Exploring the Narrative: Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages 9781472550439, 9780567224125, 9780567655370

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

583 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

ii

EXPLORING THE NARRATIVE

Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages

Edited by Eveline van der Steen Jeannette Boertien Noor Mulder-Hymans

LON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W YOR K • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com Bloomsbury is a registered trademark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2014 © Eveline van der Steen, Jeannette Boertien and Noor Mulder-Hymans with contributors, 2014 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Eveline van der Steen, Jeannette Boertien and Noor Mulder-Hymans and contributors have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi¿ed as Authors of this work. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the authors. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN:

HB: ePDF:

978-0-56722-412-5 978-0-56765-537-0

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Noor Mulder-Hymans, Jeannette Boertien, Eveline van der Steen Exploring the Narrative / Noor Mulder-Hymans, Jeanette Boertien, Eveline van der Steen p.cm Includes bibliographic references and index. ISBN 978-0-56722-412-5 (hardcover) Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com)

CONTENTS Abbreviations List of Contributors

ix xi

MARGREET STEINER: A BIOGRAPHY THE PUBLISHED WORK OF MARGREET STEINER

xiii xvi

INTRODUCTION

xix

Part I JORDAN THE ASSYRIAN PROVINCE OF GILEAD AND THE “MYTH OF THE EMPTY LAND” Meindert Dijkstra and Karel Vriezen

3

THE LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF THE EASTERN JORDAN VALLEY: THE START OF A LONG TRADITION Eva Kaptijn

23

ORGANIZATION OF POTTERY PRODUCTION IN THE IRON AGE: EVIDENCE FROM TELL HESBAN AND TELL AL-‘UMAYRI Gloria London and Robert D. Shuster

36

REGIONAL INTERACTION IN AMMON DURING THE IRON AGE IIC: AN INSIGHT INTO REGIONAL EXCHANGE THROUGH CERAMICS FROM THE ‘AMMAN CITADEL AND DEIR ‘ALLA Niels C. F. Groot

62

A LATE IRON AGE I CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM CENTRAL JORDAN: INTEGRATING FORM, TECHNOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION Bruce Routledge, Stephanie Smith, Alexandra Mullan, Benjamin Porter and Stanley Klassen

82

vi

Contents

THE TYPOLOGY OF IRON AGE COOKING POTS AT TALL AL-‘UMAYRI, JORDAN Larry G. Herr

108

RECYCLING IN THE ANCIENT WORLD: POTSHERDS AND MENDED POTS P. M. Michèle Daviau, with a Contribution by Jeannette Boertien

115

PUBLIC OR DOMESTIC? TEMPLE, TEXT AND TEXTILE PRODUCTION AT KHIRBET AL-MUDAYNA IN MOAB Jeannette H. Boertien

133

THE IRON AGE BREAD OVENS IN THE KITCHEN OF KHIRBAT AL-MUDAYNA, JORDAN Noor Mulder-Hymans

159

UNDERSTANDING THE “PIT PEOPLE”: AN IMAGINARY CONVERSATION IN THE CENTRAL JORDAN VALLEY DURING THE LATE SEVENTH OR SIXTH CENTURY B.C.E. Lucas P. Petit

171

WERE THE CASEMATES EVER FILLED? Dinie Boas-Vedder

180

IN SEARCH OF EDOMITE BURIALS Piotr Bienkowski

194

Part II JERUSALEM “THE SITUATION IS MORE COMPLICATED”: ARCHAEOLOGY AND TEXT IN THE HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE IRON AGE IIA SOUTHERN LEVANT Koert van Bekkum

215

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AND THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGES: BIBLICAL NARRATIVES, LITERARY SOURCES, THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND MARGREET STEINER Zeidan A. Kafa¿

245

Contents

vii

ON JERUSALEM’S EXPANSION DURING THE IRON AGE II Avraham Faust

256

DISPELLING THE FOG (+6) AROUND THE OPHEL (+6œ˜ 3) Norma Franklin

286

COLOUR REMAINS ON FIGURINES FROM JERUSALEM Izaak J. de Hulster

297

JERUSALEM: WHY ON EARTH IS IT IN HEAVEN? A COMPARISON BETWEEN GALATIANS 4:21–31 AND 2 BARUCH 4:1–7 J. Cornelis de Vos

326

EXPLORING JERUSALEM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY Eveline J. van der Steen

338

CHARLES WARREN’S KIDRON VALLEY TUNNELS, BIR AYYUB, AND THE LOCATION OF BIBLICAL EN ROGEL Shimon Gibson

351

ARCHAEOLOGICAL VOICES FROM JERUSALEM Raz Kletter

394

Index of References Index of Authors

428 431

1

viii

ABBREVIATIONS AASOR ABD ADAJ ADPV AJA ANET ATD BA BAR BASOR BZAW CAT CIS ESHM FAT GGG HALOT HSM IAA IEJ IPIAO JNES JPOS JSOT JSOTSup KTU

1

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Annual of the Department of the Antiquities of Jordan Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins American Journal of Archaeology Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3d ed. with Supplement. Princeton, 1988 Das Alte Testament Deutsch Biblical Archaeologist British Archaeological Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Münster, 1995 Copenhagen International Series European Seminar in Historical Methodology Forschungen zum Alten Testament O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis, 1998 Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994–99 Harvard Semitic Monographs Israel Antiquities Authority Israel Exploration Journal S. Schroer (and O. Keel), Die Ikonographie Palästinas, Israels und der Alte Orient: Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern. Fribourg, 2005– Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen–Vluyn, 1976. 2d enlarged ed. of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Münster, 1995 (= CAT)

x LHBOTS NEA NSOJ OBO OBO.SA OTP OTS PEFQS PEQ RGG SAAS SEA SHAJ SHANE SHCANE TAVO TUAT UDA

UF VTSup ZAW ZDPV

1

Abbreviations Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Near Eastern Archaeology New Studies on Jerusalem Orbis biblicus et orientalis Orbis biblicus et orientalis: Series archaeologica Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, 1983 Oudtestamentische studiën Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel. 4th ed. Tübingen, 2001 State Archives of Assyria Studies Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok

Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments J.-L. Cunchillos, J.-P. Vita, and J.-A. Zamora, Ugaritic Data Bank: The Texts. Informatic applications by R. Cervigón. Madrid: Laboratorio de Hermeneumática, 2003. Online: http://csic.academia .edu/JoseAngelZAMORA/Books/493255/The_texts_of_the_ Ugaritic_data_bank_ Ugarit-Forschungen Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Piotr Bienkowski: Independent scholar, UK Dinie Boas-Vedder: Independent scholar, Delft, Netherlands Jeannette Boertien: Af¿liate scholar, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen, Netherlands P. M. Michèle Daviau: Professor Emerita, Archaeology and Classical Studies Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Izaak J. de Hulster: Post-doctoral Researcher, Theologische Fakultät, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany J. Cornelis de Vos: Adjunct Professor, Cluster of Excellence ‘Religion and Politics’, Münster, Germany Meindert Dijkstra: Emeritus Professor, University of Utrecht, Netherlands Avraham Faust: Professor, Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Israel Norma Franklin: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa; Associate Fellow W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Israel Shimon Gibson: University of North Carolina at Charlotte University of the Holy Land, Jerusalem, Israel Niels C. F. Groot: Independent scholar, Utrecht, Netherlands Larry G. Herr: Professor of Religious Studies, Canadian University College, Lacombe, Alberta, Canada 1

xii

List of Contributors

Zeidan A. Kafa¿: Yarmouk University, Irbed, Jordan Eva Kaptijn: Salagassos Archaeological Research project, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Stanley Klassen: Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto, Canada Raz Kletter: Docent for Near-Eastern Arcaheology, University of Helsinki; Tallinn, Estonia Gloria London: Independent scholar, Seattle, USA Noor Mulder-Hymans: Independent scholar, Maastricht, Netherlands Alexandra Mullan: Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, UK Lucas P. Petit: Curator, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden, Netherlands Benjamin Porter: Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of California, Berkeley, USA Bruce Routledge: Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, UK Robert D. Shuster: Chair of Department of Geography/Geology, University of Nebraska – Omaha, USA Stephanie Smith: Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, UK Koert van Bekkum: Assistant Professor, Theological University, Kampen, Netherlands Eveline J. Van der Steen: Honorary Research Fellow, University of Liverpool, UK Karel Vriezen: Emeritus Professor, University of Utrecht, Netherlands 1

MARGREET STEINER: A BIOGRAPHY Margarete Laura Steiner was born in Amsterdam, in 1949, the second of three children, and moved to Zandvoort when she was 6 years old. Her younger sister, Jeannette, still recalls memories of a happy childhood. After her graduation from the Gymnasium in Haarlem, Margreet moved to Amsterdam, where she studied social geography at the Vrije Universiteit. As her secondary subject she chose archaeology, but at the time confessed that she didn’t like it very much. Margreet worked as a geography teacher in Amsterdam for a while, then decided that teaching was not for her, and so in 1979 she went back to university, this time in Leiden. Here she took up, of all things, archaeology, this time, however, with Henk Franken as one of her teachers, which made all the difference in the world. Henk was an inspired teacher, albeit mostly because of his own passion for archaeology, which he passed on to his students. Henk Franken had worked with Kathleen Kenyon in Jericho, to get experience in ¿eld archaeology. When Kenyon passed away, Henk inherited some of her unpublished excavation materials from Jerusalem. This became Henk’s, and as a consequence, also Margreet’s major project in the years that followed. Together they worked on Kenyon’s pottery and stratigraphy, and published a number of articles and volumes, and it provided the materials for Margreet’s Ph.D. If Margreet’s Ph.D. had been a bit earlier, or Henk’s retirement a bit later, she might have been his successor, and it was one of his lasting regrets that that never happened. Both Henk and Margreet had, based on the Jerusalem excavations, developed ideas that collided with the communis opinio about the history of the Holy City, which was largely based on the biblical narrative, and which had historical, as well as political implications. As such, their contribution to the debate about Jerusalem has proved stimulating and constructive. The archaeology department of Leiden University also had a project on the other side of the Jordan: Tell Deir ‘Alla in the Jordan Valley. This is where Margreet, as well as many other students of Leiden University, got their ¿rst taste of dirt archaeology. Henk Franken was director, and 1

xiv

Exploring the Narrative

he followed, and further developed, Kenyon’s stratigraphic excavation system. Deir ‘Alla was excavated slowly and meticulously, and acquired a reputation for excellent stratigraphic digging. Later, at Deir ‘Alla and at other sites where she was in charge, Margreet passed on her considerable stratigraphic skills, as well as her enthusiasm, to grateful Leiden students, some of whom have contributed to this volume. After Deir ‘Alla came Tell Abu Sarbut, a small Islamic tell near Deir ‘Alla, which she excavated together with Ted Lagro and Hubert de Haas. However, her interest remained focused on the earlier periods, and Margreet started to collaborate with Michèle Daviau, who directed the excavations at Iron Age Khirbet Mudayna ath-Thamad, in Moab. Moab, and the economy of the later Iron Age, became a new focus for Margreet, and she organized several workshops in Leiden and published a number of articles about the economy of Moab. She also published the excavation of the Iron Age site of Lehun. Life has not always been kind to Margreet, but with her passion and optimism she has always made the most of every circumstance. She has a strong personality, and doesn’t suffer fools gladly, which has occasionally caused conÀicts, and not always helped her career. But that same personality has made her many dear friends, in Holland, in Israel/Palestine, and in Jordan, her home away from home, where Ahmed, Fatma, and many other friends, welcome her as a long-lost daughter, every time she comes. Kees Franken-Burggraaf Jeannette Steiner

1

Lost in the Wadi Ram In 1984 the Deir ‘Alla excavation team went to Aqaba for a midexcavation break. Margreet, Loes and Hugo stayed in the Wadi Ram with their camper van. The guesthouse carpark was full of four-by-fours and camels, and so the camper van was parked a little further away, near the rocks. It was late afternoon, and Loes and Margreet decided to visit a site at the other side of the Wadi. They never reached the site, because suddenly night fell, like a dark woollen blanket, enveloping everything in deep impenetrable blackness. They weren’t too worried, because all they had to do was turn around and walk back to the camper van. But walking in the dark is not as straightforward as it seems, and the light of the camper van was nowhere to be seen. Everything was pitch black. The girls were still giggling, but also getting slightly worried, and as a consequence felt a need to squat down. No problem, it was dark, there was no one around—they thought, until a dog suddenly started barking and they realised they were squatting, well, maybe not in the middle, but certainly next to a Bedouin camp. They ran off, if only to avoid a lengthy tea visit, and eventually got back to the camper van. Next morning the world was back to normal again. They offered breakfast (bread and jam) to a passing Bedouin and his camel, and they never found out if he happened to live in a Bedouin camp nearby… Loes Dumas

1

THE PUBLISHED WORK OF MARGREET STEINER Books 1990

with H. J. Franken: Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967. Vol. 2, The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-east Hill. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1991 with H. Blok: De Onderste Steen Boven: opgravingen in Jeruzalem. Excavations in Jerusalem. Kampen: Kok. Also translated into German. 1996 with A. G. Auld: Jerusalem I, from the Bronze Age to the Maccabees. Cities of the Biblical World. Cambridge: Lutterworth. 2001 Excavations (by Kathleen M. Kenyon) in Jerusalem 1961–1967. Vol. 3, The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. CIS 9. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic. Also translated into Arabic. 2008 ed., with Eveline J. van der Steen: Sacred and Sweet: Studies on the Material Culture of Tell Deir ‘Alla and Tell Abu Sarbut. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 24: Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Forthcoming ed., with Ann E. Killebrew: The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (ca. 8000–332 BCE). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Articles 1986 1988 1989 1992 1992

1993

1993 1994 1995 1

A Note on the Iron Age Defence Wall on the Ophel Hill of Jerusalem. PEQ 118:27–32. The Earliest City Wall of Jerusalem. IEJ 38:203–4. with H. de Haas en H. E. LaGro: First Season of Excavations at Tell Abu Sarbut, 1988: A Preliminary Report. ADAJ 33:323–26. with H. J. Franken: Jebus and Urusalim. ZAW 104:110–11. with H. de Haas en H. E. LaGro: Second and Third Seasons of Excavations at Tell Abu Sarbut, Jordan Valley (Preliminary Report). ADAJ 36:333–43. The Jebusite Ramp of Jerusalem: The Evidence from the Macalister, Kenyon and Shiloh Excavations. Pages 585–88 in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem June 1990. Edited by Avraham Biran and Joseph Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Urusalim en Jebus. Phoenix 39, no. 2:84–91. Redating the Terraces of Jerusalem. IEJ 44:13–20. The Glass Bracelets of Tell Abu Sarbut. SHAJ 5:537–40.

