.3

Site Tell es-Safi/ Gath

Stratum A3

References Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.19: 5

Table 3.25: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Storage Jars from Assemblage 2.

18 For further discussion on chalices, see Devries 1987; Maeir and Shai 2006.

154

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C CH – Chalice fragments, including a base with the lower part of the bowl, downturned petals and the rim of a bowl. The bowl’s base has a hole drilled prior to firing, not usually found in chalices (Fig. 3.29: 11–13; see discussion in Assemblage 1). SN1 – Hourglass-shaped stand (Fig. 3.29: 14–20). Two subtypes were defined: SN1.1 – everted rim (Fig. 3.29: 14–18, 20); SN1.2 – inner-thickened rim (Fig. 3.29: 19). A close, although not exact, parallel for SN1.1 was found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A3 (Shai and Maeir 2012: 328). A close, although not exact, parallel for SN1.2 was found at Tel Afis, Stratum 2, Area G, dating to the Iron Age III (Cecchinni and Mazzoni 1998: 356–57).

BL19 – Closed carinated bowl, with a simple inverted rim and a disk base. The example presented here is red-slipped and hand-burnished (Fig. 3.29: 6). No parallels were found. Class BL 502.1 BL1.5

BL18

BL3.5

Site Tell esSafi/Gath Lachish

Stratum A2 IV–III

Tell esSafi/Gath Lachish

A3 IV–III

Lachish

V–IV

Tel Batash

IV–III

Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Batash

A3 IV–III

References Avissar and Maeir 2012: pl. 15.5: 9 Zimhoni 1997: Fig. 3.65: 5 Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.14: 5 Zimhoni 2004a: fig. 25.2: 7 Zimhoni 2004a: fig. 25.2: 7 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 7: 9– 12 Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.14: 11 Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: pl. 28: 1

Class SN1.1 SN1.2

Site Tell esSafi/Gath Tel Afis, Syria

Stratum A3 Area G, 2

References Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.3: 7 Cecchinni and Mazzoni 1998: fig. 37: 6

Table 3.26: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Bowls from Assemblage 3.

Table 3.29: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Stands from Assemblage 3.

CP3 – Closed cooking pot with a simple rim (Fig. 3.29: 7; see discussion in Assemblage 2). SJ8 – Holemouth jar with outer-thickened rim and body slanting inward (Fig. 3.29: 8–9). Similar holemouth jars were found at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A3 (Shai and Maeir 2012: 333), as well as Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni 2004a: 1688).

SN2 – Goblet-shaped stand (Fig. 3.29: 21). No parallels were found for this vessel. It is possible that the large amount of stands is a reflection of the character of the context in which they were found, although the function of these vessels is yet to be determined. The two types of stands known can be divided according to function: cultic stands and hourglass stands. The first type consists of a variety of forms, although they are usually taller than 40 cm, decorated and at times have windows. Hourglass stands, such as the types presented here, are usually shorter (up to 20 cm), undecorated and simple. While cultic stands have been discussed extensively,19 hourglass stands have not been studied in-depth. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen (2001: 137) claimed that these stands supported vessels with round bases, such as storage jars and jugs, with the differences in the size of the stand directly reflecting the size of the vessel that it was meant to hold. However, they also noted that it seems that stands were also used for the placing of hot cooking pots, or for steadying a vessel while stirring.

Class SJ8

Site Tell es-Safi/ Gath Lachish

Stratum A3 IV

References Shai and Maeir 2012: pl. 14.12: 9. Zimhoni 2004a: fig. 25.21: 9.

Table 3.27: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Storage Jars from Assemblage 3

SP – Spout Handle (Fig. 3.29: 10). Spout handles were found at Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni 1997: 139–40). Class SP

Site Lachish

Stratum IV

References Zimhoni 1997: fig. 3.54: 8–9.

Table 3.28: Parallels for Iron Age IIA Spout Handles from Assemblage 3.

19 For further discussion on cultic stands, see Devries 1987; Fowler 1985; Meyers 1979.

155

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C No. 1. 2.

Basket 500044/51 900037/3

Locus 50010 90016

Class BL BL

Type 1.2 1.2

3. 4.

500044/21 500044/50

50010 50010

BL BL

1.3 1.3

5.

500044/15

50010

BL

3.1

6. 7. 8.

500040/40 500045/53 500044/16

50010 50010 50010

BL BL BL

3.2 12 13

9.

700111/28

70050

BL

14

10. 11.

700111/34 700134/1

70050 70036

BL BL

2.1 15

12.

700111/27

70050

CP

2

13. 14. 15.

500046/28 600036/11 500045/4

50010 60009 50010

SJ SJ JG

1.2 5

16. 17.

500044/27 500040/4

50010 50010

CH CH

18.

500022/114

50010

RT

19.

500045/48

50010

KN

Remarks Rim. Light grey clay with few inclusions Rim. Light brown clay with red slip and hand burnish on exterior and interior Rim. Orange clay with few inclusions Rim. Orange clay with red slip and wheel burnish on exterior and interior Rim. Orange clay with many inclusions and red slip on exterior and interior Rim. Brown clay with few inclusions Rim with perforated bar handle. Light brown clay Rim. Brown clay with dark grey core with few inclusions. Red slip inside and on rim from the outside. Rim. Dark orange clay with dark grey core. Red slip and burnish on both sides Rim. Brown-orange clay with dark grey core. Red slip on interior Complete profile. Dark brown-red clay with many inclusions. Soot marks on most of the vessel Rim. Light brown clay from outside and dark grey from inside. Few inclusions Rim. Light orange clay with many inclusions Rim. Brown clay with few inclusions Body sherd. Light brown clay with few inclusions. Red slip and vertical strip burnish with white and black horizontal stripes Petal. Brown clay with thick black core. Few inclusions Chalice stem. Brown-orange clay with dark grey core. Many inclusions Rim. Light brown clay on exterior and dark grey on interior with many inclusions. Red slip outside and inside. Brown clay with dark grey core. Red slip on exterior

156

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.27: Pottery from Stratum C6-2b.

157

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C No. 1.

Basket 500022/23

Locus 50003

Class BL

Type 1.3

2. 3. 4.

700098/7 800160/1 500024/1

70017 80023 50005

BL BL BL

3.2 3.1 2.1

5. 6.

700089/6 500019/12

70017 50003

BL BL

2.1 16

7.

500029/13

50003

BL

2.1

8. 9. 10.

500019/16 700098/13 400134/2

50003 70017 40014

BL KR KR

17 6 6

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

800143/2 500029/83 500019/10 700098/12 700098/3 700098/4 500019/14 500016/11 500019/22 400086/2

80023 50003 50003 70017 70017 70017 50003 50003 50003 40015

CP CH CH CH CH CH SJ SJ CH STR

3

1.3 1.2

Remarks Rim. Light brown clay. Red slip inside and outside. Interior burnished Rim. Orange clay with few inclusions Rim. Light brown clay. Red slip inside and outside Rim. Orange clay with dark grey core. Red slip on interior and exterior Rim. Orange clay. Red slip on interior and exterior Rim and handle. Light brown clay. Red slip and burnish on interior and exterior Rim. Orange clay with dark grey core. Red slip and burnish on interior and exterior Rim. Light brown clay with dark grey core. Many inclusions Rim. Light brown clay. Red slip on interior and exterior Rim. Light brown clay with orange core. Red slip and burnish on interior and exterior Rim. Light brown clay with light grey core. Few inclusions Rim. Orange clay with light grey core. Few inclusions Rim. Brown-reddish clay with dark grey core. Few inclusions Base. Orange clay with light grey core Base. Brown-orange clay with dark grey core Base. Orange clay with dark grey core. Few inclusions Rim. Light brown clay. Red slip on interior and exterior Rim. Cream color clay with many inclusions Petal. Light brown clay with dark grey core Rim. Cream color clay with brown slip on interior

158

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.28: Pottery from Stratum C6-2a.

159

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C No. 1.

Basket 400161/6

Locus 40019

Class BL

Type 1.2

2.

400159/5

40020

BL

502.1

3. 4. 5. 6.

400121/1 400161/9 400158/1 400159/4

40019 40019 40019 40019

BL BL BL BL

1.5 18 3.5 19

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

400161/7 400143/2 400161/5 400143/1 400159/3 400134/9 400145/2 400158/4 500021/2

40019 40019 40019 40019 40020 40019 40019 40019 50006

CP SJ SJ SP CH CH CH SN SN

3 8 8

16. 17. 18.

400158/2 400158/3 500021/4

40019 40019 50006

SN SN SN

1.1 1.1 1.1

19.

400152

40019

SN

1.1

20. 21.

400158/8 400143/3

40019 40019

SN SN

1.2 2

1.1 1.1

Remarks Almost complete profile. Brown grey clay. Red slip on rim interior and exterior. Hand-burnished Complete profile. Light brown pink clay. Red slip and few inclusions. Hand-burnished Rim. Light grey clay. Few inclusions Rim. Brown-grey clay. Many inclusions Rim. Orange clay Rim and base. Brown-red clay. Red slip on the upper inside and outside. Hand-burnished Rim. Dark grey clay with many inclusions Rim. Red clay with dark grey core. Few inclusions Rim. Red clay with dark grey core. Few inclusions Stem. Dark grey-brown clay with few inclusions Petal. Pinkish clay with light grey core. Many inclusions Rim. Brown- pinkish clay Complete profile. Dark brown clay with many inclusions Complete profile. Brown-orange clay with dark grey core and many inclusions Complete profile. Reddish clay with dark grey core Rim. Reddish clay with dark grey core and few inclusions Complete profile. Orange clay with dark grey core and many inclusions Complete profile. Orange clay with dark grey core and few inclusions Rim. Dark brown-grey clay with few inclusions Complete profile. Light brown clay with light grey core

160

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.29: Pottery from Stratum C6-2.

161

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C by D. Ben-Shlomo who identified it as frit. Subsequent analysis of the glaze using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF) revealed traces of copper, tin and lead in the glassy glaze.21 Thus far, no exact parallel was found for this vessel, although technologically, the use of glaze on vessels of the period is known. Interestingly, the closest (geographically speaking) parallels comes from the Iron Age site of Tel Afis, Syria. Soldi (2009; 2012)22 described them as glazed pottery objects that were found below the collapsed walls of the Iron Age II–III temple (dated to the second half of the 8th century to the 7th century BCE) which was found at the acropolis of the city, identified as Hazrak, the Aramean kingdom of Zakkur. Tel Afis is also the location where the Zakkur inscription was found, describeing the Aramean siege trench that was dug by Bar-Hadad and his alliance, who were trying to conquer the city. These pottery pipes (25 cm long and 10–15 cm wide), made of pinkish clay with an upper rim with green-whitish glaze, were identified by Soldi as funnels (Soldi 2009; 2012). He compared them to similar objects that were found at Zinçirli in the palace complex of Barrakib (second half of the 8th century BCE), and in the palace of Sargon II (721–705 BCE) at Khorsabad, and suggested several possible architectural uses for them, from a device inserted into the walls to provide passage of light and ventilation, to pigeon holes, draining objects or wall decorations. While these objects are clearly different from JG13, the use of green glazed pottery in the second half of the 8th century BCE in the area of Syria and Mesopotamia, and the lack of parallels from the southern Levant, may suggest that this vessel exhibits foreign technology. Whether it was produced locally or imported is still unclear. Another possible technological and morphological connection to JG13 may be found in north Syrian sites, such as Zinçirli and Al Mina (Peltenburg 1969). These vessels, described by Peltenburg as handleless flasks with pointed ends, were made of “brick red” pottery and decorated with white, green and brown glaze to create geometric patterns. Peltenburg (1969) dated them to the third part of the 8th century BCE and attributed them to a north Syrian origin, possibly at Zinçirli. While the glazed decoration is obviously different from

At Tel Qasile, a large assemblage of cultic stands was uncovered, with two of the stands defined as short cylindrical stands. Mazar (1980: 96) notes that while these are usually not considered cultic, rather for placing jars, the clear cultic context of certain stands as these calls this into question (for example, the stand from the Fosse Temple at Lachish [Tufnell 1940, pl. LIIIA–B] and Burial 912 at Megiddo [Guy 1938: 69–72, pl. 34: 20], where a bowl was found on the stand). It is possible that such stands are an in-between form, with some similarity to the hourglass stands, but functionally similar to the cultic stands. Summary The assemblages presented here indicate that the trench went out of use already in the Iron Age IIA (see Maeir 2004). This is supported both by the morphological characteristics of the assemblage and the extensive use of red slip and hand burnishing, characteristic of the 9th century BCE (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 149–50; Zimhoni 2004b: 1704–06). It is important to note that this assemblage yielded many vessels with possible cultic functions (Fig. 3.29: 11–21). The fact that at the base of the trench, nine stands were found, with only one 9th century BCE example found in the rest of the area, raises several questions. What were these stands used for? Is there a connection between these stands and the activity in the area prior to the quarrying of the trench? Could the stands relate to activities that took place on the berm? Could the fact that these stands were found almost complete at the base of the trench indicate that they were intentionally thrown into it? If so, does this indicate a cultic function for these vessels or cultic activity related to the trench? Frit-Glazed Vessel JG13 – Frit-glazed jug (Fig. 3.30). A fragment of a unique glazed jug was found at the bottom of the trench.20 The vessel is made of light brown pottery and is glazed from the outside with a layer of about a millimeter of glassy glaze which is light green-blue with splashes of yellow. The interior is covered with what seems to be thin white-yellowish wash or glaze, which in some locations seems almost slag-like. The vessel was analyzed 20

It is possible that this fragment is intrusive, as it was found after the winter of 2001. 21 The FTIR and XRF analysis was undertaken by A. Eliyahu-Behar. These are initial results from a study

that is still in progress. We thank A. Eliyahu-Behar for sharing these results with us. 22 Thanks to S. Soldi for discussing this find in an email exchange with A.M. Maeir.

162

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C large number of cultic-oriented vessels, such as the kernos, rattle, chalices, stands and votive bowls. It has already been suggested above that Building 50022 continued to be in use in the first stage of the Iron Age IIA. The presence of various cultic vessels, which could also date to the Iron Age I, supports this suggestion.

the plain glaze that covers JG13, the morphology of these vessels is similar, especially with the thick lower walls. Peltenburg (1969) also suggested that an earlier flask form with horizontal band decorations (some examples of which were also found in Samaria, Amman, Sahab, Dhiban and Moab) may have been the immediate forerunner of the glazed vessels. Although an exact parallel to JG13 was not found, the use of the glazing technique and the Near Eastern form of the vessel,23 may suggest that its origin should be sought in north Syria and the Aramean kingdoms – an interesting aspect taking into account our suggestion that the siege was carried out by the Aramaean army.

Stratum C6-1 Stratum C6-1 consists of the late backfill of the trench – Loci 40005 and 40006. BA1 – Large basin with an inverted rim, thickened on its upper portion (Fig. 3.31: 1). Parallels for this vessel were found at Ḥorvat Karkur ‘Illit in levels dating to the 5th–6th centuries CE (Nicolsky and Figueras 2004: 207), as well as in Area A of the Jewish Quarter excavations in Jerusalem, Stratum 3–1, dating to the 6th century CE (Magness 2003: 424).

Sling Stones Round, worked-stones were also found in the trench and in the destruction level on the tell. These stones, usually made from flint, are usually identified as sling stones. Sass and Ussishkin (2004: 1970–75) divided sling stones typologically: round, square, flat-based multi-faced, amorphic, and river pebbles. Three such stones were found in Area C6: one within the early fill of the trench (Locus 40018) and the other two on the surface near the trench (Locus 40012). Sass and Ussishkin (ibid.) note that some of these stones originally may not have been sling stones, but in times of need were used as such.

Class BA1

Site Ḥorvat Karkur ‘Illit Jewish Quarter A

Stratum

3–1

References Nicolsky and Figueras 2004: fig. 33: 7 Magness 2003: pl. 18.1: 7

Table 3.30: Parallels for Basin from Stratum C6-1.

In addition, several body sherds with typical Roman/Byzantine combed design were also found (Fig. 3.31: 3).

Summary

Summary

The first stage of activity in the Iron Age IIA (Fig. 3.27), and the second stage when the trench was quarried out and the tower was built along its edge (Fig. 3.28, Fig. 3.29), have ceramic assemblages which are quite different from the preceding stratum. These assemblages are characterized by a

The dating of Stratum C6-1 to the Byzantine period is based on a single rim and numerous body sherds with typical combing decoration of the period. It should be noted that the fill in the trench is indicative of human activity in the area (Ackermann et al. 2004a: 422; 2005a: 325).

23

One should note that the small portion of the vessel that was found in Area C does not allow for a secure morphological comparison.

163

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C

Fig. 3.30: Frit-glazed Vessel, Stratum C6-2.

164

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C

Fig. 3.31: Pottery from Stratum C6-1.

No. 1.

Basket 400025/1

Locus 40005

2.

400033/1

40006

3.

400033/2–4

40006

Class BA

Type 1

Remarks Rim. Orange clay with whitish-grey core and many inclusions. Wavy combed incisions Body sherd. Orange clay with many inclusions. Combed decoration of wavy stripes Three body sherds. Orange clay with many inclusions. Ribbed pattern on exterior

165

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C although it was found in a limited area in the southern squares (Squares 28B and 29C), it had no architectural features related to it. Nevertheless, it seems that some human activity took place in the area during the LB IIB period, possibly in relation to the large public building that was dated to the same period in Area E, on the opposite facing lower terrace of the tell (Shai et al. 2012).

DISCUSSION Stratum C6-5: The EBIV/ MBI Settlement From the architectural remains and the ceramic assemblages of Stratum C6-5, it is evident that this site fits in well with the general picture of this period in the Southern Levant. It has been previously demonstrated that this period was a transition phase between the urban cultures of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. The settlements of the EB IV/MB I are characterized by their location away from the previous period’s tell mounds and by their rural nature, with small sedentary villages to semi-nomadic pastoralist single-layer sites (e.g. Dever 2003 and references therein). Stratum C6-5 also shows a shift from the main tell site (where EB IV/MB I layer has yet to be identified) to a new location that was not occupied before. It is hard to determine the character of the EB IV/MB I site in Area C6 from the poorly preserved remains, but the presence of a constructed wall and pavement, as well as the quarried installations and a possible tomb, suggest that it was used for more than a temporary camp. It is possible that it was a small-scale settlement based on agriculture and herding. Eight storage jars and two holemouth jars were petrographically analyzed (Ben-Shlomo, this volume), of which six of the storage jars were attributed to the Motza marl type provenance from the Judean Hills, and the other four vessels attributed to local fabrics. The origin of some of the vessels in the Judean Hills may indicate trade interactions between sites, or the movement of people from the hills to the lowlands, although it is difficult to determine which scenario is correct with certainty. The attribution of the Stratum C65 assemblage to the “southern family” also fits well with the possible more sedentary nature of the settlement (Dever 1971).

Stratum C6-3: The Iron Age I Building As mentioned above, the Iron Age I building that was found in Stratum C6-3 should probably be identified as a public building due to its dimension and quality of wall construction (See Shai et al. 2011 for a discussion on defining public buildings). As such, the question arises as to its function and location at such a distance from the main area of the city. Examples of structures that are located outside of urban settings are known, be it farmhouses, industrial areas or cultic buildings.24 Vessels with a cultic orientation (see discussion above on the Iron Age I assemblage, Fig. 3.25, Fig. 3.26) and a rich faunal assemblage were found in Strata C6-3 and C6-2. According to Killebrew and Lev-Tov (2008), high concentrations of bones in a small area can serve as an indicator for ritually-oriented function. Furthermore, the structure’s form is similar to that of other buildings that have been identified as cultic (compare structures in Mazar 1992 to Fig. 3.15). Therefore, it seems possible that the finds and architectural style indicate that the building should be interpreted as having a cultic function;25 however, the area’s character and preservation does not allow for a definitive answer. The Iron Age IIA Among the various finds discovered in Area C, the most interesting, and challenging, is the quarried feature, and its associated elements, which encircle the tell. The quarried feature is better seen on the eastern, southern and western sides of the tell.

Stratum C6-4: The Late Bronze Age in Area C6 As mentioned above, the Late Bronze Age presence in Area C6 is limited and difficult to understand. The pottery assemblage was small and 24 For example, the EB IV/MB I structure found at Har Yerucham was identified as cultic, due to its isolated location (Herzog 1997: 99), a phenomenon continuing at other sites in the MB IIA (Herzog 1997: 114). Other such structures include the MB IIB-C temples at Hazor, Megiddo and Shechem, some of which continue into the Late Bronze Age, which were built within cities, however as free-standing structures in high locations (Mazar 1990: 24; 248–57). Additional examples can be

found at Tel Qasile, Stratum XII, where the temple was separated with a wall (Mazar 1990: 317) and the Edomite temple at Ḥorvat Qitmit (Mazar 1992: 186) 25 Similar architectural forms can be found at Hazor, Shechem, Megiddo and Alalakh (Mazar 1992: 163–69; Herzog 1997: 193). For further discussion on Bronze and Iron Age temples from the Levant, see, e.g., Fritz and Kempinski 1983; Zwickel 1999; Mierse 2012.

166

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C Nevertheless, it seems to have fully surrounded the tell, as it connected to the Elah Valley riverbed on the northern side of the tell, utilizing its natural topography. The GPR study conducted in 2003– 2004, demonstrated that the quarried feature was connected to the Elah Valley riverbed, which was 2–3 m deeper during the Iron Age (Pincus BenAvraham 2012; Pincus 2005). Several suggestions were made since the feature was found, regarding its function and identification. Ussishkin (2009: 154) suggested it is a natural feature based on the absence of tool marks on the rock surface. This interpretation stands in contrast to the interpretation of all the geologists and geomorphologists who have studied this feature since it was excavated. Other suggestions (none published, to the best of our knowledge), were rejected as they do not correspond with the nature of this feature. Some of the suggestions were: 1) that it was a defensive trench built by the city’s inhabitants as part of a complete system including the towers at C2 and C6. This cannot be accepted due to its distance from the city as well of its location on a forward slope with the towers and the berm on the side opposite the city, contrary to any tactical logic; 2) that it should be dated to the Crusader period; a suggestion that should be rejected completely as the stratigraphy of the finds in the different excavated area clearly demonstrates; 3) that it was a later enclosure feature related to the Ottoman period village; again the excavations proved without a doubt that this is an earlier feature that should be dated to the Iron Age IIA and there are no parallels to such an enclosure feature elsewhere; 4) that it was a water channel; this cannot be accepted since the bottom of the feature follows the topography of the surrounding hills so water would not be able to flow freely due to gravity issues. Furthermore, trenches used for water drainage are known from the archaeological research to be located next to city walls in order to protect its foundations (Oredsson 2000); 5) that it was a stone quarry; this should be rejected as no parallels to such long and narrow quarries are known, and other than the upper nari crust, the rest of the quarried rock is soft chalk which is not suitable as a building material and abundant on the tell itself (Ackermann and Bruins 2012). While all these suggestions should be rejected, we suggest that based on the location of all the different elements and the parallels discussed

below, the quarried feature should be identified as a siege trench that was quarried as part of a circumvallation system (Fig 3.32). The purpose of the siege was to cut off supplies and reinforcements to the city and prevent the inhabitants’ escape (including non-combatant population) that burdened the city supplies and expedited its surrender. A siege would cut off access to the city with troops blocking the roads or encircling the city with troops or physical barriers, such as circumvallation (dayeq in biblical Hebrew [‫]דייק‬, as used in the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 586 BCE; 2 Kings 25: 1; Ezek 4: 2) or a trench. Laying a physical obstacle as a trench or circumvallation wall also prevented attempts of attack on the besiegers. A differentiation should be made between two types of trenches – a defensive (moat) and offensive one. The most notable difference between the two is their location in relation to the city. Whereas a defensive moat is located close to the city walls and is basically part of its defense system, an offensive siege trench will be located farther from the city wall in order to keep the besiegers out of range of the defenders’ fire; this was especially important in later periods, with the beginning of the use of gunpowder (Kern 1999). Oredsson (2000) suggested that generally, the slope closer to the city had a more moderate incline to allow easy access for repair works in the moat as well as depriving the attackers from a hiding place while trying to undermine the city walls. The opposite bank of the moat had a sharper incline in order to slow an offensive army force. The best way to overcome the obstacle presented by a trench was to fill it. Therefore, the wider and deeper the trench was, the longer the attackers would be exposed to defensive range.

