'En Esur ('Ein Asawir) I: Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel 9654061988, 9789654065696, 9789654061988

Citation preview

IAA Reports, No. 31

‘EN ESUR (‘EIN ASAWIR) I EXCAVATIONS AT A PROTOHISTORIC SITE IN THE COASTAL PLAIN OF ISRAEL ELI YANNAI

With contributions by Donald T. Ariel, Israel Carmi, Zohar Grosinger, Aharon Horowitz, Hamoudi Khalaily, Dorit Lazar-Shorer, Ofer Marder, Ianir Milevski, Yorke M. Rowan, Dror Segal, Sariel Shalev and Flavia Sonntag

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 2006

IAA Reports Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority Editor-in-Chief: Zvi Gal Series Editor: Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz Volume Editor: Shelley Sadeh

Front Cover: Aerial view of the site (photographer: T. Sagiv) and animal figurine (photographer: C. Amit) Back Cover: Various sherds from the site (photographer: C. Amit) Typesetting, Layout and Cover Design: Ann Abuhav Production: Ann Abuhav Illustrations: Natalia Zak Printing: Keterpress Enterprises, Jerusalem Copyright © 2006, The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004 ISBN 965-406-198-8 eISBN 9789654065696 www.antiquities.org.il

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS

iv

PREFACE

v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

11

CHAPTER 3: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREAS A, C, D, E, F, G AND H

51

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

Eli Yannai, Dorit Lazar-Shorer and Zohar Grosinger

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

Ianir Milevski, Ofer Marder, Hamoudi Khalaily and Flavia Sonntag

179

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

Yorke M. Rowan

211

CHAPTER 7: THE SMALL FINDS: STONE, CLAY AND BONE OBJECTS

63

251

CHAPTER 8: THE METAL ADZE

Sariel Shalev

263

CHAPTER 9: PALYNOLOGY AT ‘EN ESUR: THE ADVANCE OF MARSHES AS A POSSIBLE CAUSE FOR SETTLEMENT DESERTION

Aharon Horowitz

267

CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

269

REFERENCES

283

APPENDIX 1: THE RADIOCARBON DATES

Dror Segal and Israel Carmi

290

APPENDIX 2: THE BRONZE COINS

Donald T. Ariel

291

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF LOCI: AREA B

292

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF LOCI: AREAS A, C, D, E, F, G, H

300

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

AAS

Annales Archéologiques de Syrie; continued as: Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes

AASOR

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

ADAJ

Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan

‘Atiqot (ES)

English Series

‘Atiqot (HS)

Hebrew Series

BA

Biblical Archaeologist

BAR Int. S.

British Archaeological Reports International Series

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

ESI

Excavations and Surveys in Israel

HA

Hadashot Arkheologiyot (Hebrew)

HA–ESI

Hadashot Arkheologiyot–Excavations and Surveys in Israel

IAA Reports

Israel Antiquities Authority Reports

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JPOS

Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society

LAAA

Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology

NEAEHL

E. Stern and A. Lewinson-Gilboa eds. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem 1993

OIP

Oriental Institute Publications

PEQ

Palestine Exploration Quarterly

RB

Revue Biblique

SAOC

Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization

ZDPV

Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

v

PREFACE

The excavations at ‘En Esur, carried out between June and November 1993, were directed by Eli Yannai on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA; License No. 2004). The area supervisors were Assaf Cohen and Zohar Grosinger (Area A), Flavia Sonntag and Dorit Lazar-Shorer (Areas B, C, D, E and F) and Eli Yannai (Areas G and H). Dorit Lazar-Shorer served as the expedition’s registrar, and Lior Ya‘aqov-Jam as its administrator. The ceramic finds were prepared for publication by Miri Friedman. The expedition lodged at nearby Kibbutz Barqai; we would like to thank Mr. Avi Barzilai, the kibbutz secretary, for his generous assistance in hosting the expedition during the course of the excavations. We also received considerable help and support from the Northern District of the Public Works Department and Dov Mordochlovich of Reichman Brothers Company. The expedition would also like to thank Oded Schlisser of Moshav ‘En ‘Iron, on whose land the excavation was conducted, for his assistance in providing the expedition with water throughout the course of the work. Area photographs were taken by the author and Tsila Sagiv of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Site plans and drawings were prepared by the author with the assistance of several of the expedition’s laborers who were surveyors by profession. The final plans were prepared by the author. The finds were processed by current and past colleagues at the IAA. The pottery was restored by Erella Tzarfaty and drawn by Marina Rappaport and Yoseph Kapelyan. Yuval Goren performed the petrographic analysis. The flint assemblage was analysed by Ofer Marder, Hamoudi Khalaily, Flavia Sonntag and Ianir Milevski, and its artifacts were drawn by Leonid Zieger and Michael Smilansky. The bones finds were treated by Yossi Nagar. Donald T. Ariel studied the coins. I am grateful to all of them. In addition, the expedition wishes to thank Professors Avi Gopher, Yuval Goren and Ram Gophna from Tel Aviv University for their advice and assistance during

the course of the excavation. We would also like to thank our colleagues from the Israel Antiquities Authority, Eliot Braun, Emanuel Eisenberg and Baruch Brimer, for their counsel. We are indebted to the late Dr. Claire Epstein, who enlightened us concerning problems pertaining to the Chalcolithic period; to Professor Aharon Horowitz, who conducted the palynological analysis and gave so generously of his time in order that we might better understand the processes in the recent ecology of the site and its surroundings; to Yorke Rowan, who studied the groundstone assemblage; to Sariel Shalev, who analyzed the metal adze; to Israel Carmi and Dror Segal, who conducted the radiocarbon analyses; and to the late Professor Ruth Amiran, who continually encouraged us. We also wish to extend special thanks to Yossi Levy and Doron Lipkonski from the Israel Antiquities Authority for their logistical support during the excavation, to Anat Ginzburg for her assistance during the scientific evaluation of the finds prior to publication and to the librarians of the IAA library, Rima Tolkanov and Leonid Rankov, for their help. Dr. Alex Joffe read the manuscript and added valuable comments, and we express ours thanks to him. Thanks are also due to Don Glick for translating the manuscript and to Dr. Shelley Sadeh and Dr. Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz for their editing, and Ann Abuhav for designing the book. Area B was excavated together with Areas A–F during one excavation season in 1993. Area G was excavated in 1999, and Area H, in 2004. The report on the large excavation in Areas A–F was written in 1996; the report on Area G, in 2000; and that of Area H, in 2005. In the years intervening between the writing of the reports new information has been amassed and our opinion has changed slightly regarding some of the topics that were investigated several years previously. With the exception of a few updates from new excavations, the text of the report from 1996 remains unchanged and does not include innovations that occurred between

vi then and 2006. Therefore, some parts of the report that were written in different years may be dissonant with other sections, a result of the analyses of new data and advances research has made over time. We did not feel

it necessary to change the old version; each section should be judged in light of the date at which it was written. Eli Yannai 2006

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

THE SITE The site of ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) is located in the northern Sharon Plain, in the vicinity of the copious springs of ‘En Esur (Fig. 1.1). Judging from the large size of the protohistoric site (60–70 hectares), ‘En Esur was one of the main settlements in the northern Sharon Plain and Samaria, situated between Afeq to the south and the Lower Galilee hills to the north (Albright 1923:10; Alt 1929:35, 1932:31). The excavation at ‘En Esur was a salvage excavation necessitated by the widening of the ‘Afula–Hadera road, which cuts across the site from the northeast to

Fig. 1.1. Location of ‘En Esur in the northern coastal plain.

the southwest. The site is located atop stratified alluvial soil that was carried to the site by Nahal ‘Iron (Wadi ‘Ara), as well as soil that eroded from the loam and chalk hills located to the north and west. There are two main springs at ‘En Esur that flow forth from a number of outlets spread over an area of about two hectares (Fig. 1.2). The source of the springs is in the geological fault at the western edge of the Menashe Syncline. They are fed primarily by the winter rains that fall in the Menashe Hills and Mount Amir (Umm el-Fahm Anticline; see Fig. 1.4). A plentiful flow of water issues from the springs year round.1

Fig. 1.2. Topographical map of the site and the excavation areas.

2

ELI YANNAI

Fig. 1.3. ‘En Esur and the later tell (photographer: R. Gophna).

The archaeological site at ‘En Esur consists of three principal elements (Figs. 1.2, 1.3; Gophna 1974:25–26): 1. A tell covering approximately three hectares that accumulated in the last phase of Middle Bronze Age IIA and rises to an elevation of about 66 m above sea level. Middle and Late Bronze Age sherds were collected from the surface of the tell. In its southeastern corner, Iron Age sherds were found (parallel to those from Level III at Megiddo and the levels following the Assyrian destruction at Samaria), as well as sherds from the Persian period. 2. A small mound rising to a height of 58.5 m asl, covering less than half a hectare in area. It is located east of the tell, approximately 50 m south of the spring’s primary outlet. Sherds collected on the mound date from the end of the Iron Age and the Byzantine and Islamic periods; a few can be attributed to the Intermediate Bronze Age. A small Ottoman khan stood on the mound until the 1960s, when it was dismantled by the Israel Defense Forces. 3. The protohistoric site, the subject of the present study,2 covering 60–70 hectares in area and extending south along two of the streams that flow forth from the area of the springs. These streams divide the protohistoric site into four parts: a. The eastern part of the site extending east of the eastern stream to the foot of the chalk hills at the entrance to Nahal ‘Iron. The area of the site near the spring is narrow and very close to the streambed, whereas further to the south it widens out and extends

as far as 400 m beyond the spring. The northern part is 53 m asl at the edge of the chalk hills. The southern part, next to the Nahal Hadera riverbed, is 48.40 m asl and consists of alluvial soil. Area A was situated in this part of the site. b. The low area to the west of the eastern stream. Exploratory sections carried out in this area did not yield any antiquities, but revealed layers of black marsh soil alternating with layers of river pebbles down to the chalk bedrock at a depth of 8 m. These formations are evidence of earlier streambeds and flood basins that intermittently covered the area. In some cases the pebbles were washed down from Nahal Hadera; others were eroded from the Menashe Hills. Alluvium that originated upstream from Nahal Hadera blocked the spring’s natural drainage into the streambed, thereby producing a swamp (possibly seasonal) that prevented settlement in this area and created an open, uninhabited area between the site’s eastern and central sections. c. The central part of the site between the two streams. It is located on a low spur approximately 2 m higher than the surrounding area. The spur extends about 800 m from the foot of the Middle Bronze Age tell southward, descending from a height of 55 m down to 48 m asl. The western stream gradually diminishes and disappears towards the end of the spur where the central part of the site merges with the western part. This spur is actually a protohistoric tell which is covered by a layer of recently deposited soil. Today, most of the site is below the water table. We did not

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

3

have the facilities to ascertain the level of the water table or the flow levels of the spring at the time the settlement was inhabited. Areas B, C, D and E were located in this part of the site. d. The western part of the site lying west of the western stream. It consists of the eastern slope of a high loam spur extending eastward about 700 m, where it merges with the central part of the site. This is the highest part of the site at 61 m asl. Areas F, G and H and a number of exploratory sections were located here.

THE SETTING The Geomorphological Setting of the ‘En Esur Region The ‘En Esur region consists of three primary landscape units (Fig. 1.4; Rot 1977): 1. To the east—the western Amir Anticline. This hilly area, rising to an elevation of 518 m asl, is comprised of exposures of Cenomanian–Turonian rock, mostly dolomite, limestone and marl with volcanic intercalations (basalt and tuff). On the lower western side of the anticline, younger Senonian–Neogene rocks are exposed, comprising chalk, flint and some conglomerates. These rocks (primarily from the Eocene Zor‘a Formation) lie beneath the alluvium in the eastern part of the ‘En Esur site. 2. To the north and northeast—the western Menashe Syncline. This structure of rolling hills rises to an elevation of 387 m asl. The unit consists of soft chalk bedrock covered with nari soil. Nahal ‘Iron passes between Units 1 and 2, constituting a clear geomorphological boundary. 3. To the west and south—the northern Sharon Plain and the Nahal Hadera and Nahal Tanninim basins. This unit, rising 50–60 m asl, is formed of low loam hills separated by elongated valleys covered by alluvium. The northern part of the Nahal Hadera basin, where ‘En Esur is located, is a young shift covered with recent sediments. The western part of the site rests on the youngest alluvium sediments, the bottom of which consists of loam mixed with kurkar (Quarternary calcareous sandstone). Geological Formations The following formations were exposed in the vicinity of the site, from earliest to latest:

Fig. 1.4. Geological map of ‘En Esur and its surroundings (after Rot 1977: Fig. 2).

Deir Hanna Formation (Middle Cenomanian). Most of this formation crops out in the middle of the Amir Anticline (to the east of the area shown in Fig. 1.4), with a large part of it in the vicinity of Kfar ‘Ar’ara, about 5 km east of the site. The formation consists of stratified layers of soft dolomite. Often, the rock resembles either chalk or alternating layers of limestone with lens-like intercalations of volcanic rock (basalt and tuff). Flint lenses are widespread throughout this formation, as are quartz concretions which were extensively used in constructions at the site. Relatively deep, reddishbrown terra rossa soils cover this formation in places. Where softer rock is present, brown chalky rendzina, or often grayish-brown limey rendzina soils are found. Colluvial alluvial clay, containing lime, is usually found in the depressions. Sakhnin Formation (Upper Cenomanian). This formation rests atop the Deir Hanna Formation, essentially at the peak of the ridge. The Sakhnin Formation extends eastward from the Vered Quarry

4

ELI YANNAI

for a distance of about 2 km, to the village of Barta‘a. The predominant type of rock is dolomite, producing a stony terrain. The formation is divided into two units: The lower unit consists of very porous calcareous dolomite, with medium-sized crystals and flint lenses. The friable rock is characterized by many karstic occurrences. This unit is limited to the vicinity of Barta‘a, about 5 km from the site. Nahal Aharon cuts through the center of the unit south of Nahal ‘Iron; thus no rock from this unit was found at the site. The upper unit is dense, hard dolomite and calcareous dolomite, with alternating limestone layers. This unit is present at the Vered Quarry and in the spurs to the south, extending as far as Umm el-Kutuf. It is located about 2 km from the site. Much of the unit is exposed along the northern slope of the Amir Anticline. Rocks from this unit are carried along the Nahal ‘Iron riverbed to within the immediate vicinity of the site; they constitute a widely used component in the foundations of the buildings. Relatively deep deposits of brown rendzina soil, with no lime, characteristic of moderately inclined slopes, cover the formation. Shallow deposits of brown rendzina are found on the more precipitous slopes. In the valleys and depressions, colluvial alluvial clay containing lime is usually found. Ba‘ana Formation (Turonian). The Ba‘ana Formation occurs widely along the hills to the south and east of the site. It is present in the entire area south of Kibbutz Barqai as far as Mezer. Its two facies consist of limestone and dolomite. In various places there are concentrations of irregular flint. Highly developed, widespread nari occurrences cover the rocks. The formation runs along both sides of Nahal ‘Iron for its entire length. Kibbutz Barqai, near the site, is located on an isolated hill of the Mishash Formation of the Mount Scopus Group, as is the British Mandate Taggart-type fort on a hill further to the south. A substantial amount of the building stones at the site originate from the limestone facies of the Ba‘ana Formation. As the dolomite facies is primarily found in the eastern part of Mount Amir, none of the stones at the site came from there. Zor‘a Formation (Lower Eocene). This formation consists of limestone and chalk with numerous flint lenses and layers. The formation reaches from the

eastern edge of the site up to Kfar Qara‘ and to the north of the site for a distance of 2 km. Horsha–Bet Guvrin Formation (Middle Eocene). This formation comprises soft chalk containing very few flint lenses and is covered by a layer of nari. The formation stretches from the Nahal Barkan basin, about 2 km north of the site, as far as Mount Horshan in the Carmel. Volcanism Many volcanic exposures of tuff and basalt are found in the Deir Hanna Formation, primarily in the Mount Amir Anticline, in the vicinity of Me ‘Ammi. Numerous volcanic occurrences are also present around Megiddo. These seem to be the sources for some of the basalt found at the site. Alluvial Soils Alluvial soils cover the entire site. They are primarily clayey soils, with extremely fine granules (nazaz). The thickness of the soil layers ranges from a few centimeters at the edge of the site above the Zor‘a Formation to several meters at the center of the tell to the west, where it meets the loam soils at the edge of the site. The accumulated brown loam contains nazaz, hydromorphic grumusol, undulated soils and frequently also alluvial loam soils. The nazaz is usually located in the areas bordering the site. The marsh in the center of the site consists of hydromorphic and undulated grumusols.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON SETTLEMENT AT ‘EN ESUR The variety of morphological units and rock formations in the vicinity of ‘En Esur, including dolomite and basalt from Mount Amir, and chalk and flint from the ridge of the Menashe Hills, presented an abundance of possibilities for exploitation by man. The residents of ‘En Esur drew upon these sources for a wide range of building stones, in both industrial and domestic architecture. The fertile alluvial soil, irrigated by the ‘En Esur springs, facilitated year-round cultivation of field crops. The light loam soil west of the site was ideal

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

for raising livestock, while the rendzina soil of the Menashe Hills and Mount Amir was suitable for planting orchards (Dunand 1972:300; Esse 1991:163; Haring and de Maaijer 1998). Dense forests covered the hills to the east, north and south, as well as the loam hills to the west. These forests supplied the wood needed for construction, heating and cooking, as well as the energy-intensive production of goods such as metal tools and ceramics. The nearby forests also provided the residents with a plentiful source of animals that occasionally approached the vicinity of the spring. The main route in western Israel, from Afeq to Megiddo, passed by ‘En Esur. The route skirting the southern edge of the Carmel range from the direction of Dor also traversed the ‘En Esur crossroads. Another route reached the spring from the direction of Yoqne‘am and the northern Carmel. From the climate data available for the past 10,000 years, it appears unlikely that the region suffered from a shortage of water, a problem that plagued other areas of Israel in the periods under discussion. However, the spring could have been a problem for the residents of the site at times, as it was most likely affected by fluctuations in the quantity of water flowing from the spring. 1. In the case of a decrease in output, other springs in the vicinity were liable to dry up completely. As a result, the outlying populace would attempt to access the ‘En Esur springs, which under these conditions would be the only flowing springs between Afeq to the south and Megiddo, ‘Ein el-Jarba and es-Sindiyāna to the north. 2. Floods in Nahal ‘Iron were apt to block the natural drainage of ‘En Esur, thus creating a swamp in the area. 3. Overall climatic changes in Israel such as excess precipitation, the blockage of drainage routes to the sea or tectonic movements could all conceivably cause an increase in the springs’ flow. During the span of the site’s prosperity, that is, during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, the climate was either similar to that of today or perhaps slightly more humid (Horowitz 1987). It would appear that the abandonment of the ‘En Esur settlement (and the Sharon Plain in general), from EB II until the beginning of the Intermediate Bronze Age, was due to climatic changes, even though we do not have the means to determine what factors precipitated these changes (see Chapter 9).

5

BACKGROUND Archaeological Surveys and Excavations of ‘En Esur and Its Surroundings The first survey of the site was conducted by the Palestine Exploration Fund, followed by that of W.F. Albright during a trip along the Via Maris. Albright identified the tell as Yaham (Albright 1923:9). A. Alt, after his survey, suggested identifying the site as Aruboth (Alt 1929:34; 1932:31). Another survey was undertaken by two researchers of historical geography, B. Mazar and Y. Aharoni, who attempted to confirm the proposed identity of ‘En Esur as the ancient city of Aruboth. In some maps dating from the 1950s and 1960s, Tel Esur (the Hebrew name, or Tell Asawir in Arabic) is actually referred to as Aruboth. Only after it became apparent that there was no factual basis whatsoever for this identification, did the name of the site revert back to Tell Asawir. The first excavation at ‘En Esur was directed by M. Dothan, who excavated a tomb on the northern slope of a chalk hill about 200 m east of the ‘En Esur spring (Dothan 1970). During his excavation of the tomb, Dothan also surveyed the MB IIA tell. His survey did not encompass the area around the site; consequently, he was unaware of the protohistoric site situated at the foot of the tell. Dothan did not find any Early Bronze Age sherds in his survey and assumed that they were not to be found on the tell (Dothan 1970:13). The first person to thoroughly survey the site and its environs was R. Gophna (1974). He was also the first to recognize the large dimensions of the protohistoric site, which he dated to the Early Bronze Age IB.3 In 1966, the site was resurveyed by the survey team from the Tel Zeror expedition.4 While the survey team worked on the Middle Bronze Age tell, the present author conducted an in-depth survey of the surrounding area in which sherds from the Wadi Rabah Culture were discovered for the first time, as well as sherds from the Chalcolithic period, EB I (both phases) and the Intermediate Bronze Age. Gophna also identified among them sherds belonging to Pottery Neolithic A (Jericho IX Culture).5 A second excavation was carried out in the southern part of the site under the direction of R. Gophna (1978). Y. Ne’eman surveyed the vicinity of the site within the framework of the Hadera and Ma’anit maps (Ne’eman 1990). Following the conclusion of the present salvage excavations at the protohistoric site (1993), two

6

ELI YANNAI

seasons of excavations were conducted in the eastern and southern cemeteries.6 During the summer of 2001, A. Zertal began excavations on the biblical tell on behalf of the University of Haifa. Regional Surveys: The Settlements at ‘En Esur within the Context of the Northern Sharon Plain Sherds dating to Pottery Neolithic A (Jericho IX and Yarmukian) were recovered from only two sites in the northern Sharon: Magal and ‘En Esur. Material remains belonging to the Wadi Rabah Culture were found in surveys conducted in the Sharon Plain at a number of sites: Horbat Rogum (Shalem 2002:51), in the fish ponds of ‘En Ha-Horesh (Porath, Dar and Applebaum 1985:176), at Magal (Gophna 1974; Ad and Yannai, forthcoming) and at ‘En Esur. In addition to Asawir, one site dated to the Early Chalcolithic period was excavated at Nazur (Yannai, forthcoming c). A total of 15 sites with remains from the Ghassulian phase of the Chalcolithic period were located in the northern Sharon Plain: ‘En Esur (Asawir), Burga (HA 41–42:16), Khirbet Baza‘ah (unpublished), Hadera (Sukenik 1937), Mezer (Dothan 1957), H. Rogum (Shalem 2002:51), the fishponds at Kibbutz Ha-Ma‘pil (Porath, Dar and Appelbaum 1985:178), Ma‘barot (Porath 2006), Olesh (Porath 1978), Sha‘ar Efrayim (Oren and Schftelowitz 1998), et-Taiyiba (Yannai and Porath 2006), Kh. el-Jalama near et-Taiyiba (Porath 1977) and Tenuvot (Tel Shevah; Yannai 2000). Sites dated to the early phase of EB I were identified in the fish ponds at Ma‘barot (Dar 1977:3) and Kibbutz Mishmar Ha-Sharon (Porat, Dar and Appelbaum 1985:203, 205; Porath 2006) and at et-Taiyiba (Yannai and Yunis 2001), and sherds from this period were also found during the construction of the fish ponds at Kibbutz Ha-Ma‘pil (unpublished). The settlements founded in earlier periods at Kh. el-Jalama and Olesh continued into the early phase of this period. Gophna surveyed several sites (e.g., Mayan Dor) along the Carmel coast and sites were discovered at the foot of Sheikh Helu (Hadera; Sukenik 1937), at Kh. Baza‘ah (near ‘En Shemer; Gophna 1974:22–27) and at Mezer (Dothan 1957). Sherds from this period were also retrieved on the hills of both Baq‘a el-Garbiyeh and Magal, as well as at et-Taiyiba (Gophna 1974:33). With the exception of Magal and the establishment of the settlement at Tel Ifshar (Porat, Dar and Appelbaum 1985:170), the settlements at all these sites were

abandoned by the later phase of EB I. It appears that in this period, when the settlement at ‘En Esur reached its maximum size, the population was primarily concentrated in large settlements (‘En Esur, Magal and Afeq) as opposed to the plethora of smaller settlements that characterized the earlier periods (Table 1.1). With the exception of Magal, which flourished in EB II–III, no sites dating to that period are known in the Sharon Plain at the foot of the Carmel range. Gophna and the author recovered fragments of EB II platters along with several Chalcolithic sherds from the Middle Bronze Age rampart at Tel Burga. In our opinion, they were not in situ but rather in secondary use mixed within the fill used to construct the rampart. The settlements from which these sherds were removed have not yet been identified. Vessels from EB II were uncovered in the southern cemetery at ‘En Esur; however, excavation of the protohistoric site revealed no signs of a settlement from this period. Synthesis The first problem in synthesizing the data from the excavations with the information collected from the surveys of both the immediate vicinity and the entire region is ascertaining the extent to which they reflect reality. The second problem involves determining the size of the territory that fell under the sphere of influence of the site and its residents in antiquity, as well as the commercial and cultural ties of the early residents. Most of the sites listed in Table 1.1 were unknown prior to having been damaged by modernday construction activities. It seems probable that the settlement distribution in the Nahal Alexander, Nahal Hadera and Nahal Tanninim basins was much more extensive than what has been inadvertently exposed by modern-day construction (Table 1.2). Most of these sites are today covered by erosion and can only be examined where the erosion layer has been removed, as in the case of fish ponds or damaged burial caves located on the top of hills, such as in Hadera, Ma‘barot and et-Taiyiba. Despite the considerable amount of data gathered from the northern Sharon Plain and the Menashe Hills, we still do not know unequivocally if all the sites revealed in surveys were somehow affiliated with ‘En Esur, nor do we know the essence of the connection between them (see Fig. 1.1).

7

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Table 1.1. Equivalence of Protohistoric Sites in the Northern Sharon Plain to the ‘En Esur Strata Size of Site (Hectares)

Equivalent General Site Stratum at ‘En Esur

3–5

VII

Period

Site

Number of Periods

Pottery Neolithic A

Magal (**)

6

Gophna 1974:25; Ad and Yannai, forthcoming

H. Rogum

4

Shalem 2002:51

‘En Ha-Horesh (**)

1

Gophna 1974:71

H. Rogum

4

Shalem 2002:51

Early Chalcolithic

Nazur (*)

1

Yannai, forthcoming c

1

VB–C

Late Chalcolithic

Tel Burga (**)

1

HA 41–42:16

?

VA–IV

Mezer (*)

2

Dothan 1959b

0.4–0.5

IV

Porath 2006

Burial cave

Wadi Rabah Culture

Ma‘barot

Early EB I

Late EB I

* Excavated

Ha-Ma‘pil fish ponds

2

Publication

VII 0.5

VI VI

Porath, Dar and Applebaum 1985

? IV

H. Rogum

4

Shalem 2002:51

Kh. Baza‘ah (**)

2

Gophna 1974:27

0.2–0.3

IV IV

Hadera (**)

2

Sukenik 1937

Burial cave

IV

Tel Ifshar*

?

Porath 2006

Burial cave

IV

Olesh (*)

2

Porath 1978

0.5–0.8

IV

Tenuvot (*)

1

Yannai 2000

0.2

IV

Fara‘un (**)

2

Gophna 1974:33

Sha‘ar Efrayim (*)

2

Oren and Scheftelowitz 1988

Burial cave

IV

Et-Taiyiba (*)

2

Porath 1991; Yannai and Porath 2006

Burial cave

IV

Kh. el-Jalama (**)

2

Porath 1977

0.3–0.4

IV

Mezer (*)

2

Dothan 1959b

0.4–0.5

III

Kh. Baza‘ah (**)

2

Gophna 1974:27

0.2–0.3

III

Hadera (**)

2

Gophna 1974:25

0.1

III

‘En Shemer (**)

1

Unpublished

0.1–0.2

III

Baq‘a el-Garbiyeh (**)

1

Unpublished

0.1–0.2

III

Jatt (*)

4

Yannai 1999a

?

III

H. Rogum (*)

4

Shalem 2002:51

0.3–0.4

III

Ha-Ma‘pil fish ponds (**)

1

Unpublished

0.1

III

Ma‘barot (*)

2

Gophna 1974:30

0.3–0.4

III

Mishmar Ha-Sharon (**)

1

Porath, Dar and Applebaum 1985:203

?

III

Olesh (*)

2

Porath 1978

0.2–0.3

III

Fara‘un (**)

2

Gophna 1974:33

3–4

III

Sha‘ar Efrayim (*)

2

Scheftelowitz and Oren 2004

Burial cave

III

Et-Taiyiba (**)

2

Gophna 1974:33; Yannai and Yunis 2001

0.1

III

Kh. el-Jalama (**)

2

Unpublished

0.2–0.3

III

Kefar Glickson (*)

1

Siegelman 1978

Burial cave

II

Magal (*)

2

Gophna 1974:28

0.3–0.4

II

Tel Ifshar (*)

1

Gophna 1974:31

?

II

Qaqun (**)

1

Unpublished

?

II

Ma‘barot (*)

1

Gophna 1974:31; Porath 2006

Burial cave

II

** Surveyed

8

ELI YANNAI

Table 1.2. Distribution of Sites in the River Basins of the Northern Sharon Plain Period

Nahal Tanninim Basin Settlements

Tombs

Nahal Hadera Basin Settlements

Pottery Neolithic A

‘En Esur VII Magal

Wadi Rabah Culture

‘En Esur VI H. Rogum

Early Chalcolithic

‘En Esur V Nazur

Late Chalcolithic

Burga

‘En Esur IV Mezer II Kh. Baza‘ah H. Rogum

Early EB I

Late EB I

Tombs

‘En Esur II Magal

THE 1993 EXCAVATIONS7 Excavation Strategy As the excavation at ‘En Esur was a salvage excavation, work was restricted to the course of the road-paving activities, along the northern edge of the ‘Afula–Hadera road (Highway No. 65). The team of excavators had to locate the key areas within the line of the planned road, from which they were not permitted to deviate. The paving operation did not damage any antiquities, with the exception of the excavation of the drainage channel along the edge of the road. The excavation was therefore intended to document the antiquities that were to be covered over for generations by the paving operation (Braun 1992). Our approach to the excavation was based on the following assumptions: a. The limited size of the area available for excavation would permit only soundings in a small part of the site’s overall area. b. The site existed from the beginning of the Pottery Neolithic period until the end of EB I; therefore, it would be desirable to find those excavation areas with the most stratified layers. c. Due to the size of the site (c. 50 hectares) it would be necessary to excavate as large a central area as possible in the early multilayered tell and to sample as many

Settlements

Tombs

‘En Ha-Horesh

Hadera

‘En Esur III Mezer Kh. Baza‘ah ‘En Shemer Baq‘a el-Garbiyeh Hadera Jatt H. Rogum Kefar Glickson

Nahal Alexander Basin

Burgeta Tenuvot Kh. el-Jalama

Tel Ifshar

Ma‘barot Mishmar Ha-Sharon Kh. el-Jalama Ha-Ma‘pil Qaqun

‘En Esur

Tel Ifshar

Ma‘barot

secondary areas as possible in order to understand the settlement pattern in all of its periods, throughout the entire site. In order to locate the early protohistoric tell, the author extensively surveyed the area. Sherds, stone and flint items were collected from along the length of the intended path of the road surfacing. The central excavation area (Area B) and the secondary areas were chosen following the preliminary survey. The excavation in Area B was conducted in two rows of 5 × 5 m squares. After five months of fieldwork, a third row was added to the northern side of the area due to changes in the intended line of the paving. The locations of the secondary areas of excavation were as follows (see Fig. 1.2): Area A—Located in the easternmost part of the site along the western slope of the Menashe Hills. Area C—Northeast of Area B, next to the edge of the marsh in the middle of the site. Area D—Between Areas C and B, where several stone walls were damaged by mechanical equipment. Area E—Southwest of Area B in order to determine the stratigraphy in the southwestern part of the site. Area F—Southwest of Area E in order to examine the stratigraphy along the southern limits of the site. Area G—West of Area E. Area G was not part of the 1993 excavations at ‘En Esur, but was a salvage

9

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Table 1.3. Comparison of Strata in the Excavation Areas Period

General Site Stratum

Topsoil

IA

Intermediate Bronze Age

IB

Late EB I

IIA

Late EB I

IIB

Early EB I

III

Late Chalcolithic Late Chalcolithic Early Chalcolithic

Local Stratum Area A

Area B

Area C

Area D

Area E

Area F1

Area G

AI–II

BI

CI

DI

EI

-

GI

CII

-

BIIA

DII

EII

-

GI–GII

BIIB

DII

EII

-

GIII

BIII

-

GIV–GVI (GVII?)

IV

BIV

-

GVIII

VA

BVA

-

VB–C

BVB–C

-

Wadi Rabah Culture

VI

BVI

Pottery Neolithic A

VII

BVII

1

AIII

Area H

DIII

-

GIX

HI

HII

-

Area F yielded no architectural remains

excavation conducted in 1999 following damage to the site caused by heavy mechanical equipment. Therefore, the considerations of where and what to excavate were not scientific but rather dictated by necessity. Area H—The westernmost part of the settlement, southwest of Area G. A salvage excavation was conducted here in 2004 following further damage to the site. Stratigraphy (Table 1.3) Sherds dating to the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods and all phases of EB I were collected in the preliminary survey in Area B. The basic stratigraphic divisions of the excavation were therefore determined according to the stratigraphy in Area B. The highway’s drainage trench ran through the southern row of squares. By the second week of excavation, buildings and occupation levels from two EB I phases and the corner of Building 2010 from the Chalcolithic period had been exposed at the bottom of the drainage trench and its northern slope. Stratum I. Layer of plowed surface soil that covers the entire area of the excavation, divided into two secondary levels. Stratum IA, the higher level, had been plowed and none of its finds, except for three coins (see Appendix 2), were publishable. Stratum IB, the lower level, consists of black soil which covers the entire area below the plowed layer (see Chapter 9). Stratum II. The later phase of EB I. Remains from this period were found in all areas of excavation and

cover most of the area of the site (approximately 50 hectares). Stratum III. The earlier phase of EB I, exposed in Areas B and G. Presumably, the extent of the settlement at this time was somewhat limited. Stratum IV. The latest phase of the Chalcolithic period (Ghassulian), uncovered in Areas B and G. Sherds from this period were discovered during the survey in other parts of the site. Stratum VA. A pre-Ghassulian phase of the Chalcolithic period present only in Area B. Stratum VB–C. An early phase of the Chalcolithic period, excavated only in Area B. Stratum VI. Remains of the Wadi Rabah Culture, from Areas B and D, in the area (G) excavated by R. Gophna south of the road and in Area H. Sherds belonging to this culture were recovered during the survey throughout the entire site. Based on their dispersal pattern, the Wadi Rabah settlement extended over a substantial portion of the site. Stratum VII. Pottery Neolithic A (Jericho IX) sherds (Kenyon 1957; Gopher and Gophna 1993; Blockman 1997) were found both in Area B and, in the course of the survey, near the spring, located approximately 400 m from Area B.

10

ELI YANNAI

Method of Registration The method of registering loci, walls and finds is similar to the system used at Tel Lakhish (Ussishkin 2004:33–34). The locus number consists of four digits according to the excavation area (e.g., Area A = Locus 1000, Area B = Locus 2000, etc.). Basket numbers have five digits, the first of which matches the area number (e.g., Area A = Basket 10000, etc.). Wall numbers are two digits and have no numerical correlation with the area of excavation. Each basket consists of three sub-baskets designated with the following suffixes: B = Bones, F = Flint and S = Stones and other finds.

At the start of each day of excavation, a new basket was opened for each locus. At the end of each day, the absolute heights for that day’s baskets were recorded. The sherds were registered in the field. The excavation permit number, locus number, basket number and item number were recorded on each sherd that was saved. The sherds and other finds from the excavation are presently stored in the warehouses of the Israel Antiquities Authority in two groups. One group consists of the pottery sherds according to the figures published herein, and the other group contains the sherds and other finds that do not appear in this report.

NOTES 1

The springs (Uyun el-Asawir) were first recorded and researched by the Department of Development during the British Mandate (Blake 1947:176–178). The table presents the recorded annual outflow of the spring from 1979 to 1996: Year of Measurement

Total Amount of Precipitation (mm)

Total Output of the Spring (m3)

First and Last Dates of the Outflow (Day.Month.Year)

1979–1980

785

838,872

28.12.79–6.8.1980

1980–1981

642

1,100,584

4.1.81–3.7.1981

1981–1982

289

No outflow at all

1982–1983

615

878,470

1.1.83–8.8.1983

1983–1984

489

193,134

19.1.84–30.5.1984

1984–1985

417

247,320

2.2.85–16.6.1985

1985–1986

489

361,800

15.1.86–3.7.1986

1986–1987

687

610,000

12.11.86–20.6.1987

1987–1988

687

1,109,690

12.12.87–6.8.1988

1988–1989

413

166,500

5.2.89–25.5.1989

1989–1990

496

541,000

4.1.90–30.6.1990

1990–1991

475

309,108

9.2.91–22.7.1991

1991–1992

1215

1,753,000

2.12.91–11.9.1992

1992–1993

580

896,000

16.12.92–7.8.1993

1993–1994

489

211,000

16.1.94–5.7.1994

1994–1995

987

1,211,400

23.11.94–3.9.1995

1995–1996

530

397,500

8.1.96–5.8.1996

The spring starts to flow following 300 mm of precipitation, usually beginning in January. Before 1938, when drilling of wells in the aquifer that feeds the spring began, copious amounts of water flowed from the spring year round and even created a marsh-like environment in the summer months of very hot years. I wish to extend my sincerest thanks to Mr. Yehuda Ashkenazi of Kibbutz Barqai for the data presented here. 2 The term ‘site’ will henceforth relate only to the protohistoric site and not to the tell or the small mound. 3 The survey sherds today make up part of the study collection at Tel Aviv University. 4 This survey was never published. 5 The definition of the ‘Jericho IX’ culture apparently includes the subcultures found at Lod, Nahal Zehora, Horbat ‘Uza (Level XX), Teleilat Batashi (Level IV) and elsewhere (as opposed to the Yarmukian). This term is used here for the sake of convenience, without taking a stand in the debate concerning the parallels between the different sites and the relative chronology. 6 The excavations in the eastern cemetery (License Nos. 2185, 2235) and southern cemetery (License No. 2526) were carried out on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the eastern under the direction of Tzach Horowitz and Eli Yannai, the southern directed by Eli Yannai. 7 For the sake of completion, this excavation report contains the reports of the 1999 salvage excavation in Area G and that of 2004 in Area H, License Nos. G3002 and H4306, respectively.

CHAPTER 2

THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

Area B is the site’s primary field of excavation, located about 200 m south of Tel Esur, on the low spur between the two streams issuing from the springs (see Fig. 1.2). It comprises 37 squares excavated to an average depth of 1 m (Plan 2.1). In the center of the area, 12 squares were excavated down to the level of the water table (Sqs R–T50–53), thereby revealing the site’s complete stratigraphy—from Stratum VII (Pottery Neolithic A) up to Stratum I (in which Roman coins were found). Twelve additional squares were excavated in the eastern part of Area B (Sqs R–S54–59), where the remains of buildings from Stratum II were exposed. Thirteen squares were opened in the western part of Area B (Sqs R–S44–49 and T44), where both a Chalcolithic building (Stratum IV) and a unit from the early phase of the EB I were uncovered (Stratum III).

STRATUM VII: THE POTTERY NEOLITHIC PERIOD (JERICHO IX) Pottery sherds attributed to the Pottery Neolithic A were collected in Sq T49, L2241 and L2234 (see Plan 2.2), while excavating around two burials in L2188 from Stratum VI (Fig. 2.1; see Plan 2.2). After the removal of the lower skeleton from L2234, the excavation continued in L2241 an additional 0.30 m (from elevation 49.60 m down to 49.30 m). Stratum VII remains were revealed in a square measuring 2 × 2 m, in muddy soil which prevented any possibility of distinguishing floors, bricks or lines of construction. Small stones, small animal bones, flint chips and a few pottery sherds are the only remains recovered from this level.

The water table was encountered at this depth during the month of June. Only after Kibbutz Barqai pumped out the sewage water from a nearby water reservoir in the months of August and September did the water table descend sufficiently to facilitate continuation of the excavation. The excavation area was covered with layers of ash and black and gray earth, the dark shades of the soil resulting from being saturated. Large quantities of bones, sherds, flints and stones were found in concentrations distributed at random distances and at different elevations throughout the entire excavation area. A mud tabun (L2165), 1 m in diameter, was located in Sq T49, under Floor 2149 from Stratum VB (Figs. 2.2, 2.3). The sides of the tabun, preserved to a height of 0.10 m, were made from mud with neither sherds nor stones to support them. Apart from the tabun, no evidence was discovered in the area of any kind of construction. The sherds, stones and bones discarded throughout the area indicate that in the days of Stratum VI, this part of the site was an open, non-residential area. Thus, we can conclude that Area B was located in an open area between buildings

STRATUM VI: THE WADI R ABAH CULTURE The Stratigraphy (Plan 2.2) Stratum VI (elevation 50.30–49.60 m) was exposed beneath the stone and plaster surfaces of Stratum VB–C.

Fig. 2.1. Locus 2188 and the excavation of Stratum VII beneath the Stratum VI burial. Looking west.

12

ELI YANNAI

Plan 2.1. Schematic plan of excavation, Area B and Section 1-1.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

Plan 2.1 (cont.). Sections 2-2, 3-3, 4-4.

13

14

ELI YANNAI

Plan 2.1 (cont.). Sections 5-5, 6-6, 7-7.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

15

Fig. 2.2. The tabun in L2165 (Stratum VI) and the floor in L2149 to the left. Looking south.

Fig. 2.3. The tabun in L2165 surrounded by L2188. Looking south.

situated beyond the limits of the excavation. The area was used for burials and disposal of the settlement’s refuse, which included broken pottery vessels, bones and stones that were no longer of any use. Based on the large size of the tabun and its location in an open area, one may assume it was built for an industrial purpose, although the finds do not indicate its function.

Plan 2.1 (cont.). Section 8-8.

The Burials in L2188 and L2234 Locus 2188 was excavated to a depth of 0.57 m beneath the stone surface in L2164 of Stratum VB–C (Plan 2.2). Two skeletons, one atop the other and separated by a thin layer of soil, were uncovered at the bottom of the locus in very muddy soil. The higher skeleton was excavated at the bottom of L2188 (Fig. 2.4) and, following its removal, the locus was changed to L2234 to include the lower skeleton. Both skeletons were removed in their entirety to the laboratories of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) as the physical conditions of the excavation did not permit the proper handling of such poorly preserved

16

ELI YANNAI

Plan 2.2. Strata VI and VB–C.

Fig. 2.4. The skeleton of a child in L2188. Looking east.

human remains. No stone lining or cover was found in the soil around the two skeletons and only 5–6 cm of soil separated them. We were unable to maintain any control sections due to the mud; consequently we could not determine whether the skeletons were interred together or individually. In light of the fact that they lay only a few centimeters below the stone surface of Stratum VB–C and were resting one atop the other, we assume that they were buried together. The muddy soil and confined area of excavation also prevented us from determining, with any degree of certainty, the exact stratigraphic relationship of the skeletons. Do they belong to Stratum VII, buried within

the archaeological layers of this level, or are they to be associated with Stratum VI, interred in a pit in an open area, which penetrated into Stratum VII from above? A small ceramic hemispherical bowl sat 0.16 m northeast of the upper skeleton’s head (see Fig. 4.2:3), probably placed in the grave as a funerary gift for either one or both of the deceased. Based on the shape of the bowl and its black gritty fabric, it belongs to Stratum VI (Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 24:16). Burial offerings of ceramic bowls are known from other Wadi Rabah sites, such as Hazorea‘ (Anati et al. 1973:59) and ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969b). All the other sherds from L2188 and L2234 can be attributed to Pottery Neolithic A. Skeletal Remains. Both skeletons were anatomically articulated and in contracted positions. The bones were poorly preserved. From the laboratory analysis it became apparent that most of the ‘bones’ were not bones at all but rather a mold of the bones formed in the hard soil. In the case of the second individual, a complete cast of the (deformed) skull had formed in the soil (it disintegrated after the soil dried in the laboratory). Individual No. 1 is represented by rib fragments, a partial humerus and a fragment of the lower jaw bone. The central permanent incisors and the right deciduous canine in the lower jaw are indicative of a child no older

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

17

than seven years of age (Hillson 1986). Individual No. 2 is represented by a complete humerus (maximum length 276 mm), rib fragments and part of the upper jaw. The cast of the skull indicated that it had become deformed while in the earth. A relatively small mastoid process, a fragment of the temporal bone, is indicative of a female. The teeth of the upper jaw (lateral incisor, canine, second premolar and first left molar) show limited attrition, indicative of a young (20–30 years of age) adult (Miles 1963). Based upon bone lengths, the estimated stature was 151 cm (Bass 1987).

STRATUM VB–C: THE EARLY CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD Architecture and Stratigraphy (Plan 2.2) Six squares of Stratum VB–C were excavated. Densely packed stone surfaces, ash and pottery-strewn surfaces, and round, unroofed plastered surfaces without other architectural remains were uncovered. The stone surfaces were situated beneath the stone precinct wall of Stratum VA and above the layers of sherds from Stratum VI; therefore, they are defined as a discrete stratigraphic entity. The stratigraphic separation of Phases B and C is based on two levels of stone surfaces exposed one atop the other. The architecture and stratigraphy of Phases VB–C are dealt with together due to the similar nature of the remains. The Architecture of Phase VC A stone and ash floor was exposed in L2154, in the northern part of Sq T50 at elevation 50.07 m (Fig. 2.5). This is the earliest in situ floor level from Phase VC. A stone surface (L2120), measuring 4 × 5 m, was also uncovered in Sq T50 at elevation 50.77 m (Plan 2.1: Section 1-1). The stones were of a soft rock (mostly Eocene), set close together on their narrow edges. The northern and western edges of the stone surface end in a straight line. Since no signs of robber trenches were noticed along the edge of the floor or in the sections, we assume that the stone surface was situated in an open area and was not the floor of a building. However, the wet soil prevented the discernment of foundation trenches in the sections and thus the possibility that there were robbed walls remains within the limits of conjecture. It is also

Fig. 2.5. The stone and ash floor in L2154 from Phase VC. Note the stone floor in L2200, from Phase VB, in the section above, and W51 and W56 from Building 2010, Stratum IV, in the upper portion of the photograph. Looking southeast.

possible that the walls were constructed of mudbrick, without stone foundations. A cow or bull’s skull alongside several skeletal bones of another cow was discovered below the soil at the edge of the northwestern corner of the stone and ash floor in L2154. Presumably they were placed in a refuse pit from Phase VB that penetrated into Phase VC. Due to the exceedingly moist soil, it was impossible to ascertain the boundaries of the pit. The Architecture of Phase VB A stone surface measuring 3 × 4 m was exposed in L2200, at elevation 50.82 m, about 0.20 m above the stone surface in Phase VC (L2154) and was consequently designated as Phase VB (Fig. 2.6). This surface was also made of soft stones placed on edge very close together. It had neither straight nor well-defined edges, and a large flat stone was set in its center (elevation 50.82 m). A similar, irregularly shaped stone surface was revealed nearby in L2159 (elevation 50.76 m). About 1 m to the northwest of these two stone surfaces was another stone surface, measuring 3 × 3 m, comprised of two groups of closely placed stones (L2208 at elevation 50.99 m; L2195, at elevation 51.02 m). In the middle of the stone surface of L2208 was a small, plastered pit or depression, 0.50 m in diameter and about 0.30 m deep (elevation 50.88 m), which fulfilled some unknown function. Both the

18

ELI YANNAI

Fig. 2.6. The stone surface in Phase VB (L2200) above the stone surface in Phase VC (L2120). Note the base of the column (in the middle of the photograph) and W51 and W52 from Stratum IV in the upper portion of the picture. Looking southeast.

round plaster surface in L2208 and a flat, round stone in L2200 are the remains of installations incorporated within stone surfaces. Similar installations were discovered elsewhere in this stratum (e.g., L2184, see below). A closely packed stone surface, measuring 1 × 1.50 m, extended from the balk of Sqs S50–51 (L2187, elevation 51.02 m) to the edge of the excavation in Sq S50 at elevation 50.70 m. In the middle of Sq S50, in L2114, was an additional circular surface of stones at elevation 50.87 m. In Sq S52 a stone-lined pit (L2224) had been dug into the ruins of Stratum VI. It was about 0.70 m deep and its diameter tapered from 1 m at the top to about 0.70 m at the base. It was lined with naturally smooth stone slabs and its floor was paved with flat stones. The stone slabs originated in the Sakhnin Formation (Upper Cenomanian) and were gathered from a streambed about 3 km from the site (Fig. 2.7). The upper stone slabs that lined the pit’s northern side were dislodged by the builders of W95 in Stratum VA. The pit was apparently still open when W95 was built, as the stone slabs from the lining rested on the pit floor (Fig. 2.8). This stratigraphic detail is significant in accessing the nature of the transition from Stratum VB–C to Stratum VA.

Fig. 2.7. The stone-lined pit in L2224. Note the precinct wall from Stratum VA above the pit and the wall from Stratum IV above the precinct wall. Looking west.

Apart from the closely packed stone surfaces, groups of small stones were found randomly strewn throughout the entire excavation area at the same level as the stone surfaces. There were no building stones among these stones.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

19

Fig. 2.8. The stone-lined pit in L2224. Looking west.

The Stratigraphy of Stratum VB–C The stratigraphic designation of the stone surfaces, plastered circles and flat stones as Stratum VB–C is based on the following factors: 1. All of the surfaces, without exception, are lower than the foundations of W85, W95, and W98 of Stratum VA. There is no doubt that they were no longer in use at the time of the construction of the Stratum VA walls as they were covered by the extensive pottery-strewn floor that runs up to the foundations of the wall. 2. The pottery sherds on the surfaces are Chalcolithic, whereas the sherds from Stratum VI belong to the Wadi Rabah culture. The stratigraphic separation into two phases, VB–C, was based on the fact that the closely packed stone surfaces in Sq S50 lay one (L2200) atop the other (L2120, L2154; Plan 2.1: Section 1-1). Their common designation as Stratum VB–C is based on the assumption that the stone surfaces, plaster surfaces and groups of stones comprise different phases of one stratum (Plan 2.1: Section 2-2). The Nature of Stratum VB–C The excavated area comprised part of an open expanse in which stone surfaces, flat stones set into stone surfaces, plastered pits, a stone-lined pit and stone-built installations were exposed. The finds recovered from the stone surfaces and their vicinity include pottery, stone and flint tools and a substantial quantity of

bones. No evidence was found to indicate any specific industrial, public or cultic activity so we assume that this open area was associated with dwellings situated outside the field of excavation. Stratigraphic analysis indicates that this open area filled up with refuse of a domestic nature, consisting of bones, ash, sherds and stones. In some places piles of refuse were higher than the surrounding ash surface, in other places rubbish pits or low areas filled with refuse were lower than the surrounding ash surface. Thus, the open area was apparently exploited over an extended period of time for both cottage industries that used the stone surfaces and refuse disposal by the residents who inhabited the nearby dwellings.

STRATUM VA: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD The Architecture of Stratum VA (Plan 2.3) The nature of the area in Stratum VA was completely different than that in the preceding strata. The 1.20 m wide foundation of a massive wall (W85/W95/W98) running northeast–southwest was built over the stone surfaces that were no longer in use (Fig. 2.9). Both faces of the wall were constructed primarily of very hard Cenomanian stones measuring c. 0.3 × 0.4 m. The densely packed fill between them consisted of small stones mixed with very little earth. In the northern part of the wall two stone courses were preserved; in the southern part, only one. The original wall most likely

20

ELI YANNAI

Plan 2.3. Stratum VA.

consisted of two stone foundation courses running the entire length. The upper course of the southern section was probably dismantled by the builders of Stratum IV. Another possibility is that an additional foundation course was added to the northern section by the builders to compensate for the incline in the area’s topography. (The foundations in the southern part [W85] are at elevation 51.07 m and in the northern part [W98] at elevation 50.76 m.) The additional course in the north reduced the height difference at the top of the wall to only 0.15 m. In Sq T51, a row of large stones was affixed to the eastern side of the wall, measuring c. 2 m long by 0.35 m wide (Fig. 2.10). At this point, the direction of the wall turns at an obtuse angle (Fig. 2.11). This change in direction was not accidental, nor did it result from the

joining together of two walls. In Sq S53 the wall’s line is offset half a meter to the east. The building of an offset-inset wall was intentional and carefully executed (Figs. 2.12, 2.13). A row of sloping stones (L2261) was affixed to the eastern face of W98, north of the offset. An inclined stone revetment was attached to the row of sloping stones. The revetment was constructed of large, flat Cenomanian stones (mostly from the Sakhnin Formation) measuring 0.3 × 0.4 m. Based on their shape, the stones had been worn smooth by flowing water and were brought to the site from a streambed. The revetment sloped steeply to the east from elevation 50.89 m to the bottom, situated at elevation 50.55 m (Fig. 2.14).

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

Fig. 2.9. A general view of the precinct wall in Stratum VA. Looking south.

Fig. 2.10. The row of stones against the precinct wall from Stratum VA. Looking west.

21

22

ELI YANNAI

Fig. 2.11. The change in the direction of the Stratum VA precinct wall. Looking east.

Fig. 2.12. A view from above of the seam in the wall from either side of the ‘offset’. Looking west.

Fig. 2.13. The stone seam of the ‘offset’ and the floor in Stratum VA (at the bottom of the picture). Looking east.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

23

Fig. 2.14. The precinct wall of Stratum VA and the sloping stone revetment against its eastern face. Note the northeastern corner of Building 2010 from Stratum IV to the right. Looking east.

The Stratigraphy of Stratum VA The precinct wall was discovered in Sq S–T51 about 0.3 m below the eastern walls of Building 2010 of Stratum IV (Fig. 2.15; Plan 2.1: Section 3-3). No other walls or even building stones were found that might be connected in any way to the wall, and no cross walls were connected to the portion of the wall exposed. The massive precinct wall was the only architectural evidence uncovered in the field of excavation. The wall was constructed along the hill’s moderate eastern slope, thereby leaving no doubt that the eastern side faced outwards from the settlement. This is also

supported by the inclined stone surface that abuts the wall’s foundation (W98), functioning as a revetment. Further evidence that the exterior of the wall faced east is the addition of stones to the eastern side at the point of the obtuse angle in the southern section, which may have served as a buttress. A stone- and pottery-paved floor lay to the west of the wall, covered with a large amount of pottery sherds. Some of the sherds were incorporated into the floor; others were in the debris resting upon it. The floor extended over L2121, L2209, L2172, L2264 and L2185 and overlay all of the sherd and stone surfaces revealed in Stratum VB–C (Figs. 2.16, 2.17). In addition, archaeological remains from

Fig. 2.15. The upper portion of the precinct wall from Stratum VA beneath the entrance threshold of Building 2010 from Stratum IV. Looking east.

24

ELI YANNAI

Fig. 2.16. The stone- and pottery-paved floor from Stratum VA in L2264 beneath a wall from Stratum IV. Looking east.

Fig. 2.17. The stone- and pottery-paved floor from Stratum VA in L2209, beneath the walls of Building 2010 from Stratum IV. Looking east.

Stratum VB–C were found on both sides of the wall at almost identical elevations, precluding the possibility that it functioned as a retaining wall (Fig. 2.18). The stones in both faces of the massive wall were chipped and dressed, indicating it was not a terrace wall, and furthermore, the gentle slope in the area does not justify a terrace and most certainly not one the size of this wall. The width of the wall was 1.5 m, twice as wide as the massive walls of the Stratum IV building and much wider than any Early Bronze Age walls exposed at the site. This wall did not belong to a private residence

or a public structure, nor, we assume, to any type of building whatsoever (Fig. 2.19). In summary, the stratigraphic evidence indicates that W85/W95/W98 was the foundation of a precinct wall enclosing the settlement located to its west. Although there is no evidence of military activity in the Chalcolithic period, one may still cautiously assume that the precinct wall served a defensive purpose, although not necessarily against an invading army. The wall may have been intended to deny nomads entrance into the settlement or may even have designated the borders of the settlement from a legal or religious standpoint (pomerium).

Fig. 2.18. Vessels from Stratum VB on a floor in L2317. This locus is below and to the east of the precinct wall foundations of Stratum VA. Above the locus is the stone threshold of Building 2010 from Stratum IV. Looking east.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

25

Fig. 2.19. Stratum VA precinct wall after being completely exposed. Note the inclined surface in L2261 that runs up to the wall from the east and Building 2010 from Stratum IV to the west, above the precinct wall. Looking south.

STRATUM IV: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD The nature of the area changed in Stratum IV. Two rectangular structures were built above the foundations of the massive wall, Building 2010 in the eastern part of the area and Building 2280 in the western part. These two buildings were not connected to each other and each apparently belonged to a different domestic complex. It appears that in Stratum VA the excavated area was located on the fringes of the settlement, while in Stratum IV the excavated area was inside the builtup settlement. Building 2010 (Plans 2.4, 2.5) Building 2010, measuring 4.5 × 18.5 m, was erected above the massive wall of Stratum VA (see Fig. 2.19). This was a large private dwelling with an anteroom adjoining its eastern wall. The anteroom went out of use during the later phase of the stratum and was covered with a massive stone floor. As no architectural changes took place in Building 2010 itself it belongs

stratigraphically to a single stratum. The structural changes to the front of the building are indicative of two clear constructional phases that are designated Phase IVB—the earlier phase during which the anteroom stood at the front of the building—and Phase IVA—the later phase when the anteroom was replaced by a stone floor (Figs. 2.20–2.22). The building’s eastern wall is designated W56 south of the entrance, and north of the entrance, W92. The southern wall is W51; the western wall, W58. The stone foundations of all these walls, c. 0.5 m wide and c. 0.7 m high, were constructed of three courses consisting of two rows of stones separated by a core fill of rubble and earth. The top of the foundation was leveled to facilitate the laying of mud bricks. Most of the stones used to build the walls are hard limestone. The floor was of beaten earth with two especially hard, flat stones set into it; they served as bases for wooden columns. Since no evidence of any partition walls inside Building 2010 was discerned, it is assumed the structure consisted of a single large, enclosed and roofed expanse.

26

ELI YANNAI

Fig. 2.20. Aerial view of Building 2010, Stratum IV.

Fig. 2.21. Wall 51, W53 and W58 of Building 2010, Stratum IV. Looking northeast.

Fig. 2.22. The northwestern corner of Building 2010. Looking northwest.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

Phase IVB (Plan 2.4) Rows of soft limestone blocks were randomly affixed to some of the building’s walls. One row (W97) was attached inside the building to W92, north of the door. A long row of stones (W96) was set against the exterior of the building along the western face of W58 and W66 (Plan 2.1: Section 4-4) and a short row of stones (W54) was attached to the outer, southern face of W51. A long row of stones (W116) adjoined the northern side of the building and a row of stones abutted the front of the structure north of the entrance (W100). These stone rows resemble work surfaces adjacent to Early Bronze Age structures at Arad. Their function is not entirely clear. We assume that they were coated with mud plaster and served as benches or tables for work conducted in the courtyards around the building. The Entrance to Building 2010 and Anteroom 2205. An anteroom (L2205) adjoined the eastern wall of

27

Building 2010 (Figs. 2.23, 2.24; Plan 2.1: Section 6-6). The beaten-earth floor of the anteroom sloped gently eastward (elevations 51.37–51.24 m). The anteroom’s northern wall (W107) was exposed in situ, in its entirety. The southern wall of the anteroom can be reconstructed based on the line of the robber trench in the stone floor outside the building (L2190). The entrance to the anteroom, which in turn led into the building, was in the eastern wall and was fitted with a soft stone threshold at elevation 51.37 m. In front of the anteroom and on either side of it was a floor of small stones, pebbles and quartz concretions. A drainage channel beneath the stone threshold ran from the anteroom’s entrance in L2205 eastward to a lower part of the area. The passage from the anteroom into Building 2010 was via a wide opening, 2.5 m wide, which was paved with a stone threshold. This passage was probably open and entrance to the entire building was via the front of the anteroom.

Plan 2.4. Building 2010, Stratum IV Phase B.

28

ELI YANNAI

Fig. 2.23. The anteroom attached to Building 2010, Stratum IVB. Looking west.

Fig. 2.24. A close-up view of the anteroom to Building 2010 in Phase IVB following removal of the Phase IVA floor. Note the precinct wall from Stratum VA beneath the eastern wall of Building 2010 and the wide threshold between the anteroom (L2205) and Building 2010. Looking west.

Structures and Installations outside Building 2010. Two walls were revealed outside Building 2010. Wall 52 adjoins the outer face of southern W51 and extends southward. Wall 91 adjoins eastern W92 north of the entrance and extends eastward. Both walls, W52 and W91, were built of one course of stones at the same elevation as the lowest course in Building 2010. We can therefore assume they belong to Phase IVB. A large, round stone surface (L2153), partially destroyed by the inhabitants of Stratum III,

was exposed along the northern face of W91 (Fig. 2.25). The surface was composed of very large, hard, water-smoothed stones measuring 0.6 × 0.5 m. All the stones had been brought to the site from a streambed in the vicinity of the Amir Anticline. In the northern part of the stone surface, a large ceramic bowl was set upside down, in place of one of the stones. This is one of several examples of fragments of large ceramic vessels used as flooring in lieu of paving stones.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

Fig. 2.25. Wall 91 on the eastern side of Building 2010 and the stone installation in L2153. Looking northwest.

Phase IVA (Plan 2.5) Fundamental alterations were made to the entrance of the building and the area around it in Phase

29

IVA. The anteroom, L2205, was replaced with a thick stone floor (L2024). The paving stones were arranged in three layers against the building’s eastern wall, sloping gently from 51.80 m, about 0.10 m above the wall’s top course, to the lowest point of the wall’s second course at elevation 51.48 m (Figs. 2.26–2.29). A considerable number of pithos fragments were packed between the paving stones and thus became part of the floor. In order to lay the stone surface in front of the building, stone row W100 was covered with the paving stones (L2024) and some of its stones were incorporated between the paving stones. On the high part of the floor, about a meter from the opening of the building, and slightly to the north of it, was a round depression lined with stones; it measured 0.60 m in diameter and 0.35 m deep. It may have served either for drainage purposes or the placement of a pithos or jar in front of the building (Figs. 2.30, 2.31).

Plan 2.5. Building 2010, Stratum IV Phase A.

30

ELI YANNAI

Fig. 2.26. The upper layer of the stone-paved floor in L2024. Note the connection between the stones and the eastern wall of Building 2010 and the in situ entrance threshold. Looking south.

Fig. 2.27. The second stone surface following the removal of the upper stone surface (visible in the section). Note the column bases and the round depressions in the floor. Looking west.

Fig. 2.28. The western part of the second stone surface revealed beneath the upper stone surface. Looking north.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

Fig. 2.29. The lowest layer of the stone floor. Note the top of the precinct wall of Stratum VA and the adjoining rampart which are situated below the stone surface in Stratum IV. Looking west.

Fig. 2.30. A general view of the second stone surface (the upper surface was retained only in the section). Looking west.

Fig. 2.31. A general view of the second stone surface after the removal of the upper stone surface. Looking west.

31

32

ELI YANNAI

Fig. 2.32. The column bases in the second layer of the stone floor in front of the building’s entrance. Looking west.

At a distance of about one and a half meters east of the line of the building, large flat, hard stones were incorporated into the stone floor. They may have been the bases for columns which would then have supported the roof of a porch in front of the building (Fig. 2.32). This porch replaced the anteroom in front of the building in Phase IVB. The Entrance to Building 2010. In the middle of the eastern wall, W56, of Building 2010, a threshold (elevation 51.56 m), about 1.30 m wide, was set in place atop the wide threshold from Phase IVB (elevation 51.33 m) and incorporated into the floor outside the building (51.80 m). As the floor level of Building 2010 in Phase IVA was maintained at the same elevation as

the earlier Phase IVB floor (elevations 51.20–51.30 m), a step, 0.25 m high (elevation 51.56 m), was built against the inner face of the threshold. A second step, W71 (elevation 51.27 m), was situated c. 1.50 m inside the building opposite the stepped threshold. The area between the two steps formed a ramp leading down into Building 2010 (Fig. 2.33). The socket stone on which the door turned sat in situ in the floor north of the first step. Flanking either side of the narrow threshold were two stone circles 0.40 m in diameter, set atop the earlier Phase IVB threshold and used to support the Phase IVA door jambs.2 This is a very rare instance in which all the door elements of a Chalcolithic building were discovered in situ, including evidence of parts that are apt to disintegrate, such as the wooden jambs. Based

Fig. 2.33. The steps (in situ) from the threshold of Building 2010. Looking east.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

33

on the location of the socket stone, the threshold and the door jambs, one can reconstruct the structure’s door as situated on the inside of the door jambs, opening inwards into the building. In summary, the stone surface and the adjoining walls to the south and east indicate that Building 2010 in Stratum IV had courtyards, work surfaces and benches. In our opinion, all of the architectural elements exposed in Sqs R–T50–53 were part of a single residential unit. The area of the roofed dwelling structure alone was 75 sq m and the area of the residential unit including the dwelling, courtyards and stone surface was at least 250 sq m. Building 2280 (Plan 2.6) The eastern portion of a rectangular structure was exposed about 30 m west of Building 2010, in Sqs S– T44–45 (Fig. 2.34). The southern wall of the structure is W145, the eastern wall is W146/W156 and the northern wall is W147. The western wall was not uncovered within the excavated area. The building measures 3.60 m wide and over 6 m in length. The foundation walls, about 0.70 m wide, were built of one course of large hard stones (primarily Cenomanian). The floor of the building (elevation 51.94 m) was of beaten earth. No signs of an entrance to the structure were found in the excavated area. Assuming that the

Plan 2.6. Building 2280, Stratum IV.

entrance was located in the center of the long wall, the length of the building was probably over 13 m, making it similar in dimensions to Building 2010. Inside the building, several stones of an installation were located in the southeastern corner. Next to them,

Fig. 2.34. Building 2280. Looking south.

34

ELI YANNAI

a round surface c. 1 m in diameter was paved with small stones (mostly pebbles and quartz concretions). Outside the building, rows of stones adjoined the building’s walls. One row, W150, was built against the outer face of the northern wall, W147. A second row, W149, was constructed against the outside of the southern wall, W145, and a third row of stones, W148, was set against the eastern wall (W146/156). In both its rectangular shape and the benches attached to its walls, Building 2280 is very similar to Building 2010. The ceramic finds recovered from both buildings (see Chapter 4) are also identical. Therefore, although there is no architectural connection between the two buildings, we assigned both of them to Stratum IV. The Break between Stratum IV and Stratum III Major changes occurred at ‘En Esur during the transition from Stratum IV to Stratum III and processes that had begun in Stratum VI and continued throughout the Chalcolithic period came to an abrupt halt. The rectangular buildings of Stratum IV were replaced with oval structures in Stratum III and the lightcolored pottery decorated with dark red stripes was superseded by pinkish-orange pottery, which was red slipped and burnished. Stratum IV yielded none of the Gray Burnished Ware bowls that constitute such a high percentage of the bowl assemblage in Stratum III (see below). The difference is not limited solely to the types of vessels, but is also clear in the preparation of the clay, the production processes and the design of the vessels, as well as in the decoration and finish, and the method of firing. It can be said that in the transition from Stratum IV to Stratum III, the pottery underwent a complete metamorphosis. It is difficult to determine what processes brought about such a radical change in the material culture. We do not possess the means to determine how much time transpired between the end of Stratum IV and the beginning of Stratum III, whether the Stratum IV site was abandoned before the commencement of the Stratum III construction, or as a result of the destruction of the buildings by the new settlers. The walls from the early phases of Stratum III were built atop the Stratum IV walls and there is no stratigraphic or material evidence that the site was abandoned between the two strata. This absence of proof does not negate the possibility that there was a hiatus during which the site remained unsettled. It can be said

with certainty however, that the transition from Stratum IV to Stratum III brought about a fundamental cultural change in all aspects of the site’s material culture.

STRATUM III: THE EARLY PHASE OF EARLY BRONZE AGE I The Architecture and Stratigraphy (Plan 2.7) The architectural remains of Stratum III consist of terraced structures located on the eastern slope of the hill. Unit F was placed at the bottom of the slope (elevations 51.25–51.70 m; see Plan 2.8) and Units A–E were situated farther up the slope and atop the hill (elevations 51.90–52.00 m). A total of fifteen 5 × 5 m squares were excavated in Stratum III (Fig. 2.35). Unit A: Building 2020, Room 2090 and the Terraces in L2126 Building 2020 is an oval-shaped structure measuring approximately 3 × 4 m. Its wall (W55) was made of soft unworked fieldstones (primarily Eocene) measuring c. 0.15 × 0.15 m, with flint pebbles and quartz concretions included in some of the courses. The stones were arranged in two parallel rows to form walls 0.35 m wide and three courses high, and appeared quite flimsy and unstable (Fig. 2.36). Since no evidence of a stone or lime floor was discerned, it can be assumed the building had a beaten-earth floor at the level of the base of the walls (52.03 m). There were openings in the middle of the building’s northern and southern long walls, in the two upper courses. Only the bottom course of the building was unbroken. Room 2090 was added to the eastern side of Building 2020, using identical construction techniques. Access to the room was via an opening located at the point where the northern wall (W62) of the room joined the northern wall of Building 2020 (Fig. 2.37). Building 2020 was built on level ground. The walls of Room 2090 were joined to the lowest course of the building’s wall at elevation 52.20 m and slope sharply to the east. The eastern part of the room is almost half a meter lower (elevation 51.80 m). Thus it appears that Room 2090 was constructed on the eastern slope. A number of large, flat, particularly hard stones were arranged along the inner face of the eastern wall (W60) of Room 2090. They were set on edge and stood half a meter high.

35

Plan 2.7. Units A–E, Stratum III.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

36

ELI YANNAI

Fig. 2.35. Aerial view of Units A, B, C and D.

Fig. 2.36. Building 2020. View from above.

Fig. 2.37. Locus 2090 east of L2020. View from above.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

A stone circle (L2041), 1.5 m in diameter and enclosed by W65, was attached to the western wall of Building 2020. The function of this stone circle is unclear and it is impossible to know whether the two structures were contemporary or if the stone circle was built after Building 2020 was no longer in use (Fig. 2.38). Unit A stood on the eastern slope of the hill, which was divided into several terraces by rows of large stones one tier high. One terrace wall (W67) was exposed about 2 m south of Room 2090 and another (W64), 3 m to the east. There was a flat stone surface (L2126)

Fig. 2.38. The stone circle, L2041, and its connection to Building 2020. View from above.

37

between the eastern terrace wall and Room 2090 and an earthen surface (L2043) between the southern terrace wall and the room’s southern wall. A similar earthen surface (L2048) also lay north of the stone surface (L2126). Unit A was surrounded by additional architectural units: Unit B to the northeast, Unit C to the north and Unit D to the west. The open areas between the units were either stone paved or of beaten earth. In general, it is uncertain which open area was associated with which unit, although it appears that the paved area and the earthen surfaces between Unit A and the terraces of the eastern slope belonged to that specific unit (Fig. 2.39). Unit B: Locus 2222 and W114 and W115 Unit B was located north of Unit A. Only fragments of this unit were preserved and we can only partially reconstruct it. The end of W114, uncovered in the north of Sq R50, was 0.35 m wide and built of one course of stones. West of W114 was W113 and between them, a shallow drainage channel, c. 0.30 m wide and 0.10 m deep, which was paved with flat stone slabs. Wall 113 was not actually a wall, but rather the eastern edge of a floor that extended between W114 and Unit A to the south. Most of W114 had been robbed, but based on the line of the floor to the west and south, an oval-shaped

Fig. 2.39. The terraces on the slope east of Building 2020 (Stratum III), situated above the walls of Building 2010 (Stratum IV). Looking northwest.

38

ELI YANNAI

building can be reconstructed at least 6 m long and 5 m wide. Between Units B and A was an area paved with large, flat stones (L2249). The stone surface was part of a paved street or open area between Units A, B and C. Unit C: Building 2219 and W111 and W112 Unit C, built on level ground 2.5 m north of Unit A, consists of parts of two oval-shaped buildings. Locus 2219 constitutes the southern part of a building whose northern section was located outside the bounds of the excavation. Wall 108 was the southern wall, and W109 was apparently the western wall, based on its manner of construction, bonding and elevation. Both walls were about 0.35 m wide and made of one course of soft stones (Eocene and Turonian) c. 0.20 × 0.15 m in size. A group of flat stones found at the end of W109 continued the line of the wall northwest, out of the excavation area. Wall 112 was attached to the outer face of W109 alongside the flat stones. About 2 m west of W112 was W111. Both walls comprise segments of a straight wall over 5 m long, in the middle of which was an opening. This wall is the longest in Stratum III. We assume that it curved around and encompassed an oval-shaped building to the north (L2221). A doorway from Building 2221 to Building 2219 was located at the point where W112 joined W109. (A similar connection between the walls of two structures existed in Unit A.) The entrance to the entire unit (L2219 + L2221) was between W111 and W112, which opened onto the stone-paved surface (L2220) between Units A and C.

Unit D Two walls of oval-shaped structures were exposed in Sq S48. Wall 68, 0.35 m wide and built of one course of soft stones, comprised the eastern wall of an ovalshaped building in L2064. (Most of this structure is located in Sq S47 and was not dug during the course of the excavation.) The building’s beaten-earth floor was discerned in L2089 (elevation 52.07 m) and L2064 (elevation 52.15 m). A row of stones on the floor, probably part of a bench, was set against the inner face of W68. Part of a wall (W74), belonging to another ovalshaped building, ran south of W68. It was built of one course of soft stones, 0.35 m wide. Wall 74 is about 0.10 m lower than W68, and one stone from W68 was integrated into the stone foundation of W74. Despite the lower elevation, it appears that both walls constitute part of the same unit. The same method of wall bonding is seen in the connection of W65 of the stone circle, L2041 (Unit A), with W55 of Building 2020 (Unit A). Thus, it can be assumed that this was a typical technique for joining two oval-shaped structures. Unit E: Building 2303 and Adjoining W154 and W155 Unit E was uncovered in Sqs R–S45–47. It includes an oval-shaped building (L2303), the wall of another building (W154) located next to Building 2303 on the east, and the wall (W155) of a third building north of Building 2303 (Fig. 2.40).