The Published Work of Margreet Steiner 1995

1996

1996

1996 1997 1997/8 1998 1998 1999 2000 2000

2001

2001

2001 2002 2002 2003

2003

2003 1

xvii

Stad van David: archeologie in het oudste stadsdeel van Jeruzalem. Uitgave Bijbels Openlucht Museum, Nijmegen. Catalogues of exhibitions of the same name. De Archeologie over Jeruzalem als Heilige Stad. Pages 29–38 in Jeruzalem als Heilige Stad: religieuze voorstellingen en geloofspraktijk. Edited by K. D. Jenner and G. A. Wiegers. Kampen: Kok. Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: Archaeological Versus Literary Sources? Pages 3*–9* in New Studies on Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Second Conference, Nov. 28, 1996. Edited by A. Faust. Jerusalem: Ramat-Gan. De archeologie van Jeruzalem. Ter Herkenning 24, no. 3:197–204. Two Popular Cult Sites of Ancient Palestine. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 11:16–28. The Excavation at Tell Abu Sarbut, a Mamluk Village in the Jordan Valley. ARAM 10:145–51. The Archaeology of Ancient Jerusalem. Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 6:143–68. It’s Not There: Archaeology Proves a Negative. BAR 24:26–33. Problems of Synthesis: A Criticism of the New Chronology. Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 8:12–13. with P. M. Michèle Daviau: A Moabite Sanctuary at Khirbat al-Mudayna. BASOR 320:1–21. with Robert Chadwick and P. M. Michèle Daviau: Four Seasons of Excavations at Khirbet al-Mudayna on Wadi ath-Thamad, 1996–1999. ADAJ 44:257–70. Jerusalem in the 10th and 7th Centuries BCE: From Administrative Centre to Commercial City. Pages 280–88 in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. Edited by A. Mazar. JSOTSup 331. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic. Jeruzsálem, mint szent város az ószövétsgi korban. Studia Biblica Athanasianan 4:57–75. Trans. of “The Archaeology of Ancient Jerusalem,” 1998. I am Mesha, King of Moab, or: Economic Organization in Iron Age II. SHAJ 7:327–30. The Hellenistic to Byzantine Souk: Results of the Excavations at BEY.011. ARAM 13–14:113–27. Mesha Versus Solomon: Two Models of Economic Organization in Iron Age II. SEA 67:37–45. Expanding Borders: The Development of Jerusalem in the Iron Age. Pages 68–79 in Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition. Edited by Thomas L. Thompson. CIS 13. JSOTSup 381. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic. Also translated into Arabic. The Evidence from Kenyon’s Excavations in Jerusalem: A Response Essay. Pages 347–64 in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Edited by Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew. Atlants: SBL. Mesa Versus Salomo: Twee modellen van de economie in de Late IJzertijd. Phoenix 49:24–33.

xviii 2004

2004 2006 2006

2007

2007

2008 2008 2008

2008 2009

2009

2011

1

The Published Work of Margreet Steiner Jerusalem in the 10th/9th centuries BC. The Bible and Interpretation. No pages. Online: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Steiner-10th-9th_ Century.shtml. Jeruzalem in de Late Bronstijd en Vroege IJzertijd: Archeologische versus schriftelijke bronnen? Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 28:11–15. The Pottery of Khirbet al-Mudayna and Site WT–13 in Jordan. Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies 22:101–10. with Daviau, P. M. M., R. Chadwick, M. Weigl, A. Dolan, Z. Mcquinn and N. Mulder-Hymans: Excavation and Survey at Khirbat al-Mudayna and Its Surroundings: Preliminary Report of the 2001, 2004 and 2005 Season. ADAJ 50:249–84. The Notion of Jerusalem as a Holy City. Pages 447–59 in ReÀection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld. Edited by R. Rezetko, T. H. Lim, and W. B. Aucker. Leiden: Brill. Jerusalem in the Late Second Millennium and the Beginning of the First Millennium B.C. Pages 69–73 in Jerusalem before Islam. Edited by Z. Kafa¿. Amman: Royal Academy of Islamic Civilizations. Tell Abu Sarbut: The Occupation of a Rural Site in the Ayyubid–Mamluk Periods. Pages 159–96 in Steiner and van der Steen, Sacred and Sweet. An Analysis of the Islamic Glass Bracelets Found at Tell Abu Sarbut. Pages 231–40 in Steiner and van der Steen, Sacred and Sweet. Propaganda in Jerusalem: State Formation in Iron Age Judah. Pages 193– 202 in Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze Age to Iron Age IIA (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.). Vol. 1, The Archaeology. Edited by L. L. Grabbe. New York: T&T Clark International. with L. Jacobs: The Iron Age Pottery of al-Lehun, Jordan: Fabrics and Technology. Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies 24:133–41. The “Palace of David” Reconsidered in the Light of Earlier Excavations. The Bible and Interpretation. No pages. Online: http://www.bibleinterp. com/articles/palace_2468.shtml. Khirbet al-Mudayna and Moabite Pottery Production. Pages 145–64 in Studies on Iron Age Moab and Neighbouring Areas in Honour of Michèle Daviau. Edited by P. Bienkowski. Leuven: Peeters. The Persian Period City Wall of Jerusalem. Pages 307–17 in The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Edited by I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

INTRODUCTION Of all the aphorisms about the meaning and the relevance of history, the most notorious is no doubt Henry Ford’s “History is Bunk.” In fact, what he said was “History is probably Bunk,” and although he put it rather strongly, Ford did have a point. History may not be altogether Bunk, but it is not half as straightforward as we would like it to be. It is not a nice, well-organized collection of hard and fast facts, no clear-cut narrative of the past. The various bits of information that create what we understand as history, as “the past,” regularly contradict each other, modify each other, and leave large gaps, which we ¿ll with our own interpretations and assumptions.1 Which is probably the reason for the second most famous aphorism about history: Hegel’s “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.” We don’t learn from history, because we all have our own version of it. Humans have a great capacity to shape what seem to be hard facts, to suit their own agenda. The “facts” that create our perception of the past, are of a varying nature, and their relative importance is another factor that shapes the end result. Written sources, oral traditions and archaeology are commonly seen as the most important. But already there the problems start, because none of those sources are straightforward in themselves. Written sources are edited by their authors, by the scribes, or by the people who told them what to write. They may be a truthful precipitation of the facts, they may be an exaggeration, or even a pure invention to glorify the people in power. Oral traditions, even if they are eventually written down, have been shaped over a long period, through the interaction of narrators and their audience. Their purpose was not to record what happened, but rather to amuse, instruct, or rouse their audience.

1. One of the most notorious illustrations of this is the famous, or infamous, case of Richard III, king of England from 1483 to 1485. Was he the villain who murdered his nephews, or was he a good, but unlucky king, who got a bad press from his Tudor successors’ historians? 1

xx

Introduction

And even archaeology, the material remains left and discarded by the people of the past, with no agenda, no effort to shape history in any way, is not as straightforward as we would hope. Archaeology is a jigsaw from which most of the pieces are missing, and of the existing pieces, we often don’t know where in the picture they belong. It is as if the written sources represent the picture on the box, while archaeology provides the pieces inside, but often the pieces seem to belong in a different box altogether. This is particularly true for the Middle East, with its abundance of written sources, and its abundance of archaeological digs, which regularly contradict each other, or seem to do so. One of the main occupations of historical scholars in the region, whether archaeologists, historians, linguists or theologians, is to make those sources complement, rather than contradict each other. For a long time Margreet Steiner’s career has focused on the analysis of the archaeology of Jerusalem, partly in cooperation with Henk Franken, and the interpretation of the written sources in light of the archaeological ¿nds. For Margreet the archaeology always came ¿rst, which has often set her on a collision course with colleagues and historians, but which has also earned her the respect of the same colleagues. Later she moved “across the Jordan” to the archaeology of Iron Age Moab, and the study of daily life in the villages, as seen through the archaeological remains. Here her conclusions were less controversial, but mainly because she was looking at the economy of farmers and craftsmen, people who don’t normally ¿gure in the written sources of the day. Her interpretations of daily life in the Iron Age ¿lled the gaps that were left by the “history writing” of rulers such as Mesha, and put Àesh and blood on the people that formed the backbone of the society that created those texts. The relationship between written and oral sources on the one hand, and archaeology on the other, sometimes tenuous, sometimes supportive, is the theme of this book, which is dedicated to Margreet and her tireless efforts to make sense of both. It focuses on the same geographical regions that have been her main professional territory: Jerusalem and Transjordan. The ¿rst eleven articles look at the relationship between archaeology and written sources in Transjordan. The ¿rst, by Meindert Dijkstra and Karel Vriezen, investigates the “myth of the empty land,” the often painted historical picture of the desertion of Gilead after the campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III. It is a critical assessment of written sources, archaeology and the mechanics of economic and military control in the 1

Introduction

xxi

region, and shows how these sources can complement each other to modify our perception of this period and paint a fuller picture of life in the region. The contribution by Eva Kapteyn explores the landscape that forms the background and the canvas for the narratives about the past, without which no history could be written. Technical analysis of pottery, a science that was started in the Levant by Henk Franken, and taken up by Margreet Steiner, can answer questions and provide insights into the history of the region that no other science can. Several articles in this volume are dedicated to this particular branch of archaeology. Gloria London and Robert Shuster’s technical analysis of Iron Age II pottery in Tell Hesban and Tell ‘Umayri, on the central Jordanian Plateau, shows that even in the ¿eld of pottery studies, different areas of research create different narratives. Potters used new techniques to recreate traditional and imported shapes, and old techniques to create new shapes, so that the impression a potter created with the shape of his vessels told its own story, which could differ radically from the underlying traditions and social changes. Niels Groot has conducted a technical analysis of Iron Age II pottery from two different regions, Deir ‘Alla and Ammon, which tells a story of economic and social interaction between the two regions, that is not reÀected in any of the written sources of the period. A comparison of Groot’s two pottery repertoires which attest to the extensive interregional contacts in the later Iron Age, with the repertoire described and analysed by Bruce Routledge, of Iron Age I Mudayna alAliya, again stresses the importance of technical analysis for the interpretation of economic and social interaction. Routledge’s repertoire shows a much more limited radius for pottery production and exchange in the earlier period. At the same time the Iron Age I potters were as skilled as those from Iron Age II. The repertoire testi¿es to a localised economy, and social interaction on a much smaller scale than in the later, better known Iron Age II. Larry Herr, in his article about cooking pots from Tell Umayri, goes back to the importance of shape in pottery, showing that particularly cooking pots, with their relatively short life span and their clear form typology, can provide more accurate and unbiased dating information about archaeological sites and phases, and of the literary sources that were found in them. Michèle Daviau, in her article about recycling in the ancient world, gives new life to the humble potsherd. Sherds could be used in daily life 1

xxii

Introduction

as gaming pieces, scoops or spindle whorls, and pots could, on occasion, be mended by drilling holes in them and repairing them. Thus references in the Bible about the fate of pot sherds are illustrated by archaeology. Loomweights, the odd-looking clay balls that are ubiquitous on most domestic sites, and are, more often than not, thrown away, have been studied extensively by Jeannette Boertien. In her contribution in this volume she looks at what these clay balls tell about the weaving industry on a site, and speci¿cally the site of Mudayna ath-Thamad, where she discerns a relationship between weaving and the cult. The relationship between cult and textiles is known from written sources. Boertien’s research provides the archaeological support for, and gives shape to this relationship. Another group of installations that is often treated by archaeologists with less respect than it deserves, are the ubiquitous bread ovens. Several were found in the Mudayna excavations, and Noor Mulder shows in her article that a proper study of these installations can throw light on daily life as described in the Old Testament, as well as clarify some of the Old Testament metaphors that refer to the baking of bread. An imaginary conversation, between a traveller from the Amman plains and a farmer from the Jordan Valley at the end of the Iron Age, by Lucas Petit, uses a combination of historical sources and archaeological remains from the region, to bring to life the people at the bottom of the hierarchy, what LaBianca and Witzel call the “little traditions” (LaBianca and Witzel 2007) that survived and thrived under the radar of the great powers. Apart from pottery, architecture and building remains are an important tool in archaeological analysis. Dinie Boas investigates a particular aspect of building in the past, namely the defence works known as casemate walls. Warfare was endemic in the Iron Age, and the use of defence structures has always been taken for granted. Boas’s analysis looks at the structural evidence to investigate the possible use and functions of these walls, and reaches some interesting conclusions, particularly about their function. And ¿nally Piotr Bienkowski looks at the subject of burials in the Iron Age II in Edom. He outlines the uncertainty surrounding these burials, and challenges the often held idea that burials and burial sites, as found in archaeology, must be a reÀection of the society in which they originate, and can therefore be used to describe that society. The second part of the volume is dedicated to articles about Jerusalem, a subject that has always been close to Margreet’s heart, and for the study of which she has built up a considerable and well-deserved reputation. 1