26

the first option is the more acceptable interpretation (Eph'al 2009).

Historical evidence of ancient siege trenches The earliest reference to a siege trench in historical records from the Levant is from the end of the 18th century BCE, in a letter from Šamši-Addu to his son Iasmah-Addu, from the Mari archive. The letter describes the besieging force which dug a trench to surround the city (Dossin 1950: 18– 20).26 In the 15th century BCE, Thutmosis III’s army besieged Megiddo for seven months and encircled it with a trench (Lichtheim 1976). According to Kern (1999), in the annals of Adadnārārī II (911–891 BCE), he mentions the use of a

From Dossin’s translation it is not clear if the force encircled the sieged city with an offensive trench or their own camp with a defensive one, but it seems that

167

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C to conquer a city. One example is the inscription of Ashurnaṣirpal II (883–859 BCE), where he described the conquest of Kaprabu “ina pílše nāpili sāpīti āla aktašad” (I besieged the city [and] conquered it by means of tunnels, battering-rams, [and] siege-towers; Grayson 1991). There are several difficulties with Eph’al's interpretation: 1. Even if the inscription is written in poetic style, it is not a good enough reason to use words in an uncommon way. 2. Grayson (1991) translated sāpīti as siege towers rather than rampart. 3. Eph’al compared the “ḥrṣ” to the break-in tunnels from the Assyrian inscriptions where it is written as “ina pílše” which is the accepted term for tunneling as opposed to “ḥariṣ/ḥariṣu”. On the other hand, there are parallels to the use of “ḥariṣ/ḥariṣu” as a trench (Maeir 2004; Maeir 2008b; Oppenheim 1956). In light of these difficulties, we believe that Eph’al’s interpretation should be rejected, and the term “ḥrṣ” should be understood as a trench. It is important to note that there is no linguistic distinction between a moat and an offensive trench, so the term “ḥrṣ” was used for both.

siege trench in two battles, but careful reading of Grayson’s translation (1991) reveals that the “ḥiriṣa” in the text refers to a defensive moat dug by the besieged. Other than sources from the Hellenistic period,27 the most important source that can be compared to the trench discovered at Tell esSafi/Gath is the Zakkur inscription describing a siege laid on Hazrak by Bir-Hadad, son of Hazael. The Zakkur inscription discovered in Tel Afis, North Syria, was published by Pognon (1907) and was written by Zakkur, king of the Aramaic kingdom of Hamath and La’ash. In the inscription, Zakkur described a siege laid by a coalition of 16 kings that were led by BirHadad, son of Hazael. In addition to other siege terminology that can be found in the inscription (Gur-Arieh 2018), Line 10 on Side A of the inscription describes a very similar siege tactic to the one evident at Tell es-Safi/Gath. The accepted translation of the line “ ‫והרמו שר‬ ‫ ”מן שר חזרך והעמקו חרץ מן חרצה‬is that the besiegers built a wall higher than the wall (šur) of Hazrak and dug a moat deeper than its moat (ḥrṣ) (Gibson 1975; Pitard 1987; Lipiński 2000; Millard 2000). The word “ḥrṣ” appears in the Bible only once in the meaning of a trench (Daniel 9:25). Furthermore, in Babylonian Aramaic of the early 1st millennium CE, “šura” means a wall and “ḥrṣ” is interpreted as the act of digging (Sokoloff 2002). Contrary to the accepted interpretation, Eph’al (2009) suggested to translate the word “šur” as rampart and the word “ḥrṣ” as tunneling, changing the interpretation of the phrase to:

Archaeological evidence of ancient siege and the use of trenches The oldest moat in the Levant was discovered at Jericho by Kenyon (1957). In Late Bronze Age Troy, the excavator identified a defensive system related to Stratum VI, which included a wall, a moat and a second moat south of the first one. This identification is still debated (Easton 2002; Hertel 2003; Jablonka 2004), but if accepted as such, the moat’s proximity to the wall and its topographical location downhill, implies it was a defensive one. In the Iron Age Southern Levant, only defensive moats have been exposed thus far, such as the moats of Beer-Sheba, Hazor, Tel Jezreel, Kadesh Barnea, Khirbet al-Mudayna (Oredsson 2000). Other defensive moats have been identified at Tel Halaf in Syria, Nineveh, Babylon, Paphos (Cyprus) and elsewhere (Eph’al 2009; Oredsson 2000). From the classical period, one can mention the Roman siege system from Masada (1st century CE) which was composed of nine camps that were

“The enemies, King Ben-hadad of Aram and his allies, had made significant progress in their siege of Hadrach: they had already attained sufficient height to dominate the view of the city and attain superior firepower over the walls of the city and had already dug beneath the moat”. (Eph’al 2009: 81) Eph’al claimed that although these are not the accepted interpretations to the terms šur and ḥrṣ, because of the poetic style of the inscription (identified by Greenfield 1969), there is a repetition of words as a literary element. Eph’al compared the phrase to Assyrian sources that describe similar war tactics using ramparts and tunneling 27

Josephus mentions a trench (τάφρου) and a double wall built by Hyrcanus around Samaria during his 108/107 BCE siege on the city (AJ XIII: 276).

168

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C opposite the city. In Area C6, the chippings were laid around the structure that was built with quarried monoliths and dated to the late Iron Age IIA, which fits well with the historical scenario suggested in previous studies (Maeir 2004, 2008b, 2012; Maeir, Ackermann and Bruins 2006; Maeir and Gur-Arieh 2011). Therefore, the only acceptable interpretation is that the entire complex, comprised of the structure, trench and berm, were in fact contemporaneous, and we suggest that the tower in Area C6 was one of several watch towers that surrounded the city, very much like the Roman camps next to the circumvallation wall that surrounded Masada.28 To date, the camp(s) of the besieging army have not been found, but we believe they were probably located farther away from the tell, where the intensive modern cultivation does not allow its identification. As part of the debate on the identification of the trench as an offensive siege trench (Maeir 2011; 2012; Ussishkin 2009), a question was raised on the whereabouts of the quarried stones originating from the trench. Besides the extensive volume of material that ended up on the berm itself or at the bottom of the trench, the adjacent towers and materials possibly reused for modern terracing, we would like to suggest another possible use for this material. From the sources reviewed above, it appears that some of the siege campaigns ended when the besieging army managed to enter the city, at times through the use of ramps, such as in the Zakkur inscription and at Masada. If a rampart was built by Hazael in order to conquer Gath, it has yet to be discovered, although future excavation may confirm such a possibility. Recently, Ussishkin (2014: 10–11; 2015: 133–34) once again questioned the identification of the trench and the associated features as being related to siege activities. While we believe the picture presented above is sufficiently convinceing, we would like to reiterate our views on several points which were raised by him in this recent study. First, Ussishkin’s (2014: 10; 2015: 133) acceptance of Eph’al’s understanding of the term ḥrṣ is unwarranted, as discussed above. Furthermore, Ussishkin (ibid.) believes that the trench only had three sides, and was open to the north, making its effectiveness for closing in the city negligible.

connected by a siege wall built of local stone (Richmond 1962). A similar system was identified in the city of Cremna in Pisidia, Turkey from the 3rd century CE (Davies 2000). Davies suggested that a second circumvallation line that was found 180–200 m away from the inner line functioned as a defensive line to prevent an attack from the rear. At Beitar, which was the last stronghold of the Bar-Kokhba revolt, both a defensive moat and an offensive circumvallation system with camps were found (Ussishkin 1993). At Alesia in Gaul, in the year 52 BCE, Julius Caesar used a similar tactic to starve the defenders into submission (Campbell 2005: 22). Although the trench discovered at Tell esSafi/Gath is thus far a unique example of a quarried trench, we believe that in light of it being a part of a circumvallation system, and the historical parallels, that it should be identified as an offensive siege trench and that it should be related to the Aramean siege laid on Gath by Hazael (Maeir 2004). The pottery assemblages found below and above the berm, as well as on the bottom of the trench, which correlate with the extensive destruction layer identified on the tell and the lower city, all support this identification and dating of the conquest of Gath by Hazael to the mid-late 9th century BCE (Maeir 2004; 2011; 2012). Several pieces of evidence support this interpretation: the trench location, the stratigraphic analysis of the trench and its adjacent elements and the parallels from historical sources, especially the Zakkur inscription. As mentioned above, the trench is located about 200 m (and even further in some cases) away from Tell es-Safi/Gath, on the slopes to the east, south and west and encircle the city completely. As opposed to the trenches presented by Oredsson (2000), this trench is not located on the city’s edge and it is too far from the city wall to be part of its defense system. Other features that support the identification of the trench as an offensive siege trench are the berm and towers found next to the trench on the far side of the tell. The berm, as described above and in previous publications (Ackermann, Bruins and Maeir 2004b; 2005; Maeir, Ackermann and Bruins 2006; Ackermann and Bruins 2012), is comprised of chalk chippings that were laid on the edge of the trench to its full length on the side

28 See above for the description of an additional tower and its excavation.

169

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C

Fig. 3.32: Artistic reconstruction of the siege of Tell es-Safi/Gath, showing the siege trench and walled city.

Fig. 3.33: Aerial view, looking south, of a portion of the siege system surrounding Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath, to the south of the site. One can observe portions of the berm (1) situated to the south of the trench (2), always situated on the side of the trench away from the city of Gath. Note the location of one of the besiegers’ towers in Area C2 (3), which is inserted into the berm.

170

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C was the most important site in Philistia at the time, and even perhaps the largest city in the Southern Levant during the late 9th century BCE, and conversely, the largest and most influential kingdom in the region, if the Aramaeans intended to conquer this city, they would have employed a full-fledged and extensive effort, such as the siege trench, and many historically attested examples of immense efforts placed in the construction of siege systems are known in antiquity (see, e.g., Hauser and Tucker 2009: 125–27). Finally, despite what Ussishkin (ibid.: fig. 4) believes, the remains of the berm can be traced along the entire length of the outer edge of the siege trench. For example, Fig. 3.33 demonstrates the existence of the berm, adjacent to the side of the trench that is away from the city, on the southern side of the siege system. In light of the above, despite Ussishkin’s repeated claims (2009; 2014; 2015) that this should not be seen as a siege system, the points that he raised do not warrant changing the interpretation suggested here. The interpretation as a siege trench in general, and in connection with the Aramean conquest of the site specifically, seems to be the only viable interpretation. Thus, we believe this should be the preferred identification of the feature.

This though is not the case, as it has been clearly shown that the trench continued northward toward the Elah Valley riverbed, which during the Iron Age was much deeper. Thus, the suggestion that the northern part of the siege system utilized an existing natural feature presents no problem. The existence of a “lower city” at Tell es-Safi/ Gath (Area D), which was settled in the Iron Age IIA, and was destroyed in the late 9th century BCE (in the same destruction seen in other parts of the city, such as Area A), does not negate the use of the Elah Valley riverbed, just to its north, as a siege trench. Despite what Ussishkin suggested, there was an impressive Iron Age fortification surrounding the lower city,29 to the south of the Elah Valley riverbed, while the Aramean forces would have been positioned to its north. In addition, Ussishkin (ibid.) notes the enormous amount of excavation and earthmoving required for this project,30 wondering why such an enormous operation would be required for a city of ca. 10,000 inhabitants. This is a moot point. To start with, if this is a siege system, one cannot assume that the commanders used the same logic as a modern person would. Second, as demonstrated above, this seems to be a method used in at least one other Aramaean siege (mentioned in the Zakkur inscription). Third, as Gath of the Philistines

REFERENCES Ackermann, O.; Bruins, H. T.; and Maeir, A. M. 2004a Human Impact on Landscape Evolution in the Environs of Tell es-Safi/Gath (Judean Shephelah) During the Last 3000 Years. Judea and Samaria 13: 417–28, XXIX–XXX. 2004b Unique Human-Made Catenary Changes and Their Effect on Soil and Vegetation in the Semi-Arid Mediterranean Zone: A Case Study on Sarcopoterium Spinosum Distribution near Tell e-Safi/Gath, Israel. Catena 57: 309–30. 2005 A Unique Human-Made Trench at Tell esSafi/Gath, Israel: Anthropogenic Impact and Landscape Response”. Geoarchaeology. 20 (3): 303–27. Ackermann, O.; and Bruins, H. J. 2012 The Environmental Background of Tell esSafi/Gath and its Vicinity. Pp. 123–32 in Tell

es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Albright, W. F. 1943 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine. Volume III: The Iron Age. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 22– 23. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Amiran, R. 1960 The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age I in Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 10: 204–25. Avissar-Lewis, R. S. 2010 Childhood and Children in the Material Culture of the Land of Israel from the Middle Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Unpublished

29

30

The substantial Iron Age IIA (and Iron Age IB) fortifications have now been identified and excavated extensively in the lower city (Area D), particularly in the 2015 and 2016 seasons of excavations. For initial notes on this, see, this volume, Chapter 1; Maeir 2017; Dagan, Eniukhina and Maeir 2018.

His very definition of the siege system at Tell esSafi/Gath as being of extensive size is questionable, particularly when compared to truly large-scale siege systems known in antiquity, such as, inter alia, the Sassanian siege of Hatra, dating to the mid-3rd century CE (see, e.g., Hauser and Tucker 2009; Hauser 2013).

171

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C PhD dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan. Avissar, R. S.; and Maeir, A. M. 2012 Iron Age IIB Pottery from Stratum A2. Pp. 365–82 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ben-Arieh, S. 2004 Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 23. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Ben-Shlomo, D.; Shai, I.; and Maeir, A. M. 2004 Late Philistine Decorated Ware (“Ashdod Ware”): Typology, Chronology, and Production Centers. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 335: 1–35. Ben-Shlomo, D.; Shai, I.; Zukerman, A.; and Maeir, A. M. 2008 Cooking Identities: Aegean-Style Cooking Jugs and Cultural Interaction in Iron Age Philistia and Neighboring Regions. American Journal of Archaeology 112: 225–46. Bignasca, A. 2000 I Kernoi Circolari in Oriente e in Occidente. Strumenti di Culto e Immagini Cosmiche. Fribourg: Fribourg Academic Press. Boas, A. J., and Maeir, A. M. 1998 The Renewed Excavations at Tell es-Safi/ Gath. Pp. 33–39 in The Judean Shephelah – Man, Nature and Landscape: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies, ed. O. Ackermann. Ramat-Gan: Lastudent (Hebrew). Campbell, D. B. 2005 Siege Warfare in the Roman World: 146 BCAD 378. Oxford: Osprey. Cecchini, S. M.; and Mazzoni, S. 1998 Tell Afis (Siria): scavi sull'acropoli 1988– 1992. Pisa: ETS. Clamer, C. 2004 Additional Late Bronze Age Pottery Assemblages Section A: The Pottery from Levels P2 and P-1 in Area P. Pp. 1155–234 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) V, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Dagan, A., Eniukhina, M., and Maeir, A. M. 2018 Excavations in Area D of the Lower City: Philistine Cultic Remains and Other Finds. Near Eastern Archaeology 81(1): 28–33. Davies, G. 2000 Cremna in Pisidia: A Re-Appraisal of the Siege Works. Anatolian Studies 50: 151–58.

Dever, W. G. 1971 The Peoples of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I Period. Harvard Theological Review 64: 197–226. 1981 Cave G26 at Jebel Qa'aqir: A Domestic Assemblage of Middle Bronze I. Eretz Israel 15: 22–32. 2001 Iron Age Kernoi and the Israelite Cult. Pp. 119–33 in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, ed. S. R. Wolff. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2003 The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period. Pp. 43–59 in The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, eds. A. M. Maeir; S. Dar; and Z. Safrai: British Archaeological Reports Ltd. Dever, W. G.; Lance, H. D.; Bullard, R. G.; Cole, D. P.; and Seger, J. D. 1974 Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Fields I and II. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. Dever, W. G.; Lance, H. D.; and Wright, G. E. 1970 Gezer I, Preliminary Report of the 1964– 1966 Seasons. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 1. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. Devries, L. F. 1987 Cult stands, A Bewildering Variety of Shapes and Sizes. Biblical Archaeology Review 13: 27–37. Dossin, G. 1950 Correspondance de Šamši-Addu et de ses Fils. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Dothan, M. 1971 Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations, 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967. `Atiqot IX–X. Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums. Dothan, M.; and Porath, Y. 1982 Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M. The Fortifications of the Lower City. ‘Atiqot 15. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dothan, M.; and Ben-Shlomo, D. 2005 Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969). Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 24. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Easton, D. F.; Hawkins, J. D.; Sherratt, A. G.; and Sherratt, E. S. 2002 Troy in Recent Perspective. Anatolian Studies 52: 75–109. Edlund-Berry, I. E. M. 2001 Miniature Vases as Votive Gifts Evidence from the Central Sanctuary at Morgantina (Sicily). Paper presented at the annual meeting of Ceramics in Context, Proceedings of

172

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C the Internordic Colloquium on Ancient Pottery held at Stockholm, 13–15 June 1997, Stockholm.

Congress of Jewish Studies I. Jerusalem 3– 11 August 1969. ed. P. Peli. Jerusalem: World Congress of Jewish Studies. Greenhut, Z. 1995 EB IV Tombs and Burials in Palestine. Tel Aviv 22: 3–46. Greenhut, Z.; and De-Groot, A. 2003 Moẓa. Hadashot Arkheologiyot-Excavations and Surveys in Israel 115: 55*-57*. Grossman, L.; and Goren-Inbar, N. 2007 “Taming” Rocks and Changing Landscapes: A New Interpretation of Neolithic Cupmarks. Current Anthropology 48: 732–40. 2016 Landscape Alteration by Pre-Pottery Neolithic Communities in the Southern Levant – The Kaizer Hilltop Quarry, Israel. PLOS One 11(3): e0150395. Gur-Arieh, S. 2008 Siege Systems in the Ancient Near East: A Case Study From Tell es-Safi/Gath. Unpublished MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan. 2018 Siege Matters: Insight from the Zakkur Inscription and Other Ancient Sources on Ancient Near Eastern Siege Warfare. Pp. 481–92, in Tell it in Gath. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel, Essays in Honor of Aren M. Maeir on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, eds. I. Shai, J. R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny and J. Uziel. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster: Zaphon. Guy, P.L.O. 1938 Megiddo Tombs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hachlili, R. 1971 Figurines and Kernoi. Pp. 125–35 in Ashdod II–III the Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965, ed. M. Dothan. Atiqot 9– 10. Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums. Hauser, S. R. 2013 Where is the Man of Hadr, Who Once Built It and Taxed the Land by the Tigris and Chaboras? On the Significance of the Final Siege of Hatra. Pp. 119–39 in Hatra: Politics Culture and Religion between Parthia and Rome. Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Amsterdam, 18–20 December 2009, ed. L. Dirven. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Hauser, S. R., and Tucker, D. J. 2009 The Final Onslaught: The Sasanian Siege of Hatra. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 3: 106–39. Hertel, D.; and Kolb, F. 2003 Troy in Clearer Perspective. Anatolian Studies 53: 71–88.

Eph'al, I. 2009 The City Besieged: Siege and its Manifestations in the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill. Figueras, P. 2004 Horvat Karkur ’Illit: A Byzantine Cemetery church in the Northern Negev: Final Report of the Excavations, 1985–1989. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Fox, N. S.; and Roskop, A. R. 2000 Of Rattles and Rituals: The Anthropomorphic Rattle from the Nelson Glueck Collection at the Cincinnati Art Museum. Hebrew Union College Annual 70: 5–26. Fritz, V.; and Kempinski, A. 1983 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el Mšaš (Tel Masos) 1972–1975. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gadot, Y.; Yasur-Landau, A.; and Uziel, J. 2012 The Late Bronze Age Pottery. Pp. 235–40 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gibson, J. C. L. 1975 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gilboa, A. 1999 The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 316: 1–22. Gilboa, A., and Waiman-Barak, P. 2014 Cypriot Ceramic Imports at Khirbet Qeiyafa: Provenience, Chronology and Significance. Pp. 391–402 in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009–2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E), Y. Garfinkel, S. Ganor and M. G. Hasel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Gitin, S. 1990 Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron Age II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 3. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. Goren, Y. 1996 The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 303: 33–72. Grayson, A. K. 1991 Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC (to 1115 BC. Toronto: University of Toronto. Greenfield, J. C. 1969 The Zakir Inscription and the Danklied. Pp. 174–91 in Proceedings of the Fifth World

173

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C Herzog, Z. 1997 Archaeology of the City: Urban planning in ancient Israel and its social implications. Tel-Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press. Herzog, Z.; and Singer- Avitz, L. 2004 Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah. Tel Aviv 31: 209–44. Horsnaes, H. W. 2001 Miniature Pottery and the Question of Domestic Cult in Lucania. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Ceramics in Context, Proceedings of the Internordic Colloquium on Ancient Pottery held at Stockholm, 13–15 June 1997, Stockholm. Jablonka, P.; and Rose, C. B. 2004 Late Bronze Age Troy: A Response to Frank Kolb. American Journal of Archaeology 108: 615–30. Kenyon, K. M. 1957 Digging up Jericho: The Results of the Jericho Excavations, 1952–1956. New York: Praeger. Kern, P. B. 1999 Ancient Siege Warfare. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Killebrew, A.; and Lev-Tov, J. 2008 Early Iron Age Feasting and Cuisine: an Indicator of Philistine-Aegean connectivity? Pp. 339–46 in DAIS: The Aegean Feast: Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference / 12e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25–29 March 2008, eds. L. A. Hitchcock; R. Laffineur; and J. Crowley: Liège: Université de Liège. Lichtheim, M. 1976 Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. California: Berkeley. Lipiński, E. 2000 The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. Leuven: Peeters. Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39, Texts and Plates. Chicago: University of Chicago. Magness, J. 2003 Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery. Pp. 423– 32 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem conducted by N. Avigad, 1969–1982, Volume II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Maeir, A. M. 2004 The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Vetus Testamentum 54: 319–34. 2008a Zafit, Tel. Pp. 2079–81 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the

Holy Land 5, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2008b Hazael, Birhadad, and the ḥrẓ. Pp. 273–77 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. D. Schloen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 2012 The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project 1996–2010: Introduction, Overview and Synopsis of Results. Pp. 1–89 in Tell es-Safi/ Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2017 The Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project: Overview. Near Eastern Archaeology 80(4): 212–31. Maeir, A.; Ackermann, O.; and Bruins, H. 2006 The Ecological Consequences of a Siege: A Marginal Note on Deuteronomy 20: 19–20. Pp. 239–43 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of W.G. Dever, eds. S. Gitin; J. Wright; and J. Dessel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Maeir, A. M.; and Gur-Arieh, S. 2011 Comparative aspects of the Aramean Siege System at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Pp. 227–44 in The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, eds. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman. Winona Lake Eisenbrauns. Maeir, A. M.; and Shai, I. 2006 Iron Age IIA Chalices from Tell esSafi/Gath. Pp. 357–66 in Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, eds. E. Czerny; I. Hein; and H. Hunger. Leuven: Peeters. Mazar, A. 1980 Excavations at Tel Qasile. I. The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects. Qedem 12. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. 1985 Excavations at Tel Qasile II: The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1992 Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age. Pp. 161–87 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, eds. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Mazar, A., and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