Fig. 2.40. Building 2303 of Unit E. Looking north.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

Building 2303 is an oval-shaped structure 4.60 m wide and c. 6 m long. The walls, 0.40 m wide, were made of two courses of soft stones. The western and southern walls were designated W151; the eastern wall, W152. Wall 153 closed the building on the north, although it is uncertain if this wall was built together with W152, as its foundations are c. 0.10 m higher than those of W152 and it is not curved. The foundations of two tabuns, measuring 1 m in diameter, were found on the building’s stone floor (elevation 51.94 m), one in the center of L2303, the other near the western wall. Stones were arranged along the inner face of W151, presumably forming a bench. As another part of the bench ran next to the eastern wall (W152), it can be concluded that the bench circumscribed most of the building’s inner walls. As there were no signs of an opening in the exposed portions of the long walls, it appears that the entrance to the structure was located in the unexcavated portion of the building. The building was destroyed by fire and filled with collapsed red and yellow bricks. The extreme heat of the conflagration melted the pottery vessels and cracked the stone floor. This is the only building exposed in the excavation that was destroyed by fire. Wall 154, 0.44 m wide, was built of one course of soft stones along the eastern side of Building 2303 and comprised the western wall of L2313. No other walls were preserved in that locus and therefore we are unable to reconstruct the building’s plan with any degree of certainty. The western wall of L2313 and the eastern wall of L2303 were joined intentionally and a row of small stones was added to fill the void between the two walls (L2299). To the north, the space between W153 and W154 was paved with large flat stones and part of a paved installation was found at the juncture of the walls (L2299). A curved wall (W155) of another oval-shaped building was uncovered north of the connection between W154 and W153 and above the paved installation in L2299 (Fig. 2.41). This wall was c. 0.20 m higher than the tops of W154 and W153. The building itself lies beyond the limits of the excavation. Unit F: Locus 2320 and W59 and W87 (Plan 2.8) Unit F is situated in Sqs T52–53, at the bottom of the slope (elevations 51.40–51.60 m), about 0.60 m lower than the lowest buildings in the upper part of the site (Building 2020—elevation 51.90 m). Most of this unit is located beneath the modern road and it was not

39

Fig. 2.41. The wall connections of the structures in Unit E. Looking south.

possible to excavate it in its entirety. Wall 59, 0.55 m wide, was built of one course of large stones measuring 0.35 × 0.35 m. Its width is twice that of the other walls in Stratum III. The stones used to build W59 were also much larger than those used in the other Stratum III walls and included very hard stones not found in the upper part of the site. Wall 87 was exposed about 1.5 m east of W59. Both walls employed identical construction techniques and stones, and were the same width and elevation. As W87 and W59 differ from the other Stratum III walls farther up the slope, we assume that these two walls are part of a single large ovalshaped structure. The junction between the two walls was disturbed by Stratum II; nevertheless, it appears to have been a connection similar to those used in Units A and C. Wall 115, W126, W158, W157, W102 and the Adjacent Loci (Plan 2.8) This assemblage of walls in Sqs R53–54 includes two curved walls belonging to oval-shaped structures (W126, W157), the earliest walls in this part of the excavation area, and two straight walls that were built above them (W158, W102). The stone surface in L2225 is also associated with this group of walls. The two curvilinear walls (W126, W157), 0.30–0.35 m in width, were built of one course of small soft stones (0.30 × 0.30 m). They are identical, in both their dimensions and construction technique, to the walls of the oval-shaped structures on the upper slope. The

40

ELI YANNAI

straight wall (W158), 0.55 m wide and constructed of larger stones (0.40 × 0.35 m), is one of the widest and longest straight walls in Stratum III. It was built with an east–west alignment, exactly parallel to the walls in Stratum IIB that were constructed farther down the slope (see below). There was no architectural connection between any of these walls and each was part of a separate building. The exposed architectural remains were so scanty that we were unable to compile a plan of even a partial structure. Essentially, all that can be deduced is that in this area there were ovalshaped buildings in the early phase of Stratum III and straight walls that appeared in the later phase of the same stratum. Locus 2148 and W96 and W86 (Plan 2.8) Two segments of straight walls were uncovered in Sq S54. Wall 96 is 0.80 m wide, built of one course

of hard stones and oriented north–south. Wall 86, perpendicular to W96 with an east–west alignment, is 0.75 m wide and was also constructed of one course of hard stones. Both walls are much wider than all the other walls in Stratum III. Wall 96 is the earlier of the two. Where it continued south beyond the connection with W86 it was cut by the construction and leveling of the slope in Stratum IIA. The stratigraphic assignment of these walls to Stratum III is not in doubt, as W94 (Stratum IV) was beneath them and W72 (Stratum IIB) was above them. The remains of a floor (L2148; elevation 51.64 m) were exposed at the intersection of the two walls. South of them was a street (L2086; elevation 51.35–51.39 m), paved with small stones, that sloped southward from W86 to W73. It could not be determined whether it was cut by the wall or simply ran up to it.

Plan 2.8. Transitional phases, Strata III–II.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

41

The Stratum III Stratigraphy and Its Phase Division There was evidence of constructional phases in all of the Stratum III units. In Unit E, W155 overlaid W152, W154 and L2299. In Unit D, W68 was joined to W74, which predated it, and in Unit A, L2041 was attached to already-existing L2020. The connections were made at different elevations by means of bonding the new wall into an already existing wall. Based on the accumulation of soil levels next to the earlier wall, we can assume that in some instances a substantial amount of time elapsed between the two construction phases. In Sqs R–S50–51, W123, W124 and W125, transitional Strata III–II walls (Plan 2.9), passed about 0.40 m above the top of W55 in Unit A. They were constructed after Building 2020 (both phases) was no longer in use and after the stone floor in L2223 (which connected Units A, B and C in the early phase of Stratum III) had been covered with 0.40 m of debris. In those places where it was possible to detect both early and later walls, no floors were found which passed above the earlier walls and were associated with the later ones. Furthermore, there is no proof that the changes in each unit took place at the same time. There was no evident architectural connection between the various units and we assume that the alterations were carried out separately in each unit, without regard to changes made in neighboring units. Thus, Stratum III was not divided into substrata due to technical as well as stratigraphic reasons.3 The foundations of the walls in Stratum III are narrow and one course high (except for Unit A) and appear to be quite inadequate. Judging from the many alterations and additions seen in the architecture of Stratum III, one can conclude that the walls stood in place for a relatively short period of time and the structures underwent frequent changes and repairs. The evidence that the oval-shaped structures were attached to each other is especially noteworthy. In Unit A, the narrow sides of the structures were joined to each other; in Unit C, Building 2221 was adjoined to the long side of Building 2219; in Units D and E the buildings were attached to each other along their long sides, forming a butterfly-shaped building. Ovalshaped buildings are known from excavations at Sidon (Saideh 1979: Fig. 2), Stratum 9 in Area B at Kabri (Scheftelowitz 2002: Figs. 4.7, 4.8), Yiftah’el (Braun 1997) and Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003: Plan 2.3), and each building stood as a separate architectural entity.

Plan 2.9. Transitional phases, Strata III–II.

At other sites where oval-shaped buildings have been exposed, such as Megiddo (Loud 1948:390), Bet She’an (Bonn 1976:102), Mezer (Dothan 1959b: Fig. 2.4), Moza (Eisenberg 1993b: Plan 1) and Palmahim (Braun 1989b; 1992), there was no evidence of buildings connected to each other. Evidence of Transitional Processes from Stratum III to Stratum II Stratum III was neither destroyed nor burnt. The change from Stratum III to Stratum II was gradual and therefore it is difficult to isolate a specific stratigraphic layer that contains building remains from the transitional phase. Architectural remains from the Stratum III–II transitional phase were found in three places: 1. A group of straight walls (W123, W124 and W125), built with construction techniques and dimensions characteristic of Stratum II, were located in Sqs R–S50– 51 above Unit B of Stratum III (see Plans 2.8, 2.9). 2. The Stratum II walls in Sqs S–T54 (W72, W73, W89; Plans 2.10, 2.1: Section 7-7 ) shared the same construction methods, dimensions and alignment of the walls as those of Stratum III below them (W73, W86, W96; Plans 2.8, 2.1: Section 8-8). The Stratum II street followed the same course as the paved street (L2086), between W73 and W86, directly below it. The later street was situated between W72 from Phase IIB and W73, which continued in use from Stratum III into Phase IIB. 3. The third example, W158 in Sq R54 (see Plan 2.8), was built in Stratum III above the walls of the ovalshaped buildings in the vicinity, with the techniques, dimensions and alignment characteristic of the Stratum II walls. Wall 158 was exposed about 0.70 m below the Stratum II building levels and approximately 2 cm above the nearby Stratum III wall, W157. The pottery associated with W158 was also, without doubt, from Stratum III.

42

ELI YANNAI

The walls from the transitional phase have a number of similar features: (1) most of the walls were wide and straight, constructed of large stones and built with the same construction techniques used for the walls of Stratum II; (2) all the walls were exposed in stratigraphic context above the curvilinear walls of Stratum III; (3) all the walls correspond to the orientation of the Stratum II walls above them; (4) the pottery associated with the walls was typical of Stratum III. From an architectural and stratigraphic point of view, the walls from the transitional phase can be assigned to a late phase of Stratum III or an early phase of Stratum II. It is difficult to know if the architectural change from oval-shaped buildings to square buildings occurred contemporaneously over the entire excavated area, or how long the process took. Walls of the transitional phase are assigned to Stratum III based on the Stratum III pottery found in their immediate vicinity. Thus, the synthesis of the architectural, stratigraphic and ceramic data substantiates the supposition that at the end of

Stratum III architectural changes occurred at the site and the residents of ‘En Esur began to build rectilinear structures with straight walls that gradually replaced the oval-shaped structures. The gradual architectural change preceded the ceramic changes that took place in the following stratum.

STRATUM II: THE LATE PHASE OF EARLY BRONZE AGE I The Architecture and Stratigraphy of Phase IIB (Plan 2.10) The Pillar Building in L2059 and W72 and W73 in Sqs S–T54 Wall 72, oriented north–south, is 1.25 m wide and made of two rows of hard Cenomanian stones, one course high. The stones were roughly chipped to give a semblance of a straight line to both faces of the wall. Wall 72 was about 0.30 m higher than W96 and W86

Plan 2.10. Stratum II Phase B.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

from Stratum III. Wall 73, parallel to W72, was 0.80 m wide, narrower than W72, and built of one course of two rows of hard stones that were also roughly chipped on both faces. Its bottom was about 0.60 m lower than W72 and continued in use from the end of Stratum III. Wall 73 served two purposes: the southeastern side was the inner wall of the pillar building (L2059) and the northwestern side served as a terrace wall, slightly lower than W72. The street (L2086), between W72 and W73, also had its beginnings in the transitional phase from Stratum III to II, when it was flanked by W73 and W86. It was in use in both Phases IIB and IIA. Three column bases were in situ, southeast of W73. The western and middle column bases were single slabs of hard stone (Cenomanian from the Sakhnin Formation) surrounded by small stones. The eastern base had been removed in antiquity and only the small stones remained in the robber pit. The elevations of W73 (51.29–51.51 m) and the column bases (51.32–51.44 m) indicate that they were part of a pillar building from Phase IIB. This building is similar to Building 666 at Tell el-Far‘ah (North) (de Vaux 1961: Pl. 33). The pillar building (L2059) was in use for a long time and the accumulated floor levels rose from an elevation of 50.29 m (below the column bases) to 51.29 m (above the column bases). No vessels were found on the floor of the hall nor was there evidence that the settlement had been destroyed. The two walls and the pillar building were terraced on the eastern slope of the protohistoric tell. Terraced construction on the slope already existed in Stratum III (see above). In assigning the use of W72 and W73 and the pillar building to Phase IIB, four pieces of stratigraphic evidence are relied on: (1) Wall 78 from Phase IIA was built atop W72 from Phase IIB; (2) W84 from Phase IIA was erected directly on top of W73; (3) the excavation for the placement of the western column of the pillar building disturbed the curvilinear W87 of Stratum III, putting the latter structure out of use; (4) W73 was constructed alongside the Stratum III street in L2086 and the Phase IIB pillar building. It is assumed that the alterations made to its two faces were carried out at different times. This part of the excavation was very close to the slope of the modern drainage trench of the Hadera–‘Afula road. The slope was severely disturbed in recent times by the growth of vegetation and its continuous removal by means of heavy mechanical equipment. Neither sherds nor fill

43

levels were found that enabled the reconstruction of the ancient slope in an acceptable fashion. The fact that two walls from Phase IIA were built atop two walls from Phase IIB indicates that the eastern slope of the site was occupied during this period. Wall 89, L2118 and W110 (Plan 2.10) Wall 89 was exposed in the balk between Sqs R–S52– 53 at elevations 52.32–52.52 m. It was curved, 0.70 m wide, built of one course of two rows of hard stones. No continuation was found for it to the south or west, therefore the complete shape of the building to which it belonged is unknown. The southern part of W89 ran beneath W69 of Phase IIA and the floor levels of Stratum III were beneath it. In L2118 a floor reached W89 at elevation 52.35 m. This floor was contiguous with the floor (L2202) that joined W89 from the south. Another floor lay to the east of W89, in L2197, also at elevation 52.35–52.50 m. All these floors and loci were below the floors of Phase IIA L2009. Wall 110 was discerned west of W89 at elevations 52.36–52.57 m, in the balk separating Sqs R–S52. The wall, 0.60 m wide, was very flimsy, built of two rows of small, soft round stones oriented north–south. It probably continued south beyond the section where it was inadvertently removed during the excavation without being noticed by the excavators. West of W110, in L2204, was a floor at elevation 52.47 m. Wall 89 and W110 were not part of the same structure nor were they contemporary, and their stratigraphic assignment to the same phase is based on their relation to the walls and loci on either side of them. Wall 89 was located beneath the walls of Building 2067/2097 of Phase IIA and therefore definitely belongs to Phase IIB. Wall 110 cannot be assigned to an earlier phase than W89, as it lies above the late phase of Stratum III. The construction of these walls indicates that the transition from buildings with curvilinear walls in Stratum III to those with straight walls in Stratum II was not uniform. The straight-walled buildings from the latest phase of Stratum III were erected while most of the structures in Stratum III were still ovalshaped. On the other hand, W89 (Phase IIB) was part of an oval-shaped structure in the accepted tradition of Stratum III, built with the technique and dimensions of Stratum II, at a time when most of the buildings around it were already built with straight walls.

44

ELI YANNAI

The Architecture and Stratigraphy of Phase IIA (Plans 2.11; 2.1: Section 7-7) Wall 84, W78 and Street 2105 Wall 84, 0.50 m wide, was built of two rows of stones, one course high. Wall 78, 1.15 m wide, was constructed of one course of hard stones (primarily Cenomanian) and was part of a large building in L2097 (see below). The stones of W84 were set immediately above the stones of W73 (Phase IIB) without any soil separating them. It appears that the builders cleaned the foundation of W73 in order to lay the foundations of W84. In the same fashion, the stones of W78 were set atop the foundations of W72 (Phase IIB). The street in Phase IIB (L2086) continued in use in Phase IIA (L2105; elevation 51.41 m) and throughout the transition from Phase IIB to IIA the level of the street continued to rise. The row of columns found in Phase IIB was probably no longer in use in Phase IIA. However, the area above the columns was disturbed by the modern highway improvements. Building 2067/2097 and W50, W69, W77, W78, W88, W90, W81 (Plans 2.11; 2.1: Section 7-7) Loci 2067/2097 constitute two rooms of the large building from Phase IIA that was exposed 0.20–0.30 m

below the surface level. The building was partially damaged by modern plowing activities and its southwestern part was removed during the excavation of the drainage ditch along the side of the road. The building was delineated by W50 on the west, W78 on the south, W69 and W77 on the north and W88 and W90 on the east. Wall 50, 0.80 m wide, was a straight wall aligned north to south. The wall consisted of two rows of roughly chipped stones, one course high. Wall 69, 1 m wide, was a straight wall with an east–west alignment, built of one course of large, hard stones arranged in two rows. Although no height discrepancies were detected at the intersection of the walls, the two walls were not bonded together at their juncture and it is clear from the manner in which the stones were laid that W50 predated W69. Wall 77, east of W69, was built of one course of large hard stones arranged in two rows and roughly chipped on both faces. Its stones, larger than those in W69, continued the line of that wall, albeit with a slight deviation after a 0.70 m gap. Despite the fact that both walls are incorporated in the plan for one building, it is not certain that they were built together, or which wall preceded the other.

Plan 2.11. Stratum II Phase A.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

Wall 78, 1.15 m wide, forms the southern side of L2097. It was constructed of two rows of hard stones, one course high, with both faces roughly chipped. Wall 88 corners with the eastern end of W78 and encloses L2097 from the east (together with W90). The bonding of W78 and W88 produced a rounded corner leaving no doubt that they were built together (see Golani 1999:127, 129–131). Wall 90, to the north of W88, was 0.65 m wide and consisted of two rows of alternating hard and soft stones, one course high. It continues the line of W88 and is perpendicular to W77, situated to its west. These three walls were not bonded together. There was a space of about 0.40 m between the northern end of W88 and the southern end of W90, and

45

a gap between the eastern end of W77 and the western face of W90. Even though the three walls extend the lines of the building, they were not all constructed at the same time. The narrower wall, W90, was built after W77 and W88. Wall 81, 0.60 m wide, of one course of small hard stones arranged in two rows, was a partition wall dividing the structure into two equal-sized rooms: Locus 2097 in the east, measuring 3.60 × 4.10 m (Fig. 2.42) and L2067 in the west, 3.70 × 4.70 m (Fig. 2.43). The southwestern corner of L2067 was destroyed during the paving of the Hadera–‘Afula road. The entrance into L2097 was from the north, in the middle of W77, with its door socket stone in situ. We

Fig. 2.42. Locus 2097. Looking south.

Fig. 2.43. Locus 2067 and the surrounding area. Looking south.

46

ELI YANNAI

were unable to locate the entrance to L2067 and do not know whether it had a separate door or was accessed from L2097 via W81. The plan of the building appears to be complete, although there is clear evidence that its construction did not take place at one time. The western wall, W50, did not terminate at the point where it joined the northern wall, W69. The eastern face of W50 extends the entire length of the seam between the two walls, and thus it is clear that W69 abuts W50, which continued northward. The continuation of W50 after the formation of the right-angled corner with W69 was dismantled at a later date. No evidence was found attesting to the presence of a robber trench at the point where the two walls met. The northern part of W88 was dismantled and W90 was constructed in its place, inserted into W88 and into the connection with W77, and continued north from the corner of the building. Wall 90 was narrower than W88 and built of a different kind of stone. The builders destroyed the northeastern corner and connected W90 to another building located outside the area of excavation. The southeastern corner of L2097, that is, the point where W88 joined W78, was the only corner of the building that was in situ and formed by the connection of two walls built together. Its rounded shape indicates that the building’s original corners were curved and that the square corners in the northeast and northwest were the result of additions and repairs to the structure throughout the course of Stratum II with no apparent stratigraphy to them. Thus, the only original walls are W78 and W88. The building’s beaten-earth floors were at elevation 52.50 m. A number of items lay in situ west of W88, including the base of a jar (whose upper sides were intentionally broken off), a basalt grinding stone, fragments of pottery vessels and stone pestles (Fig. 2.44). Floors were exposed at an identical elevation (52.50 m) in L2009 west of W50, L2104 east of W88 and north of the building beyond W77. Another floor was located east of W90, about 0.10 m higher than the floors of the building, confirming the supposition that W90 is later than W77 and W88. Parallels to rectilinear buildings with rounded corners have been found in the Enéolithique Ancien at Byblos (Dunand 1973:213, 215; Plans J, a–c), in Stratum II at Rosh Ha-Niqra (Tadmor and Prausnitz 1959:81),

Fig. 2.44. Locus 2097 (mistakenly L2104 in photo) and the finds in situ on the floor. Looking south.

at Me’ona in the Upper Galilee (Braun 1996: Plan 1), in Stratum II at Qiryat Ata (Golani and Braun 1992; Golani 2003), in Stratum XVa–b in Area B at Tel Qasis (Zuckerman 2003: Plan 2), in Stages V–IV on the eastern slope at Megiddo (Engberg and Shipton 1934: Figs. 2, 3; Braun 1989b:3, 4) and in Buildings 384 and 374 in Area B at Afeq-Antipatris (Gal and Kochavi 2000:65). Area B East: Squares R–S56–60 (Plan 2.12) The Stratum II Street The street exposed in Sq S54, south of Building 2067/ 2097, was first used during the late phase of Stratum III (see above) and continued in use in Stratum II Phases B and A (Plan 2.11: Locus 2062, L2105). It ran eastward into Sqs R–S56–59, where it was flanked by two walls. Wall 118 was joined to the southeastern corner of Building 2067/2097 and continued the line of the building’s southern wall, W78. Wall 118 was actually a very long wall. In Sq S57 it is designated W119 and farther along in Sq R58 it is referred to as W130. All these walls together (W78, W118, W119 and W130) constituted the 25 m long northern wall of the street. The construction of the wall was not uniform and several phases of building and repair are evident. One segment of the wall was built of large, hard stones one course high and another segment was two courses high. In both sections the workmanship was of high quality. In several places the wall was repaired using small soft stones and this workmanship was quite shoddy. Wall 142 was uncovered in Sq S58, along the southern edge of the excavation, south of the street. It was 0.90 m wide and built of two rows of hard stones,

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

47

Plan 2.12 Area B East, Stratum II.

two courses high. It was cut by W120 and W129 and was connected to W122. The lower course of W122 and W142 formed the corner of a very early building (Phase IIB) that stood in the area before the construction of the street in this part of the site. The lower course of W122 served as a foundation for the upper course of the street wall in Phase IIA. A wall, consisting of a number of sections built in several phases, was exposed parallel to and south of

W118. The western segment was W143. The middle segment, W 122 and W129 in Sq S58, was composed of two walls, one on top of the other. The lower of the two (W122) was part of a structure from Phase IIB located outside the excavation (see above). The wall continued farther to the east into Sq S59 as W129. The street is thus comprised of L2238, L2239, L2236, L2243 and L2246. Wall 143, W122 and W129 constitute the street’s southern wall (Fig. 2.45).

Fig. 2.45. The eastern part of the street (L2246). Looking south.

48

ELI YANNAI

The street, 1.80 m wide, extended between the parallel walls from northeast to southwest, connecting to the Phase IIA street in Sqs T54–55 between W84 and W78. The southwestern part of the street was destroyed when the drainage ditch was excavated in the 1950s and the northeastern part was damaged by the construction of later buildings in Phase IIA (see below). The Round Structure of Phase IIA Comprising W139, W140 and W141 (Plan 2.12) A round building was exposed in Sqs R–S59. Its walls, W140 in the south, W139 in the east and W141 in the north, were built of one course of large hard stones. Wall 140 and W141 had only an outer face, the cores built against the exterior of the street’s walls. Two faces of W139 were found. As the walls of the street (W130, W129) and the walls of the round structure were all on the same level (51.83–52.20 m), their separation into two stages within Phase IIA is not based on stratigraphic grounds but rather on the following architectural considerations: 1. The round structure blocked the street (W129 and W130) from the east, denying passage through it. 2. Within the street, a large flat stone found in the center of the round structure presumably served as a base for

a wooden column that supported the round structure’s ceiling. If so, then this part of the street was now covered with a roof and connected to the round structure. 3. The round structure protruded symmetrically to the north, east and south beyond the walls of the street. There was no wall on the west within the street itself that sealed off the round structure (Fig. 2.46). As the stone walls of the street, the round structure and the surrounding area were excavated in their entirety, it is evident that the entrance to the round structure was via the street. The construction of the round structure did not destroy the street. It therefore appears that the street and the round structure were built in two different phases and joined together. The Southeastern Street and W120, W121, W128 and W138 (Fig. 2.46) Wall 120, W121, W128 and W138 all belong to the later stage of Phase IIA. They are segments of a wall built of one course of various kinds of large stones that was attached to the southern side of W119 in Sq S57. It is clear from the manner in which the two walls were connected that W119 predates W120. The latter wall was bow-shaped and curved to the east and then northward for a distance of 22 m. In the balk between

Fig. 2.46. The round structure. Looking east.

CHAPTER 2: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREA B

Sqs S57 and S58, the wall passed above and cut the corner formed by the intersection of W122 and W142, thereby leaving no doubt that it postdated the two lower walls. The street in L2243 and L2246 was no longer in use, now obstructed in two places: in the east by the round structure in Sqs R–S59 and in the west by W120 in Sq S57. An additional street was constructed south of W129 and continued east of the round structure (L2247, L2275; Fig. 2.47). Its southern side was delineated by W121, W128 and W138. It is clear from the manner by which the walls were joined that this southern street in L2247 and L2275 postdated the street in L2243 and L2246. The construction of the southeastern street probably resulted from the blocking of the earlier street by the round structure, serving as a detour to the south around the round structure. It is unclear where the detour led as the earlier street was blocked by W120. The later street continued in Sq R59, northeast of the round structure, between W138 to the east and W131 to the west. Wall 131 was not a wall but rather a row of large, hard stones two courses high, whose foundation level and top elevation were identical to those of W139 in the round structure. Northeast of the round structure was a surface of large flat stones (L2269), arranged in

49

two rows parallel to the round structure (Fig. 2.48). The stone surface and W131 were contiguous with the round structure; therefore, it is clear that they were either contemporary with the round structure or postdate it. As these elements were exposed in a very limited area, we do not know the plan of the structure to which they belonged.

Fig. 2.48. The stone surface in L2269. Looking southeast.

Fig. 2.47. The later street (L2247) and the round structure. Looking west.

50

ELI YANNAI

Wall 144 after the Later Street Went Out of Use Wall 144 was discovered a few centimeters below the surface level and was therefore quite fragmentary. It is located in Sq R59 atop W138, the eastern wall of the later street, and the construction of its foundation destroyed W138. Wall 144 was one course high, built of two rows of small, soft stones, and measured 0.50 m wide, considerably narrower than the other walls in Stratum II. It is clear that W144 postdates W138 and attests to further construction phases in the area after the street was no longer in use. No other walls were found that related to building phases later than the walls on either side of the street.

Summary: Area B East The construction activity in Area B East can be divided into four architectural and stratigraphic sub-phases: 1. Wall 122 and W142, the earliest walls in the area, prior to the early street; 2. Wall 118, W119, W129, W130 and W143, contemporary to Phase IIA in central Area B; 3. The construction of the round structure and W121, W128, W138 and W131 of the later street; 4. Wall 144, which ended the use of the later street.

NOTES 1

Yossi Nagar examined the skeletons in the IAA laboratories. In a letter dated July 12, 1994 he provided the anthropological data that is presented here in full. I wish to thank Mr. Nagar for the information and his permission to publish it in this report. 2 The idea of considering the two stone circles as foundations for the door jambs on either side of the opening was first proposed by Zohar Grosinger. I wish to thank him for his observation and permission to publish it in this report.

3

Part of the site is situated at the level of the water table, which is seriously affected by fluctuations in the level of the spring caused by pumping and by the sewage water from Kibbutz Barkai that is diverted to a storage reservoir 100 m south of the excavation. The water from the reservoir seeps into the soil, making the earth in the surrounding area very moist throughout the entire year and consequently creating a situation whereby we were unable to examine the sections or properly measure the heights of the floors and the accumulation of levels between the walls.

CHAPTER 3

THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREAS A, C, D, E, F, G AND H

AREA A Area A is located in the eastern part of the site, on the western slope of the southernmost chalk hill of the Menashe Hills, c. 200 m southeast of the spring. The purpose of excavating in this area was to ascertain the boundaries and stratigraphy of the site, and to determine during which periods the eastern part of the site was settled. Area A measured 10 × 10 m and was excavated to a depth of about 1 m. Stratum AIII: The Early Bronze Age I (General Site Stratum II) Sections of walls built of large stones, as well as collapsed debris, were exposed beneath the remains of the road and to its south. The walls were probably part of an oval structure, although the state of preservation in this area was poor and mechanical equipment working in the area destroyed the remains beyond recognition. Many sherds from the later phase of EB I (similar to those from Stratum II, Area B) and from the Wadi Rabah Culture (similar to sherds from Stratum VI, Area B) were recovered amongst the stone debris and in the surrounding area. Stratum AII (General Site Stratum I; see Table 1.3) A 5 m wide road, oriented east–west, was uncovered about 0.40 m below the surface level of plowed soil and erosion layers. Only one course of curbstones was preserved on either side of the road, between which was a fill of soft limestone chips (Fig. 3.1). Fragments of pottery vessels from the Byzantine period were collected from the fill; it therefore seems that the road postdates this period. Sherds from the Ottoman period found alongside the road suggest that it was probably associated with the khan located on top of the small mound.

Fig. 3.1. Area A. The curbstones and fill in the road from Stratum AII. Looking north.

Stratum AI (General Site Stratum I) The stratigraphy in this level was disturbed as a result of construction of the National Water Carrier in the 1950s. This work also destroyed the entire eastern portion of the excavation area. The northern and western parts of the area were covered with c. 0.40 m of plowed, recently deposited alluvial soil containing sherds from EB I and the Middle Ages. Conclusions No sherds from the Chalcolithic period or the early EB I (General Site Strata IV–III) were retrieved in Area A. The ceramic evidence indicates that Area A was first settled during the Wadi Rabah period, abandoned during the Chalcolithic period and the early phase of EB I and resettled in the later phase of EB I.

AREA C Area C is located on the edge of the marsh, near the spring, between Area D to the west and Area A to the east. A limited excavation of two squares was conducted here with the purpose of examining the stratigraphy in this part of the site.

52

ELI YANNAI

Stratum CII: The Intermediate Bronze Age (General Site Stratum IB) Stratum CII dates to the Intermediate Bronze Age. No evidence of the Intermediate Bronze Age was discovered in any other areas of excavation. The corner of a structure, most of which was situated beyond the limits of the excavation, was exposed. The walls were constructed of two rows of large hard stones packed with small stones and earth between them. They were 0.85 m wide and two courses high. A floor, composed of large, flat wadi cobbles, lay in situ north of the corner. The floor was surrounded on the east, west and south by the stone walls of the structure. The area of excavation had been disturbed by severe depressions and uplifts in the ground, causing the floor and walls to buckle by as much as 1 m. The excavation in Area C was too limited for us to determine the reason behind these phenomena, although they appear to have been the result of an earthquake (Fig. 3.2). Due to the extreme buckling, the stratigraphic relationship between the walls and the floor is unclear. We relate both these elements to Stratum CII primarily because the ceramics recovered in the surrounding area are unique to the Intermediate Bronze Age. No remains were found from earlier strata beneath the stone floor, and it seems that this part of the site was occupied only in local Stratum CII (see Table 1.3). In addition, many Intermediate Bronze Age sherds were retrieved from the level of plowed soil above the floor.

Fig. 3.2. The corner of a structure and the deformation of a floor in Area C. Looking north.

Stratum CI (General Site Stratum IA) This stratum comprised plowed alluvial soil containing mixed sherds.

AREA D Stratum DIII: The Wadi Rabah Culture (General Site Stratum VI) A small probe (1 × 1 m) was excavated within the Stratum DII building (see below) to ascertain the stratigraphy of the pre-Stratum DII remains and to investigate any earlier building phases. No Early Bronze or Late Chalcolithic finds were discovered in the probe; all the sherds were attributable to the Wadi Rabah Culture (unfortunately these are unsuitable for publication). As no architectural remains were found, the designation of Stratum DIII to the Wadi Rabah culture is based solely on the ceramic evidence. Stratum DII: The Late Phase of Early Bronze Age I (General Site Stratum IIA) A building in Area D was damaged by heavy mechanical equipment while preparing the infrastructure for the Hadera–‘Afula road. The tops of the walls had been scraped by a bulldozer and a tractor had sliced the building in three places and severely damaged the remains of the walls, floors and finds. The building consisted of two broadrooms bisected by a straight passage running southeast–northwest (Plan 3.1). Wall 304 and W300 delineated the northeastern corner (L4000/4003) to the north and east respectively. Wall 303 separated L4000/4003 from L4013 in the northwest (Fig. 3.3). The northern wall of L4013 was outside the excavation area. The southeast–northwest passage extended from the entrance to the building in the east to W306 in the west. Based on the only doorway fully exposed and in situ (in W302), the openings in the walls were 0.90 m wide and paved with stone slabs. The wall foundations, 0.90 m wide and preserved two courses high, were made of two rows of hard stones chipped on both faces, with small stones and earth between them. The undisturbed corner of the building formed by W300 and W304 was right-angled on the inside and rounded on the outside. It was constructed in a manner similar to the corner of Building 2067/2097 in Area B (as well as buildings of the same period uncovered at Qiryat Ata, Jericho and Palmahim; see Golani 1999:129–131). Hard, flat, stone column bases were found in situ in the two rooms (Fig. 3.3). They were a matched set placed equidistant between the walls of the two rooms. The southern wall of the building was not exposed in

CHAPTER 3: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREAS A, C, D, E, F, G AND H

Plan 3.1. Area D, Building 4000.

Fig. 3.3. Area D, Building 4000. On left, L4007 paved with large flat stones; pillar bases and the passage from the eastern room (L4003) to the western room (L4013). Looking south.

53

54

ELI YANNAI

the excavation, but its location is easily reconstructed based on the clear symmetry of the building’s plan and the architectural finds around it. The evidence is as follows: (1) A floor that was partially paved with stones (L4010) was exposed in situ south of the building. The line of the wall was apparent along the northern edge of the floor and it is clear that its stones were robbed in antiquity. (2) Both W300 and W302 terminate at the line of the supposed southern wall. The entrance to the building was from the east. Unfortunately, the tractor destroyed the area around the entrance. The location of the opening can be determined from the large flat stones which paved the entranceway (in situ) in front of the threshold (L4007). A floor (L4001), paved with large, flat, exceptionally hard stones, was exposed opposite the building’s entrance, east of the opening in W300 (Fig. 3.3). The floor extended across the entire length of the front of the building (L4007) and also along its northern side (L4002). The floors in the rooms were made of beaten lime. One floor was uncovered in its entirety in L4003, and parts of another, in L4013. A stone basin was found in the northeastern corner of L4006. One corner of the basin was still in situ on the white floor, the rest had been destroyed by the mechanical equipment that worked in the area. A stone bench ran along W300 (Fig. 3.4). Pottery vessels, buried in the collapse of the mudbricks and stones, lay on the bench and floors (Fig. 3.5). This building was the only structure in Stratum DII in which evidence attested to destruction in that level. Parts of two other structures were exposed c. 4 m east of the building. Wall 305 was a rounded corner of another building and W301 belonged to a third building. The complete building and the remains of the two neighboring buildings indicate that in Stratum DII

Fig. 3.4. Stone basin and stone bench in L4000. Looking north.

Fig. 3.5. Stone basin and pottery vessels in situ on floor in L4006. Looking east.

this area was densely built up with private dwellings constructed with straight walls and rounded outer corners.

Stratum DI (General Site Stratum IA) This stratum comprised natural alluvial soil devoid of archaeological remains.

AREA E Stratum EII: The Late Phase of Early Bronze Age I (General Site Stratum II) Area E was situated approximately 50 m west of Area B and about 30 m east of the western stream. Three squares were excavated to a depth of 0.50 m. A pebble fill at a depth of 0.30 to 0.40 m was exposed in each square. The pebble fill was arranged in horizontal levels consisting of small stones (averaging 10 × 20 cm) with a few large stones between them. Judging from the manner in which the stones were laid down, it appears that they were deposited as a fill for leveling and paving. No architectural remains were found and thus it appears that this area was used as an open, paved area (Fig. 3.6). A pit, 0.80 m in diameter, penetrated the northwestern side of the stone surface. The sloping wall of the pit was lined with flat stones (Fig. 3.7). Based on the sherds appearing in and around the pit, the fill was cut by the pit in the later phase of EB I (General Site Stratum II). Sherds from the Wadi Rabah Culture occurred in and below the level of the fill. This in itself is not proof of when the stone fill was deposited, and it is possible that it also dates to the Early Bronze Age.

CHAPTER 3: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREAS A, C, D, E, F, G AND H

Fig. 3.6. The remains in Area E. Looking west.

AREA F Area F is located in the westernmost part of the site. The area was selected for excavation in wake of development work along the shoulder of the road where pottery concentrations and the remains of earth and stone surfaces were exposed. Three adjacent squares were excavated, measuring a total of 7 × 10 m. No architectural remains were revealed in any of the squares. The earth and stone surfaces were situated one atop the other and extended across most of the excavated area. The pottery sherds found on these surfaces were large and excellently preserved, with no signs of weathering or wear. Thus it would appear that they originated inside the settlement itself or very close to the settlement’s fringes. The sherds were mixed in all the levels, and date from most of the settlement periods on the tell, including the Wadi Rabah and Late Chalcolithic periods and the early and late EB I.

AREA G The excavated area in Area G, 10 × 15 m, is located along a gentle slope on the eastern side of a flat hill about 200 m west of the excavation in Area B.2 Six squares were excavated from surface level to a depth of 0.50 m. Only two squares were deepened to 4.5 m (Plan 3.2). Nine strata were revealed in the excavation. Stratum GI was disturbed by the mechanical excavator and

55

Fig. 3.7. Close-up of the remains in Area E. Looking west.

therefore contained a mixture of natural alluvial soil without any archaeological remains, as well as evidence of the later phase of EB I. Strata GII–III were also from the later phase of EB I, and the three below them, from its early phase. A stratum from the Chalcolithic period (GVIII) and a stratum from the Wadi Rabah period (GIX—without architectural remains) were exposed beneath the Early Bronze Age levels. Strata GIX–GVIII: The Wadi Rabah and Chalcolithic Periods (General Site Strata VI–IV) Two deep probes were excavated on the western (L142) and eastern (L140) sides of W12, an additional 1.20 m below the level of the Early Bronze Age sherds. In the upper part of the probes, in a layer of earth at a depth of 0.20 m, a large cluster of bones and sherds was exposed in a pit (designated Stratum GVII, this pit may have penetrated from the EB I layer above) and around it were pottery sherds from the Ghassulian Chalcolithic period (Stratum GVIII). Sherds from the Wadi Rabah Culture (Stratum GIX) lay below the level of the Chalcolithic sherds to the bottom of the excavation. Stratum GVI: The Early Phase of Early Bronze Age I (General Site Stratum III) A thick layer composed of scorched clay bricks, bones and considerable ash was exposed beneath W29 and

56

ELI YANNAI

Plan 3.2. Area G.

W30 of Strata GIII–II. No architectural remains were found in this burnt layer and defining it as a level is based on its appearance in the sections throughout the entire area below the walls of Stratum GV. Pottery from EB I was discovered to a depth of 0.58 m below the burnt level. Stratum GV: The Early Phase of Early Bronze Age I (General Site Stratum III) A curved wall (W26), 0.4 m wide, built of one course of small fieldstones, was excavated at a lower elevation than W23/24 of Stratum GIV. The wall was abutted on the north and south by a floor, upon which were pottery vessels. Wall 27, W28 and W29 were situated north of W26. The walls are not part of the same structure and were each built at a different time, although it is not possible to determine with certainty which of the walls is earlier than the others.

However, judging from the absolute elevations, the four walls belong to different phases of Stratum GV: Wall 26 is from Phase GVA; W27, from Phase GVB; and W28 and W29, from Phase GVC (the earliest phase). Based on their shape and the architectural and stratigraphic relationship of the walls, it is clear that in Stratum GV there was a densely built-up area of oval structures with narrow walls that were destroyed and built within a short period of time. This resembles the construction at Yiftah’el (Braun 1997) and SidonDakerman (Saidah 1979). The lower portion of a pithos (see Fig. 4.70:7), decorated with a rope-like ornamentation 14 cm above its base, was discovered between the walls of Stratum GV. Alongside the pithos were two complete holemouth jars (see Fig. 4.70:8, 9). One can assume that the three vessels originated in a pit that was associated with one of the phases of Stratum GV, although their stratigraphic association remains generalized.

CHAPTER 3: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREAS A, C, D, E, F, G AND H

Stratum GIV: The Early Phase of Early Bronze Age I (General Site Stratum III) A long wall (W23/24) was exposed with its southern end below the walls of the oval building from Stratum GIII (W20, W16; Figs. 3.8–3.10), and its northern end close to the rounded corner of W25 in the northern part of the excavation (Fig. 3.10). Wall 23/24 is straight, 10 m long and 0.8 m wide, composed of one course of stones. The stones are small, unworked, hard limestone half the size of the stones used in the walls from Stratum GIII. A wall 10 m long could not belong to a residential building; one may assume that it was part of a public structure. Wall 23 was revealed following the removal of the curved wall above it (W25) from Stratum GIII. Wall 30, 0.7 m wide by 3 m long, lay east of W23 (Fig. 3.9). No join was found between W23 and W30 and they are neither perpendicular nor parallel to each other. Two large fieldstones found at the northern end of W23 connect with W30; therefore, it is clear that W30 was built slightly later than W23. A rich assemblage of

57

pottery vessels rested against the western face of W23/ W24, on what appears to be an earthen floor or shallow depression (L135; Fig. 3.11).

Fig. 3.8. Wall 23/24 from Stratum GIV beneath the rounded corner (W20) of the Stratum GIII building. Looking north.

Fig. 3.9. Wall 30 from Stratum GIV (left); W16 from the oval building in Stratum GIII and W23/24 from Stratum GIV (at the bottom of the picture); W10, W13, W15 from Stratum GII (center). Looking east.

58

ELI YANNAI

Stratum GIII: The Late Phase of Early Bronze Age I (General Site Stratum IIB)

Fig. 3.10. Wall 23/24 from Stratum GIV beneath W16 of Stratum GIII. Looking west.

Fig. 3.11. The cluster of pottery vessels in L135. Looking west.

An almost complete oval structure, as well as three walls of other structures, was exposed in Stratum GIII (Fig. 3.12). The structure, in the western part of the excavation area, is delineated by W12 to the west, W16 to the east, W18 to the north and W20 to the south. The northern part of the building was designated L113 (Fig. 3.13), the central part, L118. The southwestern corner of the building is missing. The walls of the building are straight and the corners rounded (see Fig. 3.12). In shape it is similar to structures found at the site in Area B (General Site Stratum II) and at several sites in northern Israel (see above). The flat stone threshold of the entrance to the building remained in situ in the southern part of W12, and a flat stone column base was in situ in L118. In the early phase (GIIIB), the building had an earthen floor at the level of the bottom of the stone foundation (L114), and in the later phase (GIIIA) the floor of the building was paved with small fieldstones (L113). South of the building, a straight wall (W21) of another structure, most of which is situated to the south and west of the excavation area (Fig. 3.14), was exposed. East of the former building, the rounded corners (W14,

Fig. 3.12. The building with straight walls and rounded corners from Stratum GIII and W29 and W28 from Stratum GV beneath it. Looking east.

CHAPTER 3: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREAS A, C, D, E, F, G AND H

59

Fig. 3.13. Wall 12 (left) and W16 (right) from Stratum GIII, the earthen floor in L109 with the column base following the removal of the stone floor (L113). In the background L113 with the in situ stone floor. Looking north.

the holemouth jar were those of a young boy and near his head were a small juglet and a bottle (Fig. 4.73:4, 5). No parallels to the juglet and bottle were found at the tell or even in the nearby cemetery. Presumably they are small vessels left as gifts, perhaps intended as special funerary offerings for small children. The burial of infants in jars beneath the floors of buildings in the Early Bronze Age is extraordinarily rare; until now no burials of this type had been published. Stratum GII: The Late Phase of Early Bronze Age I (General Site Stratum IIA) Fig. 3.14. Wall 21 from Stratum GIII (left). Looking west.

W25) of two additional buildings in close proximity to one another were uncovered. The major part of these two buildings is located to the north beyond the limits of the excavated area. The stone foundations of the buildings in Stratum GIII were built of rough hard stones from formations of the Turonian and Cenomanian epochs. The Infant Burial in L145 beneath Floor 113. A large pithos (see Fig. 4.73:1) lay beneath the stone floor in L113 along the northern end of the oval building. Within the pithos was a complete holemouth jar (Fig. 4.73:3) that contained the skeleton of an infant. Alongside the pithos were the shoulder and rim of another pithos of similar type (Fig. 4.73:2). The skeletal remains inside

The stone foundations of walls from two structures were exposed. Surviving from the eastern building are two walls, W10 and W15, which are aligned northeast– southwest. Wall 10 and W15, 0.9 m wide by 10 m long, were the external walls of a massive building. Attached to W10 from the south is W17, 0.6 m wide and aligned northwest–southeast. Wall 17 is an internal wall within the building. Stone paving (L103, L105, L107) was found in part of the area of the building. Wall 13 (see Fig. 3.12) and W19 of the western building are 0.6 m wide and run parallel to the thick walls of the eastern building. A portion of a street (L112), 1.9 m wide, was uncovered between the two structures. The foundations of the walls in Stratum GII were built of soft chalk fieldstones of the Eocene epoch that were collected in the Menashe Hills, a distance of 1 km east of the site. The stones in the outer row of the wall foundations

60

ELI YANNAI

were crudely dressed. The exploitation of soft stone for construction in Stratum GII is conspicuous in light of the use of hard building stones in Stratum GIII. The northern and southern walls of both buildings are missing and it is impossible to complete the outlines of the structures with any certainty. The orientation of the construction in the area shows that the structures were built parallel to the contour lines of the slope. Stratum GI: The Late Phase of Early Bronze Age I Stratum GI was disturbed by mechanical equipment and its remains were only exposed in the western section. From surface level to a depth of 0.60 to 0.70 m is a layer of black friable soil mixed with large building stones and EB I sherds. The upper level of this stratum (Stratum GIA; General Site Stratum IA) has been plowed during agricultural cultivation since the 1930s, and this has destroyed the settlement remains. Pottery sherds and settlement remains without architecture came to light in the lower level of this stratum (Stratum GIB; General Site Stratum IIA).

stone surfaces, to a depth of 1.80 m. The sherds in these layers are attributed to the Wadi Rabah culture. A large concentration of sherds, c. 0.60 m deep and 0.60 m wide, was discerned while cleaning the section, together with fragments of bones belonging to a single individual, 20–24 years of age. The skeleton was not found in an anatomically articulated position. It can be assumed that the deceased was buried here and covered with the large sherds (Fig. 3.15). No other human burials were discovered. The sherds that overlay the bones date to the Early Chalcolithic period, analogous to Stratum VB–C in Area B. It appears that during the Early Chalcolithic period the area was outside the limits of the settlement and was used for burials.

Conclusion The EB I stratigraphy in Area G is not identical to that of Area B. The transitional phases in Stratum GIV through Stratum GII were not found one above the other, except in one location (see Fig. 3.10) where W23/24 of Stratum GIV, W16 of the oval building in Stratum GIII and W13 of Stratum GII were exposed in sequence. However, the stratigraphic sequences in both Areas G and B indicate that the development from the beginning of the early phase of EB I until the end of the later phase of EB I was gradual and accompanied by numerous changes in the architecture, as manifested in the inconsistent stratigraphy in each of the excavation areas.

Fig. 3.15. Area H, Early Chalcolithic tomb in the section. Looking north.

Stratum HII: The Wadi Rabah Culture (General Site Stratum VI) The Northern Square (Plan 3.3). The later strata in the northern square were removed by development work at

AREA H Area H was excavated in the westernmost part of the settlement at ‘En Esur, some 50 m southwest of Area G.3 The excavators cleaned a trench, 1.80 m deep, that had been dug during development work at the site. In addition, two squares, 30 m apart, were excavated 10 m south of the section (Plans 3.3, 3.4). The section in the trench revealed a layer of alluvium and plowed soil covering the entire settlement, below which were layers of gray soil with several floors and

Plan 3.3. Area H, northern square.

CHAPTER 3: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE OF AREAS A, C, D, E, F, G AND H

61

the site and only the early strata, of Wadi Rabah, were preserved. No wall remains were discovered here, although the entire square was covered with floors and stone surfaces, installations and pottery sherds. At the bottom of the excavation, 1.20 m below the surface, a layer of soil, 0.37 m thick and bearing clusters of sherds and animal bones, was exposed. Above this was a 0.40 m thick layer that contained a large quantity of wadi pebbles and cracked and burnt stones. It can be assumed that the pebbles and stones were used for some activity that caused the stones and pebbles to heat up and crack. Within the layer of wadi pebbles were pottery sherds, fragments of stone vessels, animal bones and earth. In the upper part of the pebble layer was an in situ, rhomboid-shaped floor (L8007), c. 1.20 × 1.20 m, made up of pottery sherds (Fig. 3.16). Stone, pebble and earthen floors surrounded this pavement, covering the entire area of the square. These floors sloped gently from north to south. Overlying the sherd pavement in the southern part of the square was a 0.40 m thick layer that contained sherds and small stones. All the sherds found in the northern square are attributed to the Wadi Rabah culture. The characteristics of the sherd clusters are similar to the Wadi Rabah clusters in Stratum BVI (Area B) and Stratum DIII (Area D; both General Site Stratum VI; see Table 1.3).

in diameter, lined with plaster and covered by small wadi pebbles and round stones. Based on its size and shape, it can be assumed that the plastered installation had an industrial function in a domestic setting. It may have been used in the manufacture of pottery, with the bottom part of the vessel being formed in the ground and the upper part, fashioned above the depression. Vessels with bases made in pebble molds are known from several sites and were termed ‘pebble bases’ by Sadeh and Eisenberg (2001:85). Above the layer with the installation was a 0.40 m thick layer of sherds, bones and stones. Based on the sherds, these three layers are attributed to the Wadi Rabah culture.

Fig. 3.16. Area H, northern square, Stratum HII, sherds covering floor in L8007. Looking south.

Fig. 3.17. Area H, southern square, Stratum HII installation. Looking south.

The Southern Square (Plan 3.4). The lowest stratum in the southern square was composed of a 0.30 m thick layer of sherds, small stones and animal bones. Overlying this layer was another of sherds and small stones in the center of which was an installation built of stones and plaster (Fig. 3.17). The installation comprised a shallow depression in the bedrock, 0.30 m

Summary The evidence revealed in the two excavated squares presents an identical stratigraphy of three levels containing pottery clusters dating to the Wadi Rabah period. The finds in the lowest level indicate that at the beginning of the Wadi Rabah period, the area was used as a refuse dump. In the middle level, the plastered

Plan 3.4. Area H, southern square.

62

ELI YANNAI

installation in the southern square and the sherd floor in the northern square signify that during this phase the area was open and functioned as an industrial work area. During the latest phase, the area was once again used as the settlement’s refuse dump. Stratum HI: The Late Phase of Early Bronze Age I (General Site Stratum II) The Southern Square. Following a gap in human activity, the area of the southern square was reoccupied in the late EB I (Plan 3.4). At surface level, above the Wadi Rabah stratum, the stone foundation of a wall built of large stones and preserved to a height of one course (W1; width 0.90 m; Fig. 3.18) was exposed. The southern length of the wall was almost straight while the western part was curved, suggesting an elliptical building. The wall was severed at either end. In the middle of the building sat a large stone (0.40 × 0.45 m) with a flat top, apparently a column base. The location

Fig. 3.18. Area H, southern square, Stratum HI building. Looking south.

of the stone enables reconstruction of the width of the building, 3.8 × 8.4 m (for elliptical buildings dating to the late EB I, see Scheftelowitz 2002: Figs. 4.4; 4.7). All of the sherds found around the wall and the base of the column date from late EB I, contemporaneous with Stratum BII (Area B; General Site Stratum II).

NOTES 1

The equivalence of ‘Local Strata’ to ‘General Site Strata’ is summarized in Table 1.3. 2 The excavation, conducted in February 1999, was directed by Eli Yannai on behalf of the IAA. The excavation administrator was Hezi Dangor and the surveyors were Vadim Essman and Viacheslav Pirski from the surveying department of the IAA. The field photographs were taken by the author.

3 The salvage excavation in Area H was conducted over five days in December 2004 in the wake of damage caused to the site during development work. The excavation was conducted by Eli Yannai, who also drew the plans and took the field photographs. Yossi Nagar examined the human bones and Shlomo Ya‘aqov-Jam assisted in the administrative organization of the excavation.

CHAPTER 4

THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

INTRODUCTION Pottery, in varying states of preservation, was collected in all of the excavation areas. In Area B, a sequence of strata was uncovered from all periods at the site, from the beginning of the Pottery Neolithic period until the end of Early Bronze Age I. The excavations in Areas A, C, E, F and H, on the other hand, were limited in scope and the strata yielded few ceramic finds. Therefore, the ceramic corpus of the site as a whole is based on the stratified ceramic assemblages from Area B. During the course of the excavation in Area B, no evidence was discerned of destruction and no complete vessels were found on the floors. However, in Area D a small assemblage of whole vessels was exposed in situ within destruction debris on the floor of the building. Thus, one can assume that the occupations in Area B and Area D were abandoned under differing circumstances. For this reason, despite the fact that the pottery vessels recovered in the two areas are identical, we have chosen to present the two assemblages separately. Area G is located 200 m from Area B; their stratigraphy differs somewhat one from the other. It does, however, include sherds from the transitional stages between the early and late phases of EB I as revealed in Area B (i.e., between General Site Strata III and II). In addition, several types of vessels were found in Area G that were not present in Area B, thereby complementing the typology from Area B. The ceramic assemblage of Area G is therefore also presented separately, in its entirety, according to the area’s stratigraphy. The ceramic typology is presented from open to closed vessels. Types within the general vessel classes are defined according to rim shape and size, and the typological terminology relates to complete vessels, based on parallels with complete examples from our excavations and other sites. Some finds, recovered from excellently preserved and stratified loci, were not graphically presentable; in such cases, we have chosen to substitute them, for

typological purposes, with sherds of identical types that were found in less reliable loci or from other areas, but which are suitable for drawing and better express the features of the vessel type.

THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES OF AREA B STRATUM VII: THE POTTERY NEOLITHIC A (JERICHO IX) ASSEMBLAGE Stratum VII yielded only some 30 sherds, made of white clay tempered with chalk and straw. The sherds comprise body fragments from jars and a single rim sherd. Some were treated with a thick red slip and burnish, and two body sherds were decorated with painted triangles characteristic of the Jericho IX culture (see Kaplan 1977: Fig. 2:3, 5, 9; Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 1:18; 1983: Fig. 2:5, 8, 16).

STRATUM VI: THE WADI R ABAH CULTURE The ceramic finds from Stratum VI were recovered within layers of ash. No complete vessels were found nor could any vessels be restored. The typological designations are based largely on the schematic classification adopted by Y. Garfinkel in his ceramic report of J. Perrot’s excavations at Munhata and subsequent summary (Garfinkel 1992b; 1999).1 Ceramic assemblages of the Wadi Rabah Culture were first revealed in the early 1950s (Kaplan 1958b), and since that time additional assemblages of this culture have been exposed. Some publications have attempted to define a typology for the excavated assemblages (Kaplan 1958a, 1969a, b; Perrot 1968; Garfinkel 1992a, b; Gopher, Sadeh and Goren 1992; Sadeh and Eisenberg 2001; Scheftelowitz 2002); others have simply presented the Wadi Rabah assemblages without a typological outline, except for the most basic types (Gopher and Greenberg 1996:68–72). In the report of the Tel Te’o excavations, a general typology

64

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

was compiled, without subtypes, for three strata that were defined as belonging to the general time frame of the Wadi Rabah Culture (Sadeh and Eisenberg 2001:83). To date, only two attempts have been made to compile a comprehensive typology of all the sites where the Wadi Rabah Culture has been exposed (Sadeh 1994:42–54; Garfinkel 1999:159). The ceramic assemblage uncovered at ‘En Esur is relatively limited and not all the types defined in these two classifications were found in Stratum VI. Bowls Small V-Shaped Bowls (Fig. 4.1:1–5) The clay is orange and contains a large amount of chalk and very small flint and basalt inclusions; the core is light gray. The walls of the vessels, 2–3 mm thick, are straight, and the rims are tapered or square in section. Most rims have a dark red slip on the outside; some have a red band on the inside. Parallels were found in Stratum 12 at Kabri (Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.2:4, 5), at Nahal Bezet I (Gopher, Sadeh and Goren 1992: Fig. 1:4, 6), in Strata II–I at Nahal Zehora I (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 3:6; 46:1) and Stratum II at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 32a:4; 31:821). Medium-Sized V-Shaped Bowls with Rounded Rims (Fig. 4.1:6–16) The clay is pink or light orange and contains chalk and small basalt inclusions. The walls of the vessels, 3–4 mm thick, are straight, while the rims curve inward and are slightly tapered at the tip. The entire exterior of the vessel is coated with a dark red slip and there is a red band on the inside of the rim. The interior of one of the bowls (Fig. 4.1:12) bears incised lines. This group is similar to Type 102 from Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Type 2A), although there are few exact parallels (see also Tel Te’o: Sadeh and Eisenberg 2001: Fig. 5.3:2–5; Nahal Zehora II: Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 29:19; 32b:1). Deep V-Shaped Bowls (Fig. 4.1:17–21) The clay is orange or dark yellow, with many basalt and flint inclusions; the core is gray. The sides are straight, and the slightly everted rims usually end in a pointed tip. These bowls usually have a thick red slip and are highly burnished. Parallels were found at ‘Ein el-Jarba in the Jezreel Valley (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 5:2), Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 21:5), Stratum

12 at Kabri (Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.2:1–3), Nahal Bezet I (Gopher, Sadeh and Goren 1992: Fig. 1:9, 10), Strata II–I at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 29:4,11; 30:19; 32b:11; 31:19; 46:1) and at Nahal Zehora I (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 1:6). Small Hemispherical Bowls (Fig. 4.2:1–5) The clay is light yellow or various shades of orange, with numerous tiny white and black inclusions; the core is light gray. The body is hemispherical and delicate with a rounded or pointed rim. The bowls usually have a thick red slip finished with a high burnish. Parallels to these bowls were found at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 24:17–19, 21), Stratum XVIII at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 29:3), Nahal Bezet I (Gopher, Sadeh and Goren 1992: Fig. 1:1), Teluliot Batashi (Kaplan 1958b: Fig. 10:2) and Stratum 12 at Kabri (Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.1:1, 2). Medium-Sized Hemispherical Bowls with Rounded Rims (Fig. 4.2:6–10) The clay is orange or dark pink, containing chalk inclusions and tiny basalt inclusions, and the core is gray. The shapes include both deep and shallow bowls with rounded rims. Some of the bowls exhibit a dark red, highly burnished slip inside and out. Parallels were found at ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 7:3), Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 93), Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 24:16–18) and Stratum II at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 32a:5; 46:5; IIC:1, 7, 22). Mold-Made Carinated Bowls (Fig. 4.2:11–20) These bowls are made of gray-brown clay with a large amount of chalk and basalt inclusions and have a gray core. Their diameters range between 10 and 30 cm. Some of the vessels are open and shallow, while others are somewhat closed. The small bowls have a short wall above the carination, triangular in section; the larger bowls have a high, straight upper wall. The upper wall of the bowl was carefully smoothed and treated with a red or orange slip. The rims are tapered or rounded and there are clear signs that they were pared with a knife. Marks on the underside of the vessel, below the carination, indicate that the bowl was removed from a mold after it had partially dried, when the clay was leather-hard. The use of a mold is also apparent when examining the inside of the wall. The wall of the bowl

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

above the carination was formed from coils of clay with a ridge where the band overlapped the rim of the mold. The slip was applied while the bowl was still in the mold and covers the entire exterior wall above the edge of the mold (Yannai 1997a). The use of stone molds for the production of pottery vessels is also known at other Wadi Rabah sites. ‘Ein el-Jarba yielded an especially impressive example of this technique (Kaplan 1969a: Fig. 9:1); similar examples are seen at Munhata (Garfinkel 1995: Fig. 128:1–4). Medium-Sized Bowls with Square-Cut Rims (Fig. 4.3:1–3) The clay is orange with a gray core and contains chalk and black inclusions. The tips of the rims were cut obliquely with a knife. Some of the bowls have a deep groove (No. 2) in the middle of the rim. Fragments from both deep bowls and open bowls (cf. Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 23:9) were recovered. Both groups have thick walls, and a thick slip on the exterior and a painted band on the inside of the rim. Parallels were found in Stratum XIX at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 27:9), Nahal Bezet I (Gopher, Sadeh and Goren 1992: Fig. 2:3) and Stratum II at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 34:8). Platters (Fig. 4.3:4, 5) These vessels are made of brownish-gray clay containing many chalk and flint inclusions. The walls are upright, ending in a square-cut rim, and based on comparison with Garfinkel’s Type 7B, the base was flat and crudely finished. A wide, crude band of clay decorated with rope-like thumb indentations was attached to the outside of the platter. Parallels were found in the Kibbutz ‘En Ha-Shofet collection (Sadeh 1994: Fig. IV.29:2), Stratum 12 at Kabri (Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.2:8), Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 101:6–8) and Stratum II at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 34:10). Deep Bowls with Everted Rims (Fig. 4.3:6–9) The clay is orange with numerous flint and basalt inclusions; the core is gray. Both sides of the rim are slipped and highly burnished. Anati found similar bowls in the upper stratum of the ‘Coastal Neolithic’ levels at Hazorea‘ (see Anati et al. 1973: Fig. 35:5). This site is actually part of the ‘Ein el-Jarba site that was excavated by Kaplan and contained a mix of sherds from the Jericho IX and Wadi Rabah cultures.

65

Additional parallels were found in Stratum XVIII at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 29:6) and Stratum II at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 29:16; 32a:19). Kraters, Basins, Storage Jars and Pithoi Analysis of the continuity of the ceramic traditions from the Early to Late Chalcolithic periods at ‘En Esur indicates that these four classes of large vessels should be divided into open and closed types (contra Orrelle 1993 and Sadeh 1994:45, 51). The open vessels can be further divided into the smaller kraters and the very large clay basins and the closed vessels into the smaller storage jars and the very large pithoi. Hemispherical Kraters (Fig. 4.3:10, 11) The gray clay is coarse and contains flint and chalk inclusions. The walls are thick and the thickened rim, triangular in section, exhibits a slip applied to its upper surface. A thumb-indented clay band was often attached to the outside of the basin about 5 cm below the rim. Parallels were found in Stratum II at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 33a:23). Basins (Fig. 4.3:12–15) The clay is coarse and orange with basalt and chalk inclusions; the core is gray. The walls of the basins are very thick and usually untreated. A ‘hammer-like’ rim, flat on top, protrudes slightly from both faces of the vessel. Traces of the ropes used to support the vessels during production are noticeable on the sides of the basins. This feature is also seen on basins from the Chalcolithic levels. Parallels from Wadi Rabah contexts were found in Stratum XVIII at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 30:1, 2), Nahal Bezet I (Gopher, Sadeh and Goren 1992: Fig. 2:4), Stratum 12 at Kabri (Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.2:7), Teluliot Batashi (Kaplan 1958a: Fig. 10:3, 4), Stratum II at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 30:15; 33a:26; 34:15) and at Nahal Zehora I (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 1:20). Storage Jars with Upright or Everted Necks (Fig. 4.4:1–11) The clay is orange with very few chalk and basalt inclusions; the core is gray. Some of the necks are upright or slightly everted, some are slightly inverted with only the tip of the rim everted, while others curve

66

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

strongly outwards. The everted necks usually have a thick red or purplish slip and are highly burnished. Parallels were found at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 28:5–7), Nahal Bezet I (Gopher, Sadeh and Goren 1992: Fig. 3:1, 3), Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Figs. 124:10, 12; 125:7–10; 126:15, 16) and Strata II–I at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 32b:4; 36:11, 12, 19; 48:13). Jars without Necks (Fig. 4.4:12–15) Large quantities of black inclusions temper the clay. The walls of these vessels are often less than 1 cm thick; a few sherds up to 1.5 cm thick.The upper part of the vessel is not differentiated from the rest of the body and curves gently towards a rounded, slightly everted rim. A coarse red slip covers the outside of the body and the inner rim. Parallels were found in Strata II–I at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 33a:1; 46:3; 48:1). Bow-Rim Jars (Fig. 4.4:16–28) The clay is light orange and contains a considerable amount of chalk and tiny flint and basalt inclusions; the core is gray. Many of the jars have a thick curved bowrim neck 6–10 cm high. Most of the bow rims were treated with a slip in varying shades of dark orange, dark red or dark purple. The interiors of Nos. 27 and 28 were decorated with an incised design. Some vessels also have incised decorations on the shoulders (cf. Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 27:1–14). Parallels were found at Qiryat ‘Ata in the ‘Akko Plain (Fantalkin 2000: Fig. 7:9), in Stratum 12 at Kabri (Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.1:8, 9), at Nahal Bezet I (Gopher, Sadeh and Goren 1992: Fig. 3:4, 6), in Stratum XVIII at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 27:2–7), Strata II–I at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 36:13, 17, 18; 48:7, 8) and at Nahal Zehora I (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 2:17). Pithoi with Upright or Everted Rims (Fig. 4.5:1) The orange to dark yellow clay contains large basalt and chalk inclusions. This type shows a wide variety of rims including high, low and very short everted rims, as well as tapered and curved rims. The inside of the rim may bear a red slip, frequently the exterior of the body as well. Similar pithoi were found at ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 4:12–14), Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 107:1) and Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: Figs. 27:21–24; 28:104).

Holemouth Pithoi (Fig. 4.5:2–4) The coarse orange-pink clay contains chalk and basalt inclusions. The upper walls of these pithoi, 2–3 cm thick, slope inward and the rims are thick and triangular or ‘hammer-like’ in section. Some of the rims are slightly everted, some vertical and others slightly inverted. Most of the pithoi have a red slip on the rim and in some cases the slip covers the vessel’s exterior. Parallels were found at ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 7:2), Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 26:1–10) and Stratum I at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 48:2, 3). Holemouth Jars Holemouth Jars with Thin Walls and Tapered Rims (Fig. 4.6:1, 2) The gray or brown clay contains a very small amount of black and white inclusions. The walls of the vessels are 3–6 mm thick and the rim is tapered. These jars frequently occur unslipped, or treated with a dark red, dark brown or dark purplish slip on the rim. Parallels were found in Stratum II at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 35:20, 22). Holemouth Jars of Medium Thickness with Rounded Rims (Fig. 4.6:3–10) The gray clay contains a few black and white inclusions. The rims are rounded and occasionally somewhat thickened, often with a dark brown or dark red slip. Parallels were found in Stratum XVIII at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 27:12). Holemouth Jars with Thick Walls and Rounded Rims (Fig. 4.6:11) The brown or gray clay contains a substantial amount of brown and gray inclusions. The walls of these vessels are 8–10 mm thick. The rim is rounded, often slightly thickened, and has a dark red or dark brown slip. Holemouth Jars with Square-Cut Rims (Fig. 4.6:12–18) The clay is gray-brown with large white, gray and black inclusions; the core is gray. The walls of these jars are 2 cm thick. The rims, with a dark red or dark brown/purple slip, are square in section and most are ‘grooved’. In many cases, the lower lip protrudes inward, in others the upper part of the lip protrudes outward and the mouth is somewhat more closed. Parallels were found at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1982: Fig. 29:11, 15, 20), in Stratum XVIII at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 29:13), Stratum 12 at Kabri (Sheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.1:6), Stratum II at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 30:18; 34:7; 35:15, 17, 19, 21) and at Nahal Zehora I (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 1:25; 2:7). Holemouth Jars with Plastic Applications (Fig. 4.7:1–9) In this category are included fragments of holemouth jar rims of the three types discussed above, with plastic additions. No differences were discerned in the fabric or the typology of the holemouth jars with the plastic additions and those without. Parallels were found at ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 6:3) and Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 29:22). Holemouth Jars with Knobs: Nos. 1 and 2 were slipped with a crudely-applied, dark red to purplish wash. A round knob, 0.5 cm high with a flat end, was attached to the outer surface just below the rim. Parallels were found at Nahal Zehora I (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 1:3). Other Plastic Attachments: Nos. 3–9 include flat ridges, elongated knobs with triangular sections and elongated, thumb-indented knobs (similar to ledge handles but most certainly not used as such). These additions were attached to the outside of the jar about 3–4 cm below the rim. Miscellaneous Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.7:10–12) A few variously shaped holemouth rims were not classified, as a single fragment of each was found. Figure 4.7:11 is paralled in Stratum II at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 33b:16). Surface Treatment Dark-Faced Burnished Ware (DFBW) (Fig. 4.8) The vessels of this ware family are made of black clay with gray and black inclusions and have a dark gray core. The surface is highly burnished and in most instances the burnish is so dense that the entire surface of the vessel has a uniform shine. This family of vessels includes shallow bowls with carinated or curved walls and slightly tapered rims, carinated bowls, hemispherical bowls and small, thin-walled holemouth vessels. One of these (No. 14) has a thumbindented clay band attached as a rope decoration; the body fragment of another (No. 18), an impressed rope decoration. Parallels to the shallow carinated

67

bowls were found at ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 4:1–4), in Strata XIX–XVIII at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Figs. 27:7; 29:11), at Qiryat Ata (Fantalkin 2000: Fig. 7:1) and in Strata II–I at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 31:6, 15; 46:4). Parallels to the hemispherical bowls are known from Strata II–I at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. IIC: 7; 46:9). The DFBW ceramic finds from ‘En Esur are all small in diameter and thin walled. No fragments of large vessels finished with the black burnish technique were recovered. Apparently, the uniqueness of these vessels is not only evident in their production technique, firing and finish, but also in the range of vessel types. Incised Decorations The incised decorations are divided into four groups: Herringbone Decorations (Fig. 4.9:1–12). The herringbone decorations were produced by elongated punctures prior to application of the slip. These decorations are similar to Group H3–4 from Nahal Zehora II (Orrelle 1993: Pl. 63:10, 11). Puncture Decorations (Fig. 4.9:13–18). Rows of elongated, oval or round punctures cover the entire body or part of it, made before the slip was applied. This decoration is similar to Group S2 from Nahal Zehora II (Orrelle 1993: Pl. 70:1, 11, 13). ‘Rope’ Decorations (Fig. 4.9:19, 20). Rope-like decorations adorn the shoulders of some of the small jars. In a few cases a thin, delicate band of clay attached to the vessel was decorated with incisions made by a reed or branch. In many examples, this decoration appears on the shoulder between the handle and the neck. Judging by the shape of the fragments, all the rope decorations occur on a single type of small bow-rim jar that has a rounded shoulder and a flaring handle. The body of the jar was covered with a red slip up to the rope decoration, above which the body was untreated. The inside of the rim was usually red slipped and, sometimes, the rim’s exterior. Occasionally, the inner side of the rim was also decorated with this incised rope decoration. Straight-Line Decorations (Fig. 4.9:21, 22). Groups of incisions made with a four- or five-toothed comb or a single etching tool encircle the body of the vessel horizontally or, in some cases, diagonally. This motif

68

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

is similar to Group C from Nahal Zehora II (Orrelle 1993: Pl. 69:1–5). One fragment is decorated with short, wavy incisions made by a sharp implement (No. 23). The incisions are less than 1 mm wide and are etched in rows on a body fragment of what appears to be a storage jar. This specific fragment exhibits a dark orange slip and is highly burnished. None of the other fragments were burnished due to the decorations incised on them. Painted Decoration (Fig. 4.9:24–26) Three sherds with painted decoration were recovered in Stratum VI. One fragment (No. 24), a body sherd belonging to a small jar, contains a few minute black and brown inclusions. The surface of the sherd has a pink-orange slip and red-painted lines, perhaps a herringbone pattern. An identical decoration was found on a body sherd from Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 140:9, 10). A second body sherd of a small jar (No. 25), probably from the upper part of the vessel, has dark yellow slip and is painted red, leaving triangular areas unpainted. No parallels were found. A third fragment (No. 26) is adorned with a fine, complex decoration. The sherd is a well-levigated body fragment of a closed vessel, possibly a small, thin-walled jar, 3–4 mm thick. Its surface is meticulously burnished and treated with a light pink slip. Three very dark red circles are painted on the slip and a pattern of red lines appears below them, perhaps part of a rhombus filled with a net pattern (see Munhata: Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 140:12, 13; Nahal Zehora II: Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 35:2). Miscellaneous Finds (Fig. 4.10) Bases The bases from Stratum VI are mostly flat or lowring, usually crudely designed and carelessly executed. Fragments of several raised bases, red slipped and carefully burnished, were recovered. These fragments were probably once part of either footed bowls or fenestrated pedestal bowls. Parallels for pedestaled bowls were found at Nahal Bezet I (Gopher, Sadeh and Goren 1992: Fig. 4:2), in Stratum II at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher, forthcoming: Pls. 33a:11–13; 38:17) and at Nahal Zehora I (Gopher, forthcoming: Pl. 1:24).

Handles Most of the handles are flattened ovals in section, 2–4 cm wide. The middle of the handle is substantially narrower than the points of attachment to the vessel body (No. 6). Some handles are attached to the rims, either vertically or horizontally, others are affixed to the body of the vessel and some to the seam between the body and neck. Some handles have a herringbone design (cf. Kenyon and Holland 1983: Fig. 37:16) or a rope ornamentation incised on them. The design on the handle appears to be the continuation of the design on the body of the vessel. A Note on the Distribution of Incised Decorations at Wadi Rabah Sites ‘Ein el-Jarba and Hazorea‘ are located in the western Jezreel Valley, some 18 km from ‘En Esur, and Nahal Zehora is situated some 15 km east of our site in the Menashe Hills, while Munhata lies in the upper Jordan Valley, a distance of 80 km. The most common incised decorations at ‘En Esur are the herringbone designs and rows of punctured grooves. Similar decorations are known from ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 8:3) and Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 137). The second most popular incised decoration at ‘En Esur is the punctured group, which also has parallels at ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 8:7, 11) and Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 138:11–18). Despite the great similarity in the shapes of the vessels in these assemblages and the most common types of incised decorations, there are also significant differences between the groups of incised decorations. The technique employing a multi-toothed comb and the rows of punctured semicircles occurring at ‘Ein elJarba (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 8:13, 14), Hazorea‘ (Anati et al. 1973: Pl. XX), Nahal Zehora I and II (Orrelle 1993: Pl. 71:12, 14) and Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 138:1–10) are not present at ‘En Esur. The incised decoration comprising groups of wavy lines that is so prevalent at these four sites (Kaplan 1969a, b: Fig. 8:6, 10, 12, 15, 16; Anati et al. 1973: Pl. XXI; Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 136:14–21; Orrelle 1993: Pl. 64) is almost totally absent from the ‘En Esur assemblage. In light of the above evidence, there is apparently no relationship between the decorative styles and the geographic locations of the sites. For example, there are similarities in various aspects of the decorations from Munhata and ‘En Esur, despite the geographic distance between the two sites; in contrast few parallels were

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

found in the assemblages from ‘En Esur and Nahal Zehora and ‘Ein el-Jarba, even though these sites are in close proximity. Thus, several conclusions can be drawn: (1) each settlement has unique characteristics; (2) the use of similar techniques (e.g., puncturing, combing) creates a very broad common denominator between the sites; (3) despite the use of identical techniques, there are significant differences between the decorations at adjacent sites. One can assume that technological information was passed from potter to potter at adjacent sites and even further afield; however, while the potters utilized the information, the uniqueness of each workshop was retained. Discussion: The Wadi Rabah Ceramic Assemblage Although the Wadi Rabah assemblages from ‘En Esur, Jericho, Nahal Zehora, Munhata and Hazorea‘ are very similar, each has its own unique characteristics. There are differences in both the type frequencies and the styles of decorations. In the assemblages defined by Anati at Hazorea‘ as ‘Coastal Neolithic’, a mixture of sherds was found that contained ceramics from the Wadi Rabah Culture as well as Neolithic cultures (Yarmukian?). One should not disregard Anati’s suggestion in regard to separating the two Wadi Rabah assemblages he exposed at Hazorea‘ (Stages 12–13 and some sherds in Stages 14–18). Even if it is difficult to accept his ‘Coastal Neolithic’ terminology, it is reasonable to assume that the division into discrete cultures is correct, despite the meager archaeological evidence. In our opinion, the differences between the Wadi Rabah assemblages at the various sites reflect different phases within the Wadi Rabah Culture. Thus, the variations between the ‘En Esur ceramic assemblage and other Wadi Rabah assemblages (Stratum VIII at Jericho, Stratum 12 at Kabri, Strata XIX–XVIII at Horbat ‘Uza , Stratum 2B at Munhata, Phases I–IV at ‘Ein el-Jarba, Nahal Zehora I and II, and Levels 12–13 at Hazorea‘) are not merely a function of geographical distance, but rather, each site’s reflection of a chronological chapter of the Wadi Rabah Culture.