Introduction

xxiii

Jerusalem is a city whose history has had more attention, from archaeologists, biblical scholars and others, than many other cities taken together. That is reÀected in the articles in this volume. Many deal with a very speci¿c aspect of the history of the city. The study of the history of Jerusalem is also one of the most controversial subjects for those scholars. The ¿rst two articles in this section focus on this controversy. Koert van Bekkum outlines the discourse between biblical scholarship and archaeology in the past 20 years, ending his contribution with an example of the interaction between the two disciplines, in a contentious area: the organisation of the kingdom of Solomon. Zeidan Kafa¿, in his article, discusses the controversies between archaeology and written sources, and the role that Margreet Steiner has played in them. The challenge itself is taken up by Avi Faust, in his article about the size and the expansion of Jerusalem in the Iron Age. This is a contentious issue, and a subject of debate between archaeologists and biblical and linguistic scholars, as well as between archaeologists among themselves, a debate that has become known as the “minimalist vs. maximalist debate” in which both Avi Faust and Margreet Steiner are prominent participants. Norma Franklin investigates the meaning of the biblical word “Ophel” and offers suggestions for its location in Jerusalem, Samaria and Dibon, based on the archaeology of the three capitals of Judah, Israel and Moab respectively. She comes to some interesting conclusions, both linguistic and archaeological. Izaak de Hulster, in his article about the use of colour in ¿gurines from Jerusalem, has chosen to focus on a small but important aspect of the archaeology of the city, and one that is often underestimated. Because, even in archaeological reports, ¿gurines are often depicted in black and white, the colour aspect has had little attention, and the importance of the symbolic value of various colours has been underrepresented, both in written sources (the Bible in particular) and in archaeology. The next two papers deal speci¿cally with the special status of Jerusalem as Holy City. Believers of various creeds have always felt, and still feel the need to con¿rm the sacred status of Jerusalem as described in various holy books, through archaeology, or through the interpretation of literary sources in a way that “proves” its sanctity. Cor de Vos, in his article about the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem, investigates the relationship between the two, and how the interaction between them reÀects the “sacred space” it represents for Christian and 1

xxiv

Introduction

Jewish religious communities. The earthly, “physical” Jerusalem in a sense represented the “spiritual,” heavenly Jerusalem both for Christians and Jews in the ¿rst two centuries of our era, and therefore what happened to one, could be reÀected in the other. That the same was true, to a certain extent, for scholars in the nineteenth century is posed in the article by Eveline van der Steen about the investigations of Jerusalem by nineteenth-century explorers. Their need to either prove or disprove the reality of traditional “holy places” in the Holy City, through archaeological and other investigations, sprang from a need to con¿rm their faith in an increasingly sceptical and scienti¿c age. One of the biblical sites that was the subject of debate amongst nineteenth-century scholars was En Rogel, and its possible identi¿cation with Bir Ayyub. Charles Warren’s discovery of two tunnels leading to Bir Ayyub in the 1860s, and the importance of this discovery for the history of Jerusalem is the subject of the article by Shimon Gibson. Finally, Raz Kletter has investigated the relationship between archaeology and politics in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel, in a number of case studies from the recent past. After 1948 the young government of Israel realized the importance of archaeology for the legitimization of the nation, both in the eyes of its own people, and in the eyes of the world. The documents published here by Kletter (many for the ¿rst time) display the complex relationship between archaeology, ideology and economy, and show that the government and its representatives often had no coherent response to the tension between them. In various ways, all these articles deal with the discourse, and often, the tension between the various disciplines that create our concept of history. They make clear, each in its own way, that the past is not a clearcut narrative of interrelated events, that it is more like a loose collection of stories and fragments of stories, that often change in the telling, and in which, more often than not, we hear the stories we want to hear. Nevertheless, all those stories together, as well as those that are still buried, together shape and reshape our past, a process that is never ending, and to which our friend and colleague Margreet Steiner has made an important contribution. This volume is therefore dedicated to her. Bibliography LaBianca, Ø. and K. Witzel. 2007. Nomads, Empires and Civilizations: Great and Little Traditions and the Historical Landscape of the Southern Levant. Pages 63–74 in On the Fringe of Society: Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives on Pastoral and Agricultural Societies. Edited by B. A. Saidel and E. J. van der Steen. BAR International Series 1657. Oxford: Archaeopress. 1

Part I

JORDAN

1

2

THE ASSYRIAN PROVINCE OF GILEAD AND THE “MYTH OF THE EMPTY LAND”* Meindert Dijkstra and Karel Vriezen

Introduction The “myth of the empty land” is like the idea of a mass return to this empty land after the “Babylonian captivity,” a historical myth. A historical myth is a social construction of the past that functions in the view of the world of a particular society or people (Barstad 1996, 2003; Becking 2009, 21–22). Usually, it is fundamental for its ideology and helps the members of such a society to understand its identity amidst other societies and nations. Our life and world is full of such historical myths. The Bible and its value system, too, are not free from them. The “myth of the empty land” is not only part of Zionism, either Christian or Jewish, ancient or modern, but also a well-known concept dominant in older biblical scholarship describing the historical aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. with the mass deportations of Jews [sic] and developments since, based on Old Testament stories, psalms, lamentations and so on. The land was left empty after the deportations, would lie waste for seventy years as prophesied and would then be restored and repopulated by a massive return early in the Persian era. Recent historical and archaeological research has become rather dismissive of such a view and showed that despite the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, the deportation of the royal court with its bureaucratic and clerical elite, as well as the demolition of its military infra-structure (army, fortresses, supply-cities), life for the lower-class people in the province of Jehud returned to normal rather quickly under

* We dedicate this article to Margreet Steiner in honour of her efforts to put the history and archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan on the map, and for highlighting the sometimes tenuous relationship between archaeological and written sources. 1

4

Exploring the Narrative

Babylonian occupation. The farmers continued to plough and, even if the Babylonians raised the taxes and deliveries in kind, and increased serfdoms and services, they duly continued to pay them and to observe them as they were obliged to do in the past when serving their own kings, manors and courts (Albertz 2001, 84). Though the exposure of this myth by scholars such as H. Barstad, R. Albertz, B. Becking and others meant especially a corrective view of the situation in ¿fth- and sixth-century Judah, similar observations are in order to assess the aftermath of Samaria’s fall and the captivity of the inhabitants of the former Kingdom of Israel. It is an ancient riddle: Where did the Ten Tribes go to? It can hardly be doubted that part of the elite like the upper class of Jerusalem was executed or deported to Assyria and beyond. There are indeed indications that Israelites, like many individuals from other Levantine peoples, were resettled as migrants in the environment of Gozan in the Habur area. But in the area of the former Kingdom of Israel, life and business continued as usual after a while in the provinces of Samarina, Megiddo and Gilead under Assyrian occupation—even if there, in contrast to Judah, the Assyrians resettled colonists in Samaria from other parts of the Levant, Mesopotamia (Ezra 4:4) and Anatolia on different occasions. It became the origin of another historical myth: Jews do not associate with Samaritans (John 4:9). In recent handbooks and archaeological surveys, the image of an empty land and deserted and destroyed cities is often still painted on the basis of the absence of elements of material culture of the Iron IIC Period mixed with elements of Assyrian culture (also sometimes called Iron III, or even Israelite III).1 In this contribution we will concentrate on the historical and archaeological evidence in northern Jordan in the Assyrian period. By Gilead we here mean the area mainly between the River Jordan and the Black Basalt Desert of eastern Jordan, and between the River Yarmuk in the North and the Wadi Zerqa in the South (see Fig. 1). 1. Stern (2001, 236–37) mentions a number of sites with vestiges of destruction, allegedly ascribed to 732 B.C.E.: Tall Rumeith, Tall Irbid, Tall Abu al-Kharaz, Tabaqat Fahl, Tall es-Sa’idiyeh and some sites in Geshur. Mittmann (1970, 246) believed that between the end of IA IIB and the Persian Period the area between Jarmuk and Jabbok was “nahezu völlig verödet,” in surveys “so gut wie keine Siedlung aus diesem Zeitraum” was detectable. And in MacDonald et al. (2001, 335) the IA IIC on the northern Transjordanian Plateau is summarized as follows, “This part of the country seems to have been largely bereft of settlement. The Assyrian destruction seems to have destroyed the local will to establish signi¿cant settlements in the area.” 1

DIJKSTRA AND VRIEZEN The Assyrian Province of Gilead

5

Whether this area also covers the area of the alleged Assyrian province of Gal’aza/Gal’ada2 remains to be seen.

Figure 1. Distribution of Iron Age sites in Northern Jordan

The subject of this contribution was born out of a certain perplexity. On the one hand, there is the often painted historical picture of an empty Gilead, destroyed and devoid of people after the campaigns of TiglathPileser III, archaeologically underscored by a lack of material culture of the period, though we ¿nd indications of Assyrian involvement in administration, trade and culture in the kingdoms of Jordan in general

2. Gal’aza is the old rendering of the name which is partially preserved in the relevant documents. Recent editions, however, have more correctly Gal’adi/da (Borger 1984; Becking 1992; Weippert 2010; Tadmor and Yamada 2011). The rendering of this name in the list K 276 of 1449 II, 9 is ultimately doubtful; see Alt 1953 [1929], 203. 1

6

Exploring the Narrative

and the area under discussion in particular.3 What interest and pro¿t would the Assyrians have had in an “empty” Gilead incorporated in the Assyrian empire, administration and commercial network? What interest did the Assyrians have in the commercial activity in the area after they apparently wanted to secure and control trade roads in the area in their conquest of Damascus and Northern Israel?4 In spite of such negative assessment, a crucial question is whether signs of Assyrian involvement are detectable in one way or another in the remains of material culture in Northern Jordan. First, we will summarize once more what is known historically of Assyrian activity and presence in Jordan, in particular in Gilead, which Tiglath-Pileser III added to Assyria according to his own inscriptions, and second, we will try to ¿nd out what material vestiges were left in the Assyrian and Babylonian periods (Iron Age [IA] IIC, i.e. seventh–mid-sixth century B.C.E.). Tiglatpileser III and the Annexation of Gilead What targets were set in the campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III to the West and what was his role in the “Syro-Ephraimite war”?5 The biblical description of the campaign during Pekah’s reign appears to concentrate on the deportation of the northern provinces, according to the adaptation of the annals of the Kingdom of Israel made by the Deuteronomistic chronicler.6 As such it prepares the way for the “myth of the empty land.” According to 2 Kgs 15:29 “In the time of Pekah King of Israel Tiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria came and took Iyon, Abel-Bet-Maacah, 3. Aharoni (1967, 331 n. 114) mentions Ramoth-Gilead or Hammath as the possible main city of Gal’ada/Gilead (see however Alt 1953, 240), but the Hammath he refers to is more likely the well-known Syrian Hamath (Radner 2006, 66). 4. Ephal (1982, 15, 85–87) believed that the Eastern nomad-queens Zabibe and Shamsi were allowed to control routes and organize trade (see also the appendices to Ephal 1982). Kennedy (2007) later describes the area of the Decapolis as a micro region, functioning as a pivot for trade and transport in every direction, with the fringe of the desert as hinterland, where settled and nomadic groups interact. See for his aspect of “trade” in southern Trans-Jordan Bienkowski and Van der Steen 2001. 5. This term stems from Martin Luther (Alberto-Soggin 1993, 237), and in many a historiography of Israel has become the focal point of a complex of politics, diplomacy and events of war in the context of the Assyrian expansion to the West. More recent scholars deem such an assessment now too much honour for a minor local conÀict or “Kleinkrieg” (Herrmann 1980 [1973], 306–7; Donner 1990 [1977], 421–34; Würthwein 1984, 389; Bickert 1987; Alberto-Soggin 1993, 237–41). 6. For the difference between annals and chronicles in ancient history writing, see Dijkstra 2005, 15–19. 1