174

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C Mierse, W. E. 2012 Temples and Sanctuaries from the Early Iron Age Levant: Recovery after Collapse. Winona Lake Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Millard, A. R. 2000 The Inscription of Zakkur, King of Hamath. P. 155 in The Context of Scripture, eds. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger. Leiden: Brill. Müller, V. 2001 Offering Practices in the Temple Courts of Tell el-Dab´a and the Levant. Pp. 269–95 in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, ed. M. Bietak. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean III. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Nicolsky, V. and Figueras, P. 2004 Descriptive Pottery Catalogue. Pp. 151–209 in Horvat Karkur ‘Illit: A Byzantine Cemetery Church in the Northern Negev: Final Report of the Excavations 1989–1995, ed. P. Figueras. Beer-Sheva Archaeological Monographs 1. Be'er Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Oppenheim, L. A.; Gelb, I. J.; Jacobsen, T.; and Landsberger, B., eds. 1956 The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Oredsson, D. 2000 Moats in Ancient Palestine. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Palumbo, G. 1991 The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant: Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a “Dark Age”. Rome: Universita degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”. Panitz-Cohen, N.; and Mazar, A., eds. 2006 Timnah (Tel Batash) III: The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE. Qedem 45. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Paz, I. 2012 A Settlement and a Cemetery from the Intermediate Bronze Age in Ramat Bet Shemesh. Pp. 35–49 in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region 6, eds. D. Amit, G. D. Stiebel, O. Peleg-Barkat, and D. BenAmi. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority (Hebrew). Peltenburg, E. J. 1969 Al Mina glazed pottery and its relations. Levant 1(1): 73–96. Pincus Ben-Avraham, J. 2012 Ground Penetrating Radar Studies at Tell esSafi/Gath: 2003–2005. Pp. 567–78 in Tell es-

Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pitard, W. T. 1987 Ancient Damascus. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Pognon, H. 1907 Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie, et de la région de Mossoul. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Richmond, I. A. 1962 The Roman Siege Works of Masada. Journal of Roman Studies 52: 142–55. Rimmer, J. 1969 Ancient Musical Instruments of Western Asia in the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities, The British Museum. London: British Museum. Roll, I.; and Dagan, Y. 1988 Roman Roads around Beth Govrin. Pp. 175– 79 in Man and Environment in the Southern Shefelah, eds. D. Urman and E. Stern. Givataim: Masada (Hebrew). Russell, P. J. 1992 The Pot Calls the Kettle Reddish Brown (5yr 3/4): Distinguishing among Late Cypriot Monochrome Wares. Pp. 131–37 in Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, eds. J. A. Barlow, D. L. Bolger and B. King. University Museum Monographs 74. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Sass, B. 2004 Iron Age and Post-Iron Age Artefacts. Section A: Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia. Pp. 1983–2057 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) V, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Shai, I.; Maeir, A. M.; Gadot, Y.; and Uziel, J. 2011 Differentiating between Public and Residential Buildings: A Case Study from Late Bronze Age II Tell es-Safi/Gath. Pp. 107–32 in Household Archaeology in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant, eds. A. Yasur-Landau, J. Ebeling and L. Mazow. Cultures and History of the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill. Shai, I.; and Maeir, A. M. 2012 The Late Iron Age IIA Pottery Assemblage from Stratum A3. Pp. 313–64 in Tell es-Safi/ Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Shai, I.; Uziel, J.; and Maeir, A. M. 2012 The Architecture and Stratigraphy of Area E: Strata E1–E5. Pp. 221–34 in Tell es-Safi/ Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons,

175

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sokoloff, M. 2002 A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Soldi, S. 2009 Aramaeans and Assyrians in North-Western Syria: Material Evidence from Tell Afis. Syria 86: 97–118. 2012 Notes on green glazed funnels from the Iron Age Temple AI at Tell Afis. Pp. 459–77 in Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12 April – 16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London, Volume 2, eds. R. Matthews and J. Curtis. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Tufnell, O.; Inge, C. H.; and Harding, L. 1940 Lachish II: The Fosse Temple. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ussishkin, D. 1993 Archaeological Soundings at Betar, BarKochba’s Last Stronghold. Tel Aviv 20: 66– 97. 2009 On the So-called Aramaean ‘Siege Trench’ in Tell es-Safi, Ancient Gath. Israel Exploration Journal 59: 137–57. 2014 Gath, Lachish and Jerusalem in the 9th Century BCE – The Archaeological Perspective (In Hebrew with English abstract). Pp. 7–34 in New Studies on Jerusalem, Vol. 20, eds. E. Baruch and A. Faust. Ramat-Gan: Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies. 2015 Gath, Lachish and Jerusalem in the 9th cent. B.C.E. – and Archaeological Reassessment. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 131: 129–49. Uziel, J.; and Maeir, A. M. 2005 Scratching the Surface at Gath: Implications of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Surface Survey. Tel Aviv 32: 50–75. Yannai, E. 2004 The Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area S. Pp. 1032–146 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) V,

ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Zimhoni, O. 1997 Lachish Levels V and IV: Comments on the Material Culture of Judah in the Iron Age II in the Light of the Lachish Pottery Repertoire. Pp. 57–178 in Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of the Land of Israel, eds. L. SingerAvitz and D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. 2004a The Pottery of Levels V and IV and it's Archaeological and Chronological Impli-cations. Pp. 1643–788 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) IV, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. 2004b The Pottery of Levels III and II. Pp. 1643– 788 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) IV, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Zukerman, A. 2012 Iron Age I and Early Iron Age IIA Pottery. Pp. 265–311 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Zukerman, A.; and Shai, I. 2008 The Royal City of the Philistines in the Azekah Inscription and the History of Gath in the Eighth Century BCE. Ugarit-Forschungen 38 (2006–2007): 729–78. Zwickel, W. 1999 Der salomonische Tempel. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

176

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C APPENDIX 3.1: AREA C LOCUS LIST Locus

Phase

Square

Description

Grade

24001 24002 24003 24004 24005

Rom?

Area C1 Area C1 Area C1 Area C1 Area C1

C C C C A

24006

Rom?

Area C1

24007

Rom?

Area C1

Topsoil. Topsoil (not excavated). Topsoil. Topsoil. Wall. SE-NW direction. Built of 30 cm worked stones, 2 courses. Outer road curb. Wall. SE-NW direction. Built of 30 cm worked stones, 2 courses. Inner road curb. Wall. SE-NW direction. Built of worked stones, 10 courses. Inner road curb. Dark brown sediment between the road curbstones and above road foundation. Tractor section in the road south of excavation square. Road features were recognized in section. Tractor section in the trench. Dark brown sediment above road foundation stones. Light brown sediment above road foundation stones. Dark brown sediment with small stones above road foundation stones. Soft brown sediment below road level with almost no finds. SW-NE wall made of five big boulders which comprised the eastern wall of the tower. SEE-NWW wall, made of nine big boulders which comprise the northern wall of the building. SSW-NNE wall made of three big boulders which comprised the western wall of the tower. SE-NW wall made of nine big boulders which comprised the southern wall of the tower. Topsoil.

24008

Area C1

24009

Area C2

24010 24011

Area C3 Area C1

24012

Area C1

24013

Area C1

24014

Area C1

25001

Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74C+D Area C2 331/74C Area C2 331/74C Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74C Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74C

25002 25003 25004 25005 25006 25007 25008 25009 25010 25011 25012 25013 25014 25015 25016 25017 25018 40001

Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74D Area C2 331/74D C6W

Lower Level 169.65

B

Upper Level 169.82 169.72 169.75 170.35 169.82/ 169.79 169.86/ 169.82 169.61/ 169.45 169.57

C

169.60

168.56

C B

168.86 170.03

165.92 169.90

B

169.90

169.65

B

169.65

169.05

C

169.05

168.55

A

Fig. 3.4

A

174.22/1 73.99 173.99

A

173.00

Fig. 3.4

A

Fig. 3.4

C

174.22/ 173.14 173.90

173.77

Topsoil.

C

173.25

173.01

Topsoil between Walls 25002 and 25008.

C

173.35

173.00

Wall built of medium size stones, north of the tower (probably a later terrace wall). Light brown sediment with small stones inside rectangular structure. Light brown sediment with small stones.

A

Light brown sediment with small stones. Above bedrock. Light brown sediment with small stones. Above bedrock.

A A

169.57 170.03 169.69/ 169.61 169.68/ 169.65

Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.3

168.88

Fig. 3.3

Fig. 3.4

Fig. 3.4

Fig. 3.4

B

173.01

172.83

B

173.77

173.24

B

173.24

172.88

B

172.83

172.52

Sediment between Wall 25002 and Terrace 25008. B

173.00

172.84

Brown sediment above bedrock.

B

172.88

172.66

Topsoil. No finds.

C

173.73

173.53

Topsoil. No finds.

C

173.49

173.16

Sediment. No finds.

B

172.84

Topsoil.

C

153.04

Cancelled.

177

Plan

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

151.22

CHAPTER 3: AREA C Locus

Phase

Square

Description

Grade

40002

C6W

40003

C6W

Topsoil/backfill. Layer of dark brown earth beneath topsoil, with few ash patches and a small number of potsherds, on the entire area of the square. Unstratified wash. Accumulation of soft brown sediment with medium size limestones washed into the trench from the berm to the east of the trench. Unstratified wash. Accumulation of soft greybrown sediment with small cobbles (5 cm) and a small number of potsherds washed into the trench from the berm to the east of the trench. Unstratified wash. Red soft sediment with small cobbles. Lies above bedrock. Unstratified wash. Sealed by Locus 40004, hard brown sediment with limestone chips and many potsherds. Equivalent to Loci 40007, 40009. Unstratified wash. Accumulation of soft brown sediment with limestones washed into the trench from the berm to the east of the trench. Equivalent to Locus 40006. Removal of northern and southern balks. Unstratified wash. Accumulation of soft brown sediment with limestones washed into the trench from the berm to the east of the trench. Equivalent to Locus 40006. Surface findings from all over the slope. Merged with 40012. Unstratified wash. Accumulation of hard dark brown sediment with some large stones washed into the trench from the berm to the east of the trench. Cancelled and merged with Locus 40010. Topsoil. Debris. Dark brown soft sediment with small limestone chips and a lot of large pottery sherds. Debris. Dark brown soft sediment with small limestone chips and a lot of large pottery sherds. Equivalent to 40014, 40018. Balk cleaning. Unstratified wash. Accumulation of hard dark brown sediment with limestone chips washed into the trench from the berm to the east of the trench. Debris. Soft light brown sediment with small limestone chips above bedrock. Equivalent to 40014, 40015. Unstratified wash. Accumulation of hard dark brown sediment with limestone chips and some burnt stones washed into the trench from the berm to the east of the trench. Unstratified wash. Accumulation of sediment with limestones that seemed to collapse into the trench from the west side of the trench. Topsoil. Topsoil. Berm. Brown sediment with many limestone chips that were deposited while quarrying the trench and a lot of pottery sherds and bones. Equivalent to 50005. Occupation debris. Brown sediment with numerous potsherds and bones, congruent with the level of limestone chips (50005).

40004

C6-1

C6W

40005

C6-1

C6W

40006

C6-1

C6W

40007

C6-1

C6W

40008 40009

C6-1

C6W C6W

40010 40011

C6-1/ C6-2a

C6W

40012 40013 40014

C6-2a

C6S C6S

40015

C6-2a

C6S

40016 40017

C6-2a

C6S C6W

40018

C6-2a

C6S

40019

C6-2a

C6W

40020

C6-2a

C6W

50001 50002 50003

C6-2a

250/29C 250/19A 250/29C

50004

C6-2a

250/19A

178

C

Upper Level 152.35

Lower Level 151.19

C

152.04

151.04

B

151.94

151.40

B

151.04

150.73

B

151.64

150.63

B

151.49

151.05

151.23

150.35

B

150.85

149.35

C B

154.73 154.12

153.56 153.50

B

154.01

153.33

C B

150.15

149.28

B

153.55

152.92

B

149.48

148.38

B

149.98

148.22

C C B

150.58 148.90 149.12

150.32 148.69 149.89

B

148.69

148.32

C

C

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Plan

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C Locus

Phase

Square

Description

Grade

50005

C6-2a

250/19A

50006 50007 50008

C6-3/2

trench 250/19A 250/19A

50009 50010

C6-2b

trench 250/29C

50011 50012

C6-2b

250/19A

50013

C6-4

250/29C

Berm. Brown sediment with many limestone chips that were deposit while quarrying the trench and a lot of pottery sherds and bones. Equivalent to 50003. Winter wash. Balk cleaning. Locus card not found. Sediment accumulation. Gray ashy sediment with potsherds and bones, beneath the height of the limestone chips. Activity period prior to the quarrying of the trench. Sampling sediment from bottom of trench. Sediment accumulation. Brown sediment with many potsherds and bones. Sealed by the berm. Balk cleaning. Locus card not found. Sediment accumulation. Hard brown sediment with potsherds and bone fragments. Sealed by limestone chips layer (Locus 50005). Sediment accumulation. Hard dark brown sediment with numerous potsherds and bone fragments and not a lot of limestone chips, lies on top of the bedrock. Collapse cleaning near trench bottom. Locus card not found. Trench, brown sediment near bottom. Locus card not found. Balk cleaning. Locus card not found. Sediment accumulation. Hard red sediment with very few potsherds and limestone. Sediment accumulation. Brown sediment with few potsherds. Wall. Medium size fieldstone wall from south to north. The wall is 1.10 m. wide and made of larger stones on the edges with smaller stones used to fill in the middle. Bonded with Wall 50022 (E-W) at the northern end. Balk cleaning. Locus card was not found. Berm. Hard brown sediment with small pieces of limestone, some potsherds and bones. Wall. One course of medium size fieldstones from east to west. Bonded with Wall 50019 (N-S) at the eastern end and abuts Wall 60020 around the center. The wall is 9.80 m long and 1.15 m. wide for 1.20 m. from where it merges with Wall 50019. From that point to the west it becomes ca. 57 cm wide. The wider east part of the wall is made of larger stones (20x30 cm) on the edge and smaller stones (10x15 cm) that are used as fill while the narrower western part is made of large stones (20– 30x40–50 cm.). The western part of the wall is built on the bedrock, where two small holes connected by a small channel were engraved. The wall continues on the bedrock surface up to 1 m before the beginning of the trench. The builders used the bedrock as part of the wall in its center as well and it is well-built with straight lines and corners. Balk cleaning. Locus card not found. Sediment accumulation. Brown soft sediment with few potsherds and bones to the north of Wall 50022.

50014

trench

50015

trench

50016 50017

C6-4

250/29C 250/29C

50018

C6-4

250/29C

50019

C6-3

250/19A

50020 50021

C6-2a

250/19A

50022

C6-3

250/18B-19A

50023 50024

250/19A

179

B

Upper Level 148.69

Lower Level 148.23

C C B

148.55

148.28

B B

147.77 149.89

147.23 149.63

C B

148.23

148.19

B

149.63

149.10

C B

149.26

148.47

B

149.54

149.36

A

148.42– 148.44

148.24– 148.12

148.28

148.03

148.14– 148.13

147.96– 147.97

148.28

147.99

C B A

C B

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Plan

Fig. 3.15

Fig. 3.15

CHAPTER 3: AREA C Locus

Phase

Square

Description

50025

250/19A

60001 60002

250/ 19A, 19C,18B, 29C 250/19A

Sediment accumulation. South of Wall 50022 and B west of Wall 50019. Hard brown sediment with a few bones and small potsherds on top of bedrock. Was merged with Loci 60002 and 60003 that were opened below it since there was no change in material or finds. Topsoil. C

60003

250/19A

60004

250/19A

60005

250/19A

60006

C6-3

250/19A

60007

C6-2a

250/19B

60008

C6-3

250/19A

60009

C6-2b

250/19B

60010

C6-5

250/19A

60011

250/19A

60012 60013 60014

C6-3/2

250/19C 250/18B 250/19B

60015

C6-3/2

250/18B

60016

C6-3/2

250/19A

60017

C6-3/2

250/19A

Grade

Sediment accumulation. South of Wall 50022 and west of Wall 50019. Hard brown sediment with a few bones and small potsherds on top of bedrock. Merged with 50025. Sediment accumulation. South of Wall 50022 and west of Wall 50019. Hard brown sediment with a few bones and small potsherds on top of bedrock. Merged with 50025. Hard dark brown sediment with Iron Age I pottery and bones, abuts Wall 50022 from the north. Small triangular area between Walls 50019, 50022 and 60010. Contains dark brown dense sediment with a few potsherds and looks like a continuation of Locus 60003. Wall superstructure? Brown sediment with some limestone, a few potsherds, bones and mudbrick material on top of Wall 50022 stone foundation. Berm. Brown sediment mixed with some pottery and crushed limestone that originate from the quarrying of the trench. The layer of limestone is not leveled so its lower level on the northern part is 148.30 while in the southern part it's 148.62. Wall stone foundation makeup. Defining the stone foundation of Wall 50022 west part, contain brown sediment with a few potsherds and bones. A layer of brown sediment beneath the layer of limestone chips with potsherds and bones. Locus 60021 was separated from it because it was recognized as Iron Age I layer. Wall. Two rows of fieldstones (20–30 cm), 33 cm wide from NW to SE. The NW end start from the bedrock to the south of Wall 50022, heads SE for 1.4 m and goes under Wall 50019. Small triangular area between Walls 50019, 50022 and 60010. Contains very dark brown dense sediment with a few potsherds. Topsoil. Topsoil. Hard brown sediment, less potsherds and bones than Locus 60009 above. Pottery is dated no later than Iron Age I. Sediment accumulation. Light brown soft sediment with potsherds and bones. An ash pit/lance was found in the southern part of the square. Northern half of square. Brown sediment with many potsherds and bones. Bedrock appeared in several areas of the locus. The bottom of the locus contains grey sediment layer that was mixed with the brown layer above it. In the NE corner the continuation of Wall 50019. Southern half of square. Brown sediment with many potsherds and bones. In NE corner there is a big worked stone, and many collapsed stones in the SE corner of the locus. Merged with 60016.

180

Upper Level 148.50

Lower Level 147.94

149.04

148.75

B

148.42

148.27

B

148.43

148.15

B

147.99

147.85

B

148.15

148.08

B

148.56

148.16

B

148.75

148.31

A

148.16

148.10

B

148.62

148.27

A

148.18– 148.16

148.0– 147.93

B

148.08

147.93

C C B

149.15 148.71 148.27

148.91 148.28 147.96

B

148.30

148.00

B

148.91

148.21

B

148.99

148.49

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Plan

Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.13

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C Locus

Phase

Square

Description

Grade

60018

C6-3/2

250/18B

B

60019 60020

C6-3

250/19B 250/18B

60021

C6-3

250/19B

Brown soft sediment with potsherds and bones above Walls 60020 and 50022. Ash pit 70012 was found almost at the corner between Walls 50022 and 60020. Equivalent to 70005. Balk cleaning. Locus card not found. Wall. A one course wall built from small-sized fieldstones (10x14 cm) from north to south. The wall is 1.80 m long and 1.17 m wide. It abuts Wall 50022 on the north but is 15 cm higher than it. Brown sediment beneath the layer of limestone chips with many potsherds and numerous bone fragments. Was separated from Locus 60009, equivalent to 70027. Balk cleaning. SW quarter of square. Merged with 60016. Dark hard sediment with few potsherds and bones, above virgin soil. A large boulder (150x80x35 cm), possibly part of a wall. The boulder is sitting on Wall 50019 and was either used as its superstructure or a later recycling of Wall 50019. The pottery from the foundation level of the boulder is from the Iron Age I period while the pottery from the level of the boulder itself is from the Iron Age IIA period. Soft brown sediment. Iron Age I pottery sherds and bones. Merged with 60018. Cancelled. Topsoil Topsoil. Stone accumulation made of many little stones and hard dark sediment. Possibly a collapse from the walls around it (50019, 70004, 70030, 70031). Intentional fill. Hard dark sediment with few sherds. Possibly a deliberate fill laid as foundation to the north of the building. Collapse/ intentional fill. Stone accumulation made of many small stones, mud brick material and hard dark sediment. It may be either a collapse from the building walls after it went out of use or an intentional fill laid as part of a wall going from N to S between Boulders 70030 and 70004. Pit. Irregular pit almost at the corner between Walls 50022 and 60020, filled with soft grey ash mixed with sediment. The pit started on a higher level but the excavators managed to define it only from the height of 148.02 m. Topsoil. Sediment accumulation. Light brown sediment with many Iron Age I potsherds. Topsoil. Cancelled. Berm. Limestone chips that originated from the quarrying of the trench mixed with a small amount of brown sediment directly below the topsoil. It seals a layer of brown sediment with many Iron Age I potsherds, but Iron Age IIA sherds were found as well including some chalice fragments. Soft dark brown sediment to the west of the limestone chips (Locus 70017). Contains a large amount of Iron Age I pottery and a smaller amount of Iron Age IIA potsherds.

70001 70002 70003

C6-3/2

250/19A 250/19A 250/19C

70004

C6-2a

250/19C

70005

C6-3/2

250/18B

70006 70007 70008 70009

C6-3/2

250/29A 250/18D 250/19C

70010

C6-4/5

250/19C

70011

C6-3/2

250/19C

70012

C6-3

250/18B

70013 70014

C6-3

250/19D 250/18D

70015 70016 70017

250/18A C6-2a

250/29A

70018

C6-3/2

250/29A

181

Upper Level 148.00

Lower Level 147.89

C A

149.04 148.14– 148.13

147.96

B

148.27

148.15

Plan

Fig. 3.16 C B C

149.49 148.49 149.13

148.94 148.33 148.64

A

148.81– 148.93

148.44– 48.48

B

147.92

147.89

C C B

149.79 149.38/ 149.15

149.65 149.05 148.89

B

148.63

148.14

B

149.26

148.83

A

148.07

147.86

C B

149.43 149.10

149.11 148.62

C

148.52

148.26

B

149.65

149.45

B

149.65

148.87

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.16, Fig. 3.18

CHAPTER 3: AREA C Locus

Phase

Square

Description

Grade

70019

C6-3/2

250/18D

70020

C6-3/2

250/18D

70021

C6-3/2

250/18D

70022

C6-2

250/19C

70023

C6-2a

250/19D

70024

C6-3/2

250/18D

70025

C6-3

250/19C

70026

C6-3/2

250/18A

70027

C6-3/2

250/19D

70028

C6-3/2

250/18D

70029

C6-3

250/18D

70030

C6-2

250/19C

70031

C6-3

250/19C

70032

C6-3/2

250/29A

Sediment accumulation. Soft brown sediment with many bones and potsherds west to Wall 70024 and north of Wall 70028. Soft brown sediment with a lot of potsherds and bones east of Wall 70024 and north to Wall 70028. In the middle of the locus a pit with some sherds and bones was identified. Soft light brown sediment with a small number of sherds and bones, south of Wall 70028 and west of Wall 70024. Balk removal. Hard light brown sediment with many potsherds and bones from the level of boulder Wall 70004. Berm. A thin layer of limestone chips directly below topsoil. Contains hard compact limestone chips and a few Iron Age IIA potsherds. A two-courses wall in the NE-SW direction 4.10 m long and 117–170 m wide. Originally the wall was thought to be built from two boulders (104x72x35 cm and 108x81x139 cm) and fieldstones, but it is possible that the boulders were a later phase that was reusing the fieldstone phase. The south end of Wall 70024 is bonded with Wall 70028. From the level of the upper course Iron Age IIA pottery was found and from the level of the lower course Iron Age I pottery was found. Balk removal. Soft grey sediment with many potsherds and bones including a whole bowl. Soft brown sediment below topsoil. It is equivalent to Locus 60018 but was not merged with it because of the steep slope. In some areas the bedrock is visible. Hard light brown sediment with numerous potsherds and bones. This locus is directly below the layer of limestone chips and contained mainly Iron Age I potsherds. A wall in the SE-NW direction 4.25 m long and 55–65 m wide. The wall was built from two boulders (104x 72x35 cm) and medium size fieldstones. Wall 70028 is bonded with Wall 70024. Just like with Wall 70024, it is possible that the boulders were a later phase that was reusing the fieldstone phase. Pit. Soft grey sediment and ash with a small number of sherds and some bones east of Wall 70024 and north of Wall 70028. A possible wall made of a large boulder (157x88x36 cm) that is set on an E-W direction. The boulder is sitting on Wall 70031. The pottery from the foundation level of the boulder is from the Iron Age I period while the pottery from the level of the boulder itself is from the Iron Age IIA period. It is possible that this boulder is part of the later Iron Age IIA building that has reused the Iron Age I building. A wall made of small- medium size fieldstones on the NE-SW direction. The wall is 150 cm long and 105 cm wide. Bonded with Wall 90017. Hard dark brown sediment with many bones and potsherds sealed by the limestone chips of the berm. It is possible that this locus is the transition between the Iron Age I and II accumulation as the few indicative potsherds were equally associated with both periods.