STRATUM VB–C: THE EARLY CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD The ceramic assemblage from Stratum VB–C (Figs. 4.11–4.17) originated above the stone surfaces and adjacent to the plastered depressions. In general, sherds

69

from clean loci are presented. However, we have also included several sherds from less definite stratigraphic contexts, when it is deemed they make a significant contribution to the assemblage. The small number of types is indicative of homogeneity of the ceramic assemblage, reflecting a short period of time. Bowls Painted-Ware vessels are made of exceptionally fine, white or light yellow, well-levigated clay that contains very few visible inclusions, and the painting was executed with a delicate brush. The decorations are painted in dark red and purple on a light yellow background, producing a combination of contrasting shades. The potters sometimes alternated between shades of dark and light red. Small Hemispherical Painted-Ware Bowls (Fig. 4.11:1–13) The clay is finely levigated, containing no visible inclusions. The diameter at the rim is no larger than 10 cm and the vessel is less than 10 cm high with thin, rounded walls no more than 2 mm thick, ending with an extremely sharp rim. The bowl has either a dark red band on the rim or the entire vessel is slipped. Fragments of five rims from this stratum are decorated with redpainted semicircles on their interiors, a tradition that continues into the following Stratum VA. Bowls with red semicircles on the inner rim are very rare at other sites. Until now only two such bowls decorated in this style have been published: one from Teleilat Ghassul (Fredericq and Franken 1986:56, No. 79), the other from a survey conducted by J. Mellaart at Jiftlik in the central Jordan Valley (Leonard 1992: Pl. 1:9). These two bowls belong to the V-shaped type (see below). One hemispherical bowl with red-painted semicircles on the outside of the rim was recovered from a Chalcolithic site near Sede Eliyahu in the northern Jordan Valley (Sadeh and Gophna 1991: Fig. 4). Bowls decorated with semicircles and triangles on the outside of the rim were also found at Bir es-Safadi in the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: Fig. 19:1, 3). Large Hemispherical Painted-Ware Bowls (Fig. 4.11:14–16) The walls are curved and the rims tapered. These bowls have a burnished slip that extends over the entire exterior of the vessel. Parallels were found in Stratum

70

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

XVI at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Figs. 34:5; 39:1). Small V-Shaped Painted-Ware Bowls (Fig. 4.11:17–21) Although a large number of fragments of this type were discovered in Stratum VB–C, only three sherds were recovered from clean loci. The walls are c. 2 mm thick and decorated with horizontal bands painted on the rim and the bowl’s exterior. Parallels were found at Ha-Yonim Terrace (Khalaily, Goren and Valla 1993: Fig. 2:3–7) and Asheret (Smithline 2001: Fig. 5:9–14). Medium and Large V-Shaped Bowls (Figs. 4.11:22–27; 4.12:1–14) The clay is light yellow or light gray and contains chalk inclusions. The bowls have a flat base, straight or slightly concave or convex walls and a sharp rim. Most of the fragments have wide bands painted on both the interior and exterior of the vessel. On a number of sherds the slip covers the entire body of the vessel. Some examples also exhibit a matte burnish. Parallels were found in Stratum XVI at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 39:4). S-Shaped Painted-Ware Bowls (Fig. 4.12:15, 16) The light yellow clay contains very few small chalk inclusions. The walls are curved and the rim flares outward. The exterior of the bowl is red slipped and there is often a wide red band painted on the inside of the rim. Some of these vessels are highly burnished. Parallels were found at Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 100:5) and in Stratum XVI at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 34:17). Kraters Thin-Walled Kraters (Fig. 4.13:1–3) The light yellow clay is mixed with a large amount of chalk inclusions. The walls, 1.5–2 cm thick, are upright and end in a smoothed, upright rim. Thin-Walled ‘Hammer-Rim’ Kraters (Fig. 4.13:4) This is a relatively rare type made of light gray clay containing white and black inclusions. The walls are thin and curved, and the rim is folded outward at a 90o angle. This is not a smaller model of a pithos, but rather a type of krater that is somewhat more closed than most of the kraters occurring in the ceramic assemblage of this period.

Thick-Rimmed Kraters (Fig. 4.13:5–11) These vessels are made of very coarse fabric containing numerous chalk inclusions. The walls, 3–4 cm thick, are upright or occasionally inverted and have a rim identical to that of the deep basins (below). Most of the kraters have a red slip applied to the rim and the exterior and some show signs of a matte burnish. Parallels were found in Stratum XVI at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 34:12). Basins Deep Basins with ‘Hammer-Rims’ (Fig. 4.13:12–18) The basins are made of very coarse fabric that contains a considerable amount of chalk and flint inclusions. The walls are thick with a ‘hammer-like’ rim: the rim protrudes outward on either side and the top is smooth and flattened. In some cases the impressions of ropes used to support the vessel during production, before it was leather-hard, remain on the outside of the basin. Parallels were found in Stratum XVII at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 32:9). Jars Small Delicate Jars (Fig. 4.14:1–4) These jars are made of yellow or orange clay. The walls are thin and end with a slightly up-curved rim. Some of the rims are 0.5–1 cm high and fold upward at an acute angle. Parallels were found in Stratum XVII– XVI at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Figs. 32:18–20; 34:24). Short-Necked Jars (Fig. 4.14:5–10) These jars have thin walls, rounded shoulders, a short neck and an everted or upright rim. This type includes jars with both small and large mouth diameters. Most of them have a red slip applied to the entire body of the vessel. Parallels were found at Ha-Yonim Terrace (Khalaily, Goren and Valla 1993: Fig. 3.2), Tel Te’o (Eisenberg 2001b: Fig. 6.4:5, 8, 10, 11), Tell es-Shuna (North) (de Contenson 1960: Fig. 4:1; Gustavson-Gaube 1986: Fig. 14:49), Tel ‘Ali (Garfinkel 1992a: Fig. 194:3, 8), Tel Zaf (Gophna and Sadeh 1988–1989: Fig. 11:7), in the lower strata at Teleilat Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: Fig. 9a:3) and at Khirbet el-Mefjar (Leonard 1992: Pl. 5:2).

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

Tall-Necked Jars (Fig. 4.14:11–16) Jars of this type are made of yellow clay. The walls are thin and the necks are often wavy in section and slightly inverted with an everted rim (No. 11). They are slipped. Pithoi Bow-Rimmed Pithoi (Fig. 4.15:1, 2) These vessels are made of light yellow or white clay containing only chalk inclusions. The walls are thick. No complete rims were found. There is no doubt that these bow rims belong to the Chalcolithic assemblage from ‘En Esur. Unlike those of Stratum VI, they are high and narrow, resembling the bow rims on Chalcolithic churns, although in this stratum the rims are attached to jars or pithoi. They are probably a continuation of rim types common in the Wadi Rabah period. Large Pithoi (Fig. 4.15:3, 4) These pithoi are made of yellow clay containing chalk inclusions. The rims are also characteristic of jars with wide openings (e.g., Fig. 4.14:4), as well as pithoi. The walls are thin and the outside of the pithos is decorated with a red slip or wide red-painted lines. Extremely Large Pithoi (Fig. 4.15:5–7) These pithoi are made of white or light yellow clay mixed with a large amount of chalk inclusions together with some flint. The walls are 4–5 cm thick and the rims are everted, either rounded or tapered. Triangular-Rimmed Pithoi (Fig. 4.15:8–11) These pithoi are made of yellow-orange clay mixed with a considerable amount of small chalk inclusions. Walls measure 2–2.5 cm in thickness, the rims are triangular in shape and sometimes the entire body of the vessel is red slipped. Holemouth Jars Wide-Mouthed Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.16:1, 2) The clay is light yellow and coarse. The walls of the jar, 0.8–1.2 cm thick, are upright, almost vertical, ending in a rounded rim. The surface finish is extremely rough and unslipped. This type of jar closely resembles the thin-walled kraters shown in Fig. 4.13:1–3. Parallels were found in Stratum XVI at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 34:6).

71

Small, Delicate Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.16:3–6) These jars are made of light gray clay mixed with a small amount of chalk inclusions. They have rounded walls, 4–6 mm thick, and a sharp rim. Most of the small holemouth jars have a red band painted on the outside of the body and on the inside of the rim. Figure 4.16:6 resembles this type but the walls are somewhat thicker. Thin-Walled Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.16:7–12) These jars are made of white or light gray clay containing numerous large chalk inclusions. The walls, 6–10 mm thick, curve inward and have a tapered or rounded rim. Miscellaneous Finds Fenestrated Pedestal Bowls (Fig. 4.17:1–7) The fragments from these vessels are of unlevigated yellow clay containing chalk inclusions. The rims are simple, thick and tapered and it appears that the bowls themselves were very shallow (Nos. 1, 2). Some of the vessels have very thick pedestals, the lower part of which is flared or cylindrical. Most have a slip ranging from dark red to purple in color. Parallels for such pedestal bowls were found in Strata XVII–XVI at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Figs. 35:11; 31:20, 21). Some of the pedestal vessels (i.e., No. 4) carry a perforated bowl that served as a strainer. Parallels were found at Yarmukian sites in Jordan (Kafafi 1993: Fig. 3:16) and in Nahal Qana Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996: Fig. 3.9:1, 2, 6). Churns (Fig. 4.17:8, 9) This stratum yielded fragments of three churns, including a fragment of a small churn (No. 8), the handle of a large churn (No. 9) and the handle of a medium-sized churn. The small and large churns are made of light yellow clay that contains many chalk inclusions and are unslipped. The medium-sized churn is noteworthy as it is red slipped and burnished, and has a flared strap handle that is conspicuously Wadi Rabah in character. Thus, the technological characteristics of this churn, as well as its surface treatment, differ from the churns of the Chalcolithic tradition at ‘En Esur and are typical of the Wadi Rabah Culture. Churns in Wadi Rabah contexts have been found at Qiryat Ata (Fantalkin 2000: 38; Fig. 7:11) and in Strata XVIII and XVI at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 35:7; 37:19).

72

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

Goblets (Fig. 4.17:10–15) Three small goblets and one large example were recovered. The clay is well levigated and contains a very small amount of tiny flint inclusions. The goblets are coated with a red to very dark brown slip and burnished. The upper walls curve inwards, the bodies are apparently narrow with flat or button bases. This type of vessel is unknown from other excavations and no parallels were found in the ceramic assemblage of Stratum VI. Typologically and morphologically, it resembles the cornets and small, delicate holemouth jars (Fig. 4.16:3–6). Its production technique and surface treatment are quite similar to those employed in the Wadi Rabah period. These goblets present characteristics of a transitional phase from the Wadi Rabah assemblage in Stratum VI to the Early Chalcolithic assemblage of Stratum VB–C at ‘En Esur. Cornets (Fig. 4.17:16–19) The cornets from Stratum VB–C are made of welllevigated clay, with no inclusions. A red slip was applied to the entire body and the upper part of the vessel was decorated with thin painted stripes. This group of cornets includes both elongated, closed types and broad, open types. In general, there are cornets with curved inverted rims and others with concave everted rims, although they are not easily divided into subtypes. Handles and Rope Decoration (Fig. 4.17:20–23) During the course of the excavation a number of loop handles were found, although none were suitable for illustration. The handles have a flat, ‘strap-like’ cross section, 3–4 cm thick and 6–7 mm wide; they widen at the place of attachment to the body, similar to the handles from Stratum VI (Fig. 4.10:3, 6). This handle type attests to the technological continuity of various elements from Stratum VI into Stratum VB–C. Along with these handles were a number of lug handles with an oval cross section; they differ from those of Stratum IV, which have a triangular cross section. Rope decoration occurs on a small number of body fragments belonging to large vessels such as pithoi and kraters. The rope decorations appear in various patterns and are rough and carelessly made.

STRATUM VA: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD The ceramic assemblage from Stratum VA was exposed within a limited and clearly defined area. The sherds

presented in the figures derive only from floors that have a clear stratigraphic reference to the precinct wall. The small number of types is indicative of a homogeneous ceramic assemblage. Most of the types found in Stratum VA are also present in both Stratum VB–C and Stratum IV. Bowls Small Painted-Ware Hemispherical Bowls (Fig. 4.18:1–32) The fabric is the same as the that of the painted ware in Stratum VB–C: white or very light yellow and finely levigated with no visible inclusions. The diameter of the rim is larger than 10 cm and the vessel is less than 10 cm high with thin, curved walls no more than 2 mm thick, usually ending in a slightly everted, rounded, incurved rim with a sharp tip. The base of these bowls was shaved with a knife, and many of the sherds exhibit signs of having been worked on a potter’s wheel. Most of the bowls have either a dark red band on the rim or the entire vessel is covered with a slip. A number of sherds are decorated with red semicircles on the inner side; others have red triangles on the rim interior. Three examples have unique designs, one of diagonal lines on the interior (No. 5), the others (Nos. 31, 32) with an unclear pattern on the interior. A rare parallel to the latter was found in Area E1 Stage 5 at Teleilat Ghassul (Blackham 1999: Fig. 16:26). Large Hemispherical Bowls (4.18:33–37) These bowls are made of unlevigated clay that contains small pieces of chalk temper. No fine ware fragments belonging to this type were found. The walls curve inward with a tapered rim; some examples are upright with slightly inverted rims. These bowls have a painted band on the rim and the entire exterior of one example is slipped (No. 33). Three fragments exhibit red semicircles on the interior rim. Parallels were found in Cave 2 at Asherat (Smithline 2001: Fig. 5:13). Medium-Sized V-Shaped Painted-Ware Bowls (Fig. 4.19:1–11) The clay is white or very light yellow tempered with a few small chalk inclusions. The bowls are thin and delicate, 10 cm high and 10–15 cm in diameter. The walls are 2–4 mm thick, straight, slightly concave or convex. A red band ranging from 2 to 3 cm in width was usually applied on both faces of the rim. On some

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

of the bowls, semicircles, horizontal and wavy bands, and in one case loops(?), were painted on the interior rim. Medium-Sized and Large V-Shaped Painted-Ware Bowls (Fig. 4.19:12–24) The light yellow, unlevigated clay contains a small amount of chalk inclusions. The bowls are 15–20 cm deep and 20–25 cm in diameter. The walls of some may be slightly convex or concave and all have sharp rims. Most of the fragments have a red band painted on the rim. On two examples red semicircles appear on the inner rim. Parallels were found in a cave in Western Galilee (Frankel and Gophna 1980: Pl. 23). Flared-Rim Bowls (Fig. 4.20:1, 2) The walls of these bowls are 5–7 mm thick with a sharp, slightly everted rim. These bowls were not slipped, but were sometimes decorated with a red band on the rim’s exterior. Bowls with Square-Cut Rims (Fig. 4.20:3–5) Many fragments of this type, including rims of bowls with curved walls and straight walls, were found in Stratum VA. Ledge-Rim Bowls (Fig. 4.20:6–8) The bowls of this type are made of light yellow clay with small chalk inclusions. The walls are 1–1.2 cm thick. The rim has an ‘external ledge’, sometimes decorated with rope-like thumb indentations on its exterior (No. 7). This type also resembles various types of kraters. ‘Hammer-Rimmed’ Bowls (Fig. 4.21:9, 10) These bowls are made of white or light yellow fabric and have a gray core. The walls are 1.5–2 cm thick, ending in a ‘hammer-like’ rim. They were decorated with a red slip on the rim and exterior of the body. These are very large bowls and may in fact be considered small kraters. Kraters Thin-Walled Kraters (Fig. 4.20:11, 12) These bowls are made of light gray clay mixed with a large amount of chalk inclusions. The walls are upright, 1.5–2 cm thick, and end with a simple or slightly everted, smoothed rim. None of the sherds exhibit slip.

73

The following two types of kraters were produced utilizing techniques identical to those of the basins and pithoi. The preparation of the clay, its color and the amount and composition of the temper are all very similar in each group. The coarse fabric is light yellow or light gray with the same color core and contains a considerable amount of chalk inclusions. Hammer-Rimmed Kraters (Fig. 4.21:1–9) The walls of these kraters are 3–4 cm thick and curve slightly inwards. The kraters are usually red slipped on the rim and exterior wall and show traces of the ropes and strings used to support the body of the vessel during production. Triangular-Rimmed Kraters (Fig. 4.21:10–13) These kraters have walls that are 2–2.5 cm thick, a closed profile and a rim that is triangular in section. Most of these kraters have red slip on the rim and on the exterior of the vessel. The examples with more upright rims resemble hemispherical basins; those with closed profiles are similar to certain types of pithoi and jars. Basins Basins (Fig. 4.21:14–19) These basins are made of dark yellow clay with a considerable amount of large chalk inclusions, sometimes also flint. They have 4–5 cm thick walls with rims that are tapered, square cut or triangular in section. The exterior of the basins were knife pared and there are visible signs of grooves formed by ropes used to support the vessels until they were leatherhard. Some of the ropes were removed prior to the application of a red slip, whereas others were removed after the application of the slip. Hemispherical Basins with ‘Square-Cut Rims’ (Fig. 4.21:20, 21) The clay is light yellow and contains a substantial amount of chalk inclusions. The walls, 3–4 cm thick, curve slightly inwards. The rim and the exterior have a dark red slip. Jars The jars are made of coarse fabric that varies in hue from dark yellow to light gray and contains many chalk

74

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

and flint inclusions. The core of the clay is gray. Most rims are red slipped, as are the bodies of some of the jars. Small Delicate Jars (Fig. 4.22:1–6) These jars are made of yellow or orange clay, the walls are thin and the rim curves slightly upward. Some of the rims are 0.5–1 cm high and curve upward at an acute angle. Short-Necked Jars (Fig. 4.22:7–11) This is a very heterogeneous group that includes jars whose short, up-curved rims range from barely noticeable to overtly folded outwards. Most of the jars have a red slip on the exterior of the vessel and on the interior of the rim. Tall-Necked Jars (Fig. 4.22:12–18) Jars of this type have either inverted rims (some of which are stepped) or everted rims. These jars are usually red slipped on the inside and outside of the rim and on the exterior of the vessel. Pithoi Bow-Rimmed Pithoi (Fig. 4.23:1, 2) See the description in Stratum VB–C (Fig. 4.15:1, 2). Large Pithoi (Fig. 4.23:3–8) See the description in Stratum VB–C (Fig. 4.15:3, 4). Extremely Large Pithoi (4.23:9–13) These pithoi are made of dark yellow clay that contains a large amount of chalk inclusions without any flint inclusions. The walls, 5–7 cm thick, were smoothed with a knife, and there are visible signs of the ropes used to support the pithos during production. All but one of the rim fragments were of insufficient size to be accurately measured as to diameter, although all were at least 50–60 cm in diameter and were folded outward to provide the vessel with added rigidity. Triangular-Rimmed Pithoi (Fig. 4.23:14, 15) These pithoi are made of dark yellow clay tempered with a large amount of chalk inclusions and some flint inclusions. They have walls that are 2–2.5 cm thick, a closed profile and a rim that is triangular in section. Some of the sherds, like those of the kraters and basins, are red slipped on the rim and on the exterior of the

vessel. There are visible indentations in the sides of the pithoi from the ropes and string used to stabilize the vessels during production. Holemouth Jars Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.24) The grayish-yellow clay contains a large amount of chalk inclusions and some flint chips. These jars occur with either a closed or open profile. The walls are uniform in thickness and the rim is tapered or slightly rounded. In some cases, the rim curves sharply inward, in others it is almost upright. These rim shapes are also common in jars, kraters and holemouth jars; the separation into different categories according to rim sherds is not always possible. Miscellaneous Finds Fenestrated Pedestal Bowls (Fig. 4.25:1–11) These vessels can be divided into two groups: (1) those with thick walls, made of coarse fabric tempered with chalk inclusions and (2) delicate vessels with thin walls of levigated clay. Some of the sherds indicate relatively large vessels, some with straight walls, others rounded. A fragment from one bowl has a perforated base (similar to a strainer) and a pedestal decorated with painted red bands (No. 7). From the fragments recovered, it seems that pedestaled bowls appeared in a variety of shapes and sizes and probably fulfilled a wide range of domestic uses. Churn (Fig. 4.25:12) Stratum VA produced two churn fragments, attesting to the continuity of this vessel type from Stratum VB–C into Stratum IV. However, these sherds do not enable the discernment of any morphological changes in the type. Goblet (Fig. 4.25:13) One fragment of a goblet with straight walls and a narrow, string-cut base was found. This vessel combines the small dimensions of the goblets from Stratum VB–C with the form of a straight-walled bowl, very common in the Early Chalcolithic period at ‘En Esur and other sites. Thus, this may be the origin of the initial development of the small V-shaped bowl, a vessel that became one of the most widespread ceramic types in the Late Chalcolithic period in Israel.

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

Cornets (Fig. 4.25:14–20) The cornet sherds are made of levigated material with tiny chalk inclusions and no flint. Body fragments were recovered from both long, narrow cornets as well as the wider variation. Two rim sherds (Nos. 14 and 15) definitely belong to cornets. The shapes of the cornets can be reconstructed based on parallels from other sites in Israel. Some of them have a red slip and a painted design on the upper portion of the body. Platter (Fig. 4.25:21) One fragment of a platter came from Stratum VA. It resembles platters known at other Late Chalcolithic sites (Garfinkel 1998). Varia (Fig. 4.25:22, 23) The rim in Fig. 4.25:22 is unique and has no exact parallels. It may be the rim of a small-diameter cornet. Figure 4.25:23 is a neck fragment, also unique in this stratum. Although it resembles in shape the neck of an EB I teapot, the light yellow clay, the quantity of temper and the shade of the slip leave no doubt of its Chalcolithic date, and a single parallel can be seen at Azor (Perrot 1961: Fig. 39:2). However, the fabric indicates that it was not imported from the Nahal Yarqon basin; rather, it was produced at ‘En Esur. Decoration (Figs. 4.26; 4.27:1, 2) In Stratum VA there is a marked increase in the number of fragments bearing rope decoration (Fig. 4.26:1–4), including attached clay coils incised with vertical (No. 1), diagonal (No. 2) and in many instances, diagonal grooves (No. 3). On many of the pithoi fragments there are traces of rope and cord imprints (No. 4), which were not an attempt to decorate the vessels, but rather remnants of the production process. Based on their location and shape, a 2–3 mm thick cord was wrapped around the body of the pithos during production to hold it upright until the vessel dried to leather hardness. Then the cords were removed, and no effort was made to conceal the imprints that remained on the body of the pithos. Numerous sherds with painted designs were discovered in Stratum VA, including straight and wavy lines, triangles and net patterns applied to the outside walls of jars (Figs. 4.26:5–10; 4.27:1, 2). Other examples include a Painted-Ware bowl sherd with a unique decoration on the inner surface (Fig. 4.26:5) and two sherds from small jars decorated

75

with crisscrossed lines between horizontal bands (Fig. 4.26:19, 20). Parallels to such decorations were found at Kataret es-Samra by Mellaart and published as ‘Chalcolithic Fine Ware’ (Leonard 1989: Fig. 5:1, 4). Based on the rich variety of painted decorations it is evident that the potters freely adorned the vessels, employing a wide range of motifs, mostly geometric. The painted decorations occur in shades of purple and dark red, which standout prominently against the light background of the clay itself. These painted vessels contrast sharply with the vessels that were left undecorated. The multitude of painted decorations in this period at ‘En Esur clearly distinguishes the ceramic assemblage of the Chalcolithic culture in the northern coastal plain from the assemblages of this period in southern Israel. Handles (Fig. 4.27:2–9) In Stratum VA handles with widened attachments as found in Stratum VB–C no longer appear. All the handles are lug handles of various sizes. Three examples of tubular handles belong to Painted-Ware vessels (e.g., No. 9). The complete form of the vessel is unknown. These three tubular handles indicate that some of the vessels of the Painted-Ware family were of closed profile despite the fact that most of the sherds are those of delicate bowls. Tubular handles, characteristic of the Cream Ware vessels known from the Be’er Sheva‘ Culture, are also known at Tel Gezer and at Giv‘at Ha-Oranim in the Nahal Yarqon basin. Thus, it appears that the group of vessels referred to as ‘Painted Ware’ at ‘En Esur is contemporaneous with Cream Ware in the south of the country and the Yarqon basin. To date, Painted-Ware bowls similar to those of ‘En Esur have not been defined in those two regions; it is possible they characterize the northern variant of the Late Chalcolithic culture. A rounded ledge handle without thumb indentations was attached to the rim of a holemouth vessel (Fig. 4.27:1). Although the vessel cannot be reconstructed in its entirety, this sherd is probably a fragment from the mouth of a jar-shaped ossuary (Perrot 1961: Fig. 35:1). A second fragment from an ossuary jar is made of very coarse fabric containing an extremely large amount of inclusions (Fig. 4.26:11). Based on its thickness and the straight finish of the pointed rim, this sherd is the upper part of the front of an ossuary. A

76

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

painted design on the fragment may represent an ‘eye’ with lashes characteristic of ossuaries from et-Taiyiba (Yannai and Porath 2006) and Ben Shemen (Perrot 1961: Fig. 28:1).

STRATUM IV: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD The ceramic assemblage presented in the accompanying figures was recovered inside Building 2010, from the courtyards around it and the stone-paved surface in front of it, and from inside Building 2208. The finds from the two phases and the stone surface in front of Building 2010 were not separated, as the quantity of sherds in the earlier loci was small and there was some possibility that sherds from the earlier phase were incorporated within the stone pavement. The vessels from Stratum IV have parallels at most Late Chalcolithic sites in the country and there is little point in presenting analogies for individual vessels, apart from a few close parallels from Mezer (Dothan 1957; 1959b) and Asherat (Smithline 2001) in the north, and the Be’er Sheva‘ sites in the south (Commenge-Pellerin 1987; 1990). The essential difference between the Late Chalcolithic assemblage of ‘En Esur and that of the Chalcolithic culture of the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley (Abu Matar as the representative site), is not in the types of vessels but rather the variety of the fabric and the surface treatment. Red slip on a majority of the vessels is a widespread practice at some sites in the north of the country, from Asherat in the west (Smithline 2001) to Delhamiya in the east (Amiran 1977), while most of the vessels of the Be’er Sheva‘ Culture are unslipped. In the Be’er Sheva‘ Culture, the plethora of rope decoration on the rims of basins and kraters is conspicuous (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: Fig. 27), whereas at ‘En Esur this type of decoration is quite rare. At ‘En Esur there was extensive use of delicate, hemispherical bowls for which there are no parallels in the Be’er Sheva‘ culture. Bowls Small, Thin V-Shaped Bowls (Fig. 4.28:1–6) The clay is well levigated with no inclusions. The walls, 2–3 mm thick, are straight, convex or slightly concave and the rim is sharp. The base of the bowl is flat and was carelessly removed from the potter’s board without any treatment or smoothing. The rim diameter ranges from 5 to 15 cm, as does the height of

these vessels. A substantial number of the bowls have a red band on both the interior and exterior of the rim and some have painted semicircles applied to the inner rim. Parallels were found at Abu Matar (CommengePellerin 1987: Fig. 17:1–6). Everted-Rim Bowls (Fig. 4.28:7) An example of this type is made of light yellow clay, has thin walls and a slightly everted rim. No slipped fragments were found among this group. Small Bowls with Flaring Wall (Fig. 4.28:8) These bowls are made of well-levigated clay. The walls flare outward, the rim is delicate and tapered and the base is slightly rounded. The bowls are slipped light red both inside and out. Delicate Sharp-Rimmed Bowl (Fig. 4.28:9) This is a delicate rim of a very thin-walled bowl (perhaps a larger version of No. 8). This sherd, made of well-levigated clay, has red slip, inside and out. Small Painted-Ware Hemispherical Bowls (Fig. 4.28:10–12) Only three sherds of small Painted-Ware hemispherical bowls (the most common bowl type throughout Stratum V) were found in Stratum IV. The clay is light in color, well levigated with no inclusions. The rim diameter is no greater than 10 cm and the bowl is quite shallow, less than 10 cm high. The walls are thin and rounded, no more than 2–3 mm thick and the sharp rim curves slightly outwards. Two of the sherds bear obvious signs of having been made on a potter’s wheel. The rim is decorated with a dark red band. The underside of one bowl was shaved with a knife (No. 11). Two painted body sherds may belong to a bowl of this type (Fig. 4.31:4, 5). An excellent parallel to the red-painted design on the lower wall of these bowls was also found at Oueili in the Euphrates Basin (Huot 1996: Pl. 25:6). This parallel, despite its considerable importance, is too geographically distant to be relevant to the ceramic discussion of a site in Israel. Hemispherical Bowls with Sharp Rims (Fig. 4.28:13) These bowls are made of yellow clay with numerous white inclusions and have a light gray core. A red band decorates both faces of the rim. It is a slightly closed variant of the medium-sized and large V-shaped bowls.

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

Medium-Sized and Large V-Shaped Bowls (Fig. 4.28:14–21) These bowls are made of white or light yellow clay with small chalk inclusions and have a yellow or light gray core. The sides are straight, occasionally convex or slightly concave.The rim is sharp and the base is flat. There are considerable differences in the heights and diameters of the vessels, both of which range between 15 and 30 cm. Most of the bowls have wide red bands painted on the interior and exterior of the rims. The interior of one bowl (No. 21) is decorated with wavy brown stripes. Bowls with Square-Cut Rims (Fig. 4.28:22, 23) Two light yellow sherds, which contain fine white inclusions and whose fabric resembles that of the medium and large bowls, are the only ones of this type that were found. Figure 4.28:22 is a rim fragment of a large bowl or small basin; the rim was pared with a knife and painted inside with red semicircles. Figure 4.28:23 is a rim fragment with knife paring on the top and a band of rope-like decoration affixed to its exterior. Ledge-Rim Bowls (Fig. 4.28:24, 25) See Stratum VA, Fig. 4.20:6–8. Kraters and Basins The clay used to produce the kraters and basins is light yellow or white with very large amounts of chalk inclusions and some flint; the core is light gray. The surface of the vessels is covered with clay ‘crumbs’ and knife shavings that adhered to them. The walls bear traces of the strings and ropes used to support them during production. The fragments of the thickest kraters/basins can also be defined as ‘open pithoi’. However, due to some doubt as to whether these were storage vessels, they are referred to as kraters or basins. Thin-Walled Kraters (Fig. 4.29:1, 2) The clay is yellowish gray mixed with large chalk inclusions. The walls are 1.5–2 cm thick and the rim diameter of these vessels can reach 60 cm. No slipped sherds were found. Thick-Walled Kraters (Fig. 4.29:3–5) The thick walls resemble those of the open basins (below) and the thickened, ledged rims are triangular

77

or square in section. All of the body and rim sherds exhibit red slip. ‘Hammer-Rimmed’ Kraters (Fig. 4.29:6, 7) These vessels have a ‘hammer-like’ rim and are, in effect, closed kraters. The shape of the complete body and its base are, however, unknown. Parallels were found at Abu Matar (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Fig. 24:2, 3). Triangular-Rimmed Kraters The dark yellow fabric contains large white inclusions. The upper part of the rim is flat, sometimes incised with a shallow groove. The outside of the body is red slipped. These sherds are too deteriorated to illustrate. Basins (Fig. 4.29:8–10) The walls are straight and exceptionally thick (up to 5 cm) and the rim is slightly everted. These vessels were carelessly crafted; none of the sherds were slipped. Parallels were found at Abu Matar (CommengePellerin 1987: Fig. 21:1–3). Basins with Ledge Handles (Fig. 4.29:11–13) The body is similar to other open basins and the rims resemble those of the krater types. A parallel to this type was published from Mezer (Dothan 1959b: Fig. 6:15). Figure 4.29:13 is made of light yellowish, almost white, clay that was poorly levigated and includes a large amount of large white inclusions. The walls are straight and slightly everted. The shape of the rim is hammer-like and the base is flat and very thick. Thick knobs, 10 cm long and 5 cm thick, were affixed to the outside of the body. Similar handles were discovered at Bir es-Safadi in the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley (CommengePellerin 1990: Fig. 26:1, 3). Pithoi Extremely Large Pithoi (Fig. 4.30:1, 2) These vessels are closed vessels with short everted rims. They are identical to the closed basins and holemouth vessels found in earlier strata. Triangular-Rimmed Pithoi (Fig. 4.30:3) These pithoi are made of yellow clay containing chalk inclusions. The walls are thin, and the outside of the jar is covered with a red slip.

78

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

Large Bow-Rimmed Pithoi (Fig. 4.30:4, 5) These pithoi are made of white or light yellow clay containing large amounts of white and gray chalk inclusions and have a light gray core. The walls are 1.5–2 cm thick. The joint between the neck and the body protrudes inwards, forming a ledge around the inside of the neck. The thick, bow-rim necks are over 10 cm high and usually red slipped. A parallel was found in a Chalcolithic burial and dwelling cave at Horbat Castra (Van den Brink 2004: Fig. 19:4). Jars Delicate Short-Necked Jars (Fig. 4.30:6–10) The light yellow clay contains a few small chalk inclusions. The walls of these jars are 5–8 mm thick. Parallels were found at Abu Matar (CommengePellerin 1987: Fig. 26:9, 11, 13). Short-Necked Jars (Fig. 4.30:11–13) These jars are made of yellow, well-levigated clay. The walls are 1 cm thick, and the rim and outer surface were sometimes decorated with red bands. Tall-Necked Jars (Fig. 4.30:14) The yellow or orange clay contains many large chalk inclusions. The walls of these jars are 1 cm thick, and the rim is straight and sharp. Miscellaneous Jars (Fig. 4.30:15–17) A small jar (No. 15) with a straight rim is made of a coarse fabric mixed with a large quantity of white inclusions. The finish is rough and careless. A broad dark red band is painted on the body and both sides of the rim are also covered with a broad painted stripe. A squat jar with horizontal lug handles (No. 16) is of a light orange, well-levigated fabric containing minute white inclusions. The surface of the vessel is knife pared and smooth. As the upper portion of the vessel is lacking, it is difficult to reconstruct its shape with certainty. The upright rim of a vessel (No. 17) is made of a levigated fabric containing a few white inclusions and the surface of the vessel is meticulously smoothed and slipped. Based on the quality of the finish, this is an ornamental vessel, presumably a fragment of the upper part of a small jar.

Holemouth Jars Small, Delicate Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.30:18–20) These jars are made of a gray or yellow clay that contains small chalk inclusions. The walls are no more than 1 cm thick. Frequently, the rims on these jars tend slightly upwards. These vessels were coated with a red or yellow slip and decorated with dark red bands painted on the inside of the rim and over the entire exterior of the jar. One sherd (No. 19) has red semicircles painted on the outside of the rim. Large, Rounded-Rim Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.30:21, 22) The clay is light gray or dark yellow and contains chalk and flint inclusions. The vessels were not painted or slipped. Holemouth Jars with Up-Turned Rim (Fig. 4.30:23) These jars are made of gray or yellowish fabric. The upper part of the body is slightly convex and the edge of the rim is tapered and sharp with a slight thickening below the rim, on the inside of the vessel. Miscellaneous Finds Cornets Although no cornets were recovered from clean stratigraphic contexts in Stratum IV, dozens of cornet fragments were found in general in this stratum, far more than the average number of cornet fragments from all the phases of Stratum V. We may therefore assume that cornets were used extensively in Stratum IV, although their relative frequency does not reflect this. The clay is well levigated with no inclusions and the walls are very thin, measuring no more than 3 mm thick. The cornets were slipped and decorated with geometric designs on the upper portion of the body. Some of them are similar to the delicate bowls of the Painted Ware found in Stratum V. Fenestrated Pedestal Bowls (Fig. 4.31:1, 2) Two fragments—one of a perforated bowl with a lug handle (Fig. 4.31:1) and one of a fenestrated base (Fig. 4.31:2)—were found. The very light yellow levigated clay contains small chalk inclusions. Both sherds have red-painted decoration on the lower body of the bowl and the pedestal.

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

Miscellaneous Painted Ware The delicate, hemispherical Painted-Ware bowls made of well-levigated clay and decorated with semicircles on the rim no longer form part of the ceramic assemblage, although the painted tradition continues. The Painted-Ware sherds include a fragment of a jar decorated on the exterior (No. 3) and two fragments of hemispherical bowls decorated with linear patterns on the lower interior of the vessels (Nos. 4, 5). The variety of vessels decorated with paint shows that the tradition of complex painted decorations present in Stratum VA continued into Stratum IV. The main difference appears to be the decoration on the rims. Clean loci of Stratum IV produced none of the hemispherical bowls with semicircles on the inside of the rim so characteristic of Stratum VA. Therefore, although a large number of such rim sherds were recovered from Stratum IV, we can only define them with certainty in Stratum VA; therefore they are considered to be residual and are not included in the ceramic assemblage of Stratum IV. Handles and Bases The assemblage of handles from Stratum IV is quite varied and includes the handle of a churn (No. 6), a lug handle of a vessel belonging to the group of delicate white vessels (‘Cream Ware’; No. 7) and a vertical lug handle on the body of a jar (No. 8). An unusual loop handle (No. 9) may be a basket handle of a decorated vessel. Among the base fragments is one that bears an impression of woven cloth (No. 10). The ware is light in color and well levigated, characteristic of the fine quality vessels of the Chalcolithic period of ‘En Esur.

THE TRANSITION FROM STRATUM IV TO STRATUM III Concomitant with the major changes in architecture that occurred at ‘En Esur during the transition from Stratum IV to Stratum III are changes in the ceramics. The Chalcolithic slips range in color from red to dark purple (producing a variety of contrasting shades on the light-colored background), whereas the EB I slips are in shades of orange and red/brown. In Stratum IV no burnished sherds were found, while in Stratum III a substantial percentage of the fragments are burnished to a gleaming finish, others to a matte finish. Gray burnished bowls, unknown in Stratum IV, suddenly constitute a substantial percentage of the bowl assemblage in Stratum III. The differences in the

79

ceramics from Strata IV and III are expressed in all aspects of the ceramic production: in the preparation of the clay, the quantities and variety of temper, the manufacturing processes and design, the decoration and finish and even the methods of firing the vessels. It can be said that in the transition from Stratum IV to Stratum III, the pottery underwent a complete metamorphosis, and even, with a great deal of caution, that a fundamental change occurred in all aspects of the site’s material culture. It is difficult to evaluate the processes that brought about such radical changes in the material culture: was the site abandoned at the end of Stratum IV prior to the commencement of the Stratum III construction, or were the Stratum IV buildings destroyed by the new settlers in Stratum III? The walls from the early phase of Stratum III were built on top of the Stratum IV walls and there is no stratigraphic or material evidence that the site was abandoned between the two strata. This absence of ceramic proof does not, of course, negate the possibility that there was a hiatus during which the site was unoccupied.

STRATUM III: THE EARLY PHASE OF EARLY BRONZE AGE I The pottery assemblage from Stratum III was collected from within the oval-shaped buildings and the open areas around them. These loci are stratigraphically clean and do not include ceramics from earlier strata. Many parallels to the ceramic assemblage of Stratum III can be found at Yiftah’el, as well as at Tell esh-Shuna, Mezer, Megiddo, ‘Afula, Tel Te’o, Tell el-Far‘ah (North) and the site near Nahal Alexander. Thus, it appears that the ceramic assemblage from ‘En Esur resembles those from sites in the northern Sharon Plain, the western Jezreel Valley, the southern portion of Lower Galilee and the Hula Valley—the region occupied by the ‘Jezreel Valley Culture’ in the later phase of EB I. Some parallels to the ceramic assemblage are also found at Azor in the Yarqon Basin, and thus the ‘En Esur pottery assemblage also has affinities with the pottery assemblages of southern Israel, as represented by Azor and associated sites (Golani and van den Brink 1999). The ceramic assemblages from Mezer, ‘Afula and Tell el-Far‘ah (North) were found in questionable stratigraphy. Their contribution to our knowledge lies in the geographic distribution of the ceramic types. At

80

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

Yiftah’el and Tel Te’o, strata from the early phase of EB I, including entire buildings in undisturbed contexts containing rich ceramic assemblages, were exposed. The pottery from these two sites resembles that of ‘En Esur Stratum III only, with no affinities to the following Stratum II. The architecture in Stratum III at ‘En Esur is also very similar to that at Yiftah’el (Braun 1997) and Tel Te’o (Eisenberg, Gopher and Greenberg 2001). Any minute differences between them can be attributed to the geographic distance separating the sites. The rich and varied Stratum III assemblage is examined here from both a quantitative and a typological/chronological standpoint. To ensure that the typological discussion is soundly based upon a defined ceramic assemblage, we present below only those vessels found in clean, undisturbed Stratum III loci. Discussion and parallels for the various pottery types are presented in those instances where they contribute to the ceramic discussion, primarily concerning chronology and regional distribution. Bowls V-Shaped Bowls (Fig. 4.32:1–10) These V-shaped bowls are made of orange clay with white inclusions and have a gray core. The tip of the rim is either sharp or rounded. They are red slipped and unburnished. Parallels to this type of bowl were found at Mezer (Dothan 1959b: Fig. 8:4), Tell eshShuna (North) (Baird and Philip 1994: Fig. 12:2, 3), Azor (Golani and van den Brink 1999: Fig. 4:1–3) and Tel Te’o (Eisenberg 2001a: Fig. 7.3:1). Medium-Sized V-Shaped Bowls with Inverted-Rims (Fig. 4.32:11–31) Some of these bowls have slip ranging from light orange to dark red and are horizontally hand burnished; others exhibit slips ranging in color from dark red to violet and very few of them are burnished. The rims are rounded or tapered, a few are sharp or square cut. Some bowls have a small groove on the inside of the rim. A few of the largest bowls with square-cut rims are actually an intermediate type between a bowl and a krater. Some have a rope-like decoration, incision or thumb indentation on the rim. Similar assemblages are known at Tell esh-Shuna (North) (GustavsonGaube 1986: Fig. 9) and Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.5:1–8).

Small Ridged Bowls (Fig. 4.32:32–34) The clay is well levigated without any inclusions. These small bowls have slightly in-curved walls and a shallow ridge on the outside below the rim. They are usually treated both inside and out with red slip, although they do sometimes occur without slip. Hemispherical Bowls (Fig. 4.33:1–24) The clay is orange with a gray core. Most of the bowls have a somewhat closed profile, others are more open. The upper wall curves inward, the rim is rounded and the base is either concave or flat. The curvature of the smaller bowls is more pronounced, with a sharp rim; the large ones have a rounded rim. Although the open hemispherical bowls with a tapered rim are very similar to some bowls of Stratum IV, they are easily distinguishable. Most of the bowls have a dark red, unburnished slip. Parallels were found at Azor (Golani and van den Brink 1999: Fig. 4:7, 8) and Tel Te’o (Eisenberg 2001a: Fig. 7.3:5). Miscellaneous Bowls (Fig. 4.33:25–36) These various rim sherds belong to typologically undefined bowls. Large Hemispherical Bowls or Kraters (Fig. 4.34) The curvature ranges from very moderate to quite pronounced in these larger vessels. It reinforces the rim of the vessel and is an indispensable element in crafting vessels with large diameters. Parallels were found in Stratum VI at ‘Afula (Gal and Covello-Paran 1996: Fig. 5:1, 3, 5). Hemispherical Bowls with Everted Rims (Fig. 4.35:1–4) Only four examples were recovered of this type, an early variant of the S-shaped bowl that became very common in Stratum II (Fig. 4.53) and in the late EB I tombs (Dothan 1970: Fig. 7:1, 2; Yannai 1996: Fig. 3:1–10). The lack of uniformity in rims indicates, perhaps, that these early vessels were produced before the common type became prevalent in Stratum II and the tombs. Until now, this early type had been discovered primarily in ceramic assemblages of the later EB I phase (Louhivouri 1988:159). V-Shaped and Slightly Hemispherical Bowls (Fig. 4.35:5–31) The clay is light orange to dark yellow. The bowls are characterized by straight or slightly curved walls, a

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

flattened rim, and the addition of a strip of clay to the inside or outside of the rim or both. The strips on the outside of the rim are often thumb indented, and one fragment is decorated with an incised rope-like design. The addition of a clay strip to the rim of a bowl is another technique to reinforce the rim, indispensable in the production of large and medium-sized open bowls. The small bowls (Fig. 4.35:5–19) are usually slipped and burnished; the large bowls (Fig. 4.35:20–31) are slipped and not burnished. Parallels were found at Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.5:8) and Azor (Golani and van den Brink 1999: Fig. 4:11, 12, 14, 15). Thickened-Rim Bowls and Kraters with Rope Decoration (Fig. 4.36) This type comprises open bowls with slightly in-curved walls. Some of the bowls have slightly closed profiles. A flat band of clay, applied to the outside of the rim, was intended to strengthen the rim and eliminate the need for curvature. Most of the rims have an incised ropelike decoration on the applied band and one fragment has a thumb-indented band. All exhibit an unburnished slip. The vessels occur with large and medium-sized rim diameters. Such bowls and kraters were also known from Tell esh-Shuna (North) (Gustavson-Gaube 1986: Fig. 11), Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.5), Azor (Golani and van den Brink 1999: Fig. 4:17–19), Stratum IV at Bet Ha-‘Emeq (Givon 2002: Fig. 10:6) and Tel Te’o (Eisenberg 2001a: Fig. 7.4:1–3).

81

Small and Medium-Sized Short-Necked Jars with Everted Rims (Fig. 4.38:1–10) The jars are made of coarse orange clay and have a light gray core. The body of the vessel is conical, with rounded shoulders, an everted neck and a tapered or square-cut rim. The rims are 1–1.5 cm thick. The exterior is coated with a light red or orange slip and unburnished. Similar examples are present in Strata IV and II. Parallels were found in Stratum VI at ‘Afula (Gal and Covello-Paran 1996: Fig. 5:13, 14). Small Necked Jars with Sharp or Rounded Rims (Fig. 4.38:11–18) The light gray clay contains white and gray chalk inclusions. Most of the vessels are slipped on the interior and exterior and burnished. Jars with Out-Folded Rims (Fig. 4.38:19–22) This is a smaller version of the out-folded rim pithos (see Fig. 4.40:19). The clay is orange with gray and white inclusions; the core is gray. Slip covers both the inside of the rim and the upper portion of the body. Jars with triangular rims (Nos. 21, 22) continue the tradition that was prevalent in Stratum IV. Similar jars are known from Tell esh-Shuna (North) (GustavsonGaube 1986: Fig. 14), Tell el-Mefaliq (Leonard 1992: Pls. 34:11; 36:1, 4, 12) and Azor (Golani and van den Brink 1999: Fig. 5:8–10). Pithoi

Jars Jars without Necks (Fig. 4.37:1–14) These jars are small versions of the pithoi without necks (see Fig. 4.39:1–8). Although no complete vessels were found, it is reasonable to assume that the body of this jar was similar to the cylindrical body of the pithoi (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.18). Some of the jars have an accentuated, everted rim, while others have almost no separation between body and rim (Nos. 9–14). Some of the rims are round in profile, others are square. Jars with Slightly Everted Rims (Fig. 4.37:15–21) The walls of the vessel are 2–3 cm thick with a curved shoulder and a short, neck-less rim. The rim is frequently square or triangular in section.

All the pithos sherds are 2–3 cm thick and made of coarse, dark orange clay with a black core. The slip, in dark shades of brown, red or violet, was carelessly smeared onto the body of the pithos. No sherds treated with band slip were found. The pithoi can be divided into two main types, with or without necks. Pithoi without Necks (Figs. 4.39; 4.40:1–6) These pithoi have a tall, cylindrical body (the upper portion is conical) and an everted rim. The extent of the rim inflection varies from vessel to vessel. The tips of some of the rims are round in profile, others are square. A clay band with a thumb-indented rope decoration was affixed to the shoulder of the thickest pithoi (presumably also the largest vessels), about 20–25 cm below the rim. This type of ‘collared rim’ pithos (Yannai 2006) was also discovered at Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.18) and Tell esh-Shuna (North)

82

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

(Gustavson-Gaube 1986: Fig. 15:52a–53). A complete pithos from Mezer was published by Dothan (1959b: Fig. 8:13). The Azor assemblage has yielded parallels to most of the ‘En Esur vessels (Golani and van den Brink 1999: Fig. 5:2–7), but also includes ‘collared rim’ pithoi with rope-like decoration popular in the Yarqon Basin assemblages during the Chalcolithic period and early EB I, but not found in the ‘En Esur assemblage.

Amphoriskos with a Low, Wide Neck (Fig. 4.41:2) A parallel to this vessel was found at Azor (Golani and van den Brink 1999: Fig. 10:13).

Pithoi with Necks (Fig. 4.40:7–18) Most of these pithoi have an upright neck and rim and a rounded shoulder. Some rims have a square cut profile (cf. Braun 1997: Fig. 9.17:3, 5). A number of vessels with a slightly everted or inverted neck are early examples of the ‘bow-rim neck’ (Fig. 4.40:13– 18). Close parallels were found at Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Figs. 9.16; 9.19), Stratum VI at ‘Afula (Gal and Covello-Paran 1996: Fig. 6:2, 3), Strata IV–V at Tel Te’o (Eisenberg 2001a: Fig. 7.6:7, 12) and Khirbet elMefjar (Leonard 1992: Pl. 3:14, 15). This type of rim is prevalent in Stratum II.

Jugs were popular in tomb repertoires but no parallels have been published from early EB I strata, apart from a single unique early EB I tomb (No. 3) from Tell elFar´ah (North), dated by the collection of early types of Gray Burnished Ware bowls (de Vaux and Stève 1949: Fig. 1:13, 14).

Pithoi with Out-Folded Rims (Fig. 4.40:19). The tip of the rim is tapered and the body surface is smooth and unslipped. No decorated sherds were found. A parallel comes from Stratum J-3 at Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.2:5). Triangular-Rimmed Pithoi (Fig. 4.40:20). The walls are rounded and the rim is folded outwards and triangular in profile. Some of the rims are thin, others are thick and coarse. The surface of the pithoi is smooth and most of the sherds are red slipped. Miscellaneous Pithos (Fig. 4.40:21) This a large, heavy rim of a unique pithos or krater, unlike other types found at ‘En Esur.

Amphoriskos with an Inclined Neck (Fig. 4.41:3) Part of the neck and upper body of an amphoriskos; the shape of the complete vessel is unknown. Jugs (Fig. 4.41:4–6; see Fig. 4.41:5)

Holemouth Jars Simple Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.42) The clay is orange to dark pink and the core is light gray. The walls of these vessels are uniformly thick, measuring 1–1.5 cm. Some of the rims are smooth with a tapered finish. Most are unslipped, a few have a dark orange or light red slip. Parallels were found at Azor (Golani and van den Brink 1999: Fig. 7:1–4) and in the Jordan Valley at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sharqi (Leonard 1992: Pl. 29:20). Holemouth Jars with Thickened Rims (Fig. 4.43:1–5) The clay ranges in color from light orange to brown, with a substantial amount of white inclusions and flint; the core is black. The rims indicate medium-sized jars. Some of the rims are slightly thickened and tapered in profile. Most of the vessels are unslipped; a few have an unburnished orange slip.

The amphoriskoi resemble small versions of pithoi and storage jars.

Holemouth Jars with Square-Cut Rims (Fig. 4.43:6–17) These jars are made of well-levigated clay. The rims are square in profile, slanting inward at a 45° angle or more. Some have an incised rope-like decoration below the rim and most exhibit a light red or orange slip. Parallels were found at Moza (Eisenberg 1993b: Fig. 3:5).

Amphoriskos with a High, Wide Neck (Fig. 4.41:1) The high, wide neck bears a resemblance to necks of storage jar types. One parallel was found at Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.25:1) and another at Azor (Golani and van den Brink 1999: Fig. 12:6).

Holemouth Jars with Grooved Rims (Fig. 4.43:18–20) These rims are similar to the thickened, tapered and squared rims. However, the potter created a 5 mm deep groove along the flattened surface of the rim. Some of these vessels were used as holemouth cooking pots,

Amphoriskoi

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

as they were tempered with large quantities of flint inclusions and a number of them were blackened. Wide-Mouthed Holemouth Jars with In-Sloping Triangular Rims (Fig. 4.44:1–12) The clay ranges in color from light brown to dark yellow and contains a substantial amount of white and brown inclusions; the core is black. The rims are thin and delicate with triangular sections and sharp or rounded tips. The majority of these vessels are unslipped. Parallels were found in Stratum J-2 at Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.1:5). Holemouth Jars with External Band on Outer Rim (Fig. 4.44:13–30) The shoulder of the vessel is rounded or inclined, and the walls are 1.5–2.5 cm thick. Most have an opening 35–40 cm in diameter. The rims are triangular, square cut or rounded in profile, with a band of clay affixed to the outer rim. Some of the rims with rounded profiles have a rope-like, thumb-indented decoration in a variety of shapes. Parallels occur in Stratum J-2 at Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.1:13). ‘Hammer-Rimmed’ Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.45) This type is similar to the previous type, and is a link between the holemouth jars and the kraters with ‘hammer’ rims. Not all of the rims can be unequivocally defined as belonging to a jar or krater. Most of these jars are made of extremely gritty, coarse clay and unslipped. Some of the vessels were probably cooking pots, although this is uncertain due to their small dimensions. Holemouth Jars with Thick Folded Rims (Fig. 4.46) These vessels include both wide, open profiles and closed profiles. Some have an incurved rim. The open examples resemble kraters with thickened rims in shape, as well as in the widespread use of slips and rope-like decorations incised diagonally on the outside of the rim. A similar group of holemouth vessels was found at Tell esh-Shuna (North) (Gustavson-Gaube 1986: Fig. 12) and two similar vessels are known at Tel Qiri (Baruch 1987: Fig. 70:19, 20). Holemouth Jars with Thickened, Square-Cut Rims (Fig. 4.47) This group incorporates the typological features of both the holemouth jars with square-cut rims and the kraters

83

with thickened rims. Judging from their dimensions, it is possible that some of these vessels should even be classified as pithoi. Parallels were found in Stratum J-3 at Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.2:4), Statum VI at ‘Afula (Gal and Covello-Paran 1996: Fig. 5:6–8) and Strata V–IV at Tel Te’o (Eisenberg 2001a: Fig. 7.5:5, 11). Triangular-Rimmed Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.48:1–10) These holemouth jars have a closed profile and varying rim diameters; some may belong to pithoi. A number of rims have a groove or affixed rope decoration. Parallels were found in Strata V–IV at Tel Te’o (Eisenberg 2001a: Fig. 7.5:12–14) and Tel Qiri (Baruch 1987: Fig. 70:17). Miscellaneous Finds Miscellaneous Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.48:11–13). The extensive range of shapes of holemouth rims includes isolated fragments that could not be assigned to a specific type. Two rims with a triangular cross section (Nos. 11, 12) were not included in the previous type with a similar cross section (Fig. 4.48:1–10), as their shape is different. Another rim has a rounded cross section (No. 13). Teapot Spout (Fig. 4.48:14). This sherd is identical to teapot spouts found in the late EB I tombs in the ‘En Esur cemetery, contemporary with Stratum II (Yannai, forthcoming d), indicating that this type first appeared in the early EB I ceramic assemblage of Stratum III. Imported Vessels From among the thousands of sherds recovered in Stratum III, only a few were apparently not produced at ‘En Esur, based on their shape, color and finish. Not all were publishable. Painted Sherds (Fig. 4.48:15–17). One jar sherd (No. 15) is decorated with dark brown paint on the unslipped body. Another sherd (No. 16) has a burnished light brown slip with darker brown stripes painted on it after the burnish was applied. The colors and the technique of applying the stripes after burnishing differ from other sherds found in the excavation. Therefore, it is assumed that this object was imported to ‘En Esur, probably from outside Israel.

84

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

A small, flat base (Fig. 4.48:17) is made of light orange clay and has a light gray core. This base, like No. 16, also exhibits a very light brown slip and burnish, with vertical brown stripes painted on both sides of the vessel over the burnish. A sherd decorated with the identical technique was collected by one of the authors (E.Y.) on the surface of the eastern slope of Area B at Megiddo. High-Handled Jugs (Fig. 4.48:18) The clay is dark gray, coated with an orange slip and highly burnished. According to parallels, a triangular ridge would have been affixed to the body of the jug and the handle would have extended from the ridge to the rim. A sharp instrument was used to incise deep grooves on either side of the handle and the ridge down to the base of the vessel. Based on the shape of the handle and the ridge, the fabric and the finish, the jug was not made at ‘En Esur. The light gold-orange shade of the slip and the quality of the burnish are unknown from sites in the Jordan Valley or the coastal plain. Fragments of a similar type of jug (or amphoriskos) were also found at Tel Te’o (Eisenberg 2001a: Fig. 7.3:8) and Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.14:5). The origin of these vessels should be sought in other regions of Israel, such as the northern coastal plain or beyond. In addition to the illustrated example, two other high handles were found, as well as a number of body sherds with clay bands, triangular in section, with small grooves incised on either side of them. Judging from the shape of the fragments and the color of their slip, all of them belong to vessels of the same type. The slip and fine burnish stand out in stark contrast to the red-slipped ceramic assemblage of ‘En Esur. Crackled Ware Among the imported finds are two sherds from the northern Jordan Valley (IAA Nos. 71282, 71276): a bowl with an upright holemouth rim and a sherd of an amphoriskos. Both sherds, of yellow clay with orange and red inclusions, an orange core, and a light gray, almost black cracked slip, belong to the group designated by Esse as ‘Crackled Ware’ (Esse 1989). Miscellaneous Imported Sherds Six sherds from an imported jar were recovered in L2067. The piriform-shaped vessel, crafted of brown clay and with a gritty gray core, was brown slipped and vertically burnished. No similar vessels were found

at ‘En Esur and there is no doubt it was produced elsewhere. A sherd of a piriform-shaped amphoriskos, made of very light brown clay with a light-colored core, was discovered in L2018. It has a light yellow slip and was decorated with wide, vertical brown painted stripes. As no other sherds of this type are known from ‘En Esur, it is assumed that it was imported from another region of Israel. Gray Burnished Ware (GBW) (see Table 4.2) The Gray Burnished Ware (GBW) bowls have been defined as a unique group since ceramic research of the Early Bronze Age first began (Wright 1937). Following his excavations at Tell el-Far‘ah (North), Wright classified the bowls into three groups (Wright 1958). Over the years, it has become clear that the group of bowls that is decorated with rope ornamentation is unique to Tell el-Far‘ah (North) and to Acrabania in the Samarian Hills east of Nablus (Y. Goren, pers. comm.), and possibly to the entire region of northern Samaria (see Goren and Zuckerman 2000). They are completely absent from the Jezreel Valley and the coastal plain. In light of the excavations at ‘En Esur, Tel Qashish, Megiddo and Yiftahel, a new, updated division of the GBW bowls has been proposed (Yannai 1999b); the discussion below is similar to this recently published report. Type A: Carinated Bowls with Knobs (Fig. 4.49) These bowls are crafted of light or dark gray clay and have a dark gray core. The rim is everted and there is a ridge with knobs midway up the body. The size of the knobs and their proximity to each other on the ridge varies from bowl to bowl. The interior and exterior are highly burnished. Type A is equivalent to Wright’s Type 1 (Wright 1958:41). Parallels to these bowls were found at Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Figs. 9.2; 9.3), in Stratum VI at ‘Afula (Sukenik 1948: Pl. III:1–12; Gal and CovelloParan 1996: Fig. 4:7), at Tel Qiri (Baruch 1987: Fig. 70:10), Bet Ha-‘Emeq (Givon 2002: Fig. 14:3, 4), Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sharqi (Leonard 1992: Pl. 24:1, 5), ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 18:13), Mezer (Dothan 1959b: Fig. 8:1–3), in the Enéolithique Supérieur phases and Tomb 3 at Tell el-Far‘ah (North) (de Vaux and Stève 1947: Fig. 2:12, 13; 1949: Fig. 2:1, 3, 5–7), at Tell esh-Shuna (North) (Baird and Philip 1992: Fig.

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

5:1–4; 1994: Fig. 12:4; Leonard 1992: Pl. 8:1, 2), in Stratum J-2 at Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.1:3, 12), at a site near Nahal Alexander (Y. Salmon, pers. comm.; Gophna 1974: Fig. 6:34) and at Dor Springs East and West (Gophna 1974: Figs. 2:5; 3:5, 6). Bowl No. 2 is an exception among the bowls of Type A. It was found in L2018 in a very early assemblage of Stratum III (all of the sherds from this locus are attributed to the Chalcolithic period). Its dimensions are smaller than most of the other bowls and it is slipped in light yellow and orange, resembling the slip of the larger Type B bowls that were found in a similar stratigraphic context (see below). Type B: Yellow Bowls with Knobs (Fig. 4.50:1, 2) The clay of these two bowls is in variegated shades of gray and yellow with black inclusions; the core is light gray. The walls are rounded with an everted rim and a ridge with knobs midway up the body. The knobs are not horizontal as on the other bowls, but pushed upwards. The surface is hand burnished. The shape of the body, the rim and the knobs differentiate these bowls from the other Gray Burnished Ware bowls in Stratum III. Both bowls originated in the large ovalshaped Building 2303 (Unit E). This building stood next to, and even several centimeters lower than, Building 2305 from Stratum IV of the Chalcolithic period (see above). Stratigraphically, this is the earliest oval-shaped building at ‘En Esur. The only published parallel to this type of bowl (Wright’s Type 1) is from the large burial cave at Arqub edh-Dhahr in Transjordan (Parr 1956: Fig. 13:24). Type C: Small Hemispherical Bowls with Knobs (Fig. 4.50:3, 4) These are extremely rare items and not classified by Wright. The two bowls have closed profiles, pointed knobs and sharp rims that curve inwards, unlike the everted rims characteristic of the other types of Gray Burnished bowls. Bowls 3 and 4 are from L2043 and L2054, beneath the stone surface on the terrace that runs up to W60, from the earliest phase of Stratum III, only a few centimeters above the top of the Stratum IV building. Parallels to the small closed bowls of Type C were found in the Enéolithique Supérieur at Tell el-Far‘ah (North) (de Vaux and Stève 1947: Fig. 2:14), at Bet Ha-‘Emeq (Givon 1993: Fig. 9:9, 15) and with dark

85

red slip in Strata V–IV at Tel Te’o (Eisenberg 2001a: Fig. 7.2:7, 8). Type D: Hemispherical GBW Bowl with Conoid Projections (Fig. 4.50:5). Only one sherd was recovered, equivalent to Wright’s Type 4. It has a hemispherical body, a thickened inverted rim and a row of conoid projections attached below the rim. It was identified by Wright as an ‘imitation’ (1958:41– 42) and by Zuckerman as a ‘local’ or ‘traditional’ type in the Tel Qashish repertoire (Zuckerman 2003:36). At ‘En Esur this unique bowl was made in the Gray Burnished Ware technique and is entirely different from the Stratum II hemispherical bowls with knobs. A parallel was found in Stratum VI at ‘Afula (Gal and Covello-Paran 1996: Fig. 4:18). Type E: Hemispherical Bowls with ‘Hammer Rims’ (Fig. 4.51:1, 2) These bowls (Wright’s Type 3) are made of dark gray clay and have a dark gray core. The body is rounded with a ‘hammer-like’ rim that is slipped orange, unlike the rest the bowl, which is slipped gray. The coarse surface of the vessel is highly burnished. Area G, Stratum GII yielded similar bowls (Fig. 4.67:8–10). Type F: Carinated ‘Hammer Rim’Bowls (Wright Type 3) (Fig. 4.51:3–6) These vessels are made of variegated light to dark gray clay and have a dark gray core. The upper quarter of the body is strongly carinated and has a ‘hammer-like’ rim. Some of the bowls are wheelmade and unburnished. Their shape and production technique are similar to the gray bowls from Stratum II (see Fig. 4.61 below). Parallels to this are known from Area G, Stratum GII (Fig. 4.75:12), Stratum VI at ‘Afula (Gal and Covello-Paran 1996: Fig. 4:10, 14) and Tel Qiri (Baruch 1987: Fig. 70:8). Bowls Nos. 4 and 6 were found in L2018 (see Plan 2.8), one of the latest loci in Stratum III, among the group of rectilinear walls in Sq S52 assigned to the Strata III–II transition, several centimeters below L2009 of Stratum IIA. Thus, the bowls from this locus attest to the fact that Type E GBW bowls first appeared in the ceramic assemblage at the end of early EB I Stratum III. Red-Burnished Bowl (Fig. 4.51:7) A single sherd of a red-burnished bowl was discovered. It is very similar in form to the gray bowls of Type D without knobs, and thus presented together with them.

86

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

This bowl is made of well-levigated, light yellowishpink fabric. It has a thick red slip and is excellently burnished. In contrast with the hand-burnished gray bowls, this bowl is wheelmade. It is possible that this bowl was not produced at ‘En Esur as it resembles the red-burnished bowls from Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.4), Rosh Ha-Niqra (Tadmor and Prausnitz 1959:73, Fig. 6:23, 24, 26), Horbat ‘Uza (Ben-Tor 1966:6; Fig. 4:1) and other sites in Western and Upper Galilee that have not yet been published. Gray Burnished Ware in Israel Regional Aspects. The Type A Gray Burnished bowls can be divided into three subgroups according to geographical regions. Type A1: Yiftah’el–Bet Ha-‘Emeq Group—deep, closed profile with large separate knobs (Braun 1997: Figs. 9.2; 9.3; Givon 2002: Fig. 14:3, 4). Type A2: ‘En Esur–Mezer Group—open carinated profile with small connected knobs. The diameters are large; the rims tend inward, the profile is slightly closed and the upper portion of the body is either upright or tends inward. Type A3: Tell esh-Shuna (North) Group, open globular body with small connected knobs (Parr 1956: Fig. 13:24; Baird and Philip 1992: Fig. 5:1–4). In the ceramic plates from Yiftah’el there are no vessels with small connected knobs, while no deep bowls with large separate knobs were found at ‘En Esur or Mezer. Chronological Aspects. The Gray Burnished Ware bowls from Stratum III are divided into three distinct chronological-typological subgroups. The earliest group includes the yellow bowls (Fig. 4.50:1, 2) and the small hemispherical bowls with pointed knobs (Fig. 4.50:3, 4). These were found in the earliest assemblages of Stratum III (oval-shaped buildings). The second group, consisting of the gray carinated bowls (Fig. 4.49:1, 3–10), originates in the later assemblages of the Stratum III phase. The latest group, consisting of the small bowls without knobs (Fig. 4.51:4–6), is from L2018, in the transitional Strata III–II phase. This chronological division indicates that at the beginning of the early phase of Stratum III (coinciding, it would appear, with the earliest phase of EB I and contemporary with the finds from Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.4) and Bet Ha-‘Emeq (Givon 2002: Fig. 14:4), the larger bowls are yellow and orange and the small

knobbed bowls are gray. In the later phase of Stratum III, the bowls from the two earlier groups disappear and the gray burnished bowls are now open and carinated, with a ring of knobs. In the third phase (coinciding with the transitional phase to Stratum II and the late EB I), production begins of small deep carinated bowls without knobs, a result of the use of a wheel or tournette. This latest phase is contemporary with the finds from ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985), the Megiddo tombs (Guy and Engberg 1938), Hazorea‘ (Meyerhof 1989) and Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003: Fig. 17:10–11).

STRATUM II: THE LATE PHASE OF EARLY BRONZE AGE I Despite the many construction phases revealed in Stratum II, the ceramic assemblage from this stratum is homogeneous, containing many variations of a small number of vessel types. Thus, we believe the assemblage represents a short period of time at the end of EB I. The stratigraphy was not comprised of stratified floor levels, but rather repairs and alterations of walls, and we do not know which construction relates to each floor. Thus, the ceramic assemblage from all phases is presented together with no attempt to divide it into subphases. Although the excavation yielded an abundance of sherds, only five complete vessels were recovered. No new vessel types were revealed in the ceramic assemblage from Stratum II that were not previously known from northern Israel or Transjordan. A large variety of each vessel type was found and it is this wide range which constitutes the major contribution of the ‘En Esur pottery assemblage to the study of ceramics from the later phase of EB I. Accordingly, a large number of subtypes are presented in the figures. In most cases, the accompanying discussion is quite limited, except in those instances where it is perceived that details pertaining to a specific type are lacking or incorrect in the literature. The definition of types is based on Eliot Braun’s typological and morphological classification (Braun 1985). Bowls V-Shaped Bowls with Straight Rims (Fig. 4.52:1, 2) This type consists of two subtypes: (1) small bowls with thin walls, unslipped and unburnished, probably used as lids (Fig. 4.52:1); (2) bowls with thick walls, red slipped and burnished (No. 2; Fig. 4.52:2).

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

Hemispherical Bowls with Incurved Rims (Fig. 4.52:3–6) This group consists of three subtypes: (1) small hemispherical bowls; (2) open, shallow bowls with incurved rims; (3) bowls that are somewhat more closed with a tapered, incurved rim. The latter subtype was very common in Stratum III and the sherds from Stratum II were probably not found in situ. (Bowls are very rare in the Stratum II ceramic assemblage at ‘En Esur, which is characterized by vessels with globular profiles.) Small Deep Hemispherical Bowls (Fig. 4.52:7–9) Small hemispherical bowls with a sharp rim. Some of the bowls have a groove or step on the outside of the rim. Medium-Sized Hemispherical Bowls (Fig. 52:10–12) This group consists of two subtypes: (1) bowls with sharp rims and thin walls (Nos. 10, 11); (2) bowls with incurved rims and thick walls (No. 12).2 Both subtypes were usually red slipped and burnished. Hemispherical Bowls with Knobs (Fig. 4.52:13–18) This is a common type of hemispherical bowl with a diameter ranging from 15 to 40 cm. Most examples are red slipped and unburnished. This type of bowl was included in the family of Gray Burnished Ware bowls by both Wright (Type 4; 1958:41, Fig. 1:7) and Zuckerman (BIIId; 2003: Fig. 23:15–18). Parallels were found at Megiddo in Tomb 903 (Lower), at Bet Yerah, Bet She’an, Nahal Tabor, ‘Afula, ‘En Shadud and in the tombs at ‘En Esur. Esse refers to this type of bowl as ‘Crackled Ware’ (Esse 1989:81, Fig. 15 for a complete list of parallels). However, following an examination of the vessels from the northern Jordan Valley at Tell edh-Dhiyaba, Tel Bet Yerah and Tel Bet She’an, the present author (E.Y.) is uncertain that the bowls from ‘En Esur fit Esse’s definition. Although the shape of the vessels is very similar, the surface treatment and the shades of the slips are very different from those of the Crackled Ware bowls from the northern Jordan Valley. It is presumed that the bowls from ‘En Esur were produced using the traditional techniques of the local craftsmen. At Tel Qashish and other sites in the Jezreel Valley, a burnished variety of this type of bowl, with a gray or red slip, occurs alongside unburnished and unslipped examples. A wide variety of slipped hemispherical

87

bowls similar to those from Tel Qashish was found at ‘En Esur, therefore it seems incorrect to separate them according to surface treatment. The earliest bowl of this type is the early form of the Gray Burnished Ware bowl from Stratum III, which illustrates the relationship between certain types of GBW bowls from the early phase of EB I and the Crackled Ware bowls that were widely used in the northern Jordan Valley in the late phase of EB I. It is the author’s (E.Y.) opinion, however, that by the late phase of EB I there was no longer any relationship between the bowls with knobs and the GBW bowls. Miscellaneous Bowls (Fig. 4.52:19–26) A number of bowl rims could not be classified. These include types that were also found in Stratum III (Nos. 24–26). A group of bowls with in-curved rims (Nos. 22, 23) may belong to the type with knobs (see Fig. 4.52:13–18), although these fragments have no knobs. S-Shaped Bowls (Fig. 4.53) This is the later variant of the squat bowl with an Sshaped rim that appeared sporadically in Stratum III (see Fig. 4.35:1–4). Some of the rims are stepped and tapered, others are carinated but untapered, and there are usually four small ledge handles. The bowls have a thick slip, ranging in color from dark red to purple, and are highly burnished. Although these vessels are sometimes referred to as jars, Braun classified them as bowls due to the particularly wide mouth and tapering body that indicate an open form (Braun 1985:110). The wide variety and lack of uniformity in shape are very similar to the ‘En Shadud assemblage (Braun 1985: Fig. 15). Until now, they were known primarily from late EB I ceramic assemblages at ‘En Shadud (Louhivouri 1988:159) and Strata XV–XIII at Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003: Fig. 17:5, 6). The type was very common in the ‘En Esur tombs (Dothan 1970: Fig. 7:1, 2; Yannai 1996: Fig. 3:1–10) and Tomb 903 (Lower) at Megiddo (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 3:12–20). Large Bowls and Kraters with Incurved Rims (Fig. 4.54) The rims are rounded, thickened and inverted. Large bowls and kraters are differentiated by the diameter of the vessel as well as by minor differences in the shapes of the rims. However, the distinction is not always clear, and many vessels fall between the two. The slips

88

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

are red, brown and purple. All the bowls are burnished, whereas only some of the kraters are similarly treated. A number of kraters have spouts and some of the rims have holes drilled in them after firing, suggesting they were suspended by a rope. No complete vessels were found at ‘En Esur and we are unable to reconstruct their shapes completely. At Yiftah’el complete examples of these types (both kraters and bowls; Braun 1997: Figs. 9.6; 9.7), with a pair of ledge handles affixed midway up the body, were recovered. Miscellaneous Kraters (Fig. 4.55:1–7) Various krater rims, some with a square cross section, others with ‘hammer-rims’, were usually red slipped. The vessels illustrated in Fig. 4:55:4 and 6, with rope decorations, may have originated in Stratum III, or represent a dwindling of the rope decoration tradition into Stratum II. Holemouth Jars Slipped Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.55:8–12) This group is virtually inseparable from large bowls and kraters with incurved rims (above). The close resemblance of the rims of these two vessel types illustrates the difficulties encountered in typological separation based on rim sherds. Some holemouth rims are square in profile, others are thickened in the tradition of Stratum III. It may be that the latter are indeed fragments from Stratum III, although it is also possible that the Stratum II potters continued to produce these vessels in the tradition of the previous period, albeit in much smaller quantities. Unslipped Holemouth Jars (Fig. 4.56) This is the most common vessel in the assemblage. Its clay is orange to dark brown in color and it has a black gritty core. One complete vessel from this period was found on the floor of the Stratum II building in Area D. This vessel has a flat base (Fig. 4.62:14). While both vessels had variations of the same type of rim, it can be suggested that the flat-based vessels were storage jars and those with rounded bases were cooking pots. The vessels can be divided into subtypes based on variations of the rim. Figure 4.56:1–6 feature an almost horizontal rim with a curved tip, thickened on

its underside; Nos. 7 and 8 are similarly thickened but tend to be slightly more upright and are tapered, producing a sharp rim. Another subtype (Nos. 10–18) is positioned horizontally, similar to Nos. 1–6, but the tip of the rim is sharp. No. 9 is unique and belongs to none of these categories. In another technique, a flat ridge was applied to the outside of some rims (e.g., No. 19). Parallels to the holemouth with a flat ridge were found in Stratum XX (Loud 1948: Pl. 93:8) and Level J-4 at Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.4:7) and ‘Post XIII’ Strata at Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003: Fig. 19:7). A few rims feature incisions (Nos. 6, 17). The number of incisions on the rims is always an even number, which may indicate that they are production symbols (Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.9:3; Zuckerman 2003: Fig. 22:9–11). Pithoi (Figs. 4.57, 4.58) The clay is orange or light brown, with a copious amount of large inclusions; the core is gray. When the aperture is small, the inflection of the rim is slight; on pithoi with wide openings, it is more acute. The pithoi were formed by the coil technique and covered with red, orange or brown slips, usually smeared carelessly over the entire body in a vertical direction creating varying shades of light and dark. No pithoi were band slipped. Pithoi without Necks (Fig. 4.57) Most of the pithoi do not have a neck and the rim is simply everted or curved outward. Everted-Rimmed Pithoi (Fig. 4.58:1–12) Some pithoi have a short everted neck and rim in the tradition of the Stratum III jars. Parallels were found in the Jordan Valley at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sharqi (Betts 1992: Fig. 181). Triangular-Rimmed Pithoi (Fig. 4.58:13, 14) These two pithoi were made in a different tradition than the other pithoi. Figure 4.58:13 is of light orange clay, containing numerous large white inclusions, and has a dark gray core and a dark red slip; No. 14 is of light pink clay, tempered with a few small white and gray inclusions, and has a light gray core. This pithos is a continuation of the pithos and holemouth jar traditions of Stratum III (Figs. 4.39:13, 14; 4.45:14, 17).