DIJKSTRA AND VRIEZEN The Assyrian Province of Gilead

7

Janoah, Kedesh and Hazor. He took Gilead and Galilee, and(!) all the land of Naphtali7 and deported the people to Assyria.” This text implies the mass deportation of North Israel at both sides of Lake Gennesareth and the Transjordanian area of Gilead. It has a complicated literary structure. Besides a series of ¿ve cities, a group of three regions is listed: Galilee, Gilead and all the land of Naphtali. The last region comprises much more land and places than the cities mentioned. They belong geographically to a stretch of the northern highway and trade route along the western side of the Jordan Valley, traditionally part of the land of Naphtali. Many scholars agree that it describes a muchused and ancient road, which starts at the northern border of the Kingdom of Israel enumerating the cities in geographical order,8 from North to South.9 It is often assumed that the text is strati¿ed, the enumeration of the three regions being a later interpolation to the series of cities taken by Tiglath-Pileser III (Würthwein 1984, 383–84; Becking 1992, 18). If so, we refrain from answering the question of whether the words “and he deported them to Assyria” refer to the cities or the regions. Both are possible, but the latter is more probable. Much depends on the chronology of Tiglath-Pileser’s activities in the West, his campaigns, his conquests and subsequent political measures.10 It is generally accepted that the chronology of the period and the events therein is fraught with problems. This is not the place to elaborate on this dif¿cult question. The sources at our disposal, the Assyrian texts,11 the Deuteronomistic History and prophetical texts from Hosea, Isaiah and Micah, are less 7. The inclusion of the area of Naphtali creates the wrong impression that it concerns the same area of Gilead and Galilee, but “all the land of Naphtali” is here the area of the conquered cities. Together with the “provinces” or regions of Galilee and Gilead they were deported. We suggest that one should add =# as in a part of the textual tradition (BHK, BHS). 8. The identi¿cation of the cities Ijon, Abel Bet Maacah, Kedesh and Hazor do not present geographical or archaeological dif¿culties. A problem is the identi¿cation of Janoah, supposedly to be found between Abel Bet Maacah and Kedesh. We proposed elsewhere that Janoah could be a minor corruption of original Janoam, often mentioned in Egyptian topographical texts, which was situated somewhat north of the swamps of Huleh; see Kaplan 1978; Dijkstra, Dijkstra and Vriezen 2009, 69. 9. Comparable is the attack route of the Assyrians on Jerusalem, described in Isa 10:28–32. 10. For the chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the eighth century B.C.E., we refer to the corrected chronology of Dijkstra 2000. 11. Unfortunately, these Assyrian texts are not chronologically structured annals, though often so called, but inscriptions for display, summarizing the mighty deeds of the Assyrian king sometimes in random order on the walls of his palace, mainly in Kalhu/Kalah. 1

8

Exploring the Narrative

compatible than often assumed. Though Tiglath-Pileser III made his increasing power and inÀuence felt under the reign of Menahem of Israel, mentioned alongside Rahyan/Rezon of Damascus among his vassals about 738 B.C.E. (also 2 Kgs 15:19),12 he did not appear in the South before 734 B.C.E. in an attack on Palestine,13 in particular a punitive action against King Hanun of Gaza.14 The picture of the following years of the “Syro-Ephraimite War” is confused. The next two eponyms of 733–732 B.C.E. refer to a campaign against Damascus. There is no clear indication that Tiglath-Pileser III conducted a military campaign against Pekah of Israel (Bit Humri, House of Omri) as often written in Israelite historiography. At most, the capture of the cities in the northern Jordan Valley could be a hint, but it remains unclear whether this happened in the run-up to Gaza or as a strategic move during the siege of Damascus, isolating Israel from Damascus. Most probably, TiglathPileser still ignored his vassal Israel in 734, even if he crossed Israelite land as part of the deal, and did not interfere in the internal struggle in Samaria despite the embassy of Ahaz of Judah (1 Kgs 15:30; 16:7ff.). Signi¿cantly under the circumstances of 733 and 732, Tiglath-Pileser desisted from liquidating the Kingdom of Israel, but allowed Hosea son of Elah to hold the throne in Samaria (2 Kgs 15:30).15 The Deuteronomistic History and the Assyrian inscriptions all mention the downfall of Pekah, his replacement by Hosea and the annexation of the northern provinces and Gilead, but seemingly under different circumstances and in a different order. Presumably this annexation only took place after the fall of Damascus.16 These regions are mentioned together 12. The note is too generally formulated to construe it as a campaign against Israel, e.g. Donner 1990, 423–24; Alberto-Soggin 1993, 238. 13. For the years 734–732 B.C.E. see Millard 1994, 44–45. 14. Though we know that this foray to Palestine took place in 734 B.C.E., we know the story of Hanun only from inscriptions written after 732 B.C.E. relating also how Tiglath-Pileser restored him to the throne, apparently in exchange for use of the harbour facilities or emporium (bit kari) in Gaza (Na’aman 1979, 83; Yamada 2008, 298). 15. Tiglath-Pileser III says so expressis verbis in his inscriptions, but it is not clear under what circumstances, since all the texts are fragmentary at this point (Borger 1984, 374, 377; Tadmor and Yamada 2011, 132–33). 16. Unfortunately the toponyms before and after URUGal’adi/Gilead are slightly damaged. We are inclined to connect the third toponym [URU]A-bi-il-šiĠ-Ġi* with Old Testament Abel-Bet-Maacah. This place was situated ša ZAG/pat-ti KUR.É lHu-umri-a “on the border of the land of the House of Humri.” This matches the situation of the city of Abel Bet Maacah = Tell Abil Qamh close to present-day Metulah. The cities mentioned were probably representative as administrative centres of the province. 1

DIJKSTRA AND VRIEZEN The Assyrian Province of Gilead

9

with the whole area of the House of Hazael. The best-preserved text says: 3) [KUR.É] lÑa-za-’i-i-li rap-šú a-na si-¨ir--šú TA KUR*[Am-ma]an*-na a-di lìb-bi URUGa-al-’a-a*[-di ú URUA-bi-il-šiĠ-Ġi] 4) [ša pat-]ti KUR É lÑu-um-ri-a a-na mi-sir KUR Aš-šurki ú-ter-ra lúšuut SAG-ya* [lúEN.NAM UGU-šu-nu áš-kun]. I annexed to Assyria the extensive [land of Bit] Haza’ili in its entirety, from Mount[ Ama]nna as far as the city of Gala’a[di and Abil-sitti] [on the bor]der of the land of Bit Humri (and) [ I placed] a eunuch of mine [as provincial governor over them].17

These wordings differ somewhat from those in Tadmor and Yamada (2011, no. 42, 6’–8’), but not so much that it changes the meaning considerably. Instead of the area from the Mountains of Amanna, the area from Kashpuna on the coast of the Upper Sea as far as the immediate area around the city of Gala’da is mentioned with Abel-Sitti on the border with Israel (Bit Humri). But signi¿cantly they are mentioned as the limits of the land of Hazael that Tiglath-Pileser incorporated in his empire. Israel (Bit Humri) is only mentioned as the land to which the border city and presumably the area of Abel-Sitti belonged. In other words, this might mean that from Tiglath-Pileser’s point of view Gilead was part of the Kingdom of Damascus and was taken from his land. All the more so if we construe the border description as inclusive. The only other evidence that Tiglath-Pileser took other areas from Israel, apart from the contested province of Gilead, might be a fragmentary account of deportation from the area of Galilee (Pritchard 1969, 282 (b); Borger 1984, 372–73; Becking 1992, 15–16). Yet this interpretation rests mainly on the identi¿cation of some place names such as Hinaton, Qana, Arum and Marum/Merom in the mountains of Galilee. Borger’s translation, however, supposes the area be one of the sixteen districts of the House of Hazael. So, the “Galilean” interpretation is not yet certain.18 If it proves correct, it might still concern administrative measures in the occupied areas of Israel and Damascus in the aftermath of the war against Damascus, leaving only the reduced state of Samaria under Israelite rule.

17. I combined here Becking 1992, 13, Tadmor and Yamada, 2011, 131 and 134, agreeing with Borger 1984, 377 and others in the probable join of ND 4301 ++ K 2649; see also Tadmor and Yamada 2011, 135. 18. Pace Aharoni 1967, 372; Becking 1992, 15–16 and others. 1

10

Exploring the Narrative

An Assyrian Province of Gala’da/Gilead? Tiglath-Pileser said that he installed a commissioner (lúEN.NAM = lú pi¨atu) over the land which he took from Israel and Damascus. It probably meant that this commissioner was responsible for the reorganization of these areas in provinces with a provincial administration led by a governor, a (lú)sakin (GAR) TN or a lúQîpu19 afterwards.20 As far as we yet know, there is no list of new provinces available under TiglathPileser III.21 All the known lists appear somewhat later in the records. The ¿rst evidence of a new provincial system is from the reign of Sargon II (722–705 B.C.E.), presumably from after the Fall of Samaria. Signi¿cantly, governors of these new provinces alongside the traditional series of Assyrian provinces, cities and conquests in the eighth century B.C.E. only begin to appear in the eponym list from 695 B.C.E. onwards.22 So the Assyrians probably only elaborated a new provincial division after the liquidation of the Kingdom of Israel. This presumably applies also to the establishment of the coastal provinces Dôr/Duru23 and Asdod/Asdudu and the northern province of Megiddo (Alt 1953, 198–99; Becking 1992, 11, 114).24 Like the coastal harbour-city of Dor and the city of Megiddo 19. Ephal (1982, 86) mentions a luqîpu, who was appointed at the court of the Arabian queen Shamsi; see Tadmor and Yamada 2011, no. 42:26’// 49 Rev.22’, presumably as a kind chargé d’affairs or embassy. The function or status of such a lú qîpu in the Assyrian administrative system is not always transparent, but in this case it was hardly a curator or supervisor. 20. The lists of eponyms usually have (lú)sakinu(GAR) +TN or ša TN for the provincial and urban governors. The relation to the lúpihatu(EN.NAM) “commissioner” and lúqîpu “agent, chargé d’affairs” needs further investigation, but see provisionally Na’aman 1979, 84; Tadmor and Yamada 2011, 299. 21. Pace Aharoni 1967, 374 and others referring to Forrer and Alt. The survey of the texts apud Becking 1992, 103–18 offers no datable text from Tiglath-Pileser III’s reign. All datable texts mentioning provinces stem from the reign of Sargon II and later. 22. The governor of Damascus was presumably the ¿rst (Millard 1994, 50, 61). 23. Radner (2006, 66) doubts the existence of an independent province Dor/ Du’ru pace Na’aman (1995, 106), and assumes that the coast was under the jurisdiction of Megiddo, but the evidence of list K 152 II 3’–4’ (for instance Becking 1992, 106) seems conclusive. More doubtful is the institution of Asdod/Asdudu as a separate province after the conquest by Sargon II in 711 B.C.E., because it does not appear afterwards in administrative documents. 24. The assumption that the new system of Assyrian provinces only came into existence under Sargon II implies no prejudice against the evidence that TiglathPileser III had already moved the border of the Assyrian empire as far as Megiddo and the coastal plain of Palestine. 1