182

B

Upper Level 148.62

Lower Level 148.14

B

149.06

148.30

B

148.79

148.44

B

148.87

148.59

B

149.20

149.05

A

149.35– 149.00/

B

148.59

148.33

B

148.51

147.77

B

149.05

148.83

A

149.39– 149.03

149.16

A

148.82

148.72

A

149.25– 149.41

148.69– 148.72

A

148.99

148.86148.79

B

149.48

148.91

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Plan

Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.18

Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.18

Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.18

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C Locus

Phase

Square

70033 70034

250/18A,18B

70035

250/18A

70036

C6-3

70037 70038 70039

Description

250/29A

250/19A, 19B

70040

C6-2a

250/19A, 19B

70041

C6-2a

250/18A

70042

C6-3/2

250/19A, 19B

70043

C6-3/2

250/19A, 19B

70044

C6-3/2

250/19A, 19B

70045 70046

C6-3/2

250/19A, 18B 250/19A, 18B

70047

C6-3/2

250/19A, 18B

70048

250/19D

80001

250/28B

80002 80003

C6-5

250/18D 250/19A

80004 80005

C6-3/2

250/19A,19C 250/18D

80006

C6-3/2

250/19D

Cancelled. A small one course wall made of small fieldstones (8x11 cm). The wall is 1.87 m long and 27–43 cm wide. It goes from east to west and although it looks like it is parallel to Wall 50022, it is out of context and could not be attributed to any of the strata. Topsoil above bedrock. Soft sediment with a few potsherds and bones on the slope between the trench and Wall 70041. Sediment accumulation. Hard dark brown sediment above bedrock with many bones and Iron Age I potsherds, including a votive bowl. Cancelled. Cancelled. Topsoil. Removal of southern half of balk's topsoil. Berm. Removal of southern half of balk's layer of limestone chips directly below topsoil. Contain hard compact limestone chips and a few Iron Age IIA potsherds. One course wall located east of the trench. This badly constructed wall is made of medium size fieldstones (18x15 cm) and is 4.20 m long and 59 cm wide. This wall does not seem to be part of any building, but rather a support wall. It is attributed to the Iron Age IIA later phase after the quarrying of the trench as it is located on its edge although it is also possible that this wall is much later. Balk removal. Hard brown sediment with many potsherds and bones. Most of the potsherds were attributed to the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I– Iron Age I/Iron Age II periods. A complete Cymashaped bowl was also found. Balk removal. Light brown sediment with many bones and a few potsherds. Southern half of balk removal above the corner of Walls 50022 and 50019. Balk removal, southern half. Hard dark brown sediment with a few potsherds and bones to the east of Walls 50019 and 50020, including some of the wall’s make up. Topsoil from balk removal. Balk removal. Hard brown sediment with many potsherds and bones above Wall 50022. Balk removal. Soft dark brown sediment above Wall 60020 in southern 1/4 of the balk. Pavement. Many small stones that were interpreted as pavement. Topsoil on slope. Accumulation above Wall 100012. Accumulation above floor. Soft brown sediment north of Wall 50022, above Pavement 80042 and Installation 80017. Contained MB I vessels. Balk cleaning. Sediment accumulation north of Wall 70024. Brown sediment with small amounts of pottery and bones. Merged with Locus 70019. Sediment accumulation. Brown sediment with many smashed pieces of bones and pottery.

183

Grade

Upper Level

Lower Level

Plan

B

147.97

147.71

Fig. 3.11

147.46 B

149.35

149.06

C

149.08

148.86

B

148.86

148.53

A

147.71– 147.89

147.41– 147.67

B

148.77

148.32

B

148.32

148.17

B

148.17

147.97

C B

148.71 148.53

148.53 147.53

B

148.53

148.13

A

148.83

148.74

C B B

149.93– 148.40 148.93 147.91

149.18– 148.93 148.53 147.65

C B

148.53 148.72

148.15 148.18

B

148.74

148.44

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C Locus

Phase

Square

Description

Grade

80007

C6-3/2

250/19A,19C

B

80008

C6-3

250/18D

Hard dark brown mudbrick material next to the north end of Wall 70004, and above Wall 50019. The mudbrick material didn't include any indicative sherds but was interpreted by the excavator as later than Wall 70004. One course wall on the E-W direction made of medium size fieldstones (ca. 20x15x15 cm). Wall 80008 bonds with Wall 80013 to create a 90° angle. A section in the wall recovered pottery that was dated to no later than the Iron Age I. It is not exactly clear how this wall relates to the other architectural remains in the area. Brown sediment with a small amount of pottery sherds and bones. Merged with 70019. Cleaning top of Walls 70028, 80008, 80013. Sediment accumulation that could not be attributeed to any occupational level. Brown sediment with many Iron Age I potsherds, but mostly Late Bronze Age potsherds including Cypriot Base Ring. Collapse. Small stones mixed with brown sediment and a small number of potsherds at the eastern face of Wall 70024 and northern face of Wall 70028. Pottery dated to Iron Age I. One course wall on the NE-SW direction made of small size fieldstones (ca. 20x10 cm). Bonds with Wall 80008 to create a 90° angle. Topsoil of balk removal. Merged with 70008. Sediment accumulation above bedrock east of Wall 70024. Dark brown-reddish sediment above bedrock with a small number of bones and potsherds that were dated no later than Iron Age I. Topsoil. Installation. A circular installation made of small stones east to Pavement 80042. Two complete EB IV/MB I vessels were found next to it. Balk removal. Sediment accumulation above Pit 70029. Brown sediment with pottery sherds and few bones. Balk removal. Stone collapse near Pit 70029. Balk removal. Soft brown sediment accumulation above Pavement 80040. Brown-reddish sediment with few potsherds. Possibly continuation of the EB IV/MB accumulation above Pavement 80042 in Square 19A. Topsoil. Intentional fill. Limestone chips from the construction of the trench during the Iron Age IIA, located just below the topsoil. Merged with 60007. Brown reddish sediment with few potsherds. Possibly continuation of the EB IV/MB accumulation above Pavement 800042 in Square 19A. Sediment accumulation above bedrock and around features 80033, 80034 and 80035. Soft brown sediment with many Late Bronze Age and EB IV/MB I potsherds including restorable Late Bronze Age pottery. Equivalent to 100036. Brown sediment mixed with some limestone chips, with many potsherds and bones. Merged with 60009.

80009

250/18D

80010 80011

250/18D 250/28B

80012

C6-3

250/18D

80013

C6-3

250/18D

80014 80015

C6-3

250/18D,19A 250/18D

80016 80017

C6-5

250/18C 250/19A

80018

250/18D, 19C

80019 80020

C6-3

250/18D, 19C 250/19C, 19D

80021

C6-5

250/19B

80022 80023

C6-2a

250/9C 250/19B

80024

250/19B

80025

C6-4

250/28B

80026

C6-3/2

250/19B

184

Upper Level 148.71

Lower Level 148.50

Plan

A

148.67– 148.48

148.72– 148.55

Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.15

B

148.3

148.18

C B

148.86 149.40– 148.93

148.50 149.03– 148.94

C

149.05

148.68

A

148.75– 148.59

148.74– 148.63

C B

149.96 148.18

149.05 147.94

C A

148.93 147.82

148.33 147.74

B

149.05

148.93

B B

149.12 148.93

149.02 148.53

B

148.11

147.92

C B

148.67 148.72

148.04 148.38

B

148.11

147.85

B

149.03

148.94

B

148.68– 148.32

148.42– 148.15

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.15

Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.13

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C Locus

Phase

Square

Description

Grade

80027

C6-2a

250/9C

80028

C6-2a

250/9C

Intentional fill. Layer of limestone chips, originating from the quarrying of the trench, directly below topsoil. Contains hard compact limestone chips and a few potsherds the later dated to the Iron Age IIA. This is the northern most exposure of this fill that covered the eastern half of the square. Sediment accumulation. Brown sediment with some limestone chips, originating from Fill 80027. Sediment accumulation above bedrock north of Wall 80008. Soft brown sediment containing pottery dated to the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age I. Sediment accumulation above bedrock south of Wall 80008. Soft brown sediment containing pottery dated to the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age I. Sediment accumulation above at the western part of the square. Soft brown sediment containing pottery dated to the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age I. This locus is cut by the trench to the west. Sediment accumulation below the Iron Age IIA/ Iron Age I level. It was opened due to change in color and matrix of the sediment as well as the noticeable decrease of pottery and bones concentration. Pottery dated to Iron Age I, Late Bronze Age and EB IV/MB I. Poorly preserved stone feature with unclear stratigraphic relationship. Was not assigned to any specific stratum although restorable Late Bronze Age pottery was found in its vicinity. Poorly preserved stone feature with unclear stratigraphic relationship. Was not assigned to any specific stratum although restorable Late Bronze Age pottery was found in its vicinity. Poorly preserved stone feature with unclear stratigraphic relationship. Was not assigned to any specific stratum although restorable Late Bronze Age pottery was found in its vicinity. Accumulation above floor. Reddish-brown sediment with MB I sherds. In the southern end possible continuation of Pavement 80042 was found. Merged with 80003. Sediment accumulation below the limestone chips at the southern part of the square. Light brown sediment with many Iron Age I potsherds and bones and few limestone chips. Sediment accumulation. Brown sediment mixed with limestone chips and a small number of potsherds and bones. Stone feature with no stratigraphic attribution.

80029

250/18C

80030

250/18C

80031

250/18C

80032

250/19B

80033

250/28B

80034

250/28B

80035

250/28B

80036

C6-5

250/19B

80037

250/9C

80038

250/9C

80039

250/9C

80040

C6-3

250/18D

80041

C6-3

250/18B

80042

C6-5

250/19A

90001

250/9C

Stone pavement abuts Wall 100013 from the north. This was probably a more extant pavement made of small fieldstones that was either not preserved elsewhere or accidently excavated through in other areas. Sediment accumulation. Soft brown sediment north to W50022 with few Iron Age I potsherds. Pebble pavement north of Wall 50022. Related to Installation 80017 and EB IV/MB complete vessels. Unstratified winter wash.

185

B

Upper Level 148.42

Lower Level 147.91

B

148.31

147.90

B

148.64

147.89

B

148.64

148.19

B

148.33

147.89

B

148.42

148.26

B

149.04– 149.18

148.95– 149.08

B

149.07– 149.04

148.97– 148.95

B

149.30– 149.36

149.24– 149.30

B

148.26

148.01

B

148.09

147.96

B

148.03

147.84

C A

148.45– 148.53 148.76

147.84– 147.84 148.71

B

147.93

147.60

A

147.77– 147.68

C

147.91

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

147.82

Plan

CHAPTER 3: AREA C Locus

Square

Description

Grade

90002

250/9C

B

90003

250/9D

Sediment accumulation above bedrock (at some places), west of the layer of intentionally laid limestone chips. Soft brown sediment with many potsherds and bones, mostly in the southern half of the square. Topsoil.

B

90004

Phase

C6-2a

250/9D

Upper Level 148.71– 147.63

Lower Level

148.53– 148.36 147.78– 148.32

148.53– 148.32 148.42– 147.97

B

147.69– 147.80

147.26– 147.37

B

147.95

147.42

B

147.92

147.75

B B

147.71– 147.90 148.73

147.37– 147.67 147.07

C B

148.67 148.53

148.53 148.37

B

148.34

148.17

C

148.15

148.05

C

148.15

148.05

B

148.23

148.07

C

100003

250/18C,18D

Intentional fill. Limestone chips originating from the quarrying of the trench. In the southern half some bigger stones with no clear orientation were found. Sediment accumulation above bedrock. Soft brown-reddish sediment with big pieces of Middle Bronze Age pottery. Many potsherds and bones. What was recognized in season 2005 as Wall 80039 turned out to be a collapse or a later pit. Soft brown sediment with a concentration of large bones, and many potsherds at the corner of 90005. As it did not continue it was merged back with 90005. Brown sediment mixed with limestone chips from the intentional fill that was laid around the Iron Age IIA building during the quarrying of the trench. Contains few bones and potsherds. Brown sediment above bedrock with some potsherds and bones. Round feature carved in the bedrock at the NW corner of Locus 90005. As it was discovered in the last day of the season it was not excavated. Balk removal, topsoil. Balk removal. Brown sediment with few potsherds and bones. Ash appeared at eastern end of balk. Ashy sediment at the east end of the balk. Grey, very soft sediment with some sherds and bones. Wall cleaning. Brown sediment above Wall 60020 with few potsherds and bones. Cleaning the sediments west of Wall 60020 to determine if it is floating. Cleaning the sediments east of Wall 60020 to determine if it is floating. In the bedrock a small cup mark was exposed. Locus cards lost. Locus cards lost. A small wall in NW-SE direction made of small fieldstones and bound with W70031. Locus cards lost. Floor makeup below Pavement 80040, pottery assemblages no later than Iron Age I. Locus card lost. Locus cards lost. A small cup mark carved into the bedrock east of Wall 60020. The cup mark is 14 cm deep and about 15 cm in diameter. Cleaning winter wash and loos sediments. Accumulation above floor. Soft brown sediment north of Wall 50022, above Pavement 80042 and Installation 80017. Contained MB I vessels. Merged with Locus 80003. Balk removal, topsoil. Merged with 70014.

100004

250/19C,19D

Balk removal, topsoil. Merged with Locus 60001. C

100005

250/19C,19D

Balk removal, topsoil. Merged with Locus 60001. C

90005

250/9C

90006

250/9C

90007

250/9D

90008

250/9D

90009

250/9C

90010 90011

250/18B, 18D 250/18B, 18D

90012

250/18B, 18D

90013

250/18B, 18D

90014

250/18B, 18D

90015

250/18B

90016

90018 90019

C6-3

250/19C

C6-3

250/19C

90020 90021 100001 100002

250/18B

C6-5

C6 250/18B,19A

186

Plan

Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.13

A

B B

Fig. 3.11

A

147.92– 147.73

147.72– 147.70

C

148.71– 148.99 149.01– 149.26 148.96– 149.25

148.60– 148.72 148.95– 149.05 148.95– 149.05

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

GUR-ARIEH / MAEIR: THE EXCAVATIONS IN AREA C Locus

Phase

Square

Description

Grade

100006

C6-2a

250/19C,19D

Balk removal intentionally laid fill of small chalk chips, probably originating from the quarrying of the trench and laid east of Building 70004. Merged with Locus 60007. Balk removal, topsoil. Merged with 70014.

A

B

100007

250/18C,18D

100008

C6-3

250/18C,18D

100009

C6-3

250/18C,18D

100010

C6-3

250/19C,19D

100011 100012

C6-3

250/18C 250/18D

100013

C6-3

250/18D

100014 100015

C6-3

250/28B 250/18C,18D

100016 100017

C6-3

250/29A 250/18C,18D

Upper Level 148.95– 149.05

Lower Level 148.92– 148.90

148.60– 148.72 148.72– 148.64 148.60– 148.52 148.92– 148.90

148.52– 148.69 148.41– 148.41 148.37– 148.37 148.83– 148.84

B A

148.18 148.77– 148.60

148.06

A

148.76– 148.92

C B

148.94 148.41

148.91 148.23

C B

149.26 148.37

149.21 148.18

C

149.24– 149.09 149.28– 149.27 148.70

C

100018

250/18D,28B

Balk removal. Collapse of small and medium size fieldstones south of Wall 80008. Sediment accumulation north of Wall 80008. Merged with Locus 70019. Balk removal. Brown sediment with numerous bone fragments below the Iron Age IIA intentional fill of chalk chips. Merged with Locus 60021. Small cup mark carved into the bed rock A narrow 1.8 m long wall running in SW-NE direction and somewhat parallel to Wall 70024. Was noticed when Wall 70024 was further cleaned and detailed as it was on a somewhat lower level and the stones were smaller. The wall is made of small to medium size fieldstones (1x8, 15x20 cm) and only one course was identified so far. It seems to approach Wall 100013 that was similarly identified parallel to Wall 70028. A narrow 2.3 m long wall running in W-E direction and somewhat parallel to Wall 70028. Was noticed when Wall 70028 was further cleaned and detailed as it was on a somewhat lower level and the stones were smaller. The wall is made of small to medium size fieldstones (1x8, 15x20 cm) and only one course was identified so far. It seems to approach Wall 100012 that was similarly identified parallel to Wall 70024. Abutted by Pavement 80040 to the north. Winter wash cleaning. Balk removal. Stone collapse south of Wall 80008. During the excavation it was suggested that the stones collapsed from Wall 80008, but later in the section a second layer of small fieldstones was identified directly on the bedrock. Winter wash cleaning. Balk removal. Light grey sediment north of Wall 80008, with few potsherds and bones (as well as a scarab/seal), above bedrock. Just above the bedrock a small pocket of darker brown sediment was identified in the section. Merged with 70019. Balk removal, topsoil.

100019

250/19C,29A

Balk removal, topsoil.

C

100020

250/18D,28B

Balk removal. Light brown sediment with few Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I potsherds SW of Wall 70028. Light brown sediment with few Iron Age I potsherds and bones between the upper course stones of Wall 70028. Balk removal. Dark brown sediment with few Iron Age I potsherds above Wall 70031. Balk removal, topsoil. Merged with 100020. Light brown sediment with mixed Iron Age pottery. Merged with 70036.

B

149.40– 149.21 149.52– 149.45 149.09

B

149.21

149.06

B

149.28

149.04

C B B

149.62 148.92 149.46

149.45 148.79 149.24

100021

C6-3

250/18D,28B

100022

C6-3

250/19C,29A

100023 100024 100025

250/28B,29A 250/18D,28B 250/28B,29A

187

B B

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Plan

Fig. 3.11 Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.15

Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.15

CHAPTER 3: AREA C Locus

Phase

Square

Description

Grade

100026

C6-4/3

250/18B

A

100027 100028

C6-3/2

250/18D,28B 250/18C

A section in Wall 60020. Brown-reddish sediments below Wall 60020 and above bedrock, with few pottery sherds and bones. No pottery later than the Late Bronze Age was found. Merged with 100020. A section in Wall 80008. Grey sediment with few potsherds below Wall 80008. Latest pottery found was dated to Iron Age I. Quarried installation made of two features, one oval and the other square, connected by a channel. Balk removal, defining Walls 70028 and 100013. Light brown sediment with few Iron Age I potsherds. Light brown sediment with Iron Age and Late Bronze Age pottery. Light grey sediment with many potsherds and bones. Was separated from the above Locus 100010 as the bones seemed larger and better preserved. Equivalent to 70025. Brown-red sediment with few Late Bronze AgeIron Age I potsherds and bones above bedrock. Dismantling of floating feature 80034 to try and determine its nature and period. Previous identification as wall remains seems to be incorrect, but its actual nature was left unclear. Most of the potsherds were dated to the Late Bronze Age. Accumulation of dark brown sediments with many Late Bronze Age potsherds and some bones.

100029

250/18C

100031

250/19C,29A+1 8D,28B

100032

250/28B,29A

100033

C6-3

100034 1000035

1000036

250/19C,19D

250/19C,19D C6-4

250/28B,29A

250/28B,29A

188

Upper Level 148.17– 148.07

Lower Level 147.98– 147.96

B A

148.79 148.50

148.70 148.38

B

148.12

148.04

B

149.07

148.97

B

149.24

149.05

B

148.83

148.64

B

148.64

148.23

B

148.95

148.70

B

149.05

148.98

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

Plan

Fig. 3.11

PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF POTTERY FROM AREA C DAVID BEN-SHLOMO

T

55; Goren et al. 2004: 9, 112). Master (2003: 55, fig. 4) notes the difference between the Shephelah, Negev and coastal loess soils. The chalice (SF163) is made of another different fabric, with a reddish matrix, possibly representing a terra rossa soil common in the central hills and the Shephelah. The bowl (SF164) is made of calcareous clay, rich with chalk, probably representing a rendzina soil. This clay could also be found not far from the site to the north and east (similarly to the clay used at Tel MiqneEkron). The Phoenician jug (SF165) is made of a very fine fabric, with hardly any inclusions except tiny opaque ones. This fabric is clearly not local to the site, yet further provenanceing is not possible at this stage, due to the lack of any indicative inclusions. A frit-glazed jug (SF166) was also sampled. The matrix seems to include some dolomite fractions. Thus, it seems that all Iron Age local types of vessel were produced at the site or its vicinity, save for the Phoenician jug, although of different clays. The stands are made of the more common fabric in Iron Age IIA Tell es-Safi/Gath and are quite homogeneous. Of the 10 EB IV–MB I samples (SF228– SF237), eight were storage jars with flat bases (handmade body) and two were holemouth cooking vessels. Of the jars, up to six samples were made of Motza marl clay, rich in dolomitic inclusions (see, e.g., Goren 1996: 51–52, also for EB IV–MB I pottery). This clay is sourced to the central hills area. Two of the jars (SF228 and SF231) were made of rendzina and loess soils respectively, more likely local to the region. The two holemouths were made of loess type cooking ware fabric, rich in coarse crushed calcite. Although the sample is small, it seems that this is the only period at the site in which the majority of the pottery comes from outside the site, in this case from the east.

his report deals with 10 EB IV–MB I and 10 Iron Age samples from Area C analyzed by thin section petrography. The Iron Age samples include seven stands (SF156–SF162), six of which are of a quite regular cylindrical type and one unique form (SF162), as well as a chalice (SF163), one bowl of an uncommon type (SF164), a Phoenician style jug (SF165) and a frit-glazed jug (SF166). The primary aim was to examine the provenance and special technological attributes of the stands and unique vessels (for the method of analysis, see Ben-Shlomo 2006: 135–7; 2012). All of the six regular stands (SF156–SF161) are made from a fabric characterized by a dark, optically inactive, relatively porous matrix. A large component of quartz inclusions is present, coarse silt to fine sand in size. The quartz is either bimodal in its distribution (silty angular and sandy rounded, Group 1a) or moderately sorted and angular (Group 1b). Both subgroups also have calcareous inclusions and more rarely mica and feldspar inclusions. This fabric represents a brown soil with quartz typical to Tell es-Safi/Gath (BenShlomo 2006:167; 2012: Group 1). This clay was used for most of Iron Age IIA vessels analyzed from Tell es-Safi/Gath, including both Philistine/ Late Philistine ware and common undecorated pottery. Three of the stands also have sandy rounded quartz inclusions (SF158–SF160, ‘beach sand’); this could point to an origin in coastal Philistia, (e.g., Ashdod), although these inclusions are also present in small quantities in the Tell es-Safi/Gath region. Stands SF156–157 are made of brown soil with a compact matrix and silty quartz inclusions (Group 1b). The unique stand (SF162) is made of a different clay, with a calcareous compact silty matrix, and dominant quartz inclusions as well as frequent limestone and calcareous inclusions. This is probably a loess soil clay, which may also be found not far from the site (e.g., Master 2003:

189

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C REFERENCES Ben-Shlomo, D. 2006 Decorated Philistine Pottery: An Archaeological and Archaeometric Study. B.A.R. International Series No. 1541. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2012 Provenance and Technological Studies of Pottery. Pp. 383–428 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A.M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Goren, Y. 1996 The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 303:33–72.