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

Bow-Rimmed Pithoi (Fig. 4.59) The body of these pithoi is piriform with a narrow base, rounded shoulders and a bowed rim (see complete example from Area D in Fig. 4.62:5). Some necks are high and curved (Nos. 1–7), some are slightly bowed and inclined inwards (Nos. 8–11) and a few are curved and low (Nos. 12–15). Most of the rims are square cut, a few are rounded. Parallels were found in Stratum III at Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003: Fig. 4.18:1–5) and ‘Post XIII’ Strata at Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003:56, Fig. 22:2, 3). Amphoriskoi (Fig. 4.60:1–3) Many amphoriskoi were recovered from the Tel Esur tombs in the eastern cemetery (Dothan 1970: Pl. 3; Yannai 1996: Fig. 4:4; forthcoming a), while only a few came from the occupation levels of Stratum II. These vessels are extremely important in establishing the synchronization between Stratum II at the site and the associated tombs. Examples were also discovered in ‘Post XIII’ Strata at Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003: Fig. 16:10) and Strata III–II at Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003: Fig. 4.8:5, 6). Juglets (Fig. 4.60:4–17) No complete vessels were found; therefore, no attempt was made to assign the sherds to specific types. The close similarity between the juglets from the site and those from the tombs is evident in the shapes, the shades of the slip and the surface treatment. A parallel was found in ‘Post XIII’ Strata at Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003: 56, Fig. 20:1) Miscellaneous Finds (Fig. 4.60:18–33) Teapots (Fig. 4.60:18–24) Various remains of teapots were recovered, some with bent spouts similar to those of teapots from the tombs (Dothan 1970: Pl. 2; Yannai 1996: Fig. 4:8–12; Zuckerman 2003: Fig. 20:4, 5). Figure 4.60:19 is unusual, made of pinkish-yellow clay containing a small amount of dark brown temper. It has a single handle at mid-body and a broken spout; the vessel exhibits neither slip nor burnish. No parallel to it was found in the tomb excavated by Dothan (1970), where all the teapots of this type have a protruding ridge at the seam where the neck connects to the body.

89

Handles (Fig. 4.60:25–33) A number of fragments of wide handles (Fig. 4.60:25– 27) with thin, strap-like profiles were uncovered. Parallels to these handles were only present in tombs that contained very late EB I finds, as well as on the group of imported late jars found in the eastern cemetery (Yannai, forthcoming d). They are extremely important in determining the date of Stratum II. A large number of ledge handles were collected during the course of the excavation (Nos. 28–30). No fundamental differences were discerned in the shapes of the ledge handles; however, in Stratum II there is a significant increase in the number of ledge handles with separate thumb indentations and a decrease in the amount of handles with a dense, wavy finish. Decorated Sherds Rope Decoration (Fig. 4.60:34–42). The frequency of rope decoration in Stratum II is significantly lower than in Stratum III, appearing mainly on red-slipped body fragments. The decorations themselves are also essentially different, as are the types of vessels that they decorate. In Stratum III, thin bands of rope decoration commonly occur on the rims of large bowls, kraters and various holemouth jars with thin walls, the rope effect achieved by punctures, grooves or incisions. In Stratum II, coils were affixed to the outside walls of jars and pithoi, and the potters used their fingers to indent the clay. The finger indentations are very close together. Very few examples were made by other means. Painted Decoration (Fig. 4.60:43–46). Four sherds bear a brown- and white-painted pattern on a light brown, almost yellowish slip that was carefully handburnished prior to painting. These sherds belong to open vessels, although no rims of bowls adorned with such a decoration have been recovered. Such burnishing and painting techniques as well as the pattern are foreign to the local pottery and one can assume that these vessels were imported. Gray Burnished Ware Bowls (Fig. 4.61; see Table 4.2) In Stratum II, the Type A open carinated bowls with knobs (Wright’s Type 1), so prevalent in Stratum III, have completely disappeared. The gray bowl from this level, Type E (Fig. 4.61:1–6; Wright’s Type 3), is carinated with a ‘hammer-like’ rim, slipped but

90

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

unburnished. The clay contains numerous red and black inclusions and has a dark orange core; the slip ranges in color from light gray to dark gray. Alongside these GBW bowls were several sherds of the same type of bowl, but red slipped and burnished (No. 7). Similarly treated sherds were also found at ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985:65), in Stratum III at Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003: Fig. 4.15:9), in Strata 10–11 at Kabri (Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.3:2, 3) and in Strata XVB–‘Post XIII’ at Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003:36, Fig. 23:10–14). No sign of burnishing is evident on the gray bowls from Stratum II, whereas all the bowls from Stratum III are highly burnished. The bowls from Stratum III are handmade, while some of the Stratum II bowls exhibit clear signs of having been produced on a wheel. Although the shapes and dimensions of some of the red-slipped bowls are identical to those of the gray bowls, a different firing technique was used. One sherd (Fig. 4.61:8) is exceptional, representing a holemouth jar made according to Gray Burnished Ware technique and finish. Gray Burnished Ware bowls similar to those from ‘En Esur Stratum II were discovered in the Tel Esur tombs (Dothan 1970: Pl. 6; Yannai 1996), in Tomb 903 at Megiddo (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 3:23–27), in Tomb 33 at Hazorea‘ (Meyerhof 1989: Pl. 24:144, 167, 168) and in a tomb at Kefar Glickson (Siegelman 1978: Ill. 2:1–3). Pit D at ‘Afula (Sukenik 1948: Pl. II:13–20) yielded a group of these bowls; similar bowls were found at Tel Megiddo (Engberg and Shipton 1934:17; Fig. 6), ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985:65), Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003: Fig. 4.2:2–11) and Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003: Fig. 23:5–14). These parallels illustrate the regional distribution of the most common type of GBW bowls found in Stratum II. In Wright’s opinion, the great similarity between the different types of gray bowls indicates that they were in use for only a short period of time (Wright 1958:41; 1971:281). Braun agrees with Wright (Braun 1985:65) and claims that the GBW bowls first appeared in the ceramic assemblage at the beginning of the EB I and went out of use prior to the end of that period. This assumption is based on the absence of the bowls from the ceramic assemblage at Tel Kitan, which, according to the excavator, predates Stratum I at ‘En Shadud in which no gray bowls were discovered at all (Braun 1985:65, n. 41). In the eastern cemetery of Tel Esur three tombs contemporary with Stratum II (Tombs 1, 3, 20) contained dozens of Type E

GBW bowls (Wright’s Type 3) in a wide variety of subtypes. A fourth tomb, Tomb 40 in the southern cemetery, is later than the tombs exposed in the eastern cemetery and contained no GBW bowls (Yannai 1996). This reinforces the proposal put forward by Wright and Braun that these bowls had gone out of use prior to the end of the later phase of the EB I. Type E bowls are not found in the northern and central Jordan Valley due to regional rather than chronological factors. In the Jordan Valley, only Type A GBW bowls were produced during the early phase of the EB I, while Crackled Ware bowls with knobs took the place of the Type E bowls.

THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES OF AREA A Among the collapsed debris were Wadi Rabah sherds, including bowls, bow-rim jars, fragments of pottery vessels with incised decorations and Dark-Faced Burnished Ware sherds. Sherds dating to the late phase of EB I (Stratum AIII) comprised ledge handles, bowls, kraters, bow-rim jars and fragments of Gray Burnished Ware bowls (the later Type E), as well as fragments decorated with thumb-indented rope ornamentations.

THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE OF AREA D The ceramic assemblage of Area D (Fig. 4.62) lay crushed on the floor of Building 4000 under the collapse of the roof, and its stratigraphic context is clear. The assemblage represents a stratum that is contemporary with Stratum BII (Area B) and Strata GIII–II (Area G; both General Site Stratum II). Contrary to the number of construction phases discerned in both Area B and Area G, Area D contained only a single destruction layer, in situ on the floor of the building; the few vessels are insufficient to determine to which of the phases the Area D assemblage belongs. The ceramic assemblage in Area D comprised only complete vessels vs. the sherds from Area B; hence they enhance our knowledge of the original shape of the Area B vessels. Similar vessels were also found in the infant burial in Area G. The ceramic assemblage of Area D consists of one S-shaped bowl (No. 1), one unique cup (No. 2), one storage jar (No. 3), nine pithoi (Nos. 4–12) and three holemouth jars (Nos. 13–15). Table 4.1 presents parallels with Areas B and G.

91

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

GVI. The sherds from Stratum GVIII are of note in that the fabric is a particularly light yellow containing numerous large white chalk inclusions. A small number of sherds have a purple or dark red slip. Among the vessels in the assemblage is a hemispherical bowl (Fig. 4.64:1), uncharacteristic of the Chalcolithic period, and kraters with thick walls and flattened rims (Nos. 2–4). Similar kraters were discovered in Stratum BIV (Area B; see Fig. 4.29:3–5) and at sites from the Chalcolithic period in the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: Figs. 7, 8, 10). Two holemouth jars (CommengePellerin 1997: Figs. 5, 6) have parallels in Area B, Stratum VI (Fig. 4.30:21–23). A fragment of a cornet (No. 8) and a lug handle that is triangular in section (No. 9), both characteristic of the Chalcolithic period, were also found. Similar vessels were recovered from Area B, Strata V and IV.

THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES OF AREA G The EB I assemblage from Area G resembles in general assemblages from sites in the western Jezreel Valley (Tel Megiddo, ‘En Shadud, Tel Qashish) and the southwestern Lower Galilee (Yiftah’el Stratum II, Qiryat Ata). ‘En Shadud consists of a single stratum, Yiftah’el comprises two layers, of which only Stratum II is relevant to this discussion, Tel Qashish has a general EB I stratum and Qiryat Ata contains two strata. A number of EB I layers were revealed in the new excavations at Tel Megiddo (Joffe 2000) and the relevant strata will be noted. Stratum GIX: The Wadi Rabah Pottery Assemblage (Fig. 4.63) The sherds from Stratum GIX were found beneath the levels of the Stratum GVII pit and the surrounding soil of Stratum GVIII. The ware occurs in shades of orange and brown and contains minute inclusions of black and red-colored temper. These are identical to the sherds from Stratum VI of Area B and are characteristic of the Wadi Rabah Culture.

Stratum GVI: The Early Phase of Early Bronze Age I (Fig. 4.65) No sherds from the Early Bronze Age pit (Stratum GVII) warranted publication. The pottery from Stratum GVI includes a pithos with rope ornamentation on the lower part of the body close to the base (not illustrated), which has a parallel at Bet She’an (Fitzgerald 1935: Pl. III:9). Rope decoration on holemouth rims (Fig. 4.65:9, 10) is common in Stratum BIII (Area B) and in Stratum II at Yiftah’el. The Gray Burnished Ware

Stratum GVIII: The Chalcolithic Period (Fig. 4.64) Pottery sherds were collected from the earth surrounding an EB I pit (Stratum GVII), excavated below Stratum

Table 4.1 Intrasite Pottery Concordance: Areas D, B and G Type

Area D Figure

Area B Figure

Area G Figure

Bowl

4.62:1

4.53:1–3

-

Cup (a single example)

4.62:2

4.55:7

-

Jar

4.62:3

4.58:4

-

Pithos

4.62:4

4.59:2 (Jar)

4.74:3

Pithos

4.62:5

4.59:14

4.73:2

Pithos

4.62:6

4.59:13

-

Pithos

4.62:7

4.59:14

4.76:11, 12

Pithos

4.62:8

4.59:12

-

Pithos

4.62:9

4.57:4

4.76:10

Pithos

4.62:10

4.57:4

4.76:10

Pithos

4.62:11

-

-

Pithos

4.62:12

4.57:3, 4

4.76:10

Holemouth jar

4.62:13

4.56:7

4.76:6–8

Holemouth jar

4.62:14

4.56:8

4.76:8

Holemouth jar

4.62:15

4.56:1

-

92

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

bowls from Stratum GVI (Nos. 3–6) are all the open type with knobs (Type A; Wright’s Type 1). These are considerably larger and shallower than the Type A Gray Burnished bowls from Stratum GV (Fig. 4.67:1–6). Wheelmade GBW bowls of Type E (Wright’s Type 3), found in Stratum GV, do not appear in Stratum GVI. It is customary to assume that the bowls with knobs are earlier, and according to the finds from Area G, the bowls with knobs indeed precede the wheelmade bowls. The overlapping of types found in Stratum GV (below) attests to a transitional phase from Type A to Type E (Yannai 1999b:214).The remainder of the vessels in Fig. 4.65 repeat the types found in Area B; the discussion therein pertains to the Area G vessels, as well. Stratum GV: The Early Phase of Early Bronze Age I (Figs. 4.66–4.70) The bowls in Fig. 4.66:2 and 3 have parallels in Stratum II at Yiftah’el. The GBW bowls (Fig. 4.67:1– 6) have excellent parallels in Stratum III of Area B (see above; Yannai 1999b:215). There is some similarity between the basins (Fig. 4.67:11–14) and the Type 59 basins in Stratum II at Yiftah’el. The cylindrical jars (Fig. 4.68:1–3), the large jar and perhaps the upper portion of a pithos (Fig. 4.68:10) also have parallels in Stratum II at Yiftah’el. All the holemouth jars with an external band on the rim (Figs. 4.69:9–15; 4.70:1–5) are paralleled in Stratum II at Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Figs. 9.8–9.13). In summary, the assemblage of Stratum GV presents morphological and typological similarities with Stratum III of Area B at ‘En Esur and Stratum II at Yiftah’el. Stratum GIV: The Early Phase of Early Bronze Age I (Fig. 4.71) Bowls Nos. 2 and 3, basins Nos. 6 and 7 and holemouth jar No. 16 with the folded rim have parallels in Stratum II at Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Figs. 9.5:2, 5; 9.7:4, 5; 9.13:2). The holemouth jars, basins and kraters from Stratum GIV are often adorned with plastic decoration, primarily rope-like, on the rim of the vessel or a thumbindented ridge below the rim, as in Stratum III of Area B (not illustrated). It is also extremely common in Stratum II at Yiftah’el. Rope-like decorations of this kind almost completely disappear in Stratum II of Area B, as at ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985) and Megiddo (Joffe

2000: Figs. 8.4, 8.5). Judging from the parallels, Stratum GIV is contemporary with the early phase of EB I. Stratum GIII: The Late Phase of Early Bronze Age I (Figs. 4.72–4.74) Stratum GIII contained a number of sherds from small carinated bowls with thin walls (Fig. 4.72:1–3), made of well-fired levigated ware. Parallels were found in Level J4 of Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.3:6) and in the Early Bronze Age stratum at Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003: Fig. 17:13). No parallels were discovered in Area B at ‘En Esur. Especially noteworthy are the knife-pared bases (Nos. 2, 3). The two pithoi from the infant burial (Fig. 4.73:1, 2), uncovered beneath the stone floor in L113, are similar to pithoi from Stages V–VII on the eastern slope of Tel Megiddo (Engberg and Shipton 1934:17) and have numerous parallels in Stratum II of Areas B and D (Figs. 4.59; 4.62:5–7) and at ‘En Esur, the main difference appearing in the ‘rope-like’ decoration. At Megiddo and in Area D (see Fig. 4.62:5) the decoration is comprised of two thumb-indented bands of clay attached in the form of a cross to the shoulder of the pithos and a thumb-indented strip attached to the joint between the shoulder and the body of the pithos. The two pithoi from the burial in Area G are decorated with three thumb-indented bands, each 17 cm long, which are attached to the upper shoulder. Close parallels were found in Strata III–II at Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003: Figs. 4.10:1, 2, 4; 4.11:1). A complete holemouth jar (Fig. 4.73:3), similar to Type 12N from Stages V–VII on the eastern slope of Megiddo (Engberg and Shipton 1934:11), was discovered inside the complete pithos (Fig. 4.73:1). As the holemouth jar is considerably larger than the rim diameter of the pithos, it is clear that the pithos was broken for the purpose of burial and its large fragments, together with the fragments of the other pithos (Fig. 4.73:2), were used to cover the holemouth jar. Alongside the pithoi and holemouth jar that covered the infant burial were a juglet (Fig. 4.73:4) and an amphoriskos (Fig. 4.73:5). The amphoriskos is a small votive vessel crafted in imitation of larger amphoriskoi. Such votive vessels are commonly found in the tombs at ‘En Esur (Dothan 1970: Fig. 5:1–5; Yannai, forthcoming d). A thick body sherd of a pithos (Fig. 4.74:19) bears a cylinder seal impression. The fabric of this fragment is

93

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

not metallic and is not similar or related to the cylinder seal impressions that are common in EB II. The pithos’ fabric is pale yellow, almost white with a light yellow core, and contains numerous white inclusions. The exterior of the pithos has a dark red slip. Based on the clay and the thickness, the pithos may date to the Chalcolithic period (i.e., General Site Stratum IV as in Area B); it was not found in situ.

the latest EB I assemblages (Engberg and Shipton 1934:17). Summary: The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Area G The overall ceramic picture from EB I Local Strata GVI–II features two chronological horizons. The assemblage from the early EB I is characterized by dark orange, dark red and purple slips, as well as ‘ropelike’ decorations on the rims of large bowls, basins and kraters and holemouth jars with external bands on the rims. Similar assemblages were found in Stratum III of Area B (see above), as well as in Strata V–IV at Tel Te’o (Eisenberg 2001a: Fig. 7:5:5–8), at Nahal Alexander (Gophna 1974: Fig. 6:5, 8, 9), Dor Springs East and West (Gophna 1974: Figs. 2:6, 9, 11; 3:8–19), in Strata II–I at Azor (Golani and van den Brink 1999:24) and at many sites in the south of the country. Open carinated Gray Burnished bowls with knobs (Type A) are characteristic of this group (above, p. 84). In the later phase there are few ‘rope-like’ decorations and the vessels have light orange and light red slips. Dark red and purple slips have disappeared. Closed carinated GBW bowls without knobs (Type F) characterize this group (above, p. 85).

Stratum GII: The Late Phase of Early Bronze Age I (Figs. 4.75, 4.76) The bowls with grooved, incurved rims (e.g., Fig. 4.75:5) have parallels in Level J-4 at Megiddo and ‘En Shadud. Bowl No. 8 has parallels in Stratum II of Area B at ‘En Esur, at ‘En Shadud, Megiddo, Tel Qashish and other sites (see Esse 1989: Fig. 15). The GBW bowls (Nos. 9–12) in this stratum have numerous parallels at ‘En Esur in Areas B and D and other sites. Their form, dimensions and the technique by which they were produced are identical to the later bowls of this family. The basins (Nos. 13–15) are identical to the kraters from Stratum II, Area B, ‘En Shadud and Tel Qashish. Similar holemouth jars and pithoi as well as bow-rimmed pithoi (Fig. 4.76:12) were found at ‘En Shadud, Level J-4 at Megiddo and Stages V–VII on the eastern slope of Tel Megiddo, where they represent

Table 4.2. Addendum: Petrographic Analysis of Gray Burnished Ware Sherds3

1

Basket No.

Type

Description1

Clay

Temper

Provenance

Fig. No.

70575/1

GBW

Type 1

Foraminiferous marl

Grog + calcareous sand

Central or northern Israel

4.49:6

70520/2

GBW

Type 1

Foraminiferous marl

Grog + calcareous sand

Central or northern Israel

4.49:7

70603/3

GBW

Type 1

Foraminiferous marl

Grog + calcareous sand

Central or northern Israel

4.49:5

71147/1

GBW

Type 1

Foraminiferous marl

Grog

Central or northern Israel

4.49:2

70546/1

GBW

Type 3

Foraminiferous marl

Grog + calcareous sand

Jezreel Valley

4.61:2

70664/1

GBW

Type 3

Foraminiferous marl

Grog + calcareous sand

Central or northern Israel

4.51:1

70477/1

GBW

Type 3

Foraminiferous marl

Grog + calcareous sand

Central or northern Israel

4.61:1

70011/4

GBW

Type 3

Foraminiferous marl

Grog + calcareous + quartz sand

Central or northern Israel

4.61:4

70011/3

GBW

Type 3

Foraminiferous marl

Grog + calcareous + quartz sand

Central or northern Israel

70692

GBW

Type 4

Foraminiferous marl

Basaltic/calcareous sand

Jezreel Valley

T.1-712

GBW

Type 4

Taqiya marl

Calcareous/coastal sand

Central Israel, unknown

70267/1

GBW

Type 4

Foraminiferous marl

Grog + calcareous sand

Central or northern Israel

4.50:3

70281

GBW

Type 4

Foraminiferous marl

Calcareous + volcanic sand

Jezreel Valley

4.50:4

70851

GBW

Type 4

Clayey silty, undifferentiated

Grog + calcareous + quartz sand

Central or northern Israel

71566

GBW

Type 4

Terra Rosa

Coastal coarse sand

Coastal plain

For ‘Types’; see Wright 1937

2

From Yannai 1996

94

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

5

2 3

1

4

7 8

6

11

10

9

12 13

16

14

15

17 19

18

20

21

Fig. 4.1. Wadi Rabah V-shaped bowls. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2177

71293

12

2158

71088/4

2

2177

71041

13

2167

71292

3

1010

50061/2

14

2180

71440

4

2180

71088

15

2177

71102

5

1007

50067

16

2167

71083

6

2177

71041

17

2177

71629

7

2177

71041

18

2177

71021

8

2177

71073

19

2164

71033

No.

9

2179

71102

20

2188

71178

10

2167

71229

21

2177

71073

11

2167

71034

95

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

2

3

5 4

7 6

10 9

8

11

13

12

15

14

16

19

18

17

20

Fig. 4.2. Wadi Rabah hemispherical and mold-made bowls. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

1

2177

71634

11

2167

71451

2

2077

71314

12

2177

71293

3

2211

2188

13

2177

71293

4

2180

71448

14

2174

71040

5

2167

71082

15

2179

71098

6

2177

71089

16

2179

71110/2

7

2179

71102

17

2167

71418

8

2176

71040

18

2151

71429

9

2167

71435

19

2180

71262

10

2180

71440

20

2167

71375

No.

Basket No.

96

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1 2

3

4

6 5

8

7

10

9

12

11

14

15

13

Fig. 4.3. Wadi Rabah bowls, kraters and basins. Locus

Basket No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2177

71293

9

2177

71293

2

2180

71448

10

2180

71262

3

1023

50101/1

11

2180

71262

4

2180

71374

12

2177

71293

5

2164

71136

13

2180

71422

6

2179

71098

14

1021

50102/3

7

2180

71208

15

2208

71261

8

2167

71418

No.

No.

97

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1 2

3

4

5 7

6

10

9

8

11 13 12

15 14

16

18

17

19

21 22

20

23

26 24 25

28

27

Fig. 4.4. Wadi Rabah jars.

98

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

◄ Fig. 4.4 Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2180

71422

15

2167

71214

2

2180

71262

16

1002

50077/3

3

2176

71161

17

1010

50061/3

4

2024

70363/1

18

2087

70789/1

5

2167

71451

19

2167

71344

6

2180

71440

20

2167

71375

7

2167

71435

21

2177

71314

8

2154

71400

22

2179

71110

9

2177

71611

23

2187

71144

10

2167

71891

24

2188

71230

11

2180

71088

25

2180

71422

12

2167

71082

26

2179

71110

13

2177

71284

27

1006

50059/2

14

2180

71438

28

2188

71230

No.

1 2

3 4

Fig. 4.5. Wadi Rabah pithoi. No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2177

71021

3

2177

71102

2

2177

71284

4

2175

71145

99

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2 1

4

3

6

5

8 7

9 10

12

11

13

14

15

16

18

17

Fig. 4.6. Wadi Rabah holemouth jars. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2180

71086

10

2175

71145

2

2167

71214

11

2177

71073

3

2179

71159

12

2167

71435

4

2167

71082

13

2180

71088

5

2180

71088

14

2167

71398

6

2180

71099

15

2177

71021

7

2177

71210

16

2179

71098

8

2177

71293

17

2177

71602

9

2177

71611

18

2154

71416

No.

100

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

3 1

2

5

4

7

6

8

9

11

12

10

Fig. 4.7. Wadi Rabah holemouth jars with plastic applications. Locus

Basket No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2177

71073/1

7

2167

71451

2

2212

71317/1

8

2167

71451

3

2179

71110

9

2180

71362

4

2177

71293

10

2198

71052

5

1002

50077/1

11

2177

71021

6

1004

50062/1

12

2180

71438

No.

No.

101

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

2

4

3

7

6

5

8 9

10

12

11

15

14

13

16

17

19

18

Fig. 4.8. Wadi Rabah Dark-Faced Burnished Ware. No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2025

70190/1

11

1027

50142

2

2180

71374

12

2167

71418

3

2177

71298

13

2179

71182

4

2177

71284

14

2271

71690

5

2180

71448

15

2180

71422

6

2179

71445

16

2177

71611

7

2177

71089/1

17

2217

71442

8

2180

71440

18

2203

71279/1

9

2082

70485/1

19

1026

50150

10

1026

50150

102

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

3

4

1 2

6 5

8

7

9

12

11

10

13

16 14

15

17 23 22 21

18

24 19

25 20

Fig. 4.9. Wadi Rabah incised and painted decorations.

26

103

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

◄ Fig. 4.9 Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2088

70583/1

14

2122

71349

2

2180

71374

15

2177

71260

3

2179

71122

16

2152

70933

4

2179

71159

17

2013

50142/1

5

1026

50131/1

18

1028

50159/2

6

2167

71396

19

2173

71098/1

7

2009

70403/1

20

2167

71082/1

8

2176

71284

21

2164

71027/3, 4

9

1022

50121/1

22

2177

71634

10

2177

71293

23

2264

71673/1

No.

11

2176

71183

24

-

70230/2

12

1028

50159/1

25

2070

70363/4

13

2177

71293

26

2178

71179/1

1

2

5

4

3

6

9 7

10 11 8

Fig. 4.10. Wadi Rabah bases and handles. No.

Locus

Basket No.

7

2086

70512/3

8

1010

50087/1

50130/1

9

2025

70140/1

2059

70325/2

10

2158

70990/1

2087

70756/1

11

2084

70776/1

2177

71041/5

Locus

Basket No.

1

2179

71417

2

1022

50121/2

3

1026

4 5 6

No.

104

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

3

2

5

4

7

6

1

11 8

10

9

12

13

14 16 15

21 18

17

20 19

25 22

26

24

23

Fig. 4.11. Early Chalcolithic hemispherical and V-shaped bowls. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2184

70158/1

15

2154

71384

2

2177

71021

16

2154

71384

3

2215

71348

17

2215

71369

4

2174

71139

18

2154

71019

5

2156

71001

19

2215

71326

6

2154

71013/1

20

2152

70433

7

2154

70995

21

2215

71364

8

2149

71965

22

2158

70956

9

2111

70708

23

2154

70962

10

2120

70879

24

2107

70758

11

2216

71343

25

2154

70966

2149

70878

2149

70994

No.

12

2149

70959

26

13

2149

70959

27

14

2149

70959

27

105

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

2 3

6

4 5

7 9 8

11 12 10

15 13

14

Fig. 4.12. Early Chalcolithic V-shaped and S-shaped bowls. No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

9

2111

70708

10

2174

71107

Locus

Basket No.

1

2122

70915/2

2

2154

70961

3

2120

78832

11

2149

70934

4

2149

70928

12

2111

70708

5

2154

71019

13

2156

71001

6

2149

70353

14

2111

70708

7

2174

71107

15

2092

70850

8

2158

70969

16

2149

70994

16

106

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

4 3 2 1

5 7

6

8

11 9

10

16 15

12 14 13

18 17

Fig. 4.13. Early Chalcolithic kraters and basins. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2154

70962

10

2154

70962

2

2154

70962

11

2158

71020

3

2217

71442

12

2217

71345

4

2158

70999

13

2156

70991

5

2215

71348

14

2158

70956

6

2215

71326

15

2215

71348

7

2211

71973

16

2120

70832

8

2215

71329

17

2158

71020

9

2120

70790

18

2158

71020

No.

107

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2

1

4

3

5

7

6

9

8

11

10

14

12

13

16

15

Fig. 4.14. Early Chalcolithic jars. No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

9

2314

71903

10

2217

71391

Locus

Basket No.

1

2156

70959

2

2111

70985

3

2177

71345

11

2149

70924

4

2156

70958

12

2215

71364

5

2107

70704

13

2154

70939

6

2217

71345

14

2215

71446

7

2154

70966

15

2149

71965

8

2159

70969

16

2149

71965

108

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

9

11

Fig. 4.15. Early Chalcolithic pithoi. Locus

Basket No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2156

71001

7

2149

70959

2

2152

70935/5

8

2149

70959

3

2252

71633

9

2149

70928

4

2154

70939

10

2215

71364

5

2158

70963

11

2215

71364

6

2215

71369

No.

No.

109

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

2

5

4

3

6

9 8 7

11

10

12

Fig. 4.16. Early Chalcolithic holemouth jars. Locus

Basket No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2217

71391

7

2158

71052

2

2120

70881

8

2154

71019

3

2217

71367

9

2217

71411

4

2111

70985

10

2217

71334

5

2149

70934

11

2184

71151

6

2217

71345

12

2149

70909

No.

No.

110

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

4

3

1 2

5

7

6

11 8

10

9

12

13 18

14

16

15

19

17

21 22

20

23

Fig. 4.17. Early Chalcolithic miscellaneous finds. Type

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Pedestal bowl

2087

70549

13

Goblet

2154

71384

2

Pedestal bowl

2092

70650

14

Goblet

2154

71384

3

Pedestal bowl

2120

70735

15

Goblet

2121

70885

4

Pedestal bowl

2120

70858

16

Cornet

2217

71442

5

Pedestal bowl

2217

71433

17

Cornet

2156

70974

6

Pedestal bowl

2152

70935/3

18

Cornet

2152

70935

7

Pedestal bowl

2156

70991/1

19

Cornet

2149

70953

8

Churn

2152

70933/1

20

Handle

2149

70909

9

Churn

2216

71343/3

21

Handle

2111

70914

10

Goblet

2154

70901/1

22

Rope decoration

2308

71895

11

Goblet

2164

71049/1

23

Rope decoration

2158

71072

12

Goblet

2154

71384

No.

111

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

2

5

9

8

7

12

13

6

4

3

11

10

16

15

14

17

19 18

21

22

24

23

20

26

28

25

30

29

27

32 31

37

34

36

33

35

Fig. 4.18. Late Chalcolithic hemispherical bowls. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2121

70786

14

2121

70901

26

2121

70899

2

2121

70786

15

2121

70825

27

2087

70732/3

3

2121

70916

16

2121

70800

28

2122

70810

4

2055

70521

17

2172

71090

29

2087

70732/4

5

2121

70809

18

2264

71623

30

2171

71153

6

2121

70825/1

19

2307

71901

31

2180

71105

7

2026

70349

20

2121

70115

32

2035

70282

8

2121

70760

21

2172

71090

33

2121

70860

9

2122

70737

22

2122

70794

34

2087

70529/3

10

2172

71197

23

2261

71670

35

2264

71630/5

11

2264

71630/2

24

2121

70876

36

2172

71242

12

2264

71657

25

2121

70860

37

-

-

13

2122

70810

No.

112

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

2

6

3 4

5

1

7

12

11

10

8 9

15

14

13

16

18

17

19

20

22

21

24 23

Fig. 4.19. Late Chalcolithic V-shaped bowls. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2264

71651/1

13

2307

71894

2

2122

70821

14

2092

70913

3

2121

70907

15

2171

71162

2307

71894

No.

4

2175

71108

16

5

2175

71108

17

2121

70916

6

2121

70901

18

2121

70916

7

2264

71630

19

2121

70901

8

2121

70901

20

2122

70899

9

2261

71628/1

21

2308

71891

10

2264

71630/7

22

2042

70238

11

2261

71628

23

2121

70385

12

2121

70885

24

2122

70915/1

113

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

4 2

3 5

7 6

8

9

10

11

12

Fig. 4.20. Late Chalcolithic bowls and kraters. Locus

Basket No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2270

71433

7

2264

71661/3

2

2060

70348

8

2261

71670/1

3

2055

70526

9

2264

71630

4

2159

70972

10

2264

71658

5

2055

70526

11

2055

70506

6

2209

71308

12

2171

71092

No.

No.

114

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

3 2 1

8 4

6

5

11

10

9

7

15

12

13

16 17

14

21

20

19

18

Fig. 4.21. Late Chalcolithic kraters and basins. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2264

71669/3

12

2110

71038

2

2171

71154

13

2261

71635

3

2122

70304

14

2264

71642/2

4

2121

70916

15

2087

70732

5

2110

71006

16

2185

71140

6

2264

71647/2

17

2121

70901

7

2248

71683

18

2209

71308

8

2193

71255

19

2261

71653

9

2175

71069

20

2264

71630/6

10

2172

71205

21

2264

71623/4

11

2264

71630

No.

115

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2

4

3

1

5

8

7

6

9

11 10

13 15

14

12

17

16

18

Fig. 4.22. Late Chalcolithic jars. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2264

71928

10

2121

70926

2

2087

70732

11

2185

71935

3

2055

70399

12

2171

71153

4

2055

70526

13

2159

71039

5

2055

70388

14

2026

70147

6

2149

70953

15

2264

71623

7

2110

71038

16

2193

71226

8

2193

71226

17

2173

71095

9

2121

70916

18

2172

71242/2

No.

116

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1

2

3

4 5

7

6

8

9

12

11 10

13

15 14

Fig. 4.23. Late Chalcolithic pithoi. Locus

Basket No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2121

70901

9

2307

71901

2

2121

70828

10

2185

71935

3

2171

71167

11

2209

71308

4

2110

71008

12

2121

70736

5

2248

71638

13

2172

71090

6

2172

71273

14

2211

71392

7

2270

71933

15

2121

70885

8

2171

71143

No.

No.

117

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2

1

5

3 4

6

8

7

10

12

9

11

14

16 15

13

19 18 17

Fig. 4.24. Late Chalcolithic holemouth jars. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2193

71186/1

11

2121

70901

2

2121

70809

12

2171

71092

3

2138

70879

13

2270

71933

4

2110

71008

14

2264

71643

5

2121

70885

15

2185

71935

6

2092

70940

16

2264

71651

7

2308

71891

17

2264

71623/3

8

2026

70147

18

2121

70950

9

2121

70826

19

2055

70399

10

2110

70967

No.

118

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1

2

3

4 5

6

9

7

10 11

8

13

12

16

14

17

15

18

19

21

20

23

22

Fig. 4.25. Late Chalcolithic miscellaneous finds. Type

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Pedestal bowl

2307

71930

13

Goblet

2055

70339

2

Pedestal bowl

2055

70526

14

Cornet

2121

70907

3

Pedestal bowl

2270

71717

15

Cornet

2179

71110/1

4

Pedestal bowl

2121

70828/1

16

Cornet

2121

70907

5

Pedestal bowl

2264

71669/4

17

Cornet

2307

71908

6

Pedestal bowl

2072

70506

18

Cornet

2121

70809

7

Pedestal bowl

2102

70650

19

Cornet

2121

70885

8

Pedestal bowl

2055

70442

20

Cornet

2264

71647/1

9

Pedestal bowl

2055

70442

21

Platter

2121

70907

10

Pedestal bowl

2103

70664/2

22

Varia

2121

70886

11

Pedestal bowl

2314

71203

23

Varia

2121

70907

12

Churn

2087

70856

No.

119

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2

3

4

5

1

8

6

7

9

10

14 12 13 11

17

16 15

18

19 20

Fig. 4.26. Late Chalcolithic decorated sherds. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

1

2209

71325

11

2122

70884/1

2

2307

71894

12

2180

71168/1

3

2092

70940/1

13

2120

70785

4

2110

70967

14

2108

70792/1

5

2149

70984/1

15

2314

71903

6

2142

70852

16

2210

71394/1

7

2173

71095

17

2110

70967/1

8

2264

71642

18

2087

70732/1

9

2159

71039

19

2180

71105/1

10

2087

70529/3

20

2122

70884/2

No.

Basket No.

120

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1

6 3

4

2

5

8

9

7

Fig. 4.27. Late Chalcolithic handles. No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2126

70960/1

6

2110

71006

2

2179

71098*

7

2173

71095

3

2264

71651

8

2121

70825

4

2110

71550

9

2121

70849/1

5

2264

71928

Fig. 4.28 ► No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2013

70037

14

2229

71444

2

2211

71373

15

2144

70925

3

2138

70879

16

2010

70096

4

2082

70913

17

2061

71629

5

2052

70332

18

-

-

6

2010

70105

19

-

-

7

2158

71009

20

2054

70362

8

2100

70696

21

2022

70088

9

2013

70178

22

2138

70937

10

2013

70253

23

2257

71627

11

2044

70514

24

2229

71444

12

2110

70967

25

2257

71595

13

-

-

121

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

5

2 4

3

9

7

8

6

10

12

11

13

15

14

17

16

18

19

23 22 20

21

25

24

Fig. 4.28. Late Chalcolithic bowls.

122

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1

2

3

4

6

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Fig. 4.29. Late Chalcolithic kraters and basins.

123

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

◄ Fig. 4.29 No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2057

70468

2

2034

-

3

2192

71174

4

2002

70002

5

2280

6

2192

7

2013

70076

No.

Locus

Basket No.

8

2013

70142

9

2192

71193

10

2192

71193

11

2229

71509

71928

12

2082

70568

71174

13

2153

-

Basket No.

Fig. 4.30 ► Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

1

2206

71250

13

2206

71269

2

2280

71728

14

-

-

3

2153

70963

15

2254

71578

No.

4

-

-

16

2013

70064

5

2079

70500

17

-

-

6

-

-

18

2051

70031

7

2132

71022

19

2006

70035

8

2280

71187

20

2013

70191

9

2045

70327

21

2229

71509

10

2013

70191

22

2229

71427

11

2013

70191

23

2013

70064

12

2252

71633

124

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1 2

3

5

4

6 9

8

7

10

11

14 13 12

17 15 16

20 19 18

21

23 22

Fig. 4.30. Late Chalcolithic pithoi, jars and holemouth jars.

125

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2

4

1

5

3

8 6

10

9

7

Fig. 4.31. Late Chalcolithic miscellaneous finds. No. 1

Type

Locus

Basket No.

Fenestrated pedestal bowl

2094

70652

No. 6

Type

Locus

Basket No.

Handle

2312

71904

2

Fenestrated pedestal bowl

2094

70652

7

Handle

2082

70472

3

Painted Ware

2088

70531

8

Handle

2025

70125

4

Painted Ware

2229

71528

9

Handle

2034

70252

5

Painted Ware

2229

70281

10

Base with cloth impression

2049

70029

Fig. 4.32 ► Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2227

71423

18

2245

71540

2

2028

70122

19

2207

71286

3

2303

71923

20

2207

71340

4

2015

70048

21

2089

70599

5

2089

70556

22

2072

70515

6

2203

71234

23

2072

70529

7

2007

71286

24

2203

71338

8

2250

71551

25

2249

71618

9

2203

71291

26

2203

71338

10

2089

70580

27

2249

71563

11

2072

70527

28

2203

71281

2072

70527

No.

12

2076

70633

29

13

2203

71353

30

2250

71561

14

2203

71277

31

2276

71714/3

15

2085

71135

32

2067

70488

16

2067

70653

33

2089

70508

17

2207

70286

34

2203

71281

126

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1

2

5

3

6

4

11

10

7 9

8

14

12

15

13

16

18 17

19 21

20

22

23

24

25

28

27 26

29 30

32

33

Fig. 4.32. Early EB I bowls.

31

34

127

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

3

2

5

6

8

7

4

10

9

15

12

11

13

14

17

16

19

18

20

21

24

26

25

29

28

27

32

31

30

23

22

35 33

36

34

Fig. 4.33. Early EB I bowls.

128

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

◄ Fig. 4.33 Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2067

70462/4

19

2203

71251

2

2067

70630/5

20

2244

71539

3

2227

71425

21

2203

71246

4

2059

70491

22

2203

71324

5

2089

70580

23

2244

71529

6

2207

71329

24

2089

70599

7

2203

71309

25

2203

71287

8

2203

71298

26

2203

71353

9

2048

70291

27

2227

71381

10

2207

71354

28

2047

70280

No.

11

2067

70609

29

2252

71576

12

2072

70516

30

2067

70630

13

2203

71287

31

2079

70580

14

2203

71251

32

2067

70502/1

15

2067

70551

33

2067

70302

16

2072

70521

34

2047

70280

17

2245

71545

35

2250

71550

18

2203

71332

36

2072

70521

129

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2 1

3 4

5

6

8

7

9 11

10

14

13

15

12

16

Fig. 4.34. Early EB I large hemispherical bowls or kraters. Locus

Basket No.

9

2207

71286

10

2021

70107

11

2203

71300

71551

12

2203

71281

70571

13

2067

70528

2203

71234

14

2244

71529

7

2067

70571

15

2072

70515

8

2062

70326/2

16

2203

71300

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2051

70480

2

2075

70453

3

2298

71840

4

2252

5

2067

6

No.

130

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

Fig. 4.35 ► Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2195

71135

17

2203

71339

2

2303

71925

18

2245

71540

3

2015

70052

19

2207

71340

4

2044

70245

20

2227

71339

5

2124

70752

21

2222

71366

6

2203

71308

22

2207

71310

7

2203

71332

23

2015

70066

8

2055

70388

24

2020

70099

9

2207

71329

25

2044

70245

10

2098

71100

26

2075

70453

No.

11

2203

71300

27

2227

71423

12

2252

71576

28

2203

71338

13

2203

71339

29

2054

70614

14

2227

71381

30

2244

71532

15

2249

71552

31

2207

71355

16

2124

70768

131

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1 2

4

3

5

7

6

9

8

10

11

17

18

16

14

13

12

15

19 20 21

23 22

27

26 25

24

29

30

31

Fig. 4.35. Early EB I deep bowls.

28

132

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

2 1

4 3

6

5

7 8

12

10

9

11

13 14

15

Fig. 4.36. Early EB I bowls and kraters with rope-like decoration. Locus

Basket No.

9

2203

71333

70462/2

10

2067

70551

70337/2

11

2072

70621

2067

70630/1,7

12

2249

71546

5

2067

70488/2

13

2244

71529/3

6

2089

70616

14

2244

71534

7

2098

71078/3

15

2148

70866/3

8

2072

70527

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2072

70515

2

2067

3

2063

4

No.

133

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1 4

3

2

7

9 11

6

8

10

15

13

14

16 18

17

19 21 20

Fig. 4.37. Early EB I jars. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2015

70052

12

2203

71328

2

2072

70520

13

2207

71354

3

2244

71539

14

2203

71335

4

2203

71298

15

2038

70292

5

2021

70122

16

2203

71309

6

2294

71815

17

2028

70227

7

2075

70453

18

2244

71529

8

2020

70226

19

2018

70037

No.

5

9

2020

70121

20

2047

70293

10

2244

71539

21

2047

70293

11

2203

71324

12

134

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

2 1

3

6

5

4

8

7

9 10

11

13

12

15

14

16 17

20

19 18

22

21

Fig. 4.38. Early EB I jars. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2203

71330

12

2021

70137

2

2244

71536

13

2089

70599

3

2203

71283

14

2203

71332

4

2072

70515

15

2089

70599

5

2207

71309

16

2250

71551

6

2067

70462

17

2203

71241

7

2207

71354

18

2244

71533

8

1010

50069/2

19

2244

71529/2

No.

9

2072

70515

20

2063

70628

10

2098

71078/5

21

2202

71276

11

2203

71240

22

2077

70441

135

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2 1

3

4

5

6

7

12 10 8

11

9

14

13

15

16

17

18

Fig. 4.39. Early EB I pithoi without necks. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2203

71233

10

2276

71714/2

2

2250

71561

11

2124

70752

3

2067

70488/1

12

2021

70155

4

2207

71329

13

2203

71234

5

2075

70453

14

2015

70063

6

2244

71536/3

15

2203

71298

7

2203

71336

16

2203

71246

8

2063

70337

17

2015

70048

9

2072

70516

18

2044

70426

No.

136

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1 2

4 3

5 6

7

8 9

10

13

12

11

14

15

16

18

17

19

20

21

Fig. 4.40. Early EB I pithoi. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2276

71839

12

2072

70527

2

2203

71240

13

2124

70752

3

2072

70520

14

2067

70591

4

2124

70768

15

2067

70502

5

2028

70221

16

2203

71240

6

2207

71279

17

2277

71709

7

2207

71279

18

2203

71309

8

2203

71309

19

2207

71286

9

2244

71530

20

2067

70488

10

2067

70653

21

2244

71536/2

11

2047

70309

No.

137

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

3 2 1

6 4

5

Fig. 4.41. Early EB I amphoriskoi and jugs. No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2025

70125

4

2018

70223

2

2262

71617

5

2067

70535

3

2203

71233

6

2207

71282

138

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

2 1

4 3

5

6

8

9

7

10 11 12

13

14

18

16

15

19

17

Fig. 4.42. Early EB I holemouth jars. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

1

2063

70628

11

2067

70502

2

2020

70136

12

2098

71075

3

2067

70535

13

2203

71335

4

2124

70752

14

2298

71842

5

2021

70107

15

2020

70106

6

2047

70309

16

2089

70575

7

2067

70488

17

2249

71546

8

2244

71546

18

2063

70622

9

2020

70099

19

2089

70599

10

2298

71849

No.

Basket No.

139

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

3 2

4

5

10

8

7

11

9

6

13

12

14

16

15

17

18

20

19

Fig. 4.43. Early EB I holemouth jars. Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2281

71763

11

2250

71558

2

2244

71529

12

2207

70886

3

2244

71531/8

13

2103

70676

4

2067

70488

14

2250

71562

5

2025

70197

15

2203

71274

6

2203

71279

16

2207

71279

7

2203

71330

17

2207

71279/1

8

2072

70515

18

2203

71247

9

2028

70211

19

2021

70174

10

2249

71552

20

2015

70066

No.

140

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

Fig. 4.44 ► No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

2249

70552

1

2203

70174

16

2

2028

70227

17

2003

70040

3

2207

71354

18

2252

71582

4

2089

70604

19

2072

70527

5

2207

71354

20

2124

70768

6

2277

71709

21

2250

71591

7

2019

70582

22

2047

70382

8

2124

70768

23

2203

71330

9

2203

71824

24

2240

71618

10

2020

70099

25

2007

70038

11

2250

71551

26

2307

71355

12

2244

71533

27

2007

70038

13

2067

70669

28

2075

70453

14

2047

70300

29

2072

70527

15

2077

70418

30

2203

71338

141

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

4

3

2

5

7

8

6

10 9

11

12

14

13

15 16

17

18 20

19

22

23

21

24

25

27

26

29 28

Fig. 4.44. Early EB I holemouth jars.

30

142

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

2 3 1

4

6

5

7

10

8

11

9

16 15

14 12

13

17

19

18

21

20

22

Fig. 4.45. Early EB I holemouth jars. No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2203

71281

12

2067

70607

2

2098

70048

13

2041

70333

3

2227

71381

14

2249

71618

4

2098

71078

15

2028

70211

5

2124

70752

16

2047

70309

6

2203

71247

17

2249

71618

7

2207

71279

18

2072

70516/3

8

2244

71539

19

2067

70551/1

9

2041

70333

20

2244

71533

10

2028

70221

21

2252

71536

11

2067

70502

22

2244

71539

143

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2 1

4 3

5 6

8

7

9

12

10 11

13

16

15 14

17

19

18

22

20 21

Fig. 4.46. Early EB I holemouth jars.

144

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

◄ Fig. 4.46 No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2245

71548

12

2089

70550

2

2203

71353

13

2203

71330

3

2303

71873

14

2089

70554

4

2018

70139

15

2203

71332

5

2051

70480

16

2203

71287

6

2203

71234

17

2207

70562

7

2250

71561

18

2203

71234

8

2203

71298

19

2249

71546

9

2203

71278

20

2250

71551

10

2244

71531/6

21

2072

70527

11

2070

70515

22

2089

70554/1

Fig. 4.47 ► Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2281

71795

10

2207

71286

2

2089

70550

11

2089

70509

3

2089

70580

12

2244

71531/5

4

2072

70521

13

2098

71075

5

2048

70291

14

2044

70262

6

2203

71324

15

2085

70549

7

2270

71830

16

2072

70516/4

8

2067

70551/3

17

2089

70616

9

2103

70676

18

2048

70291

No.

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1 2

4

3

5

6

7

8

10 9

11

13

15

12

14

16

18 17

Fig. 4.47. Early EB I holemouth jars.

145

146

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

3

2

1

7

6

5

4

9

8

10

11

13 12

14

16

18

17

15

Fig. 4.48. Early EB I holemouth jars and miscellaneous finds. Type

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Holemouth jar

2020

70132

10

Holemouth jar

2203

71338

2

Holemouth jar

2015

70052

11

Holemouth jar

2007

70032

3

Holemouth jar

2015

70048

12

Holemouth jar

2038

70292

4

Holemouth jar

2207

71355

13

Holemouth jar

2075

70453

5

Holemouth jar

2249

71601

14

Teapot

2203

71335

6

Holemouth jar

2227

71423

15

Painted sherd

2250

71540

7

Holemouth jar

2244

71536

16

Painted sherd

2252

71592

8

Holemouth jar

2203

71328

17

Painted sherd

2048

70341

9

Holemouth jar

2244

71531

18

Jug

2089

70603

No.

147

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2 1

3

4

5 6

7 8

10

9

Fig. 4.49. Early EB I Gray Burnished Ware bowls. Locus

Basket No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2020

71453

6

2089

70575/1

2

2018

71147/1

7

2072

70520/2

3

2018

70117/2

8

2072

70516/1

4

2276

71714/8

9

2276

71714

5

2089

70603/3

10

2072

70520

No.

No.

148

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1 2

3

5

4

Fig. 4.50. Early EB I Gray Burnished Ware bowls. No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2303

-

4

2054

70281

2

2303

-

5

2303

-

3

2043

70267/1

2 1

4

3

5

6

7

Fig. 4.51. Early EB I Gray Burnished Ware bowls. No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2103

70664/1

5

2072

70158

2

2007

71329

6

2018

70124

3

2276

71859

7

2009

70355/1

4

2018

70172

149

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

3

2

7

8

4

6

5

9

11

10

13

14

12

15 16

17

18

19 20 21

22

23

24

25

26

Fig. 4.52. Late EB I bowls. No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

4008

10056

14

4008

10056

2

4008

10056

15

2100

70692

3

4008

10060

16

2059

70851

4

4017

10112

17

2247

71566

5

4008

10060

18

1005

50071

6

2067

70414

19

4008

10044

7

4000

10067

20

2065

70340/3

8

4017

10112

21

4000

10090

9

4013

10105

22

2032

70195

10

2009

70403

23

2231

71458

11

2053

70351

24

2231

71454/1

12

4006

10036

25

4008

10056

13

1005

50097

26

2073

70415

150

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1

2

3 4

6 5

7

8

10 9

11

12

15 16

13 14

17

18 19

Fig. 4.53. Late EB I S-shaped bowls.

20 21

151

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

◄ Fig. 4.53 No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2079

70450/7

12

2274

71743

2

2246

70594

13

2274

71743

3

1010

50069/1

14

4003

10066

4

2009

70029/1

15

2259

71591

5

2073

70450/9

16

2018

70101

6

1005

50071/4

17

4008

10048

7

4000

10002

18

4000

10086

8

2098

71064/5

19

2285

71853

9

2100

70730

20

2098

70619

10

2083

70489/2

21

2232

71526

11

2018

70139/1

Fig. 4.54 ► No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2053

70320

9

2240

71507

2

2073

70450

10

2240

71521

3

2018

70101

11

2266

71655

4

2266

71684

12

2112

70691/5

5

4013

10106

13

2108

71303

6

2265

71654

14

2073

70450/6

7

4013

10105

15

2266

71655

8

2009

70029

152

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1

2

3 4

6 5

7

8

9

11 10

13 12

14

15

Fig. 4.54. Late EB I large bowls and kraters.

153

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2 1

4 3

5

7

6

8

9

10

12

11

Fig. 4.55. Late EB I kraters and holemouth jars. No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2000

70011/5

7

2067

70494

2

2000

70011/6

8

4000

10014

3

4013

10105

9

2009

70022

4

2112

70691/7

10

4006

10059

5

2283

71854

11

4000

10002

6

2098

71100

12

2098

71064/2

Fig. 4.56 ► No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

4000

10080

11

4000

10035

2

4000

10014

12

2059

70614

3

4000

10080/1

13

4000

10035

4

2073

70450/1

14

2285

71794

5

2000

70011/2

15

2067

70442

6

2232

71508/1

16

2098

71064

7

4000

10011

17

2231

71463

8

4000

10011/1

18

2266

71655

9

2283

71854

19

2236

71587

10

4000

10092

154

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

2

1

4

3

6

5

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

16

15

17

18

19

Fig. 4.56. Late EB I holemouth jars.

155

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

3

2

5 4

6

9 7

8

10

12

11

14 13

Fig. 4.57. Late EB I pithoi without necks. No.

Locus

Basket No.

70545

8

4000

10059

70330

9

4000

10032

4008

10053

10

2009

70022

4

4008

10056

11

2098

71078

5

4000

10080

12

2242

71530

6

2242

71518

13

4008

10041

7

2032

70195/7

14

2098

71108

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2083

2

2009

3

156

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1

3

2

6 4

5

7

8

9

12 10

11

13

14

Fig. 4.58. Late EB I everted- and triangular-rimmed pithoi. No.

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2032

70195/6

8

2285

71794

2

2274

71743

9

2067

70462

3

2067

70402

10

4005

10066

4

4017

10112

11

4006

10053

5

2098

71064

12

4000

10030

6

4013

10105

13

2265

71654/4

7

2244

71536

14

2242

71518

157

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2

1

3 4

6

5

8

7

10

9

11 12

14

13

15

Fig. 4.59. Late EB I bow-rimmed pithoi. No.

Locus

Basket No.

70866/4

9

4006

10061

71461/3

10

2231

71465

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2139

2

2231

3

2063

70337/1

11

2266

71655

4

4000

10014

12

2232

71508/2

5

2073

70450/3

13

2240

71507

6

2073

70450/1

14

2231

71468

7

2100

70692/5

15

2032

70195/9

8

2266

71655

158

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

3

2

1

5

4

7

6

13

10

9

8

14

15

11

16

17

12

20

21

22

18 24

23

19

27

26 25

28

31

32

29

33

35 34

30

40 36

39

38 37

41

42

43

44

Fig. 4.60. Late EB I miscellaneous finds.

45

46

159

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

◄ Fig. 4.60 No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Amphoriskos

2009

70051

24

Teapot

4008

10053

2

Amphoriskos

4000

10002

25

Strap handle

2059

70851/1

3

Amphoriskos

2089

70601

26

Strap handle

2006

10035

4

Juglet

4000

10032

27

Strap handle

4000

10036

5

Juglet

4000

10032

28

Ledge handle

4000

10013

6

Juglet

2112

70691

29

Ledge handle

4000

10021

7

Juglet

2100

70692

30

Ledge handle

2073

70450/2

8

Juglet

2123

70818

31

Handle

4000

10015

9

Juglet

4000

10013

32

Handle

2098

71064/11

10

Juglet

4000

10070

33

Handle

2236

71599/1

11

Juglet

4000

10022

34

Rope-like decoration

2112

70691

12

Juglet

4000

10035

35

Rope-like decoration

2276

71714/7

13

Juglet

4008

10061

36

Rope-like decoration

2276

71714/7

14

Juglet

4000

10092

37

Rope-like decoration

2100

70692/33

15

Juglet

2098

71064

38

Rope-like decoration

2098

60644

16

Juglet

4000

10013

39

Rope-like decoration

2112

70691

17

Juglet

4000

10013

40

Rope-like decoration

2067

70442

18

Teapot

2058

70637/1

41

Rope-like decoration

2059

70325/1

19

Teapot

-

-

42

Rope-like decoration

2067

70414

20

Teapot

1005

50071

43

Painted decoration

2034

70214/1

21

Teapot

2235

71794

44

Painted decoration

2079

70394

22

Teapot

2086

70512/1

45

Painted decoration

4017

10107

23

Teapot

2023

70418

46

Painted decoration

2098

70699/1

2 1

3

4

8

7 6

5

Fig. 4.61. Late EB I Gray Burnished Ware vessels. No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Bowl

2072

70477/1

5

Bowl

2009

70385

2

Bowl

2091

70546/1

6

Bowl

2013

70173

3

Bowl

1009

50120

7

Bowl

2266

71672

4

Bowl

2000

70011/4

8

Holemouth jar

2139

70866/1

160

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

2 1

3

5 4

7

6

8

Fig. 4.62. Area D, Building 4000 pottery.

161

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

10 9

12

11

13

14

15

Fig. 4.62 (cont.). Fig. 4.62 No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Bowl

4008

10056

9

Pithos

4000

10000

2

Cup

4000

10090

10

Pithos

4000

10090

3

Jar

-

-

11

Pithos

4000

10090

4

Pithos

4000

10075

12

Pithos

4006

10093

5

Pithos

4000

10022

13

Holemouth jar

-

-

6

Pithos

4006

10093

14

Holemouth jar

-

-

7

Pithos

4008

10056

15

Holemouth jar

4000

10022

8

Pithos

4000

10090

162

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1 2

4 3

5 6

8

7

10

9

12

11

14 13

15 16

17

18

Fig. 4.63. Area G, Wadi Rabah pottery.

163

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

19

20

21 22

23 24

25

26

Fig. 4.63 (cont.).

Fig. 4.63 No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Bowl

140

1136/2

14

Bowl

142

1140/23

2

Bowl

142

1190/29

15

Bowl

140

1141/1

3

Bowl

142

1140/31

16

Bowl

142

1145/13

4

Bowl

142

1140/16

17

Holemouth jar

140

1141/3

5

Bowl

142

1140/31

18

Holemouth jar

142

1145/9

6

Bowl

142

1145/17

19

Holemouth jar

142

1140/19

7

Bowl

142

1145/22

20

Holemouth jar

140

1141/23

8

Bowl

142

1145/20

21

Holemouth jar

142

1140/18 1118/7

9

Bowl

142

1145/21

22

Jar

140

10

Bowl

142

1145/18

23

Handle

142

1124/14

11

Bowl

142

1124/17

24

Base

140

1141/14

12

Bowl

140

1141/23

25

Sherd

142

1145/19

13

Bowl

142

1111/21

26

Sherd

142

1145/24

164

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

2

1

3

4

6 5

7

8

9

Fig. 4.64. Area G, Chalcolithic pottery. No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Bowl

142

1141/19

6

Holemouth jar

140

1126/3

2

Krater

140

1138/4

7

Jar

142

1140/14

3

Krater

142

1140/21

8

Cornet

140

1113/9

4

Krater

133

1089/4

9

Pierced handle

140

1136/3

5

Holemouth jar

142

1145/8

165

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2 1

3

4

5 6

7 8

9

10

12

11

Fig. 4.65. Area G, early EB I bowls, jars and holemouth jars. No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Bowl

142

1124/4

No. 7

Jar

142

1122/16

2

Bowl

140

1118/5

8

Jar

142

1124/13

3

GBW bowl

142

1122/21

9

Holemouth jar

142

1122/33

4

GBW bowl

142

1122/10

10

Holemouth jar

142

1122/12

5

GBW bowl

142

1122/22

11

Holemouth jar

142

1122/15

6

GBW bowl

142

1122/13

12

Decorated sherd

140

1118/9

166

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1 2

3

5

6

4

7 8

10 9

12

11

Fig. 4.66. Area G, early EB I bowls. No.

Locus

Basket No.

Parallels

7

137

1094/9

Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.3:7); ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 19:3–5)

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.21:1)

8

134

1011/13

‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 15:15)

1105/5

9

134

1134/2

125

1061/3

Locus

Basket No.

Parallels

1

125

1061/12

2

134

1011/22

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Figs. 9.8–9.13)

3

125

1097/21

4

137

No.

5

134

1011/2

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.25:1–3)

10 11

131

1097/9

6

125

1061/14

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.6); Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2000: Fig. 19.3)

12

129

1078/12

167

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1 3

2

5

4

6

7

8

10 9

11 12

14 13

Fig. 4.67. Area G, early EB I Gray Burnished Ware and basins. No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

Parallels

9

Bowl

134

1120/2

‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 15:9)

1094/16

10

Bowl

134

1110/4

11

Basin

137

1105/7

Tel Qashish (Zuckermann 2003: Fig. 17:14)

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Bowl

137

1094/11

2

Bowl

137

1100/3

3

Bowl

137

Parallels

4

Bowl

134

1094/17

5

Bowl

137

1105/2

6

Bowl

123

1080/11

12

Basin

134

1134/12

As No. 11

7

Bowl

129

1079/14

13

Basin

137

1105/9

As No. 11

8

Bowl

134

1110/2

14

Basin

137

1100/2

As No. 11

168

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

1 2

3 5

4

7

6

9 8

10

13

12

11

14

Fig. 4.68. Area G, early EB I jars and pithoi. No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

8

Jar

137

1094/17

9

Jar

134

1011/4

Jar/pithos

134

1134/1

11

Jar/pithos

137

1094/14

1092/5

12

Jar/pithos

134

1011/1

131

1097/14

13

Jar/pithos

137

1094/10

137

1092/8

14

Pithos

129

1078/8

Type

Locus

Basket No.

Parallels

1

Jar

125

1081/11

‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 15:10)

2

Jar

134

1110/1

As No. 1

10

3

Jar

131

1097/25

As No. 1

4

Jar

129

1086/3

5

Jar

134

6

Jar

7

Jar

Parallels

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.1:3)

169

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2

1

3

4

5 6

8

7

10

9

11

12

14 13

15

Fig. 4.69. Area G, early EB I holemouth jars. No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

131

1113/19

2

135

1114/9

3

137

1105/7

4

131

1111/3

5

134

1088/3

6

135

1114/3

7

131

1097/12

8

131

1097/20

Parallels

No.

Locus

Basket No.

Parallels

9

134

1088/6

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.1:2); Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.3:6); ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 15:16)

10

131

1097/16

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.11:2)

11

134

1088/1

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.10:6) Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.11:3)

12

125

1081/4

13

137

1094/12

14

137

1094/6

15

131

1097/16

As No. 12

170

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

2 1

3

4

5

7

6

8

9

Fig. 4.70. Area G, early EB I holemouth jars and jug. No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Holemouth jar

134

1123/1

6

Jug

134

1011/3

2

Holemouth jar

135

1114/4

7

Pithos

145

1146/3

3

Holemouth jar

134

1123/7

8

Holemouth jar

145

1146/7

9

Holemouth jar

145

1146/8

4

Holemouth jar

134

1088/10

5

Holemouth jar

137

1092/6

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

2

4

3

5 6

7

8

9

10 11

13

12

14 15 17 16

Fig. 4.71. Area G, early EB I pottery.

171

172

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

◄ Fig. 4.71 No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Bowl

130

1083/2

2

Bowl

123

1080/4

No.

Parallels

Type

Locus

Basket No.

8

Krater

123

1080/7

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.5:2)

9

Krater

144

1143/12

10

Pithos

123

1052/2

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.5:4)

11

Pithos

123

1050/12

12

Jar

123

1080/9

13

Jar

123

1066/9

14

Jar

123

1080/2

3

Bowl

123

1080/10

4

Bowl

123

1080/14

5

GBW bowl

123

1066/13

15

Jar

123

1080/3

6

Basin

123

1052/3

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.7:5)

16

Holemouth jar

123

180/10

7

Basin

123

1052/4

As No. 6

17

Holemouth jar

123

1066/1

Parallels

Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: Fig. 9.13:3)

Fig. 4.72 ► No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Bowl

134

1117/3

8

Bowl

109

1019/6

2

Bowl

-

-

9

Bowl

119

1048/11

3

Bowl

-

-

10

GBW bowl

110

1025/9

11

GBW bowl

109

1019/7

4

Bowl

127

1076/1

5

Bowl

119

1048/6

6

Bowl

109

1023/4

7

Bowl

111

1021/3

Parallels

Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.5:5)

12

GBW bowl

134

1117/6

13

Krater

136

1135/9

14

Krater

111

1021/5

15

Krater

136

1129/4

Parallels

173

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

3

2

4 5

6

7

9 8

10

12 11

14 13

15

Fig. 4.72. Area G, late EB I bowls and kraters.

174

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

2

3

4

5 1

Fig. 4.73. Area G, late EB I pithoi, holemouth jar and votive juglets from the infant burial. No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Pithos

145

1146/1

4

Votive juglet

145

1146/4

2

Pithos

145

1146/2

5

Votive amphoriskos

145

1146/5

3

Holemouth jar

145

1146/6

175

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

2 3 1

4

5

6

7

9 8

10

11

12

13

14

15

18 17

16

19

Fig. 4.74. Area G, late EB I jars, holemouth jars, pithoi and jugs. Type

Locus

Basket No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Jar

136

1099/1

11

Holemouth jar

110

1051/2

2

Jar

120

1042/4

12

Holemouth jar

136

1135/4

3

Jar

119

1050/2

13

Holemouth jar

136

1135/7

4

Jar

122

1075/5

14

Jug

119

1048/6

5

Jar

127

1074/5

127

1074/1

6

Jar

136

1135/5

Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.5:4)

7

Jar

135

1133/5

Tel Qashish (Zuckermann 2003: Fig. 10:11)

No.

8

Pithos

119

1050/1

9

Holemouth jar

111

1021/4

10

Holemouth jar

119

1045/1

Parallels

Tel Qashish (Zuckermann 2003: Fig. 19:7)

No.

15

Jug

16

Jug

17

Fenestrated pedestal

135

1133/1

18

Rope-like decoration

127

1076/2

19

Seal impression

119

1046/7

Parallels

176

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

3

1

4

2

6

5

7

8

10

9

11 12

14

13

17

16 15

Fig. 4.75. Area G, late EB I bowls and kraters. No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Bowl

139

1092/2

2

Bowl

124

1059/2

3

Bowl

124

1057/14

4

Bowl

121

1045/1

5

Bowl

103

1016/1

6

Bowl

102

1007/2

7

Bowl

124

1057/15

8

Bowl

102

1002/1

9

GBW bowl

104

1005/3

10

GBW bowl

144

1143/5

11

GBW bowl

100

1010/2

Parallels

Tel Qashish (Zuckermann 2003: Fig. 9:1)

Tel Qashish (Zuckermann 2003: Fig. 6:2)

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

Parallels

12

GBW bowl

124

1056/4

Tel Qashish (Zuckermann 2003: Fig. 7:12)

13

Basin

101

1011/2, 3

‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 14:12)

14

Basin

103

1016/14

‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 14:5)

15

Basin

139

1008/2

‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 14:7); Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003: Fig. 7:15)

16

Krater

139

1108/8

‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 14:12)

17

Krater

105

1006/4

As No. 16

177

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

1

2

4 3

6 5

7 8

9

10

11 12

14

13

Fig. 4.76. Area G, late EB I jars, holemouth jars, amphoriskoi and teapot. No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

1

Jar

100

1001/2

2

Jar

124

1059/5

3

Holemouth jar

139

1104/2

4

Holemouth jar

101

1002/2

5

Holemouth jar

143

1142/1

6

Holemouth jar

101

1001/4

7

Holemouth jar

103

1004/2

8

Holemouth jar

124

1057/5

9

Holemouth jar

124

1054/1

Parallels

‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 22:3)

No.

Type

Locus

Basket No.

Parallels

10

Pithos

139

1104/3

Megiddo (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.4:22)

11

Pithos

100

1028/1

‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 23:9)

12

Pithos

102

1007/3

‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 23:8, 10)

13

Amphoriskos

103

1008/2

‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Fig. 19:19)

14

Teapot

101

1011/2

178

ELI YANNAI, DORIT LAZAR-SHORER AND ZOHAR GROSINGER

NOTES 1 I wish to thank Prof. Y. Garfinkel, who was kind enough to examine the finds from the Wadi Rabah Culture exposed in the ‘En Esur excavations and offer insightful comments concerning the ceramic discussion. 2 The division between thin-walled and thick-walled bowls is not always clear or unequivocal. Between these two extremes are a number of bowls with walls of varying thicknesses.

3 Table 4.2 contains Y. Goren’s petrographic analysis of Gray Burnished Ware sherds found in the excavations discussed in this volume.

CHAPTER 5

THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI K HALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

INTRODUCTION Flint artifacts from all excavation areas were recorded and sorted. However, this chapter will concentrate on Area B since a complete stratigraphic sequence, from the Pottery Neolithic to Early Bronze Age I, was revealed in this area. Flint artifacts from Area D, Stratum II (the late EB I), where a well-preserved building was uncovered, will also be presented. Areas A, C, E, F, G and H represent small and/or indeterminate occupation areas, and are therefore not included here. The complete stratigraphic sequence in Area B presents us with an opportunity to study the development of flint assemblages from the Pottery Neolithic to the end of EB I, while dealing with the problem of intrusions and mixtures. Retrieval methods included dry sieving of artifacts with a 10 mm mesh in all occupation contexts, while in other contexts no sieving was performed. This datum will affect the statistical treatment of the assemblages, in particular when comparing Areas B and D. After a preliminary analysis of the flint artifacts according to areas and strata, the authors of this chapter arrived at the conclusion that a great quantity of intrusive artifacts was present in all the relevant strata. This conclusion influenced the method and mode in which the assemblages will be presented. The complexities of site formation and mixture of flint artifacts from different strata have been addressed by S. Rosen (1997:35–36). It is clear that in multilayer sites ‘clean’ strata rarely exist, and few loci can be defined as unmixed. The contamination of loci could be the result of several factors, including intrusive pits and trenches, rodent activities and geomorphological post-depositional changes. Collection methods could also be the cause of contamination, mainly in baskets which are encountered in the transition between two strata. The degree of intrusion also depends on site topography, stratigraphic relations, site formation

processes and modern disturbances, and it varies from site to site. For instance, the intrusion degree ranged between 3% and 16% at Tel Megadim (Bankirer and Marder, forthcoming), 10% and 28% at Tel Bet She’an in Area R, 33% and 89% at Tel Bet She’an in Areas N, S and P (Bankirer and Marder 2006) and was 22% at Yiftah’el (Rosen 1997:36). At ‘En Esur the intrusion degree ranged between 17% and 61%. The ratio of intrusions was calculated according to the following formula: NIT RI =

× 100 NTT + NIT

where RI = ratio of intrusions, NIT = number of intrusive diagnostic tools originating in other strata, and NTT = number of diagnostic tools typical of the stratum. We have chosen this formula, which takes into account only the diagnostic tools of each stratum/ period, without the ad-hoc tools, in order to establish chrono-typological ascriptions.1 For the reasons explained above, the ‘En Esur lithic assemblages will be presented according to strata and the period assigned by the director of the excavation (see Table 1.3). In each stratum, only artifacts that can be attributed to relatively secure stratigraphic units are presented (see Tables 5.1–5.11). Detailed counts of lithic material from mixed loci and areas/strata are not dealt with here. The analysis of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic material is based on A. Gopher’s typological list (1985; 1989), while the Early Bronze Age typology is based upon S. Rosen’s list (1997).

DESCRIPTION The flint artifacts from ‘En Esur were manufactured from seven types of raw material (see Tables 5.3–5.6). Two types are of ordinary quality containing chalk inclusions, which could be of Cenomanian, Turonian

180

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

or Eocene origin. One is gray-brown, the second is beige. In addition, there are three different types of high-quality Eocene flint. Two are fine-grained, dark brown or pale brown in color with stripes. The third is coarser, light gray-brown in color.2 The sixth type of raw material is translucent chalcedony, from an Eocene or Turonian origin (Meshash Formation). In the seventh category we include diverse raw materials that do not fit the previous types. The above-mentioned geological strata are present in the vicinity of the site. The Cenomanian, Turonian and Eocene can be found within a radius of 2 to 5 km (see Chapter 1). Middle Eocene is present within a radius of 15 to 20 km from the site. It is called the ‘Senin tongue’ of the Nizzana Formation (Rot 1977) and is also present at the Har Ha-Haruvim site, c. 15 km northwest of Asawir. Har Ha-Haruvim is considered a key site for Canaanean blade production during the Early Bronze Age (Meyerhof 1960; Rosen 1983), and Canaanean core blades made of the coarse-grained, light gray-brown flint were found there (Meyerhof 1960; Shimelmitz, Barkai and Gopher 2000:6; R. Barkai, pers. comm). The flint industries in all strata at ‘En Esur are dominated by flake production, while blades and bladelets are present in low frequencies (see Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.10, 5.11). Cores for sickle blade production are very rare. As high frequencies of tool intrusions were observed in the main strata of Area B, the ascription of cores and waste material is even more difficult as these artifacts are generally non diagnostic per se. For this reason, the description of cores originating in this area will be brief. The cores of Area D will be discussed in more detail. Stratum VII: The Jericho IX/Lodian Assemblage Stratum VII was unearthed in a limited area, and only 36 artifacts were retrieved (see Tables 5.1, 5.7, 5.9). For this reason the conclusions are tentative. Three distinct tools were found: a complete arrowhead, a sickle blade and a broken chisel (Fig. 5.1). The arrowhead (Fig. 5.1:1) belongs to the ‘Herzliya’ type (Prausnitz et al. 1970; Gopher 1994:41). It has a narrow, elongated leaf-like shape, and is made of finegrained, dark brown raw material of Eocene origin. Its dorsal side was fashioned by pressure retouch, and the point was heat treated. Similar types of arrowheads are known from several Pottery Neolithic A (Jericho IX/

Lodian) sites of the coastal plain (Khalaily 1999:21), e.g., Herzliyya (Prausnitz et al. 1970), Giv‘at Ha-Parsa (Olami, Burian and Friedmann 1977) and Nizzanim (Yeivin and Olami 1979). The sickle blade (Fig. 5.1:2) is also made of the fine-grained, dark brown Eocene material, probably on a wide blank. It was fashioned by bifacial pressure retouch on both edges and truncated on the distal and proximal ends. The working edge shows a regular shallow denticulation. This sickle blade is diagnostic of the Jericho IX/Lodian cultural assemblages (Blockman 1997:35, Fig. 15). The chisel (Fig. 5.1:3) shows signs of polishing. Stratum VI: The Wadi Rabah Culture The flint assemblage of Stratum VI is dominated by flake production, while blades and bladelets are very rare (see Tables 5.1, 5.7, 5.10). The flake cores represent 92.9% of all cores. The ad-hoc tools dominate the assemblage, especially notches and denticulates, awls and borers (Fig. 5.2:1– 4), burins (Fig. 5.2:5–7), and scrapers on flakes (Fig. 5.2:8, 9). The sickle blades represent 5.5% of the tools, and the bifacial tools constitute 3.6% (see Table 5.10). The raw material for the production of sickle blades and bifacial tools is varied, including all the types described above (see Tables 5.4, 5.5). Two types of sickle blades can be distinguished. The first group is composed of rectangular sickle blades, with abrupt or semi-abrupt retouch on the back and truncation on both ends (Fig. 5.3:1). The working edge is shaped by deep regular or irregular denticulation. The second group includes wide rectangular blanks, fashioned by semi-abrupt retouch, truncated on one or both ends (Fig. 5.3:2). The working edge is plain or finely denticulated. These two groups are characteristic of Wadi Rabah assemblages, and are designated respectively as Types C and D by Gopher (1989:95). They appear in different frequencies at diverse sites (Gopher 1989; Marder, Braun and Milevski 1995; Barkai 1996; Gophna and Shlomi 1997). Four bifacial tools were found. One is a resharpened adze (Fig. 5.3:3), covered with cortex, showing signs of polishing on both sides of the tip. On the dorsal side there are marks of longitudinal blows that removed part of the polish. A fragment of a cortical knife (Tuwailan; Fig. 5.3:4), made of fine-grained, dark brown raw material, was found in the tractor trench of

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

the area. It was shaped by bifacial pressure retouch, which removed almost all the cortex. The knife was reused as a burin. Cortical knives are known from Late Neolithic sites in the Negev (Goring-Morris, Gopher and Rosen 1994) and other regions (e.g., Crowfoot Payne 1983: Fig. 339:2). The remaining bifacials are amorphous; one exhibits signs of polishing, the other bears cortex remains. In addition, three micro-endscrapers are made of translucent chalcedony (e.g., Fig. 5.3:5, 6). Generally these tools are ascribed to the Chalcolithic period (Gilead 1984). However, in recent years they have been found also in Wadi Rabah assemblages, e.g., Nahal Zehora I (Barkai 1996: Pl. 33:7) and Ha-Gosherim (Khalaily 1999).3 Finally, it must be stressed that only two intrusive tools (one Chalcolithic and one Canaanean retouched blade) were found in Stratum VI. This low frequency of intrusions must be due to the fact that lower strata generally are less disturbed (see Bankirer and Marder, forthcoming). Stratum V: The Early/Late Chalcolithic Stratum V was divided into three phases by the excavator (A, B, C), and defined as follows (see Chapter 1): Stratum VB–C—Early Chalcolithic; Stratum VA—Late Chalcolithic.4 Due to the small sample of diagnostic tools attributed to each of the phases of Stratum V, i.e., VB–C and VA, and the fact that intrusive diagnostic tools are present in both phases, we decided to present Stratum V as a single unit (see ‘Discussion’ below). While, in general, the debitage and cores from this stratum show the same tendency to flake production as in the previous stratum (see Table 5.1), the relatively high frequency of blade cores (c. 19%) in comparison with other strata must be emphasized (see Table 5.7). Five bifacial spalls were found among the debitage of this stratum (e.g., Fig. 5.4:1, 2), the result of rejuvenation of the side and a longitudinal blow on the working edge. One of the spalls is a ridge blade (Fig. 5.4:3). The ad-hoc tools dominate the assemblage (see Table 5.10). Sickle blades represent 6.4% and bifacial tools, 4.2%. Tabular scrapers appear in this stratum in a low frequency, 1.1%. Three different types of sickle blades were retrieved from Strata VB–C and VA. Two of them (Fig. 5.5:1, 2) are similar to those described above in Stratum

181

VI. The third type (Fig. 5.5:3, 4), which appears in a high frequency (c. 60% of the sickle blades), is a narrow, rectangular backed blade with a triangular cross section. It is either plain or finely denticulated. While the first two types are characteristic of the Wadi Rabah assemblages, the third is typical of Chalcolithic repertoires, although it appears occasionally at Wadi Rabah sites, e.g., Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming), and Nahal Zehora I (Barkai 1996: Pls. 10:4, 7; 11:2), still in very low quantities. Bifacials of all types are present: axes, adzes and chisels. They are made of the fine-grained and coarsegrained Eocene flint. The axes are in general amorphous; remains of polishing are rare (e.g. Fig. 5.6:1). Two of them were recycled: one as a hammerstone, the second (Fig. 5.6:2) as a core for flake production. The adzes are narrow and plano-convex in section (Fig. 5.7:1, 2), bearing evidence of polishing. The chisels are narrow and elongated in shape (Fig. 5.7:3). The working edge is convex and also bears evidence of polishing. These types are characteristic of the Wadi Rabah assemblages (Barkai 1996), although they also appear within Chalcolithic repertoires (Gilead, Hershman and Marder 1995:245). Most of the tabular scrapers are atypical in shape, and several of them do not bear evidence of cortex. One of the items (Fig. 5.8), associated with Stratum V or VI, is oval in shape and covered by cortex over more than 75% of the dorsal surface. It is made of the pale brown flint with stripes. The percussion platform was bifacially thinned as evidenced by scars on the bulb. All the other examples are in fragmentary condition, made of all types of raw material. In addition, there is a broad selection of scrapers (Fig. 5.9:1, 2), especially scrapers on flakes, steep scrapers and scrapers on blades. Micro-endscrapers and double scrapers are rare. Burins are common in Stratum V, most shaped on flakes or retouched flakes. A few of these were later recycled as scrapers (e.g., Fig. 5.9:3). Among the perforators, awls on flakes are the majority (e.g., Fig. 5.9:4). Borers on narrow blades and heavy borers appear as well. The borers on blades are truncated or pointed (e.g., Fig. 5.9:5). These types of borers are typical of the Wadi Rabah repertoire (e.g., Marder, Braun and Milevski 1995:69; Getzov et al., forthcoming), but also appear in Chalcolithic assemblages (Gilead, Hershman and Marder 1995:227– 229), as in Stratum IV (see below).