DIJKSTRA AND VRIEZEN The Assyrian Province of Gilead

11

with its surrounding area, Gilead was already a toponym for a region going back to the division of Israelite bailiwicks ascribed to King Solomon (1 Kgs 4). Such a regional connotation is also inferred in such composite names as Mispah Gilead, Ramoth Gilead, Tisbe Gilead and so on. We know further that this name also continued to be used as Galaaditis in Graeco-Roman times (1 Macc. 5, 25–26; Josephus, War 1.4.3 etc.). In other words, we have reasons to believe that the institution of an Assyrian province Gilead/Gal’ada, or the province to which it belonged, was part of this historical continuum. As already suggested by Alt, the Assyrians in their newly created provincial system seem to have used existing topographical divisions of the kingdom of Israel (Alt 1953, 196–205). In general, the “territorialgeschichtliche” views of Alt still seem to hold, except that this Assyrian provincial system is not extant yet in the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III. The only historical certainty that can be taken from his records is that he incorporated the area of Gilead in the Assyrian empire after 732 B.C.E. Whether this region was also instituted to be a separate province is less certain, though plausible in view of the earlier and later history of the area. Presumably, this did not happen under the name Gal’ada, as found by Tiglath-Pileser, but as part of the larger province of Qarnina (Carneas) or the Province of Haurana. What Were the Assyrians Looking for in Gilead? Since Tiglath-Pileser III incorporated the land of Gilead into Assyria, even if it was not turned into a separate province,25 the Assyrian government must have had a special interest in Gilead. We have seen that Tiglath-Pileser’s military campaigns into the Levant were meant from the outset to get control over the trade routes leading through the Valley of the Jordan via Hazor to Megiddo and further to the coastal routes leading into Phoenicia, Palestine and Egypt. Since ancient times, an East–West route was connected to this main trade route, leading from the east side of the Jordan via Beth Sean and the Jezreel Plain to Megiddo (Vieweger and Häser, 2005, 1; 2007b, 148–49; Dijkstra, Dijkstra and Vriezen 2009, 76). This trade route came from the Eastern Desert and may have had a gateway town or market place in Gilead in Assyrian times. The Assyrians certainly had such special interests also in the trade

25. Gilead is not mentioned or discussed as an Assyrian province by Radner (2006, 66–68). Most probably it was added to the Assyrian province of Qarnina or Haurana, which had been a Syrian area from the viewpoint of the Assyrians as recorded in the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser. 1

12

Exploring the Narrative

route in southern Jordan from Busayra (Wadi Faynan/Fidan) via En Hashevah, Beersheba and perhaps also via the Assyrian foothold of Tell Jemmeh on to the Mediterranean coast, either to the coastal city of Gaza or to the newly created harbour near present-day el-Arish (Ephal 1982, 93, 101–11; Bienkowski and Van der Steen 2001). This trade route was left to the exploitation and control of a nomadic sheikh, Idibi’ilu, beginning in the time of Tiglath-Pileser III, who appointed the sheikh to be “the gatekeeper” to Egypt (Ephal 1982, 93; Borger 1984, 372:226; 374:33; 375:6; Tadmor and Yamada 2011, no. 42:34’–35’).26 At the beginning of Sargon II’s reign,27 the Assyrians became more involved and dominant in the international trade in this region because of the reopening of the Karu KURMu‰ur, an Assyrian trade centre, which presumably was established between Gaza and later Rhinocorura/elArish.28 This happened also in cooperation with local sheikhs (Ephal 1982, 101–11, esp. 103–4). This raises the question how the Assyrian government exercised control over the trade and trade routes in other regions of Transjordan. Evidence suggests that this control was not exercised by military bases, road stations and trading centres like those established along the Levantine coast and elsewhere in Cis-Jordan (Na’aman 1995; Fantalkin and Tal 2009). Local princes and nomadic sheikhs seem to have been enlisted into their commercial network in order to control and exploit the King’s Highway and its branches (Num 20:17; 21:22; Deut 2:27). The connections and commercial ties that Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II and other Assyrian kings maintained with the Arabic queens Zabibe and Shamsi of Qedar in the hinterland of Syria and Hauran-Gilead and also with princesheikh It’amara of Saba in Northern Arabia may serve as a model for such an approach (Ephal 1982, 93–100; Knauf 1985, 2–7). For the situation in Southern Jordan and the Negev, Bienkowski and Van der Steen developed a trade model, which is also applicable to the South– North route of the Trans-Jordanian Plateau (King’s Highway) to Damascus and Phoenicia (Bienkowski and Van der Steen 2001, 35–40). 26. For a possible involvement of Midianite traders, see Knauf 1985, 2–7; 1988, 26–31. Later, under Sargon II a lúnasiku ša URULaban is here active, ibid.; 93–94. 27. Perhaps in his ¿rst year or during his ¿rst campaign (Borger 1984, 379). Pharaoh Shilkanu = Osorqon IV was still reigning in the Egyptian Delta. Not long afterwards, the whole of Egypt was subdued by the 25th or Nubian Dynasty, in particular by Pharaoh Shabaqa (721/720–707/706 B.C.E.), on the basis of the Tang I-Var inscription from 707/706 B.C.E., in which Sargon II recorded that his successor Shebitku extradited to him King Jamani of Asdod. 28. See the discussion in Ephal 1982, 104–5; Reich 1984; Bienkowski and Van der Steen 2001, 40; Veenhof 2001, 257. Perhaps to be identi¿ed with T. Abu Salima. 1

DIJKSTRA AND VRIEZEN The Assyrian Province of Gilead

13

The transfer by Sargon II of Arabic nomads to the new provincial town of Samarina is signi¿cant for this purpose, certainly if we construe this measure not so much as a classic example of Assyrian deportation but rather as the facilitation of the establishment of an Arabian trading post or quarter at the end of one of the East–West trade routes leading from the east side of the Jordan to Palestine. One may think here of a road coming from the crossroads at Rabat Ammon or at Tall el-Umeiri and leading via Wadi Zerqa to the Plain of Sukkoth and the Jordan crossing at al-Damiyeh, where a market place or gateway-town perhaps existed on the road to Samaria, like the later town of el-Salt. Another East–West route from the King’s Highway to the Beth Shan area may have run through Wadi Rayan (Yabis), which survey results suggest to have been rather densely settled in IA IIC (see below), a route close to the course of the later Roman road from Gerasa to Pella (Mittmann and Schmitt 2001, TAVO Karte B V 18).29 Finally, another hint may be found in the incident with the KURGi-dira-a-a “the Gedarites,” who attacked a Moabite city (Aharoni 1967, 379; Ephal 1982, 92; Yamada 2008, 296–311, esp. 308). The name is reminiscent of the New Testament topographic term Ñɸ ÌÑÅ ¸»¸É¾ÅÑÅ “the land of the Gadarenes” (Matt 8:28).30 It is feasible that these “Gedarites” stood under the supervision of the commissioner (lúqîpu) Qurdi-Assur(Lamur) from the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III or Sargon II and according to the author of the letter, Ayanur the Tabailite,31 had to be reprimanded for their outrageous behaviour. Perhaps these nomadic “Gedarites,” deriving their name from Iron Age Gadara (Tall Zar!a) (Dijkstra, Dijkstra and Vriezen 2009, 68–73), played a role in the network of trade routes supervised by the Assyrians in their province of which Gilead formed a part. According to the model of Bienkowski and Van der Steen, a focal point would have existed, if not a gateway-town in Gilead at the crossroads to Damascus in the North and the Jezreel Plain in the West.

29. The stories of Saul and the Jabeshites (1 Sam 11:8–11; 31:10–12) may also hint of a route from the Gilboa/Beth Shean area to Wadi Rayan (Yabis) and the Ammonite area. 30. In Mark 5:1 “land of the Gerasenes,” but this is usually emended in the light of Matt. 8:28. For our purpose, suf¿ce it that the topographic expression Ñɸ ÌÑÅ ¸»¸É¾ÅÑÅ existed at the time. 31. It has been suggested that Ayanur the Tabailite, who wrote the letter to Qurdi-Assur(-Lamur), was an ancestor of the Tobiad family from Persian and Hellenistic times (Oded 1970, 180; Yamada 2008, 308 with references). On the problem of the identity of this of¿cial, Qurdi-Assur, who could have lived in inner Syria or Transjordan, see Yamada 2008, 307–10. 1

14

Exploring the Narrative

Gadara itself is not plausible, because it does not seem to have been inhabited densely in IA IIC (Vieweger and Häser 2007b, 165; Dijkstra, Dijkstra and Vriezen 2009, 35–36, 75). But perhaps one may think of a place near present day Irbid or el-Husn, which have yet to be explored in detail archaeologically, or in the area of Tell Abu Kharaz at the outÀow of the Wadi Rayan (Yabis) which was relatively densely settled in IA IIC.32 The existence of such a gateway or market place may help us to understand the way the Assyrians maintained their rule and commercial interests in their colony of Gilead with the help of nomadic groups who organized international trade for them and were not immediately subject to their administration and even exempt from taxes (Herodotus 3.91). Material Culture Archaeological ¿eld-work in the north of Jordan has revealed a substantial number of Iron Age IA sites. In the area between the Yarmuk river and the modern Syrian border in the north, the Jordan river in the west, the Black Basalt desert in the east and the E–W oriented part of the Wadi Zarqa in the south, over 300 sites have produced IA ¿nds. The IA presence has been established in ¿eld surveys, such as the large-scale projects by N. Glueck in the 1930s and 1940s and S. Mittmann in the 1960s (Glueck 1934, 1935, 1939, 1945–51; Mittmann 1970), and in stratigraphic excavations at multi-period sites, such as Tall Dair ‘Alla, Tall al-Mazar, Tall es-Sa’idiyeh, Tabaqat Fahl, Tall Irbid, Tall Rumaith. By the early 1990s, several inventories and gazetteers of compiled archaeological data had been published (Homès-Fredericq and Hennessy 1986, 1989; Zwickel 1990; Palumbo 1994 [JADIS]). In regional ¿eld surveys since then, known sites were inspected again and updated, and new ones were added to the record, e.g. the Wadi Yabis-survey (Mabry and Palumbo 1992a–b, 1993; Palumbo 1992), the Pella Hinterland survey (Watson 1996), the Borders of Arabia and Palaestina project (Da Costa 2008; University of Sydney, Department of Archaeology 2010), the Zeraqon survey (Kamlah 2000), the Khanasiri Region survey (Bartl, Khraysheh and Eichmann 2001, 2002), while new excavations in tells, such as Tall Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer 2006, 2008a–b), Tall Zar!a (Vieweger and Häser 2005, 2007a–b, 2010; Dijkstra, Dijkstra and Vriezen 2009), Tall Yoh¿yeh (Lamprichs 2007) and Tall al-Fukhar 32. For an earlier regional market area in the Jordan Valley, in the Plain of Sukkoth, see Franken 1989. 1

DIJKSTRA AND VRIEZEN The Assyrian Province of Gilead

15

(Strange 1997),33 continued to explore the IA presence in the stratigraphic sequence. Although the data of the majority of the sites were collected in surface surveys, which give only limited insight into the duration of a settlement34 and of the dynamics of a settlement pattern,35 and although the number of recorded IA stratigraphies from excavations in multi-period tells on the northern Transjordanian Plateau needs to be increased,36 the data now to hand form a good base for the issue under discussion. In the area discussed, IA ¿nds were present in 302 archaeological sites (Fig. 1). On a third of these sites (100), they were recorded without further chronological speci¿cation (Fig. 1 Ő). Of the 202 remaining sites 61% (123 sites; Fig. 1 Ɣ) had IA I and/or IIAB and also IA IIC; and 3% (6 sites; Fig. 1 Ÿ) had only IA IIC, so in total 64% had IA IIC. This means that almost two-thirds of the sites, of which the IA ¿nds were speci¿ed chronologically, produced ¿nds from IA IIC (seventh–midsixth century B.C.E.), which calls into question the idea of Gilead being an empty land in the period of Assyrian and Babylonian domination. Careful study of the distribution of the IA sites in the area under discussion shows a strong presence in the Jordan Valley, in the ‘Ajlun mountains and northward to the River Yarmuk within the area, which in modern times has an average rainfall of 400 mm or more per year (Mittmann and Schmitt 2001, TAVO Karte B IV 6). In the steppe region (Baly 1957, 62–63) to the east, only a few IA sites were established. In the following table of distribution ratios, ¿ve areas are distinguished: A Jordan Valley (Ghor, including the outÀow of the wadis) B Four wadis on the west slope of the ‘Ajlun Mountains (0–600 m above sea level): Wadi Rayan (Yabis), Wadi Kufrinji, Wadi Rajib, the E–W part of Nahr ez-Zarqa and their catchment areas C ‘Ajlun Mountains (0–600 m above sea-level) between the wadis and northward to the Yarmuk D ‘Ajlun Mountains (over 600 m above sea-level) E Steppe zone (< 400 mm average rainfall per year). 33. Strange (1997, 403) dated a group of silos to the Iron Age IIC–Persian period, though in Strange 2003, 461, these are dated in the Persian period. 34. The beginning of some settlements were explicitly precise, like the sixthcentury B.C.E. date of the settlements in the Khanasiri Region; Bartl, Khraysheh and Eichmann 1999, 24–26. 35. For a pattern of settlement and abandonment in the Iron Age, see Petit 2009, 221–29 (Middle Jordan Valley). 36. On the need of a regional strati¿ed ceramic chronology, see, e.g., Lamprichs 2007, 280, 287. 1