Sample SF156 SF157 SF158 SF159 SF160 SF161 SF162 SF163 SF164 SF165 SF166

Type Stand Stand Stand Stand Stand Stand Unique Stand Chalice Bowl Phoenician jug Frit-glazed jug

Basket 400158 400158/14A 500021/2 400152 500021/4 400158/5 400143/30 400159 400115/1 800163 500091

Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. 2004 Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv Monograph Series No. 23. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Master, D.M. 2003 Trade and Politics: Ashkelon’s Balancing Act in the Seventh Century B.C.E. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 330: 47–64.

Cat. No. 116 118 115 119 117 122 120 121 123 159

Soil/fabric Brown Brown Brown/Loess Brown/Loess Brown Brown Loess Terra Rossa? Rendzina (Fine) Frit

Grouping, provenance 1b, local, qz 1b, local 1a, ‘beach sand’ 1a, ‘beach sand’ 1a, ‘beach sand’ 1b, local 2, local 4, Shephelah 3, Shephelah? Import ?

Table 3.31: Petrographic Samples SF156–SF166, Iron Age pottery from Area C. Sample SF228 SF229 SF230 SF231 SF232 SF233 SF234 SF235 SF236 SF237

Type Jar Jar Jar Jar Jar Jar Jar Jar Holemouth Holemouth

Basket 800027/1 800038/1 800038/3 800114/1 800133 1000016/1 800138/1 900020 800200/2 800070/1

Notes Whitish Whitish Whitish Whitish-thick Whitish Gray cement-like fabric

Fine fabric

Soil type Rendzina? Motza Motza Loess? Motza?? Motza Motza? Motza? Loess/rendzina Loess

Grouping, provenance 3(d?), local 8, Central Hills 8, Central Hills 2(a?), local(?) 8?, Central Hills? 8, Central Hills 8?, Central Hills? 8?, Central Hills? 2d/3, local 2d, local

Table 3.32: Petrographic Samples SF228–SF237, EB IV–MB I pottery from Area C.

190

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

THE SHELLS FROM AREA C HENK K. MIENIS

T

F. C6; L. 80011: 21 partly broken shells found among soil present in the shells of Helix engaddensis engaddensis.

he excavations in Area C produced numerous samples of archaeozoological material. Among them were shells from 50 loci, which had been collected during six seasons (1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007). These 50 samples of archaeomalacological material are discussed in this report.

Calaxis saulcyi (Bourguignat 1864) F. C6; L. 80011: one shell found among soil present in a shell of Helix engaddensis engaddensis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Family Hygromiidae Monacha syriaca (Ehrenberg 1831) F. C6; L. 40009: one shell; F. C6; L. 40011: one shell; F. C6; L. 40017: two shells and one heavily damaged shell; F. C6; L. 40019: one disintegrated shell and one fragment of the body whorl; F. C6: L. 80003: two damaged shells, F. C6; L. 80006: four damaged shells; F. C6; L. 80011: four shells, ten damaged shells, one part of a body whorl and five disintegrated shells; F. C6; L. 80016: three shells and two disintegrated shells; F. C6; L. 80022: one shell; F. C6; L. 80024: one shell; F. C6; L. 80025: three shells; F. C6; L. 80030: one shell damaged towards the aperture.

The material was retrieved by handpicking during excavation and sieving the removed soil samples. However, for the latter procedure, sieves with a large mesh had been used, as seen in the recovery of shells smaller than 5 mm only in soil remaining in the shells of large species of terrestrial snails. Most of the shells could be identified immediately. In very few cases, the archaeomalacological material was compared to similar shells of recent origin, present in the Mollusc Collections of Tel Aviv University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. RESULTS The 50 samples of shells turned out to contain 13 different taxa, which could be identified on the species or subspecies level. A single fragment of mother-of-pearl could not be assigned to any taxon. The material is listed here in systematic order.

Xeropicta vestalis joppensis (Schmidt 1855) F. C6: L. 80003: three juvenile shells; F. C6; L. 80011: 15 juvenile shells; F. C6; L. 80024: three juvenile shells.

MOLLUSCA Gastropoda

Family Helicidae Helix engaddensis engaddensis Bourguignat 1852 F. C2; L. 24015: one shell heavily damaged during excavation; F. C2; L. 25012: one shell; F. C6; L. 40007: one shell; F. C6; L. 40009: one shell; F. C6; L. 40011: five shells and two shells damaged towards the aperture; F. C6; L. 40017: five shells; F. C6; L. 40019: one shell and one disintegrated shell; F. C6; L. 50013: one shell; F. C6; L. 60018: one shell;

Family Muricidae Stramonita haemastoma (Linnaeus 1758) F. C6; L. 70012: one heavily abraded shell. Family Enidae Euchondrus septemdentatus (Roth 1839) F. C6; L. 60018: one shell; F. C6; L. 80006: one shell; F. C6; L. 80016: one shell. Family Ferussaciidae Calaxis hierosolymarum (Roth 1855) F. C6; L. 80003: one shell;

191

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C fragment of a ventral margin and four other fragments; F. C6; L. 40015: one fragment of the ventral margin; F. C6; L. 40017: three valves, three valves with a tiny hole in the umbo, five umbonal fragments with a hole in the umbo, six fragments of ventral margins; F. C6; L. 40018: one valve and one valve with a hole in the umbo; F. C6; L. 40019: four valves, three damaged valves with a tiny hole in the umbo, one umbonal fragment and seven other fragments; F. C6; L. 50003: one valve; F. C6; L. 50005: one valve with a tiny hole in the umbo; F. C6; L. 50008: two ventral margins; F. C6; L. 50010: one valve with hole in the umbo; F. C6; L. 50022: one valve with a hole in the umbo; F. C6; L. 50024: one heavily damaged valve with a hole in the umbo; F. C6; L. 60013: one heavily abraded umbonal fragment; F. C6; L. 60015: one valve with a hole in the umbo; F. C6; L. 60016: two valves with a small hole in the umbo, one heavily damaged valve which had a hole in the umbo and two ventral margins; F. C6; L. 60017: one valve with a hole in the umbo; F. C6; L. 60018: one valve with a tiny hole in the umbo and one heavily abraded umbonal fragment; F. C6; L. 70003: one valve and one valve with a hole in the umbo; F. C6; L. 70018: one valve and one ventral margin of a valve; F. C6; L. 70019: two valves with a hole in the umbo and one tiny fragment; F. C6; L. 70026: one heavily abraded valve with a tiny hole in the umbo and two fragments of the ventral margin of a valve; F. C6; L. 70036: one valve with a hole in the umbo and two fragments of different valves; F. C6; L. 80001: one valve with a hole in the umbo and one umbonal fragment with a hole; F. C6; L. 80003: one small fragment; F. C6; L. 80006: one small piece of the ventral margin; F. C6; L. 80023: one heavily abraded valve with a hole in the umbo; F. C6; L. 80026: one umbonal fragment with a tiny hole;

F. C6; L. 80001: one fragment; F. C6; L. 80003: one heavily damaged shell; F. C6; L. 80011: two shells, two juvenile shells, one damaged shell and one fragment; F. C6; L. 80015: two heavily damaged shells (rodents?); F. C6; L. 80021: one heavily damaged shell (rodent?); F. C6; L. 80022: one shell; F. C6; L. 80024: two fragments; F. C6; L. 80025: one shell and two heavily damaged ones; F. C6; L. 80028: one damaged shell; F. C6; L. 80033: one disintegrated shell; F. C6; L. 80039: one disintegrated shell. Levantina spiriplana hierosolyma (Mousson 1854) F. C6; L. 40007: one disintegrated shell; F. C6; L. 40009: one shell, one disintegrated shell and one top fragment; F. C6; L. 40011: 13 shells and two top fragments; F. C6; L. 40017: eight shells and six shells which are damaged towards the aperture; F. C6; L. 40018: one body whorl; F. C6; L. 40019: 14 shells, five shells damaged during excavation and three disintegrated shells; F. C6; L. 50006: five damaged shells; F. C6; L. 50008: one juvenile shell; F. C6; L. 50010: one shell which was damaged during the excavation; F. C6; L. 50013: two shells which were damaged during the excavation; F. C6; L. 60015: one shell; F. C6; L. 80003: one shell; F. C6; L. 80011: five shells, six shells which were damaged during the excavation, one juvenile shell and two fragments; F. C6; L. 80022: one shell which was damaged during the excavation; F. C6; L. 80024: two fragments; F. C6; L. 80025: two shells, three damaged shells and four juvenile shells; F. C6; L. 80027: one shell; F. C6; L. 80029: one shell. Bivalvia Family Glycymerididae Glycymeris nummaria (Linnaeus 1758) F. C6; L. 40004: one umbonal fragment; F. C6; L. 40007: one valve; F. C6; L. 40011: four valves, three valves with a hole in the umbo, one damaged valve, one

192

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MIENIS: THE SHELLS FROM AREA C I), Iron Age I/Iron Age II (IR I/II) and Iron Age II/Byzantine (IR-II/Byz). Table 3.34 presents an overview of the shell finds according to the various archaeological periods. The bulk of the material (67–79%) turned out to represent shells dating to various phases of the Iron Age (clean Iron Age material 67% and an additional 12% of mixed samples: Late Bronze/Iron Age I and Iron Age II/Byzantine).

F. C6; L. 80028: one umbonal fragment; F. C6; L. 80029: one valve; F. C6; L. 100010: one valve. Remark: Formerly this species was named Glycymeris insubrica (Brocchi 1814), which has turned out to be a junior synonym of Glycymeris nummaria. Family Iridinidae Chambardia rubens arcuta (Cailliaud 1823) F. C6; L. 60018: one umbonal fragment. Remarks: In the past the genus Chambardia was placed in the family Mutelidae.

Geographical Origin of the Shells The shells found in Area C originated from four different geographical areas: • The immediate surroundings of the tell: all seven species of terrestrial snails: Euchondrus septemdentatus, Calaxis hierosolymarum, Calaxis saulcyi, Monacha syriaca, Xeropicta vestalis joppensis, Helix engaddensis engaddensis and Levantina spiriplana hierosolyma. • The Mediterranean Sea: one gastropod Stramonita haemastoma and three bivalves: Glycymeris nummaria, Acanthocardia tuberculata and Cerastoderma glaucum. • The Red Sea: one bivalve Tridacna squamosa. • The Nile River, one freshwater mussel Chambardia rubens arcuta. The presence of shells from the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea and the Nile River shows that especially during the Iron Age period the inhabitants of Tell es-Safi/Gath maintained contacts with several distant regions.

Family Cardiidae Acanthocardia tuberculata (Linnaeus 1758) F. C6; L. 60016: one small fragment of the ventral margin; F. C6; L. 70027: one small fragment of the ventral margin. Cerastoderma glaucum (Poiret 1789) F. C6; L. 50008: one small fragment of the ventral margin; F. C6; L. 70010: one small fragment of a valve which had a large hole in the umbo. Tridacna squamosa Lamarck 1819 F. C6; L. 80006: one tiny fragment. Mother-of-Pearl unidentified F. C6; L. 60016: one irregularly formed flake.

Shells and their importance for Climatic Studies Some 180 different taxa of land snails have been recorded thus far from the past 15,000 years (Mienis, unpublished). Most of these snails show a particular pattern of distribution, in which rainfall and substrate play a major role (Heller 1988; 2009). All land snails recovered in the excavations of Area C still live near Tell es-Safi/Gath or even among the ruins. They represent species living in a region characterized by a Mediterranean climate and a rocky environment. This combination is present at Tell es-Safi/Gath and therefore some of the specimens may be of much more recent origin. This is especially true for species like Calaxis hierosolymarum and Calaxis saulcyi, both of which live subterraneous, and Helix engaddensis engaddensis which aestivates deeply buried into the soil.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The 50 samples contained 323 shells or shell fragments belonging to 8 different species of gastropods and five species of bivalves. A single fragment of mother-of-pearl could not be assigned with certainty to any taxon. It may have belonged to a freshwater bivalve of local origin (Unio or Potomida), from the Nile (Chambardia or Mutela) or to a marine species from the Red Sea (Pinctada). An inventory of the recovered shell material is given in Table 3.33. The excavations in Area C have provided finds dating to various archaeological periods: Middle Bronze (MB), Late Bronze (LB), Iron Age I (IR I), Iron Age II (IR II) and Byzantine (Byz). In addition, material from archaeological contexts spanning more than one period was recovered from several loci: Late Bronze/Iron Age I (LB/IR

193

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C part of the valves of Glycymeris nummaria show some indication that they may have been exploited in this manner. Thirty-four of the valves have a hole in the umbo. Such a hole can be a natural or man-made, however in both case such valves may have been used as pendants.

Some shells belonging to Helix engaddensis engaddensis may also have been buried deep into the archaeological site by small mammals, as seen by clear marks that they were predated upon by either insectivores, such as shrews, or rodents such as house mice, rats, spiny mice or other snail eating species (Goodfriend 1987). Three of the species: Monacha syriaca, Helix engaddensis engaddensis and Levantina spiriplana hierosolyma were found in almost all of the archaeological layers. All are characteristic of a Mediterranean climate, indicating that the climate throughout Tell es-Safi/Gath's history was probably more or less constant. This does not rule out the possibility that during certain periods the rainfall may have been much more intensive than today.

Mother-of-Pearl Two fragments of bivalves show a layer of mother-of-pearl. One consists of an umbonal fragment of Chambardia rubens arcuta, a freshwater mussel endemic to the Nile River. The interior of a fresh specimen of this large mussel species shows a beautiful rose-coloured pearly layer. In its country of origin (Egypt) it was intensively exploited as food, as well as other uses (Falkner 1981; 1982; Boessneck, von den Driesch and Ziegler 1989). In the Levant, most fragments found lack any signs of manipulation, although the chronological range of their presence spans the Natufian to well into the Islamic period (Reese, Mienis and Woodward 1986). The fragment found in Area C also lacks any sign of manipulation. The second fragment of mother-of-pearl consisted of only a flake, which is characteristic for a disintegrating freshwater bivalve, however the fragment is in such a bad state of preservation that it remained unidentified. The presence of these two fragments among the recovered shells show that the inhabitants of Iron Age Tell es-Safi/Gath were somehow interested in these exotic pearly items.

Exploitation of Molluscs Shells of molluscs often form long-lasting evidence that they were exploited for one thing or another by humans (Mienis 1985a; 2004). Some of the shells found in Area C show signs of human alteration. Food Slightly more than 40% of the shells found in Area C belong to two large species of land snails: Helix engaddensis engaddensis (40 specimens) and Levantina spiriplana hierosolyma (95 specimens). Both land snails are well-known edible species (Bar 1977; Mienis 1985b). As these shells were found in large numbers, it is likely that they should be interpreted as being the unpalatable leftovers of snail meals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Prof. Aren M. Maeir and his archaeological team who carried out the excavations at Tell es-Safi/Gath, and Dr. Liora Kolska Horwitz for giving me the opportunity to study the shell material recovered in Area C.

Ornamental use Throughout history, marine molluscs have been intensively exploited for various purposes, of which, ornamental use is without a doubt the most intensive (Safer & MacLaughlin-Gill 1981). Among the marine molluscs found in Area C, only

REFERENCES Bar, Z. 1977

Falkner, G. 1981 Mollusca. Pp. 140–44 in The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqâra: The Southern Dependencies of the Main Temple Complex, ed. G. T. Martin. EES Excavation Memoir 50. London: Egypt Exploration Society. 1982 Molluskenfunde der Ausgrabungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo im Satet-tempel auf Elephantine. Pp. 152–72

Human Consumption of Land Snails in Israel. Basteria 41: 53–58. Boessneck, J., von den Driesch, A. and Ziegler, R. 1989 Die Tierreste von Maadi and Wadi Digla. Pp. 87–128 in Maadi III – The Non-Lithic Small Finds and the Structural Remains of the Predynastic Settlement, eds. I. Rizkana and J. Seeher. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

194

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MIENIS: THE SHELLS FROM AREA C in Studien an subfossielen Tierknochen aus Ägypten, eds. J. Boessneck and A. von den Driesch. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 40. München: Deutscher Kunstverlag. Goodfriend, G.A. 1987 Chronostratigraphic Studies of Sediments in the Negev Desert, Using Amino Acid Epimerization Analysis of Land Snail Shells. Quaternary Research 28: 374–92. Heller, J. 1988 The Biogeography of the Land Snails of Israel. Pp. 325–53 in The Zoogeography of Israel, eds. Y. Yom-Tov and E. Tchernov. Dordrecht: Dr. W. Junk. 2009 Land Snails of the Land of Israel – Natural History and a Field Guide. Moscow: Pensoft.

Gastropods

Mienis, H. K. 1985a Four Shells – Four Stories. Trowel and Patish 2: 2–4. 1985b Enkele verdere gegevens betreffende de consumptie van landslakken in Israël. Correspondentieblad van de Nederlandse Malacologische Vereniging 225: 63–65. 2004 When Shells Begin to Talk – Archaeomalacology: An Important Tool for the Archaeologist with Examples from the Excavation of Malaha, Hula Valley, Israel. Turkish Journal of Aquatic Life 2(2): 111–16. Reese, D. S., Mienis, H. K. and Woodward, F. R. 1986 On the Trade of Shells and Fish from the Nile River. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 264: 79–84. Safer, J. F. and MacLaughlin-Gill, F. 1981 Spirals from the Sea. An Anthropological Look at Shells. New York: Clarkson N. Potter.

227 terrestrial

226 Local Euchondrus septemdentatus Calaxis hierosolymarum Calaxis saulcyi Monacha syriaca Xeropicta vestalis joppensis Helix engaddensis engaddensis Levantina spiriplana hierosolyma

marine

226 3 22 1 44 21 40 95

1 Mediterranean Sea Stramonita haemastoma

Bivalves

1 1

96 marine

94 Mediterranean Sea Glycymeris nummaria Acanthocardia tuberculata Cerastoderma glaucum

fluviatile

unknown

93 89 2 2

Red Sea Tridacna squamosa

1 1

Nile River Chambardia rubens arcuta

1 1

unknown Mother-of-Pearl

1 1

1

1

Table 3.33: Summary of the inventory of the shell material recovered from Area C.

195

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 3: AREA C species Stramonita haemastoma Euchondrus septemdentatus Calaxis hierosolymarum Calaxis saulcyi Monacha syriaca Xeropicta vestalis joppensis Helix engaddensis engaddensis Levantina spiriplana hierosolyma Glycymeris nummaria Chambardia rubens arcuta Acanthocardia tuberculata Cerastoderma glaucum Tridacna squamosa Mother-of-Pearl

MB 1 2 3 3 1 3 13

LB 3 4 11 18

LB/IR-I 1 1 1 -3

IR-I 1 21 1 25 18 10 16 15 2 1 1 1 112

IR-I/II 1 1 1 8 1 12

IR-II 1 5 8 40 39 93

IR-II/Byz 1 7 15 13 36

Byz 1 2 4 2 9

Unk 1 6 5 6 8 1 27

Table 3.34: The finds of archaeological material in Area C according to archaeological periods.

196

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4 THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T: BACKGROUND AND STRATIGRAPHY JOE UZIEL AND AREN M. MAEIR

D

uring the course of a pedestrian survey in a dry river bed (wadi) to the south of the eastern part of the upper tell (Areas A and E) during 2005 and 2006, a number of caves were discovered (Fig. 4.1, Fig. 4.2).1 Upon entering one of the caves, evidence of pre-modern activities within the cave was noted, including numerous ceramic and bone fragments, apparently disturbed by modern looters. The pottery sherds within the cave and on the surface outside the cave were dateable to the late Iron Age I and Iron Age II, indicating the possibility that this cave, and perhaps others in its vicinity, served as burial caves during the Iron Age (Fig. 4.3). This area of the wadi was designated as Area T (see Fig. 4.1). In light of the finds noticed in and around the cave, it was decided to excavate this cave (termed T1) in the 2006 season, with the hope that some remains were still recoverable. As such, it would make this the first Iron Age burial cave found at one of the five major Philistine sites, as well as hopefully serving as an indication of the possible function and contents of other caves in this wadi. The cave is one of many natural cavities along these slopes that form within the limestone and calcrete/nari in this region (for an overview of the geology of the site and its environs, see Ackermann and Bruins 2012). The cave’s dimensions are approximately 2.5 m wide and 4 m long, with the opening facing east (Fig. 4.4). Although the actual cave is naturally formed, it was noted upon excavation that the south side had clearly been expanded in antiquity, as seen by quarrying along the walls of the cave. In addition, quarrying was also noted on the floor of the cave, particu-

larly on the southern side, including two cup marks and several channels (Fig. 4.5). Prior to the excavation of the cave, a specific excavation protocol was chosen. The location of all finds and excavated sediments were accurately plotted. All excavated sediments were sifted on site. In addition, numerous sediment samples were collected for wet sieving in order to collect micro-fauna as well as very small artifacts. This proved to be particularly important in retrieving hundreds of small beads, which were too small to be caught by the sifters (see Verduci, this volume). Although, as mentioned above, all finds were accurately plotted, this proved to be of less importance, due to damage caused to the tomb by modern looters, which disturbed the original contexts of many finds. Other documentation and methodology followed the project’s standard procedures (see Maeir and Zukerman 2012).2

1

Barzilai assisted in the excavation of the articulated skeletal remains. Field plans were prepared by J. Rosenberg; aerial photography by Skyview Inc.; field photos by A.M. Maeir. In addition, the finds were manually drawn by Y. Rudman and digitally documented by A. Karasik. Finds were photographed by V. Naikhin and M. Eniukhina. We would also like to thank O. Marder for suggesting to remove the cave’s roof mechanically (see below), which greatly facilitated its excavation in a safe manner. A preliminary report on the finds from the tomb was published by Faerman et al. 2011.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CAVE AND ITS EXCAVATION Work began with the excavation of the entrance (Locus 99001) and the removal of the sediments from the cave (Loci 99002, 99003), in which many artifacts were found (primarily sherds and human bone fragments, but also a complete dipper juglet located near the entrance to the cave – Fig. 4.12: 9), perhaps left behind by the modern looters. A Bedouin who was encamped just a few hundred meters to the south of the cave claimed to have participated in the looting of the cave about a decade before our excavation. He informed us that the looting of the cave had stopped before all

The caves in this area were first noticed by A.M. Maeir. Subsequently, a group of the core-staff of the excavation, including A.M. Maeir, J. Uziel, A. Zukerman, and I. Shai, returned to explore this area, and crawled into some of the caves. In the 2009 season, this area was further explored by Y. Sapir, as part of his MA thesis research (Sapir 2010), and more than 20 additional caves were discovered. Hopefully, additional caves will be excavated in the future. 2 J. Uziel served as the Area Supervisor of the excavation of Cave T1, and he was assisted by T. Greenvald and M. Glass-Siegel. M. Faerman and Y. Giv'ol-

199

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T noid seal (Basket 990056, Fig. 4.35: 4; see Wimmer and Görg, this volume). Of particular interest was a group of intact and restorable vessels found on the north side of the cave, underneath a large slab of limestone. It appears that the robbers working in the cave had put the vessels aside in this area, yet before they extracted them from the cave, a slab from the roof collapsed, causing them to leave the finds behind. The vessels all date to the late Iron Age I/early Iron Age II, and are very similar to those found in Area A on the tell (see further discussion below). Amongst the vessels there were bowls, juglets and the lower portion of a jar (see discussion below).

artifacts had been removed, due to the partial collapse of the roof during the looting. In light of this information and the finds in the cave’s entrance, it was realized that there were good chances that the cave was not entirely looted and some of the original finds might be located. Following the clearance of loose sediments, we began excavation of the cave (Locus 99004, height 156.97 masl). This layer contained more modern disturbances, yet also contained a significant amount of finds, including indicative sherds dating to the EB III, EB IV/MB I, MB II, LB II and restorable pottery dating to the late Iron Age I/early Iron Age II, human bone fragments, metal jewelry, beads and a co-

Fig. 4.1: Topographic map of Tell es-Safi/Gath showing the location of Area T, with cave openings (mapped by Y. Sapir, marked with dots) and Cave T1 (marked with star).