182

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

Stratum IV: The Late Chalcolithic Period The cores of Stratum IV resemble in general those of previous layers (see Table 5.7), in that they show the same tendency to flake production. Five bifacial spalls must be mentioned among the debitage of this stratum. One of the spalls was reused as a sidescraper (Fig. 5.11:1). Ad-hoc tools (see Table 5.10) form the majority of the assemblage, including denticulates (31%), awls and heavy borers (14.8%; e.g., Fig. 5.10) and retouched flakes (10%). Scrapers (e.g., Fig. 5.11:2, 3) and multiple tools (e.g. Fig. 5.11:4) are less frequent. Sickle blades, backed blades (5.1% altogether), and tabular scrapers (1.1%) are uncommon or rare. The fine-grained Eocene with stripes dominates the raw material (see Tables 5.3–5.6). The sickle blades are of the narrow type, rectangular and backed with a triangular cross section; their working edge is either plain or finely denticulated (Fig. 5.12:1–4). This type appears already in Stratum V, but is characteristic of Chalcolithic assemblages (Gilead, Hershman and Marder 1995). Retouched blades and bladelets appear in a relatively high quantity (7.6%); some of them are backed blades with no sickle gloss (e.g., Fig. 5.12:5, 6), others display fine retouch along one of the edges (Fig. 5.12:7). Fragments of tabular scrapers, characteristic of the Chalcolithic period, were found among the flint artifacts of this stratum. One item (Fig. 5.13:1), which apparently belonged to an elongated example, bears thinning on its base and on the bulb. A complete example (Fig. 5.13:2), recovered from a mixed context (Strata IV–III), must be noted, since it probably belongs to the Chalcolithic type of tabular scraper. It is made of beige flint, different from the other raw materials described above. This item is elongated and shows thinning on its base and part of the left edge. Traces of polish can be discerned on its distal and proximal edges as well, probably the result of scraping and hafting. The base thinning of tabular scrapers is common in Chalcolithic assemblages, e.g., Shiqmim (Levy and Rosen 1987: Figs. 10:5.2, 10:6.1), Peqi‘in (Nimrod Getzov, pers. comm.) and Golan sites (Noy 1998). Incisions on the scrapers, a chronological marker for Early Bronze Age tabular scrapers (Rosen 1997:75), do not appear. During the Early Bronze Age, tabular scrapers also exhibit platform faceting and a protruding bulb; base thinning is almost absent (Greenhut 1989; Marder, Braun and Milevski 1995).

An additional tool is a tabular knife (Fig. 5.13:3), made of dark brown flint and flaked by unusual sidestruck reduction. It exhibits bifacial retouch on its left side, and regular retouch on the right side. Bifacials of all types are present: axes, adzes and chisels. Axes form the majority of the bifacial tools, having a biconvex cross section (Fig. 5.14:1). They appear in different sizes, made of the various raw materials described above. Adzes appear in a standard shape, tending to be elongated. They have a planoconvex cross section and a wide working edge (Figs. 5.14:2; 5.15:1), with evidence of polishing. Their ventral sides usually bear transversal scars, struck from both sides. Chisels, however, are narrow and elongated in shape (Fig. 5.15:2), similar to adzes in shape of cross section, with parallel sides converging towards the working edges. It is worth noting that three items are trihedrals. All these bifacial types are characteristic of Chalcolithic assemblages (Levy and Rosen 1987; Gilead, Hershman and Marder 1995; Barkai 2000). The polishing on the bifacial artifacts appears in a high frequency compared to the northern Negev sites. However, at Ramat Bet Shemesh (Zbenovich, forthcoming) the polishing frequency is similar to that of ‘En Esur. Stratum III: The Early Phase of Early Bronze Age I The frequencies of debitage and cores in this stratum are similar in general to those of previous layers (see Tables 5.1, 5.8). Single striking platform (see Fig. 5.17:5), amorphous and broken cores are the most common types, and the tool types are dominated by adhoc tools such as notches and denticulates and retouched flakes. Nonetheless, the formal tools are dominated by the Canaanean industry (see Table 5.11). Canaanean blades and sickle blades will be described here, while the other EB I tool types are better represented in Stratum II and will be described there (see below). One-third of the Canaanean sickle blades are broken distally and proximally; only three artifacts are complete (Fig. 5.16). The dominant raw materials are the dark fine-grained and the coarse-grained Eocene; c. 15% bear remains of cortex. One of the sickles is made on a ridged blade; another (bearing remains of cortex) was reused as a burin and shows signs of hafting on the central ridge (Fig. 5.16:5). The average width is 22.2 mm, similar to the average width of Stratum II.

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

The majority of the sickle blades bear fine or irregular denticulation; only five examples have a plain working edge. Seven items are backed on one edge. Sickle gloss appears either on the ventral or dorsal face. Only four items exhibit gloss on both faces. Eleven Canaanean retouched blades were encountered. Their average width is similar to that of the sickle blades (21.5 mm). Three of them are backed (Fig. 5.17:1, 3); one was shaped by semi-abrupt retouch, and the others by fine or nibbling retouch on one of the edges. One item is unique in its width (31.9 mm), exhibiting denticulation on one edge and fine retouch on the other (Fig. 5.17:2). Finally, two special tools must be noted. One is a kind of point fashioned on an elongated flake with a faceted platform (Fig. 5.17:6), which resembles the ‘Bet Shean’ points as defined by Bankirer (1999). The second is a leaf-shaped point (Fig. 5.17:7), probably a spearhead, retouched at its tip and slightly near the base (Olami 1989; Bankirer and Marder 2006). Stratum II: The Late Phase of Early Bronze Age I The debitage in this stratum, as in previous layers, is dominated by flake production (see Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.8). Here we will present the assemblages of both Areas D and B. The fact that the assemblage of Area D is relatively clean in relation to that of Area B allows us to relate, with confidence, this stratum to the flint assemblage found in it. Area D Cores with one striking platform and amorphous cores make up two thirds of the total cores in the assemblage. Among the single-striking-platform blade cores, a single exhausted pyramidal core must be stressed (Fig. 5.18:1). It was found on the floor of the building (L4014; see Chapter 3). It is made of the coarse-grained, light gray-brown flint and measures 60.9 × 57.5 × 50.5 mm. Narrow blades with overshoots were struck from it. It seems that in the final knapping stages, flakes with hinge fractures were also struck from it, indicating an unsuccessful attempt to produce blades by Canaanean technology from local flint. Despite its small size and the fact that it is in an exhausted stage, this core resembles in shape numerous Canaanean blade cores known from many Early Bronze Age sites, such as Har Ha-Haruvim (Meyerhof 1960; Shimelmitz, Barkai and Gopher 2000), Gezer (Macalister 1912:126, Fig. 300),

183

Tel Halif (Futato 1996), Gat Guvrin (unpublished)5 and probably Wadi Gazah, Site H (Petrie 1932: Pl. XVIII). The main tool types are notches and denticulates, awls, retouched flakes, scrapers and Canaanean blades (see Table 5.11). Notches and denticulates are mainly on flakes. The denticulation varies from a shallow notch to deeper denticulation formed by semi-abrupt retouch. All the awls are on flakes; most of them present the working edge on the distal end of the tool. On a few examples the working edge is on one of the sides. The others are actually double awls. Endscrapers on flakes dominate the scraper category. Other types include two core scrapers, one endscraper on a blade and two fragments of tabular scrapers. One of these tabular scrapers, found on the paved floor outside the building (L4002), bears incisions (Fig. 5.18:2). Most of the Canaanean sickle blades are narrow with an average width of 14.98 mm. The sickle blades exhibit fine denticulation with gloss. Some of them present gloss on both sides. The sickle blades uncovered on the floor of the building (L4000, L4003) are made of the various types of raw material described above. One of them, which has cortex on the dorsal face, is made of the same raw material as the core in Fig. 5.18:1 and its width corresponds with one of the core scars. The retouched Canaanean blades are indeed wider than the sickle blades, measuring an average of 17.33 mm (e.g., Fig. 5.18:3), and the majority are worked distally and proximally. They present a fine, uneven, partial retouch, both on the dorsal and/or the ventral surface of the tool. Three of the blades have notches: two have notches on one of the edges (Fig. 5.18:4, 5), while the third (Fig. 5.18:5) exhibits two deep notches on one side and a third on the other side. These bilateral notches could be intended for hafting. Area B The assemblage of Area B consists mainly of ad-hoc tools, while formal tools such as Canaanean blades and tabular scrapers are less frequent (see Table 5.11). The ad-hoc tools, made of various types of raw material, are dominated by notches and denticulates. The Canaanean blades are mostly broken both distally and proximally and are broader than those in Area D (see above). Their average width is 21.23 mm, compared to the average width of the Canaanean retouched blades, 24.25 mm. The only two unbroken items have truncations on both ends and show sickle gloss on both sides (Fig. 5.18:3).

184

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

It is probable that the broader blades were used as reaping knives, as suggested elsewhere (Marder, Braun and Milevski 1995).

DISCUSSION The assemblages of ‘En Esur offer a rare opportunity for lithic studies. The site was occupied throughout a crucial period of economic and cultural change, the transition from the early pottery-producing societies of the Neolithic to the beginning of urbanization in the Bronze Age. Thus we are able to study the lithic development through this period of transition. It should be noted that at every site with more than one occupational layer, a number of post-depositional processes (Bar-Yosef 1993) cause movement of artifacts between the layers. From the study of flint assemblages from many sites, we have reached the conclusion that most lithic intrusions derive from earlier layers moving upwards into later strata. This phenomenon is well known at Tel Bet She’an (Bankirer and Marder 2006), Tel Megadim (Bankirer and Marder, forthcoming) and Yiftah’el (Rosen and Grinblat 1997). Nevertheless, the situation at ‘En Esur is more complex since the lithic intrusions derive from both early and later strata. The late intrusive material could be explained by the sloping nature of the site that caused, for instance, Canaanean sickle blades to appear in Wadi Rabah and Chalcolithic strata. The lithic industries through all the strata show a similar pattern of flake-oriented production. Flake cores represent 81–93% of the cores in all strata. The main core type, which appears in all strata, is that with one striking platform, representing c. 46% of all cores. Following this, amorphous and broken cores are the most common types of cores (c. 33% for both), while other types are present in various frequencies (see Tables 5.7, 5.8). The same trend of flake orientation can be seen in the high frequencies of ad-hoc tools, which represent c. 90% of the tools. Among them, notches and denticulates, awls and retouched flakes are the most common tools. The diagnostic tools (sickle blades, bifacials and tabular scrapers) appear in low frequencies, although the raw material for their manufacture is present in the vicinity of the site. This similar pattern, evident in all strata, probably indicates similar traditions of raw material exploitation, maintenance processes and tool discard, and is a consequence of similar activity patterns at the site

through time. Inter-assemblage analysis (Rosen 1997:127–131) indicates that there is, of course, change and development in the industries throughout the different periods. Although the assemblage in Stratum VII is very small, it contains the most diagnostic tools of this period, such as small arrowheads, sickle blades fashioned by pressure retouch and a few bifacial tools. The Wadi Rabah assemblage of Stratum VI is characterized by the presence of two types of sickle blades, the wide rectangular blades with fine denticulation and the rectangular blades with deep bifacial denticulation, and the absence of arrowheads. Bifacials are narrow and elongated, with a low degree of standardization. The chrono-cultural ascription of Strata VB–C and VA is problematic, as the flint assemblages do not appear to follow the stratigraphic division suggested by the excavator. In both Strata VB–C and VA, sickle blade types from the Late Wadi Rabah and Chalcolithic periods are present, without any clear quantitative pattern. While the pottery assemblage of Stratum VB–C is characteristic of the Early Chalcolithic, the Stratum VA pottery assemblage is dated to the Late Chalcolithic. In general, Late Wadi Rabah flint assemblages have a low frequency of the narrow, backed sickle blades (Barkai 1996; Getzov et al., forthcoming). On the other hand, Early Chalcolithic assemblages (Gilead and Alon 1988; Gopher 1988–1989; Nahshoni et al. 2002) are dominated by the narrow, backed sickle blades and do not contain the typical Wadi Rabah sickle blades. Narrow backed sickle blades, bifacial tools with a high standardization, among them larger adzes with wide working edges, and tabular scrapers thinned at their bases characterize the Chalcolithic assemblage of Stratum IV. The Early Bronze Age assemblages are typified by the Canaanean industry and the tabular scrapers with faceted platforms and incisions on the cortex, which differ from those of the Chalcolithic. Small differences are evident in the flint industry between the early and late phases of EB I. In the late EB I assemblages of Areas B and D differences are noted in the width of the Canaanean blades, the former being wider than the latter. This could be the result of functional differences between the areas or different exploitation strategies. According to tool frequencies mentioned above, an interpretation of site activities can be suggested. The ad-hoc tools suggest a multiple-activity orientation (woodworking, chiseling, engraving, hideworking, etc.). In the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods,

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

bifacials are wood-cutting tools, while arrowheads are indicative of hunting. Other tools such as tabular scrapers could have been used in meat processing or, eventually, in cultic activities during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age occupations of the site (Rosen 1997:117). Sickle blades in all periods have a particular function and were used for reaping or harvesting (McConaughy 1979:81; Rosen 1997:117). The low frequencies of sickle blades (average c. 5%) would suggest that agriculture played a secondary role at the site (e.g., Gilead 1986; Rosen and Grinblat 1997). However, it is clear that the site of ‘En Esur, at least from Strata VI to II, was sedentary in nature, as evidenced by the architectural remains, the large quantities of pottery in all strata, including a large number of containers, and the grinding stones. Therefore, an alternative explanation for the low frequencies of sickle blades retrieved from the site must be sought—possibly, the agricultural fields connected with the site were relatively distant, and the sickle blades thus remained in the fields, forgotten or discarded. In contrast, the activities in which the ad-hoc tools were used, as well as their production, maintenance and discard, occurred within the domestic area. Sickle blades may also have been kept when people abandoned the site, as they would have been considered valuable tools. Finally, we wish to address the subject of raw materials. There was a clear preference in the manufacture of adhoc tools for gray-brown flint with chalk inclusions, which represents between 50.9% and 66.4%. However, high-quality raw material was not restricted to ‘diagnostic’ tools, and was also used, albeit in lesser proportions, for ad-hoc tools. The chalcedony was chosen largely for microliths and retouched blades, and for sickle blades during the Chalcolithic period (see Table 5.4). Bifacial tools were made of chalcedony during both the Wadi Rabah and Chalcolithic periods (see Table 5.5). The three types of high-quality Eocene material were used throughout the periods, mainly for bifacials, sickle blades and tabular scrapers (see Tables 5.3–5.6), albeit to different degrees in each period. The coarsegrained, light gray-brown flint was used the most for these tools. It must be stressed that only three cores for sickleblade production were found at the site (two Chalcolithic and one Early Bronze).6 Thus, most sickle blades were probably brought to the site either by trade or exchange (Milevski 2005).

185

During the Wadi Rabah occupation at ‘En Esur, the various types of raw materials were used to a relatively similar degree, while in the Early Bronze strata a clear preference for the high-quality Eocene material is evident, as can be seen in its choice for Canaanean blades and sickle blades (see Table 5.4). The production of sickle blades in the Chalcolithic phases reveals a transition between the Wadi Rabah (with a high degree of gray-brown chalky material) and the Early Bronze Age. During this later period, the low-quality raw materials were rarely used for formal tools. There seems to be a relation between the tendency to standardization and craft specialization, and the trend to select better raw materials. During the late Wadi Rabah period the choice of raw materials was opportunistic, somewhat similar to their general subsistence activities. In contrast, during the Chalcolithic period and the Early Bronze Age there was a tendency to choose highquality raw material for sickle blade production. This appears to have been a specialized task, separated from other subsistence activities. Furthermore, it has been observed that the bifacial tools appear in a standard shape during the Chalcolithic Stratum IV, as opposed to the earlier irregular bifacials dominant in Strata VI and V. The Chalcolithic manufacture of blades and bifacial tools has been characterized as a semi-specialized industry (Rosen 1997:104), while the technology for Early Bronze Canaanean blade production was more specialized, and was generally related to high-quality Eocene raw material sources (Rosen 1983; 1997:44– 65). Ad-hoc tools continued to be produced from all the raw material types available at the site.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to express their gratitude to Eli Yannai for the opportunity to study the flint assemblages from the ‘En Esur excavations. The authors are particularly indebted to Avi Gopher, Isaac Gilead, Steven A. Rosen and Rina Bankirer for offering valuable commentaries on this paper, and to Leonid Ziegler and Michael Smilansky, who prepared the drawings.

186

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

1

2

3

Fig. 5.1. Stratum VII: (1) ‘Herzliya’ point; (2) sickle blade; (3) chisel.

3

1

2

Fig. 5.2. Stratum VI: (1, 3) awls; (2) borer.

187

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

4

5

7 6

8 9

Fig. 5.2 (cont.). Stratum VI: (4) denticulate; (5–7) burins; (8, 9) scrapers.

188

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

1

2

3

5 6

4

Fig. 5.3. Stratum VI: (1, 2) sickle blades; (3) bifacial; (4) Tuwailan knife; (5, 6) micro-endscrapers.

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

1

2

3

Fig. 5.4. Stratum V: (1, 2) bifacial spalls; (3) ridge blade.

189

190

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

1

2

3 4

Fig. 5.5. Stratum V: sickle blades.

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

1

2

Fig. 5.6. Stratum V: (1) axe; (2) bifacial tool.

191

192

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

1

2

3

Fig. 5.7. Stratum V: (1, 2) adzes; (3) chisel.

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

Fig. 5.8. Stratum V: tabular fan scraper.

193

194

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

1 2

3

4

5

Fig. 5.9. Stratum V: (1, 2) scrapers; (3) burin on scraper; (4) awl; (5) borer.

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

1

3

2

4

5

Fig. 5.10. Stratum IV: (1) awl; (2–5) borers.

195

196

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

1

3 2

4

Fig. 5.11. Stratum IV: (1) bifacial spall; (2, 3) scrapers; (4) multiple tool.

197

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

1 2 3

4

5

6

7

Fig. 5.12. Stratum IV: (1–4) sickle blades; (5–7) backed retouched blades.

198

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

1

3

2

Fig. 5.13. Stratum IV: (1, 2) tabular scrapers; (3) tabular knife.

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

1

2

Fig. 5.14. Stratum IV: (1) axe; (2) adze.

199

200

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

1

2

Fig. 5.15. Stratum IV: (1) adze; (2) chisel.

201

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

2

3

1

5 4

6

7

Fig. 5.16. Stratum III: sickle blades.

8

202

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

2 1 3

5

4

6

7

7

Fig. 5.17. Stratum III: (1–4) retouched blades; (5) bladelet core; (6) ‘Bet Shean’ point; (7) bifacial point.

203

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

2

1

4

3

5

6

Fig. 5.18. Area D, Stratum II: (1) core; (2) tabular scraper with incisions; (3–5) sickle blades. Area B, Stratum II: (6) sickle blade.

204

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

Table 5.1. Debitage Frequencies, Area B Stratum VII Type

N

Primary elements

VI %

N

V %

N

IV %

N

III %

N

II %

N

%

5

23.8

120

23.5

675

34.3

449

25.1

616

31.1

156

35.3

Flakes

14

66.7

326

63.9

1022

51.9

1011

56.6

1035

52.3

222

50.2

Blades

1

4.8

28

5.5

112

5.7

158

8.8

140

7.1

22

5.0

Bladelets

-

-

7

1.4

7

0.4

18

1.1

12

0.6

1

0.2

CTE

1

4.8

29

5.7

152

7.7

150

8.4

177

8.9

41

9.3

21

100.0

510

100.0

1968

100.0

1786

100.0

1980

100.0

442

100.0

Chunks

1

33.3

95

89.6

257

43.0

225

38.6

264

42.00

65

62.5

Chips

2

66.7

11

10.4

341

57.0

358

61.4

365

58.00

39

37.5

Total Debitage

Total Debris

3

100.0

106

100.0

598

100.0

583

100.0

629

100.0

104

100.0

21

58.3

510

61.9

1968

53.7

1786

55.9

1980

50.5

442

42.0

Debris

3

8.3

106

12.9

598

16.3

583

18.3

629

16.0

104

9.9

Cores

4

11.2

98

11.9

325

8.9

258

8.1

431

11.0

167

15.9

Tools

8

22.2

110

13.3

770

21.1

566

17.7

882

22.5

338

32.2

Total

36

100.0

824

100.0

3661

100.0

3193

100.0

3922

100.0

1051

100.0

Debitage

Table 5.2. Debitage Frequencies, Stratum II, Area D Type Primary elements

N

%

50

16.9

Flakes

195

66.1

Blades

24

8.1

3

1.1

23

7.8

295

100.0

47

88.7

Bladelets CTE Total Debitage Chunks Chips Total Debris Debitage

6

11.3

53

100.0

295

57.4

Debris

53

10.3

Cores

41

8.0

Tools

125

24.3

Total

514

100.0

7

20

21

36

16

100

VI

V

IV

III

II

Total

%

100.0

16.0

36.0

21.0

20.0

7.0

125

17

46

28

30

4

N

85

Total

5

12

19

36

IV

III–I

Total

-

VI

V

N

Stratum

22.2

19.6

26.1

33.3

-

%

Light Gray-Brown

22

52

EB

11

Wadi Rabah

Chalcolithic

N

Period

32

25

6

1

-

14.3

40.5

16.7

21.4

100.0

70

26

28

16

N

24.8

19.7

31.8

25.8

%

Pale Brown with Stripes

19.7

25.8

13.1

6.7

-

%

Pale Brown with Stripes N

% 7.1

1216

128

448

239

352

49

N

100.0

10.5

36.8

19.7

28.9

4.0

%

Gray-Brown

286

51

109

44

76

6

N

%

17.8

38.1

15.4

26.6

2.1

100.0

Beige

164

23

72

30

30

9

N

100.0

14.0

43.9

18.3

18.3

5.5

%

Translucent Chalcedony

55

43

9

3

N

19.5

32.6

10.2

4.9

%

Dark Brown

28

2

9

17

N

9.9

1.5

10.2

27.4

%

Gray-Brown

Raw Material

20

2

7

11

N

7.1

1.5

7.9

17.7

%

Beige

11

1

9

1

N

17

12

3

2

-

N

10.5

12.4

6.5

13.3

-

%

Dark Brown

32

18

12

1

1

N

19.7

18.6

26.1

6.7

25.0

%

Gray-Brown

17

5

6

3

3

N

Raw Material

10.5

5.1

13.1

20.0

75.0

%

Beige

15

11

2

2

-

N

28.9

11.3

4.3

13.3

-

%

Translucent Chalcedony

13

7

5

1

-

N

8.1

7.2

10.8

6.7

-

%

Other

3.9

0.8

10.2

1.6

%

Translucent Chalcedony

Table 5.5. Raw Material Frequencies for Bifacial Tools according to Strata (all areas)

30.2

39.4

25.1

17.7

%

Light Gray-Brown

42

6

17

7

9

3

N

Dark Brown

97

10

41

19

22

5

N 5.1

%

4

162

97

46

15

N

4.6

4.5

4.6

4.9

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

%

Total

13

6

4

3

N

Other %

100.0

10.3

42.3

19.6

22.7

Other

Table 5.4. Raw Material Frequencies for Sickle Blades according to Periods (Strata VI–II; all areas)

100.0

13.6

36.8

22.4

24.0

3.2

%

Pale Brown with Stripes

* Excluding borers and retouched blades

N

Stratum

Light Gray-Brown

Raw Material

Table 5.3. Raw Material Frequencies for Ad-Hoc Tools (Strata VI–II; all areas)*

282

132

88

62

N

4.1

%

100.0

12.4

37.8

19.1

26.5

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

%

Total

2030

251

769

388

539

83

N

Total

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

205

206

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

Table 5.6. Raw Material Frequencies for Tabular Scrapers (all strata; all areas) Light GrayBrown

Pale Brown with Stripes

Dark Brown

Gray-Brown

Translucent Chalcedony

Beige

Other

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

7

17.9

6

15.4

16

41.1

2

5.1

5

12.8

1

2.6

2

5.1

39

100.0

Table 5.7. Core Frequencies in Strata VII–IV, Area B Stratum VII

Stratum VI

Stratum V

Stratum IV

Type

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

One striking platform—flakes

1

25.0

38

38.8

102

31.4

88

34.1

One striking platform—blades

1

25.0

6

6.1

52

16.0

15

5.8

Two striking platforms—flakes

-

-

8

8.2

24

7.4

39

15.1

Two striking platforms—blades

-

-

1

1.0

9

2.8

5

1.9

More than two striking platforms

-

-

1

1.0

4

6.1

4

1.6

Broken

-

-

13

13.3

43

13.2

47

18.2

Amorphous irregular

2

50.0

21

21.4

67

20.6

45

17.5

Discoidal

-

-

8

8.2

11

3.4

7

2.7

On flake

-

-

1

1.0

13

4.0

8

3.1

Varia

-

-

1

1.0

-

Total

4

100.0

98

100.0

325

-

-

-

100.0

258

100.0

Table 5.8. Core Frequencies in Strata III and II Stratum III

Stratum II

Area B Type

Area B

Area D

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

One striking platform—flakes

140

32.5

47

28.1

12

29.3

59

28.4

One striking platform—blades

53

12.3

23

13.8

7

17.1

30

14.4

Two striking platforms—flakes

26

6.0

19

11.4

6

14.6

25

12.0

Two striking platforms—blades

19

4.4

4

2.4

-

-

4

1.9

More than two striking platforms

-

-

1

0.6

-

-

1

0.5

67

15.5

22

13.2

3

7.3

25

12.0

108

25.1

38

22.7

10

24.4

48

23.1

13

3.0

8

4.8

2

4.9

10

4.8

Broken Amorphous irregular Discoidal On flake Total

5

1.2

5

3.0

1

2.4

6

2.9

431

100.0

167

100.0

41

100.0

208

100.0

207

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

Table 5.9. Tool Frequencies in Stratum VII, Area B Type

N

%

Jericho IX sickles

1

12.5

Bifacials

1

12.5

Varia

1

12.5

Ad Hoc Tools Notches and denticulates

5

62.5

Total

8

100.0

Table 5.10. Tool Frequencies in Strata VI–IV, Area B Stratum VI Type

N

%

Chalcolithic sickles and backed blades

1

0.9

Canaanean sickles

-

-

Wadi Rabah sickles and backed blades

6

5.5

Sickles—Other

-

Neolithic tools

-

Stratum V N

Stratum IV %

Total

%

N

N

%

18

2.3

29

5.1

48

3.3

12

1.6

9

1.6

21

1.4

13

1.7

-

-

19

1.3

-

6

0.8

28

4.9

34

2.4

-

1

0.1

2

0.4

3

0.2

Canaanean retouched blades

1

0.9

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

Tabular scrapers

1

0.9

8

1.1

6

1.1

15

1.0

Bifacials

4

3.6

32

4.2

34

6.0

70

4.8

Varia

-

-

10

1.3

8

1.4

19

1.2

Ad Hoc Tools Notches and denticulates

30

27.2

261

33.9

178

31.4

469

32.4

Endscrapers

7

6.4

46

6.0

26

4.6

79

5.5

Sidescrapers

1

0.9

17

2.2

12

2.1

30

2.1

Borers

5

4.5

18

2.3

10

1.8

33

2.3

Burins

2

1.8

22

2.8

15

2.6

39

2.7

Truncations

7

6.4

17

2.2

12

2.1

36

2.5

Awls

20

18.3

118

15.3

77

13.6

215

14.9

Retouched flakes

13

11.8

91

11.8

59

10.4

163

11.3

Retouched blades and bladelets

8

7.3

44

5.7

43

7.6

95

6.6

Multiple tools

4

3.6

36

4.7

18

3.9

58

4.0

110

100.0

770

100.0

566

100 .0

1446

100.0

Total

208

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

Table 5.11. Tool Frequencies in Strata III and II Stratum III

Stratum II Area B

Type

N

%

Chalcolithic sickles and backed blades

28

3.1

6

Cannaanean sickles

41

4.6

9

-

-

-

Sickles—Other

13

1.5

Neolithic tools

12

1.4

Canaanean retouched blades

11 9

Bifacials Varia

Wadi Rabah sickles and backed blades

Tabular scrapers

N

Total

Area D %

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

1.8

1

2.7

5

0.8

7

1.5

35

2.6

4.0

14

3.0

55

-

4.1

2

1.6

2

0.4

2

0.1

2

-

-

-

-

-

13

1.0

0.6

-

-

2

0.4

14

1.0

1.2

6

1.0

3

1.8

7

5.6

13

2.8

24

1.8

0.9

-

-

3

0.6

12

27

3.0

16

0.9

4.7

-

-

16

3.5

43

3.2

11

1.2

-

-

2

1.6

2

0.4

13

1.0

358

40.0

118

34.9

32

25.6

150

32.4

508

37.5

Ad Hoc Tools Notches and denticulates Notches on Canaanean blades

3

2.4

3

0.6

3

0.2

Endscrapers

57

6.4

27

8.0

16

12.8

43

9.3

100

7.4

Sidescrapers

24

2.7

9

2.7

1

0.8

10

2.2

34

2.5

Awls

15

1.7

5

1.5

5

4.0

10

2.2

25

1.8

Borers

26

2.9

7

2.1

6

4.8

13

2.8

39

2.9

Burins

26

2.9

7

2.1

1

0.8

8

1.7

34

2.5

Truncations

64

7.2

63

18.6

21

16.8

84

18.2

148

10.9

Retouched flakes

-

-

-

-

109

12.2

28

8.3

18

14.4

46

9.9

155

11.4

Retouched blades and bladelets

50

5.6

15

4.4

2

1.6

17

3.7

67

4.9

Multiple tools

12

1.4

17

5.0

3

2.4

20

4.3

32

2.3

893

100.0

338

100.1

125

100.0

463

99.9

1356

100.0

Total

NOTES 1

For a different method of calculation of flint intrusions see Rosen (1997:38) and Rosen and Grinblatt (1997:141). 2 The coarse-grained and the dark brown, fine-grained flint are probably of Middle Eocene origin, while the fine-grained pale brown material is probably of Lower Eocene origin (Christof Delage, pers. comm.). 3 According to Rosen (pers. comm.) there were microendscrapers in EB I as well. 4 For the Chalcolithic period, we follow the terminology of Gilead (1988; 1990) and Hermon (2003). The term Early Chalcolithic relates to assemblages within the Chalcolithic period that are earlier than the ‘classical’ Ghassulian assemblages, e.g., Tel ‘Ali IB (Garfinkel 1992), Horbat ‘Uza

XVI (Getzov et al., forthcoming), Nahal Besor Stage (Gilead and Alon 1988), Ramot Nof (Be’er Sheva‘) (Nahshoni et al. 2002). The Late Wadi Rabah is defined as later than the normative Wadi Rabah (see Gopher and Gophna 1993:334– 339). 5 These cores were found in the excavation conducted by Jean Perrot. Today they are in the prehistoric collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority. 6 The fact that relatively few cores for sickle blades have been found at excavated sites from the Chalcolithic period and the Early Bronze Age was pointed out some time ago by Rosen (1983; 1986).

CHAPTER 5: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

209

R EFERENCES Bankirer R. 1999. The ‘Beth–Shean Point’—A New Type of Tool from the Early Bronze Age I–II at Tel Beth Shean. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 29:129–134. Bankirer R. and Marder O. 2006. The Flint Assemblage from Tel Beth Shean. Area M. In A. Mazar. Tel Bet Shean I. Jerusalem. Bankirer R. and Marder O. Forthcoming. The Flint Assemblages of Tel Megadim. In S. Wolff. Excavations at Tel Megadim (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Barkai R. 1996. The Flint Assemblage from Nahal Zehora I, a Wadi Rabah Site in the Menashe Hills: The Implications of a Technological and Typological Analysis. MA thesis. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English summary). Barkai R. 2000. Flint and Stone Axes as Cultural Markers: Socio-Economic Changes as Reflected in Holocene Flint Tool Industries of the Southern Levant. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Bar-Yosef O. 1993. Site Formation Processes from a Levantine Viewpoint. In P. Goldberg, P. Nash and M. Petraglia eds. Formation Processes in Archaeological Context (Monographs in World Archaeology 17). Madison. Pp. 11–32. Blockman N. 1997. The Lodian Culture (Jericho IX) Following the Excavation at Newe Yarak, Lod. MA thesis. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English summary). Crowfoot Payne J. 1983. The Flint Industries of Jericho. In K.M. Kenyon and T.A. Holland. Excavations at Jericho V: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London. Pp. 622–759. Futato E. 1996. Early Bronze III Canaanean Blade/Scraper Cores from Tell Halif, Israel. In J.D. Seger ed. Retrieving the Past. Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek. Winona Lake. Pp. 61–74. Garfinkel Y. 1992. The Material Culture in the Central Jordan Valley in the Pottery Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Periods. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Getzov N., Avshalom-Gorni D., Tatcher A., LiebermanWander R., Smithline H. and Stern E.J. Forthcoming. Horbat ‘Uza 1991: Final Report of the 1991 Excavations (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Gilead I. 1984. The Micro-Endscraper: A New Tool Type of the Chalcolithic Period. Tel Aviv 11:3–10. Gilead I. 1986. The Economic Basis of the Chalcolithic Settlements in the Northern Negev. Michmanim 3:17–30 (Hebrew). Gilead I. 1988. The Chalcolithic Period in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 2:397–443. Gilead I. 1990. The Neolithic–Chalcolithic Transition and the Qatifian of the Northern Negev and Sinai. Levant 22:47–63. Gilead I. and Alon D. 1988. Excavation of Protohistoric Sites in Nahal Besor and the Late Neolithic of the Northern Negev. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 21:109*–130*.

Gilead I., Hershman D. and Marder O. 1995. The Flint Assemblages from Grar. In I. Gilead. Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7). Be’er Sheva‘. Pp. 223–280. Gopher A. 1985. Flint Industries of the Neolithic Period in Israel. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Gopher A. 1988–1989. The Flint Industry from Tell Tsaf. Tel Aviv 15–16:37–46. Gopher A. 1989. The Flint Assemblages of Munhata, Final Report (Les cahiers du centre de recherche français de Jérusalem 4). Paris. Gopher A. 1994. Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant (ASOR Dissertation Series 10). Winona Lake. Gopher A. and Gophna R. 1993. Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern Levant: A Review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7:297–353. Gophna R. and Shlomi V. 1997. Some Notes on Early Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Material from the Sites of ‘En Jezreel and Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24:73–82. Goring-Morris N., Gopher A. and Rosen S. 1994. The Neolithic Tuwailan Cortical Knife Industry of the Negev. In H.G. Gebel and K.S. Kozlowski eds. Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Studies in Early Eastern Production. Subsistence and Environment I. Berlin. Pp. 511–524. Greenhut Z. 1989. Mizpeh Shalem—Flint Tools. In P. BarAdon. Excavations in the Judean Desert (‘Atiqot [HS] 9). Jerusalem. Pp. 60–78 (Hebrew; English summary). Hermon S. 2003. Socio-Economic Aspects of the Chalcolithic (4500─3500 BC). Societies in the Southern Levant—A Lithic Perspective. Ph. D. diss. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Be’er Sheva‘. Khalaily M. 1999. The Flint Assemblage of Layer V at Hagoshrim: A Neolithic Assemblage of the Sixth Millennium B.C. in the Hula Basin. MA thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Levy T.E. and Rosen S.A. 1987. The Chipped Stone Industry at Shiqmim. In T.E. Levy ed. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (BAR Int. S. 356). Oxford. Pp. 281–294. Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer II. London. Marder O., Braun E. and Milevski I. 1995. The Flint Assemblage of Lower Horvat ‘Illin: Some Technical and Economic Considerations. ‘Atiqot 27:63–93. McConaughy M.A. 1979. Formal and Functional Analyses of the Chipped Stone Tools from Bab edh-Dhra, Jordan. Ph.D. diss. University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh. Meyerhof E.L. 1960. Flint Cores at Har Ha-Haruvim. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 1:23–26 (Hebrew). Milevski I. 2005. Local Exchange in Early Bronze Age Canaan. Ph.D diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Nahshoni P., Goren Y., Marder O. and Goring-Morris A.N. 2002. A Chalcolithic Site at Ramot Nof, Be’er Sheva‘.

210

IANIR MILEVSKI, OFER MARDER, HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND FLAVIA SONNTAG

‘Atiqot 43:1*–24* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 253– 254). Noy T. 1998. Flint Artifacts. In C. Epstein. The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan (IAA Reports 4). Jerusalem. Pp. 269–337. Olami Y. 1989. The Lithic Assemblages from the Early Bronze Age Layer at Gamla. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 22:115–128. Olami Y., Burian F. and Friedmann E. 1977. Giv‘at HaParsa—A Neolithic Site in the Coastal Region. Eretz-Israel 13:34–47 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 291). Petrie W.M.F. 1932. Beth Pelet II. London. Prausnitz M., Burian F., Friedmann E. and Wreschner E. 1970. Excavation at Hertzliya, Site 30/9. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 10:11–16 (Hebrew). Rosen S.A. 1983. The Canaanean Blade and the Early Bronze Age. IEJ 33:15–29. Rosen S.A. 1986. The Analysis of Trade and Craft Specialization in the Chalcolithic Period: Comparisons

from Different Realms of Material Culture. Michmanim 3:21–32. Rosen S.A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age. A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek. Rosen S.A. and Grinblat M. 1997. The Chipped Stone Assemblages from Yiftah’el. In E. Braun. Yiftahel. Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel (IAA Reports 2). Jerusalem. Pp. 133–154. Rot Y. 1977. Potential of Raw Material for Construction in the Umm el-Fahem and Menashe Hills Regions (Israel Geological Institute). Jerusalem (Hebrew). Shimelmitz R., Barkai R. and Gopher A. 2000. A Canaanean Blade Workshop at Har Haruvim, Israel. Tel Aviv 27:3–22. Yeivin E. and Olami Y. 1979. Nizzanim—A Neolithic Site in Nahal Evtah: Excavations of 1968–1970. Tel Aviv 6:99– 135. Zbenovich V. Forthcoming. The Chalcolithic Flint Assemblage of ‘Alyia East. In Y. Dagan ed. Ramat Bet Shemesh Excavation Project (IAA Reports). Jerusalem.

CHAPTER 6

THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES YORKE M. ROWAN*

This chapter presents the groundstone artifacts recovered from ‘En Esur, Areas A, B, C, D, E and F. A total of 294 artifacts, derived from contexts dated to the Wadi Rabah, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I, are included here (Table 6.1).1 This study has three primary objectives: description, quantification and comparison to other protohistoric groundstone assemblages. Groundstone artifacts are defined as those in which abrasive wear is the primary feature of the final lithic reduction process. The distinction between groundstone artifacts and chipped stone technology is not always clear-cut and both technologies share some attributes (Wright 1993:93; Ebeling and Rowan 2004; Rowan and Ebeling, in press). Many of the groundstone artifacts were first roughly shaped by chipping, establishing the general morphology of the desired product, which may or may not have been further reduced or shaped through intentional grinding, as well as wear from use. Throughout much of this discussion, three categories are used for the different artifact types. Complete artifacts are those that seem unbroken, or have no apparent broken sections significantly altering the morphological outlines. Incomplete artifacts are those missing some portion of the original morphology, but which still permit interpretation as to the original morphology and hence typological category. Fragments may still allow classification of the typological category, but are generally too small to understand the original morphology.

GROUNDSTONE ARTIFACTS In addition to standard provenience information, the length, width and thickness of each groundstone artifact, whether complete or fragmentary, were determined. For descriptive statistical purposes, complete and * Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

incomplete artifacts are considered separately from fragments. Where relevant, measurements of perforation depths and hole diameters (minimum and maximum, if possible) are also included. Logistical problems prevented recording the weight of each object. The primary description of morphology is based on the object as viewed in plan view, and includes eight primary shapes: rectangular, round, trapezoidal, ovoid, triangular, square, elongated (elliptical) and irregular (indeterminate). Transversal cross sections were also included for many artifact types and are referred to simply as ‘cross section’. This includes the eight shapes discussed above, with the addition of planoconvex, concave-convex (shallow U-shaped) and biconvex. Profiles (longitudinal cross sections) were also recorded for many artifact types, but are discussed only when it seems an important discriminating factor to the artifact class. Wherever possible, the stone type of each artifact was recorded. The figures are arranged according to strata. Grinding Slabs (Figs. 6.2:1; 6.4:1, 2; 6.5:1, 2; 6.6:1; Table 6.2; N = 50; Complete = 1; Incomplete = 3; Fragments = 46). These are the lower, stationary stones utilized as surfaces upon which grains and other materials were crushed or ground. Wright (1993:94–95) distinguishes between two types: ‘grinding slabs’, which exhibit lateral grinding striae, and ‘querns’, which bear elliptical grinding striae. The absence of macroscopically visible striae on most of the specimens and the lack of artifacts exhibiting rotary or elliptical grinding wear indicate that this distinction is probably not useful for the present assemblage. Hence, all of the present examples are classified as grinding slabs. Ethnographic information indicates that similar types of artifacts may be reused for other grinding activities, which may obscure the original traces of wear or otherwise alter the interpretation of the primary use (Roux 1985).

212

YORKE M. ROWAN

With the exception of vessel fragments, grinding slabs constitute the highest relative frequency of groundstone implements from ‘En Esur. Unfortunately, the overwhelming prevalence of fragments precludes discussion of morphological attributes or statistically based comparisons. Table 6.2 summarizes the contextual information and dimensions for the grinding slabs and fragments. The few grinding slabs complete enough to estimate their original shape range from trapezoidal/ rectangular (n = 2) to oval/elongated (n = 2), as well as a few irregular shapes (n = 2). The majority of the grinding slabs from ‘En Esur were utilized unifacially only (n = 46); only one was definitely used bifacially, with an additional three fragments possibly used bifacially. Although few fragments permit an estimation of original shape, cross sections typically reflect the unifacial usage of the slabs. Plano-convex cross sections are the most common (n = 29; 58%; e.g., Fig 6.5:1), followed by concave-convex (n = 9; 18%), flat on both faces (n = 8; 16%) and one concave-irregular (2%). The remaining artifacts are too fragmentary to estimate the original cross section. The profiles are typically plano-convex with the planar face well ground to a flat surface (e.g., 6.3:2), which has become slightly convex in some cases (e.g., 6.2:1). Others are flat in profile (i.e., both faces are relatively flat and parallel). In both types of profiles, thickness generally increases with overall length and width dimensions. Plano-convex profiles are also most common among the fragments. The majority of grinding slabs are not substantially concave on the working face, suggesting the rock used was easily obtainable and therefore they were neither utilized until non-functional nor curated over long periods of time. Basalt was the preferred material for these implements and all complete and incomplete examples are made of basalt. Only a few fragments are made of other materials, including three of coquinoidal sandstone (beachrock) and two probably made of limestone (Fig. 6.4:1, 2). Grinding slabs are recovered from most domestic Chalcolithic and EB I assemblages, though they are not always illustrated or quantified. Similar artifacts are known from Gilat (Rowan et al. 2006: Fig. 12.20:3), Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 7.4:3–5) and Ashqelon, Afridar (Braun and Gophna 2004: Fig. 24:8; Khalaily 2004: Fig. 23:10). Others of basalt are illustrated from

Teleilat Ghassul (Lee 1973:268, LB21a) and ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Figs. 39:3; 40:1–9), as well as in a variety of materials from Jericho (Dorrell 1983: Fig. 230:11) and Tel Halif ‘Silo Site’ (Alon and Yekutieli 1995: Fig. 26:6–9). Flint and basalt grinding slabs are known from Arad (Amiran et al. 1978: Pl. 79:1–7). Handstones (Figs. 6.1:1, 2, 11, 12; 6.2:7; 6.3:1, 2, 10, 11, 13; 6.6:4, 5; Table 6.3; N = 32; Complete = 14; Incomplete = 2; Fragment = 16) Handstones, or manos, are the upper, mobile grinding stones used against the planar face of the grinding slabs and querns. Attempting to distinguish between fragments of handstones and grinding slabs can sometimes be difficult when sizes fall between the typological ranges, a problem encountered in other studies of groundstone assemblages (e.g., Hovers 1996:173). This problem may sometimes be resolved through consideration of the working surface. Grinding slabs tend to develop concave working surfaces through use, while the handstones tend to remain flat or even become convex on the working surface (e.g., Figs. 6.1:2; 6.3:1). Where size was an insufficient variable to determine the category of an artifact, one with a convex working face and of a size acceptable for oneor two-handed locomotion was considered a handstone (e.g., Fig. 6.3:2). Comparisons of grinding slabs and handstones from Gilat have indicated that the mean length of handstones is typically close, or slightly smaller, than the mean width of the grinding slabs (Rowan et al. 2006: Tables 12.2, 12.3). Although by no means proof that the two were used in conjunction, this accords well with their possible identification as a tool set. In the case of the assemblage from ‘En Esur, the sample size of complete grinding slabs is too small (n = 1!) for a statistical comparison. Included within the category of handstones is a subtype frequently referred to as ‘rubbers’. These artifacts are distinguished from hammerstones and pounders based primarily on the evidence of grinding use-wear, and secondarily on morphology. ‘Abraders’ would also be a useful term, although less common. Wright (1992a:70) classifies similar artifacts under the ‘pounders’ category, a potentially misleading term emphasizing morphology over function. Approximately

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

five of the present specimens are roughly cuboid, with faceted sides similar to those found on hammerstones and pounders. However, unlike hammerstones and pounders, the primary wear of these flattened, faceted sides appears to have been produced primarily through grinding wear, usually on more than one face (e.g., Fig. 6.6:5). There is virtually no evidence for the pounding or battering wear typical of hammerstones and pounders. All five are made of dense to slightly vesicular basalt. One example (Fig. 6.2:7) may be a palette fragment, although it is thicker and larger than typical palettes. Rubbers are common to other sites, such as Arad (Amiran et al. 1978: Pl. 80:9–11, 13–15), Jericho (Dorrell 1983:552) and Jawa (Helms 1991: Fig. 193.694). Similar groundstone artifacts have been observed used for hide working (Adams 1989), but could also be effective on a variety of other materials as well (i.e., pigments, temper). Handstone shapes are more commonly round (n = 2; Fig. 6.1:11, 12) to oval (n = 8; Fig. 6.1:1), with fewer of rectangular/trapezoidal (n = 4) and irregular (n = 1) shape. Cross sections are predominately plano-convex (n = 18), reflecting their unifacial use. Profiles are also frequently plano-convex (n = 11), though many have relatively parallel opposing faces, including profiles that are flat (n = 8), square (n =1), or rectangular/ trapezoidal (n = 3). Like grinding slabs, handstones are only occasionally discussed, although they are commonly recovered, such as those from Ashqelon, Afridar (Rowan 2004: Fig. 1:1, 2), Gilat (Rowan et al. 2006:578–589), Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 7.4:1–2), Arad (Amiran et al. 1978:58; Pl. 80:9–11, 13–15), Neve Ur (Perrot, Zori and Reich 1967: Fig. 13:11–13) and Teleilat Ghassul (Lee 1978:270, LB25:a–d). Table 6.3 lists the handstones, with summarized contextual and metric information for each. The primary material used for handstones at ‘En Esur was basalt and scoria (n = 23; 72%), followed by limestone (n = 6), coquinoidal sandstone (n = 1), beachrock (n = 1) and one of an unknown material. Grinding Slabs or Handstones (Table 6.4; N = 9; Complete = 1; Fragments = 5) As discussed above, a number of artifacts are unclassified beyond their probable use as either grinding slabs or handstones. All are made of basalt,

213

utilized unifacially and plano-convex in cross section. Only one is complete. Perforated Stones (Fig. 6.5:8; Table 6.5; N = 17; Complete = 10; Incomplete = 1; Fragments = 5) Perforated stones are created through a variety of modifications, including chipping, drilling and grinding. Representing a variety of functions, the different types include spindle whorls, a possible bead, a macehead and pivot stones, as well as larger stones that may have served as weights. The most numerous subtype of perforated stones are those which probably served as spindle whorls (n = 6). Four are made of basalt, the other two of limestone. All were drilled bifacially and range in weight from 16 to 65 gm. One example (L5007, B20038/100) has rough unfinished edges and is made from a basalt vessel body fragment. Two additional artifacts, both from Stratum VB, were probably also intended for use as spindle whorls. One is a bifacially perforated, ground chalk nodule (L2158, B71052/100), which is not quite symmetrical and still somewhat angular. The other (L2210, B71368/ 50) is a smoothed, oval, flat pebble (limestone?) with a centrally placed, but shallow, unfinished drill mark. Two irregular nodules appear to have natural perforations (L2158, B71072/1; L2217, B71345/ 50). Both are from earlier strata (VB and VI–V, respectively) and may have been selected as weights, or were intended for later modification. One fragment (L4000, B10067/101) is rounded, with a convex profile. It is unclear whether this small fragment represents a spindle whorl or bead fragment, though the latter seems more likely because of the narrowness of the hole. Another artifact (L2314, B71917/50) is clearly a macehead fragment, probably made of siliceous limestone. Unfortunately, the fragment is too small to estimate the original weight or size, although the exterior diameter was probably about 50 mm. The largest perforated artifact is made of basalt, perforated bifacially (c. 32 × 60 mm), with rounded exterior sides and a relatively flat profile and cross section. Similar types of artifacts are commonly found at protohistoric sites, although the quantities are unknown. They have been recovered at Arad (Amiran

214

YORKE M. ROWAN

et al. 1978:57; Pl. 77:12–23), Ashqelon, Afridar (Rowan 2004: Fig. 2.4), Horbat Beter (Dothan 1959: Fig. 19:15–18), Teleilat Ghassul (Neuville 1934: Pl. 34:1; Lee 1973:274, LB42h–j), Abu Matar (Perrot 1955:78; Pl. 13:B), Shiqmim (Levy and Holl 1987:403; Figs. 15.15:1; 15.16:1, 2), Jericho (Dorrell 1983:554, Fig. 230:19, 20), Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 8.1:1–3) and Wadi Gaza (Macdonald 1932: Pl. XXVIII:13). The function of these artifacts is unknown, though they are routinely referred to as digging-sticks (for which there are good ethnographic analogies, see Goodwin 1947:8–12; Van der Merwe 1987:68; Waldron 1987), or counterpoise weights. Perforated stones could also have served in hand drills (Hartenburg and Schmidt 1969). An additional perforated stone (L2165, B71081/50) is a chalk nodule, relatively irregular in shape, cross section and profile. In the center of one side is a shallow drill mark, while the opposite face has two drill marks near the center. None of these shallow drill holes actually perforate the artifact, and it seems unlikely they were intended to do so. Instead, these types of stones may have served as a backing against which other materials (i.e., leather) were worked. The final three perforated stones may have served as door sockets or some other kind of pivot stone. One (L2158, B71037/50), made of basalt, measures 122 × 118 mm with a height of c. 80 mm. It has bifacial shallow concavities (both c. 7 mm in depth), which are well ground on the interior (Fig. 6.5:8). A limestone example (L2229, B71652) is larger (265 × 250 mm) with a similar height (c. 90 mm), but with a single, deeper concavity (c. 30 mm). The last example (L2123, B70765/50) may be siliceous limestone and appears to be a concavity on a broken cobble, though whether it functioned in the same fashion as the previous two examples is unclear. Hammerstones/Pounders (Figs. 6.1:13; 6.3:12; Table 6.6; N = 16) These are large, battered, roughly spheroidal cobbles of flint (n = 6), limestone (n = 7), basalt (n = 1) and two of unidentified materials (one perhaps quartzite, the other coquinoidal sandstone). Though probably spherical when selected, as some still are (n = 6; Figs. 6.1:13, 6.3:12), most were battered, ground and pecked such that the profile varies (see Table 6.6). This combination of grinding and battering frequently

produced from two to four flattened faces, sometimes creating spherical nodules with angular aspects. There is a relatively low degree of variability in size; length measurements range from 48 to 76 mm, while width ranges from 46 to 70 mm. Hammerstones and pounders are commonly recovered from protohistoric contexts and were probably utilized for a variety of purposes. Frequently they are reported with the chipped stone industries because of their presumed association with chipped stone manufacture, though this need not be the exclusive function (e.g., Adams 1989). Illustrated hammerstones include those from Teleilat Ghassul (Lee 1973:260, LA41:a), but they are known from sites in geographically diverse regions, spanning thousands of years (Rosen 1997:101). Pestles (Figs. 6.5:6, 7; Table 6.7; N = 6; Complete = 1, Fragment = 5) Table 6.7 summarizes the contextual and metric information for the few pestles recovered. A range of materials was used to manufacture these artifacts. Three of the pestles are made of limestone, two are basalt and one is made of coquinoidal sandstone. The limestone and coquinoidal sandstone examples appear to be morphologically similar, simple elongated forms with a working end generally ground, sometimes also pecked. Ends are usually convex and sides may be ground smooth. Cross sections are roughly round, though two are a rounded square. The two illustrated basalt pestle fragments are very similar; each has a well-ground convex working end and lateral grooves. Figure 6.5:6 may have lateral grooves on opposing sides. Both were found in early, post-Wadi Rabah levels (Strata VB–C). As at Abu Hamid, most of the pestles from ‘En Esur are conical to elongated in profile (Wright 1992b: Fig. 5-58a–d). The low frequency of pestles suggests that wooden pestles may have been more commonly used, or that the classic elongated type of pestle had fallen out of use by the protohistoric periods. A similar observation of low pestle frequency at the Chalcolithic site of Abu Hamid is suggested to support the former interpretation (Wright 1992a:253). However, given the very shallow depth of many mortars, some hammerstones and pounders may also have served as the hand-held tool (Commenge, in press). Comparable artifacts are illustrated from Jawa (Helms 1991: Fig. 193.691–693), Tell Umm Hamad esh-

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

Sharqi (O’Tool 1992: Fig. 283:26), Arad (Amiran et al. 1978: Pl. 80:12) and Jericho (Dorrell 1983: Fig. 230:6). Worked Cobbles and Pebbles (Table 6.8; N = 38; Complete = 32; Incomplete =5; Fragment = 1) Following Wright’s (1992a; 1992b) typology, a category for cobbles and pebbles that were modified in some way is distinguished from other classifications. The similar category, polished pebbles, is considered separately because there is no other clear evidence for use or modification. One of the most significant aspects of the modified cobble and pebble category at ‘En Esur is the subtype commonly referred to as ‘slingstones’ (Kaplan 1969:25). These are pebbles, usually biconical in shape but ranging to almost ovoid (‘egg-shaped’). Varying in length from 43 to 54 mm, and in width from 24 to 35 mm, almost one-third (n = 12) of the ground pebbles resembles these ‘slingstones’, suggesting a very standardized preference for size (see Table 7.1). Other cobbles are larger and less standardized in their morphology. Some (i.e., L2055, B70504/50) appear to be chipped intentionally as well as ground. Others (L2018, B70175; L2014, B70080/50) are small cobbles that probably retain much of their original natural morphology but show some evidence of grinding, pecking or pounding. One example is notable because of its similarity to artifacts from other sites. This is a round, flat, limestone nodule chipped on one face and ground on the opposite face, creating a disc measuring about 80 mm in diameter and approximately 37 mm in thickness. Similar artifacts, called ‘lids’, are documented from Arad (Amiran et al. 1978: Pl. 80:1–4, 6), or ‘disks’ from Jericho (Dorrell 1983:560, Fig. 230:15, 16) and Qiryat ‘Ata (Rowan 2003:190). Mortars (Figs. 6.4:3, 8, 9; 6.6:2; Table 6.9; N = 16; Complete = 2, Incomplete = 1, Fragments = 13) Mortars are distinguished from stone bowls based on several attributes. Unlike mortars, bowls typically have finished exterior walls, often finely ground. In addition, rims and bases of bowls are typically well defined (Wright 1992b:627). Most mortars exhibit the original surface of the natural, weathered exterior and were pecked and roughly shaped on the exterior. In most cases, little attention was paid to the exterior finish or overall symmetry of the utensil, an observation

215

supported by on-going analysis of mortars from Arad (Sebbane, n.d.). The shallow concavity on some ‘mortars’ suggests that these may not have been used in a vertical, up-anddown pounding motion, but rather as small, hand-held grinding receptacles. A few shallow indented fragments do not fit the traditional notion of a ‘mortar’ and it is unlikely these were used for heavy pounding. Similar artifacts are sometimes termed ‘cupmarks’ (e.g., Fig. 6.4:3). A marked decrease of mortars during the prehistoric periods has been noted from the Natufian to the Late Neolithic, and this trend seems to continue into the Chalcolithic. It is possible that the low frequency of pestles (not an anomalous occurrence, see Wright 1992a) reflects not only the use of wooden pestles, but also the decrease in large, deep mortars, and the increase of small, shallow ‘pebble’ mortars. These small shallow mortars would not require a long, cylindrical pestle, possibly reflecting a functional difference. Half of the mortars are made of basalt (n = 8), with the remainder made of coquinoidal sandstone (n = 3) and limestone (n = 5). One of the complete mortars (Fig. 6.4:3) is simply a narrow concavity ground into a large limestone boulder. Another fragment (Fig. 6.6:2) appears to be a similar mortar made from a boulder with a similar well depth (c. 55 mm). Four of the fragments are rims of thick, large mortars made of basalt. These could be termed mortar/bowls because of the greater clarity provided by the rims and their profiles (Fig. 6.4:8, 9). Five fragments show evidence of a concavity, but their classification as mortars is more tentative. Multiple-Use Tools (N = 2) This category follows that of Wright (1992a:77; 1992b:641), simply defined as any tool which could fall into more than one of the groundstone categories. The sole example from ‘En Esur is a basalt nodule that indicates use as both a pounder and a handstone, evident from one face ground flat and other surfaces with evidence of pecking and battering. Token or Game Piece (Fig. 6.4:15; N = 1) This is a small, flat (59 × 31 × 18 mm) limestone artifact that has been ground into a roughly trapezoidal shape with rounded corners. The edges are squared and the longer edges have longitudinal striae. One face has longitudinal striae, while the opposing face has light

216

YORKE M. ROWAN

latitudinal striae. Found on a Stratum VA stone-paved surface (Fig. 6.4:15), similar artifacts are relatively rare from prehistoric and protohistoric contexts. Where found, they are sometimes termed ‘amulets’ (Dothan 1959:20; Bar-Adon 1980: Ill. 24:2), or simply a ‘smoothed limestone rectangle’ (Lee 1973: LB9:d). Many more were discovered at Gilat (Rowan et al. 2006: Fig. 12.21:4–6), where some are very similar in size and shape to that from ‘En Esur. Polished Pebbles (N = 3) These three small pebbles are similar because each is relatively small (less than 6 cm maximum size) and polished. Wright (1992a:70–71) considers artifacts such as these a separate category, ‘polishing pebbles’, while Dorrell (1983) refers to them as ‘polishing stones’. None are broken and thus their material identification is uncertain, though all three appear to be flint. Possible functions of these polished pebbles are numerous and they could have served as game pieces, markers or pottery burnishers. At the site of Gilat, hundreds of pebbles were brought to the site, but their function remains unclear (Rowan et al. 2006:582). Pebbles are commonly found associated with palettes in Predynastic Egyptian burials, often with minerals such as malachite and ocher still evident on their surfaces (i.e., Peet 1914:4; Baumgartel 1960:81; Petrie 1974:10). Unidentifiable Groundstone Fragments (Table 6.10; N = 27) These are primarily flat fragments (n = 12), none of which could be classified. Most are made of limestone (n = 15) and basalt (n = 9), with only a few made of coquinoidal sandstone (n = 2) and one of an unknown material. It is not certain that all of these were artifacts, but it seems likely most were at least collected with the intention of use, possibly as tools for grinding materials, or for other light grinding tasks such as the creation of other groundstone artifacts (pendants, beads, tokens, etc.; Foreman 1978:21–22; Fig. 10).

STONE VESSELS Classification of the 78 stone vessel fragments from ‘En Esur follows a typological scheme recently developed for stone vessels from late prehistoric/protohistoric

sites in the southern Levant (Rowan 1998). For the present discussion, only the relevant types are summarized. In summary, the typology developed for Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic and EB I includes four major classes of vessels, with a fifth class for unique vessels (Class 5). These broad categories are: very shallow open vessels (Class 1); open form bowls with walls that are convex in profile (Class 2); open form bowls, with either straight or concave walls (Class 3); and pedestaled vessels (Class 4). Each vessel class is further divided into types, subtypes and variants. Most germane to the study of stone bowls from ‘En Esur are Class 3 and 4 vessels. Class 3 vessels are divided into three major types. Type 3A is a relatively straight or slightly flared vessel with a flat base. Type 3B is a widely flared vessel with a flat base, commonly referred to as a V-shaped bowl, whether of stone or pottery. Type 3C is a widely flared vessel with walls that are concave in profile. Class 4 vessels may also be divided into three major types. Type 4A is a bowl on a high pedestal, Type 4B is a bowl on a low pedestal and Type 4C is a bowl on a fenestrated pedestal. Type 4C may be divided into two subtypes: Type 4Ci has a pedestal with a generally narrower base and rim, and a hollow pedestal into which windows were excised. Type 4Cii is usually larger, with a more widely flared rim, and the pedestal typically has three or four well-defined supports or ‘legs’ joined at the bottom by a well-defined ring. A separate typology is used to classify rim and base fragments. Although some fragments can be linked with particular vessel forms, many fragments cannot, and for this reason rim and base fragments are discussed and classified separately from vessel types. Rims are divided into five major types, but only the first four types are relevant to the finds from ‘En Esur. Type R1 is a straight to slightly flared, upright, open form in profile. The rim is either tapered (R1a) or rounded (R1b), with fewer ground flat (R1c). Type R2 is an open, flared form with a straight profile. Most taper at the rim (R2a), while very few are rounded (R2b) or beveled (R2c). Type R3 is concave or splayed in profile, and either rounded (R3a) or beveled at the rim (R3b). Although Type R3 rim fragments may be confidently considered fragments of Type 3C bowls, which are typical EB I forms, the other rim types are not as easily linked to specific bowl types. A primary problem in identifying vessel fragments is the potential similarity of rim fragments originating from Type 3A

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

and 3B bowls, and those originating from Type 4Ci and 4Cii bowls (fenestrated pedestaled vessels). Type R4 is an open globular form with a convex profile, with some rims tapered (R4a) but most rounded (R4b). Base fragments are divided into three broad types. Type B1, flat bases, constitutes the majority of base fragments found at protohistoric sites. These are further divided according to whether the wall profile indicates a flaring vessel wall (B1a), or the much less common near-vertical wall (B1b) or concave wall profile (B1c). Base Type B2, rounded bases, is a relatively unusual type and is unattested at ‘En Esur. The third base type, B3, is concave in profile, and has either a straight wall (B3b) or a concave wall profile (B3c). With the exception of five examples, the stone vessel fragments are made of basalt. None appear to be made from phosphorite, a material occasionally used for stone vessel manufacture in more southerly regions such as the northern Negev and southern Judean hills (Gilead and Goren 1989; Goren 1991). The vessels from ‘En Esur range from the typical EB I type (Type 3C), with the characteristic concave exterior walls, sometimes with a beveled rim (see Braun 1990; Rowan 1998), to simply flaring rims typically associated with Chalcolithic basalt bowls (Amiran and Porat 1984; Rowan 1998). Table 6.1 presents the total count of stone vessel fragments according to strata. In the description of stone vessel fragments below, reference is made to the estimate of minimum number of vessels (MNV) these fragments represent. Rims (Table 6.11; Fig. 6.7; N = 39) The majority of the rims (n = 35) are made of basalt, while the remaining four are made of limestone. Type R1: Straight Rims (Figs. 6.1:6; 6.2:4, 6; 6.4:7; 6.5:3; N = 10) Three Type R1 rims are made of limestone, while the others are basalt. Seven allow rim diameter estimates, ranging from 130 to 240/300 mm. Three basalt rim fragments probably represent deep, open bowls with relatively straight walls. These fragments (Figs. 6.2:6; 6.5:3; L2120, B70785/50) all represent different individual bowls, with rim diameters ranging from 180 to 260 mm. Although two have the same estimated diameter (c. 260 mm), their rim and wall profiles, as well as the different contexts and strata (L2156 from Stratum VB–C, L2132 from a Stratum IV floor), suggest

217

that they are probably from different vessels. The three limestone rim fragments represent at least two different vessels based on the very different estimated diameters for each. Two other rim fragments (L3002, B60028/50; L3000, B60025/50) permit diameter estimates (160 and 130 mm, respectively). Both are from a different excavation area (Area C) and are unlikely to be from the same vessel as any other rims found in the main area of excavation. One final rim (L2122, B70854/50) is an unusual type that doesn’t easily fit any of the previous subtypes of bowls. This rim fragment, too small for a diameter estimate, is a shallow, open vessel made of very friable basalt. These different estimates suggest that the ten R1 rim fragments represent a MNV of eight. Type R2: Flared Rims (Figs. 6.3:3–5; 6.4:4–6; 6.6:3; N = 13) Twelve of these flared rims are tapered (Subtype R2a; Figs. 6.3:3–5; 6.4:4–6), while only one is rounded (Subtype R2b). Six retain enough of the rim to provide a reasonable estimate of the original rim diameter (see Table 6.11). These estimates range from 180 to 300 mm and none appear to be fragments of the same vessel. Three fragments (Fig. 6.3:3; L2011, B70092/ 50; L2217, B71433/50) have rim diameters estimated around 280 mm, although their profiles are dissimilar. These rims establish a MNV of six bowls with flaring rims. One of these (L2100, B70697/50) is atypical, with an interior carination creating a thinner aspect of the wall at the bottom of the wall/well interior. None have any trace of decor. Type R3: Splayed Rims (Figs. 6.1:3–5, 7; 6.2:2, 3; N = 13) All of these are basalt and most are well ground. Eleven of these rims are carefully ground on the top of the rim, creating a beveled tip (Subtype R3b; Fig. 6.1:5, 6). All but three are from Stratum III contexts or later. With one exception (L2067, B70494/50), diameter estimates were possible for all splayed rim fragments, though some are imprecise. This creates difficulties in determining the MNV; however, profiles and diameter estimates suggest that only a few rim fragments may be from the same vessels. Two rim fragments (Fig. 6.1:3, 4) are relatively close in rim diameter estimates (240 mm and 240–300 mm, respectively) and their profiles are also similar. Three rim fragments (Fig. 6.2:2; L2063, B70551/50; L2051, B0492/50) are very similar in profile and have

218

YORKE M. ROWAN

close rim diameter estimates (230 mm, 230 mm, and 240–260 mm), thus could be from the same vessel, although the disparate contextual proveniences make this unlikely. In summary, based on these rims, a conservative MNV estimate would be nine vessels with splayed rims and/or concave wall exterior profiles. Type R4: Globular (Figs. 6.4:8; 6.5:4; N = 3) Two basalt rim fragments seem to be from two different globular bowls (Subtypes R4a and R4b respectively), with different rim diameters (200 and 160 mm). An additional limestone rim fragment (Fig. 6.5:4) also appears to be of Subtype R4a (tapered). Thus, these three fragments represent different bowls.

also more rounded, rather than the virtual right angle of the preceding base fragment. The last base fragment (Type B1a; Fig. 6.3:7) is one of the few vessel fragments from ‘En Esur with a decorative element, consisting of lightly inscribed parallel lines (c. 16) at the very bottom of the wall exterior. Other examples of this decorative technique are known from more southerly Chalcolithic sites (including Abu Matar, Ashqelon-Afridar, Bir esSafadi, Gilat, Grar, Horbat Beter, Shiqmim and Teleilat Ghassul); the example from Asawir is thus the most northern example of this decorative motif to date. The base is flat, with widely flared walls and well ground on the exterior and interior. The estimated exterior base diameter is about 80 mm, substantially smaller than the other base fragments.