16

Exploring the Narrative

Area

A B C D E

IA ¿nds chronologically speci¿ed and unspeci¿ed (N = 302) 21% 29% 26% 20% 4%

IA ¿nds dated in IA I or IIA–B or IIC, or in all (N = 202) 26% 29% 29% 13% 3%

IA IIC presence (N = 129) 32% 32% 25% 8% 3%

The data indicate that the number of IA sites dropped by 36% after IA IIB. In IA IIC presence was strong in the Ghor, mainly at the outÀow of Wadi Rayan (Yabis) and in the plain between Tall Dair ‘Alla and Tall esSa’idiyeh (Sukkoth Plain), and also in the valleys of Wadi Rayan (Yabis) and Wadi Kufrinji. Most IA sites were evidenced by sherd scatters studied in surface surveys. IA IIC remains excavated in some of the strati¿ed multi-period sites were interpreted as representing villages (e.g. Tall Dair ‘Alla [Van der Kooij and Ibrahim 1989, 88–89]), as forti¿ed sites (Tall al-Mazar; Tall Abu al-Kharaz [Yassine 1983, 503–7; Fischer 2008b, 207, 209–12; Yassine and van der Steen 2012]), or as farmsteads (e.g. Tall Yoh¿yeh [Lamprichs 2007, 257–59, 270–73, 301–4]). The archaeological data indicate that the drop in IA sites after IA IIB was most severe in the mountain area of ‘Ajlun above 600 m (area D, 61%), which include the eastern slopes, and in the area between the wadis and to the north (area C, 45%). The drop in sites on the steppe (area E, 33%) corroborates the average decrease fairly well, whereas the decrease was least in the four wadis mentioned (area B, 29%) and in the Jordan Valley (21%). The area most densely settled in IA IIC, the Ghor, is characterized by a concentration of sites at the outÀow of Wadi Rayan (Yabis) with the forti¿ed Tall Abu al-Kharaz nearby, and a concentration in the plain near Tall Dair ‘Alla with Tall al-Mazar and Tall es-Sa’idiyeh to the north. The settlements in the second most densely sited area, in the valleys of the Wadi Rayan (Yabis) and Wadi Kufrinji on the western slopes of the ‘Ajlun mountains enjoying most of the bene¿ts of the rain, may have been agricultural (Mabry and Palumbo 1987, 381) and, among these, the possibly forti¿ed Tall al-Maqlub and Khirbet Umm al-Hedamus may be mentioned. In the area to the north settlements may also have been agricultural (e.g. Tall Yoh¿yeh, Tall Beit Yafa, Tall ash-Sheqaq, Zaharet Soq’ah and Tall Kufr Yuba [Lamprichs 2002, 379–80; 2007, 259]). In the steppe, settlement was apparently constant and there sites like Tall 1

DIJKSTRA AND VRIEZEN The Assyrian Province of Gilead

17

Khanasiri and Fa’a may have functioned as a bridge and defence line between the desert and the sown (Bartl, Khraysheh and Eichmann 1999, 24–26; 2002, 113–14). In general, the steppe region may have been the realm of nomads and bedouin. This region to some degree bordered the main North–South route on the Transjordanian Plateau (King’s Highway) on the east (Aharoni 1967, 50), which gave the nomads and bedouin an advantage in transport and security along this thoroughfare.37 By far most of the IA IIC settlements were situated between this main traf¿c line and the Jordan river. Right through this settlement area various E–W routes that branched off from the N–S route ran westward into ancient Palestine and Israel. These routes through the valleys of Nahr ez-Zarqa, Wadi Rayan (Yabis) and Wadi el-‘Arab have been mentioned above. This network of routes made the area of Gilead an important link in interregional and long-distance traf¿c, transport and trade. The dense IA IIC presence in the valley of the Wadi Rayan (Yabis) indicates the importance of this area and of the route through it from the King’s Highway and Ammonite area to the Gilboa–Beit Shean area and beyond. Forti¿ed sites such as Tall Abu al-Kharaz and possibly Tall Umm Hedamus guarded this route. Settlement in the plain of Tall Dair ‘Alla continued to service a market place that had existed there since the Late Bronze Age with alternating periods of growth and decline (Franken 1989; Mittmann and Schmitt 2001, TAVO Karte B IV 6), possibly because of the route through Wadi ez-Zarqa, connecting the Transjordanian Plateau with Cis-Jordan by the fords in the River Jordan near Tall es-Sa’idiyeh (Van der Steen 1996, 61; 2004, 48, 96) and near ed-Damiyeh (Baly 1957, 199). This plain may have been guarded by the palace-fortress on Tall al-Mazar (Yassine 1983, 503–7; Yassine and van der Steen 2012). The importance of these two IA IIC centres in the Jordan Valley for the Assyrians and Babylonians, at the outÀow of Wadi Rayan (Yabis) and in the plain of Tall Dair ‘Alla, may be best illustrated by the quite large number of Assyrian/Babylonian cylinder seals and seal imprints excavated in and near these areas: Tall es-Sa’idiyeh (7, including 2 imports and 6 local products [Eggler and Keel 2006: Tall as–Sa’idiya,

37. Nomads and bedouin may have functioned as carriers, an almost invisible group of “middlemen” in interregional trade (Silver 1985, 82), like the nineteenthcentury nomads involved in transport of soda and sumach from the as-SalĠ market to Jerusalem and Nablus (Abujaber 1989, 69–70). 1

18

Exploring the Narrative

nos. 10, 42 (import), nos. 8, 20, 35, 37, 38, and 39 (local)]),38 Tall alMazar (12, including 5 imports, 6 local products and 1 of Egyptian– Phoenician style [Eggler and Keel 2006: Tall al–Mazar, nos. 1, 14, 15, 22, 24 (import); nos. 4, 5, 8, 18, 23, 25 (local); no. 2 (Egyptian-Phoenician)]), Tall Dair ‘Alla (6, including 4 local products and 2 of Egyptian– Phoenician style [Eggler and Keel 2006: Tall Dair ‘Alla, 18, 20, 28, 34 (local); nos. 21=23, 27 (Egyptian-Phoenician)]), Tall Abu Kharaz (2, including 1 import and 1 local product [Keller and Tuttle 2010, 513 Fig. 5; Fisher 2008b, 207, steatite/enstatite cylindrical seal with hunting scene, see Keel and Uehlinger 1992, 329, 282b; Uehlinger 1999, 166–67 (import); Eggler and Keel 2006: Tall Abu Charaz no. 3 (local)]), Irbid (2, being both of local Assyrian-Phoenician style [Eggler and Keel 2006, Irbid no. 1]),39 Umm Qais (3, including 1 import and 2 of Egyptian– Phoenician style [Eggler and Keel 2006: Umm Qeis no. 1 (import); nos. 2–3 (Egyptian-Phoenician)]) and Tall Qafqafa (1 import [Eggler and Keel 2006: Tall Qafqafa no. 1 (import) heroic encounter with lions, see Uehlinger 1999, 144]). Of these, the ten or so imports in a rather small area are remarkable, thus suggesting they may have been brought in by Assyrian of¿cials (Keel and Uehlinger 1992, 327–28; Stern 2001, 535–37). Conclusion The above data on history, epigraphics and ¿eld archaeology show that Gilead in the IA IIC period (seventh–mid-sixth century B.C.E.) during the Assyrian and Babylonian periods was not an empty land. Settlement was considerable on the western slopes of the ‘Ajlun mountains and in the Jordan Valley. International trade through Transjordan and Palestine was monitored by the Assyrians, and various international trade routes ran through the area of Gilead, guarded at hazardous points by forti¿ed settlements. Assyrian cylinder-seals and seal imprints reveal the presence of Assyrian of¿cials in the major settlements.

38. By “local” we mean here locally produced seals with Assyrian/Babylonian motives and sometimes with West Semitic legenda. 39. See also Keel and Uehlinger 1992, 351 no. 306b (sealing or offprint? In National Maritime Museum Haifa); for another similar seal from Irbid not in Eggler and Keel 2006, see Keel and Uehinger 1992, 351 no. 306c. 1

DIJKSTRA AND VRIEZEN The Assyrian Province of Gilead

19

Bibliography Abujaber, R. S. 1989. Pioneers Over Jordan: The Frontier of Settlement in Transjordan, 1850–1914. London: Tauris. Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible. London: Burns & Oates. Alberto-Soggin, J. 1993. An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah. London: SCM. Albertz, R. 2001. Die Exilzeit 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Biblische Enzyklopädie 7. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Alt, A. 1953. Das System der Assyrischen Provinzen auf dem Boden des Reiches Israel. In Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel Band 2 [1929]. Repr. Munich: Kaiser. Baly, D. 1957. The Geography of the Bible. London: Lutterworth. Barstad, H. M. 1996. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah During the “Exilic” Period. Symbolae Osloenses Fasciculus Suppletorius 28. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. ———. 2003. After the “Myth of the Empty Land”: Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah. Pages 3–20 in Lipschits and Blenkinsopp 2003. Bartl, K., F. Khraysheh and R. Eichmann. 1999. Archaeological Survey of the Khanasiri Region/Northern Jordan, Preliminary Results. Orient and Occident 4:23–26. ———. 2001. Paleoenvironmental and Archaeological Studies in the KhanƗÑirƯ Region, Northern Jordan: Prelimininary Results of the Archaeological Survey 1999. ADAJ 45:119–34. ———. 2002. Archäologische OberÀächenuntersuchungen im Gebiet des Jabal KhanƗÑirƯ/Nordjordanien: Vorläu¿ger Bericht der Kampagne 1999. Orient-Archäologie 5:79–146. Becking, B. 1992. The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study. SHANE 2. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2009. In Babylon: The Exile in Historical (Re)construction. Pages 4–33 in Becking, Cannegieter and van der Pol 2009. Becking, B., A. Cannegieter and W. van der Pol, eds. 2009. From Babylon to Eternity: The Exile Remembered and Constructed in Text and Tradition. London: Equinox. Becking, B., and M. C. A. Korpel, eds. 1999. The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times. OTS 42. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Bickert, R. 1987. König Ahas und der Prophet Jesaja. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des syroephraimitischen Kriegs. ZAW 99:361–83. Bienkowski, P., and E. van der Steen. 2001. Tribes, Trade and Towns: A New Framework for the Late Iron Age in Southern Jordan and the Negev. BASOR 323:21–47. Borger, R. et al. 1984. Historisch-chronologische Texte I. TUAT I/4. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984. Cogan, M., and D. Kahn, eds. 2008. Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Ephal. Jerusalem: Magness, The Hebrew University. Da Costa, K. 2008. Drawing the Line: The Archaeology of Roman Provincial Borders. Bulletin of the Centre for British Research in the Levant 3:70–73. 1

20

Exploring the Narrative

De Moor, J. C., and H. F. van Rooy, eds. 2000. Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets. OTS 44. Leiden: Brill. Dijkstra, M. 2000. Chronological Problems of the Eighth Century B.C.E. Pages 76–87 in de Moor and van Rooy 2000. ———. 2005. “As for the other events…” Annals and Chronicles in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pages 14–44 in Gordon and de Moor 2005. Dijkstra, J., M. Dijkstra and K. J. H. Vriezen. 2009. Tall Zar!a in Jordan: Report on the sondage at Tall Zar!a 2001–2002 (Gadara Region Project: Tall Zira!a). BAR International Series 1980. Oxford: Archeopress. Donner, H. 1990 [1977]. The Separate States of Israel and Judah. Pages 381–434 in Hayes and Miller 1990. Eggler, J., and O. Keel. 2006. Corpus der Siegel-Amulette aus Jordanien Vom Neolithikum zur Perserzeit. OBO 25 Series Archaeologica. Friburg: Academic Press. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ephal, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th– 5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem: Magness. Leiden: Brill. Fantalkin, A., and O. Tal. 2009. Re-discovering the Iron Age Fortress at Tell Qudadi in the Context of Neo-Assyrian Imperialistic Policies. PEQ 141:188–206. Fischer, P. M. 2006. Tell Abu Kharaz in the Jordan Valley. Vol. 2, The Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 2008a. Tell Abu Kharaz in the Jordan Valley. Vol. 1, The Early Bronze Age. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 2008b. Tell Abu al-Kharaz: A Bead in the Jordan Valley. NEA 71, no. 4:196– 213. Franken, H. J. Deir ‘Alla. 1989. Pages 201–5 in Homès-Fredericq and Hennessy 1989. Glueck, N. 1934. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, vol. 1. ASOR 14. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. ———. 1935. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, vol. 2. ASOR 15. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. ———. 1939. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, vol. 3. ASOR 18–19. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. ———. 1945–51. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, vol. 4. ASOR 25–28. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Gordon, R. P., and J. C. de Moor, eds. 2005. The Old Testament in Its World. OTS 52. Leiden: Brill. Hayes, J. H., and J. M. Miller, eds. 1990. Israelite and Judaean History. 1977. Repr., London: SCM. Herrmann, S. 1980. Geschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. 1973. Repr., Munich: Kaiser. Homès-Fredericq, D., and J. B. Hennessy, eds. 1986. Archaeology of Jordan. Vol. 1, Bibliography. Akkadica Suppl. 3. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1989. Archaeology of Jordan. Vol. 2, Field Reports. Akkadica Suppl. 7, 8. Leuven: Peeters. Kamlah, J. 2000. Der Zeraqǀn-Survey 1989–1994. ADPV 27/1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kaplan, J. 1978. The Identi¿cation of Abel-Beth-Maachah and Janoah. IEJ 28:157–69.