200

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

UZIEL / MAEIR: BACKGROUND AND STRATIGRAPHY

Fig. 4.2: View of the western-facing slope of the wadi (Area T) with several cave openings, including the excavated Cave T1, looking west.

Fig. 4.3: J. Uziel collecting pottery from within Cave T1, prior to its excavation.

201

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T

Fig. 4.4: Plan and section of Cave T1 (see Appendix 4.1 for Locus List).

202

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

UZIEL / MAEIR: BACKGROUND AND STRATIGRAPHY 4.4). The high concentration of bone fragments suggests that this corner may have been used in antiquity for moving aside older burials, to make room for new interments. Finds from this corner also included markedly less pottery, possibly suggesting the reuse of burial offerings. Other finds included a scarab and an amulet (Fig. 4.35:1; Fig. 4.36:1; see Wimmer and Görg, this volume). In the center of the cave, at a height of 156.35 masl, the only articulated bones were discovered (L99009 – Fig. 4.14). The very partial skeletal remains were tentatively identified as those of a female and included a left scapula, left clavicle, and other bone fragments (see Faerman and Smith, this volume). No burial finds were found in direct conjunction with the articulated bones, although an earring was found in the vicinity. A stone pavement (ca. 0.5x1 m in size) was seen in the northeast corner of the cave (L99011 – Fig. 4.4), perhaps placed there due to the sloping nature of the cave floor. Unfortunately, the sediments above and on the pavement, were devoid of finds. It seems reasonable to assume, however, that it was built in the Iron Age II, as pottery from this period (L99010), as well as an additional conoid seal of the period (Fig. 4.35:5; see Wimmer and Görg, this volume) were found in the sediments beneath it.

At a height of 156.54 masl, a number of changes were noticed. First, in the southern end of the cave, the floor of the cave (Locus 99005) was reached (the floor of the cave slopes downward from south to north, causing the floor on this side to be much higher). Second, due to the increased depth in the cave, and the fact that a portion of the roof had already collapsed in the past, it was felt that for safety reasons, the roof of the cave needed to be removed (Fig. 4.5, Fig. 4.6), in order to prevent collapse. The roof was removed using a mechanical backhoe, exposing most of floor space of the cave. Third, there was a significant decrease in the number of modern intrusions present in the excavated sediments. After the removal of the roof (L99006) was completed and the rubble cleared, work in the cave resumed (L99007 – Fig. 4.7). The finds from this locus included additional restorable vessels, many human bone fragments, a number of intact/restorable vessels, many beads, and a spearhead. Of particular interest were a scarab and four amulets (Fig. 4.35:3, Fig. 4.36:2– 5; see Wimmer and Görg, this volume). In the northwest corner of the cave, there was a small area in which there was change in the sediment color and the presence of large amounts of bone fragments (L99008, 156.54 masl – see Fig.

Fig. 4.5: Aerial view of Cave T1, showing the cave’s surface, after its excavation.

203

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T

Fig. 4.6: Aerial view of Cave T1, after its excavation, along the wadi south of the tell.

Fig. 4.7: Excavating Loci 99007, 99008 and 99009 in Cave T1.

204

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

THE POTTERY FROM CAVE T1 JOE UZIEL AND AREN M. MAEIR

P

(Fig. 4.8:2–5), large storage jars with flaring rims (Fig. 4.8:6–9), including one example with a rope decoration (Fig. 4.8:8) and a small storage jar with a flaring neck (Fig. 4.8:10). The stump base of a jug, typical of this period was found as well (Fig. 4.8:11; e.g., Yarmuth – de Miroschedji 1988: pl. 45: 10).

ottery sherds dating to the Early Bronze (EB) III, Early Bronze Age IV/Middle Bronze Age I (EB IV/MB I), Middle Bronze (MB) II, Late Bronze (LB) II, and Iron Ages I and II were found in the burial cave, although intact or restorables vessels date exclusively to the late Iron Age I/early Iron Age IIA. The analysis of the pottery followed the typology already used for the pottery from the tell itself (see Maeir 2012 for various chapters discussing pottery from the excavation of the site). In this manner, it was easiest to show the direct correlation between the periods of settlement on the tell and the use of the cave. As most periods were represented exclusively by sherds, some quite scarcely (e.g., MB II), it is difficult to determine whether the cave was actually used during that time, or whether the sherds reached there due to other circumstances. Although all of the periods are discussed and represented here, it seems that the only periods which are significantly represented are the EB III, the EB IV/MB I and the late Iron Age I/Iron Age IIA. The use of the cave in the earlier periods may have been for burial, or for a different use which cannot be determined, as the later use as a burial cave destroyed evidence of its initial uses. Furthermore, it is impossible to know when the cave was expanded through quarrying. The use of the cave in the Iron Age IIB is possible, although the scarce representation of this period, as well as the possibility that some of the forms of the Iron Age IIB commence appearing earlier, make this difficult to ascertain. What is clear from the pottery is that the cave was used for burials in the late Iron Age I/early Iron Age IIA, and this appears to be confirmed through the radiocarbon dating of the remains from the cave (see Faerman et al. 2011: 36–38, particularly Table 1 and Fig. 5; Boaretto this volume).

EB IV/MB I POTTERY (FIG. 4.8:12–19) EB IV/MB I levels were not discovered on the tell itself. However, to the east of the tell, in Area C, Str. C6-4, remains from this period were uncovered (see Gur-Arieh and Maeir, this volume). The pottery assemblage from Cave T1 is comprised of similar forms as those found in Area C6, including holemouth jars with square-profiled rims, and storage jars with flaring rims and incised decorations along the rim and necks. The incisions are wavy lines bordered by horizontal lines. Similar vessels are common at southern sites (e.g., Jebel Qa'aqir – Dever 1975: fig. 4:2; Gitin 1975: fig. 1:1–2; London 1985: fig. A.4: 4, 7–8; Dever 2014). MB II POTTERY (FIG. 4.9:1) Only one MB II sherd was found in the tomb, a fragment of a Tell el-Yahudyeh ware juglet, with punctured decoration, typical of the MB II (e.g. Kaplan 1980; Bietak 1989; 1997; Aston and Bietak 2011). LB II POTTERY (FIG. 4.9:2–9) The LB II pottery from the tomb consists of a variety of bowl types, also known from Area E, Str. E4b (Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012). The bowls include rounded (BL1), open (BL2) and cyma-shaped (BL4) forms, typical of the latter stages of the LB II. In addition, one fragment of a Cypriot White-Slip “milk bowl,” also typical of the LB II, and common on the tell in Str. E4b, was recovered.

EB III POTTERY (FIG. 4.8:1–11) The EB III Pottery found in the tomb is very similar in character to the pottery from Str. E5b in Area E (Uziel and Maeir 2012). Forms found include platters with web burnishing (Fig. 4.8:1), holemouth vessels with plain and folded rims

205

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T Num

Basket

Locus

Class

Type

1.

990042/4

99004

PL

2

2.

990146/5

99007

HM

1

3.

990247/1

99007

HM

1

4.

990248/3

99010

HM

1

Parallel from Tell esSafi/Gath es-Safi/Gath Uziel and Maeir 2012: Pl. 11.1:5 Uziel and Maeir 2012: Pl. 11.2:13–15 Uziel and Maeir 2012: Pl. 11.2:13–15 --

5.

990186/4

99007

HM

2

--

6.

990164/13

99008

SJ

1

7.

990145/9

99007

SJ

1

8.

990015/16

99004

SJ

1

9.

990099/28

99004

SJ

1

Uziel and Maeir 2012: Pl. 11.1:9 Uziel and Maeir 2012: Pl. 11.1:11 Uziel and Maeir 2012: Pl. 11.1:11 --

10.

990224

99007

SJ

2

11.

990146/1

99007

JG

--

12.

990070/16

99004

HM

13.

990070/20

99004

HM

14.

990079/2

99004

HM

15.

990070/19

99004

SJ

16.

990070/22

99004

SJ

17.

990248/11

99010

SJ

18.

990015/2

99004

SJ

19.

990079/3

99004

SJ

Uziel and Maeir 2012: Pl. 11.1:11 Uziel and Maeir 2012: Pl. 11.2:10 Str. C6-4 – Gur-Arieh and Maeir, this volume Str. C6-4 – Gur-Arieh and Maeir, this volume Str. C6-4 – Gur-Arieh and Maeir, this volume Str. C6-4 – Gur-Arieh and Maeir, this volume Str. C6-4 – Gur-Arieh and Maeir, this volume Str. C6-4 – Gur-Arieh and Maeir, this volume Str. C6-4 – Gur-Arieh and Maeir, this volume Str. C6-4 – Gur-Arieh and Maeir, this volume

206

Remarks Web-burnishing, light gray core, many gray inclusions. Dark gray brittle ware with many inclusions. Dark gray brittle ware with many inclusions. Rope decoration on shoulder, brittle ware. Dark gray brittle ware with many inclusions. Thick gray core, many white inclusions. Thick gray core, many white inclusions. Rope decoration on neck, light gray core, few inclusions, well-fired. Light gray core, few inclusions, wellfired. Many inclusions, well fired, white wash. Dark red burnish. Brittle ware. Soot marks. Brittle ware. Soot marks. Brittle ware. Soot marks. Light gray ware, well fired. Light gray ware, well fired. Light gray ware, well fired. Incised decoration on neck of jar – wavy lines in between sets of horizontal lines Incised decoration on neck of jar – wavy lines in between sets of horizontal lines

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

UZIEL / MAEIR: THE POTTERY FROM CAVE T1

Fig. 4.8: EB III and EB IV/MB I Pottery.

207

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T Num

Basket

Locus

Class

Type

1.

990127/7

99008

JL

--

2.

990188/11

99007

BL

1.1

3.

990070/14

99004

BL

2.1

4.

990079/11

99004

BL

2.1

5.

990015/8

99004

BL

2.2

6.

990127/23

99008

BL

2.3

7.

990186/14

99007

BL

2.3

8.

990032/13

99004

BL

4

9.

990080/26

99004

BL

--

10.

9900??

99004

BL

311

11.

990015

99004

CP/JG

--

Parallel from Tell esSafi/Gath -Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: Pl. 12.2:1–2 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: Pl. 12.4:3–9 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: Pl. 12.4:3–9 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: Pl. 12.6:6–7 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: Pl. 12.8:7–8 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: Pl. 12.8:7–8 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: Pl. 12.4:12 Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: Pl. 12.11:12 Zukerman 2012: Pl. 13.4:3 --

208

Remarks Sherd of TEY Juglet, with incised decoration. Gray ware typical of the ware. Many white inclusions, light gray ware. Light gray core, few inclusions. Light gray core, few inclusions. Light gray core, few inclusions. Two ridges below the rim, light gray core, few inclusions. Many white inclusions, light gray ware. Soot marks, light gray core, few inclusions. Light gray core, well-fired. Dark brown lines decorate the exterior of the vessel White-slip and brown painted spiral. Orange core, well-levigated and fired

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

UZIEL / MAEIR: THE POTTERY FROM CAVE T1

Fig. 4.9: MB II, LB II and Iron Age I Pottery.

209

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T Num

Basket

Locus

Class

Type

1.

990182/1

99008

BL

1.1

2.

990127/2

99008

BL

1.4

3.

990145/1

99007

BL

3.2

4.

990016

99007

BL

3.2

5.

990042

99004

BL

3.2

6.

990145/6

99007

BL

3.3

7.

990011/21

99003

BL

3.3

8.

99008

BL

3.4

9.

9900127/1 4 990127/8

99008

BL

3.4

10.

990040/1

99004

BL

3.4

11.

990075

99004

BL

3.4

12.

990127/1

99008

BL

3.7

13.

990153/2

99007

BL

301.3

14.

990163

99007

BL

301.3

15.

990103/1

99004

BL

301.3

16.

990042/24

99004

BL

301.3

Parallel from Tell es-Safi/Gath Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.6:1 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.2:4 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.6:2 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.17:3 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.6:2 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.2:12 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.2:12 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.6:1 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.6:1 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.10:6 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.7:1 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.2:13 Zukerman 2012: Pl. 13.19:2 Zukerman 2012: Pl. 13.19:2 Zukerman 2012: Pl. 13.19:2 Zukerman 2012: Pl. 13.19:2

210

Remarks Pink core, few inclusions, undecorated. Burnish on the interior. Red-slipped and hand-burnished, gray core with many inclusions. Red-slipped and hand-burnished, gray core with many inclusions. Red-slipped and burnished on interior and upper exterior. Red-slipped and hand-burnished, gray core with many inclusions. Undecorated. Thin walls, red slip. Thin walls, undecorated, brown core, few inclusions. Red-slipped and burnished on interior and upper exterior. Red-slipped and burnished on interior and upper exterior. Red slip on the interior and exterior. Undecorated, gray core, well sifted, few inclusions. Undecorated, gray core, well sifted, few inclusions. Hand-burnished on the interior, ring base, well-levigated and fired ware. Undecorated, ring base, well-levigated and fired ware.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

UZIEL / MAEIR: THE POTTERY FROM CAVE T1

Fig. 4.10: Iron Age II Pottery.

211

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T Num

Basket

Locus

Class

Type

Parallel from Tell esSafi/Gath Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.17:3 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.2:2

1.

990016

99004

BL

1.1

2.

990238

99008

BL

1.4

3.

990153/1

99007

BL

302

4.

990087

99004

BL

303

5.

990224/5

99007

BL

6.1

6.

990127/3

99008

LP

1

7.

990070/10

99004

CP

502

8.

990008

99004

SJ

1

9.

990042/36

99004

JG

--

Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.4:3 Avissar and Maeir 2012: Pl. 15.10:7 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.19:5 --

10.

990013

99004

JG

--

--

11.

990145/2

99007

JG

1.1

Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.1:4

Zukerman 2012: Pl. 13.17:12 Zukerman 2012: Pl. 13.16:8 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.2:5

212

Remarks Disc base, undecorated. Red slip on interior and outer rim. Hand burnish on interior, ridge below rim, ring base. Gray core with many white inclusions. Red slip on interior and upper exterior, well-sifted clay, orange core. Red slip on interior and upper exterior. Knob handle. Red slip on interior and upper exterior, thick gray core, few inclusions. Ledged rim, flat base. Dark gray core, many white small inclusions, ridge on outer rim. Light gray core, few inclusions. Disc base and globular body of jug, well sifted, light gray core. Disc base and globular body of jug, well sifted, light gray core. Burnished, orange core, few inclusions.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

UZIEL / MAEIR: THE POTTERY FROM CAVE T1

Fig. 4.11: Iron Age II Pottery.

213

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T Num

Basket

Locus

Class

Type

1.

990182/1

99008

JL

1

2.

990153/3

99007

JL

1

3.

990015/7

99004

JL

1

4.

990163/2

99007

JL

1.1

5.

990145/4

99007

JL

1.1

6.

990042/2

99004

JL

1.1

7.

990095

99004

JL

1.1

8.

990210

99004

JL

1.1

9.

990066/1

99003

JL

1.1

10.

990042/3

99004

JL

4

11.

990030

99004

JL

6

Parallel from Tel esSafi/Gath Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.1:7 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.1:7 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.1:7 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.7:5–6 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.7:5–6 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.7:5–6 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.7:5–6 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.7:5–6 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.7:5–6 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.6:4 Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.1:6

214

Remarks Pinched rim, many small white inclusions, orange core, well-fired, undecorated. Vertical burnishing, well-levigated, orange core. Red-slipped and burnished, thin gray core, very few inclusions. Red slip, groove below rim, thin light gray core. Red slip and burnish, dark gray core, many white inclusions. Red-slipped and burnished, thin gray core, very few inclusions. Red-slipped and burnished, thin gray core, very few inclusions. Red-slipped and burnished, thin gray core, very few inclusions. Undecorated. Red-slipped and burnished, thin gray core, very few inclusions. Undecorated, orange core, well-levigated.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

UZIEL / MAEIR: THE POTTERY FROM CAVE T1

Fig. 4.12: Iron Age II Pottery.

215

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T of Iron Age IIA rounded bowls are also present (e.g., Fig. 4.10: 13–16; Fig. 4.11: 3, 4), more common in Stratum A4 and dating to the late Iron Age I and early Iron Age IIA (see Zukerman 2012: 273). One red-slipped bowl has a knob handle, a feature also commonly found in the Stratum A3 destruction level (Shai and Maeir 2012: BL 6.1). Only one lamp was found (Fig. 4.11:6), with a ledged rim and flat base. This is the most common lamp in the Stratum A3 assemblage (Shai and Maeir 2012: 342). Cooking pots are extremely rare, with only one example found (Fig. 4.11:7). This type, with a ridged, inverted rim, was found on the tell in Stratum A2, dating to the Iron Age IIB (Avissar and Maeir 2012: 370), although Iron Age IIA examples were also found in Area D.3 Storage jars were also rare in the tomb, with only one type found (Fig. 4.11: 8) with a short neck and carinated shoulder, again typical of the Iron Age IIA destruction level of Stratum A3 (Shai and Maeir 2012: 329). Jugs are also not very common, although two large portions of jug bases (Fig. 4.11:9–10) were found, as well as some rims which may belong to jugs (e.g., Fig. 4.11:11). The rim shown is a simple rim with a straight neck and may be equivalent to the typical plain jugs found in Stratum A3 (Shai and Maeir 2012: 334). The bases are both low disc bases attached to globular bodies. Juglets were quite common in the tomb, with only bowls outnumbering them in quantity. Several juglet bases and rims are illustrated (Fig. 4.12), with only one almost complete example found near the entrance to the cave (Fig. 4.12:9). The juglets are quite similar to those found on the tell in Stratum A3, most having elongated bodies (e.g., Fig. 4.12:6–9), a single handle extending from the rim to the shoulder (e.g., Fig. 4.12:3–5), and a simple rim (Fig. 4.12:1–2). One example (Fig. 4.12:10) has a folded rim and one (Fig. 4.12:11) has a globular body. Most of the juglets are red-slipped and vertically burnished, typical of surface treatment of these vessels in Stratum A3 (Shai and Maeir 2012: 345). All in all, it seems that the Iron Age II assemblage – the best represented in the tomb, spans the entire Iron Age IIA (both early and late – parallel to Strata A4 and A3 on the tell), with few vessels hinting at the continued use of the tomb (or at least the visiting of the tomb) during the Iron Age IIB.

IRON AGE I (FIG. 4.9:10–11) Two vessels, which unequivocally date to the Iron Age I, were found: one fragment of a Philistine bell-shaped bowl (Fig. 4.9:10), and one complete cooking jug (Fig. 4.9:11). While other vessels discussed below may also date to the later stages of the Iron Age I, it is particularly the cooking jug that indicates that the cave was used as a tomb in the Iron Age I. While the bowl is typical of the Iron Age I, with parallels originating in Str. A5 on the tell (Zukerman 2012: Pl. 13.5:3), as well as at other Iron Age I Philistine sites, it may have reached the cave through secondary deposition, as may be the case with the MB II and LB pottery. This cannot be the case with the jug, as it was found complete. The jug’s form, with a globular body, short neck and a loop handle, seems to date to the earlier stages of this form, usually associated with the early stages of the Philistine culture in the early Iron Age I (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008: 226 and Fig. 3b, found at Tel Miqne-Ekron, Stratum VI). These vessels are usually thought to be cooking vessels, making it interesting that one was found in the tomb. That said, it is possible that the vessels were multi-functional, also used as jugs. Furthermore, the small size of the example here, and the lack of a disk or ring base, may indicate it was some kind of votive item – and not necessarily used for actual cooking. Similar jugs were found at Azor (e.g. Ben Shlomo 2012: Fig. 5.10:11, 13). While the examples with the ring base are clearly attributed there to the Iron Age I, the example with the rounded base is said to be of a late Iron Age I/early Iron Age IIA date. IRON AGE II The majority of the pottery assemblage from the tomb dates to the Iron Age II – particularly the Iron Age IIA (and an early stage at that, although several sherds dating to the Iron Age IIB indicate that the tomb may have still functioned during this time). Bowls are the most common type of vessel found. The large majority of the bowls are redslipped and hand-burnished – typical features of the Iron Age IIA at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Both rounded (e.g., Fig. 4.10:2, 4; Fig. 4.11:1, 2) and carinated (e.g., Fig. 4.10:5, 7, 10, 11, 12) bowls are very common in the assemblage from Area A, Stratum A3 (Shai and Maeir 2012). Earlier forms

3

These cooking pots, originating in Area D, will be

published in a future volume.

216

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

UZIEL / MAEIR: THE POTTERY FROM CAVE T1

Fig. 4.13: Iron Age II Pottery.

217

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T common vessel in tomb assemblages, although at times they are completely lacking (e.g., BlochSmith 1992:73–74). It is possible that this change in the types of vessels found in the cave reflects a difference in mortuary customs between the indigenous Canaanite population, where lamps were widely used in burial caves (Gadot, Ilan and Uziel 2014: 80), and burial customs of the non-local components of the Philistine population. As very little is known about the mortuary behavior of the Philistines (e.g., Ben-Shlomo 2008; Uziel and Maeir 2018), one can only suggest that perhaps, even after these non-local elements adopted the use of burial caves at some point in the late Iron Age I or early Iron Age II (thus far, they are not attested in Philistia prior to this), they continued to sustain unique mortuary customs. Similar processes of cultural development can be seen in other aspects of the Philistine material culture (e.g. Stone 1995; Uziel 2007; Maeir, Hitchcock and Horowitz 2013; Hitchcock and Maeir 2013). In addition to the lack of lamps, the relative scarcity of larger containers – such as jugs and storage jars, is also of interest. It is difficult to determine whether this is intentional, or a result of pillaging. If the former is the case, it may reflect again, the nature of the vessels interred and their function in the tomb, or socio-economic status, which resulted in the preference of the more common small juglets, as opposed to larger storage containers. This may have been a result of the poor economic stature of the owners of the tomb, who preferred to provide provisions in smaller, rather than larger containers (the poor health and diet of the interred, as implied from the skeletal analyses [Faerman and Smith, this volume] seem to strengthen this supposition). On the other hand, the large amount of bowls may reflect the possible occurrence of an act of feasting during the process of interment, in proximity to the burial (on Philistine feasting, see Hitchcock, Horwitz, Boaretto and Maeir 2015). As little is known of Philistine burial customs, this all remains speculative; hopefully, further research of the other tombs in the vicinity, and at other Philistine sites, might clarify these and other related issues.