Bases (Fig. 6.3:6, 7; N = 5) Four basalt vessel bases were recovered, with a possible fifth (Table 6.12). The latter (L2164, B71049/50) is a thick fragment of basalt, flat and well-ground on one side, but with no wall remains, precluding definitive identification. If this is the base of a bowl/mortar, it is very likely that the upper, uneven side was re-ground after fragmentation of the original piece. Based on the estimated original base diameters, size and profiles, the remaining four base fragments represent four different vessels. One (L2189, B71175/ 50) has a very thick base (c. 53 mm) and a thick wall near the juncture with the base (c. 38 mm) and thus may represent a base fragment of a mortar/bowl (Type B1). It is classified as a bowl, however, because there is a relatively clear distinction between the wall and the base, and because the base is flat and well ground on the interior. The estimated exterior base diameter is about 160 mm. Another base fragment (Fig. 6.3:6) is well ground on the exterior and the interior (Type B1a), with an estimated base diameter of about 130 mm. The base is relatively thick (c. 30 mm) and extremely flat. As very little of the juncture with the wall is preserved on this piece, the profile is difficult to determine, though it was probably originally a flared or splayed bowl. An additional base fragment (L2292, B71820/50) is distinctly different in morphology (Type B2a), with an estimated diameter close to that of the preceding base fragment (c. 120 mm). The rounded base on both the interior and exterior is thinner (c. 2 mm) and clearly different. The exterior juncture of the wall to base is

Walls (N = 17) Wall fragments are primarily of basalt; only one fragment was made of an unknown rock type. None are decorated. Thickness of walls ranges from 10 to 27 mm (Table 6.12). One of these fragments (L2031, B70188/50) was drilled on one side, but not perforated completely. Handle (N = 1) Unfortunately, the single basalt vessel handle (L2070, B70368/50) was recovered from the surface. It is thick, well ground and circular in cross section. Fenestrated Pedestals (Figs. 6.2:5; 6.3:8, 9; 6.4:11– 14; 6.5:5; Table 6.13; N = 14) Fourteen fenestrated pedestal fragments, all made from basalt, were recovered. Four are leg fragments, four are leg fragments with some of the base ring preserved (‘leg/base’), four are base ring fragments and two are medial fragments. Two leg fragments are roughly plano-convex in cross section (L2261, B71628/50 and L2249, B71618/50), while a third has a rounded, trapezoidal cross section (Fig. 6.4:14). The fourth leg fragment (L2090, B70660/ 50) is roughly triangular in cross section, with a deep groove around one end. This groove is clearly not decorative, but the result of intentional modification, to hold bindings in place for repair, or perhaps for reuse of the piece after breakage. Similar deep grooving

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

of a fenestrated leg fragment was found at the cave site of Shoham (N) (Rowan 2005). Two medial fragments of three-legged fenestrated pedestals were recovered. One (L2094, B70652/50), with an estimated original diameter of 100 to 120 mm, has a band incised in relief around the exterior (width c. 7 mm), a common motif associated with the medial section of Chalcolithic fenestrated pedestals, as at Gilat (Alon and Levy 1989: Fig. 12.3). The other medial fragment (Fig. 6.2:5) has at least three bands in relief and may have had additional bands. Similar multiple bands in relief are also known on medial sections of fenestrated pedestals from Chalcolithic contexts, though less frequent than single raised bands (e.g., at Gilat, see Rowan et al. 2006: Fig. 12.33:1, 2, 7, 9; at Grar, see Gilead 1995: Fig. 7.1:9–10). The bands on the example from ‘En Esur seem to be more substantially raised than on typical fenestrated pedestals with this type of decoration; the piece also seems more massive than commonly observed for fenestrated pedestals of this type. However, the context is securely Chalcolithic (a habitation level inside a Chalcolithic structure), such that we must assume this is a large Chalcolithic example. The remaining eight fenestrated pedestal fragments each preserve enough of the base-ring section to estimate the original diameter. Estimated diameters range from 130 to 300 mm, most of which can be attributed to different vessels. However, a few could derive from the same broken vessel. For example, a base ring fragment (Fig. 6.4:13) and a leg/base ring fragment (Fig. 6.5:5) could derive from the same vessel. While different diameters were estimated for each (150 mm for the base ring fragment, 130 mm for the leg/ base ring), these are too close to categorically dismiss a possible error in estimation. Moreover, both are from the same pottery and stone-paved floor (though different subphases) within the large Chalcolithic structure, separated by approximately one square (c. 5 m). Finally, the profiles of the fragments and the cross sections of the base rings are somewhat similar. Taken altogether, it seems possible that these two fragments derive from the same fenestrated pedestal. Two other leg/base ring fragments (Fig. 6.4:11; L2020, B70116/50) could also potentially belong to the same fenestrated pedestal. Both were estimated to have base ring diameters of about 180 mm and both have massive legs, though with different cross sections (one plano-convex, the other roughly trapezoidal). They do

219

not originate from the same stratum. However, the find spots were separated by only about one square, thus, allowing for some disturbance, it seems possible that they could have derived from the same vessel. One base ring fragment (Fig. 6.3:8) has an unusual herringbone design incised on the exterior. While the motif is typical of Chalcolithic artifacts, the location of an incised decoration on the base-ring section of a fenestrated pedestal is unusual, though not unknown. Decoration on the base-ring section of basalt fenestrated pedestals is also known from Shoham (Rowan 2005) and Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 7.1:8). The base-ring/leg fragments discussed thus far represent at least six fenestrated vessels (MNV). Five of these are Type 4Cii, while the sixth may be Type 4Ci. Neither medial fragment represents a distinct vessel, and, of course, many of the rims could have derived from a fenestrated stand. Pedestaled Vessels (Figs. 6.1:10, 14; Table 6.13) Pedestaled vessels are defined by the presence of an elevated base, a distinct component of the vessel. These may then be broadly grouped into two categories, high pedestals (Type 4Ai—solid; Type 4Aii—hollow) and low pedestals (Type 4B; see below). Each of these may be further divided into subtypes according to profile and whether the pedestal is hollow or not. Two fragments are classified as pedestaled vessels, although whether or not Fig. 6.1:14 was part of a vessel is not absolutely certain (some ‘house idol’ figurines have similar pedestal bases as well [i.e., Epstein 1998: Pls. XXXII:5, XXXIII:10]). It appears, however, to be a fragment of a high, solid-footed (Type 4Ai) pedestaled vessel. The fragment is well ground on the sides and the flat base. The diameter of the base is 145 mm, which is the widest part of the preserved fragment. From the base upward, the piece contracts to the base of the well, where it clearly flared outward again. It is not possible to determine the profile of the walls or the extent of the missing upper section of the vessel, but it seems likely that the top of this fragment would have supported some form of vessel similar to the few known examples such as those from Kabri (Prausnitz 1970: Fig. 60:1, 2, 4), Kefar Galim North (Galili and Weinstein-Evron 1985: Pl. II.2), Tel Herez (Raban 1983: Fig. 3.a) and Abu Zureiq (Anati et al. 1973: Pl. 32.2). These parallels suggest that this is a Late Neolithic, probably Wadi Rabah, vessel, although

220

YORKE M. ROWAN

a close parallel is also known from later, Early Bronze Age contexts at Jericho (Garstang 1935: Pl. XXXIII:26). Finally, it should be noted that similar forms are also occasionally found in much later contexts (Loud 1948: Pl. 262:15; Porath 1974: Pl. XIV:11). Very few examples of Type 4A bowls are complete enough to establish dimensions (see Rowan 1998: Table 8 for list). Three were found at Kabri (Prausnitz 1970: Fig. 60:1, 2, 4). A fourth, from Byblos (Dunand 1973: Pl. 79.31971), is smaller but very similar in form to one of the larger, complete examples from Kabri (Prausnitz 1970: Fig. 60:4). A similar base fragment was found at Qiryat Ata (Rowan 2003: Fig. 6.4:7). Low, elevated bases vary from slight, barely raised sections under the vessel, to a prominently thick base, sometimes quite crude in terms of finishing and symmetry. There are two subtypes of the pedestal section: flaring (4Bi) and straight profiles (4Bii). Subtype 4Bi may be further divided into solid (4Bia) and hollow examples (4Bib). The example from ‘En Esur (Fig. 6.1:10; Subtype 4Bib) has a base diameter of about 110 mm, which contracts slightly upward before flaring out again where the walls began. The base is about 75 mm in height (from the bottom exterior to the base of the well) and is partially hollowed by the concavity extending about 25 mm on the underside. This is very similar to a Subtype 4Bib base fragment of limestone from Qiryat Ata (Rowan 2003: Fig. 6.6:16). Four-Handled Vessel (Fig. 6.1:15) One fragment of a four-handled basalt vessel (Fig. 6.1:15) was found in a Stratum I locus above the entrance to the Stratum IV building in Sq T52. Fourhandled vessels are relatively rare forms; although few are known from good archaeological contexts, they apparently date to late EB I, perhaps continuing into EB II. Braun (1990:87–88) notes that the four-handled bowls are of two general types, distinguished by those with handles attached only at the rim and base (Type IIIA) and those continually attached to the external bowl wall (Type IIIB). Braun further notes the similarity between the four-handled bowls and the typical Early Bronze I bowls (Type I); in a different typology consistent with the Braun’s precedent, four-handled bowls are considered a subtype of Early Bronze bowls (Type 3C; Rowan 1998) which are typically well-made basalt bowls with a thick base, concave wall profiles and tapering or beveled rims dated to no earlier than

EB I (Braun 1990:94). Four-handled bowls are a variant with the addition of thick handles attached at the rim and base (Subtype 3Civ[a]), and typically wider than the simple Type 3C bowls; the example from ‘En Esur is typical of these bowls. The recovery of this example supports Braun’s observation that these vessels appear to be concentrated in the north at sites located in the Jezreel and Bet She’an Valleys, although examples from the south are also known (Braun 1994:94). Minimum Number of Vessels When estimating the MNV from ‘En Esur, base fragments must be discounted because most rims could belong to any of the bases. Although none of the splayed rims are likely to belong to fenestrated pedestals, the flared rims could. In addition, the flared rims with straight walls could also derive from one of the pedestals themselves, and thus must be discounted in estimating MNV. The final MNV is calculated as follows: four-handled vessel (n = 1), pedestals (n = 2), fenestrated pedestals (n = 6), splayed rims (n = 9), globular bowls (n = 3) and basalt bowls with straight (Type R1) to flaring walls (Type R2) (n = 14). Decorative Motifs Few stone bowls are decorated and the lack of rim fragments with a chevron design inscribed on the rim interior is notable. Only one fragment of a simple bowl base is decorated, with lightly inscribed parallel lines at the bottom of the wall exterior (Fig. 6.3:7), a recognized decorative technique dated to the Chalcolithic period, known from Abu Matar (Commenge, in press). Two fenestrated pedestals have raised bands around the medial section. One (L2094, B70652/50) has a single band, while the other (Fig. 6.2:5) has at least three bands around the medial section. Finally, a basering fragment of a fenestrated stand has an incised herringbone design on the exterior (Fig. 6.3:8). These are also typical decorative techniques dating these fenestrated pedestals to the Chalcolithic period (Rowan 1998:242–243). Stratigraphy In general, the rim subtypes that are associated with the Chalcolithic period (flared, with incised chevrons

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

at some sites; Type R2a/b) and EB I (splayed, often beveled; Type R3a/b) are associated with the levels of their respective periods. Seven of the flared rims occurred in Stratum IV (Chalcolithic) or earlier, while three are from Stratum III (early EB I) and one is a surface find. Sites with predominantly EB I occupations frequently include Chalcolithic materials (e.g., Azor, Afridar Area E, Nahal Tillah [Tel Halif Terrace], etc.). Thus, it is difficult to determine whether or not these three flared rim fragments are a result of the disturbance of earlier Chalcolithic deposits, or represent the continuation of this type into the early EB I. The splayed and beveled rims were predominantly found in Strata III and II (early and late EB I, respectively); only two were recovered from Stratum IV, both from the same context of habitation accumulation (L2312, B71910). The bases were primarily found in the earlier strata, V and IV, with only one from Stratum III. None of these bases exhibit the characteristic EB I profile, a thick base with proportionally thin walls. Four of the fenestrated stand fragments (three of them legs, one a base ring) were recovered from Stratum III, with an additional fragment (medial section) retrieved from a paved floor that has a transitional Stratum IV–III designation. The others are from contexts in Chalcolithic Strata V and IV. None of these fragments seem out of place as Chalcolithic fenestrated stands. The two pedestaled stand fragments are from poor contexts. The hollow-footed, pedestal vessel fragment (Type 4Bib; Fig. 6.1:10) is from the surface, and the closest parallels suggest an earlier form. The solidfooted (Type 4Ai) pedestal stand fragment (Fig. 6.1:14) is from a context designated Stratum AI, a mixed fill on a Byzantine road. This is unlikely to be an EB I vessel because of the lack of parallels, although the similar fragment from Jericho suggests these may have continued as late as the Early Bronze Age (see above).

SUM MARY The groundstone artifacts from ‘En Esur represent a fairly typical protohistoric assemblage, as far as it is possible to judge based on the limited comparable evidence. The predominance of grinding slabs, handstones and stone vessel fragments (Fig. 6.8) is not unusual (e.g., Qiryat ‘Ata, Tel Megadim—see Rowan 1998: Figs. 5 and 7). However, other site assemblages include categories which are typically more prevalent

221

than at ‘En Esur. This is particularly true of perforated stones and, to a lesser extent, mortars, both of which are often the majority or a very significant proportion of the overall identifiable groundstone assemblage (e.g., Tel Megadim, Abu Hamid, Gilat, Nahal Tillah [Tel Halif Terrace], Afridar Area E and others, see Rowan 1998 and Wright 1992b: Table 5-36). Also somewhat unusual is the high relative frequency of worked pebbles and cobbles recovered from ‘En Esur in contrast to other sites. Slingstones represent a significant proportion of the worked cobbles, the majority derived primarily from contexts in the earlier strata (VI–V), and which seem to be related primarily to the Wadi Rabah and Early Chalcolithic occupations. These may also be a stone artifact type restricted to regions north of the Negev. As seen in Fig. 6.8, there is an uneven distribution of basalt relative to other rock sources used for the groundstone artifacts. Similar to other sites (i.e., Qiryat ‘Ata, Tel Megadim) that are in relatively close proximity (less than 20 km) to potential sources (Rowan 1998: Fig. 14), basalt constitutes a substantial proportion of the groundstone at ‘En Esur. However, preference for basalt is indicated for certain tool types, particularly grinding slabs and handstones. Also in roughly similar proportions to the two previously mentioned sites, some mortars and perforated stones are made of basalt. The proportion of the perforated stones in part reflects the reuse of fragments from broken basalt bowls. Artifact types such as worked cobbles, polished pebbles and pounders do not indicate a preference for basalt. These proportions change relative to the distance of a habitation site from basalt flows: very few grinding slabs and handstones are made of basalt with increasing distance from potential sources. The exception to this is stone vessels, which are overwhelmingly made of basalt at all sites, regardless of distance from basalt sources. The provenience of the basalt used to manufacture Chalcolithic and EB I vessels is presently unknown, although some studies are beginning to address this question. Basalt outcrops were available to the inhabitants of ‘En Esur both in the Carmel Mountain range and in the Galilee region. It is unclear whether basalts from the Carmel were of sufficient quality for the manufacture of bowls. There is evidence to suggest that Epipaleolithic inhabitants of the Carmel region preferred to obtain basalt for grinding implements from the more distant basalt outcrops in the northeastern

222

YORKE M. ROWAN

Jordan Valley, the Galilee or Golan areas (WeinsteinEvron et al. 1995). Although thousands of years prior to the earliest occupation of ‘En Esur, this suggests that the Carmel basalts may not have suited the needs of the inhabitants. It is also possible that both sources were utilized, or that procurement changed through time, but until additional geochemical studies are conducted (e.g., Philip and Williams-Thorpe 1993; Rowan 1998), the origin of basalt artifacts remains conjectural. The relatively low frequency of groundstone artifacts in any given stratum precludes any firm interpretations. Table 6.1 details the distribution of the groundstone artifacts and the strata from which they derived. Examination of groundstone artifacts from clear, nonmixed strata reveals no clear trend through time. Very few artifacts derived from the earliest strata: from Stratum VII, only a single artifact was found, while 15

artifacts from Stratum VI comprise only 5.1% of the total groundstone assemblage. There is some variation between the relative frequencies of artifacts from the later strata: Stratum V contains 20.0%; Stratum IV, 13.6%; Stratum III, 22.8%; Stratum II, 16.3%; and Stratum I, 5.9%. The significance of these differences is difficult to ascertain. Although some artifact types are clearly associated primarily with earlier strata (i.e., slingstones) or later strata (i.e., rims with concave wall profiles [‘splayed’], Type R3), the frequencies of other groundstone types of more prosaic function (e.g., grinding slabs, handstones, worked cobbles) are not clearly chronological. Whether these types will ever reveal nuances in subtype affiliation to chronology seems improbable. However, groundstone analysis is in such an early stage that it is perhaps premature to deny the utility of such analyses.

Fig. 6.1 ► Artifact

General Stratum

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Handstone

III–I

2276

71734/50

Basalt, unifacially ground

2

Handstone

II

2112

70724/50

Basalt, unifacially ground

3

Bowl

II

2240

71524/50

Dense basalt rim fragment, beveled, concave exterior wall profile

4

Bowl

II–I

2266

71672/50

Dense basalt rim fragment, tapered and beveled, concave exterior wall profile

5

Bowl

II

2098

71123/50

Dense basalt rim fragment, tapered, convex exterior wall profile

6

Bowl

II

2244

71538/50

Limestone rim fragment, slightly everted

7

Bowl

II

2007

70038/50

Basalt rim fragment, low vesicularity, slightly splayed?

8

Bowl

II

2157

70948/50

Limestone rim fragment, convex profile

9

Bowl

II

2122(?)

790854/50

Basalt rim fragment

No.

10

Pedestal fragment

II–I

2071

70374/50

Base to medial fragment

11

Handstone

III–I

2276

71714/50

Round, unifacially used pebble

12

Handstone?

II

2123

70747/50

Dense basalt, slightly convex/concave in cross section

13

Pounder/ hammerstone?

II–I

2265

71631/50

Calcareous stone, bipolar battering

14

Pedestal fragment

I (AI)

1010

50055

Basalt, high, solid, base fragment

15

Four-handled bowl

I

2014

70069, 70697

Circular bowl in plan, four handles, concave wall profile, tapering to rim

223

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

1

2 3

4

5

6 7

8 9

11

10

12

14

13

15

Fig. 6.1. Groundstone artifacts from Strata III–I contexts.

224

YORKE M. ROWAN

2

3

1 4

7

5

6

Fig. 6.2. Groundstone artifacts from Strata IV–III contexts. No.

Artifact

General Stratum

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Grinding slab

III

2207

71282

Limestone, unifacial, slightly concave

2

Bowl

IV

2312

71910/51

Basalt rim fragment, beveled

3

Bowl

IV

2312

71910/50

Basalt rim fragment, slightly beveled

4

Bowl

III

2219

71357/50

Basalt rim fragment, straight wall

5

Fenestrated stand

IV

2102

70664/50

Dense basalt, medial fragment, with incised, raised bands

6

Bowl

IV

2132

70814/50

Dense basalt rim fragment, straight wall profile, roughly ground exterior

7

Handstone?

III

2089

70554/100

Dense basalt, slightly convex on one face, bifacially ground— rough palette?

225

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

1

2

4

3

5

7

6

9

8

10

11

12

13

Fig. 6.3. Groundstone artifacts from Strata V–III contexts. Artifact

General Stratum

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Handstone

IV

2229

71523

Vesicular basalt, unifacial grinding slab

2

Handstone

IV

2162

71845

Very vesicular basalt fragment, slightly convex working face, unifacial use

3

Bowl

IV

2213

71388/50

Dense basalt rim fragment, tapered

4

Bowl

IV

2082

70598/50

Dense basalt rim fragment, tapered

5

Bowl

VC

2154

70962/50

Basalt rim fragment, tapered

6

Bowl

IV

2258

71633/50

Basalt base fragment, thick

7

Bowl

IV

2076

70561/50

Basalt bowl base, with incised parallel lines at base

8

Fenestrated stand

IV

2143

70889/50

Dense basalt fenestrated stand, base ring fragment, with incised herringbone design on exterior face

9

No.

Fenestrated stand

IV

2162

71042/50

Dense basalt fenestrated stand, base ring fragment with leg section

10

Rubber

IV

2254

71578/50

Basalt, three well-ground faces

11

Rubber

IV

2027

70300/50

Basalt fragment, elongated, well-ground sides, polished working end

12

Hammerstone/ pounder

VA–IV

2311

71909/50

Limestone, battered all over

13

Handstone

IV

2045

70327/50

Dense basalt fragment, primarily ground with light pecking

226

YORKE M. ROWAN

Fig. 6.4 ► No. 1

Artifact

General Stratum

Locus

Basket

Description

Grinding slab

VB–C

2120

70893/50

Limestone, unifacially ground

2

Grinding slab

VA

2264

71630/50

Limestone, unifacially ground

3

Mortar/ cupmark

VB–C

2120

70893/50

Basalt cobble, well-ground concavity

4

Bowl

VA

2122

70854/50

Basalt rim fragment, open form

5

Bowl

VI–V (mixed)

2217

71434/50

Basalt rim fragment, tapered

6

Bowl

VA

2264

71630/50

Basalt rim fragment, flared, tapered

7

Bowl

VB–C

2120

70785/50

Basalt rim fragment, flared, tapered

8

Bowl (mortar?)

VB–C

2120

70912/50

Basalt rim fragment, convex wall profile

9

Bowl (mortar?)

VA

2171

71167/50

Basalt rim fragment

10

Bowl

VA

2264

71651/50

Basalt rim fragment, upright, tapered

11

Fenestrated stand

VA–B

2092a

70763/50

Basalt base ring/leg fragment

12

Fenestrated stand

VA

2264

71647/50

Basalt base ring fragment

13

Fenestrated stand

VA

2121

70766/50

Basalt base ring fragment

14

Fenestrated stand

IV

2211

71373/50

Basalt leg fragment

15

Token/game piece

VA–IV

2261

71622/50

Limestone, carefully ground on both faces and edges

227

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

4

5

1 7

6

8

10 9

2

14

11

12

3

13

15

Fig. 6.4. Groundstone artifacts from Strata V–IV contexts.

228

YORKE M. ROWAN

2

3

4

1

5

6

7

8

Fig. 6.5. Groundstone artifacts from Stratum V contexts. No.

Artifact

General Stratum

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Grinding slab?

VB

2210

71394/50

Unifacially ground

2

Grinding slab/basin

VB

2210

71294/50

Very vesicular basalt, shallow, moderately ground

3

Bowl

VB–C

2156

71001/50

Basalt rim fragment, straight wall

4

Bowl

VC

2154

71400/50

Limestone rim fragment, tapered, slightly convex wall profile, finely ground

5

Fenestrated stand

VB–C

2120

70893/50

Dense basalt, base ring/leg fragment

6

Pestle

VB–C

2164

71032/50

Basalt fragment, single lateral groove, possible second groove

7

Pestle

VB

2149

71984/50

Dense basalt fragment, lateral groove, working end highly ground

8

Pivot stone

VB

2158

71037/50

Basalt, bifacially drilled, pivot or socket

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

229

1

2

3

4

5

Fig. 6.6. Groundstone artifacts from Stratum VI contexts. No.

Artifact

General Stratum

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Grinding slab?

VI

2212

71349/50

Vesicular basalt, bifacially ground?

2

Mortar

VI

2165/50

71081/50

Limestone(?), roughly shaped boulder, well-ground interior

3

Bowl

VI

2208

71291

Dense basalt rim fragment, flared, tapered

4

Handstone?

VI

2180

71105/50

Limestone fragment, two ground faces, sides also ground

5

Rubber/pestle?

VI

2188

71397

Basalt, well-ground, faceted, convex working face with striae on lateral sides

230

YORKE M. ROWAN

Fig. 6.7. Stone vessels: rim types by strata.

Fig. 6.8. Groundstone assemblage: relative frequencies of types and raw materials (n = 258).

5

II

-

6

6

1

3

-

2

1

50

17.0

IV

V–IV

VA

VB

VB–C

VC

VI–V

VI

VII

N

%

10.9

32

-

2

-

2

2

2

1

-

7

1

7

-

4

2

1

-

-

1

HandStones

3.1

9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

1

1

1

3

-

-

1

-

-

Handstones or Grinding Slabs

5.8

17

-

1

1

1

-

4

1

-

1

-

3

-

4

-

-

1

-

-

Perforated Stones

* General Site Strata as defined in Area B; see Table 1.3.

-

9

IV–III

1

3

II–I

7

2

I

III

4

IIA (EII)

III–II

-

-

IB (CII)

Grinding Slabs

-

General Site Stratum*

-

-

-

-

5.4

16

-

-

1

1

-

1

4

-

6

2

1

-

-

-

Hammer/ Pounders

2.1

6

-

-

-

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

-

1

-

-

-

Pestles

12.9

38

-

7

-

-

-

3

3

1

4

-

7

1

5

1

3

1

-

2

Worked Cobbles

5.4

16

-

1

-

1

1

2

2

-

1

-

4

-

2

-

1

-

-

1

Mortars

0.7

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

MultiUse/Other

1.0

3

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Polished Pebbles

Table 6.1. Groundstone Artifact Type Frequencies according to Stratum

9.2

27

-

1

2

-

-

1

-

1

2

2

10

1

3

-

2

1

-

1

Possible Groundstone Fragments

26.5

78

-

1

2

3

4

2

4

1

12

2

23

-

13

3

6

1

1

-

Stone Vessels

100.0

294

1

15

6

11

8

21

18

5

40

7

67

4

48

11

17

9

1

5

Total

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

231

2252

Fill

70510/50

71042/50

71415/50

71237/50

71023/50

70922/50

71582/50

70817/50

70817/51

71030/50

2084

Stone floor

2132

2084

Stone floor

71836

2081

2292

Wall/floor removal

71282

Floor

2207

Accumulation layers

71860/50

70138

Habitation level

2301

Wall foundation

71843/50

2017

Mudbrick debris

70895/50

70053/50

2297

2141

Pit

2162

2008

Floor/disturbed

70847/51

Habitation accumulation

2139

Floor/fill

70847/51

20001/50

Floor removal

2139

Floor/fill

2229

5001

Disturbed (EB I)

20031/51

20034

2198

5006

Floor removal

Floor

5007

Pebble floor

20031/50

10026/50

Drain in floor

5006

Floor removal

2143

4003

Floor

60044/50

2162

3002

Mixed

50096

Floor removal

1005

Surface

Basket

Fill

Locus

Context

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

II

II

II

II

II (EII)

II (EII)

II (EII)

II (EII)

IIA (DII)

IA (CI)

IA (AI)

General Site Stratum

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Beachrock

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Material

F

I

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

C

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

I

Condition

65

270

120

185

190

62

92

82

51

210

175

88

300

125

86

120

71

54

110

56

70

130

44

57

210

300

Length (mm)

56

170

190

180

150

52

76

42

46

100

170

80

210

105

34

95

34

45

95

46

43

125

42

75

240

220

Width (mm)

40

80

50

80

42

39

54

39

28

56

48

47

100

46

39

44

42

45

45

34

42

70

31

59

90

55

Thickness (mm)

Table 6.2. Grinding Slabs

Oval

Irregular

Rectangular

Trapezoidal

Shape

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Concave/ convex

Plano-convex

Concave/ convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Concave/ convex

Flat

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Flat

Plano-convex

Flat

Plano-convex

Concave/ convex

Concave/ convex

Cross Section

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Concave/convex

Slightly concave

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex, slightly concave

Concave/convex

Slightly concave

Concave working face

Concave/convex

Profile

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Bifacial?

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Bifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Modification

232 YORKE M. ROWAN

2149

2149

2149

2210

2210

2120

2164

2154

2164

Floor

Floor

Floor

Accumulation on floor

Accumulation on floor

Floor

Pebble surface

Floor

Pebble surface

2264

Pottery floor

2264

2193

Paved floor

2248

2077

Fill

Pottery floor

2265

Fill

Wall cleaning

2286

Fill

2264

2286

Fill

Pottery floor

2234

Floor removal

2122

2212

Habitation level

2171

2023

Habitation level

Fill on floor

2101

Habitation level

Floor

Locus

Context

71033/50

70962/50

71079/50

70893/50

71394/50

71294/50

71007/50

70959/50

70992/50

71630/50

71697/50

71640/50

71153/50

70899/50

71630/52

71186/50

70431/50

71665/50

71736/51

71736/50

71471/50

71349/50

70114/50

70648/50

Basket

VC

VC

VC

VB–C

VB

VB

VB

VB

VB

VA

IV–VA

VA

VA

VA

VA

VA

II–III

I–II

I–II

I–II

VII

VI

IV

IV

General Site Stratum

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Beachrock?

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Beachrock

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Material

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

I

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Condition

71

79

100

230

55

185

75

98

107

230

78

85

97

83

275

86

89

76

110

110

71

145

115

87

Length (mm)

42

36

80

175

52

130

64

81

90

210

60

96

80

48

160

52

71

47

110

120

70

95

80

70

Width (mm)

Table 6.2 (cont.)

30

50

78

75

26

60

51

35

51

65

65

33

47

52

100

48

32

49

55

36

60

39

24

42

Thickness (mm)

Irregular

Elongated

Shape

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Flat

Plano-convex

Concave/ irregular

Concave/ convex

Plano-convex

Concave/ convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Flat

Flat

Concave/ convex

Plano-convex

Flat

Flat

Plano-convex

Concave/ convex

Plano-convex

Cross Section

Flat

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Slightly concave

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Slightly concave

Flat

Plano-convex

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat, thin, central fragment

Profile

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Bifacial?

Bifacial?

Unifacial

Unifacial

Modification

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

233

Context

Cleaning

Accumulation on floor

Disturbed (EB IB)

Surface

Pit

Pit

Floor

Wall cleaning

Fill

Installation

Habitation level

Habitation level

Disturbed

Fill

Open area

Fill

Wall removal

Artifact Type

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone?

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone?

Handstone?

Rubber

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone

Rubber

Rubber

2254

2027

2089

2018

2108

2245

2220

2202

2047

2112

2123

2276

2276

2036

4009

4008

Locus

71578/50

70300/50

70554/100

70068/50

71254/50

71540/50

71453/50

71276/50

70293/50

70724/50

70747/50

71734/50

71714/50

70217/50

10047/50

10056/50

Basket

IV

IV

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

II

II

I–III

I–III

I

IIA (DII)

IIA (DII)

General Site Stratum

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Unknown

Beachrock

Material

C

F

F

C

F

F

F

C

F

C

C

I

C

C

F

C

C

Condition

51

52

108

80

90

86

106

48

118

255

79

160

69

80

53

95

88

Length (mm)

Table 6.3. Handstones

42

44

74

51

58

63

93

45

55

170

74

115

62

57

51

78

78

Width (mm)

45

20

38

47

42

50

65

43

25

70

35

70

33

45

50

48

36

Thickness (mm)

Trapezoidal

Oval

Oval

Cuboid

Oval

Round

Round

Oval

Cuboid

Rectangular

Irregular

Shape

Biconvex

Rectangular

Irregular

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Biconvex

Cuboid

Flat

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Square

Flat

Planoconvex

Cross Section

Trapezoidal

Flat

Planoconvex

Biconvex

Cuboid

Flat

Planoconvex

Rectangular

Planoconvex

Flat

Planoconvex

Square

Flat

Planoconvex

Profile

3 ground faces

Sides smooth, 1 face polished

Bifacial

2 ground faces

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial?

2 convex faces; all others ground

Bifacially ground

Unifacial

Square edges, faces convex and concave

Unifacial

Unifacial

Ground?

Ground all over

Bifacial, unifacial concavity

Unifacial

Modification

234 YORKE M. ROWAN

Context

Floor

Floor removal

Floor

Habitation level

Floor

Pottery floor

Accumulated on floor

Floor

Habitation level

Habitation level

Floor

Floor

Burial

Accumulation

Habitation level

Artifact Type

Handstone

Handstone?

Handstone

Handstone

Rubber

Handstone

Handstone?

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone?

Handstone

2180

2167

2188

2154

2154

2111

2156

2107

2210

2264

2045

2082

2229

2162

2229

Locus

71105/50

71418/50

71397/50

71416/50

70962/50

70985/50

71041/50

70704/50

71394/50

71630/51

70327/50

706171/100

71523

71845/51

Basket

VI

VI

VI

VC

VC

VB–C

VB–C

VB

VB

VA

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

General Site Stratum

Limestone

Limestone

Basalt

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Basalt

Scoria?

Basalt

Beachrock

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Material

F

F

I

F

F

F

F

C

C

F

F

C

C

F

C

Condition

65

82

64

118

68

65

76

89

250

190

59

180

255

155

62

Length (mm)

Table 6.3 (cont.)

61

62

48

94

57

34

64

69

180

150

51

81

130

100

45

Width (mm)

49

34

39

38

31

41

39

47

80

73

31

27

50

65

24

Thickness (mm)

Rectangular

Trapezoidal

Oval

Oval

Oval

Crescent

Elongated

Oval

Shape

Round

Flat

Trapezoidal

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Biconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Cross Section

Trapezoidal

Flat

Planoconvex

Flat

Flat

Biconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Flat

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Profile

Unifacial

With striae

Bifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial?

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Primarily ground

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial, with central groove

Modification

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

235

Stone floor

Floor

Floor

Floor

Floor

Stone surface

Stone surface

Stone floor

Perforated stone

Perforated stone

Perforated stone

Perforated stone

Concavity

Perforated stone

Perforated stone

Perforated stone

Context

2084

2203

2203

2123

4000

4006

4000

5007

Locus

2162

Floor removal

Artifact Type

2192

2077

Fill

Floor removal

2151

Fill

2228

2098

Disturbed

2099

2151

Fill

Fill

5006

Floor removal

Mixed accumulation

Locus

Context

70782/100

71247/50

71240/50

70765/50

10067/100

10093/100

10067/101

20038/100

Basket

71845/50

71185/50

7104/50

71405/50

70441/50

70921/50

71071/50

70921/50

20031/52

Basket

III

III

III

II

II (DII)

II (DII)

II (DII)

II (EII)

General Site Stratum

IV

IV

III–IV

III

II–III

II

II

II

II (EII)

F

F

C

F

F

F

F

F

F

Limestone

Basalt

Basalt

Quartz?

Basalt?

Basalt

Unknown

Basalt

C

F

F

F

C

C

F

C

120

55

155

48

140

59

122

120

85

Width (mm)

55

45

48

50

28

40

57

42

70

Thickness (mm)

43

35

122

77

45

45

42

Length (mm)

40

16

42

67

42

42

13

39

Width (mm)

14

20

55

34

21

26

25

14

Thickness (mm)

40

Diameter (mm)

10/7

?/10

60/32

17/12

21/14

13/10

Round

Sphere?

Shape

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Profile

Hole Diameter Max./Min. (mm)

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-irregular

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Plano-convex

Cross Section

Table 6.5. Perforated and Drilled Stones

170

81

105

80

82

70

93

60

130

Length (mm)

Condition

Condition

Material

General Site Stratum

Table 6.4. Basalt Grinding Slab or Handstone Fragments

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Cross Section

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Unifacial

Modification

33

52

65

11

40

Weight (gm)

Bifacially ground

Bifacially drilled

Bifacially drilled

Concavity on broken cobble

Carinated; bifacially drilled

Bifacially drilled

Drilled, large bead?

Bifacially drilled wall fragment

Modification

236 YORKE M. ROWAN

Floor

Floor removal

Accumulation on floor

Floor

Floor

Floor

Floor

Fill

Installation

Macehead

Drill mark

Perforated stone

Perforated stone

Pivot stone

Perforated stone

Perforated stone

Drill mark

Context

Pivot stone

Artifact Type

2165

2217

2154

2158

2158

2158

2210

2314

2229

Locus

71081/50

71345/50

70961/100

71037/50

71052/100

71072/1

71368/50

71917/50

71652

Basket

VI

V–VI

VC

VB

VB

VB

VB

VA

IV

General Site Stratum

Chalk

Chalk

Limestone

Basalt

Chalk

Limestone

Limestone

Unknown

Limestone

Material

I

C

C

C

C

C

C

F

C

Condition

82

90

36

122

35

52

59

45

265

Length (mm)

50

64

35

118

35

40

52

53

250

Width (mm)

27

33

15

25

19

14

90

Thickness (mm)

Table 6.5 (cont.)

80

50

Diameter (mm)

10/6

20/5

?/10

80

Hole Diameter Max./Min. (mm)

Irregular

Irregular

Round

Irregular

Oval

Flat

Shape

Irregular

Irregular

Flat

Trapezoidal

Biconvex

Irregular

Flat

Cross Section

16

24

38

Weight (gm)

Multiple drill marks

Natural hole, unworked

Bifacially drilled

Bifacial shallow concavities (c. 45 mm diam.)

Faceted, ground with striae

Natural hole

Unifacially drilled pebble

Piriform or spherical

Flat, end roughly chipped, concavity on cobble

Modification

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

237

Context

Surface

Mixed surface

Fill

Fill

Floor

Floor/disturbed

Surface

Fill

Surface

Habitation level

Stone surface

Accumulation layers

Open area

Courtyard

Habitation accumulation

Floor

Artifact Type

Hammer

Pounder

Pounder

Hammer

Pounder/hammer

Pounder/hammer

Hammer

Hammer

Pounder/hammer

Hammer

Pounder/hammer

Pounder/hammer

Pounder/hammer

Pounder/hammer

Pounder/hammer

Hammer

2159

2311

2044

2089

2207

2296

2194

2059

2067

2242

2008

2123

2086

2265

2271

None

Locus

71053/100

71909/50

70455/100

70541/100

71310/51

71829

71265/50

70491/50

70502/50

71530/50

70053/51

70783/50

70596/50

71631/50

71688/50

70307/50

Basket

VA–B

IV–VA

III–IV

III

III

III

III

II–IV

II

II

II

II

II

I–II

I–II

I

General Site Stratum

Limestone

Limestone

Quartzite?

Flint

Basalt

Flint

Limestone

Flint?

Limestone

Flint?

Limestone

Limestone

Flint

Limestone

Beachrock?

Flint

Material

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

Condition

55

48

57

59

60

54

55

53

55

56

65

65

52

76

68

50

Length (mm)

Table 6.6. Hammerstones and Pounders

50

46

55

55

60

50

55

55

51

50

61

62

50

70

66

48

Width (mm)

48

44

53

48

53

46

51

48

48

48

53

62

47

70

61

46

Thickness (mm)

Irregular

Spherical

Cuboid

Spherical

Round

Spherical

Angular

Spherical

Angular

Round

Spherical

Flat sphere

Round

Spherical

Shape

Spherical

Irregular

Spherical

Angular

Spherical

Round

Spherical

Round

Square

Spherical

Cross Section

Ground, some battering

Pounded all over

Ground, with faceted sides

Bipolar battered

Bipolar pounded and flaked

Ground and pecked

4 ground faces; also battered

Battered all over

Battered all over

Bifacially ground and battered

3 ground faces, pounded

2 sides flat

Bipolar battered

Bipolar pounded, ground sides

Battered

Modification

238 YORKE M. ROWAN

Context

Floor

Surface

Floor/ disturbed

Floor

Floor

Pebble surface

Artifact Type

Pestle?

Pestle?

Pestle?

Pestle?

Pestle

Pestle

2164

2149

2100

2008

2014

4000

Locus

71032/50

70984/50

70707/100

70053/50

70069/51

10000/50

Basket

VB–C

VB

II

II

I

II (DII)

General Site Stratum

Basalt

Basalt

Limestone

Limestone

Beachrock

Limestone

Material

F

F

F

C

F

F

Condition

58

53

84

118

52

72

Length (mm)

Table 6.7. Pestles

62

62

45

50

48

39

Width (mm)

59

62

40

42

36

36

Thickness (mm)

Elongated

Elongated

Elongated

Elongated

Shape

Round

Oval

Square

Cross Section

Bilateral grooves

One lateral groove

Sides ground?

One end pecked; also ground?

Ground and battered on end, side ground

Parallel sides, battered end

Modification

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

239

Context

Stone surface

Unknown

Accumulation on floor

Habitation level

Surface

Surface

Surface

Fill

Surface

Floor/ disturbed

Surface

Floor

Stone floor

Open area

Stone floor

Fill

Fill

Habitation level

Habitation level

Artifact Type

Slingstone

Slingstone

Slingstone

Slingstone?

Cobble

Ground pebble

Ground pebble

Ground pebble

Ground pebble

Ground pebble?

Slingstone

Ground pebble

Ground pebble?

Ground pebble?

Slingstone

Ground pebble

Ground pebble

Ground pebble

Disc

2194

2194

2103

2018

2084

2089

2085

2100

2242

2008

2097

2019

2003

2001

2014

4013

5002

None

6004

Locus

71212/50

71285/50

70714/50

70208/50

70518/50

70604/50

70636/100

70707/101

71530/51

70062/51

70635/100

70090/50

70021/51

70012/51

70080/50

10071/50

20006

70018

40008/50

Basket

III

III

III

III

III

III

II–IV

II

II

II

II

I–III

I

I

I

II (DII)

II (EII)

None

F

General Site Stratum

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Diabase?

Limestone

Flint

Limestone

Tuff?

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Material

C

C

C

C

I

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

F

C

C

I

C

C

Condition

84

88

90

46

43

92

59

95

44

62

50

83

56

61

91

48

52

48

52

Length (mm)

80

40

63

36

28

54

52

52

24

57

45

32

41

40

58

33

30

28

35

Width (mm)

37

11

18

32

20

22

37

24

41

35

27

22

26

31

32

27

26

33

Thickness (mm)

Round

Elliptical

Oval

Rectangular

Biconvex

Rounded trapezoidal

Oval

Oval

Biconvex

Irregular

Round

Elongated

Oval

Oval

Oval

Biconical

Biconvex

Biconical

Shape

Table 6.8. Worked Cobbles and Pebbles (including ‘Slingstones’)

Flat

Flat

Flat

Round

Round

Planoconvex

Flat

Biconvex

Round

Flat

Irregular

Triangular

Biconvex

Planoconvex

Biconvex

Round

Round

Round

Round

Cross Section

Flat

Flat

Flat

Biconvex

Flat

Flat

Biconvex

Biconvex

Flat

Trapezoidal

Irregular

Flat

Flat

Oval

Biconical

Biconvex

Biconvex

Profile

35

45

33

Weight (gm)

Unifacially ground?

Ground?

Bipolar pecked, ground

Bipolar points, ground?

Ground?

Ground?

Unifacial?

Bipolar points

Ground?

Bifacially battered, also ground?

Flat side with longitudinal striae

Unifacially ground

Striae on flat side

Ground?

Egg-shaped, probably ground

Ground all over

Bipolar points

Ground all over, pointed ends

Modification

240 YORKE M. ROWAN

Pebble floor

Floor

Habitation level

Habitation level

Fill/debris?

Floor

Fill/debris?

Habitation level

Habitation level

Floor

Slingstone?

Slingstone

Slingstone

Slingstone

Ground pebble

Ground pebble

Slingstone?

Ground pebble

Cobble

2055

2180

2177

2167

2179

2167

2177

2177

2158

2187

2210

Ground pebble?

2193

Accumulation on floor

Paved floor

Slingstone

2192

Slingstone

Floor removal

Ground pebble

2143

2122

Fill

Ground pebble

2143

Floor

Fill

Ground pebble?

2143

Ground pebble

Fill

Ground pebble?

2018

2042

Fill

Cobble

Locus

Ground pebble

Context

Artifact Type

70504/50

71228/50

71293/51

71344/50

71097/50

71229/50

71293/50

71041/50

71037/50

71144/50

71413/50

70884/50

70412/50

71289/50

71206/50

70889/50

70889/51

70889/50

70175

Basket

IV–V

VI

VI

VI

VI

VI

VI

VI

VB

VB

VB

VA

VA

VA

IV

IV

IV

IV

III

General Site Stratum

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Chalk

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Flint?

Limestone

Limestone

Material

C

C

I

C

C

C

I

I

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

Condition

150

129

47

75

80

54

45

45

50

74

49

92

82

49

95

108

82

116

125

Length (mm)

79

35

28

15

60

30

29

30

29

44

30

41

31

35

31

47

27

52

44

Width (mm)

Table 6.8 (cont.)

52

18

25

12

31

29

27

28

29

29

31

23

14

33

24

31

26

37

33

Thickness (mm)

Trapezoidal

Elongated

Biconvex

Elongated

Rectangular

Biconvex

Biconvex

Biconvex

Biconvex

Trapezoidal

Biconvex

Elongated

Elongated

Biconvex

Elongated

Irregular

Elongated

Elongated

Irregular

Shape

Biconvex

Planoconvex

Round

Round

Planoconvex

Round

Round

Round

Round

Biconvex

Round

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Round

Irregular

Trapezoidal

Square

Biconvex

Elongated

Cross Section

Planoconvex

Planoconvex

Irregular

Elongated

Planoconvex

Biconvex

Biconvex

Biconvex

Biconvex

Biconvex

Flat

Planoconvex

Biconvex

Irregular

Flat

Biconvex

Elongated

Profile

45

60

44

51

59

55

78

Weight (gm)

Unifacially ground?

One end pointed

Pointed end ground

Concavity on one face

One end pointed

Ground

Bipolar points

Bipolar points

Unifacially ground?

Ground?

Flat side ground

Bipolar points

Striae on unifacially ground face

Unifacially ground

Pointed end

Smoothed, ground?

Modification

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

241

Context

Stone floor

Surface

Disturbed

Surface

Fill

Floor removal

Floor removal

Stone floor

Floor removal

Floor

Fill on floor

Fill on floor

Floor

Floor

Pebble surface

Installation

Artifact Type

Mortar

Mortar

Mortar

Mortar?

Mortar

Mortar

Mortar?

Mortar

Mortar?

Mortar?

Mortar

Mortarbowl

Mortar

Mortar

Mortar?

Mortar

2165

2164

2120

2120

2171

2172

2121

2162

2084

2126

2126

2040

2056

2098

1005

6002

Locus

71081/50

71032/50

70912/50

70893/50

71167/50

71273

70825/50

71023/50

70770

71147/50

70767/50

70440/50

70284/51

70634/50

50054/50

40002/50

Basket

VI

VC

VB–C

VB–C

VA

VA

VA

IV

III

III

III

III

II

II

I (AI–II)

F

General Site Stratum

Limestone?

Limestone?

Basalt

Limestone?

Basalt

Beachrock

Basalt

Basalt

Beachrock

Basalt

Limestone?

Basalt

Limestone?

Basalt

Sandstone?

Basalt

Material

F

F

F

C

F

I

F

F

C

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Condition

Base?

Rim

Rim

Base?

Wall

Rim

Wall

Rim

Element

210

120

55

165

80

270

140

100

300

74

190

39

63

62

68

Length (mm)

90

110

68

155

82

83

100

290

50

180

40

48

71

220

72

Width (mm)

Table 6.9. Mortars and Mortar Fragments

80

43

100

45

56

80

30

48

30

23

56

Thickness (mm)

110

220

170

163

Height (mm)

160

160

160

160

Estimated Rim Diameter (mm)

43

45

30

30

23

56

Wall Thickness (mm)

55

55

120

65

70

Wall Depth (mm)

Boulder, shallow concavity

Base fragment of mortar?

Boulder, deep narrow well

Shallow mortar/bowl

Exterior roughly chipped

Mortar fragment?

Boulder, with possible well

Exterior roughly chipped

Well ground

Probably large, deep mortar

Flat rim

Nodule

Interior polished

Exterior wall convex

Modification

242 YORKE M. ROWAN

Context

Unknown

Disturbed (EB I)

Floor

Surface

Floor

Surface

Floor

Fill

Mixed accumulation

Mudbrick debris

Fill

Mudbrick debris

Stratum removal

Fill

Habitation level

Accumulation layers

Oval structure

Fill

Artifact Type

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment

Groundstone fragment?

Handstone?

2064

2020

2207

2245

2018

2199

2017

2048

2017

2228

2077

2100

2028

2004

2033

4000

5001

None

Locus

70478/50

70136/50

71279/50

71548/50

70157/50

71244/50

70067/50

70264/50

70074/50

71405/51

70441/50

70654/50

70185/50

70042/50

70220/50

10021/50

20029/50

None

Basket

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

II–III

II

II

I

I

II (DII)

II (EII)

None

General Site Stratum

Limestone

Limestone

Sandstone

Basalt

Limestone

Limestone

Basalt?

Limestone

Limestone

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt?

Basalt?

Limestone

Basalt

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Material

I

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Condition

73

66

45

66

83

87

65

57

60

48

91

52

92

43

76

44

55

57

Length (mm)

50

51

38

61

33

50

56

59

35

39

42

40

51

31

72

31

37

22

Width (mm)

17

25

37

50

31

43

26

30

25

31

23

28

21

22

40

31

21

21

Thickness (mm)

Elliptical

Irregular

Angular

Elongated

Shape

Table 6.10. Groundstone Fragments and Possible Groundstone Fragments

Plano-convex

Flat

Flat

Plano-convex

Trapezoidal

Plano-convex

Rectangular

Irregular

Flat

Trapezoidal

Irregular

Triangular

Biconvex

Round

Cross Section

Flat

Flat

Flat

Planoconvex

Flat

Flat

Flat

Trapezoidal

Flat

Flat

Flat

Profile

Handstone? Unifacially ground?

Edge fragment, bifacially ground

Ground?

Ground?

Bifacially smooth, natural?

Natural?

Ground?

Ground?

Smooth fragment, natural?

Perforated, round exterior, roughly chipped

Ground?

Unifacially ground

Probably ground

Some chipping, wear unclear

Rim, or mano edge?

Ground?

Chunk, no wear?

Modification

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

243

Accumulation on floor

Groundstone fragment?

Burial

Fill

Handstone?

Groundstone fragment?

Floor

Handstone?

Floor removal

Open area

Groundstone fragment

Installation

Fill

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment

Fill

Groundstone fragment?

Groundstone fragment?

Context

Artifact Type

2188

2152

2215

2210

2248

2080

2013

2025

2025

Locus

71178/50

70935/50

71369/50

71304/50

71554/50

70387/50

70166/50

70156/50

70158/50

Basket

VI

IV–VC

V–VI

VB

IV–VA

IV

IV

III–IV

III–IV

General Site Stratum

Limestone

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Basalt

Unknown

Beachrock?

Limestone

Limestone

Material

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

C

Condition

85

52

115

60

51

180

210

34

120

Length (mm)

Table 6.10 (cont.)

55

39

52

42

19

75

170

29

42

Width (mm)

52

28

35

27

25

58

43

25

34

Thickness (mm)

Trapezoidal

Irregular

Irregular

Elongated

Shape

Square

Flat

Irregular

Flat

Flat

Square

Cross Section

Triangular

Flat

Flat

Elongated

Profile

Fenestrated stand leg fragment

Hollowed out, natural?

Ground?

One face may be ground?

Handstone? Unifacial

Handstone? Ground pebble?

Smooth face, ground?

Ground?

Possibly ground

Modification

244 YORKE M. ROWAN

Fill

Fill

Surface

Fill

Disturbed

Fill

Disturbed EB I

Floor

Accumulation level

Habitation level

Habitation level

Floor removal

Wall removal

Habitation level

Fill

Floor

Habitation level

Refuse dump

Habitation accumulation

Habitation accumulation

Pottery floor

R3b

R3b

R3b

R3b

R3b

R1a

R1b

R2a

R2a

R2a

R2a

R3b

R3b

R3b

R1b

R2a

R2a

R3a/b

R3b

R2a

2264

2312

2312

2011

2082

2132

2099

2051

2148

2213

2038

2075

2207

2219

5001

2244

2098

2196

2240

2067

2067

2007

Floor/disturbed

R3a

2266

R3a

Disturbed

R3b

2265

None

2157

Fill

R1b

Surface/mixed

None

R2a

3002

None

R1b

Mixed

R1b

3000

None

R1b

Locus

R1b

Context

Rim Type

71630

71910/51

71910/50

70092/50

70598/50

70814/50

70620/50

70492/50

70873/50

71388/50

70387/100

70405/100

71310/50

71357/50

20029/51

71538/50

71123/50

71207/50

71524/50

70551/50

70494/50

70038/50

70948/50

60025/50

71672/50

71631/50

70697/50

60028/50

70036

Basket

VA

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

III–IV

III

III

IV

III

III

III

III

II (EII–III)

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

I (CII)

I–II

I–II

I

I (CI)

I

General Site Stratum

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Limestone

Limestone

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Limestone?

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Material

62

145

195

68

41

61

34

84

51

57

35

31

91

20

70

40

88

41

76

75

60

62

37

80

37

80

75

32

Length (mm)

126

110

140

65

53

111

58

26

40

46

55

30

52

63

74

40

49

49

28

48

70

76

45

64

37

82

56

35

Width (mm)

15

22

19

18

19

22

19

14

17

18

15

14

22

16

15

20

17

14

15

18

16

15

16

19

15

15

17

Thickness (mm)

Table 6.11. Stone Vessel Rim Fragments

240

230

260

260

160

250

220

280

220

240/300

200

260

140

270

230

160

100

130

240

260

160

Rim Diameter (mm)

15

19

18

19

22

19

17

18

15

14

22

18

15

20

17

14

15

18

16

16

19

15

15–24

15

17

Wall Thickness (mm)

Deep bowl, almost straight wall

Splayed, beveled

Splayed, beveled

Flared

Flared

Straight wall, round rim

Splayed, beveled

Beveled, probably splayed

Splayed, beveled

Flared

Flared

Flared

Flared

Straight walls

Straight wall

Splayed, beveled

Splayed, beveled

Splayed, possibly beveled

Splayed, beveled

Splayed, beveled

Splayed

Splayed?

Shallow

Round rim, straight wall

Splayed, beveled

Straight wall

Flared, thins towards base

Fairly straight wall

Straight, well ground

Description

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

245

Context

Fill

Fill

Floor

Floor

Pottery floor

Floor

Habitation level

Floor

Floor

Habitation level

Rim Type

R2a

R4a

R2a

R2b

R4b

R1a

R1b

R2a

R4a

R2a

2208

2154

2154

2156

2120

2264

2122

2092

2217

2217

Locus

71291/50

71400/50

70962/50

71001/50

70785/50

71651/50

70854/50

70865/50

71433/50

71433/50

Basket

VI

VC

VC

VB–C

VB–C

VA

VA

VA

V–VI

V–VI

General Site Stratum

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Material

27

75

60

57

49

45

30

38

81

135

Length (mm)

Table 6.11 (cont.)

51

57

75

75

64

57

47

84

98

Width (mm)

13

16

15

20

13

18

21

15

19

Thickness (mm)

150

180

260

180

160

200

300

Rim Diameter (mm)

15

20

13

18

21

15

12–20

19

Wall Thickness (mm)

Flared

Finely ground, striae, pointed rim

Flared

Straight wall

Straight wall

Almost straight walls

Shallow, open form, friable

Flared

Convex walls

Flared, thins towards base

Description

246 YORKE M. ROWAN

Element

Handle

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Base

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Base

Base

Base

Base?

Artifact Type

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Bowl

Pebble surface

Habitation level

Stone surface

Habitation accumulation

Habitation level

Stone collapse

Habitation level

Wall/floor removal

Fill

Disturbed

Stone collapse

Stone floor

Stone floor

Habitation level

Wall removal

Wall/floor removal

Floor/disturbed

Surface

Surface

Habitation accumulation

Fill

Surface

Surface

Context

2164

2076

2258

2189

2038

2289

2227

2292

2128

2108

2288

2043

2043

2031

2124

2292

2007

2028

2028

2272

2067

2072

2070

Locus

71049/50

70561/50

71633/50

71175/50

70228/50

71825/50

71385/50

71836

70772/50

71312/50

71764/50

70294/50

70249/50

70188/50

70752/50

71820/50

70040/51

70185/51

70185/52

71784/50

70462/50

70477/50

70368/50

Basket

VC

IV

IV

IV

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

II

II

II

II

II

I

I

General Site Stratum

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Unknown

Basalt

Material

107

102

91

99

71

69

78

105

128

55

71

44

82

50

96

88

86

72

76

79

56

70

97

Length (mm)

74

63

57

41

50

42

79

62

58

55

25

76

42

57

52

65

70

47

50

36

50

38

Width (mm)

52

13

27

18

21

25

10

23

27

22

11

22

21

20

22

23

15

18

36

Thickness (mm)

Table 6.12. Stone Vessel Wall and Base Fragments

80

130

160

120

Base Diameter (mm)

16

25

38

13

27

18

21

25

10

23

27

22

11

22

20

21

20

22

23

15

18

Wall Thickness (mm)

52

25

30

53

22

Base Thickness (mm)

If base, re-ground

Flat base, light parallel incisions, Subtype B1a

Thick and flat base, Subtype B1a

Thick wall and base, mortar/bowl, Type B1

Probably splayed

Mortar/bowl fragment

Hole drilled on edge break

Base exterior slightly convex, Subtype B2a

Subtype 3Ciii

Description

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

247

Pedestal base

Pedestal base

Leg

Leg/base

Leg

Base ring

Medial

Medial

Leg

Leg/base

Base ring

Leg/base

Leg

Base ring

Base ring

Leg/base

4Bi(b)

4Cii

4Cii

4Cii

4Cii

4Ci

4Cii

4Cii

4Cii

4Cii

4Cii

4Cii

4Cii

4Cii

4Cii

Element

4Ai

Artifact Type

Floor

Floor

Pottery floor

Stone surface

Floor

Fill

Floor removal

Refuse dump

Habitation level

Paved floor

Fill

Fill

Oval structure

Stone floor

Surface

Fill

Context

2120

2121

2264

2261

2092

2143

2162

2011

2102

2094

2018

2090

2020

2249

2071

1010

Locus

70893/50

70760/50

71647/50

71628/50

70763/50

70889/50

71042/50

71373/50

70664/50

70652/50

70157/51

70660/50

70116/50

71618/50

70374/50

50055

Basket

VB–C

VA

VA

VA

VA

IV

IV

IV

IV

III–IV

III

III

III

III

I–II

I (AI–II)

General Site Stratum

80

75

111

30

94

80

95

94

55

80

75

79

51

76

200

Length (mm)

32

45

46

39

40

34

47

35

35

60

Width (mm)

24

23

29

26

25

32

34

34

Thickness (mm)

130

150

240

180

210

200

300

180

110

145

Base Diameter (mm)

110

110

98

Medial Diameter (mm)

Table 6.13. Basalt Pedestaled and Fenestrated Stand Fragments

21

24

23

26

24

38

21

32

22

40

Base Thickness (mm)

22

29

33

24

25

34

27

Leg Thickness (mm)

Stands straight

Trapezoidal cross section

Trapezoidal cross section, bottom very ground

Massive, trapezoidal leg cross section

Incised herringbone pattern, rounded triangular cross section

Plano-convex and trapezoidal cross section

At least 3 incised bands, interior well ground

Single band

Rounded trapezoidal cross section

Incision

Friable, well ground

Well ground

Footed, with concavity

Friable

Description

248 YORKE M. ROWAN

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

249

NOTE 1

This study was conducted with generous support from the Council of American Overseas Research Centers (USIA)

and the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research (Jerusalem).

R EFERENCES Adams J. 1989. Methods for Improving Groundstone Artifacts Analysis: Experiments in Mano Wear Patterns. In D.S. Amick and R.P. Mauldin eds. Experiments in Lithic Technology (BAR Int. S. 528). Oxford. Pp. 259–276. Alon D. and Levy T.E. 1989. The Archaeology of Cult and the Chalcolithic Sanctuary at Gilat. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2:163–221. Alon D. and Yekutieli Y. 1995. The Tel Halif Terrace ‘Silo Site’ and Its Implications for Early Bronze Age I. ‘Atiqot 27:149–190. Amiran R. and Porat N. 1984. The Basalt Bowls of the Chalcolithic Period and the Early Bronze Age I. Tel Aviv 11:11–19. Amiran R., Shiloh Y., Brown R., Tsafrir Y. and Ben-Tor A. 1978. Early Arad I: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City. First and Fifth Seasons of Excavations 1962– 1966. Jerusalem. Anati E., Avnimelech M., Haas N. and Meyerhof E. 1973. Hazorea I (Archivi 5). Brescia. Bar-Adon P. 1980. The Cave of the Treasure. Jerusalem. Baumgartel E.J. 1960. The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt II. London. Braun E. 1985. ‘En Shadud. Salvage Excavations at a Farming Community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel (BAR Int. S. 249). Oxford. Braun E. 1990. Basalt Bowls of the EB I Horizon in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 16:87–96. Braun E. and Gophna R. 2004. Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar—Area G. ‘Atiqot 45:185–241. Commenge C. In Press. Le mobilier des sites de Beersheva. Neguev Septentrional, Israel (Cahiers du centre de recherche français de Jerusalem 9). Paris. Dorrell P. 1983. Stone Vessels, Tools and Objects. In K.M. Kenyon and T.A. Holland eds. Jericho V. London. Pp. 485–575. Dothan M. 1959. Excavations at Horvat Beter (Beersheba). ‘Atiqot 2:1–42. Dunand M. 1973. Fouilles de Byblos V. Paris. Ebeling J. and Rowan Y.M. 2004. The Archaeology of the Daily Grind: Ground Stone Tools and Food Production in the Southern Levant. Near Eastern Archaeology 67:108–117. Epstein C. 1998. The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan (IAA Reports 4). Jerusalem. Foreman R. 1978. Disc Beads: Production by Primitive Techniques. The Bead Journal. 3:17–22.

Galili E. and Weinstein-Evron M. 1985. Prehistory and Paleoenvironments of Submerged Sites along the Carmel Coast of Israel. Paléorient 11:37–52. Garstang J. 1935. Jericho, City and Necropolis, Fifth Report. LAAA 22:143–84. Gilead I. 1995. Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer Sheva 7). Be’er Sheva‘. Gilead I. and Goren Y. 1989. Petrographic Analyses of Fourth Millennium B.C. Pottery and Stone Vessels from the Northern Negev, Israel. BASOR 275:5–14. Goodwin A.J.H. 1947. The Bored Stones of South Africa. Annals of the South African Museum 37:1–21. Goren Y. 1991. Phosphorite Vessels of the 4th Millennium B.C. in the Southern Levant: New Data, New Interpretations. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 24:102–111. Hartenberg R.S. and Schmidt J. Jr. 1969. The Egyptian Drill and the Origin of the Crank. Technology and Culture 10:155–165. Helms S.W. 1991. Other Finds. In A.V.G. Betts ed. Excavations at Jawa 1972–1986. Edinburgh. Pp. 154–167. Hovers E. 1996. The Groundstone Industry. In D.T. Ariel and A. De Groot eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978– 1985 IV. Jerusalem. Pp. 171–203. Kaplan J. 1969. ‘Ein el Jarba: Chalcolithic Remains in the Plain of Esdraelon. BASOR 194:2–39. Khalaily H. 2004. An Early Bronze Age Site at Ashqelon, Afridar—Area F. ‘Atiqot 45:121–159. Lee J.R. 1973. Chalcolithic Ghassul: New Aspects and Master Typology. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Levy T.E. and Holl A. 1987. Theory and Practice in Household Archaeology: A Case Study from the Chalcolithic Village at Shiqmim. In T.E. Levy ed. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (BAR Int. S. 356). Oxford. Pp. 373–410. Loud G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1936–39 (OIP 62). Chicago. Macdonald E. 1932. Beth Pelet II: Prehistoric Fara. London. Mallon A., Koeppel R. and Neuville R. 1934. Teleilat Ghassul I. Rome. Neuville R. 1934. Objets en silex. In A. Mallon, R. Koeppel and R. Neuville. Teleilat Ghassul I. Rome. Pp. 219–244. O’Tool N. 1991. Other Finds. In A.V.G. Betts ed. Excavations at Tell Um Hammad 1982–1984. Edinburgh. Pp. 132– 135.

250

YORKE M. ROWAN

Peet T.E. 1914. The Cemeteries of Abydos: 1911–1912. London. Perrot J. 1955. The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar near Beersheba. IEJ 5:17–40, 73–84, 167–189. Perrot J., Zori N. and Reich Y. 1967. Neve Ur, un nouvel aspect du Ghassoulien. IEJ 17:201–232. Petrie W.M.F. 1974. Prehistoric Egypt: Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery and Palettes. (Reprint of 1920–1921 original). Warminster. Philip G. and Williams-Thorpe O. 1993. A Provenience Study of Jordanian Basalt Vessels of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Periods. Paléorient 19:51–63. Porath J. 1974. A Fortress of the Persian Period. ‘Atiqot (HS) 7:43–55 (English summary, pp. 6*–7*). Prausnitz M.W. 1970. From Hunter to Farmer and Trader. Jerusalem. Raban A. 1983. Submerged Prehistoric Sites off the Mediterranean Coast of Israel. In P.M. Masters and N.C. Fleming eds. Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Toward the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves. New York. Pp. 215–232. Rosen S.A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age. Altamira. Roux V. 1985. Le materiel de broyage: étude ethnoarchéologique à Tichitt, Mauritanie (Memoire 58). Paris. Rowan Y.M. 1998. Ancient Distribution and Deposition of Prestige Objects: Basalt Vessels during Late Prehistory in the Southern Levant. Ph.D diss. The University of Texas. Austin. Rowan Y.M. 2003. The Groundstone Assemblage. In A. Golani. Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata (IAA Reports 18). Jerusalem. Pp. 183–202. Rowan Y.M. 2004. The Groundstone Assemblage from Ashqelon, Afridar—Area E. ‘Atiqot 45:90–96. Rowan Y.M. 2005. The Groundstone Assemblages. In E.C.M. van den Brink and R. Gophna. Shoham (North):

Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel (IAA Reports 27). Jerusalem. Pp. 113–139. Rowan Y.M. and Ebeling J. In press. The Potential of Ground Stone Studies. In Y.M. Rowan and J.R. Ebeling eds. New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts. London. Rowan Y.M., Levy T.E., Alon D. and Goren Y. 2006. Gilat’s Ground Stone Assemblage: Stone Fenestrated Stands, Bowls, Palettes, and Related Artifacts. In T.E. Levy ed. Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat. London. Pp. 575–684. Schaub R.T. and Rast W.E. 1989. Bab edh-Dhra. Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67) (Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan I). Winona Lake. Sebbane M. n.d. Groundstone Assemblage from Arad. Van der Merwe N.J. 1987. Comment on Hromnik’s Bored Stones. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 42:68– 69. Waldron S.R. 1987. Weighted Digging Sticks in Ethiopia. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 42:69–71. Weinstein-Evron M., Lang B., Ilani S., Steinitz G. and Kaufman G. 1995. K/Ar Dating as a Means of Sourcing Levantine Epipalaeolithic Basalt Implements. Archaeometry 37:37–40. Williams-Thorpe O. and Thorpe R.S. 1993. Geochemistry and Trade of Mediterranean Millstones from the Neolithic to Roman Periods. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 253–306. Wright K.I. 1992a. A Classification System for Groundstone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18:53–81. Wright K.I. 1992b. Groundstone Assemblage Variations and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22,000–5,500 B.P. Ph.D. diss. Yale University. New Haven. Wright K.I. 1993. Early Holocene Groundstone Assemblages in the Levant. Levant 25:93–111.

CHAPTER 7

THE SMALL FINDS: STONE, CLAY AND BONE OBJECTS

This chapter discusses the 82 miscellaneous stone, clay and bone objects found in Strata VI–II.1 These objects were either in secondary use or specifically crafted to perform a particular task. We do not know what their original functions were and can only assume that some served more than one purpose. According to O. Shamir, perforated clay, stone and basalt objects were used as weights suspended in weaving looms or for spinning wool (1996a; 1996b), and a number of researchers have attempted to reconstruct the use of these perforated items for spinning and weaving (Forbes 1956:152; Ryder 1983:747; Shamir 2004). In this chapter we have classified the perforated objects according to the accepted typological divisions based on material and shape (Dorrell 1983:534; Wright 1992:53–54; Orrelle 1993:84–85; Gilead 1995:335; Gopher and Orrelle 1995). However, in our opinion, though the separation of perforated clay discs into a

1

2

separate category from similar objects made of limestone and basalt may be valid for statistical purposes, it is not applicable to interdisciplinary research of material cultures. Such separation is uncalled for due to the likelihood that all pierced objects fulfilled the same purpose.

CLAY AND STONE OBJECTS Stratum VI: The Wadi Rabah Culture2 Objects were assigned to this period based on typological consideration. Biconical Stones (Fig. 7.1:1–4; Table 7.1) Twelve biconical stones made of heavy, dense limestone were found at ‘En Esur. The frequency of biconical stones in Stratum VI was greater than in other strata and we can therefore assume that they were widely

4

3

5 6

Fig. 7.1. Wadi Rabah Culture stone objects.

252

ELI YANNAI

Table 7.1. Biconical Stones, Wadi Rabah Culture No.

Locus

Basket No.

Area

General Site Stratum

Material

Diameter (mm)

Length (mm)

Weight (gm)

Fig. No.

1

5002

20006

E

IIA

Limestone

30

52

54.38

7.1:1

2

4013

10071

D

II

Limestone

32

47

64.30

7.1:2

3

6004

40008

F

-

Limestone

34

52

78.45

7.1:3

4

2158

71037

B

VB

Limestone

30

50

57.66

7.1:4

5

2193

71289

B

VA

Limestone

35

48

75.96

6

2177

71041

B

VI

Limestone

30

54

52.24

7

2210

71413

B

VB

Limestone

30

48

52.67

8

2177

71293

B

VI

Limestone

28

50

45.22

9

2084

70518

B

III

Limestone

27

51

45.73

10

2167

71229

B

VI

Limestone

30

53

61.78

11

2177

71293

B

VI

Limestone

28

53

42.32

12

2242

71530

B

II

Limestone

23

43

32.72

used in this stratum. We can further postulate that those found in later strata also originated in Stratum VI. It is difficult to determine their function based on shape, and various proposals have been suggested (Korfmann 1972:146–167; see also above, Chapter 6). Parallels have been found at sites where remains of the Wadi Rabah Culture were exposed: Hazorea‘ (Anati et al. 1973: Pl. 5), ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 14:9–12; Garfinkel and Matskevich 2002:161), Strata XVII–XVI at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 60:1) and the Wadi Rabah stratum at Teleilat Batashi (Kaplan 1958a: Fig. 9:30). An example was also found in a Pottery Neolithic stratum at Tel Te’o (Gopher and Eisenberg 2001: Fig. 9.2:7). Perforated Basalt Fragment (L5007, Basket No. 20038; Fig. 7.1:5) This object, found in Area E, is made of coarse, porous-textured basalt in secondary use. It is almost square in shape, measuring 4 × 3.7 × 13 mm. The hole is approximately 9 mm in diameter, bored from both sides with a tapered drill, and the object weighs 38.96 gm. Judging from its slightly convex shape, the fragment was originally part of a thin-walled basalt bowl, clearly Wadi Rabah in nature. The outer edges of the object were crudely worked and left irregular and undefined. Red Limestone Disk-Shaped Object (L1014, Basket No. 50084; Fig. 7.1:6) This object measures 45 mm in diameter, is 5 mm thick and weighs 22.37 gm. It is of very heavy and extremely

hard, dark pink limestone with dark red veins 2–3 mm wide. This simple industrial item was made with great care; considerable effort was invested both in selecting the type of stone and in the treatment of its surface so that the colors would stand out in contrast to each other. Similar stone objects were found in the Neolithic level of Nahal Qanah Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996: Fig. 3.14:11–13) and at ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 13:11, 15). Strata V–IV: The Chalcolithic Period Perforated objects of limestone, as well as biconical clay objects and sherds in secondary use (Schiffer 1987:99), were recovered mainly from Strata V–IV. As no differences were discerned between the finds from the various phases of Strata V and IV, they are here presented together. Perforated Stone Objects (Fig. 7.2; Table 7.2) One perforated stone object is made of dark brown stone, possibly limestone, that was subjected to extreme heat (Fig. 7.2:1). Another object, of soft white limestone (Fig. 7.2:2), is circular in shape and was bored in its center from both sides with a tapered drill. There are crude etchings on the object and its sides were roughly shaped. The third object was not worked by man (Fig. 7.2:3). It is of natural gray limestone, irregular in shape and the hole in its center is natural. Parallels were found in the Neolithic levels at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 60:9–10), in

253

CHAPTER 7: SMALL FINDS: STONE, CLAY AND BONE OBJECTS

3

2 1

Fig. 7.2. Chalcolithic-period perforated stone objects.

Table 7.2. Perforated Stone Objects No.

Locus

Basket No.

Area

General Site Stratum

1

2057

70468

B

IV

Limestone

40

4

41.04

7.2:1

2

2158

71052

B

VB

Limestone

34

-

23.64

7.2:2

3

2158

71072

B

VB

Limestone

-

-

40.00

7.2:3

Material

Diameter (mm)

Hole Diameter (mm)

Weight (gm)

Fig. No.

the Neolithic stratum at Hazorea‘ (Anati et al. 1973: Pl. 32:6), in the Pottery Neolithic strata at Tel Te’o (Eisenberg, Gopher and Greenberg 2001: Fig. 9.2:3, 5), at the Wadi Rabah site of Abu Zureiq (Garfinkel and Matskevich 2002: Fig. 17:5, 6) and in the Chalcolithic settlement at Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 8.1:1–3). Perforated, Disk-Shaped Objects Made from Reused Sherds (Fig. 7.3:1, 2; Table 7.3) Six disks were made of different types of fired sherds in secondary use. One disk was made from a fragment

2

1

3

of a cooking pot (No. 1), one from a DFBW sherd of the Wadi Rabah Culture (No. 2) and one was from a typical Wadi Rabah sherd with a dark brown matte slip (No. 3). Another item was crafted from a light pink sherd with what appears to be a light red slip. Judging from the fabric, this sherd originated in Stratum V (No. 4). Another disk was produced from a light orange/pink sherd of well-levigated clay (No. 5) and the final item (No. 6), from a light-colored sherd of well-levigated clay from Stratum VC.

4

Fig. 7.3. Chalcolithic-period perforated clay objects.

5

254

ELI YANNAI

Table 7.3. Disks Made From Reused Sherds No.

Locus

Basket No.

Area

General Site Stratum

Diameter (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Hole Diameter (mm)

Weight (gm)

1

2234

71471

B

VI

52

10

-

54.70

2

2229

70459

B

IV

37

6

10

15.72

7.3:2

3

2215

71395

B

V

50

7.5

9

29.29

7.3:1

4

2180

71399

B

VI

37

5

6

7.34

5

2170

71058

B

IV

45

9

-

20.64

6

2154

70961

B

VC

35

11

9

17.23

Fig. No.

Biconical Perforated Clay Objects (Fig. 7.3:3, 4; Table 7.4) The eight perforated clay objects can be divided into types according to their diameter and shape. Type 1 (No. 1): Biconical with a diameter of over 50 mm. This object is larger than the others. It is made of pink/light orange clay that contains chalk grits and is decorated with dark red-painted stripes covering the entire body. Type 2 (Nos. 2–6; Fig. 7.3:3, 5): Biconical with a diameter of 40 to 50 mm. These medium-sized objects are made of dark orange clay mixed with chalk grits. The clay is identical to that of the Stratum V pottery vessels. Type 3 (No. 7): Flattened biconical with a diameter of less than 40 mm. This small, oblate object is made of dark orange-gray clay. Type 4 (No. 8; Fig. 7.3:4): Irregular shape. In contrast to the objects made from reused sherds, these clay objects were designed for a specific purpose. During production, a lump of clay was plied around a dowel, later removed after the clay was leather hard. Following removal of the dowel, the craftsman slightly widened the ends of the hole, cleaned off the remaining bits of clay and smoothed the edges. Presumably this was done to facilitate the threading of a string or rope

The fired clay disks were probably made from sherds readily available in the area. The holes were drilled in the center from both sides by means of a tapered drill, creating a hole that narrows towards the center. The jagged outer edges were chipped down to the desired dimensions and afterwards the sherds were highly polished. Parallels to these objects were found in the Wadi Rabah levels at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 60:11–12), in the Wadi Rabah levels at Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 141:9–17), in the Neolithic level at Hazorea‘ (Anati et al. 1973: Pl. 32:7), in the Wadi Rabah levels at Nahal Zehora I (Orrelle 1993:84) and at Teleilat Batashi (Kaplan 1958a: Fig. 9:32) and at the Chalcolithic site of Grar (Gilead 1995: Figs. 8.2:12, 13; 8.4:3, 6). Most scholars believe that fired-clay disks were spindle whorls used for spinning wool (Kenyon and Holland 1983:623; Garfinkel 1992b:212; Shamir 1996a, 1996b). Shamir’s typology, resulting from her own spinning experiments, is based on their shape and the material from which they were made (Shamir 2004). Schmandt-Besserat (1982), on the other hand, suggests the disks were used as a means of payment in antiquity or for financial computations.

Table 7.4. Perforated Clay Objects Area

General Site Stratum

Hole Diameter (mm)

Weight (gm)

47

4

168.47

43

4

94.74

38

3

95.71

28

4

54.48

43

34

3

67.00

7.3:3

45

33

3

50.59

7.3:5

3

38

24

3

4

49 × 45

11

4

30.90

7.3:4

Type

Diameter (mm)

No.

Locus

Basket No.

1

2045

71114

B

IV

1

57

2

2045

70251

B

IV

2

47

3

2045

70271/1

B

IV

2

47

4

2171

71143

B

VA

2

46

5

2045

70291

B

IV

2

6

2264

71647

B

VA

2

7

2159

70972

B

VB–C

8

2218

71338

B

VC

Height (mm)

Fig. No.

255

CHAPTER 7: SMALL FINDS: STONE, CLAY AND BONE OBJECTS

through the object. There is no essential difference in the shape, size or weight of the objects in the three groups. Types 2 and 3 are smaller and round— somewhat oblate—whereas the larger item (Type 1) is more biconical in shape. It is reasonable to assume that the design of the objects was intentional and that the smaller object was less biconical due to production difficulties resulting from its tiny dimensions. Parallels were found in the Pottery Neolithic level in Nahal Qanah Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996: Fig. 3,14:15), in the Pottery Neolithic strata at Tel Te’o (Gopher and Eisenberg 2001: Fig. 9.2:1, 2), in the Wadi Rabah levels at Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b: Fig. 141:23, 24) and ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969b: Fig. 14:1, 5), in the Wadi Rabah and Chalcolithic levels at Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming: Fig. 60:5), and in the Chalcolithic settlements at Tel Turmus (Dayan 1969: Fig. 9:2–5, 7), Neve Ur (Perrot, Zori and Reich 1967: Figs. 15:4; 16:9, 19), Abu Hamid (Dollfus and Kafafi 1988: Fig. 21), Mezer (Dothan 1957: Pl. 37A; 1959b: Fig. 5:18), Teleilat Ghassul (Mallon, Koeppel and Neville 1934:71; Pl. 3; Hennessy 1969: Pl. 11:11, 12, 15; Lee 1973:277; LB 52; Bourke et al. 1995: Fig. 7:4), in the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley (Dothan 1959a: Fig. 10:43–45; Perrot 1979: Pl. 88), at Shiqmim (Levy and Alon 1987a: Figs. 6.11:4; 6.12:8–9; Levy and Holl 1987: Fig. 15.17:2, 3) and Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 8.4:5, 7, 9). Biconical perforated items were also found in the Chalcolithic settlement at Byblos (Dunand 1973: Pl. CLXI:25261, 24926, 26185) and in Stratum IIIB at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) (de Contenson 1970: Fig. 22:30107). It is reasonable to assume that their range of distribution encompassed the entire Syrian coast. Green Granite Fragment (L2143, Basket No. 70879/ 50; Fig. 7.4:1) This is a triangular fragment from the corner of a greencolored granite slab, 14 mm thick, with white and dark green veins. The original shape of the slab is unknown; however, judging from the shape of the fragment, it was probably part of a rhomboid or trapezoidal-shaped palette or part of a figurine. This item was discovered in the balk, L2143, on floor level at the front of the Chalcolithic building in Stratum IV. Limestone Macehead (L4013, Basket No. 10071/170; Fig. 7.4:2) This object is made of very hard limestone, measuring 100 mm in height and 65 mm in diameter; it weighs

550 gm. The diameter of the hole is 9 mm. It was located in L2013 in Stratum IV. Similar maceheads have been found in many Chalcolithic assemblages.