1

DIJKSTRA AND VRIEZEN The Assyrian Province of Gilead

21

Keel, O., and Chr. Uehlinger. 1992. Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole. Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen. Questiones Disputatae 134. Freiburg: Herder. Keller, D. R., and C. A. Tuttle. 2010. Archaeology in Jordan, 2008 and 2009 Seasons: Tall Abu al-Kharaz. AJA 114:512–14. Kennedy, D. 2007. Gerasa and the Decapolis: A “Virtual island” in Northwest Jordan. London: Duckworth. Knauf, E. A. 1985. Ismael. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ADPV. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 1988. Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens des 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ADPV. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lamprichs, R. 2002. Tell Yoh¿yeh. Ein eisenzeitlicher Fundplatz in Nordjordanien und seine Umgebung. UF 34:363–452. ———. 2007. Tell Yoh¿yeh. Ein archäologischer Fundplatz und seine Umgebung in Nordjordanien. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Lipschits, O., and J. Blenkinsopp, eds. 2003. Judah and the Judaeans in the NeoBabylonian Period. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Liverani, M., ed. 1995. Neo-Assyrian Geography. Quaderni di Geographia Storica 5. Rome: Università di Roma “La Sapienza.” Mabry, J., and G. Palumbo. 1987. Wadi el-Yabis (Irbid District): The 1987 Survey Season. Liber Annuus 37:379–82. ———. 1992a. Environmental, Economic and Political Constraints on Ancient Settlement Patterns in Wadi al-Yabis Region. SHAJ 5:67–72. ———. 1992b. Surveys and Excavations in Wadi el-Yabis Jordan, 1992. Liber Annuus 42:346–48. ———. 1993. The Wadi el-Yabis Survey and Excavations Project: Report on the 1992 Season. ADAJ 37:307–24. MacDonald, B., R. Adams and P. Bienkowski. 2001. The Archaeology of Jordan. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic. Millard, A. R. 1994. The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC. SAAS 2. Helsinki: Department of Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki. Mittmann, S. 1970. Beiträge zur Siedlungs- und Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes. ADPV 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mittmann, S., and G. Schmitt, eds. 2001. Tübinger Bibelatlas. TAVO. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Na’aman, N. 1979. The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt. Tel Aviv 6:68–90. ———. 1995. Province System and Settlement Pattern in Southern Syria and Palestine in the Neo-Assyrian Period. Pages 103–15 in Liverani 1995. Oded, B. 1970. Observations on Methods of Assyrian Rule in Transjordania after the Palestinian Campaign of Tiglath-Pileser III. JNES 29:177–86. Palumbo, G., 1992. The 1990 Wadi el-Yabis Survey Project and Soundings at Khirbet elHedamus. ADAJ 36:25–35. ———, ed. 1994. Jordan Antiquities and Database and Information System (JADIS). Amman: DoA-ACOR. Petit, L. P. 2009. Settlement Dynamics in the Middle Jordan Valley During Iron Age II. BAR International Series 2033. Oxford: Archaeopress. 1

22

Exploring the Narrative

Pritchard, J. B., ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3d ed. with Supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Radner, K. 2006. Assyrische Provinz. Reallexicon Assyriologie 11:43–68. Reich, R. 1984. The Identi¿cation of the “Sealed karu of Egypt.” IEJ 34:32–38. Silver, M. 1985. Economic Structures of the Ancient Near East. Totowa: Barnes & Noble. Stern, E. 2001. Archaeology and the Land of the Bible. Vol. 2, The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods (732–332 B.C.E.). Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday. Strange, J. 1997. Tall al-Fukhar 1990–1991: A Preliminary Report. SHAJ 6: 399–406. ———. 2003. Tall Fukhar. AJA 107:461. Tadmor, H.†, and S.Yamada. 2011. The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744– 727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC) Kings of Assyria. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. University of Sydney, 2010. Department of Archaeology, Borders of Arabia and Palaestina Project. No pages. Cited 12 August 2013. Online: http://sydney .edu.au/arts/archaeology/bap/. Uehlinger, Chr. 1999. “Powerful Persianisms” in Glyptoc Iconography of Persian Period Palestine. Pages 134–82 in Becking and Korpel 1999. Van der Kooij, G., and M. M. Ibrahim, eds. 1989. Picking up the Threads… A Continuing Review of Excavations at Deir ‘Alla, Jordan. Leiden: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden. Van der Steen, E. 1996. The Central East Jordan Valley in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. BASOR 302:51–74. ———. 2004. Tribes and Territories in Transition. Leuven: Peeters. Veenhof, K. R. 2001. Geschichte des Alten Orients bis zur Zeit Alexanders des Großen. ATD Ergänzungsreihe Band 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Vieweger, D., and J. Häser. 2005. Der Tell ZerƗ!a im WƗdƯ el-!Arab. Das “Gadara Region Project” in den Jahren 2001 bis 2004. ZDPV 121:1–30. ———. 2007a. Das “Gadara Region Project.” Der Tell ZerƗ!a in den Jahren 2005 und 2006. ZDPV 123:1–27. ———. 2007b. Tall Zira!a: Five Thousand Years of Palestinian History on a SingleSettlement Mound. NEA 70, no. 3:147–67. ———. 2010. Das “Gadara Region Project.” Der Tell Zera!a in den Jahren 2007 bis 2009. ZDPV 126:1–28. Watson, P. 1996. Pella Hinterland Survey 1994: Preliminary Report. Levant 28:63–76. Weippert, M. 2010. Historisches Textbuch zum Alten Testament. Grundrisse zum Alten Testament 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Würthwein, E. 1984. Die Bücher der Könige 1.Könige 17–2 Könige 25. ATD 11/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Yamada, S. 2008. Qurdi-Assur-lamur: His Letters and Career. Pages 296–311 in Cogan and Kahn 2008. Yassine, K. 1983. Tell el Mazar, Field I: Preliminary Report of Area G, H, L and M: The Summit ADAJ 27:495–513. Yassine, K., and E. van der Steen. 2012. Tell el-Mazar. Vol. 2. Excavations on the Mound 1977–1981: Field I. BAR International Series 2430. Oxford: Archaeopress. Zwickel, W. 1990. Eisenzeitliche Ortslagen im Ostjordanland. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, B 81. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 1

THE LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF THE EASTERN JORDAN VALLEY: THE START OF A LONG TRADITION Eva Kaptijn

Introduction Fifteen years ago Margreet Steiner guided my ¿rst steps on the path of archaeological ¿eldwork. She taught us students to be critical and ask the right questions. During this ¿rst excavation campaign I came to love the people, history and landscape. This initial love has not subsided and this article on the region’s landscape is a testimony of the success of these ¿rst guided steps. Every narrative, whether biblical or archaeological, is situated in a certain spatial setting and this environment inÀuences the people inhabiting it. At the same time, people also structure their environment. No study of society, be it past or present, can therefore be conducted in isolation from its spatial setting. The climatic conditions of the Jordan Valley ensure that the link between environment and society is particularly strong. In certain parts of this area people will have needed to transform the landscape in order to make habitation possible, while the environment sets the boundaries of the extent of habitation. In the following pages the Late Bronze Age (LBA) and Iron Age (IA) settlement pattern will be examined in relation to the landscape in which the sites are situated. Large-scale settlement patterns are often primarily based on survey data. The results of different survey projects cannot be simply compared as the ¿eld methodology, material processing and the state of research of the time period in which the survey was conducted have a large impact on the results. Therefore, this article will only discuss the eastern part of the Jordan Valley. Except for Glueck’s surveys of the 1940s there are no archaeological surveys that have covered both the eastern and western side of the Jordan Valley. This makes a comparison of both sides very dif¿cult. Furthermore, the Jordan River itself has always acted as a 1

Figure 1. Map of the Jordan Valley

1

KAPTIJN The Late Bronze and Iron Age Cultural Landscape

25

natural boundary. Although contact between both sides of the river undoubtedly existed, the presence of only a few fords will have prohibited daily contact. Intensive intra-site contact on a day-to-day basis will have been restricted to a single river bank. The Jordan Valley: Environmental Setting Geographically as well as climatologically the East Jordan Valley between Lake Tiberias and the Dead Sea can be divided into three regions (see Fig. 1). The northernmost part ranges from Lake Tiberias to the Wadi Rajib and measures about 50 km from north to south. The eastern side of the Jordan Valley is not very wide in this stretch of the valley, ¿ve kilometres maximum, but more commonly only two kilometres. The middle part of the Jordan Valley is dominated by the Wadi Zerqa, which enters the valley from the east. This region is also referred to as the Zerqa Triangle. This part of the East Jordan Valley is signi¿cantly wider than the northern part and measures between six and eight kilometres. The southern part of the East Jordan Valley, between the conÀuence of the Jordan and Zerqa and the northern end of the Dead Sea, also has a wider plain than the northern part. The Jordan River traverses a distance of 37 km in this southern part. The 100 km span of the Jordan Valley between Lake Tiberias in the north and the Dead Sea in the south shows a considerable difference in climate today. While the difference in average temperature is limited (32.5 °C in August for Shuneh South and 31°C for Shuneh North) (see Fig. 2), the amount of monthly precipitation in December is 86.2 mm in Shuneh N, while it is less than half that amount in Shuneh S, at 38.3 mm (see Fig. 3). The middle part of the Jordan Valley at Deir ‘Alla is, both geographically and climatologically, positioned in between these northern and southern areas. These data are based on the modern climate. Although the climate in the Bronze and Iron Ages will have been different, it is unlikely that it has changed very much. Different climatological proxy data show that since 2000 B.C.E. this region witnessed only small-scale climatic variations (Rosen 2007) (for a more detailed description see discussion in Kaptijn 2009, 18–19). During the summer months when temperatures are high, precipitation ceases altogether in the entire Jordan Valley. It is clear that especially during the summer the presence of water in the form of springs or perennial rivers is vital to survive in this region. Although several rivers and wadis are present in the eastern Jordan Valley, they are not evenly distributed over the three parts of the Jordan Valley (see Fig. 1). 1

26

Exploring the Narrative

Figure 2. Modern average monthly temperature

Figure 3. Modern average monthly precipitation

Furthermore, the wadis do not have the same amount of discharge. The Yarmouk River with an annual discharge of 408 million cubic meters (MCM) is by far the biggest river, followed at some distance by the Wadi Zerqa and Wadi ‘Arab, while the other wadis are signi¿cantly smaller and have a limited monthly discharge (see Fig. 4). However, they all carry water year-round, albeit sometimes very little. 1

KAPTIJN The Late Bronze and Iron Age Cultural Landscape

27

Figure 4. Average annual stream Àow in MCM measured between 1953 and 1975 of the main wadis arranged from north to south (based on Harza Jordan Valley irrigation project 1978: table A–6 to A–16)

Habitational Differences The difference between the northern, middle and southern part of the Jordan Valley exists not only in climate and environment there are also differences in settlement pattern. Table 1 shows that the evolution of settlement density is not uniform between the three regions. While the northern part has a relatively high number of sites already during the Middle Bronze Age, it witnesses a signi¿cant increase in the IA I. In the Zerqa Triangle a sharp increase in number of sites occurs already in the LBA. Furthermore, the Zerqa Triangle has the highest settlement density of the three regions. In the southern part of the Jordan Valley the settlement density is always much lower than in the other areas and the increase in number of sites occurs as late as the IA II period. Table 1. Number of identi¿ed sites in the three different parts of the Jordan Valley (*settlement density: average number of km² available per site)1 MB II

LB

IA I

IA II

Km²

North

9 /20*

9 /20

20 /9

20 /9

176

Middle

4 /23

14 /6

15 /6

18 /5

90

South

3 /102

3 /102

4 /76

13 /23

305

1. These data have been compiled using the surveys of Glueck (1951), the East Jordan Valley Survey (Ibrahim, Sauer and Yassine 1976, 1988), Petit (2009) and the MEGA-Jordan database (http://megajordan.org/). The more intensive study of the Zerqa Triangle forms a small bias not so much in the number of sites but in their dating. 1