CONCLUSIONS As all of the complete and restored vessels date to the late Iron Age I and/or early Iron Age IIA, it appears that this tomb functioned primarily during this time. It is possible that the tomb was still in use (or visited) during the Iron Age IIB, as seen through some of the pottery (although see discussion above, which suggests these may be forms beginning in the Iron Age IIA). If this is the case, it is particularly interesting, considering the change in population, or at least, cultural/ political affiliation, suggested from the study of the finds from the tell, from Philistines to Judahites (see, e.g. Uziel and Maeir 2005; although see more on this discussion below). The earlier pottery found in the tomb may suggest earlier activity there, artifacts that were deposited in the tomb after it went out of use, either through material that had entered the cave from the slope above, or the movement of sediments into the cave from another location. While it is hard to determine if the tomb was used earlier, the ceramic evidence, alongside the radiocarbon dating and the dating of the other artifacts indicate that the interred individuals should be dated to the late Iron Age I–early Iron Age IIA. Unfortunately, due to the looting of the tomb, as well as its extensive use over time, with the movement of artifacts and human remains within the cave, it was not possible to accurately reconstruct the mortuary customs of those who used this tomb. For example, we were unable to define a specific “burial kit”, or to determine with any certainty whether the vessels were deposited at the time of interment as part of a burial ritual, as sustenance for the afterlife for deceased, as part of a burial-related meal of those who buried the interred, or related to subsequent visits to the cave. While we cannot be certain what were the exact items buried with the deceased, the large number of bowls and juglets standout. While cooking pots are quite rare burial offerings (although they do seem to appear in small numbers in tombs of the 10th–9th centuries BCE in Judah – see BlochSmith 1992:75–76), making their almost complete absence not in the least surprising, the lack of lamps, with only a single example found stands out. Lamps are often considered the second-most

218

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

UZIEL / MAEIR: THE POTTERY FROM CAVE T1 REFERENCES Ackermann, O. and Bruins, H. J. 2012 The Environmental Background of Tell esSafi/Gath and Its Vicinity. Pp. 123–32 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Aston, D., and Bietak, M., eds. 2011 Tell el-Daba VIII: The Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware and Its Classification. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Avissar, R. S. and Maeir, A. M. 2012 Iron Age IIB Pottery from Stratum A2. Pp. 365–82 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2008 The Cemetery of Azor and Early Iron Age Burial Practices. Levant 40:29–54. Ben-Shlomo, D., Shai, I., Zukerman, A., and Maeir, A. M. 2008 Cooking Identities: Aegean-Style Cooking Jugs in the Southern Levant, and Cultural Interaction between the Philistines and Their Neighbors during the Iron Age. American Journal of Archaeology 122/2: 225–46. Bietak, M. 1989 Archaologischer Befund und Historische Interpretation am Beispiel der Tell el-Yahudiya-Ware. Pp. 7–34 in Akten des Vierten Internationalen Agyptologen Kongresses, München 1985, ed. S. Schoske. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 1997 Avaris, Capital of the Hyksos Kingdom: New Results of the Excavations. Pp. 87–139 in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. E. Oren. University Museum Monograph 96. Philadelphia: University Museum. Dever, W.G. 1975 A Middle Bronze I Cemetery at Khirbet elKirmil. Eretz Israel (N. Glueck Volume) 12: 18*–33*. 2014 Excavations at the Early Bronze IV Sites of Jebel Qa’aqir and Be’er Resisim. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 6. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Faerman, M., Smith, P., Boaretto, E., Uziel, J. and Maeir, A. M. 2011 “…In Their Lives and in Their Death …”: A Preliminary Study of an Iron Age Burial Cave at Tell es-Safi, Israel. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 127:29–48.

Gadot, Y. Ilan, D. and Uziel, J. 2014 Local Pottery of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Pp. 43–129 in The Bronze Age Cemetery at Ara, eds. Y. Gadot, D. Ilan, Y. Tepper and E. Yannai. Salvage Excavation Reports. Tel Aviv University: The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology. Gadot Y., Yasur-Landau A. and Uziel J. 2012 The Late Bronze Age Pottery. Pp. 241–64 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gitin, S. 1975 Middle Bronze I ‘Domestic’ Pottery at Jebel Qa'aqir: A Ceramic Inventory of Cave G23. Eretz Israel (N. Glueck Volume) 12:46*– 62*. Hitchcock, L. A., Horwitz, L. K., Boaretto, E., and Maeir, A. M. 2015 One Philistine’s Trash is an Archaeologist’s Treasure: Feasting at Iron Age I, Tell es-Safi/ Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 78(1): 12– 25. Hitchcock, L.A. and Maeir, A.M. 2013 Beyond Creolization and Hybridity: Entangled and Transcultural Identities in Philistia. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28.1:51–74. Kaplan, M.F. 1980 The Origin and Distribution of Tell el Yahudiyeh Ware. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 72. Goteborg: P. Ästrom. London, G.A. 1985 Decoding Designs: The Late Third Millennium B.C. Pottery from Jebel Qa'aqir. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Arizona. Maeir, A. M. (ed.) 2012 Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Maeir, A. M., Hitchcock, L. A. and Horwitz, L. K. 2013 On the Constitution and Transformation of the Philistine Identity. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32:1–38. Shai, I. and Maeir, A. M. 2012 The Late Iron Age IIA Pottery Assemblage from Stratum A3. Pp. 313–64 in Tell esSafi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Stone, B.J. 1995 The Philistines and Acculturation: Culture Change and Ethnic Continuity in the Iron Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 298: 7–32.

219

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T Uziel, J. 2007 The Development Process of Philistine Material Culture: Assimilation, Acculturation and Everything in Between. Levant 39: 165– 73. Uziel, J. and Maeir, A. M. 2005 Scratching the Surface at Gath: Implications of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Surface Survey. Tel Aviv 32/1:50–75 2012 The Early Bronze Age III Pottery from Area E. Pp. 235–40 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir.

Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2018 Philistine Burial Customs in light of the Finds at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81/1: 19–21. Zukerman, A. 2012 Iron Age I and Early Iron Age IIA Pottery. Pp. 265–312 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

220

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

THE HUMAN REMAINS FROM CAVE T1 MARINA FAERMAN AND PATRICIA SMITH

T

ever, even developing teeth showed severe attrition, providing baseline data for assessing attrition rates. Tooth size was measured using a Vernier caliper (accurate to 0.01 mm) along the maximum bucco-lingual and mesio-distal diameters of each tooth with the beaks of the caliper perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth, crown and root length measured at right angles to this. Carious lesions and calculus deposits were recorded for each tooth and attrition scored as described in Smith (1972). Dental enamel hypoplasia was recorded following Smith and Peretz (1986), in relation to tooth type and location on the crown, and then used to estimate the age of individuals when these developmental defects developed.

he human remains recovered from Cave T1 in Area T constituted the largest welldocumented sample of Philistine skeletal materials recovered at the time of excavation. Since, extensive exposure of a burial ground of Philistine nature has occurred at Ashkelon (Master and Aja 2017). We present here a detailed and expanded account of the skeletal remains previously described by Faerman et al. (2011). The distribution of the skeletal and dental elements within the cave and their fragmentary condition shows that most had been disturbed and damaged by compaction caused partly by the activities of grave robbers and partially by roof fall. Despite this, we were able to identify a minimum of 77 individuals from the cave, including individuals of all ages and both sexes. Their association with the late Iron Age I and early Iron Age II Philistine settlement on the tell, suggested by the material goods recovered from the burial cave (see Uziel and Maeir, this volume) has been confirmed by 14 C dates obtained directly from the bones, which indicated that the cave was in use for over 200 years, from the 12th to the 9th century BCE (Faerman et al. 2011; Boaretto, this volume).

AGE AND SEX DISTRIBUTION Every attempt was made to identify all bones and teeth. The minimal number of individuals (MNI) was calculated for each locus and the data are summarized in Table 4.1. At least 42 individuals could be identified from the bone fragments alone (Table 4.2). These included 22 subadults and 20 adults. In addition, there were 936 teeth of which 777 were permanent teeth and 159 were deciduous teeth (Table 4.3), yielding another 35 individuals when incorporated with the skeletal remains. The combined sample comprised a minimum of 77 individuals and included 35 subadults and 42 adults (Table 4.1). Most of the adults were young, aged 20–39 years, with possibly two or three individuals aged over 40 years. However, it should be noted that many bones had disintegrated in situ and others crumbled when exposed. This means that only some skeletal elements, mainly teeth were sufficiently preserved for detailed analyses to be carried out. As seen in Table 4.1 and Table 4.3, the majority of the remains were excavated from the lessdisturbed Loci 99004 and 99007, which are located in the center of the cave and from Locus 99008 located in the northwest corner. These were from 59 individuals of all ages (i.e. adults, children and infants) and all parts of the skeleton were represented, indicating that they are the disturbed remains of primary burials. The remaining loci, that contained few human remains, included fragments from individuals of different ages, indicating that they had been derived from other loci,

HUMAN REMAINS IDENTIFIED As mentioned above, the contents of the burial cave had suffered considerable disturbance both from the actions of grave robbers and from rock fall. As a result, all the human remains were badly fragmented and widely scattered throughout most of the deposits with the main concentration in the center of the cave (Loci 99004 and 99007) although one partially undisturbed interment was found in Locus 99009 in the center of the cave (Fig. 4.4; Fig. 4.14). Age and gender were determined whenever possible, using standard anthropometric criteria after Bass (1995), while identification of skeletal pathology and its interpretation was performed following Ortner (2003). Age estimations were also carried out on the dental remains. For age assessment of developing teeth, we used published standards (Liversidge, Herdeg and Rosing 1998). Since most of the teeth were isolated, we were unable to assess attrition rates for aging fully formed teeth using Miles’ (2001) technique of comparing attrition in teeth of different functional age. How221

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T cemetery, and much higher than that characteristic of Bronze Age or Iron Age cave sites previously described from the Southern Levant, where infants were often buried apart from older children and adults (Fig. 4.15). The age distribution at Tell es-Safi/Gath suggests that life expectancy was even lower than that at Ottoman Period Dor, where historical records indicate that the population was impoverished and suffered from a variety of endemic diseases (Smith and Horwitz 2009). Sex estimation was possible in 11 individuals based on the size of the mastoid process in cranial remains or the diameter of the head of the radius. These 11 included five possible males and six possible females (Table 4.2).

probably when the cave was robbed. The only direct indication of a primary burial was that of the articulated left scapula and left clavicle found in Locus 99009 with fragments of other bones of the same individual, found near the articulated bones, which have been tentatively identified as belonging to a female (Fig. 4.14). A relatively large number of infants were found in the cave, as well as older children and adults of both sexes. Of the 77 individuals identified in the cave, 14.28% were less than two years old, 28.57% were aged 2–12 years and 57.15% were aged 13 years and older. The high frequency of infants and young children at Tell es-Safi/ Gath is similar to that seen in later Ottoman cemeteries where infants were usually interred in the main

Fig. 4.14: A disturbed primary burial in Locus 99009.

222

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

FAERMAN / SMITH: THE HUMAN REMAINS FROM CAVE T1 Locus 99001 99002 99003 99004 99007 99008 99009 99010 All loci

Infants 0–24 months

Children 2–6 yrs

Juveniles 7–12 yrs

1 1 2+1c 1 2+1c 1 1 11 35

1

1 1c 1+1c 1+1c 1

1+3c 2+5c 1 1 1 15

7

Other subadults 1

Males

1 2 1 1

1b

2

5 20

Females

2 2 1 1 6

Other adults 1 2 1 1 1 1a 1a 1 9

Other (dental only)

10c 11c 1c 22 22

Total 2 5 4 24 25 9 4 4 77 77

Note: a older individual; b adolescent/young adult, c additional individuals based on the number of permanent and deciduous upper central incisors and on the number of unerupted permanent lower right first molars. Table 4.1: Minimal Number of Individuals Identified per Locus.

Locus number Age and sex distribution 99001 1 subadult 1 unknown adult 99002 1 infant (0–3 months) 1 child (2–3 years) 1 subadult 1 unknown adult 1 older individual 99003 1 neonate 1 unknown adult 1 adult (male?) 99004 1 neonate 1 infant (0–3 months) 1 child 1 juvenile (10–12 years) 2 adults (both females?) 2 adults (both males?) 1 unknown adult 99007 1 infant (0–3 months) 2 children (3 and 4–6 years) 1 juvenile (8–10 years) 1 adult (female?) 1 older individual (female?) 1 adult (male?) 1 unknown adult 99008 2 infants (0–3 months, one possibly neonate) 1 child (4–6 years) 1 juvenile (8–9 years) 1 late adolescent/young adult 1 adult (male?) 1 adult (female?) 1 older individual 99009 1 infant 1 child 1 adult (female) 1 unknown adult 99010 1 infant 1 child (~6 years) 1 unknown adult TOTAL

Number of individuals per locus (subadults + adults) 2 (1 + 1) 5 (3 + 2)

3 (1 + 2) 9 (4 + 5)

8 (4 + 4)

8 (4 + 4)

4 (2 + 2)

3 (2 + 1) 42 (21 + 21)

Table 4.2: List of Individuals Identified in the Cave from the Bone Findings Only.

223

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T

Table 4.3: Dental Inventory per Locus (Right/Left).

224

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

FAERMAN / SMITH: THE HUMAN REMAINS FROM CAVE T1 of Musgrave and Harneja (1978) for females. The values obtained ranged from 151.8 to 159.3 cm, with an average of 155.3 cm. In addition, metacarpal bone length and development was used to estimate age in children following Rokhlin (1936). The only complete bone was the clavicle, which was found in articulation with a scapula (Locus 99009). It was measured in the field as ~14.0 cm thus probably representing a female and yields a stature estimate circa 154 cm. As can be seen from Table 4.5, the measurements obtained for the adult females from the Tell es-Safi/Gath cave (Locus 99007) fall well within the values for females reported for other Iron Age sites in the region (Smith, Horwitz and Zias 1990; Smith 2008).

SKELETAL MORPHOMETRY The fragmentary condition of the bones limited the scope of morphometric analyses. Cranial remains were represented by small fragments that at times contained indicative elements that were used for sex identification (e.g., size of the mastoid process, orbital margin shape, glabella area prominence). A few measurements could be taken on the five fragmentary mandibles, with the results summarized in Table 4.4. None of the long bones were complete, but the head of the radius was preserved in several individuals as well as isolated metacarpals and phalanges. These were measured to estimate sex. Four of the metacarpals were used to estimate stature using the equations Measurements, mm

L99002 Child 2–3 years

L99008 L99008 Juvenile 8–9 years Adolescent/Young Adult

L99008 Adulta

L99007 Adult, R/L

Bimental breadth Height at foramen mental Width at foramen mental Height at symphysis Width at symphysis Width at PM2–M1 Width at M2–M3

18.83 9.89 -

23.54 12.98 -

16.77 8.42 -

41.8 31.5/31.3 11.3/11.0 [30.9] 13.8 -

12.21 13.59 16.23

Table 4.4: Individual Mandibular Measurements in Children and Adults from Tell es-Safi/Gath (after Faerman et al. 2011). Site and Period

Sex

Height at mental foramen 30±3.6 (n=14)

Width at mental foramen 12±1.6 (n=17)

Height at symphysis 32±2.9 (n=7)

Width at symphysis 14±1.7 (n=10)

Bimental breadth 45±2.9 (n=7)

MB II (combined sites)a

F

Tell es-Safi/Gath, Iron Age IIb Achziv, Iron Age IIc

F?

31.5

11.3

[30.9]

13.8

41.8

F

-

-

28 (n=1)

14–16 (n=3)

40–45 (n=2)

Dor, Ottomand

F

29.3±3.2 (n=12)

10.3±1.3 (n=14)

30.6±2.1 (n=11)

12.2±1.8 (n=13)

41.3±2.4 (n=13)

Note: Data from a Acreche 2001; b Faerman et al. 2011; c Smith et al. 1990; d Smith and Horwitz 2009. Table 4.5: Mandibular Measurements (in mm) in an Adult Female from Tell es-Safi/Gath Compared to Those from Other Sites and Periods.

225

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T

Akhziv Tell es-Safi/Gath Dor

0-1.9 2 20 22

2-5.9 18 27 10

6-10.9 10 13 11

11-17.9 10 4 10

18+ 60 36 47

Fig. 4.15: Comparison of the Age Distribution at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Achziv and Dor.

displasia. Other bony lesions found in adults included three cases of age-related arthritis (Fig. 4.18A, B), a patent metopic suture noted in the frontal bone of an adult, possibly of a male, from Locus 99007, and an abscess at PM2 in an adult maxilla from Locus 99004 (Fig. 4.19).

SKELETAL PATHOLOGY The majority of the long bone fragments identified as belonging to infants or young children exhibited periostitic lesions, with the tibia most commonly affected. Other infant bones with pathological lesions included the orbital roof of an infant frontal bone from Locus 99004 with cribra orbitale, the greater wing of a sphenoid bone recovered from Locus 99003 and two zygomas one from Locus 99002 and one from Locus 99004 with marked porosity and periostitis (Fig. 4.16A, B). An additional case of periostitis was observed on the endocranial surface of a temporal bone fragment of a child from Locus 99010. These pathologies indicate that the infants suffered either from malnutrition (deficiency disorders), infectious diseases, or both, in the period preceding death. In addition, we reported (Faerman et al. 2011) on the shell-shaped depression on the anterior-lateral surface of the internal cortex of the fragmentary right femoral midshaft of an adult, possibly male, from Locus 99004 (Fig. 4.17). The lesion was oval in shape and had well-defined margins. It was about 15 mm long, 10 mm wide and 2 mm deep thus causing thinning of the femoral cortex in the area of the lesion. The inner surface of the depression was absolutely smooth, but the lesion itself was surrounded by an elevated sclerotic rim. Radiographs taken indicate that this may have been due to an enchondroma or fibrous

DENTAL MORPHOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY Altogether 936 teeth were identified (Table 4.3). They include a high proportion of incisors and canines, teeth that are frequently under-represented in skeletal assemblages, since they are single rooted and as such, tend to fall out of the jaws after loss of the soft tissues. This especially applies to secondary burials, so that their frequency in the cave assemblage provides additional support to our conclusions, based on the presence of all skeletal elements, that the cave was used for primary burials. The teeth showed a wide range of variation in size and shape (Fig. 4.20). For instance, crown length in the permanent upper central incisors varied from 10.88 mm to 12.81 mm, root length from 11.28 mm to 16.01 mm, with short roots in 12/87 (16.67%) upper central incisors (8/39 left and 5/39 right). The mesiodistal crown diameter (MD) in these teeth ranged from 7.73 mm to 10.01 mm and the buccolingual crown diameter (BL) from 6.58 mm to 8.64 mm (Table 4.6).

226

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

FAERMAN / SMITH: THE HUMAN REMAINS FROM CAVE T1 Site and Period Kabri, MB IIa Tell es-Safi/Gath, Iron Age IIb Achziv, Iron Age IIb Combined Hellenistic sitesb

Dimension MD BL MD BL MD BL MD BL

Number of Teeth 25 25 36 47 40 40 23 23

Mean (mm) 8.63 7.24 8.61 7.33 8.82 7.32 8.34 6.41

Range (mm) 7.13– 9.99 6.51– 7.88 7.73–10.01 6.58– 8.64 7.61–10.21 6.80– 8.31 7.06–9.23 5.17–7.76

Note: Data from a Faerman et al. 2002; bFaerman et al. 2011. Table 4.6: Mesiodistal and Buccolingual Measurements of the Upper Central Incisors from Tell es-Safi/Gath Compared to other Populations in the Region.

Fig. 4.16: An infant zygomatic bone showing marked porosity and new bone formation on the anterior (A) and orbital surfaces (B).

Fig. 4.18: Age-related bone lesions. Exostosis in a first proximal phalanx of an adult (A) and porosity on the right inferior articulat facet of a thoracic vertebra (B).

Fig. 4.17: A possible case of enchondroma in the left femur of an adult from Locus 99004 (arrow).

Fig. 4.19: Left side of maxilla with abscess cavity in region of the second premolar.

227

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T

Fig. 4.20: Variation in size and shape of upper central incisors. Note heavy deposits of calculus on the two incisors on the left.

Fig. 4.21: Two left lower canines with bifurcated roots.

et al. 1993). Both conditions tend to be inherited, so that their presence in more than one individual with these conditions in the sample found in the burial cave at Tell es-Safi/Gath indicates kinship between some of the interred, whereas the wide range of variation shown in tooth size suggests the inclusion of outsiders – presumably individuals who represent exogenous alliances. Such a finding fits well with assumptions made from analysis of diachronic changes in the Philistine material culture that show a gradual process of change, highly influenced by the local Levantine cultures

In addition, the sample included eleven microdont molars, representing two adults and at least two children, as well as two left lower canines with bifurcated roots (Fig. 4.21). Microdontia of deciduous molars has not been previously described in any skeletal remains from Israel, but isolated instances of canines with bifurcated roots, have been found in sites in Israel (e.g., the Chalcolithic sample from Gilat, Smith et al. 2006). The latter condition is more frequent than microdontia, but is still comparatively rare, occurring in less than 2% of recent populations examined (Pecora

228

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

FAERMAN / SMITH: THE HUMAN REMAINS FROM CAVE T1 were affected. Since crown formation in the deciduous canine begins in utero and continues throughout the first nine months after birth, when infants are normally breast fed, this probably reflects chronic infection of mother and infant as the primary cause, rather than poor diet. These findings are consistent with the skeletal evidence that indicate poor health in the majority of those examined.

(Uziel 2007; Maeir 2012; Maeir, Hitchcock and Horwitz 2013; Hitchcock and Maeir 2013). Morphological details of many of the teeth had been obscured by attrition, limiting the number of teeth that could be accurately scored for these traits. Fig. 4.22 shows the frequency of dental traits in the Tell es-Safi/Gath sample compared with other population groups identified from Israel. Carabelli cusps were slightly less frequent at Tell es-Safi/Gath (35.9% of upper first molars), with the 6th (3.64% of permanent lower molars) and 7th cusps (9.09% of permanent lower molars) infrequent, while lingual incisal tubercles and pits were slightly more frequent. However, the significance of these differences is difficult to evaluate given the relatively small sample sizes and variability in criteria used in the studies quoted (Smith 1977; Mayhall 1998).

DISCUSSION Few detailed studies have yet been carried out to examine the biological evidence for the origins of the Philistines who occupied much of the coastal plain of Israel during the Iron Age,5 or the extent to which they remained a distinct ethnic group over this period. The problem is one of limited samples and/or poor provenience. Thus, the ethnic identity of the individuals buried in the Iron Age cemetery at Azor excavated by M. Dothan and originally identified as Philistine, has recently been questioned by Ben-Shlomo (2012; but see Buchennino and Yannai 2010). In five of these tombs, primary adult burials that were found were examined and described by Ferembach (1961) as fragmentary with nothing to distinguish them from the Late Bronze Age remains from Megiddo described by A. Hrdlicka (1938). Moreover, Ferembach stressed the tentative nature of her findings in view of the small number of specimens available for analysis. More recently, a number of isolated individuals have been found intramurally in Philistine sites in the vicinity of Tell es-Safi/ Gath, such as Tel Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001), but these are still unpublished, with the exception of the woman found in the destruction level at Ashkelon (Smith 2008), and are more recent, dating to the 9th to 6th centuries BCE. As reported above, the results of the dental trait analysis were inconclusive. While this approach has provided much useful information, there are a number of problems associated with its use, so that its reliability for use in dealing with small samples is low (Mayhall 1998).