1

2

Fig. 7.4. Chalcolithic-period stone objects.

Stratum III: The Early Phase of Early Bronze Age I The use of perforated limestone objects, biconical clay objects and reused sherds continued in Stratum III, together with the widespread appearance of perforated basalt objects. Ring-Shaped Basalt and Limestone Objects (Fig. 7.5:1; Table 7.5) The basalt objects from Stratum III were produced from two kinds of stone. Object No. 1 is made of finetextured basalt, while No. 2 is of hard basalt, also with a fine texture. Object No. 3 (Fig. 7.5:1) is a round object crafted from dense, heavy limestone. The hole was bored by means of a tapered drill from both sides of the object. Both the sides and edges were ground smooth and great care was taken in finishing the surfaces of the object. The stone objects were produced by grinding the blanks in a circular motion, thereby polishing smooth the surface of the object and eliminating the need to treat and shape its exterior as was necessary with the clay objects. They were perforated by means of a drill that was much wider than that used to perforate the clay objects and reused sherds, as a much stronger and more durable tool was needed for stone. Judging from the parallels presented by Shamir (1996b), ring-shaped basalt objects are commonly found throughout the distribution range of the Jezreel Valley ceramic assemblage (Megiddo—Loud 1948:

256

ELI YANNAI

2

1

3 4

Fig. 7.5. Early EB I stone and clay objects.

Table 7.5. Ring-Shaped Stone Objects No.

Locus

Basket No.

Area

General Site Stratum

Material

Diameter (mm)

Height (mm)

Hole Diameter (mm)

Weight (gm)

1

2018

70146

B

III

Basalt

45

22

11

64.88

2

2203

71247

B

III

Basalt

43

20

14

64.24

3

2084

70782

B

III

Limestone

41

12

6

32.72

Pl. 171:2, 4, 7, 8; ‘Afula—Sukenik 1948: Pl. 13:13–16; ‘En Shadud—Braun 1985: Fig. 37:1; Me’ona—Braun 1996: Fig. 13 and ‘Ai—Callaway 1980: Fig. 94), as well as in the northern Jordan Valley (Philip and Baird 1993: Fig. 12:15) and areas further afield, indicating their distribution was not restricted to any defined region. It is also evident, based on the parallels, that their chronological distribution stretches over most of the Early Bronze Age, as they have been recovered from clear contexts of the early EB I (Yiftah’el—Braun 1997: Fig. 12.2:2), late EB I (Megiddo, ‘En Shadud), EB II (Arad and ‘Ai) and even EB III (Yarmut—de Miroschedji 1988: Pl. 49:7). Perforated basalt objects are rare at Chalcolithic sites. A single item was published by Gophna from the Chalcolithic coastal site of Shefayim (Gophna 1992:198, Fig. 4:5). Their limited distribution in the Chalcolithic period is surprising compared to the wide distribution of perforated basalt objects at Early Bronze Age sites and in light of the fact that the Chalcolithic cultures of Israel are rich in other basalt finds. The comparative data indicate: (1) the ring-shaped basalt objects came into use at the end of the Chalcolithic period; (2) their widest distribution occurred in the early EB I; (3) they are one of a number of technological innovations introduced in that period. Perforated Disk-Shaped Objects Made from Reused Sherds (Table 7.6:1–3; not illustrated) Two of these three objects were recycled from fragments of coarse-ware jars and are irregular in shape. Their

Fig. No.

7.5:1

surfaces were crudely worked without smoothing or filing. The hole was drilled from both sides, although not in the center of the object. These objects appear to have been carelessly made, as though the craftsman did not assign any importance to the shape, finish or exact location of the perforation. The third fragment is 140 mm in diameter and was originally a sherd from a cooking pot. Its dimensions are considerably larger than those of the other diskshaped objects. The edges of this fragment were carefully smoothed and ground, similar to objects from the Chalcolithic levels. Rounded Perforated Clay Objects (Fig. 7.5:2, 3; Table 7.6:4–12) The perforated clay objects from Stratum III resemble those from Strata V–IV, although they are less biconical and more rounded (spherical and oblate) and their dimensions are smaller than those of Strata V–IV. The type numbers continue the typology of perforated clay objects from Strata V–IV. Type 5 (Nos. 4, 5; Fig. 7.5:2): Spherical, 40–50 mm in diameter. Type 6 (Nos. 6–9; Fig. 7.5:3): Biconical, or oblate and circular diameter less than 40 mm. Type 7: (Nos. 10, 11): Spherical, diameter less than 40 mm. Type 8: (No. 12): Oblate and circular, diameter 40–50 mm.

257

CHAPTER 7: SMALL FINDS: STONE, CLAY AND BONE OBJECTS

Table 7.6. Perforated Clay Objects No.

Locus

Basket No.

Area

General Site Stratum

Type

Diameter (mm)

Height (mm)

Hole Diameter (mm)

Weight (gm)

1

2031

70183a

B

III

Disk

49 × 45

-

-

-

2

2294

71826

B

III

Disk

49 × 45

-

3

2031

70183b

B

III

Disk

4

2077

70460

B

III–II

5

2144

70925

B

6

2040

70419

B

7

2049

70327

8

2048

70271

9

2279

10 11 12

-

-

140

-

-

-

5

40

33

3

63.80

III

5

47

44

4

101.03

IV–III

6

38

31

4

45.70

B

III

6

33

22

3

26.27

B

III

6

38

26

3

36.18

71711

B

IV–III

6

37

30

3

41.15

2077

70460

B

III–II

7

37

32

4

47.69

2077

70460

B

III–II

7

37

41

4

66.22

2077

70441

B

III–II

8

42

30

4

59.92

Incised Stone (L2148, Basket No. 70871/150; Fig. 7.5:4) This object is made of soft, dark gray limestone. The unusual color may be the result of the stone having been burnt. It measures 45 mm in length and 110 mm in diameter and weighs 6.85 gm. Two incised circles circumscribe the center of the object. The nature and function of the object are unclear. It is possible it served as a weight that was tied from the outside rather than via the usual hole.

7.5:2 7.5:3

Perforated Disk-Shaped Objects Made from Reused Sherds (Fig. 7.6:4; Table 7.8) Four reshaped, fired-clay objects were found in Stratum II. Object No. 1 is a fragment of a jagged-edged, perforated sherd. Apparently no attempt was made to trim it down to a regular shape. Object No. 3 (Fig. 7.6:4) was made from a fragment of a cooking pot. The edges of the object were well worked, smoothed and polished and it was apparently crafted with great care and attention. Partially-Perforated Reused Sherds The holes of the four examples were drilled from both sides to a depth of 2 to 3 mm, without completely perforating the object. In some cases, the two holes do not line up. Judging from the location of the holes, there was no intention of penetrating the sherds, which are 10 mm thick or more and were made from coarse clay containing numerous grits. The circumference

Stratum II: The Late Phase of Early Bronze Age I Perforated Basalt Objects (Fig. 7.6:1–3; Table 7.7) Stratum II yielded four basalt objects, all made of finetextured basalt without holes or air bubbles. Three types of objects were defined according to the shape of the sections: Type 1 (Fig. 7.6:1, 2): Oval section. Type 2 (Fig. 7.6:3): Round section. Type 3: Elongated oval section.

1

2

Fig. No.

3 4

Fig. 7.6. Late EB I perforated stone and clay objects.

258

ELI YANNAI

Table 7.7. Perforated Basalt Objects No.

Locus

Basket No.

Area

General Site Stratum

Type

Diameter (mm)

Height (mm)

Hole Diameter (mm)

Weight (gm)

Fig. No.

1

4006

10093

D

II

1

43

26

14

65.84

7.6:1

2

4000

10067/1

D

II

1

43

26

12

59.36

7.6:2

3

2009

70181

B

II

2

43

21

11

30.72

7.6:3

4

4000

10067

D

II

3

42

21

12

51.17

Table 7.8. Perforated Reused Sherds No.

Locus

Basket No.

Area

General Site Stratum

Diameter (mm)

1

2086

70540

B

II

-

-

2

2073

70395

B

II

34

22

3

2265

71631

B

II

65

-

4

4010

10072

D

II

38

28

of each object is crudely worked and no attempt was made to provide them with an aesthetically pleasing appearance. It may be that the manufacturing process was incomplete (Schiffer 1987:99; see also Garfinkel 1992b:212; Gopher, Sadeh and Goren 1992:9), or the sherds may have been designed to function as an upper support for the top of the drill shaft, thus explaining both the location of the holes and the fact that many of the holes do not line up with their counterparts on the other side. The only parallels to these objects are from the Chalcolithic site of Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 8.4:2, 4).

Thickness (mm)

Weight (gm)

Hole Diameter (mm)

26.76

-

41.17 -

Fig. No.

3 5

7.6:4

4

Strata VI–II: Unperforated, Disk-Shaped Reused Sherds (Fig. 7.7; Table 7.9) Sherds formed into circular shapes were found in all the strata. They were made from fragments of both open vessels (bowls and kraters), as well as closed ones (primarily jars). Parallels to the fired clay disks have been found at all sites and in all levels, from the Wadi Rabah culture to the end of EB I. It may be that these items were used as lids or covers for storage vessels. It is also possible that they served as a means of payment (SchmandtBesserat 1982) or that the clay disks were originally intended for drilling and the work was never begun.

1 2

Fig. 7.7. Miscellaneous clay discs.

259

CHAPTER 7: SMALL FINDS: STONE, CLAY AND BONE OBJECTS

Table 7.9. Unperforated Disk-Shaped Sherds, Strata VI–II No.

Locus

Basket No.

Area

General Site Stratum

1

2177

71054

B

VI

2

2179

71182

B

3

2076

70587

B

4

2047

70280

5

2053

70351

Diameter (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Source of Sherd

Fig.

71

13.0

Jar

7.7:1

VI

48

0.7

Amphoriskos

IVA

105

0.2

Pithos

B

III

105

0.8

Gray base

B

II–I

89

12.0

BONE TOOLS (Fig. 7.8; Table 7.10)

Table 7.10. Bone Tools, Strata V–IV

The bones used to produce the tools at ‘En Esur cannot be definitely identified although they are thin and appear to belong to sheep or goat. As none of the tools is complete and only the pointed ends are preserved, their original shapes must be reconstructed from parallels. Among the bone objects, two are triangular with an obtuse angle (Fig. 7.8:1, 2); the third is pointed like a needle (Fig. 7.8:3). Although the only bone tools were found in Area B, Strata V–IV, parallels can be found in the Neolithic levels at Yiftah’el (Garfinkel and Horwitz 1988:75– 77; Braun 1997: Fig. 20.2:1–4) and Teleilat Batashi (Kaplan 1958a: Fig. 9:14–18), at the Chalcolithic sites of Tel Turmus (Dayan 1969: Fig. 9:16–17), Abu Hamid (Dollfus et al. 1988:595) and Teleilat Ghassul (Mallon, Koeppel and Neuville 1934: Figs. 30:1, 2, 4–6, 10–15; 31:1, 2, 4, 8–10; North 1961: Pl. X: B8231, B8372; Hennessy 1969: Fig. 11:1–3, 7–9; Bourke et al. 1995: Fig. 7:14), at many Chalcolithic sites in the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley (Dothan 1959a: Figs. 11:21; 18:41, 42, 45, 46; Perrot 1979: Pl. 74; Levy and Alon 1987a: Fig.

1

2 3

Fig. 7.8. Bone tools.

7.7:2

Jar

No.

Locus

Basket No.

Area

General Site Stratum

Fig.

1

2154

70966

B

VC

7.8:1

2

2087

70576

B

VA

7.8:2

3

2045

70271

B

IV

7.8:3

6.11:7; Levy and Holl 1987: Figs. 15, 18) and at Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 8.5). They were also found in EB II levels at Arad (Amiran et al. 1978: Pl. 75). Bone tools are also known north of Israel at Ras Shamra (Ugarit), in Strata IIIB–C from the Chalcolithic period (de Contenson 1970: Fig. 30).

MISCELLANEOUS FINDS FROM STRATIGRAPHIC CONTEXTS

UNDEFINED

Clay Ram’s Head (L1023 Basket No. 50145/150; Fig. 7.9). The head of a zoomorphic figurine measuring 6 cm in length and 3 cm in diameter was uncovered in Area A. The fabric, orange with tiny basalt, orange and white inclusions, resembles that of the Wadi Rabah pottery vessels. Two holes were pierced in the front of the face for nostrils and there is an open mouth below them. There are no traces of eyes. On the back of the head can be seen one complete ear and the remains of protruding horns. The neck is wide, attached to the middle and back of the head. The entire ram’s head was painted with dark red stripes. The only parallel to this figurine head is from a Chalcolithic-period temple at Gilat (Levy and Alon 1989). Clay Animal Figurine (L1023, Basket 50145; Fig. 7.10). This figurine of an animal was found alongside the road in Stratum II, L3006 (Area C). It is 3 cm in length and 1 cm in diameter, made of dark gray clay and covered with a light gray patina. There are no signs of paint

260

ELI YANNAI

Fig. 7.9. Miscellaneous find.

on it. Two tapered legs are affixed to the back of the figurine with a short tail just above them. At the front of the figurine are two legs with a short neck above them. The upper part of the head is broken and only a small portion of a face remains. Black figurines similar to this are known from a number of sites. At Munhata several complete figurines and fragments date to the Wadi Rabah culture, while others were recovered from unclear stratigraphic contexts (Garfinkel 1995: Figs. 38, 39, 40). However, the shape of the Munhata figurines differs from that of the example from ‘En Esur.

Foot of a Clay Figurine (L1018, Basket No. 50093/150; Fig. 7.11). The foot, from L1018 in Area A, is made of well-levigated clay with no inclusions. It is 5.3 cm long with a maximum width of 4.0 cm. Judging from the fabric, this fragment dates to the Early Bronze Age. As finds recovered in Area A date to the Wadi Rabah culture and the late EB I, it is reasonable to assume that this figurine fragment dates from the late phase of EB I.

CHAPTER 7: SMALL FINDS: STONE, CLAY AND BONE OBJECTS

Fig. 7.10. Miscellaneous find.

Fig. 7.11. Miscellaneous find.

261

262

ELI YANNAI

Fig. 7.12. Miscellaneous find.

Black Granite Weight (L2217, Basket No. 71391; Fig. 7.12) The weight is made of black granite with white veins, 15 mm high and weighing 17.64 gm. The upper diameter is 28 mm, the lower diameter, 25 mm. The top

of the weight is convex, and the bottom is flat. It was carefully smoothed. As there are no signs of incisions or abrasions, we assume it was a weight rather than a grinding stone.

NOTES 1

Although certain categories of stone artifacts are also discussed by Rowan (above, Chapter 6), they are reconsidered here as integral elements of the various assemblages.

2

This discussion includes objects that can be attributed to the Wadi Rabah Culture based on typological and morphological considerations.

CHAPTER 8

THE METAL ADZE SARIEL SHALEV*

A metal blade was found on the floor of Building 2010 (Area B, L2045, Basket No. 70261; General Site Stratum IV), along with six similar flint axes/adzes. It was submitted by the excavators for archaeological, metallurgical and metallographic analysis to the archaeometallurgical laboratory at the Center for Archaeological Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science.

TYPOLOGY The blade is flat and relatively thick (Fig. 8.1a). It weighs 284 gm and measures 95.5 mm in length, 31.4 mm in width at its cutting edge, and 18 mm in maximum thickness at the center of its edge. Its section is lens shaped and it has a thick, flat butt and a crescentic blade that protrudes only slightly beyond the body. The adze from ‘En Esur is part of a group of more than 36 Chalcolithic metal cutting implements comprising flat axes, adzes and chisels (Shalev 1994:633; 1995:113, 114) from villages in the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley (four from Bir es-Safadi, two from Neve Noy, five from Shiqmim), from the caves of the Judean Desert (fourteen in the hoard from Nahal Mishmar; six from Nahal Makkuck; one from Nahal Ze’elim), and other sites from the western and eastern edges of southern Israel and Jordan (one from Nahal Lakhish; three from Teleilat Ghassul). To these finds we can now add several more from the Chalcolithic village at Giv‘at Ha-Oranim (Namdar et al. 2004:70–71) and the burial cave at Peqi‘in (Z. Gal, pers. comm.). The object from ‘En Esur fits well within the typological shape and dimensions of the Chalcolithic blades, which range from 69 to 329 mm in length, 13 to 45 mm in width at the cutting edge, 3 to 23 mm in maximum thickness and 80 to 807 gm in weight. From these measurements it is clear that the major variable * The Department of Maritime Civilizations, University of Haifa and Kimel Center for Archaeological Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot

Fig 8.1. The adze from ‘En Esur (L2045, Basket No. 70261): (a) view form top; (b) isometric view.

is the thickness (ratio 1:7.6), whose ratio is higher than those of the length (1:4.8) and the width (1:3.5). These variables, especially the thickness, affect the range in weight (ratio 1:10.1).

ANALYSIS The metal blade from ‘En Esur was analyzed by the author in the archaeometallurgical lab at the Weizmann Institute of Science. The macro analyses were conducted using an Olympus ZS40 zoom stereoscope. Metallography of a polished sample of the object was examined, unetched and etched, by an Olympus PME3 inverted metallurgical microscope, under incident and polarized light, with magnification of up to X1000. Micro hardness tests, measuring the resistance of the metal sample to indentation, were conducted on a Shimadzu HMV-2000 with a Vickers diamond-shaped indenter. The qualitative and quantitative chemical

264

SARIEL SHALEV

analyses were performed by detecting the spectra and the intensity of the emitted X-ray photons during excitation of the sample surface with a high energy electron beam. The elemental analyses were conducted, with the help of E. Klein, on a JEOL 6400 scanning electron microscope, using an energy dispersive spectrometer, ISIS 300. For the metallographic and elemental analyses and for the micro hardness testing, a minute chip was cut with a jeweler’s piercing saw, from the edge of the blade (Fig. 8.1b). The sample was hot mounted in a phenolic resin with carbon filler, and then ground and polished for analysis.

R ESULTS The macro surface analyses under a zoom stereoscope present significant evidence for the tool’s production and use: all surfaces show signs of forging. The crescentic blade was shaped, thinned and sharpened by hammering, as is evident by the small folded rims of excess material on both edges of the blade. One face of the object is perfectly preserved, showing very thin longitudinal cracks probably created by surface stress and tension during use. The other face shows a ‘stain’ of corrosion that starts c. 20 mm from the butt, continues for 65 mm and ends c. 10 mm from the cutting edge. The corrosion continues, on a slightly smaller scale, on the right edge. This ‘stain’ of corrosion could well be the result of contact with decomposing organic material such as wood. Small, wavy, cuplike depressions are observed on the rim edges of the straight face. These edge depressions are visible for less than 20 mm, starting c. 5 mm from the butt, on the edges of the intact face and c. 30 mm from the butt on the edges of the corroded face. These marks could well be the result of string or wire friction. The back edge, between the corroded face and the butt, shows some uneven squeezing marks as if it were pressured by an angled wooden handle. The compilation of the results of the macro analyses indicates with certainty that this metal object was hammered after being cast, especially in the area of its cutting edge. The object was probably used as an adze, with the cutting edge horizontal and at a straight angle to the wooden handle. The handle itself was probably carved in the shape of the letter Z without its bottom line. The metal blade was attached to the inner side of the upper angle with strings. A wooden handle of this shape with leather straps still attached to it, but without the blade, was found in a Chalcolithic

stratum in a cave in Nahal Murabba‘at, in the Judean Desert (de Vaux 1961: Fig. 4). There are no signs of significant wear on the cutting edge, due to its short term of utilization and/or use on soft materials with low resistance, such as wood. In a use-wear experiment, pine and olive wood were carved with this tool. The results indicate that it is very easy to use this tool for peeling and carving wood. The macro analyses of the cutting edge before and after use showed no signs of deformation or wear. The elemental analyses revealed that this Chalcolithic tool was made from unalloyed copper with impurities of less than 0.5Wt%, below the detection limit of the EDS system. These results are in accordance with the analyses of dozens of Chalcolithic blades (see, for example, Key 1980; Notis et al. 1984; Hauptmann 1989; Shalev 1991). According to the results of the analyses of eighteen additional Chalcolithic blades performed by the author, all are made of unalloyed copper, identical in composition to the copper piercing points and totally different from the high alloyed coppers with antimony and arsenic of the prestige/cult objects of the same period. Of the eighteen analyzed blades, five had more than 0.1% arsenic (As) and five others more than 0.1% nickel (Ni) with the arsenic. Concentrations of impurities do not exceed 0.5%. The same pattern of impurity distribution and concentration was detected in the copper points. These unalloyed copper blades and points, including the one from ‘En Esur, were produced in the Chalcolithic villages along the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley, and then distributed further north to other Chalcolithic sites (Shalev 1991; 1994; 1995). To produce these tools, high grade copper minerals were brought to the northern Negev from Feinan, the nearest copper-bearing ore deposits, where the mineral copper would have been collected and sorted (Shalev 1991). Several kilograms of ore, mainly cuprite, have been found at settlement sites in the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley. The pieces of ore are relatively small and do not usually exceed 10 mm in length and 50 gm in weight. They were found alongside grinding and firing installations (Perrot 1955:79; Shalev and Northover 1987:362) within the habitation remains of the villages. Slag and crucible remains were associated with the ore at these sites and the copper prills in the slags were identical in composition to the copper tools from the same sites. The metallographic analyses (Figs. 8.2–8.5) show an original structure of large copper grains of c. 0.15 mm (= 150 microns); the borders between the original as-

CHAPTER 8: THE METAL ADZE

Fig 8.2. Metallography of the adze from ‘En Esur x50 (for 36 mil frame), etched.

Fig 8.3. Metallography of the adze from ‘En Esur x200 (for 36 mil frame), unetched.

Fig 8.4. Metallography of the adze from ‘En Esur, close to edge, x200 (for 36 mil frame), etched.

Fig 8.5. Metallography of the adze from ‘En Esur, inside the blade, x200 (for 36 mil frame), etched.

cast grains are marked by rows of small inclusions, mainly copper oxides. From the original cast structure we can conclude that the blade from ‘En Esur was cooled relatively slowly and therefore was probably cast in a clay or sand mold. The presence of copper oxides (Fig. 8.2) indicates the absorption of oxygen

265

during the production process. The distribution pattern of the oxides reflects oxygen absorption by the molten copper during the pouring process (splashes in Fig. 8.3) and during solidification (in the grain boundaries as well, Fig. 8.2). Therefore, we can conclude that the copper for the ‘En Esur blade was poured into an open

266

SARIEL SHALEV

clay or sand mold, probably in one of the Be’er Sheva‘ villages, where it was smelted from ore that was brought to the site from Feinan. The sample, taken from the side of the cutting edge, reveals, after being etched, a typical wavy structure (Fig. 8.2) of heavy hammering of the cast in the cutting edge area. This cycle of cold working, annealing and final cold working becomes clearer with higher magnification near the edge (Fig. 8.4) and further into the solid metal of the blade (Fig. 8.5). The equiaxed grains are totally bent and distorted, reaching the size of 100 × 10 microns, with a ratio of 1:10. The twinning preserved the annealing stages of c. 500o C for several minutes each time, and the slip traces are evidence of the final cold working of the blade. An identical metallographic picture was found in the microstructure of six other Chalcolithic blades from Nahal Makkuck and Nahal Ze’elim, analyzed by the author. All these blades were at least partially recrystallized. Parts in the middle of the blade, between the surface and the edge, were left annealed with undeformed equiaxed grains and twinning with no signs of final cold working. Other parts of the butt and the cutting edge show a significant deformation of the grains and slip traces. A total reduction of 40% in the butt area and of more than 50% in the cutting edge

zone were measured in samples from different areas of similar objects. The micro hardness that was measured on the cutting edge of the blade from ‘En Esur is 131Hv. By comparing these measurements to other samples from different areas of other Chalcolithic blades we can see that the cutting edge was purposely made to be the hardest part of the object. The other hard area was the butt (115Hv), while the main body of the blade, even very close to the surface, was left relatively soft, giving hardness measurements of 89Hv to 84Hv. Even this relatively soft area is about twice the hardness of as-cast copper (Shalev 1996). The faces and the edges were hammered and left annealed and twice as hard as cast copper, while the working areas, especially the cutting edge, were hammered to achieve a tool that was as hard and resistant as possible in its working areas and softer but still hard enough in all other external parts. The Chalcolithic metalsmiths knew well the properties of their copper and how to achieve the utmost by selective forging of their unalloyed metal. It would take at least another millennium in the history of human technology in this region, until the hardness of metal objects would be improved by alloying the copper first with arsenic— reaching 204Hv, and later with tin—reaching 250Hv, in the cutting edge zone.

R EFERENCES Hauptmann A. 1989. The Earliest Period of Copper Metallurgy in Feinan/Jordan. In A. Hauptmann, E. Pernicka and G.A. Wagner eds. Old World Archaeometallurgy. Bochum. Pp. 119–135. Key C.A. 1980. The Trace-Element Composition of the Copper and Copper Alloys of the Nahal Mishmar Hoard. In P. Bar Adon. The Cave of the Treasure. Jerusalem. Pp. 238–243. Namdar D., Segal I., Goren Y. and Shalev S. 2004. Chalcolithic Copper Artifacts. In N. Scheftelowitz and R. Oren. Giv‘at Ha-Oranim: A Chalcolithic Site (Salvage Excavation Reports 1). Tel Aviv. Pp. 70–83. Notis M.R., Moyer H., Barnisin M.A. and Clemens D. 1984. Microprobe Analysis of Early Copper Artifacts from the Northern Sinai and the Judean Caves. In A.D. Romig Jr. and J.I. Goldstein eds. Microbeam Analysis—1984. San Francisco. Pp. 240–242. Perrot J. 1955. The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheba. IEJ 5:17–41, 73–84, 167–189. Shalev S. 1991. Two Different Copper Industries in the Chalcolithic Culture of Israel. In J-P. Mohen and C. Eluere eds. Découverte du metal. Paris. Pp. 413–424.

Shalev S. 1994. The Change in Metal Production from the Chalcolithic Period to the Early Bronze Age in Israel and Jordan. Antiquity 68:630–637. Shalev S. 1995. Metals in Ancient Israel: Archaeological Interpretation of Chemical Analysis. Israel Journal of Chemistry 35:109–116. Shalev S. 1996. Archaeometallurgy in Israel: The Impact of the Material on the Choice of Shape, Size and Color of Ancient Products. In S. Demirci, A.M. Ozer and G.D. Summers eds. Archaeometry 94 (The Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Archaeometry). Ankara. Pp. 11–15. Shalev S. and Northover J.P. 1987. Chalcolithic Metal and Metalworking from Shiqmim. In T.E. Levy ed. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (BAR Int. S. 365). Oxford. Pp. 351– 371. de Vaux R. 1961. Archaeologie. In P. Benoit, J.T. Milic and R. de Vaux. Discoveries in the Judean Desert II: les grottes de Murabba´at. Oxford. Pp. 3–51.

CHAPTER 9

PALYNOLOGY AT ‘EN ESUR: THE ADVANCE OF MARSHES AS A POSSIBLE CAUSE FOR SETTLEMENT DESERTION AHARON HOROWITZ* The aim of the present pollen analysis was to reconstruct the natural environment in the vicinity of ‘En Esur throughout the various periods and to determine whether these conditions could have affected the settlement and desertion processes at the site. Eight samples were collected in Area B, as follows: Sample 1 (Sq S52, L2009). Surface of Stratum I beneath the plowed soil, contains Roman–Byzantine sherds. Probably mixed, but possibly represents Late EB I. Sample 2 (Sq S54, L2084). Between Strata I and II, quite similar to Sample 1. Sample 3 (Sq S54, L2073). Stratum II, predating Sample 2 but very close in age (Late EB I). Sample 4 (Sq S50, L2048). Stratum III (Early EB I). Sample 5 (Sq S52, L2045). Strata VA–IV (Chalcolithic). Sample 6 (Sq S53, L2215). Stratum VA (Chalcolithic). Sample 7 (Sq T51, L2218). Stratum VC (Early Chalcolithic). Sample 8 (Sq T50, L2188). Stratum VC and slightly below (Early Chalcolithic–Wadi Rabah). Pollen preservation was medium to quite poor, and most samples contained some organic material,

in addition to pollen. The samples were prepared for analysis in the usual way (Horowitz 1992: Chap. 5). A minimum of 50 grains was counted in each sample, detailed in Table 9.1. This restriction, due to the quality of the samples, hinders exact reconstruction of the vegetation, but by grouping environmental indicators some idea of the natural conditions could be achieved. For this purpose the pollen spectra have been subdivided into two groups: grains originating from non-arboreal vegetation growing close to the site and those representing the regional flora. Naturally some overlapping exists between the two groups; thus, conclusions are suggested only when the differences seem significant. A detailed discussion of this method is given elsewhere (Horowitz 1992:279–289). Pollen grains of the regional vegetation were divided by their arboreal and non-arboreal producers. In the Near East, a higher percentage of arboreal pollen, relative to present-day values, usually denotes an increase in the amounts of rainfall. The relative frequencies of arboreal pollen in the regional spectra appear in Table 9.2.

Table 9.1. Counts of Pollen Grains Taxon

‘En Esur Sample No. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Quercus calliprinos

1

1

3

-

-

-

-

-

Pistacia spp.

-

1

1

-

-

1

-

-

Pinus spp.

3

3

1

1

4

4

2

1

Undetermined triporate pollen

-

-

-

-

-

2

Chenopodiaceae

-

-

3

3

8

10

10

13

17

24

31

31

28

26

25

22

25

22

Typha spp.

2

2

3

2

1

-

-

-

Compositae

8

6

5

9

7

3

2

1

Artemisia spp.

2

3

1

2

2

5

3

4

Gramineae and Cyperaceae

Malvaceae Total counted * Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

-

-

-

-

1

-

1

-

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

52

268

AHARON HOROWITZ

The local vegetation pollen are also divided into two groups: ruderal vegetation, intimately associated with human sites, such as Chenopodiaceae; and hydrophil plants, denoting the existence of marshes, such as Gramineae (except for cultivated ones), Cyperaceae, Rubus (raspberry) and others. Their relative frequency in the local vegetation is presented in Table 9.2. A number of points can be deduced from Table 9.2. The relatively low arboreal pollen values at the base of the sequence (Samples 7 and 8) are typical for the entire country during the fifth and fourth millennia BCE (Horowitz 1992:418). Similarly characteristic are the high arboreal shares of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age (Samples 6, 5 and 3). No explanation is being offered for the low amount of tree pollen in Sample 4—it may represent a hitherto-unknown short dry spell, or a change in the local vegetation such as an increase of Compositae (such as Inula encircling marshes?), which were calculated as part of the regional vegetation. A slight decrease of arboreal pollen towards the top of the sequence is a trend seen in other analyzed sequences from this time span, a tendency continuing to the present day. At any rate, the desert boundary never came as far north as ‘En Esur during the periods in which it was inhabited, so that regional, large-scale environmental conditions had no effect on settlement there. It is thus more appropriate to refer to the local conditions, expressed in the relations between the ruderal and

marsh vegetations. The early samples (8, 7 and 6) are quite rich in ruderals, indicating intensive settlement; Samples 5, 4 and 3 show median values for ruderals and an increasing marsh influence, suggesting enlargement of the marsh areas and decline in settlement. Finally, the uppermost samples, 2 and 1, present low values of ruderal plants, together with a very high occurrence of pollen produced by hydrophil plants. The extensive marshes thus seem to be the main reason for the desertion of the site at ‘En Esur. It is impossible to relate the expansion of the marshes to any regional factors, since such are not represented in other analyzed sequences spanning the same periods in Israel. It is more plausible to connect the development of marshes in Nahal ‘Iron with the development of dunes in the coastal plain of Israel. The ‘Hadera Dunes’ (Horowitz 1979:343) commenced their expansion at approximately the beginning of the third millennium BCE, covering large areas in the region and blocking the outlet of Nahal ‘Iron and other streams to the sea. This created marshes in the blocked streams, covering soils that could have previously been used for agriculture. Subsequently, marshes brought the spread of diseases carried by parasites, such as malaria and bilharzia. The widespread marshes thus caused desertion of ‘En Esur at the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third millennium, assisting also to preserve the site beneath the mud.

Table 9.2. Relative Frequency of Pollen According to Strata Sample No./Period

% of Hydrophil (Marsh) Pollen in Local Vegetation

% of Ruderal Pollen in Local Vegetation

% of Arboreal Pollen in Regional Vegetation

1/Late EB I

91.67

8.33

28.57

2/Late EB I

91.67

8.33

30.77

3/Late EB I

79.48

20.51

40.00

4/Early EB I

79.48

20.51

8.33

5/Chalcolithic

72.22

27.78

28.57

6/Chalcolithic

62.86

37.14

42.86

7/Early Chalcolithic

59.52

40.48

25.00

8/Early Chalcolithic–Wadi Rabah

47.83

52.17

16.67

R EFERENCES Horowitz A. 1979. The Quaternary of Israel. New York.

Horowitz A. 1992. Palynology of Arid Lands. Amsterdam.

CHAPTER 10

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Although the final report of an archaeological excavation is not a platform for theoretical discussions on social and settlement models, the excavation of a multi-level protohistoric site on the scale of ‘En Esur requires reexamination of the existing models in light of the new findings. In this summary, several new conclusions concerning protohistoric cultures, stemming as a direct result of the findings from our excavations, will be presented.

SETTLEMENT CONTINUITY AT ‘EN ESUR AND ITS SURROUNDINGS Seven strata ranging from Pottery Neolithic A (the Jericho IX culture) to the end of EB I were exposed in the excavations at ‘En Esur. The site’s principal geographical, hydrological and geological advantages have changed little from the Pleistocene epoch until modern times (Horowitz 1979); for this reason settlers have continually returned and reinhabited the site since the first permanent settlement there by man. The area of the settlement at ‘En Esur reached its largest extent during the Wadi Rabah period and the late EB I. Remains of these two periods were exposed in all the excavation areas at the site, as far west as Area H, where a total depth of 2 m was reached. In the Chalcolithic period and the early EB I, the scope of the settlement was more limited. Early Bronze II finds were uncovered in the cemetery (Yannai 1996; forthcoming d), but no traces of occupational remains were found at the site. Evidence of a settlement dating to the Intermediate Bronze Age was discovered near the spring and the crossroads, and twenty tombs from that period were excavated in a cemetery situated east of the site (Gophna and Sussman 1969; Yannai and Horowitz 1998). A city surrounded by an earthen rampart was founded in the northern part of the site at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age and continued until the end of the Late Bronze Age (Gophna and Sussman 1969).

Several Iron Age sherds were recovered in the plowed, upper layer of the protohistoric tell, and Iron Age and Persian-period sherds were found on the small mound atop the southeastern part of the Middle Bronze Age tell. A few Roman and Byzantine sherds were collected all over the site, which was abandoned after the Byzantine period. The small mound located east of the tell was resettled towards the end of the Ottoman period with the construction of a khan, and during the British Mandate the police built a Taggart-type fort south of the tell to guard the crossroads. Since the 1940s, water has been pumped from the springs of ‘En Esur to the fields of Moshav ‘En ‘Iron north of the tell, and in 1949 Kibbutz Barqai was established southeast of the site, in the area of the ancient cemetery.

THE SIZE OF THE SITE AND THE EXCAVATIONS, AND THE R ELIABILITY OF THE A RCHAEOLOGICAL DATA Archaeological expeditions to large sites covering dozens of hectares are frequently limited to the excavation of small areas within them. The data from these expeditions are confined to the area actually excavated and do not necessarily reflect the complete stratigraphic sequence of the entire site. An archaeological excavation is thus constrained in its ability to distinguish a settlement hiatus at a site and has difficulty explaining such a hiatus on the level of the individual site, as at the large tells of Lakhish (Ussishkin 2004:33) and Megiddo (Esse 1991:76–83; Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000:73), as well as in an entire geographic region. Explanations for these gaps in settlement continuity must rely on a combination of data attained from various disciplines, including archaeology, archaeoclimatology, archaeo-zoology and archaeobotany. As the salvage excavation at ‘En Esur was restricted to the areas adjacent to the road, areas to be excavated could not be selected exclusively on professional

270

ELI YANNAI

considerations (Braun 1992; Yannai 1997b). Following the excavations, a thorough survey of the entire site was conducted, based on a well-grounded understanding of the ceramics from all the periods present in the excavation. The combination of the survey and the excavation presented an extremely credible picture of the settlement pattern at the site in the different periods. Although the excavated area was very small in comparison to the extensive area of the site, the early protohistoric tell was located and excavated both to a broad horizontal extent and to a considerable vertical depth. Secondary areas situated throughout the site were also excavated. Thus it can be said with a high degree of certainty that the results of the excavations and survey accurately reflect the settlement pattern at the site throughout all the periods.

SUMMARY OF THE ARCHITECTURE The Precinct Wall of Stratum VA, Area B (Late Chalcolithic Period) The earliest architectural element found in the excavation is the precinct wall from Stratum VA, which was exposed across the entire width of the excavation for a distance of about 25 m. Based on the inset-offset profile, the buttresses and the sloping revetment wall exposed along part of the outer face of the wall, it was presumably not part of a residential dwelling. The wall is neither a terrace nor a retaining wall; its shape and line of construction indicate it served as an enclosure wall for the settlement located to its west. There is no evidence of military activity in the Chalcolithic period, hence there is no basis upon which to attribute a military function to the wall; however, such a possibility should not be negated. A perimeter wall enclosing part, or possibly all of a settlement, was also found at Chalcolithic ‘Ain Ghazal (G. Rollefson, pers. comm. March 16, 1997). Defining the enclosure wall as defensive does not necessitate its having been intended as protection against an invading army, but rather as prevention of incursions by nomads, undesirables and predators and as forestallment of any attack on the lives or property of its residents. The construction of a defensive perimeter wall for a permanent settlement, located near a main crossroads and source of water and which attracted nomads, wayfarers and traders, as well as animals, had considerable legal and perhaps even religious significance (pomerium), as it defined the boundaries of the settlement to strangers.

The Architecture of Stratum IV, Area B (Late Chalcolithic Period) In Stratum IV, a complete building and a large part of a second structure were exposed. Based on the remains, both buildings were broadhouses, presumably dwellings, with courtyards and open areas similar to those exposed at Chalcolithic sites in other parts of Israel (Mallon, Koeppel and Neuville 1934: Fig. 12; Koeppel 1940: Pls. I, II; Perrot 1955: Pl. 10a; Dothan 1959a, b: Fig. 2; Levy and Alon 1987a; Epstein 1998:333; Eisenberg, Gopher and Greenberg 2001: Plan 3.8). The entrance to Building 2010 was found intact in the structure’s eastern long wall. The entrance to Building 2280 was not exposed; however, the structure was undoubtedly a typical Chalcolithic broadhouse. The courtyards and installations in front of Building 2010 are similar to those known from other Chalcolithic structures, for example, at Teleilat Ghassul and Be’er Sheva‘. Buildings uncovered in the Golan Heights are also typical Chalcolithic broadhouses. The architecture of the Chalcolithic buildings at ‘En Esur is characterized by the benches that were affixed along the interior and exterior faces of the walls of both structures. Only two Chalcolithic buildings have been published to date with benches attached to their exterior walls: a private dwelling at Teleilat Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: Fig. 4) and the temple structure at ‘En Gedi (Ussishkin 1980: Fig. 3). The benches attached to all the exterior walls at ‘En Esur indicate that the area surrounding these structures was used by their residents for ongoing outdoor activities, indicated by the beaten-earth floors, stone surfaces and stone installations positioned between the two buildings. The buildings stood about 10 m apart and the areas around them differed in elevation by c. 1.50 m; there was probably a gentle slope between the buildings. In the excavated area between them, no architectural evidence was found delineating a boundary separating the two courtyards, nor was it possible to ascertain where the boundary lay or who had ownership of the open area between the structures. The Architecture of Stratum III, Area B (Early EB I) In Stratum III, groups of small oval buildings were built atop the large rectangular structures of Stratum IV. Both the architecture, including plans and building techniques, and the treatment of the areas between

CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

the buildings differed completely from those in the preceding stratum. While the wall foundations of the Stratum IV buildings were remarkably straight, comprised of three courses of large hard stones, those of the early phase of Stratum III were curvilinear and narrow, built of one course of small stones. The Stratum IV units were arranged on the slope, quite far apart from each other, whereas in Stratum III the buildings were crowded together. Oval-shaped buildings have been found, for example, in Stratum V at Tel Te’o (Eisenberg, Gopher and Greenberg 2001: Plan 3.9), in Level II at Yiftah’el (Braun 1989a: Fig. 4; 1997: Figs. 6.10–6.34), in Level 9 at Tel Kabri (Kempinski and Niemeir 1990: Fig. 3; Scheftelowitz 2002: Figs. 4.4, 4.7) and at SidonDakerman (Saidah 1979: Fig. 2; for a complete list of sites see Bonn 1976; Braun 1989a). These sites are located primarily in northern Israel and along the Lebanese coast (Braun 1991:76–90). One oval-shaped structure was discovered in southern Israel at Palmahim (Braun 1989a:19). The buildings exposed at all the above sites were constructed individually, whereas the oval-shaped buildings at ‘En Esur were built in pairs and joined to each other. During the later phases of Stratum III, several architectural changes occurred and are indicative of the gradual transition to the building techniques prevalent in Stratum II. These changes include the first use of large, hard, building stones and the changeover from narrow, curvilinear walls to wide, straight walls. This architectural transition was not uniform throughout the entire area. In some buildings, the walls were straight but built of small stones, while in others the walls were curved and constructed of large stones. The Architecture of Stratum II (Late EB I) Area B The transition from Stratum III to Stratum II was gradual and the changes in the construction techniques that first appeared in the later phases of Stratum III continued into Stratum II. The buildings exposed in Stratum II are rectilinear with corners that are square on the interior and rounded on the exterior. The same type of buildings with similar corners were uncovered at Tel Qashish in Area B, Levels XVIIIA–XIIIB, and especially in Level XVB–A (Zuckerman 2003: Plans 2–5), in Stage V at Megiddo, in Level III at ‘Ai, in

271

Level VII at Tel Kitan (Eisenberg 1993a), at Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003: Plans 2.2, 2.11, 2.15) and even at Tel Halif in southern Israel (Golani 1999). Pottery vessels from EB II were recovered from two tombs in the ‘En Esur cemetery (Yannai, forthcoming d). No EB II levels were found in the excavation of the site and no sherds from that period were discovered during the course of the subsequent survey of the entire site, although two rim sherds were collected by R. Gophna in a surface survey (Gophna 1974:26). Furthermore, fragments of two platters are the only EB II sherds known to date from the Sharon Plain (Kochavi, Beck and Gophna 1979:142). The EB II vessels from the cemetery prove that the settlement at ‘En Esur continued into the early phase of that period and thus it can be assumed that the EB II settlement was located beyond the bounds of the current excavation. A similar continuity in the pottery assemblages from EB I through the beginning of EB II, with no architectural evidence, was detected at Tell el-Far‘ah (North) (de Vaux 1961:590), Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003), Qiryat Ata (Fantalkin 2000:36–42; Golani 2003:155), Me‘ona (Braun 1996:12–22) and Afeq (Beck 2000:97, 107). Thus, the settlement picture in the Sharon Plain appears to be similar to that of northern Samaria, Upper Galilee and the western Jezreel Valley. However, further conclusions concerning other regions in Israel cannot be drawn. The Pillar Building. The row of columns exposed in Area B was part of a pillar building similar to other examples in the northern part of the country, as at Kabri beneath Level II in Area A (Kempinski and Niemier 1990: Figs. 3, 4; Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 4.7), in Level I, Area B at ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Figs. 5, 8), in Subphase 3A in Area A at Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003: Plan 2.1) and in L272, Période 3 in the EB II occupation at Tell el-Far‘ah (North) (de Vaux 1961: Pl. 35). The Street. The alley exposed on the eastern side of Area B is similar to an alley revealed in L614 and L697 in the EB II levels at Tell el-Far‘ah (North), which served as a passageway during several phases of settlement at the site (de Vaux 1961:584; Pl. 35). The continued use of the street at ‘En Esur, from the end of Stratum III until the end of Stratum II, proves that the transition between these two levels did not entail a cultural crisis or any other extreme changes in the settlement.

272

ELI YANNAI

Area D The Building. Both the plan and stratigraphic context of the building exposed in Area D differ from the buildings uncovered in Area B. The building in Area D consists of two broadrooms whose entrances are aligned along a central axis through the structure’s long walls. Ben-Tor defines this type of building as a ‘threeroom house’ (1992:66). Parts of similar buildings were discovered in EB II L622, L623 and L624 in Level III at Tell el-Far‘ah (North) (de Vaux 1961: Pl. 35) and in Phase I of Area G at Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003: Fig. 260, Plan 2.23). A similar building dating to EB II was found at ‘Ai (Marquet-Krouse 1949: Locus 198, L195 and L215). These parallels are of limited significance since only a small part of the ‘En Esur building was exposed, its plan is incomplete and the area surrounding it was not excavated. The building at Tell el-Far‘ah (North) did not have rounded corners and both it and that from ‘Ai are later in date (EB II). It is difficult to accept that there is a direct typological relationship between the late EB I building at ‘En Esur and the EB II buildings at these two sites. The ‘En Esur structure is the earliest of the three, but it is doubtful if it can be viewed as a prototype for this kind of building in Israel, although the possibility should not be totally negated. The continued activity in the ‘En Esur cemetery from the late EB I to EB II and the similarity of the building plans from Area D at ‘En Esur to those at Tell el-Far‘ah (North) and ‘Ai are possible indications of cultural continuity between the two periods. However, the ceramic differences are great. Summary The domestic architecture of Stratum II, including the building materials and techniques employed to construct the walls, the plans of the buildings and the pillar buildings, the use of rounded corners and the width of the streets (Golani 1999), is very similar to the architecture from the later phases of EB I at many sites: Palmahim (Braun 2000:113), Kabri Strata 7–8 (Scheftelowitz 2002: Figs. 4.9, 4.10), Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003), ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985), Qiryat Ata (Fantalkin 2000; Golani 2003), Tel Kitan Stratum VII (Eisenberg 1993a), Stratum VIII Area B at Tel Afeq (Gal and Kochavi 2000: Fig. 7.4), Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sharqi Stages 2/7–10 (Betts 1992: Figs. 29–31), ‘Ai Phases IIIA–B (Callaway 1980:81–83; Figs. 49, 57, 59), Strata II–I at Me’ona (Braun 1996: Plan 1), Stage V (Engberg and Shipton 1934: Figs. 2–3, Pl. 1)

and Stratum XVIIIb at Megiddo (Loud 1948: Fig. 391; Braun 1989a:3–4) and Tell el-Far‘ah (North) (de Vaux 1961). The buildings were set very close to one another and covered the entire area of the site, leaving almost no open expanses, with narrow alleys between them. At most of the sites no evidence was found of serious destruction or fire. During this period some of the buildings were demolished and new ones were built atop the old. In certain instances they were not constructed as separate independent units, but joined to already existing buildings from earlier phases. As a result, at several sites numerous structures were superimposed, one atop the next, forming mazes consisting of curvilinear and rectilinear walls, and with alleyways and corners presenting no obvious architectural plan— making it impossible for the archaeologists to separate them into discrete levels.

SUMMARY OF THE STRATIGRAPHY The stratigraphic separation in Area B at ‘En Esur relied, for the most part, upon complete buildings, groups of buildings and architectural elements that were found in the course of the excavation. The earliest architectural element uncovered was the precinct wall in Stratum VA, which separated the stratified levels into two separate groups: levels without architecture below the precinct wall (Stratum VB–C) and those containing entire buildings above it (Stratum VA). The precinct wall from Stratum VA, beneath the rectangular structure in Stratum IV, was excavated in a clear stratigraphic context above the floors and stone surfaces of Stratum VB–C. Layers of ash (Stratum VI) containing sherds from the Wadi Rabah Culture were recovered beneath the stone surfaces of Stratum VB–C. As no architecture was discerned, designation of this stratum was based on the distinct ceramic assemblage contained within the ash layers. During excavation of a trench around a grave located at the very bottom of Stratum VI to facilitate removal of the skeletons, sherds from Pottery Neolithic A were retrieved. This level was designated Stratum VII, despite the fact that there was no architectural basis by which to separate it from the level above. Above Stratum VA, the stratigraphy is based on architectural elements that were exposed one atop the other. The separation was easily accomplished due to the complete buildings in Stratum IV (the Chalcolithic period) that lay above the precinct wall.

CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Complete buildings in Stratum III (the early phase of EB I) were revealed above the buildings in Stratum IV, followed by the complete buildings in Stratum II (from the later phase of EB I). No later disturbances or penetrations were evident and the stratigraphy at ‘En Esur is exceptionally straightforward. However, certain difficulties in the designation of the stratigraphy were encountered in the transition from the oval-shaped buildings of Stratum III to the rectilinear buildings of Stratum II. The stratigraphic assignation of certain walls to Strata III or II was not made in the field during the course of the excavation, but only following definition of the ceramic assemblages of these two strata.

SUMMARY OF THE CERAMIC MATERIAL The Pottery Neolithic A Pottery The approximately twenty sherds assigned to Stratum VII were discovered by chance during the removal of two skeletons from the bottom of a refuse pit associated with Stratum VI. Most of them were undecorated and some could not even be identified with any degree of certainty. Among them were two large fragments decorated with dark-red painted triangles and finished with an excellent burnish. Parallels for vessels decorated with triangles and lines on the upper portion of the body have been found at the Neolithic sites of, e.g., Jericho Level IX (Kenyon and Holland 1982: Fig. 1:19; 1983: Figs. 2:5; 8:8), Tel Lod (Kaplan 1977: Fig. 2:3, 5, 6) and Nahal Qana Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996: Fig. 3.9:2). Based on these parallels, the PNA sherds found in Stratum VII can be attributed to the Jericho IX culture (Gopher 1995:210; Garfinkel 1999:68–96). The Wadi Rabah Pottery The ceramics from Stratum VI in Area B were found within layers of earth and ash beneath Stratum VB–C. Parallels for the ceramic finds from this stratum are known from ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969a, b), Hazorea‘ (Anati et al. 1973), Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b), Nahal Zehora (Orrelle 1993), Jericho Level VIII (Kenyon and Holland 1982; 1983), Nahal Bezet I (Gopher, Sadeh and Goren 1992), Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming), and Ha-Gosherim (Getzov, pers. comm.). The ceramic assemblage from Stratum VI is very similar to other Wadi Rabah assemblages, yet at the same time it is difficult to ignore the differences between

273

the various Wadi Rabah ceramic assemblages found throughout Israel. The definition of the Wadi Rabah ceramic assemblage as a typologically homogeneous unit was correct as long as the assemblages available to the researcher were small and the number of types within them were limited. In light of recent excavations and the publication of complete ceramic assemblages from older excavations, one can point out regional variations between the ceramic assemblages in the Wadi Rabah Culture. These differences were the subject of a comprehensive scientific analysis by S. Sadeh (1994:361–365) and can not be presented within the framework of this report; however, we will point out a select few and try to evaluate their significance. Several types of bowls made in stone molds were discerned at ‘En Esur within the ceramic assemblage of the Wadi Rabah Culture (Yannai 1997b). These specific bowls have not been discovered at other sites, although there is some evidence of the production of vessels in stone molds at all sites containing the Wadi Rabah Culture. A number of subtypes of small jars decorated with rope ornamentation on the shoulder were found at ‘En Esur that have not yet been published from other Wadi Rabah assemblages in Israel (e.g., Fig. 4.9:19, 20). Among the incised and punctured designs on Wadi Rabah sherds at ‘En Esur were decorations very similar to those from Hazorea‘ and Munhata. These two assemblages, however, also contained multi-toothed combing and reed-punctured designs, neither of which have parallels among the ‘En Esur assemblage. In general, there is considerable similarity among the majority of the components making up the respective Wadi Rabah assemblages such as Nahal Zehora I and II (Gopher 1993; Barkai and Gopher 1999), Horbat ‘Uza, Ha-Gosherim (Getzov 1995) and Neve Yam (Galili, Sharvit and Nagar 1998). The differences are present in only a small number of vessel types and decorations and can be explained by either chronological differences or regional distribution. However, in light of the great similarity between the assemblages of Hazorea‘ and Munhata, it is doubtful if regional factors are the answer. The various excavations in the vicinity of Hazorea‘, ‘Ein el-Jarba and Abu Zureiq (Garfinkel 2002:131) have exposed a number of Wadi Rabah assemblages, some in layers atop each other and some spread out quite a distance from each other. In the stratified assemblages (Anati et al. 1973: Fig. 55; Garfinkel 1992b, 2002: Figs. 3–11), the excavators point out clear differences

274

ELI YANNAI

between the various layers and it should be assumed that throughout the course of the Wadi Rabah period there occurred an uninterrupted series of typological changes in the ceramic assemblage (Garfinkel 2002:164). It would appear that the typological differences between the stratified Wadi Rabah material from ‘Ein el-Jarba and ‘En Esur reflect chronological gaps between the layers, as the stratigraphic sequence does not indicate settlement continuity and it should be assumed that there were hiatus during which the excavated areas were not inhabited. The typological composition of the ceramic assemblage at ‘En Esur contains a substantial number of types also found in the Chalcolithic strata, V–IV (e.g., Fig. 4.4: 10, 15, 17, 19), while a number of types known from other Wadi Rabah assemblages are absent (e.g., Garfinkel 1992a: Fig. 90:11; 2002: Fig. 3:7, 10, 11). On the other hand, as none of the types that characterize the Early Chalcolithic culture familiar from Tel ‘Eli Level 1B, Tel Zaf Level I, Tell Abu Zureiq Layers 7–11, Sede Eliyahu or the Bezeq trench (Sadeh and Gophna 1991) were present, and the unusual types (Figs. 4.2:11–20; 4.9:22, 23) in the Stratum VI assemblage are not characteristic of Early Chalcolithic assemblages, it would be incorrect to define the ceramic assemblage from Stratum VI as Chalcolithic. Thus, it seems most appropriate to define it as a late assemblage within the Wadi Rabah Culture. The Chalcolithic Pottery The Chalcolithic pottery assemblages recovered at ‘En Esur are divided into two phases: the early assemblage from Stratum VB–C and the later assemblage from Strata VA and IV. Several aspects of the assemblage from Stratum VB–C are similar to the pre-Ghassulian, Early Chalcolithic assemblages defined in the Middle Jordan Valley (Sadeh and Gophna 1991; Garfinkel 1999:153–166). Within this assemblage are various sizes of V-shaped bowls, kraters, basins, pithoi, a wide range of storage jars, holemouth jars, churns and pedestal bowls. The primary differences between the ceramic assemblage from ‘En Esur and those of the pre-Ghassulian sites in the Jordan Valley are the extensive production of fine quality, Painted-Ware vessels, the large number of hemispherical bowls and the widespread use of red slip on the bodies of the kraters, pithoi and storage jars.

The Painted-Ware from ‘En Esur is crafted from well-levigated material without inclusions. Light red and dark red, almost purple, painted decorations were applied to the light yellow or white background. The sherds decorated in this style include both V-shaped and hemispherical bowls, small jars and cornets. The predominant motif within the bowl assemblage is a series of red-painted semicircles arranged along the inner rim. To date, only a few bowls decorated with this motif have been published apart from those from ‘En Esur (see above, Chapter 4). Sherds decorated with semicircles filled with red paint on the exterior rim have been found at a site near Kibbutz Sede Eliyahu in the Middle Jordan Valley (Sadeh and Gophna 1991: Fig. 4:2), as well as at Teleilat Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: Figs. 6:3, 9; 8a:5, 9, 12). The number of bowls decorated with semicircles on the rim is still too small to allow for any statistical treatment. Yet, in light of the sparse finds, it is noteworthy that bowls decorated with semicircles on the outside of the rim were discovered in the Jordan Valley (from Ghassul to Sede Eliyahu), while those decorated with semicircles on the inside of the rim come from ‘En Esur. These finds may be indicative of regional differences in the decoration of bowls during the pre-Ghassulian Chalcolithic phases. Among the larger V-shaped bowls, rims are sometimes decorated with empty semicircles and redpainted wavy stripes, motifs not found on the thinner, more delicate Painted-Ware bowls. Parallels to this type of decoration are known on bowls in the temple at ‘En Gedi (Ussishkin 1980: Fig. 8:3, 17). The similarity between the ceramic assemblage from the temple at ‘En Gedi and that of ‘En Esur is seen not only in the motifs that adorn some of the bowls, but more importantly in the rare parallel of the hemispherical bowls. Until now only two assemblages of such bowls have been published: from ‘En Gedi in the south and from ‘En Esur in the northern Sharon Plain. A plausible explanation for a ceramic parallel between two sites so far apart has not been found, especially in light of Ussishkin’s assumption that the temple at ‘En Gedi is from the latest phase of the Ghassulian culture (Ussishkin 1980:30). The diverse painted decorations in the Early Chalcolithic levels at ‘En Esur (Stratum VB–C) include several designs that repeat themselves, such as the red semicircles (Figs. 4.11:2–4), as well as a group of decorations incorporating unique motifs without any parallels (Figs. 4.19:1, 9; 4.20:5). A similar situation

CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

can be seen at Tel Zaf (Gophna and Sadeh 1988–1989) and other sites in the Middle Jordan Valley (Leonard 1989). The changes in the ceramic assemblage at ‘En Esur during the transition from the pre-Ghassulian (Stratum VB–C) to the Ghassulian phases (Strata VA– IV) are similar to those that occurred in the ceramic assemblages of Tel Zaf and the Middle Jordan Valley sites (Gophna and Sadeh 1988–1989; Sadeh and Gophna 1991) during the transition to the Ghassulian culture (e.g., at Neve Ur; see Perrot, Zori and Reich 1967). The symmetry in the changes between the ceramic assemblages in the Jordan Valley and at ‘En Esur may well be representative of parallel changes in transitional phases between the Early Chalcolithic and later Chalcolithic cultures in different regions of Israel. However, while the changes in the ceramic assemblage at ‘En Esur were uncovered in a clear stratigraphic context, this is not the case in the Jordan Valley or elsewhere in Israel. Most of the pottery types from Stratum VB–C are present in Strata VA–IV (V-shaped bowls, kraters, basins, pithoi, storage jars, holemouth jars, cornets, churns and pedestal bowls), except for the Painted Ware and the hemispherical bowls, whose frequencies greatly decreased by Stratum IV. The variety of types in the later Chalcolithic assemblage from Strata VA and IV highlights the great similarity with ceramic assemblages of the Be’er Sheva‘ culture (CommengePellerin 1990) and Teleilat Ghassul (Hennessy 1969). We can, nevertheless, point out a number of significant differences, mainly the extensive use of red slip covering the entire body surface of both large and small vessels. Pottery decorated with painted patterns similar to those in Stratum VA at ‘En Esur was found in a cave at Abu Sinan (Frankel and Gophna 1980: Pl. 23) and at Asherat in Western Galilee (Smithline 2001). In the opinion of Frankel and Gophna, the decorated sherds from the Abu Sinan cave represent a style influenced by the Ubaid culture in Syria that spread southwards into northern Israel, evidence of cultural proximity between these two regions (Frankel and Gophna 1980:67). The distribution range of the ‘Ubaid-like’ style covers the Euphrates Basin, the northern Syrian coast and is even widespread in the Chalcolithic assemblages of Cyprus (Bolger 1991). A parallel to the amphoriskoi from Stratum VA, decorated with two bands of net pattern (Fig. 4.26:19,

275

20), is known from Level IVC at Ras Shamra. The widespread use of groups of painted wavy lines beneath the rims of large and medium-sized bowls has numerous parallels from Level IIIB at Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1992: Figs. 190:1, 3; 223:2, 6; 222:7; 228:1). In Levels IIIC–IVA at Ras Shamra, high bow rims are very common. Such rims were also recovered in Strata V–IV at ‘En Esur but do not appear at any other published Late Chalcolithic sites in Israel (de Contenson 1992: Figs. 214:3, 5; 217:2, 3, 5). There is a wider variety of decorated motifs in the Ubaid-like style at Ras Shamra and the sites in the ‘Amuq Valley (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960) than at ‘En Esur, although frequencies in the quantity of the painted decorations cannot be measured as long as statistical data are unavailable. In these two ceramic assemblages from the northern Syrian coast, most of the decorations were unique and only a small number of recurring decorations were found. A similar proportion of unique versus typical designs was also noted at both Tel Zaf and ‘En Esur; it seems that this phenomenon is common in the pre-Ghassulian and Ghassulian phases at all the sites along the northern Syrian coast and in northern Israel. It can be said with a fair degree of certainty that painted decorations in a wide variety of patterns are typical of the Chalcolithic sites in northern Israel and that these painted designs are almost totally absent from sites in southern Israel—one of the most conspicuous differences between the Chalcolithic cultures in the north and south of the country. The decorated finds from ‘En Esur Strata V–IV indicate that the region of the northern Sharon was culturally connected to the northern part of the country and influenced by the Syrian cultures, as suggested by Frankel and Gophna. The ‘Esurian’ Culture—A Discrete Chalcolithic Assemblage? Chalcolithic pottery with unique characteristics was found at Asherat, in a cave at Abu Sinan and in Strata V–IV at ‘En Esur. Pottery vessels with painted decorations make their first appearance at ‘En Esur in Stratum VB–C and continue into Strata VA and IV, the latter two levels contemporary with the Ghassulian, Be’er Sheva‘ and Golan cultures. However, the Painted Ware from ‘En Esur is not found in these other assemblages and the differences between the ceramic assemblage of ‘En Esur and those of the Ghassulian and Be’er Sheva‘

276

ELI YANNAI

cultures indicate that the Chalcolithic assemblages in the north of the country, at ‘En Esur, Asherat and Abu Sinan, were influenced by contemporary cultures along the Lebanese coast (Ras Shamra, ‘Amuq). Thus, the designation of the Chalcolithic assemblage in the northern part of the country as a discrete culture within the framework of regional Chalcolithic cultures in Israel—the Golan culture, the culture exposed in the burial cave at Peqi‘in, the Hula Valley culture (Eisenberg 2001b:108), the Be’er Sheva‘ culture and the Ghassulian culture—is called for. As ‘En Esur is the largest of the Chalcolithic sites that have been exposed to date in northern Israel, designating this northern ceramic subculture ‘Esurian’ expresses its uniqueness in relation to the other Chalcolithic sub-cultures. The Early EB I Pottery The pottery assemblage from Stratum III was uncovered in clear stratigraphic context with no later disturbances. The stratigraphic separation between the rectilinear buildings in Stratum IV and the oval buildings in Stratum III was clear-cut and the ceramic assemblage of Stratum III faithfully represents the early phase of the EB I without any intrusive vessels. Parallels to the ceramic assemblage from Stratum III were found at Yiftah’el (Braun 1997), ‘Afula (Sukenik 1948), in some of the loci from Tell el-Far‘ah (North) (de Vaux and Stève 1947: Fig. 2), in the fish ponds at Kibbutz Ma‘barot (Porath, Dar and Appelbaum 1985:205–211) and at Azor (Golani and van den Brink 1999). The comparisons with sites farther afield such as Tel Te’o and Tel Bet She’an indicate that the ceramic assemblage from the northern Jordan Valley is essentially different from the assemblage at ‘En Esur. Most of the elements of the assemblage from ‘En Esur are very similar to the western Jezreel Valley assemblage (Zuckerman 2003:36), which dates to the late EB I. Research into the regional differences between the different groups and the significance of these differences (Esse 1989; 1991) have not yet produced meaningful results. The contribution of the ‘En Esur assemblage to our knowledge of the regional distribution of the pottery lies in the fact that it extends the range of the western Jezreel Valley assemblage into the northern Sharon Plain and to the south of Yiftah’el in the western Lower Galilee (Braun 1997).

The excavation of Stratum III dating to the early phase of EB I, which rests atop the Chalcolithic buildings of Stratum IV, has renewed the discussion concerning the nature of the transition between these two periods. This transitional period has been researched since the 1940s (Wright 1937) and reviewed a number of times since (Perrot, Zori and Reich 1967:231–232; Amiran 1985:108; Gustavson-Gaube 1986:82; Braun 1989b; Stager 1992:29–30). Due to the extensive differences between the ceramic assemblages, the discussion here will focus on only those sites excavated within the distribution range of the greater Jezreel Valley assemblage. At only a limited number of sites were levels from the initial phase of EB I found in situ above Chalcolithic levels. At most sites, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age settlements were uncovered separate from each other, while settlement remains from both periods were found intermixed at Mezer (Dothan 1957; 1959b) and in Area J at Megiddo (Joffe 2000). The excavators of Tell el-Far‘ah (North) reached these levels in a small area that did not yield clear stratigraphy; to date, these finds have not been completely published. In contrast, as noted above, the early EB I buildings at ‘En Esur lay above Chalcolithic buildings in clear stratigraphic context. The assemblage from Stratum III is not a continuation of the ceramic assemblage from Stratum IV. The differences between the two assemblages are clearcut and can be summarized as follows: in the fabric, temper and preparation of the clay; in the design of the vessels and the essentially different surface treatment—the shades of the slips and burnish; and in the first appearance of Gray Burnished Ware. The ceramic changes were not gradual. The Chalcolithic vessels from Stratum IV represent a long tradition from the beginning of Stratum VB–C until the end of Stratum IV. There is no evidence of innovations indicative of transitional phases leading up to the ceramic assemblage of Stratum III. The producers of the ceramics in Stratum III were not Chalcolithic potters, and according to all the evidence, it can be concluded that these potters were unfamiliar with Chalcolithic pottery. The Late EB I Pottery The ceramic assemblage from Stratum II continues the pottery tradition of Stratum III and there are no signs of a cultural break as in the transition from the

CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Chalcolithic period to the early phase of EB I (Yannai and Grosinger 2000). Continuation in the traditional preparation of the clay and surface treatment of the vessels is apparent. However, changes are evident in the vessel types of the late EB I at Tel Qashish (Zuckerman 2003:59). In Zuckerman’s opinion, “There is neither a typological nor technological relationship that can be pointed to” between the ceramic assemblages from the early phase of EB I (Yiftah’el and Tel Te’o) and the ceramic assemblages that are characteristic of the later sites of the same period (Megiddo Stage V, Tel Qashish and ‘En Shadud). Zuckerman sees a contrast between the assemblage from Yiftah’el (parallel to Stratum III at ‘En Esur) and the assemblage from Tel Qashish (Levels XIII–XVB, parallel to Stratum II at ‘En Esur), and she accepts Braun’s evaluation that the assemblages from Tel Te’o and Yiftah’el show affinities with the pottery from the Chalcolithic period (Braun 1991:17; Zuckerman 2003:59–60). However, the ‘En Esur assemblages do not support Zuckerman’s findings. Analysis of the composition of the ‘En Esur ceramics reveals no direct relationship between the Chalcolithic assemblage (Stratum IV) and that of the early phases of the Early Bronze Age (Stratum III). The similarity between the illustrated vessel sections of some of the pithoi found at Yiftah’el and the pithoi from Teleilat Ghassul is limited and incidental and one is unable to find further similarities in other vessel types between the two assemblages. Again, in contrast to the views expressed by Zuckerman, no changes are apparent in the technology of the ceramic industry or in the surface treatment of the vessels during the transition from Stratum III to Stratum II. However, Zuckerman’s claim that between the early and late phases of EB I a fundamental change took place in the typological components of the ceramic assemblage can be accepted (Zuckerman 2003:59). Continuity in the regional distribution of the different assemblages is also apparent from the early to late EB I in this region. The vessel types from ‘En Esur Stratum II are similar to those from ‘En Shadud, Tel Qashish, Stages V–VII along the eastern slope of Tel Megiddo and various loci at Tell el-Far‘ah (North). Thus, it is evident that the ‘Jezreel Valley’ regional assemblage, which first appeared in the early EB I, continued into the later phase. A comparison of all the contemporary ceramic assemblages in the distribution region of the ‘extended’ Jezreel Valley assemblage (i.e., the Jezreel Valley and

277

the northern Sharon Plain) from the early and late EB I reveals a change in the typology alongside the continuity of technology and regional distribution. These morphological and typological changes occurred at the same time at all the sites within the distribution range of the Jezreel Valley cultural assemblage.

TRANSITION PROCESS OR HIATUS BETWEEN STRATA AT ‘EN ESUR The Establishment of the Settlement No lithic finds dating prior to the Pottery Neolithic A period and no sherds or flint tools belonging to the Yarmukian culture were found in the excavations and surveys. Yarmukian sherds were collected at nearby Kibbutz Magal, located about 5 km to the south of ‘En Esur. The Neolithic sherds retrieved in Stratum VII and collected in the site survey belong to the Jericho IX culture and therefore it can be assumed that the site was first settled in this period. There is a consensus today in defining the cultures of the Pottery Neolithic A period (Garfinkel 1993:115). So far, evidence of PNA material cultures has been exposed at some twenty sites from south of the Dead Sea to as far north as the Hula Valley. The Jericho IX and Yarmukian cultures were intermixed at both Lod and Megiddo, whereas at other sites the cultures were separate. Researchers are, however, divided as to the distribution ranges and relative chronology for these two cultural entities (Gopher and Gophna 1993; Garfinkel 1993). The question must be asked whether the absence of Yarmukian-style sherds at ‘En Esur signifies that during the time when such vessels were in use at other sites, the site of ‘En Esur was unoccupied. This is extremely relevant, especially in light of the Yarmukian finds collected by J. Kaplan at Kibbutz Magal. The distribution map of Yarmukian finds in Israel reveals that sherds decorated in the Yarmukian style were found both north and south of ‘En Esur, close to springs and riverbeds in geographic regions and climatic conditions that vary from site to site. The finds from Kibbutz Magal prove that the northern Sharon Plain and the Nahal Alexander, Nahal Hadera and Nahal Tanninim basins were settled in Pottery Neolithic A during both the Yarmukian and Jericho IX phases. Due to the limited scope of the excavation at ‘En Esur, it can be assumed that we did not expose all the periods

278

ELI YANNAI

during which the site was settled and therefore the future discovery here of Yarmukian sherds should not come as a surprise.

ceramic assemblage from Stratum VB–C and ceramic continuity is evident. The Transition from Stratum VA to Stratum IV

The Transition from Stratum VII to Stratum VI The transition from Pottery Neolithic A to the Wadi Rabah Culture is still insufficiently documented and its nature is not agreed upon by all researchers. At ‘En Esur the two levels were found one atop the other without any architecture. Thus, the contribution of this excavation to the research into the complex problems of this transition is minimal. However, based on the substantial differences in the ceramic assemblages, the transition from Stratum VII to Stratum VI was not a gradual, uninterrupted process but rather a hiatus in the settlement of the site followed by the appearance of another material culture. The Transition from Stratum VI to Stratum VB–C During the transition from the Wadi Rabah Culture to the Early Chalcolithic period of Stratum VB–C, several changes occurred at the site.2 No architectural remains were found in either stratum, but the obvious differences in the ceramic assemblages indicate that a fundamental cultural change took place. The ceramics from Stratum VI are characteristic of the late Wadi Rabah assemblage, while the assemblage from Stratum VB–C has most of the typological elements of the Chalcolithic ceramic assemblage of Strata VA–IV. The most significant change is the appearance of Painted Ware. Sherds decorated in this style were found from Stratum VB–C until Stratum IV. Therefore, we can conclude that the ceramics from Strata VB–C to IV are Chalcolithic assemblages displaying both continuity and change, separated from the Wadi Rabah Culture by a hiatus whose length cannot be measured, although the radiocarbon dates (see Appendix 1) indicate a maximal time span for the hiatus between these two horizons of c. 600 years. The Transition from Stratum VB–C to Stratum VA The construction of the precinct wall in Stratum VA significantly changed this open settlement into a builtup area. The architectural change that occurred in the transition to Stratum VA was not accompanied by any fundamental changes in the composition of the

In Stratum IV the precinct wall from the preceding level was no longer in use and houses were constructed on top of it. Due to the limited scope of the excavation, it is not known whether the precinct wall was moved farther to the east and continued to encompass the settlement, or the settlement of Stratum IV was not surrounded by a perimeter wall. No significant changes were found in the material culture and the abolition of the precinct wall was not accompanied by any fundamental changes in the Chalcolithic culture of ‘En Esur. The Transition from Stratum IV to Stratum III In the excavation at ‘En Esur, the level dating to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age was discovered above that of the Chalcolithic period. There are differing opinions among researchers concerning the nature of the transition from the Chalcolithic period to EB I. Amiran feels that the pottery from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age is a continuation of the pottery from the Chalcolithic period (Amiran 1985:108), whereas Elliott claims that there is no evidence in the Early Bronze Age to indicate cultural continuity between the two periods (Elliott 1978:52). Braun attempted to show a non-uniform transition between the Chalcolithic levels and those levels of the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (Braun 2000:125; see also Gophna 2004:3). The excavation at ‘En Esur will likely contribute to the clarification of this issue. In the transition from Stratum IV to Stratum III, a long chapter of continuity that began in Stratum V and continued throughout all the phases of Strata V and IV was concluded. The change in the architecture is absolute—in place of the rectilinear buildings, ovalshaped buildings were constructed throughout the entire area. Accompanying this change was an equally dramatic change in the ceramic assemblage, whereby the long Chalcolithic tradition was replaced by pottery vessels of a completely different culture. The essential change in the material culture between the Chalcolithic and EB I did not occur only at ‘En Esur. We assume such a situation also existed at other sites within the distribution range of the western Jezreel Valley culture and along the northern coastal plain

CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

(Mezer, ‘Afula, Yiftah’el, ‘En Shadud, etc.); however, in light of the lack of excavations and publications, it is difficult to draw a reliable picture of the transitionary processes at other sites. The Transition from Stratum III to Stratum II The oval-shaped buildings in Stratum III were progressively replaced by buildings with straight walls, some of which had rounded corners. The architectural changes transpired gradually and there is evidence of intermediate phases and continuity in the planning of the settlement. In the ceramic assemblage, clear continuity is seen in the production technology and in the treatment of the vessel surfaces, primarily in the extensive use of slips and burnish. The ceramic continuity is further attested by the continued production of Gray Burnished Ware bowls, although modifications are clearly expressed in this ware, as well as in other components of the ceramic assemblage (Yannai and Grosinger 2000). Regionally, the assemblage from Stratum II at ‘En Esur resembles others from the western Jezreel Valley and the western Lower Galilee, characterized by great similarity in vessel types and in the almost total absence of storage jars decorated with ‘grain wash’. The lack of any evidence of fortifications at ‘En Esur, as well as the site’s location in a low-lying area, implies a measure of political stability. There is no indication of violent destruction or unstable political or economic conditions. At this point, results of the palynological research provide us with the sole explanation for the abandonment of the settlement.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AT ‘EN ESUR AND ITS SURROUNDINGS Sherds from protohistoric periods exposed at ‘En Esur have been found at a number of sites in the northern Sharon Plain (see Table 1.2), most of them chance exposures resulting from modern development activities, for example the excavation of fish ponds at Kibbutz Ma‘barot (Gophna 1974:30), Kibbutz HaMa‘pil, Kibbutz Mishmar Ha-Sharon and Kibbutz ‘En Ha-Horesh. The protohistoric site at Horbat Rogum was unknown even after recent plowing and was only revealed after the digging of a deep trench. The southern part of the site at ‘En Esur was exposed during excavation of a water reservoir at Kibbutz

279

Barqai. Most of the finds from the protohistoric tell recovered before the current excavations originated in the drainage channel of the road that crosses the site. These chance discoveries would seem to indicate that the data currently available is at best partial, and that large-scale excavations beneath the accumulated alluvial soil in the Nahal Alexander, Nahal Hadera and Nahal Tanninim basins would certainly expose additional protohistoric sites. Settlement Models All the protohistoric sites found in the Sharon Plain (excluding Afeq near the headwaters of the Yarqon River), are one- or two-period sites with an average area of 0.2 to 0.3 hectares. ‘En Esur, on the other hand, is 60–70 hectares in size, and the only site in this region of Israel with a virtually continuous settlement sequence from the beginning of the Pottery Neolithic period until the end of EB I. In trying to understand settlement pattern at ‘En Esur and its environs, it is first necessary to examine the settlement system during the different periods of habitation. To this end we are aided by the archaeological data from surveys and excavations carried out at protohistoric sites in other regions of Israel, which indicate that most, but not all, sites can be attributed to one of three categories: (1) small isolated sites; (2) groups of small and medium-sized sites located along riverbeds, main road and springs; (3) sites composed of small, densely packed settlements that cannot be separated or distinguished from each other, here referred to as ‘conglomerate sites’. Protohistoric sites of the first category are found throughout the country. Sites of the second category are located in the basins of the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley3 in the south, and along Nahal Zippori in the north (Raban 1982:69; Gal 1996:118–119). Judging from the most current data available to us, it appears that this particular settlement model occurred in the southern regions of the country during the Wadi Rabah and contemporary cultures. The third category, the ‘conglomerate site’, was posited as a model by a number of scholars (Dever 1985:20; Hanbury-Tenison 1989; Cribb 1991:156–161; Cameron and Tomka 1993; Gilead 1995:466–467). Such sites can be identified from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period and the Yarmukian culture at ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson 1989; Rollefson and Kafafi 1996); from the Pottery Neolithic A

280

ELI YANNAI

period at Lod (Kaplan 1977; Gopher and Rosenberger 1995; Yannai forthcoming b; Golani and van den Brink 1999; and from the Wadi Rabah period, in the vicinity of Hazorea‘ (Anati et al. 1973), ‘Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969a, b) and Tell Abu Zureiq (Garfinkel 2002:131). It would appear that Horbat ‘Uza and Tel Dan also fall within this category (Gopher and Greenberg 1996). I would here like to add ‘En Esur to the list, during both the Wadi Rabah period and late EB I. The huge dimensions of these sites were a result of various environmental factors and were limited primarily by the amount and availability of water at each individual site. Characteristics common to all the sites are settlement continuity, the extensive area and the different stratification in each part of the excavated site. The varying stratification revealed in each excavation field at ‘Ain Ghazal, Lod, the Hazorea‘ sites and ‘En Esur indicates that settlement at these sites was not uniform during the protohistoric periods and in certain parts of the sites there was sparse or sporadic habitation only. Distribution of the finds throughout each conglomerate site is not a result of intensive settlement, but rather settlement in different parts of the site over short spans of time, as determined by Dever (1985:20) and Cribb (1991:156–161). Structures constructed at different times (sometimes hundreds of years apart) covered their entire area, forming a pattern of ‘spatial stratigraphy’. This is well-illustrated at ‘En Esur, where the conglomerate site consists of two very different elements, with the protohistoric tell in Areas B and G containing many stratified habitation layers and the areas peripheral to the tell producing remains of various periods known from the tell sequence. At the conglomerate sites of ‘Ain Ghazal, Lod and Hazorea‘ the core settlements were not excavated, possibly due to archaeological reality—archaeological data are determined by the scope of the excavations, the selection of the areas to be excavated and the chance exposure of stratified layers.4 It can be assumed that conglomerate sites are a result of sporadic, alternating or seasonal settlement, as were the smaller sites of only several thousand square meters in area, and even the sites of only a fraction of a hectare in size.

SYNTHESIS The conglomerate site exposed at ‘En Esur had its beginnings in the Pottery Neolithic period and came

to an end at the beginning of EB II. With the exception of Megiddo5 and Magal (Ad and Yannai, forthcoming), no other site has been exposed in Israel with such a long protohistoric settlement sequence. The following facts illustrate the uniqueness of the site at ‘En Esur: 1. The longest settlement sequence was found at ‘the heart’ of the site—the protohistoric tell in Area B. 2. The site covered 60–70 hectares during the Wadi Rabah Culture and the later phase of EB I. 3. The settlement was encompassed by a precinct wall at the beginning of the Chalcolithic period. 4. Unique, fine quality, painted ceramics were found at the site throughout all phases of the Chalcolithic period. 5. Imported Egyptian and Mesopotamian pottery vessels that were discovered in the cemetery date to the end of EB I (Yannai and Braun 2001). It can be assumed that the settlement at ‘En Esur functioned as a ‘central settlement’ for all the sites in the northern Sharon (the Nahal Alexander, Nahal Hadera and Nahal Tanninim basins), as far north as the southern Carmel Mountains and the Menashe Hills. The centrality of the ‘En Esur site was due to its proximity to a perennial spring that provided a reliable source of water and to the nearby junction on the main route from Afeq to ‘En Esur, an important artery between the coastal plain and the northern valleys (the Jezreel and ‘Akko Valleys), where important Early Bronze Age cultural centers were located. The similar conditions at Afeq, Megiddo and ‘En Esur, the three central sites in northern Israel during the protohistoric periods, fostered both settlement continuity and extreme size, as compared to the other sites in the region. The settlements at Afeq and Megiddo continued into later periods and the remains of the protohistoric settlements are now buried below thick layers of later deposits that have severely limited their excavation. The enclosure of the settlement with a wall at the beginning of the Chalcolithic period was designed to protect the residents’ property and to defend the permanent settlement located close to the spring and the crossroads from transients and undesirables who coveted their possessions. Throughout the protohistoric periods the site had many inhabitants, attesting to the quality of life and desirability of habitation in this settlement. Evidence of the settlement’s wealth during the Chalcolithic period is seen in the high quality of the

CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Painted-Ware pottery. No Painted-Ware sherds were found at other sites in the Sharon where the Chalcolithic period was exposed, including those near ‘En Esur such as Hadera, Baza‘ah and Mezer. Apparently, the production of such fine vessels was a legacy of the residents of the central site, and those living in the peripheral areas did not possess the means to obtain them. It is also possible that the decorated vessels were employed in certain ceremonial functions. Imported vessels from all over Israel were found in the Early Bronze Age cemetery alongside alabaster vessels, alabaster pendants, slate palettes, beads from Egypt and pottery from Syria, Lebanon and Mesopotamia. It can be assumed that part of the wealth of ‘En Esur during the Early Bronze Age resulted from its reputation, originating during the Chalcolithic period, as a rich economic and social center. The imported finds recovered in the cemetery prove that the EB I residents of ‘En Esur engaged in extensive commercial activity and that well-to-do merchants resided here during the late phase of EB I and at the beginning of EB II. There is no precedent for this in the protohistoric archaeology of Israel and no imported finds were uncovered in the tombs at Megiddo, Hazorea‘ or Tell el-Far‘ah (North). Of course it must be noted that at no other protohistoric site were both stratified layers and graves excavated on a similar scale. The large scale of the site at ‘En Esur, its continuity and its rich material culture demand an attempt to define the socio-economic structure of the settlement, as opposed to the small, open settlements that existed for one or two periods with poor material remains and few luxuries. Judging by the unique finds and the precinct wall, it stands to reason that Chalcolithic ‘En Esur was not simply an agricultural village, but that its residents were also involved in intensive commercial activities. The Painted Ware is indicative of an upper class that differed from the population in the surrounding smaller sites. Thus, it is, perhaps, more apt to define ‘En Esur in this period as a settlement with urban social characteristics. The Chalcolithic enclosure wall at ‘En Esur is one of the earliest examples in the Levant. A perimeter wall dating from the beginning of EB I was exposed at SidonDakerman (Saideh 1979:31; Fig. 2). Fortification walls dating to the late EB I were exposed at Tel Handaquq (Mabry, Donaldson and Palumbo 1996:122), Tell esSa’idiyeh (Tubb, Dorrell and Cobbing 1997:65–66)

281

and Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer 1995) in the central Jordan Valley, at Jericho (Kenyon 1981:97), Tell eshShuna (North) (Philip and Baird 1993:20), Tel Bet Yerah (Getzov 1998; 2006) and Tel Shalem (Eisenberg 1996:7–8) in the northern Jordan Valley, at Tell elFar‘ah (North) in the Samarian Hills (de Vaux 1962) and Tel Afeq in the coastal plain (Yadin and Kochavi 2000:138–139). Helms (1976) investigated several fortified settlements from the third millennium in the Levant and other scholars have dealt with fortified towns from the end of the fourth millennium (Schaub 1982; Falconer 1987; Hanbury-Tenison 1989; Getzov, Paz and Gophna 2001:22–23). Mabry, Donaldson and Palumbo (1996:150) have pointed out that there is no difference in size and population density between the fortified and unfortified cities in the Jordan Valley. Getzov, Paz and Gophna (2001) present two lists distinguishing between sites enclosed by fortification systems and unfortified ‘large centralized settlements’. ‘En Esur is not included in either list, although it could be included among the large centralized settlements. Throughout the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages, fortified city-states existed the length of the Via Maris. Between the city-states of Afeq in the Sharon Plain and Megiddo at the outlet of Nahal ‘Iron, there existed one fortified city-state at Tell Jatt (Porath, Yannai and Kasher 1999). According to the archaeological evidence from Jatt, settlement there began in EB III and thus it inherited, so it would appear, the status of ‘large centralized settlement’ from ‘En Esur and Magal. If this assumption is correct, then it is reasonable to suggest that the formation process of large central settlements in different regions of Israel, primarily at crossroads close to reliable sources of water, began in the period of the Wadi Rabah Culture or perhaps even earlier. The urbanization process during the Early Bronze Age at ‘En Esur and its surrounding sites was entirely different from the urbanization process at Lod and in the Lod Valley (Yannai and Marder 2000), as well as at Afeq and Gezer(?) (Gophna 1989:105–106) and in the central hill country (Finkelstein and Gophna 1993:14), but was similar to that at Megiddo (Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000:584). Evidence for the Abandonment of the Site The palynological samples originating from the beginning of the Neolithic period to the end of the Chalcolithic period revealed no evidence of climate

282

ELI YANNAI

changes (see Chapter 9). However, pollen samples from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age show a significant increase in the amount of marsh and swamp vegetation around ‘En Esur; by the end of EB I the site was abandoned and covered over by erosion. Therefore, the EB I settlement reached its floruit at the end of that period, concurrently with the region being gradually being covered over by marsh vegetation. A layer of black soil, exposed above the remains of Stratum II, is evidence that the site stood abandoned for a long period of time. At the bottom of this marsh soil was a light gray and white layer that clearly separated the marsh soil from the settlement remains below and represents the first sedimentation of salts on the bottom of the marsh (the marsh covered the area for a long enough time to allow for the accumulation of salts). At

this time, the cities of Tell Jatt and Tel Magal (Ad and Yannai, forthcoming), located in the hills to the east and uninfluenced by the marshlands, continued to be settled and succeeded ‘En Esur as the main cities in the northern Sharon (Yannai, forthcoming a). The remains of the Intermediate Bronze Age settlement were exposed above the layer of marsh soil in Area C, thus dating the marsh phase to EB II–III. No marsh layer was found above the remains of the Intermediate Bronze Age settlement. It can therefore be deduced that by the end of the Intermediate Bronze Age the level of the marsh had dropped sufficiently to allow renewed living conditions next to the spring. These conditions prepared the area for the founding of the tell on the northern side of the site that was occupied from MB IIA until the end of the Late Bronze Age.

NOTES 1

Chalcolithic pottery was first observed at ‘En Esur by de Contenson (1961:550). 2 I do not intend to present the various viewpoints as to whether the Wadi Rabah culture should be assigned to the Neolithic or the Chalcolithic period. The material finds from the Wadi Rabah Culture at ‘En Esur have little to contribute to the research on this issue. 3 Most of the data we have concerning the distribution of protohistoric sites in both the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley and Nahal Patish are a result of the fact that the finds in the southern river beds are exposed and have been the focus of archaeological research since the early 1950s, following the discovery of the Be’er Sheva‘ Chalcolithic culture.

4

Not long ago an excellent example of the role that chance plays in small excavations carried out at mega sites occurred at the tell of Lod. For the past fifty years, small excavations had been conducted in areas located far apart from each other at this protohistoric conglomerate site, and only material remains of the Jericho IX culture were recovered. Recently, a figurine and several sherds from the Yarmukian culture, previously unknown at Lod, were revealed after so many decades of work there. 5 To date, no evidence has been found at Megiddo of a settlement dating to the early phases of EB II. There is, however, evidence of a settlement at this site during the Yarmukian culture.

REFERENCES

Ad U. and Yannai E. Forthcoming. Excavations at Tel Magal. ‛Atiqot. Aharoni Y. 1957. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Upper Galilee. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Albright W.F. 1923. Some Archaeological and Topographical Results of a Trip through Palestine. BASOR 11:3–15. Alt A. 1929. Arubboth. Palästinajarbuch des Deutschen evangelischen Instituts für Altertums-wissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem 25:33–36. Alt A. 1932. Feldzug Thutmosis. Palästinajarbuch des Deutschen evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem 28:31–32. Amiran R. 1977. Pottery from the Chalcolithic Site near Tell Delhamiya and Some Notes on the Character of the Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Transition. Eretz-Israel 13:48– 56 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 291*). Amiran R. 1985. The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age. In J. Amitai ed. Biblical Archaeology Today. Jerusalem. Pp. 108–110. Amiran R., Shiloh Y., Brown R., Tsafrir Y. and Ben-Tor A. 1978. Early Arad I: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City. First and Fifth Seasons of Excavations 1962– 1966. Jerusalem. Anati E., Avnimelech M., Hass N. and Meyerhof E. 1973. Hazorea I (Archivi 5). Brescia. Baird D. and Philip G. 1992. Preliminary Report on the First (1991) Season of Excavations at Tell esh-Shuna North. ADAJ 36:71–88. Baird D. and Philip G. 1994. Preliminary Report on the Third (1993) Season of Excavations at Tell esh-Shuna North. Levant 26:111–133. Barkai R. and Gopher A. 1999. The Late Neolithic Flint Industry: A Study of Technology, Typology and Social Implication of the Late Assemblage from Nahal Zehora I, a Wadi Raba (Pottery Neolithic) Site in the Menashe Hills. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 29:41–122. Baruch U. 1987. The Early Bronze Age, Chalcolithic and Neolithic Periods. In A. Ben-Tor and Y. Portugali. Tell Qiri, a Village in the Jezreel Valley (Qedem 24). Jerusalem. Pp. 274–288. Bass G.F. 1987. Excavations at Ulu Burun (Kas), 1986 Campaign. Kazi sunuclari toplantisi. Ankara 6–10.4.1987. Ankara. Pp. 371–388. Beck P. 2000. Area B: Pottery. In M. Kochavi. AphekAntipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B the 1972–1976

Seasons (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 19). Tel Aviv. Pp. 93–111. Ben-Tor A. 1966. Excavations at Horvat Usa. ‘Atiqot (HS) 3:1–24. Ben-Tor A. 1992. Early Bronze Age Dwellings and Installations. In A. Kempinski and R. Reich eds. The Architecture of Ancient Israel, from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem. Pp. 60–67. Ben-Tor A., Bonfil R. and Zuckerman S. 2003. Tel Qashish, a Village in the Jezreel Valley. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987) (Qedem Reports 5). Jerusalem. Betts A.V.G. 1992. Excavations at Tell Umm Hammad 1982– 1984. The Early Assemblages EB I–II. Edinburgh. Betts A.V.G. 1992. Excavations at Tell Umm Hammad: The Early Assemblages (EB I–II). Edinburgh. Blackham M. 1999. Tulaylat Ghassul: An Appraisal of Robert North’s Excavations (1959–60). Levant 31:19–64. Blake G.S. 1947. Geology and Water Resources of Palestine. Jerusalem. Blockman N. 1997. The Lodian Culture (Jericho IX) Following the Excavation at Neve Yarak–Lod. M.A. thesis. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Bolger D. 1991. The Evolution of the Chalcolithic Painted Style. BASOR 282/283:81–93. Bonn A.G. 1976. The Domestic Architecture of Early Bronze Age Palestine. Ph.D. diss. Bryn Mawr College. Ann Arbor. Bourke S. J. 1997. The “Pre-Ghassulian” Sequence at Teleilat Ghassul: Sydney University Excavations 1975–1995. In H.G. Gebel., Z. Kafafi and G.O. Rollefson eds. Prehistory of Jordan II: Perspectives from 1997 (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4). Berlin. Pp. 395–417. Bourke S. J., Seaton P.L., Sparks R.T., Lovell J.L. and Mairs L.D. 1995. Preliminary Report on the First Season of Renewed Excavations at Teleilat Ghassul by the University of Sydney, 1994. ADAJ 39:31–64. Braidwood R.J. and Braidwood L.S. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch 1: The Earliest Assemblages: Phases A–J (OIP 61). Chicago. Braun E. 1985. ‘En Shadud. Salvage Excavations at a Farming Community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel (BAR Int. S. 249). Oxford. Braun E. 1989a. The Problem of the Apsidal House: New Aspects of Early Bronze I Domestic Architecture in Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. PEQ 121:1–43.

284

ELI YANNAI

Braun E. 1989b. The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Northern Israel and Jordan: Is There a Missing Link? In P. de Miroschedji ed. L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien: bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles (BAR Int. S. 527). Oxford. Pp. 7–27. Braun E. 1991. The Early Northern EB I of Israel and Jordan. MA thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Braun E. 1992. Objectivity and Salvage Excavation Policy in Mandate Palestine and the State of Israel: An Appraisal of Its Effects on Understanding the Archaeological Record. In T. Shay and J. Clottes eds. The Limitations of Archaeological Knowledge (Etude recherché archéologique de l’Université de Liège 49). Liège. Pp. 29–38. Braun E. 1996. Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Me’ona: Final Report. ‘Atiqot 28:1–31. Braun E. 1997. Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel (IAA Reports 2). Jerusalem. Braun E. 2000. Area G at Afridar, Palmahim Quarry 3 and the Earliest Pottery of Early Bronze Age I: Part of the ‘Missing Link’. In G. Philip and D. Baird eds. Ceramic and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant (Levantine Archaeology 2). Sheffield. Pp. 113–128. Callaway J. 1980. The Early Bronze Age Citadel and Lower City at Ai (et Tell). Cambridge. Cameron C. M. 1991. Structure Abandonment in Villages. In M.B. Schiffer ed. Archaeological Method and Theory 3. Tucson. Pp. 94–155. Cameron C.M. and Tomka S.A. eds. 1993. Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches. Cambridge. Chase P.G. 1985. Whole Vessels and Sherds: An Experimental Investigation of Their Quantitative Relationship. Journal of Field Archaeology 12:213–218. Clarke D.L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London. Commenge-Pellerin C. 1987. La poterie d’Abou Matar et de l’Ouadi Zoumili (Beershéva) au IVe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Les cahiers du centre de recherche français de Jérusalem 3). Paris. Commenge-Pellerin C. 1990. La poterie de Safadi (Beersheva) au IVe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Les cahiers du centre de recherche français de Jérusalem 5). Paris. Contenson H. de. 1960. Three Soundings in the Jordan Valley. ADAJ 4–5:12–98. Contenson H. de. 1961. Remarques sur le Chalcolithique Récent de Tell esh Shuna. RB 68:546–556. Contenson H. de. 1964. The 1953 Survey in the Yarmuk and Jordan Valley. ADAJ 8–9:30–46. Contenson H. de. 1970. Rapport préliminaire sur le sondage ouvert en 1962 sur l’acropole de Ras Shamra. Campagnes 1962–1968. AAS 20:13–24. Contenson H. de. 1992. Préhistoire de Ras Shamra. Les sondages stratigraphiques de 1955 à 1976. Paris. Cribb R. 1991. Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge. Dar S. 1977. Ancient Settlements in Emeq Hefer. Ma‘abarot (Hebrew).

Dayan Y. 1969. Tell Turmus in the Huleh Valley. IEJ 19:65– 78. Dever W.G. 1985. Village Planning at Be’er Resisim and Socio-Economic Structure in Early Bronze IV Palestine. Eretz-Israel 18:18*–28*. Dollfus G. and Kafafi Z. 1988. Abu Hamid, village de 4e millènnaire de la Vallée du Jourdan. Amman. Dollfus G. and Kafafi Z.A. 1993. Recent Researches at Abu Hamid. ADAJ 37:241–262. Dollfus G., Kafafi Z., Rewerski J., Vaillant N., Coqueugniot E., Desse J. and Neef R. 1988. Abu Hamid: An Early Fourth Millennium Site in the Jordan Valley. In A.D. Garrard and H.G. Gebel eds. The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1986 (BAR Int. S. 396). Oxford. Pp. 567–601. Dorrell P.G. 1983. Stone Vessels, Tools and Objects. In K.M. Kenyon and T.A. Holland. Excavations at Jericho V. London. Pp. 485–575. Dothan M. 1957. Excavations at Meser 1956: Preliminary Report on the First Season. IEJ 7:217–238. Dothan M. 1959a. Excavations at Horvat Beter (Beersheba). ‘Atiqot (HS) 2:1–71. Dothan M. 1959b. Excavations at Meser, 1957. Preliminary Report on the Second Season. IEJ 9:13–29. Dothan M. 1970. A Tomb Cave near ‘En Esur–Barkai. Ezor Menashe 2:1–15 (Hebrew). Dunand M. 1973. Fouilles de Bybles V. Paris. Egloff B.J. 1973. A Method for Counting Ceramic Rim Sherds. American Antiquity 38:351–353. Eisenberg E. 1989. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I Occupations at Tel Teo. In P. de Miroschedji ed. L’urbanisation de la Palestine á l’âge du Bronze ancien: bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles (BAR Int. S. 257). Oxford. Pp. 29–40. Eisenberg E. 1993a. Kitan, Tel. NEAEHL 3. Pp. 878–881. Eisenberg E. 1993b. A Settlement from the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age I at Moza. ‘Atiqot 22:41–48. Eisenberg E. 1996. Tel Shalem—Soundings in a Fortified Site of the Early Bronze Age IB. ‘Atiqot 30:1–24. Eisenberg E. 2001a. Pottery of Strata V–IV, the Early Bronze Age I. In E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg. Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley (IAA Reports 13). Jerusalem. Pp. 117– 131. Eisenberg E. 2001b. Pottery of Strata VII–VI, the Chalcolithic Period. In E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg. Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley (IAA Reports 13). Jerusalem. Pp. 105– 116. Eisenberg E., Gopher A. and Greenberg R. 2001. Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley (IAA Reports 13). Jerusalem. Elliot C. 1978. The Ghassulian Culture in Palestine: Origin, Influences and Abandonment. Levant 10:37–54. Engberg R. and Shipton G. 1934. Notes on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Pottery of Megiddo (SAOC 10). Chicago.

REFERENCES

Epstein C. 1998. The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan (IAA Reports 4). Jerusalem. Esse D.L. 1989. Village Potters in Early Bronze Palestine: A Case Study. In A. Leonard Jr. and B.B. Williams eds. Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene Kantor (SAOC 59). Chicago. Pp. 77–92. Esse D.L. 1991. Subsistence, Trade and Social Organization in Early Bronze Age Palestine (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 50). Chicago. Falconer S.E. 1987. Village Pottery Production and Exchange: A Jordan Valley Perspective. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 3:251–259. Fantalkin A. 2000. A Salvage Excavation at an Early Bronze Age Settlement on Ha-Shophtim Street, Qiryat ‘Ata. Tel Aviv 27:28–56. Finkelstein I. and Gophna R. 1993. Settlement, Demographic, and Economic Patterns in the Highlands of Palestine in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Periods and the Beginning of Urbanism. BASOR 289:1–22. Finkelstein I. and Ussishkin D. 2000. Area J. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern eds. Megiddo III: The 1992– 1996 Seasons (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 18). Tel Aviv. Pp. 25–74. Finkelstein I., Ussishkin D. and Halpern B. 2000. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 18). Tel Aviv. Fischer P. 1995. Tell Abu al-Kharaz—The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1993, Fourth Season Preliminary Excavation Report. ADAJ 39:93–119. Fitzgerald G.M. 1935. Beth Shan: Earliest Pottery. The Museum Journal 24:5–22. Forbes R.J. 1956. Studies in Ancient Technology IV. Leiden. Frankel R. and Gophna R. 1980. Chalcolithic Pottery from a Cave in Western Galilee. Tel Aviv 7:65–69. Fredericq D.H. and Franken H.J. 1986. Pottery and Potters— Past and Present. Tübingen. Gal Z. 1996. Nahal Zippori—A Relic of the Ancient Landscape and Settlement in Lower Galilee. Eretz-Israel 25:116–121 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 91*–92*). Gal Z. and Covello-Paran K. 1996. Excavations at ‘Afula 1989. ‘Atiqot 30:25–68. Gal Z. and Kochavi M. 2000. Area B Stratigraphy, Architecture, and Tombs. In M. Kochavi, P. Beck and E. Yadin eds. Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B. The 1972–1976 Seasons. Tel Aviv. Pp. 59–92. Gal Z., Smithline H. and Shalem D. 1997. A Chalcolithic Burial Cave in Peqi’in, Upper Galilee. IEJ 47:145–154. Galili E., Sharvit Y. and Nagar A. 1998. Nevé Yam— Underwater Survey. ESI 18:35–36. Garfinkel Y. 1992a. The Material Culture in the Central Jordan Valley in the Pottery Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Periods. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Garfinkel Y. 1992b. The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha‘ar Hagolan and Rabah Stages of Munhata (Israel) (Les cahiers du centre de recherche français de Jerusalem 6). Paris.

285

Garfinkel Y. 1993. The Yarmukian Culture in Israel. Paléorient 19:115–134. Garfinkel Y. 1995. Human and Animal Figurines of Munhata (Israel) (Les cahiers du centre de recherche français de Jerusalem 8). Paris. Garfinkel Y. 1998. The Platter: A New Ceramic of the Chalcolithic Period. Levant 30:191–194. Garfinkel Y. 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant (Qedem 39). Jerusalem. Garfinkel Y. 2002. Abu Zureiq, a Wadi Raba Site in the Jezreel Valley: Final Report of the 1962 Excavations. IEJ 52:129–166. Garfinkel Y. and Horwitz L.K. 1988. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Bone Industry from Yiftahel, Israel. Paléorient 14:7–86. Garfinkel Y. and Matskevich Z. 2002. Abu Zureiq, a Wadi Rabah Site in the Jezreel Valley: Final Report of the 1962 Excavations. IEJ 52:129–163. Getzov N. 1995. Horbat ‘Uza. ESI 13:19–21. Getzov N. 1998. Tel Bet Yerah. ESI 18:20–21. Getzov N. 2006. The Bet Yerah Excavations, 1994–1995 (IAA Reports 28). Jerusalem. Getzov N., Avshalom-Gorni D., Tatcher A., LiebermanWander R., Smithline H. and Stern E.J. Forthcoming. Horbat ‘Uza 1991: Final Report of the 1991 Excavations (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Getzov N., Paz I. and Gophna R. 2001. Shifting Urban Landscapes during the Early Bronze Age in the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv. Gilead I. 1995. Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7). Be’er Sheva‘. Givon S. 1993. The Excavations at Bet-Ha-Emek 1973. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English summary). Givon S. 2002. Beth-Ha‘emeq—Village of Shepherds and Farmers from the Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age. In E.C.M. van den Brink and E. Yannai eds. In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes. Archaeological Studies in Honor of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv. Pp. 87–106. Golani A. 1999. New Perspectives on Domestic Architecture and the Initial Stages of Urbanization in Canaan. Levant 31:123–133. Golani A. 2003. Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata (IAA Reports 18). Jerusalem. Golani A. and Braun E. 1992. Qiryat Ata. ESI 10:99–100. Golani A. and van den Brink E.C.M. 1999. Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age IA Settlement at Azor. ‘Atiqot 38:1–49. Gopher A. 1993. Nahal Zehora I and II, 1990. ESI 12:27– 28. Gopher A. 1995. Early Pottery-Bearing Groups in Israel—The Pottery Neolithic Period. In T.E. Levy ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Sheffield. Pp. 205–225. Gopher A. Forthcoming. Village Communities of the Pottery Neolithic Period in the Menashe Hills, Israel. Archaeological Excavations in the Nahal Zehora Site (Tel Aviv Monographs Series). Tel Aviv.

286

ELI YANNAI

Gopher A. and Blockman N. 2004. Excavations at Lod (Neve Yaraq) and the Lodian Culture of the Pottery Neolithic Period. ‘Atiqot 47:1–50. Gopher A. and Eisenberg E. 2001. Groundstone Artifacts and Small Finds. In E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg. Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley (IAA Reports 13). Jerusalem. Pp. 139–150. Gopher A. and Gophna R. 1993. Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern Levant: A Review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7:297–353. Gopher A. and Greenberg R. 1996. The Pottery Neolithic Levels. In A. Biran., D. Ilan and R. Greenberg. eds. Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. Jerusalem. Gopher A. and Orrelle O. 1991. Preliminary Report on Excavations of Nahal Zehora II—Seasons 1990–1991. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23:169–172. Gopher A. and Orrelle E. 1995. An Alternative Interpretation for the Material Imagery of the Yarmukian: A Neolithic Culture of the Sixth Millennium B.C. in the Southern Levant. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6:225–279. Gopher A. and Rosenberger A. 1995. Lod–Nevé Yaraq. ESI 14:85–86. Gopher A. and Tsuk T. 1996. The Nahal Qanah Cave. Tel Aviv. Gopher A., Sadeh S. and Goren Y. 1992. The Pottery Assemblage of Nahal Beset I: A Neolithic Site in the Upper Galilee. IEJ 42:4–16. Gophna R. 1974. The Settlement of the Coastal Plain of Eretz Israel during the Early Bronze Age. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English summary). Gophna R. 1978. Archaeological Survey of the Central Coastal Plain. Tel Aviv 5:136–147. Gophna R. 1989. From Village to Town in the Lod Valley: A Case Study. In P. de Miroschedji ed. L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien: bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles (BAR Int. S. 527). Oxford. Pp. 97–107. Gophna R. 1992. Shefayim: A Chalcolithic Campsite in the Southern Sharon Coastal Plain. Tel Aviv 19:195–200. Gophna R. 1996. Excavations at Tel Dalit. Tel Aviv. Gophna R. 2004. Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar— Introduction. ‘Atiqot 45:1–8. Gophna R. and Sadeh S. 1988–1989. Excavations at Tel Tsaf: An Early Chalcolithic Site in the Jordan Valley. Tel Aviv 15–16:3–36. Gophna R. and Sussman V. 1969. A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Barkai. ‘Atiqot (HS) 5:1–13. Goren Y. 1991. The Beginnings of Pottery Production in Israel: Technology of Proto-Historic Ceramic Assemblages in Eretz Israel (6th–4th Millennia B.C.E). Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary).

Goren Y. and Zuckermann S. 2000. An Overview of the Typology, Provenance and Technology of the Early Bronze Age I ‘Grey Burnished Ware’. In P. Graham and D. Baird eds. Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant (Levant Archaeology 2). Sheffield. Pp. 165–182. Greenberg R. and Gopher A. 1987. Pottery Neolithic Levels at Tel Dan. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 20:91*–113* (Hebrew). Gustavson-Gaube C. 1986. The Excavations at Tell esh Shuna North: 1985. ADAJ 30:69–114. Guy P.L.O. and Engberg G.M. 1938. Megiddo Tombs (OIP 33). Chicago. HA 41–42. 1971–1972. Tel Burga. HA 41–42:15–16, 18. Hanbury-Tenison J.W. 1989. Desert Urbanism in the Fourth Millennium? PEQ 121:35–63. Haring B. and de Maaijer R. eds. 1998. Landless and Hungry? In B. Haring and de R. Maaijer. Access to Land in Early and Traditional Societies. Proceedings of a Seminar “Land and Hungry?” Leiden. Pp. 20–21. Helms S.W. 1976. The Early Bronze Age Gate at Ras en Naqura (Rosh ha-Niqra). ZDPV 92:1–9. Hennessy J.B. 1969. Preliminary Report on a First Season of Excavation at Teleilat Ghassul. Levant 1:1–24. Hillson S. 1986. Teeth. Cambridge. Horowitz A. 1979. The Quaternary of Israel. New York. Horowitz A. 1987. Human Settlement Pattern in Israel: A Discussion of the Impact of Environment. Expedition 29:55–58. Huot J.L. 1996. Oueili. Travaux de 1987 et 1989. Paris. Joffe A.H. 2000. The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Area J. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern eds. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. Tel Aviv. Pp. 161–185. Kafafi Z. 1993. The Yarmukians in Jordan. Paléorient 19:101–114. Kaplan J. 1958a. Excavations at Teluliot Batashi in the Vale of Shorek. Eretz-Israel 5:9–24 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 83*). Kaplan J. 1958b. Excavations at Wadi Rabah. IEJ 8:149– 160. Kaplan J. 1969a. Ein el Jarba, Chalcolithic Remains in the Plain of Esdraelon. BASOR 194:2–39. Kaplan J. 1969b. Ein el Jarba, Chalcolithic Remains in the Plain of Esdraelon (Jaffa-Tel Aviv Museum Publications 2). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Kaplan J. 1977. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains at Lod. Eretz Israel 13:57–75 (Hebrew). Kempinski A. and Niemeier W-D. 1990. Excavations at Kabri. Preliminary Report of 1989 Season No. 4. Tel Aviv. Kempinski A. and Niemeier W-D. 1991. Excavations at Kabri Preliminary Report of 1990 Season. Tel Aviv. Kenyon K. 1957. Digging Up Jericho. London. Kenyon K.M. 1981. Excavations at Jericho III: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. Text. London. Kenyon K.M. and Holland T.A. 1982. Excavations at Jericho IV: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London.

REFERENCES

Kenyon K.M. and Holland T.A. 1983. Excavations at Jericho V: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London. Khalaily H., Goren Y. and Valla F.R. 1993. A Late Pottery Neolithic Assemblage from Hayonim Terrace, Western Galilee. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 25:132–144. Kochavi M., Beck P. and Gophna R. 1979. Aphek-Antipatris, Tel Poleg, Tel Zeror and Tel Burga. Four Fortified Sites of the Middle Bronze IIA in the Sharon Plain. ZDPV 95:121– 165. Koeppel R. 1940. Teleilat Ghassul II. Rome. Korfmann M.1972. Schleuder und Bogen in Südwestasien. Von den frühesten belegen bis zum beginn der historischen stadtstaaten. Bonn. Lee J.R. 1973. Chalcolithic Ghassul: New Aspects and Master Typology. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Leonard A. Jr. 1989. A Chalcolithic “Fine Ware” from Kataret Es-Samra in the Jordan Valley. BASOR 276:3–14. Leonard A. Jr. 1992. The Jordan Valley Survey, 1953: Some Unpublished Soundings Conducted by James Mellaart. Winona Lake. Levy T.E. and Alon D. 1987a. Excavations in the Shiqmim Village. In T.E. Levy ed. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (BAR Int. S. 356). Oxford. Pp. 153–217. Levy T.E. and Alon D. 1987b. Settlement Patterns along the Nahal Beersheva–Lower Nahal Besor: Models of Subsistence in the Northern Negev. In T.E. Levy ed. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (BAR Int. S. 356). Oxford. Pp. 45–138. Levy T.E. and Holl A. 1987. Theory and Practice in Household Archaeology: A Case Study from the Chalcolithic Village at Shiqmim. In T.E. Levy ed. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (BAR Int. S. 356). Oxford. Pp. 373–410. Loud G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39 (OIP 62). Chicago. Louhivouri M. 1988. Continuity and Change in Pottery in the Early Bronze I Period in Israel. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Mabry J.B., Donaldson M.L. and Palombo G. 1996. Early Town Development and Water Management in the Jordan Valley: Investigations at Tell el-Handaquq North. In W. Dever ed. Preliminary Excavation Reports, Sardis, Idalion and Tell el-Handaquq North (AASOR 53). Cambridge. Pp. 115–154. Mallon A., Koeppel R. and Neuville R. 1934. Teleilat Ghassul I. Rome. Marquet-Krouse J. 1949. Les fouilles de ‘Ai. Paris. Mazar B. 1976. Cities and Districts in Eretz Israel. Jerusalem. Meyerhof E.L. 1989. The Bronze Age Necropolis at Kibbutz Hazorea, Israel (BAR Int. S. 534). Oxford. Miles A.E.W. 1963. Dentition in the Estimation of Age. Journal of Dental Research 42:255–263.

287

Miroschedji P. de. 1988. Yarmouth I (Editions Recherche sur les Civilizations Memoire 76). Paris. Ne’eman Y. 1990. Map of Ma‘anit (54) (Archaeological Survey of Israel). Jerusalem. North R.G. 1961. Ghassul 1960, Excavation Report (Analecta Biblica Series 14). Rome. Oren R. and Scheftelowitz N. 1998. The Tel Te’enim and Sha‘ar Ephraim Project. Tel Aviv 25:52–93. Orrelle E. 1993. Nahal Zehora I and II: Fifth Millennium B.C. Villages of the Wadi Raba Culture. Quantitative Studies on the Pottery Assemblages. M.A. thesis. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English summary). Parr P. J. 1956. A Cave at Arqub el Dhahr. ADAJ 3:61–73. Perrot J. 1955. The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheba. IEJ 5:17–40, 73–84, 167–189. Perrot J. 1961. Une tombe à ossuaires du IVe millénaire à Azor près de Tel Aviv. ‘Atiqot 3 (ES):1–83. Perrot J. 1966. La troisième campagne de fouilles à Munhata (1964). Syria 43:49–63. Perrot J. 1968. La préhistoire palestinienne. In Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible. Paris. Pp. 286–446. Perrot J. 1979. Syria-Palestine I. Geneva. Perrot J. and Ladiray D. 1980. Tombs à ossuaires de la région côtière palestinienne au IVe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Mémoires et travaux du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jérusalem 1). Paris. Perrot J., Zori N. and Reich Y. 1967 Neve Ur: un nouvel aspect du Ghassoullien. IEJ 17:201–232. Philip G. and Baird D. 1993. Preliminary Report on the Second (1992) Season of Excavations at Tell esh-Shuna North. Levant 25:13–36. Porath J. 1977. Khirbet Jalameh. HA 63:24–25. Porath J. 1978. Olesh. HA 65–66:16–18. Porath J. 1991. Taiyiba. Burial Cave. ESI 9:44–45. Porath Y. 2006. Chalcolithic Burial Sites at Ma‘abarot and Tel Ifshar. ‘Atiqot 53:45–63. Porath J., Dar S. and Applebaum S. 1985. The History and Archaeology of Emek-Hefer. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Porath Y., Yannai E. and Kasher A. 1999. Archaeological Remains at Jatt. ‘Atiqot 37:1–78 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 167–171). Raban A. 1982. Archaeological Survey of Israel, Nahalal Map (28). Jerusalem. Rollefson G. 1989. The Aceramic Neolithic of the Southern Levant: The View from ‘Ain Ghazal. Paléorient 15:135– 140. Rollefson G. and Kafafi Z. 1996. ‘Ain Ghazal Excavations 1996. BA 59:238. Rot J. 1977. Potential of Raw Material for Construction in the Umm el-Fahem and Menashe Hills Regions (Israel Geological Institute). Jerusalem (Hebrew). Ryder M.L. 1983. Sheep and Man. London. Sadeh S. 1994. Pottery of the 5th Millennium B.C. in Israel and Neighbouring Regions. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Sadeh S. and Eisenberg E. 2001. Pottery of Strata X–VIII, the Pottery Neolithic Period. In E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg. Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and

288

ELI YANNAI

Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley (IAA Reports 13). Jerusalem. Pp. 83–104. Sadeh S. and Gophna R. 1991. Observations on the Chalcolithic Ceramic Sequence in the Middle Jordan Valley. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 24:135–148. Saidah R. 1979. Fouilles de Sidon-Dakerman: l’agglomeration chalcolithique. Berytus 27:29–55. Schaub R.T. 1982. The Origins of the Early Bronze Age Walled Town Culture of Jordan. In A. Hadidi ed. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I. Amman. Pp. 67–75. Scheftelowitz N. 2002. Stratigraphy, Architecture and Tombs. In A. Kempinski. Tel Kabri, the 1986–1993 Excavations. Tel Aviv. Pp.19–108. Scheftelowitz N. and Oren R. 2004. Giv‘at Ha-Oranim, a Chalcolithic Site (Salvage Excavation Reports 1). Tel Aviv. Schiffer M.B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Records. Albuquerque. Schmandt-Besserat D. 1982. The Emergence of Recording. American Anthropologist 84:871–878. Shalem D. 1998. Kh. er-Rujum. ESI 18:49. Shalem D. 2002. Khirbet er-Rujum in the Sharon Plain. In Z. Gal ed. Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp. 51–79. Shamir O. 1996a. Loomweights and Whorls. In D.T. Ariel and A. De-Groot. Excavations at the City of David 1978– 85 (Qedem 35). Jerusalem. Pp. 135–170. Shamir O. 1996b. A Spindle Whorl. In E. Braun. Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Me’ona: Final Report. ‘Atiqot 28:26. Shamir O. 1999. Spindle Whorls. In A. Golani and E.C.M. van den Brink. Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age IA Settlement of Azor. ‘Atiqot 38:1–49. Shamir O. 2004. The Spindle Whorls from Ashqelon Afridar—Area E. ‘Atiqot 45:97–100. Siegelman A. 1978. Tomb from the Early Stage of the Early Bronze Age in Kfar Glickson. Ezor Menashe 7. Hadera (Hebrew). Smithline H. 2001. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Caves at Asherat, Western Galilee. ‘Atiqot 42:35–78. Stager L. 1992. The Periodization of Palestine from the Neolithic through Early Bronze Times. In R.W. Ehrich ed. Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (3rd edition). Chicago. Pp. 22–41. Stekelis M. 1973. The Yarmukian Culture of the Neolithic Period. Jerusalem. Sukenik E.L. 1937. A Chalcolithic Necropolis at Haderah. JPOS 17:15–30. Sukenik E.L. 1948. Archaeological Excavations at Affula. JPOS 21:1–78. Tadmor M. and Prausnitz M. 1959. Excavations at Rosh Hanniqra. ‘Atiqot (ES) 2:72–88. Tubb J., Dorrell P.G. and Cobbing F.J. 1997. Interim Report on the Eighth (1995) Season of Excavations at Tell esSa’idiyeh, Jordan. PEQ 129:54–77.

Ussishkin D. 1978. Excavations at Tel Lachish 1973–1977 (Tel Aviv 5). Tel Aviv. Ussishkin D. 1980. The Ghassulian Shrine at En-Gedi (Tel Aviv 7). Tel Aviv. Ussishkin D. 2004. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Tel Lachish (1973–1994) (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22). Tel Aviv. Van den Brink E.C.M. 2004. A Chalcolithic Dwelling and Burial Cave at Horvat Castra. IEJ 54:129–153. Van den Brink E. C. M., Horwitz L.K., Khalaily H., Liphschitz N., Mienis H. and Nagar Y. 2004. A Chalcolithic Dwelling and Burial Cave at Horvat Castra. IEJ 54:129–153. de Vaux R. 1961. Les fouilles à Tell el-Far‘ah, report préliminaire sur les 7e, 8e, 9e, campagnes, 1958–1960. RB 68:557–592. de Vaux R. 1962. Les fouilles à Tell el-Far‘ah, report préliminaire sur les 7e, 8e, 9e, campagnes, 1958–1960. RB 69:212–253. de Vaux R. and Stève A.M. 1947. La première campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Far‘ah, près Naplouse. Report préliminaire. RB 54:394–433, 573–589. de Vaux R. and Stève A.M. 1949. La deuxième campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Far‘ah, près Naplouse. Report préliminaire. RB 56:102–138. Wright G.E. 1937. The Pottery of Palestine from the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age. New Haven. Wright G.E. 1958. The Problem of the Transition between the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. Eretz-Israel 5:37*–45*. Wright G.E. 1971. The Archaeology of Palestine from the Neolithic through the Middle Bronze Age. JAOS 91:276– 293. Wright K. 1992. A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18:53–81. Yadin E. and Kochavi M. 2000. Area A Stratigraphy, Architecture and Tombs. In M. Kochavi. Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavations of Areas A and B the 1972–1976 Seasons (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 19). Tel Aviv. Pp. 134–172. Yannai E. 1996. A Tomb from the Early Bronze I and Intermediate Bronze Age near Tel Esur (Assawir). ‘Atiqot 30:1–15 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 125–126). Yannai E. 1997a. The Possible Origin of the Tournette? A Group of Ceramic Bowls Made in Stone Moulds from ‘Ein Assawir. Tel Aviv 24:253–257. Yannai E. 1997b. Tel Esur. ESI 16:75–77. Yannai E. 1999a. Jatt. ESI 110:35. Yannai E. 1999b. New Typological and Technological Aspects of Grey Burnished Bowls in Light of the Excavations at ‘Ain Assawir. Tel Aviv 26:208–224. Yannai E. 2000. Tel Shevah. ESI 20:41*. Yannai E. 2001. Excavations in an Early Chalcolithic Period Site East of Kibbutz Barkai. In A. Maeir and E. Baruch eds. Settlement, Civilization and Culture. Proceedings of the Conference in Memory of David Alon. Ramat-Gan. Pp. 61–66 (Hebrew). Yannai E. 2002. The Northern Sharon in the Chalcolithic Period and the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age in the

REFERENCES

Light of the Excavation Results at ‘Ein Assawir. In E.C.M Van den Brink and E. Yannai eds. In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscape. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv. Pp. 65–86. Yannai E. 2006. The Origin and Distribution of the Collared Rim Pithos: A Case of Conservative Pottery Production in the Ancient Middle East from the 4th to the 1st Millennium BCE. In P. de Miroschedji and A. Maeir eds. “I Will Tell Secret Things from Long Ago” (Abiah chidot minei-kedem— Ps. 78:2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake. Yannai E. Forthcoming a. Ein Assawir, Tel Magal and the Peripheral Settlement in the Northern Sharon from the Chalcolithic Period until the End of the Early Bronze Age III. Proceedings from the ICAANE 2006 Held in Madrid. Yannai E. Forthcoming b. Excavations at Lod-Diospolis (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Yannai E. Forthcoming c. Nazur. Yannai E. Forthcoming d. Tel Esur Cemetery (IAA Reports). Jerusalem.

289

Yannai E. and Braun E. 2001. Imports from EB Tombs at ‘Ain Assawir: Evidence for Synchronization between the Naqada Culture of Egypt and the Culture of the Ninevite V Period in South-Eastern Anatolia. BASOR 321:41–56. Yannai E. and Grosinger Z. 2000. Preliminary Summary of Early Bronze Age Strata and Burials at ‘Ein Assawir, Israel. In G. Philip and D. Baird eds. Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. Pp. 153–164. Yannai E. and Horowitz T. 1998. ‘En Esur. ESI 18:48–49. Yannai E. and Marder O. 2000. Lod. HA–ESI 112:63*–65*. Yannai E. and Porath Y. 2006. A Chalcolithic Burial Cave at Et-Taiyiba. ‘Atiqot 53:1–44. Yannai E. and Yunis A. 2001. Et-Taiyiba. HA–ESI 113:43*. Zuckerman S. 1996. The Pottery of Tel Kasis and the Jezreel Valley in the Early Bronze Age. M.A. thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary). Zuckerman S. 2003. The Early Bronze Age I Pottery. In A. Ben-Tor, R. Bonfil and S. Zuckerman. Tel Qashish, a Village in the Jezreel Valley. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987) (Qedem Reports 5). Jerusalem. Pp. 35–49.

APPENDIX 1

THE R ADIOCARBON DATES DROR SEGAL* AND ISRAEL CARMI**

In July 1997, two organic samples from the archaeological excavations at ‘En Esur were submitted for radiocarbon dating to the Rehovot Laboratory of the Weizmann Institute: 1. RT-2085: Organic material from Area B, Stratum VI, L2179, Baskets 71445, 71428 (most of the material from Basket 71445), elevation 49.99–49.89 m asl. 2. RT-2086: Organic material from Area B, Stratum VB–C, L 2164, L2149, Basket Nos. 71136, 71080, 71032, 71043, 70965, 70984, elevation 50.56–50.32 m asl.

In the laboratory, the samples were pre-treated with acid and alkali. They were then oxidized to carbon dioxide, reduced to lithium carbide and hydrolyzed to acethylene. The process of preparing and measuring the sample was in keeping with advanced chemical practices. Despite the deteriorated state of the sample, the achieved results are extremely credible (Table App. 1.1).

Table App. 1.1. Radiocarbon Samples from ‘En Esur Sample No.

∆14C(%)

δ13C(‰)

YBP*

Calendric Age**

Probability***

RT-2085

-550.33 ± 3.20

-23

6420 ± 55

5424–5291 BCE

100%

RT-2086

-520.46 ± 4.61

-23

5905 ± 75

4903–4705 BCE

100%

14

* Conventional C age before 1950. ** Calendric ages calculated after Stuiver and Reimer 1993. *** The result is within the range of one standard deviation and its probability is given in percentage.

R EFERENCE Stuiver M. and Reimer P.J. 1993. Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 Age Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35:215–230.

* Museum of Regional and Mediterranean Archaeology, Gan Ha-Shelosha (Nir David) 19150, Israel ** Department of Environmental Science and Energy Research, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

APPENDIX 2

THE BRONZE COINS DONALD T. ARIEL

Three coins were found on the surface during the ‘En Esur excavations. They are presented here for the sake of completeness. The coins were cleaned by E. Altmark of the Israel Antiquities Authority. 1. Reg. No. 2267, L2267, Basket No. 71645, IAA 47190 2nd century CE, Caesarea? Obv. Bust r. Rev. Bust of Dionysus r. Æ, ↑, 10.33 gm, 25 mm. Cf. Kadman 1957:104–105, No. 36. 2. Reg. No. 2232, L2232, Basket No. 71526, IAA 47188 Licinius II, Cyzicus, 311–312 CE Obv. IMP LICINNIANVS LICINNIVS PF AVG Laureate bust r.

Rev. HERCVLI–VICTORI Hercules standing r., r. behind back, l. leaning on a cloud covered by lion’s skin; in l. field: E; in r. field: dot; in ex.: MKV Æ follis, ↑, 4.87 gm, 22 mm. Cf. RIC 6:592, No. 89a. This emperor is not found in RIC 6 with this reverse type. The dot in the right field is also not found on this reverse type. 3. Reg. No. 2285, L2285, Basket No. 71762, IAA 47189 Constantine I, Alexandria, 326–330 CE Obv. CONSTAN–TINVS AVG Laureate head r. Rev. PROVIDEN–TIAE AVGG Camp-gate with two towers; above, star; in ex.: SMALB Æ, ↓ , 2.94 gm, 19 mm. LRBC 1:31, No. 1402.

R EFERENCES Kadman L. 1957. The Coins of Caesarea Maritime. Jerusalem. LRBC 1: P. Hill and J.P.C Kent. The Bronze Coinage of the House of Constantine A.D. 324–346. In Late Roman Bronze Coinage. London 1965. Pp. 1–40.

RIC 6: C.H.V. Sutherland. From Diocletian’s Reform (A.D. 294) to the Death of Maximianus (A.D. 313) (The Roman Imperial Coinage 6). London 1967.

292

ELI YANNAI

APPENDIX 3

LIST OF LOCI: AREA B

Locus

Square

Description

Stratum*

2000

S50

Surface

I

2001

S51

Surface

I

2002

T50

Surface

I

2003

T51

Surface

I

2004

S52

Floor

I

2005

T50

Surface

I

2006

T51

Surface

I

2007

S50

Beaten-earth floor

II

2008

S51

Beaten-earth floor

II

2009

S52

Floor

II

2010

T50

Building

IV

2011

T50

Habitation level/refuse area outside the southern wall of Chalcolithic structure

IV

2012

T50

Fill, north of W52

IV

2013

T49

Habitation level/open area south of Chalcolithic structure

IV

2014

T52

Surface

I

2015

S50

Fill above W55

III

2016

T52

Surface

I

2017

S51

Habitation level, mudbrick debris

III

2018

S52

Fill

III

2019

T51

Fill

III–I

2020

S50

Oval structure

III

2021

S50

Cleaning of W53

III

2022

T51

Cleaning of W56

IV

2023

T51

Habitation level outside east wall of Chalcolithic structure

IV

2024

T51

Stone floor

IV

2025

T50

Fill below EB stratum

IV–III

2026

T50

Cleaning of tops of W51 and W53

VA

2027

T50

Fill between Strata III and IV

IV

2028

S49

Surface disturbed—late EB I level

II

2029

T51–52

Dismantling of balk on the slope

I III

2030

T51–52

Dismantling of balk

2031

S51

Habitation level outside oval structure

III

2032

S–T52

Dismantling of balk

I

2033

T50–51

Surface

I

2034

T49

Slope of Sq T50

IV

* Local Strata in Area B = General Site Strata

293

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF LOCI: AREA B

Locus

Square

Description

Stratum*

2035

T51

Cleaning of row of stones east of W56

VA

2036

S–T51

Surface

I

2037

S–T50

Dismantling of balk

II–I

2038

S50

Habitation level outside oval structure

III

2039

S–T50

Dismantling of balk

III

2040

S–T52

Mixed fill

III

2041

S49

Stone circle

III

2042

T50

Locus joined to L2120

VA

2043

S51

Stone floor

III

2044

S49

Open area (courtyard?) between oval structures

IV–III

2045

S51

Floor level of Chalcolithic structure

IV

2046

S50–51

Dismantling of balk

II–I

2047

S50–51

Fill above floor adjacent to oval structure

III

2048

S50

Earthen surface

III

2049

S51

Fill

III IV–III

2050

T51

Fill

2051

S51

Habitation level inside oval structure

III

2052

S–T51

Dismantling of balk

III

2053

S53

Surface

II–I

2054

T50

Fill and mudbricks, under L2034 and above L2055

IV

2055

T49

Pottery-paved floor

V–IV

2056

S50–51

Surface

II

2057

S50–51

Dismantling of balk

IV III–I

2058

T53

Slope of Sq T33

2059

T54

Pillar building

IV–II

2060

T51

Slope of Sq T51

VA

2061

T53

Slope of Sq T53

IV–II

2062

T54

Street

II

2063

S51–52

Dismantling of balk

III

2064

S49

Fill inside oval structure

III

2065

S49–50

Dismantling of balk

II–I

2066

S53

Fill, southeast from W69

II

2067

S53

Structure

II IV–II

2068

T53

Slope of Sq T53

2069

S–T53

Dismantling of balk

I

2070

T52–53

Surface

I

2071

S/T54

Surface

II–I

2072

S48

Surface

I

2073

S54

Fill

II

2074

S50

Fill

III

2075

S49–50

Habitation level inside oval structure

III

2076

S51

Habitation level outside structure

IVA

2077

S52

Mixed fill between Strata III–II

III–II

2078

S–T51

Dismantling of balk

IV–III

2079

ST51

Dismantling of balk

IV–III

2080

S–T52

Floor inside Chalcolithic structure

IV

294

Locus

ELI YANNAI

Square

Description

Stratum*

2081

T50–51

Habitation level outside east wall of Chalcolithic structure

IV

2082

T49–50

Habitation level outside south wall of Chalcolithic structure

IV

2083

S–T54

Dismantling of balk

II

2084

S54

Mixed material on stone-paved floor

III

2085

T53

Mixed material on stone-paved floor

IV–II

2086

T54

Street

II

2087

T50

Fill, under L2044

VA

2088

S49

Fill

IV

2089

S48

Open area, early EB I material—no architectural context

III

2090

S50–51

Room

III

2091

S52–53

Dismantling of balk

II–I

2092

T50–51

Floor

VA

2092a

T51

Dismantling of stone- and pottery-paved floor

VB–A

2093

T52–53

Dismantling of balk

IV–I

2094

S–T53

Mixed material on Chalcolithic paved floor

IV–III

2095

S53–54

Dismantling of balk

II–I

2096

S54

Fill west of W81

III–II

2097

S55

Building

II

2098

R54

Disturbed late EB I context around stone wall foundation

II

2099

S53–54

Early EB I fill above Chalcolithic wall

IV–III II

2100

T54

Floor

2101

S50–51

Habitation level outside Chalcolithic structure

IV

2102

S50–51

Habitation level inside Chalcolithic structure

IV

2103

S53

Deposition below late EB I structure

III

2104

R55

Floor

II

2105

T54

Street

II

2106

T53

In W87

III–II

2107

T52

Habitation accumulation on floor

VB

2108

T51

Disturb material from construction of later drainage channel

III

2109

S–T50

Dismantling of balk

VA

2110

S–T50

Dismantling of balk

VA

2111

T51

Habitation level west of perimeter wall, adjacent to wall

VB–C

2112

S55

Cleaning of W90

II

2113

S55

Fill, northwest of W78

II

2114

S50

Stone surface

IV

2115

S53

Dismantling of W69

II

2116

S54

Cleaning of W81

II

2117

T54

Dismantling of W81

III

2118

S53

Floor

III

2119

S54

Cleaning of W72

II

2120

T50

Stone- and pottery-paved floor

VB–C

2121

S51

Stone- and pottery-paved floor

VA

2122

T51

Stone- and pottery-paved floor

VA

2123

T54

On floor

II

2124

S53

Dismantling of W89

III

2125

S52

Cleaning of W50

II

295

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF LOCI: AREA B

Locus

Square

Description

Stratum*

2126

S51

Dismantling of stone-paved floor

III

2127

S53

Dismantling of W89

III

2128

S53

Fill between strata

III

2129

S53

Fill under L2128

III

2130

S53

Fill between W91 and W93

III

2131

S52–53

Dismantling of W69

II

2132

S52

Accumulation on floor

IV

2133

S53

Pit penetrated W92, W93

III

2134

S53

Pit penetrated W92, W93

III

2135

S53

Pit?

III

2136

S53

Cleaning of W92

III

2137

S51–52

Dismantling of balk

III

2138

T51

Dismantling of W53

IV

2139

T54

Dismantling of floor and fill below floor

II

2140

S53

Dismantling of floor

III

2141

S53

Pit—late period

II

2142

T51

Dismantling part of wall 53

VA

2143

S53

Fill—accumulation layer

IV

2144

S52

Fill between pits 2133 and 2134

III

2145

S54

Dismantling of W86

II

2146

S–T53

Dismantling of balk

IV–III

2147

S–T53

Dismantling of balk

IV–III

2148

S–T54

Dismantling of W78

III

2149

T49

Deposits above stone-paved floor and accumulation on floor

VB

2150

T54

Fill beneath late EB I floor

II

2151

T44

Fill

II

2152

T49

Inside baked-brick installation

VI–VC

2153

S53

Circular stone surface

IV

2154

T50

Stone-paved floor

VB–C

2155

T51

Dismantling of pottery floor

VB

2156

S51

Accumulation of habitation layer—no architecture

VB–C

2157

T53–54

Mixed surface material

II

2158

S50

Habitation accumulation on stone floor

VB VB–A

2159

T50–51

On stone floor

2160

T52

Stones circle in the stones pavement

IV

2161

S50

Stones attached to W76

IV

2162

T52

Dismantling of stone floor

IV

2163

S52

Cleaning of row of stones attached to W92

IV

2164

T49

Layer of fragmentary pebble surfaces

VB–C

2165

T49

Inside brick installation

VI

2166

T51

Dismantling of Floor 2024

IVA(1)?

2167

T50

Accumulation of remains—no distinguishable architecture

VI

2168

T51

Fill north of W51

IV

2169

S53

Pit

I

2170

S53

Fill north of L2153

IV

296

Locus

ELI YANNAI

Square

Description

Stratum*

2171

S52

Fill on stone and pottery floor

VA

2172

S52

Fill on stone and pottery floor

VA

2173

S–T51

Dismantling of balk

VC–A

2174

S–T50

Dismantling of balk

VB–C

2175

S50–51

Dismantling of balk

VB–A

2176

T51

Brick material

VI

2177

S51

Habitation remains—no architecture

VI VI

2178

T49

Fill

2179

S50

Floor level—pottery and bone remains

VI

2180

T50

Habitation level

VI

2181

T51–52

Dismantling of stone pavement of Stratum IV in the balk

IV

2182

S52

Dismantling of row of stones joined to W92

IV

2183

S52–53

Dismantling of balk

IV

2184

S–T50

Dismantling of balk

VB–C

2185

S–T51

Stone- and pottery-paved floor

VA

2186

R54

Fill, south of W102

III

2187

S50–51

Stone floor

VB

2188

T49

Burial

VI

2189

R53

Adjacent to foundation of Chalcolithic structure—outside western corner

IV

2190

T51

Robber trench

IV

2191

T51

Cleaning of row of stones

IV

2192

T52

Dismantling of floor

IV

2193

T51

Stone- and pottery-paved floor

VA

2194

R49

Habitation level inside oval structure

III

2195

S–T50

Under Stratum IV stone pavement in the balk

VI

2196

R53–54

Mixed fill above Chalcolithic wall

II

2197

S–R53

Floor

II–I

2198

T52

Chalcolithic drainage channel in paved floor

IV

2199

S51

Dismantling of line of stones—terrace?

III

2200

S50–51

Above stone pavement

VB

2201

T49

Digging in the balk

VI

2202

R–S53

Inside oval stone installation or structure, northern edge

III

2203

R53

Accumulation above stone-paved surface

III

2204

S–R52

Floor

III

2205

T52

Under anteroom floor

VA

2206

T51–52

Digging in the balk under Stratum IV stone pavement

IV III

2207

R52

Accumulation layers—no architecture

2208

S–T50

Habitation accumulation level (stone surface in VB???)

VI

2209

S52

Stone- and pottery-paved floor

VA

2210

S52

Accumulation on pottery-paved floor, between floor layers VA and VB

VB

2211

T51–52

Digging in the balk under Stratum IV stone pavement

VB–C

2212

S50–51

Habitation accumulation level

VI

2213

R51–52

Dismantling of floor above Chalcolithic building

IV

2214

R52

Mixed accumulation above Chalcolithic building

IV

2215

S52

Dismantling of pottery-paved floor

VI–V

297

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF LOCI: AREA B

Locus

Square

Description

Stratum*

2216

T51

Fill east of Stratum VA

VB

2217

T52

Fill beneath Stratum V

VI–V (mixed)

2218

T50–51

Digging in the balk

VC

2219

R50

Oval structure

III

2220

R49

Stone-paved surface

III

2221

R49

Building

III

2222

R51

Pottery level between W113 and W114

III III

2223

R50

Stone floor

2224

S52

Stone-lined pit

VB

2225

R53

Stone surface

III

2226

R50

Cleaning of the areas between W113, W114 and W127

III

2227

R53

Habitation level outside oval structure

III

2228

R53

Mixed accumulation above Chalcolithic structure

III

2229

R52

On floor

IV

2230

S56

Surface

II–I

2231

S58

Surface

II–I

2232

S57

Surface

II–I

2233

R–S54

Cleaning of W77

II

2234

T49

Dismantling of stone-paved surface (Stratum VI)

VII–V

2235

S57

Fill north of W119

II II

2236

S57

Street

2237

S56

Fill north of W118

II

2238

S56

Street

II

2239

S56–57

Street

II–I

2240

S55–56

Surface

II

2241

T49

South part of the square

VII

2242

R49–51

Surface

II

2243

S57–58

Street

II II

2244

R49–51

Accumulation/fill

2245

R49–51

Habitation accumulation between structures (courtyard?)

III

2246

S58

Street

II

2247

S59

Street

II–I

2248

R–S52

B71554—mixed fill; B71697—cleaning of Stratum VA wall

VA–IV

2249

R50–51

Stone-paved floor between structures

III

2250

S49–50

Under stones foundations of W123–W125

III

2251

S58

Fill with sherds northeast of W121

II

2252

R–S54

Mixed fill

III

2253

R–S54

Dismantling of W77

III

2254

R52

Dismantling of wall

IV

2255

R52

Cleaning of row of stones

IV

2256

R51–52

Dismantling of row of stones

IV

2257

R52–53

Fill under Stratum IV wall

IV

2258

R–S53

Stone-paved surface

IV

2259

S58–59

Dismantling of balk

II

2260

R49–50

Dismantling of W123–W125

III

298

Locus

ELI YANNAI

Square

Description

Stratum*

2261

S53

On stone-paved surface of Stratum VA

VA–IV

2262

R49–51

Digging in balk

III

2263

S53

Dismantling of stone installation

IV

2264

R52

Stone- and pottery-paved floor

VA

2265

R56

Mixed fill between structures (Stratum II)

II–I

2266

R57

Disturbed architectural context

II–I

2267

R58

Surface of north side of the square

II–I

2268

S53

Cleaning stone paved floor

IV

2269

R49

Stone surface

II–I

2270

S52

Cleaning floor west of Stratum VA wall

VA

2271

S45–47

Mixed surface material

II–I

2272

R55

Accumulation—early EB I—no architecture

II

2273

R58–59

Dismantling of balk

II–I

2274

R–S58

Dismantling of balk

II–I

2275

R–S59

Dismantling of balk

II–I

2276

S47

Pit—surface or Stratum III

III–I

2277

S46–47

Dismantling of balk

II–I

2278

S46

Upper strata of the square

III–I

2279

S45–46

Dismantling of balk

IV–III

2280

S45

Building

IV–III

2281

S47

North part of building

III

2282

S47

Fill north from Building 2281

III

2283

R60

Surface

II–I

2284

R61

Surface

II–I

2285

R62

Surface

II–I

2286

R45–47

Mixed fill

II–I

2287

R55

Fill above VA strata wall

III

2288

R47

Stone collapse (wall of oval structure?)

III

2289

R46–47

Stone collapse (wall of oval structure?)

III

2290

R46

Upper strata of Sq R46

III

2291

R45–46

Dismantling of balk

III

2292

R54–55

Dismantling of wall and floor

III

2293

R59–60

Dismantling of balk

II–I

2294

R47

Cleaning W154

III

2295

R46

Cleaning W151

III

2296

R54–55

On stone-paved surface

III

2297

S45

Habitation accumulation outside Chalcolithic structure

IV

2298

R47

Fill above L2288

III

2299

R46

Fill between two walls

III

2300

S52

Dismantling of W91

VA–IV

2301

R54

Level of wall foundations of W157 and W158

III

2302

R55

Fill under L2296

III

2303

R47

Oval structure

III

2304

S52

Dismantling of W92

VA

2305

R45

Surface

IV–III

299

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF LOCI: AREA B

Locus

Square

Description

Stratum*

2306

R54

Fill northwest of W158

III

2307

S52–53

Fill on floor

VA

2308

T51

Dismantling of W56

VA–IV

2309

R45

Cleaning W150

IV

2310

R44–45

Dismantling of balk

IV

2311

R54

Habitation accumulation adjacent to Stratum IV wall

VA–IV

2312

S45

Adjacent to southern corner of Chalcolithic building

IV

2313

R46–47

2314

S53

Dismantling of floor adjacent to interior north face of perimeter wall

VA

III

2315

R53

Fill under L2305

IV

2316

R54

Fill under L2302

VA–IV

2317

S–T52

Dismantling of W107 from Stratum VA

VB–VA

2318

S52

Fill under L2134

VA

2319

S–T52

Digging under Stratum VA wall

VB

2320

T52

Structure in south side of T52

III

300

ELI YANNAI

APPENDIX 4

LIST OF LOCI: AREAS A, C, D, E, F, G AND H

Locus

Area

Square

Description

Local Stratum

1002

A

Q25

Cleaning of surface

AI

1004

A

Q26

Cleaning of surface

AI

1005

A

R24

Surface

AI

1007

A

R24

Dismantling of W10

AII

1009

A

Q24

Fill under L1000

AII

1010

A

R25

Mixed fill—Byzantine road

AI

1018

A

R24–25

Balk removal

1022

A

Q24

Earth level south of W11

AII

1023

A

Q25

Fill under L1002

AII

1026

A

Q24

Earth level north of WII

AII

1027

A

Q24

Fill, south of W11 under L1022

AIII

1028

A

Q26

Cleaning of stone level

AIII

3000

C

S92

Adjacent to foundation of late Intermediate Bronze Age structure

CII

3002

C

S93

Mixed material on stone-paved surface

CI

3006

C

S92

Probe under stone-paved surface

CII

4000

D

S79

Floor inside late EB I dwelling

DII

4001

D

S80

Stone-paved floor

DII

4002

D

R80

Stone floor outside late EB I dwelling

DII

4003

D

R79

4004

D

4005

D

4006

D

S–R79

4007

D

4008

On floor inside late EB I dwelling

DII

Cancelled

DII

Cancelled

DII

Stone basin

DII

R79–80

Stone pavement outside late EB I dwelling

DII

D

S78

Disturbed dwelling—accumulation on habitation level/beaten-earth floor

DII

4009

D

T79

Disturbed late EB I layer outside south wall of dwelling

DII

4010

D

S73

Partially stone-paved floor

DII

4013

D

R78

Beaten-lime floor

DII

4014

D

S78–79

4015

D

4016

D

4017 4018

On floor inside late EB I dwelling

DII

Cancelled

DII

S79

On floor inside late EB I dwelling

DII

D

R–S78

On floor inside late EB I dwelling

DII

D

S78–79

On floor inside late EB I dwelling

DII

5001

E

T34

Disturbed material: mixed sherds from early and late EB I on stone floor. The floor itself may originally date to the Wadi Rabah period.

EII

5002

E

U34

Accumulation on stone/pebble floor

EII

5006

E

T34

Dismantling of stone/pebble floor

EII

5007

E

T34

Stone/pebble floor

EII

301

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF LOCI: AREAS A, C, D, E, F, G AND H

Locus

Area

Square

Description

Local Stratum

6000

F

U7

Fill

6001

F

U7

Fill

6002

F

U6

Stone/pebble surface

6003

F

U7

Stone/pebble surface

6004

F

U5

Stone/pebble surface

6005

F

U5

Stone/pebble surface

6006

F

U5

Stone/pebble surface

100

G

D

Cleaning of western section in Sq D12

101

G

E

Cleaning of western section in Sq E12

GII

102

G

D10

Surface below L100

GII

103

G

E10

Stone pavement

GII

104

G

E–D10–11

Surface

GII

105

G

E11

Stone pavement

GII

106

G

E–D10

Surface

GII

107

G

E10–11

Stone pavement

GII

108

G

D12

Between W11 and W12

GIII

109

G

D12

West of W12

GIII

110

G

D12

North of W10 below L102

GIII

111

G

D12

Between W10 and W14 below L102

GIII

112

G

E11

Street

GII

113

G

D12

North part of building

GIII

114

G

D11

Beaten-earth surface

GII

115

G

D12

Under L108

GIV–III

116

G

D11

West of W19

GII

117

G

E9

Cleaning of W15 to the east

GII

118

G

D12

Central part of building

GIII

119

G

E11

Under L105

GIII

120

G

E12

Surface

GIII

121

G

D11

Between W19 and W10

GII

122

G

D11

Under L116

GIII

123

G

D12

Under L18 and white floor

GIV

124

G

E12

Western side of the square, dismantling stones

GII

125

G

D12

Under L115

GV

126

G

E12

Between W21 and southwestern corner of the square

GIII

127

G

D11

Surface on northern side of the square

GIII

128

G

D11

Southwestern side of the square

GIV

129

G

E12

Under L120

GV

130

G

E12

To the south of W20

GIV

131

G

D12

Under L125, north of W27

GV

132

G

D11

North of L128

GIII

133

G

E12

West of W28

GV

134

G

E12

Pit(?) east of W28

GV

135

G

E12

South of W28

GV

136

G

D11

Under L128

GIII

137

G

D12

Under L123 connected to W27

GV

138

G

D11

Between Wall 23 and the end of the square

GIII–II

GII–I

302

ELI YANNAI

Locus

Area

Square

Description

Local Stratum

139

G

D11–12

Cleaning of upper stones of W16, Stratum III

GII

140

G

D12

Under L137

GV–IV

141

G

E12

Between W26 and the end of the square

GIV

142

G

D12

Between the western section and W12

GV

143

G

D–E11

Cleaning the upper stones of W13 and W19

GII

144

G

E10–11

Cleaning of W31

GIV

145

G

D12

Tomb below paved stone floor of L109

GIII

8000

H

South

Surface

HI

8001

H

North

Surface

HIII

8002

H

Section

Surface and burial

HII

8003

H

North

Cancelled

HIII

8004

H

South

Dark brown soil with pottery

HI

8005

H

South

Around installation

HI

8006

H

South

Cleaning of W1 in the west section

HIII

8007

H

North

Pottery floor on western side of square

HII

8008

H

South

Stone and plaster installation

HIII

8009

H

North

Dark gray soil mixed with pottery

HIII

8010

H

South

Gray soil under the installation

HIII

8011

H

North

Pit

HIII

8012

H

North

Dark gray soil mixed with pottery

HIII

8013

H

North

Dark gray soil mixed with pottery

HIII

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF LOCI: AREAS A, C, D, E, F, G AND H

303

IAA REPORTS No. 1 G. Avni and Z. Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem, 1996, 129 pp.

No. 16 Y. Goren and P. Fabian, Kissufim Road: A Chalcolithic Mortuary Site, 2002, 97 pp.

No. 2 E. Braun, Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel, 1997, 249 pp.

No. 17 A. Kloner, Maresha Excavations Final Report I: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, 2003, 183 pp.

No. 3 G. Edelstein, I. Milevski and S. Aurant, Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989, 1998, 149 pp. No. 4 C. Epstein, The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan, 1998, 352 pp. + plans. Hardcover. No. 5 T. Schick, The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert, 1998, 137 pp. No. 6 R. Cohen, Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev: The Chalcolithic Period, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I (Hebrew, English Summary), 1999, 396 pp. No. 7 R. Hachlili and A. Killebrew, Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period, 1999, 202 pp. No. 8 Z. Gal and Y. Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village, 2000, 247 pp.

No. 18 A. Golani, Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat ‘Ata, 2003, 261 pp. No. 19 H. Khalaily and O. Marder, The Neolithic Site of Abu Ghosh: The 1995 Excavations, 2003, 146 pp. No. 20 R. Cohen and R. Cohen-Amin, Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands II (Hebrew, English Summary), 2004, 258 pp. No. 21 D. Stacey, Exavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974: The Early Islamic Periods, 2004, 259 pp. No. 22 Y. Hirschfeld, Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994, 2004, 234 pp. No. 23 S. Ben-Arieh, Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim, 2004, 212 pp. No. 24 M. Dothan and D. Ben-Shlomo, Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969), 2005, 320 pp.

No. 9 U. Dahari, Monastic Settlements in South Sinai in the Byzantine Period: The Archaeological Remains, 2000, 250 pp. + map.

No. 25 M. Avissar, Tel Yoqne‘am: Excavations on the Acropolis, 2005, 142 pp.

No. 10 Z. Yeivin, The Synagogue at Korazim: The 1962–1964, 1980–1987 Excavations (Hebrew, English Summary), 2000, 216 pp.

No. 26 M. Avissar and E.J. Stern, Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel, 2005, 187 pp., 53 figs., 34 color plates.

No. 11 M. Hartal, The al-Subayba (Nimrod) Fortress: Towers 11 and 9, 2001, 129 pp.

No. 27 E.C.M. van den Brink and Ram Gophna, Shoham (North), Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel, 2005, 214 pp.

No. 12 R. Gonen, Excavations at Efrata: A Burial Ground from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages, 2001, 153 pp.

No. 28 N. Getzov, The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations, 1994–1995, 2006, 204 pp.

No. 13 E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg, Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley, 2001, 227 pp.

No. 29 A.M. Berlin, Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period, the Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989, 2006, 181 pp.

No. 14 R. Frankel, N. Getzov, M. Aviam and A. Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee, 2001, 175 pp. + color distribution maps and foldout map.

No. 30 R. Greenberg, E. Eisenberg, S. Paz and Y. Paz, Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound I: Excavation Reports, 1933–1986, 2006, 500 pp.

No. 15 M. Dayagi-Mendels, The Akhziv Cemeteries: The Ben-Dor Excavations, 1941–1944, 2002, 176 pp.

No. 31 E. Yannai, ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) I: Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel, 308 pp.