DENTAL PATHOLOGY Carious lesions were present in 14.7% of lower second molars, 17.2% of lower first molars and 14.2% of lower second premolars.4 This is a relatively high frequency of caries for an Iron Age population in Israel. It was associated with large amounts of dental calculus (Fig. 4.20). This affected 63.6% in the lower central incisors and 10.3% of upper first molars. Many individuals showed extremely high accumulations of calculus frequently covering between 1/3 and 1/2 of the crown. This together with a high prevalence of dental caries in the permanent teeth indicates a poor, sticky, carbohydrate diet and lack of oral hygiene, often associated with poor health. Both permanent and deciduous teeth showed a high prevalence of severe dental enamel hypoplasia (Fig. 4.20, Fig. 4.23) suggesting that the inhabitants of Tell es-Safi/Gath had survived at least one stress episode in infancy and early childhood. Dental enamel hypoplasia was most frequent in the canines (85.3% of the permanent lower canines and 87.5% of the upper permanent canines) indicating repeated episodes of physiologic stress during crown development, namely between two to six years. In the deciduous teeth, 35.3% of the lower canines and 56.7% of the upper canines

4

In the previous article (Faerman et. al. 2011), data for M1 were based on all teeth identified including developing teeth. 5 At the time that this study was conducted and written, the recent exposure of the Ashkelon burial ground had

not yet been known. Although to date, a preliminary study of these remains has been published (Master and Aja 2017), it is our hope that the continued research of the anthropological remains will shed further light on the Philistines and their origins.

229

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T

Note: data from Faerman et al. 2011; Sofaer et al. 1986; Smith et al. 1990; Ullinger et al 2005. Fig. 4.22: Frequency (%) of nonmetric traits in the teeth from Tell es-Safi/Gath in comparison to other populations in the region.

Note: data from Faerman et al. 2011; Smith et al. 1990; Smith and Horwitz 2009. Fig. 4.23: Prevalence (%) of hypoplastic mandibular teeth in different periods.

230

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

FAERMAN / SMITH: THE HUMAN REMAINS FROM CAVE T1 While one possibility is that those interred in the cave represent only the lowest socio-economic stratum of the Tell es-Safi/Gath population, this seems unlikely in view of the quality of the grave goods associated with the human remains. Although Tell es-Safi/Gath and the surrounding region is relatively fertile, supporting mixed farming, a wide range of endemic diseases appear to have been present until recently, including malaria. According to Kligler, Shapiro and Weitzman (1924) this disease was especially prevalent in the area around Tell es-Safi/Gath even in the early part of the 20th century CE, affecting some 30% of the rural Arab population studied in 1923. In summary, this large skeletal sample can be reliably attributed to a population associated with the Philistine culture. The findings show a heterogeneous population in which the majority died at a young age and suffered from chronic stress throughout their lives. Hopefully, future research at the site will yield more information the extent to which the sample described here is representative of the people inhabiting Tell es-Safi/Gath in the past.

The poor preservation of the skeletal remains has limited the extent of morphometric analysis and as a result, the discussion of the ethnic identity of the individuals interred in the cave at Tell esSafi/Gath. However, the morphological variation seen in the teeth suggests that the population represented here was fairly heterogeneous, probably as a result of exogenous unions. At the same time, the high frequency of inherited conditions such as microdontia and bifurcated lower canines implies that more than one generation of the same family was interred in the cave, an inference supported by the radiocarbon findings suggesting that the cave was used over a period of 200 years. One of the more surprising finds, in view of the rich assemblages found in the cave, was the extremely high incidence of skeletal and dental pathology, expressed in periostitis of long bones, dental enamel hypoplasia, caries and calculus. Thus, the estimates for dental enamel hypoplasia in the inhabitants of Tell es-Safi/Gath (Fig. 4.23) are significantly higher than those recorded for the Iron Age Phoenicians from Achziv, or even the 18th– 19th centuries CE Ottoman population from Dor, where findings point to extreme impoverishment and a high frequency of infectious disease (Faerman and Smith 2008; Smith and Horwitz 2009). These findings suggest that the health status of the people interred in the cave was poor throughout their life, and the age distribution indicates that this was associated with a low life expectancy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Professor C. Milgrom from the Department of Orthopedics, Hadassah University Hospital for his valuable assistance in the diagnosis of the enchodroma, and Ms. Y. Giv’ol-Barzilai for her help in the field during the excavations.

REFERENCES Acreche, N. 2001 Skeletal Remains from Efrata and Other Bronze Age Sites in Israel. Pp. 95–109 in Excavations at Efrata, ed. R. Gonen. Israel Antiquity Authority Reports 12. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Bass, W. M. 1995 Human Osteology. A Laboratory and Field Manual. 4th edition. Missouri: Missouri Archaeological Society. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2008 The Cemetery of Azor and Early Iron Age Burial Practices. Levant 40:29–54. Buchennino, A., and Yannai, E. 2010 Iron Age I Tombs in the Azor Cemetery. ’Atiqot 63:18*–40*, 241–2 (Hebrew with English Summary). Faerman, M.; Nebel, A.; Angel-Zohar, N.; and Smith, P. 2002 The Bio-anthropology of the Human Remains from Kabri. Pp. 383–94 in Tel Kabri:

The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, eds. N. Scheftelowitz, and R. Oren. Tel Aviv: Emery and Clare Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Faerman, M., and Smith, P. 2008 Has Society Changed its Attitude to Infants and Children? Evidence from Archae-ological Sites in the Southern Levant. Pp. 211–29 in Nasciturus: Infans, Puerulus. Vobis Mater Terra. La Muerte en la Infancia, eds. F. Gusi, S. Muriel, and C. Olària. Castelló de la Plana: Servei d’Investigacions Arqueològiques i Prehis-tòriques (SIAP): Diputació de Castelló. Faerman, M.; Smith, P.; Boaretto, E.; Uziel, J.; and Maeir, A. M. 2011 “... in their lives, and in their death...” A Preliminary Study of an Iron Age Burial Cave at Tell es-Safi, Israel. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins 127(1):29–48.

231

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T Ferembach, D. 1961 Les Restes Humains des Tombes Philistines du Cimetière d’Azor. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris XI 2:83–91. Hitchcock, L. A. and Maeir, A. M. 2013 Beyond Creolization and Hybridity: Entangled and Transcultural Identities in Philistia. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28.1:51–74. Hrdlička, A. 1938 Skeletal Remains. Pp. 192–208 in Megiddo Tombs, eds. P. L. O. Guy, and R. M. Engberg. Oriental Institute Publications 33. Chicago: University of Chicago. Kligler, I. J.; Shapiro, J. M.; and Weitzman, I. 1924 Malaria in Rural Settlements in Palestine. 2. The Parasite and the Spleen Rates. Journal of Hygiene 23:291–95. Liversidge, H. M.; Herdeg, B.; and Rosing, F.W. 1998 Dental Age Estimation of Non-adults: A Review of Methods and Principles. Pp. 419–41 in Dental Anthropology: Fundamentals, Limits and Prospects, eds. K. Walt, F. W. Rosing, and M. Teschler-Nicola. New York: Springer. Maeir, A.M. 2003 Tell es-Safi/Gath 1996–2002. Israel Exploration Journal 53:237–48. 2012 Chapter 1: The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project 1996–2010: Introduction, Overview and Synopsis of Results. Pp. 1–88 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996– 2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Maeir, A. M., Hitchcock, L. A. and Horwitz, L. K. 2013 On the Constitution and Transformation of the Philistine Identity. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32:1–38. Master, D.M. and Aja, A.D. 2017 The Philistine Cemetery of Ashkelon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 377: 135–59. Mayhall, J. 1998 The Dental Complex: A Morphological Smokescreen or Compass? In Dento-Facial Variation in Perspective, eds. G. Towsend, and J. Kieser. Perspectives in Human Biology 4(3):1–7. Mazar, A., and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Miles, A. E. W. 2001 The Miles Method of Assessing Age from Tooth Wear Revisited. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:973–82.

Musgrave, J. H., and Harneja, N. K. 1978 The Estimation of Adult Stature from Metacarpal Bone Length. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 48:113–20. Ortner, D. J. 2003 Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains, 2nd edition. Amsterdam: Academic Press. Pecora, J. D.; Sousa Neto, M. D.; and Saquy, P. C. 1993 Internal Anatomy, Direction and Number of Roots and Size of Human Mandibular Canines. Brazilian Dental Journal 4:53–7. Rokhlin, D. T. 1936 Rentgenoosteologia i Rentgenoanthropologia. Moscow-Leningrad: Biomedgiz (in Russian). Smith, P. 1972 Diet and Attrition in the Natufians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 37: 233– 38. 1977 Variation in Dental Traits within Populations. Pp. 171–81 in Oro-facial Growth and Development, eds. A. Dahlberg, and T. Graber. Hague: World Anthropology, Mouton Press. 2008 The Skeleton Found in the Iron Age Destruction Level at Ashkelon. Pp. 533–35 in Ashkelon 1: Introduction and Overview (1985– 2006), eds. L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen, and D. M. Master. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Smith, P., and Horwitz, L. K. 2009 A Synthetic Approach to the Study of Diet, Health and Disease in an Ottoman Period Population from Palestine. Al-Rafidan 30: 78–106 Smith, P.; Horwitz, L. K.; and Zias, J. 1990 Human Remains from the Iron Age Cemeteries at Achziv. Part I: The Built Tomb from the Southern Cemetery. Rivista di Studi Fenici 18:137–50. Smith, P.; Mazar, E.; Sabari, P.; Selah, M.; and Ganshrow, R. 1993 The Early Phoenicians Excavated from Achziv, Northern Israel. Israel Research and Exploration 9:54–69. Smith, P., and Peretz, B. 1986 Hypoplasia and Health Status: A Comparison of Two Lifestyles. Human Evolution 1:535–44. Smith, P.; Zagerson, T.; Sabari, P.; Golden, J.; Levy, T. E.; and Dawson, L. 2006 Chapter 8: Death and the Sanctuary: The Human Remains from Gilat. Pp. 327–66 in Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary of Gilat, Israel, ed. T.E. Levy. London: Equinox. Sofaer, J.; Smith, P.; and Kaye, E. 1986 Affinities between Contemporary and Skeletal Jewish and non-Jewish Groups Based on

232

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

FAERMAN / SMITH: THE HUMAN REMAINS FROM CAVE T1 Tooth Morphology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 70:265–75. Ullinger, J. M.; Sheridan, S. G.; Hawke, D. E.; Turner, C. G. 2nd; and Cooley, R. 2005 Bioarchaeological Analysis of Cultural Transition in the Southern Levant using Den-

tal Nonmetric Traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 128:466–76. Uziel, J. 2007 The Development Process of Philistine Material Culture: Assimilation, Acculturation and Everything in Between. Levant 39:165– 73.

233

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

RADIOCARBON DATES FROM CAVE T1 ELISABETTA BOARETTO

E

ranges, stable isotopes ratio and information about the bones are presented in Table 4.7. Calibrated ranges were obtained using OxCal 4.1 software (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2009). The probability distribution of calibrated ranges for ±1σ and ±2σ are shown in Fig. 4.24 (calibration datasets are based on Reimer et al. 2013). The four samples dated are from three different loci (L 99004, 99007 and 99008) and their radiocarbon ages range between 2920±45 BP (RTT 5989) and 2690±50 BP (RTT 5990). Locus 99008 is significantly younger than the other loci. Due to the looting of the cave, it is not easy to determine the original stratigraphy of the different bones so the relationship between the samples is based only on radiocarbon. Calibrated ranges cover a large range and include the Iron Age I and II, or approximately from the 12th century to the 8th century BCE. Based on the calibrated dates, it seems that the cave was used for more than a century of burial. Assuming this was a family burial cave, it should be studied by applying radiocarbon dating to more samples.

Leven human long bone midshaft fragments originating from different loci were selected for radiocarbon dating. The samples were pre-screened using Fourier Transform Infrared analysis (FTIR) in order to determine the presence of clean collagen in the acid insoluble fraction (Yizhaq et al. 2005). Approximately 300 mg of the cortical bone powder was analyzed by FTIR to determine the splitting factor and so the bone preservation (Weiner and Bar Yosef 1990). All samples showed a medium to high splitting factor, indicating relatively poor preservation. The samples were then treated with 1N HCl in order to dissolve the bone mineral and the insoluble fraction was collected. Only those with a clean spectrum of collagen were used in the preparation of radiocarbon samples. Of the 11 pre-screened samples, only four with a collagen content of 0.1% to 1.5% in weight were used for radiocarbon dating. The samples were measured by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (preparation of the samples followed the procedures determined by Yizhaq et al. 2005). Radiocarbon ages, calibrated Lab # RTT

Sample ID

5989

#5 TS 06

5991

#9 TS 06

5988

#4 TS 06

5990

#6 TS 06

Locus Basket Level L 99004 B 990105 L 157.19/156.54 L 99004 B 990032 L 99007 B 990146 L 99008 B 990243

14C age Age±1σ years BP 2920 ± 45

Calibrated Age BCE ±1σ

Calibrated Age BCE ±2σ

1195 (25.0%) 1140 1130 (43.2%) 1050

1190 (2.5%) 1170

δ13C ‰ PDB -18.3

2860 ± 45

1110 (63.9%) 975 950 ( 4.3%) 940 1040 (68.2%) 900

1165 ( 2.7%) 1140

-18.7

1115 (95.4%) 830

-18.6

895 (22.9%) 865 860 (45.3%) 810

970 ( 1.0%) 960 935 (94.4%) 790

-19.3

2810 ± 55 2690 ± 50

Table 4.7: Radiocarbon dating of the bones from Cave T1 with the 14C age given with the standard deviation (±1σ) in years BP. Calibrated ranges are given for ±1σ and ±2σ. For the calibrated ranges, the total range is provided. The stable isotope ratio is also given.

235

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T

Fig. 4.24: Probability distribution of the calibrated ranges for the for bones from the Tell es-Safi/Gath.

REFERENCES Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995 Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37(2): 425–30. 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–60. Reimer, P. J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Blackwell, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Grootes, P. M., Guilderson, T. P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T. J., Hoffmann, D. L., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kaiser, K. F., Kromer, B., Manning, S. W., Niu, M., Reimer, R. W., Richards, D. A., Scott, E. M., Southon, J. R., Staff, R. A., Turney, C. S. M. and van der Plicht, J. 2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0-50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55/4: 1869–1887.

Weiner, S. and Bar-Yosef, O. 1990 States of preservation of bones from prehistoric sites in the Near East: a survey. Journal of Archeological Science 17:187–96. Yizhaq, M. G., Mintz, C. I., Khalally, H. Weiner, S. and Boaretto, E. 2005 Quality controlled radiocarbon dating of bones and charcoal from the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of Motza (Israel). Radiocarbon 47: 193–206.

236

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

STRONTIUM ISOTOPE INVESTIGATION OF HUMAN MOBILITY BASED ON TEETH FROM CAVE T1 IAN MOFFAT, RENAUD JOANNES-BOYAU, LES KINSLEY, MALTE WILLMES AND RAINER GRÜN being more challenging, bone and dentine can also be used. The question of mobility can be addressed in a number of ways using 87Sr/86Sr isotopes. On the most basic level, the method can simply be used to determine if individuals are local or non-local with reference to a background value obtained from the archaeological site or the surrounding area (Bentley et al. 2007; Conlee et al. 2009; Schweissing and Grupe 2000). A more robust approach is to map key geological units from the surrounding area using plant, regolith, bedrock or faunal bioavailable 87Sr/86Sr values (Evans 2010; Hodell 2004; Montgomery, Evans and Cooper 2007; Sillen 1998). In the case of bedrock and regolith, this necessitates leaching the samples in a way that mimics the bioavailable component of their isotopic composition (eg. Capo et al. 1998).

INTRODUCTION Seven adult human teeth from Cave T1 were analysed for trace element concentrations using Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICPMS) and strontium isotope compositions using Laser Ablation Multi-Collector Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-MC-ICPMS). The aim of this study was to examine whether the people buried in Cave T1 were of local or foreign origin, given the known connection of Philistine Tell es-Safi/ Gath with the Aegean, Cyprus and Anatolia (e.g., Maeir 2012). The results for the burial cave specimens were compared to bioavailable 87Sr/86Sr values obtained from soil and rock samples from key geological units throughout Israel. This comparison shows that at least four of the individuals have 87Sr/86Sr values that correspond to the area immediately surrounding the site. The remaining samples analysed in this study have 87Sr/86Sr values that do not correspond to any mapped samples from Israel. This result is explained not by mobility, but as an artifact of the very low strontium concentration in these teeth, which precludes an effective correction for isobaric interferences during laser ablation analysis.

Strontium Isotope Mapping in Israel A comprehensive map of the bioavailable 87 Sr/86Sr values of soil and rock from the principal geological units of Israel has been created (Moffat 2013). The results show that the bioavailable 87 Sr/86Sr values of Israel cluster into four broad domains: the carbonate and siliciclastic province covering most of the country has a 87Sr/86Sr range of 0.7073–0.7101, basalts and other basic volcanic rocks predominately exposed in northern Israel have a 87Sr/86Sr range of 0.7052–0.7072, the metamorphic and igneous lithologies in the Eliat region to the south range in 87Sr/86Sr values from 0.7084–0.7407 and areas with no bedrock (particularly on the coastal plain) have a 87Sr/86Sr range of 0.7078–0.7147. A number of other studies have mapped bioavailable 87Sr/86Sr in Israel, including Hartman and Richards (2014), Herut, Starinsky and Katz (1993), Perry et al. (2008; 2009), Rosenthal, Katz and Tchernov (1989), Shewan (2004) and Spiro et al. (2011), which show broadly similar results to those described above.

Strontium Isotopes and Archaeology Strontium isotope measurements of biological materials from archaeological sites have become a commonly applied technique to discern provenance and to document the distance and vector of mobility during the formation of biogenic carbonates (reviewed by Bentley 2006; Budd et al. 2004; Montgomery 2010; Price et al. 2002). To investigate mobility, the 87Sr/86Sr ratios of biominerals from fossil samples are compared to regional values obtained from local faunal material (Price et al. 2002) or from the analyses of the bioavailable component of strontium from plants, regolith or bedrock (Montgomery et al. 2007). The most suitable biomineral is tooth enamel, due to its mineralization during early life and resistance to post-burial diagenesis (Trickett et al. 2003, Austin et al. 2013), although, while

The Samples Seven human teeth, which are a subset of those described in Faerman and Smith (this volume),

237

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T by both solution and laser analysis at the Australian National University by Boel (2011), Kelly (2007) and Lees (2010). These values were used to define a relationship between solution/ laser offset and strontium concentration, shown in Fig. 4.26. The average strontium concentration values obtained using LA-ICPMS for dentine and enamel tissues in this study were used to correct the strontium isotope values. The accuracy of LA-MC-ICPMS results were evaluated by comparison to values from a Tridacna clam shell, which is a calcite with a homogenous 87Sr/86Sr composition that corresponds to modern seawater at 0.70918. LA-MCICPMS data were also evaluated with reference to the 84Sr/86Sr values from each sample, which should correspond to the value of 0.0565 if 87 Sr/86Sr values are robust.

were used in this study. All teeth were from adult individuals with fully formed crowns. The samples included one incisor (M23), four canines (M24, M25, M26, M28) and two molars (M27 and M32). The teeth generally appear heavily weathered. Methods LA-ICPMS data were collected using an ESI NW213 laser ablation system coupled to an Agilent quadrupole 7700. Two sets of ablation tracks were collected on each sample after a preablation run to remove potential surface contamination. Dentine and enamel were analysed in the same run when possible. Measurements were undertaken using a spot size of 100 µm at 80% intensity and using a 20 µm/s stage rate movement under a mix He and Ar gas flow. The standards NIST 611 and NIST 613 were analysed at the beginning and end of each analysis to allow drift correction and calculation of baseline and concentration values. Dentine from a fossil hippo calibrated by MC-ICPMS measurements was used to estimate the matrix effect. LA-MC-ICPMS data were collected with a Finnigan Neptune with acquisition parameters optimised using a piece of modern Tridacna shell. Sampling was undertaken in discrete spots of 233 μm to increase the spatial accuracy of the results, despite the possibility that the creation of pits can lead to decreased intensity and increased fractionation (Ramos et al. 2004). The analysis spots were collected in transects which crossed enamel and dentine on each tooth, as shown in Fig. 4.25. LA-MC-ICPMS data were corrected offline by applying a ‘gas blank’ Kr correction, a mass bias correction, a rare earth element correction and a rubidium correction (in that order). This analysis used relative element abundances based on Berglund and Wieser (2011) and relative atomic masses based on Audi, Wapstra and Thibault (2003). An additional correction was used to deal with an offset thought to exist between solution and laser values from the same sample due to the effect of a Ca+P+O or Ar+P+O (Willmes et al. 2016) polyatomic interference on mass 87. The effect or Ar+P+O (Willmes et al. 2016) of this offset is thought to increase, apparently making laser values progressively more radiogenic, with decreasing strontium concentration (Copeland et al. 2008; Horstwood, Evans and Montgomery 2008). To correct for this effect, a number of human and faunal tooth samples were examined

Results (Table 4.8, Table 4.9) The concentration of strontium in enamel in this study is within the normal range suggested by Evans et al. (2012: 756). The values for M23, M24 and M27 are quite low and suggest that LA-MCICPMS analysis for 87Sr/86Sr values may be problematic. The concentration of strontium in dentine in these teeth is generally high, suggesting that the LA-MC-ICPMS values should be robust. The low concentration of uranium and thorium measured in all of the teeth in this study suggests that they have not been subject to post-burial diagenesis (e.g., Eggins et al. 2005). The 87Sr/86Sr results of dentine (with the exception of M25) are within 2σ error of each other and have a weighted average of 0.70782 ± 0.00007 which corresponds to bioavailable 87 Sr/86Sr mapping results from a number of Israeli carbonate limestone units. The host geology of the site is somewhat unclear as it is reported by Ackermann and Bruins (2012:123) as belonging to the Zor’a Formation from the Avedat Group, while Sneh, Bartov and Rosensaft (1998) regard this location as belonging to the Maresha Formation. Regardless of which unit actually outcrops at the site, both are Lower-Middle Eocene chalk or limestone units and so should have a similar strontium isotope value. A 87Sr/86Sr value of 0.70784 ± 0.0001, which was obtained from a rock sample from the Avedat group (Moffat 2013), corresponds well with the dentine value obtained from the teeth in this study. The correspondence of the dentine to the geological unit containing this site suggests either that the dentine has been subject to post-burial diagenesis

238

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

MOFFAT ET AL.: STRONTIUM ISOTOPE INVESTIGATION OF HUMAN MOBILITY supports the hypothesis that post-burial diagenesis may not have been extensive.

or that these individuals are local to the area. As discussed above, the generally low levels of uranium and thorium measured in these samples

Fig. 4.25: Teeth following LA-MC-ICPMS analysis showing analysis tracks: a) M23; b) M24 c) M25 d) M26 e) M27 f) M28 g) M32.

239

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-128-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-129-8 (E-Book)

CHAPTER 4: THE EXCAVATIONS IN CAVE T1, AREA T

Fig. 4.26: Relationship between Strontium concentration and 87Sr/86Sr laser/solution offset used for correction of LA-MC-ICPMS Data in this study.

Fig. 4.27: LA-MC-ICPMS 87Sr/86Sr Results from Human Teeth from Tell es-Safi/Gath. Mapping values from the local geology are indicated by the horizontal line on the plot.

Sample M23 M23 M24 M24 M25 M25 M26 M26 M27 M27 M28 M28 M32 M32

Material Enamel Dentine Enamel Dentine Enamel Dentine Enamel Dentine Enamel Dentine Enamel Dentine Enamel Dentine

Sr (ppm) 58.2 318.2 43.9 269.1 145.6 413.8 91.4 308.9 62.1 248.4 229.2 352.5 146.1 324.4

Ba (ppm) 3.3 83.5 1.7 61.5 6.3 55.5 3.9 76.6 1.7 21.8 8.1 83.3 22.4 137.4

Th (ppm)