28

Exploring the Narrative

The main questions that arise from this table are: What is the reason for this rise in number of sites, and what causes the different timings in the three sub-regions of the Jordan Valley? To answer these questions it is important to look at the structure of the settlement pattern instead of only at the number of sites. Furthermore, the well-studied Zerqa Triangle shows a phenomenon that may shed light on the northern and southern areas as well. The Zerqa Triangle The Zerqa Triangle has been the focus of several excavation projects studying the Bronze and Iron Ages (e.g. Tell Deir ‘Alla [Franken 1969, 1992; Van der Kooij and Ibrahim 1989], Tell Mazar [Yassine 1984a, 1984b; Yassine and Van der Steen 2012], Tell Hammeh [Van der Steen 2004, 147–58], Tell ‘Ammata, Tell Damiyah [Petit 2009], etc.) as well as survey projects (e.g. by Glueck [1951], East Jordan Valley Survey [Ibrahim, Sauer and Yassine 1976, 1988] and the Settling the Steppe survey [Kaptijn 2009; Petit 2009]). This research has generated a large amount of information that can help to explain the changes witnessed in the habitation pattern. In the Zerqa Triangle, the Middle Bronze Age II period is only attested at four sites. In the Late Bronze Age the number of settlements almost quadruples to 14 sites. While during the Early and Middle Bronze Age settlements were mostly located near natural water sources, like the Wadi Zerqa, Wadi Rajib or Wadi al-Ghor, seven of the ten newly founded LBA settlements are positioned in the middle of the plain away from streams or wadis. In the IA I period the number of sites increases even further with eight new sites of which two are located in the middle of the plain, while three are found in close proximity to the river but at a point where the Zerqa is deeply incised, so that it has little signi¿cance for crops, which makes this location essentially similar to the middle of the plain. The presence of an irrigation system would explain the location of sites in the middle of the plain. A series of canals could tap the Wadi Zerqa and carry water to the middle of the plain. In this way people would not only have been able to get easy access to drinking water, but more importantly, it would enable farmers to water their crops. Although the Jordan Valley plain is a potentially fertile region, the lack of water during the summer months makes this a rather unfavourable location for what were most likely small agricultural settlements. If suf¿cient data are available, it is possible to calculate whether certain crops can be cultivated using precipitation alone or whether and how much 1

1

2.7 1.3 1.6 0.3 0.0

0.1

0.2

-0.1

1.4 0.0 1.1

0.0

0.2

0.1 -0.4 0.3

1.0

1.0

2.4

-0.6 -0.6 -0.1 -0.1 1.0

0.8 2.3

-0.1 -0.1 0.4 2.3

0.1

0.1

4.9

4.9

2.5

4.1 1.9 3.5 1.3 5.7

4.9 6.0 3.6 3.6 1.4 1.1

4.9

1.1

6.2

6.3

Apr 1 2 4.6 6.0

2.6 6.0 -0.4 1.3 1.1

2.6 2.4 2.6

-1.1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.1 1.1 -0.8 -0.4 -0.5 1.0 1.0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.3 -0.4 1.1 1.1

1.6

2.2

0.4

2.2

0.4

1.6

1.8

1.8

Mar 1 2 1.7 1.8 2.2

Jan Feb 1 2 1 2 -0.1 -0.1 0.4 0.4

-2.5 -2.5 -1.6 -1.6 -3.7 -3.7 2.2

Dec 1 2 0.1 0.1

1.3

Nov 1 2

7.4 4.5 4.5 3.8 1.5

1.5

7.5

7.3

1.9 6.4 6.9 4.5 4.8 3.8 4.1 1.5

2.6

2.4

6.9 4.8 4.1

May Jun 1 2 1 2 7.4 2.5

Sep 1 2

4.2 3.6 3.6 2.7 2.3 2.3

Aug 1 2

2.3 4.6 4.6 4.2 5.5 5.5 5.1

Jul 1 2

Figure 5. Crop water demand calculations for some common IA/LBA crops based on modern average precipitation

wheat wheat— wet year wheat— dry year barley lentil broad bean winter vegetable pea chick pea fruit trees 2.7 grape 1.6 Àax

Oct 1 2

30

Exploring the Narrative

additional water is needed.2 In Fig. 5 these calculations have been done for some of the most common crops of today and the Bronze and Iron Ages. It is clear that in this middle part of the Jordan Valley none of the crops can fully mature on rainfall alone. The calculations are based on modern climatic data. Although the climate is not stable and has Àuctuated, reconstructed climatic changes show only relatively small-scale variations over the past 4000 years. Dry-farming will not have been possible in this region during the last four millennia. Botanical remains from the excavated LBA and IA sites corroborate the likelihood of irrigation. Especially during the IA, large quantities of Àax seeds have been found at Tell Deir ‘Alla (Neef 1989, Table 2; Van Zeist and Heeres 1973, Table 1). This crop has a relatively long growing period of seven months and needs a lot of water, especially when used for its ¿bres for which there are some indications at Tell Deir ‘Alla (Neef 1989, 35). It is impossible for this crop to have been cultivated in this region without irrigation. When the LBA/IA settlements are projected on top of the pre-modern irrigation system it becomes clear that all sites can be fed by the irrigation system and that several ancient sites are located along the main canals of the pre-modern system (see Fig. 6). The settlement pattern, which emerges in the LBA, in which sites are located in the middle of the plain, also suggests the existence of a canal irrigation system. The physical characteristics of the irrigation system structure the settlement pattern; sites are only located in areas that can be reached by the irrigation system, but at the same time the irrigation system is determined by the intensity and organisation of habitation in the valley; in a system of simple canals where water Àow depends on gravity all areas of the system have to cooperate in order for the system to function properly. Furthermore, the initial creation of the system would have been very labour intensive (even if it grew organically) and the successful functioning requires a constant and communal labour input (Tarawneh 2013, 32–33; Merrill 1881, 179).

2. This calculation is based on ETc = ETo * Kc with ETc being the water demand per crop, ETo is the potential evapotranspiration and Kc is the crop coef¿cient. This can be calculated for certain time intervals, in this case the fortnight. When water demand is compared to the available rainfall the possibility of dry farming becomes clear.

1

KAPTIJN The Late Bronze and Iron Age Cultural Landscape

31

Figure 6. LBA and IA sites in the Zerqa Triangle with pre-modern irrigation system projected on top

This settlement pattern and the related irrigation system have disappeared and re-emerged several times since the LBA. For example, after a period of limited habitation during the Persian and Hellenistic period, three new sites were founded and 13 previously inhabited sites resettled in the Roman and Byzantine period. Many of them were located away from water sources and must have relied on irrigation canals. The dense off-site carpet of sherds found over large parts of the countryside and deposited by manuring with domestic refuse suggests intensive agriculture which demands irrigation. This pattern of landscape use structured by the need for irrigation is visible for the ¿rst time in the LBA and reappears several times over the past 3500 years.

1

32

Exploring the Narrative

The Settlement Pattern in the Northern Jordan Valley In the northern part of the Jordan Valley the rise in the number of settlements becomes visible only in the IA I period. Although signi¿cant, the rise in site density is not as spectacular as in the Zerqa Triangle. Settlement density in the northern Jordan Valley was already relatively high in the MBA and LBA. There is another difference visible when the northern Jordan Valley is compared to the Zerqa Triangle; most sites in the northern part are located along wadis coming from the hills or in the Zor, the actual banks of the Jordan River, and only a small portion is located in the middle of the plain away from water (see Table 2). In the Zor the proximity to the Jordan River means this area can bene¿t from groundwater. In the valley plain, located ca. 50 m above the Zor, this is impossible. Even though most wadis are signi¿cantly smaller than the Wadi Zerqa, the main ones also carry water throughout the year. Furthermore, the northern area receives slightly more rainfall, the temperature is slightly lower and as a result potential evapotranspiration is also lower than in the southern areas. These more humid circumstances make rainfed agriculture possible these days in the northern area in normal years, while in the largest part of the Zerqa Triangle and in the southern area this is never possible (Lange, Gunkel and Bastian 2012, Fig. 2). Even though these are modern data and the LBA/IA situation will have been slightly different, it suggests that in the northern Jordan Valley largescale irrigation systems will not have been as vital for human survival as in the more southern areas. The location of sites near wadis will have provided the inhabitants with water for human and animal consumption and potentially for small-scale watering of (nursery) gardens. Furthermore, the narrowness of the valley in this northern part makes it less suitable for an irrigation system of canals using gravity. Table 2. Distribution of northern Jordan Valley sites located near natural water sources and site located in the middle of the valley plain away from water in the periods under discussion

1

North

MB II

LB

IA I

IA II

Near water Middle plain

8 1

6 3

14 6

14 6

Total

9

9

20

20

KAPTIJN The Late Bronze and Iron Age Cultural Landscape

33

The Southern Jordan Valley In the southern Jordan Valley the settlement density is signi¿cantly lower than in the areas to the north (see Table 1). The rise in number of settlements occurs later than in the northern areas, i.e. only in the IA II period (see Table 3). At the same time the ¿rst settlements located in the middle of the plain appear. Before the IA II all sites had been located near water sources. The low settlement density is undoubtedly a reÀection of the more dif¿cult circumstances for agriculture caused by the much drier environment. Settlements are restricted to the southern part of this area where larger wadis coming from the eastern plateau, like the Wadi Shueib, Wadi Kafrein and Wadi Hisban, provide a year-round supply of water. Only a very limited number of sites is found at a greater distance from natural water sources. In the northern part of this area between the Wadi Zerqa and the Wadi Shueib no signi¿cant permanent water sources are present. Agricultural activity in this area can therefore only be successful if a very elaborate irrigation system bringing water over large distances is present. During the LBA and IA this area is characterized by an absence of settlements. The IA increase in habitation density is not reÀected in a settling of this area. This only takes place during the settlement boom of the Roman and Byzantine periods when there is considerable evidence of the creation of extensive irrigation networks and intensive agriculture throughout the region (Kaptijn 2009, 201–59, 322). During the pre-modern period this area was part of the area brought under cultivation by means of irrigation canals. It is clear that if large-scale agriculture existed in this arid environment some sort of irrigation was necessary. The layout of the valley with a wide Àat plain that slowly slopes down to the ESE is conducive to a system similar to that of the Zerqa Triangle. The presence of sites in the middle of the plain also suggests water must have been brought there in some way. However, the low settlement density, even in the IA II period, shows that an intensive system such as in the Zerqa Triangle did not exist in the southern Jordan Valley. Table 3. Distribution of southern Jordan Valley sites located near natural water sources and sites located in the middle of the valley plain away from water in the periods under discussion

1

South

MB II

LB

IA I

IA II

Near water Middle plain

3 -

3 -

4 -

8 5

Total

3

3

4

13

34

Exploring the Narrative

Conclusions The dissimilar environmental conditions of the northern, middle and southern East Jordan Valley have shaped human habitation in these areas. The more humid circumstances of the northern region make irrigation less essential than in the arid southern and middle parts where agriculture is impossible without it. The arid conditions of the southern Jordan Valley are reÀected in a low settlement density. Although the southern part of the area contains perennial wadis that can be used for irrigation purposes, their low average discharge together with the low settlement density may have prohibited the creation of a large-scale irrigation system as was present in the Zerqa Triangle. In this area, the Wadi Zerqa formed a constant and considerable source of water. Together with the wide, Àat plain the Zerqa enabled people to create a system of canals that allowed intensive agriculture in this potentially fertile area. This is reÀected in the high settlement density that emerged with the creation of this system. However, a certain amount of labour input must already have been available for the creation of the system. Suitable topographical and environmental conditions alone are not suf¿cient. After the initial creation of the irrigation system in the LBA/IA, the system reappeared several times over the course of history. The (main) irrigation canals were reused time and again, as is demonstrated by farmers in the late 1870s who stated that the canals had always been there and that they only clean them out when bringing new land under cultivation (Merrill 1881, 382). Prior to that time the last period to use the irrigation system was the Mamluk period, illustrating the time depth involved. In this way the irrigation system has dictated the structure of the settlement pattern as well as (part of) the social organisation as irrigation canals create hierarchical relationships; settlements upstream have power over people downstream. People have to cooperate in order for the system function properly. The environment thus inÀuences the manner of habitation, but at the same time people have actively shaped the environment. In all, this demonstrates that the environmental setting of a narrative is a narrative in its own right. Bibliography Franken, H. J. 1969. Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of the Early Iron Age Pottery. Documenta et monumenta orientis antiqui. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1992. Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla: The Late Bronze Age Sanctuary. Leuven: Peeters. 1

KAPTIJN The Late Bronze and Iron Age Cultural Landscape

35

Getty Conservation Institute, World Monuments Fund and the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. 2010. MEGA-Jordan: The National Heritage Documentation and Management System. No pages. Online: http://www.megajordan.org. Glueck, N. 1951. Explorations in Eastern Palestine IV. ASOR 25–28. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Harza Overseas Engineering Company. 1978. Jordan Valley Irrigation Project Stage II Feasibility Study. Amman: Jordan Valley Authority of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Ibrahim, M. M., J. A. Sauer and Kh. Yassine. 1976. The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1975 (Part One). BASOR 222:41–66. ———. 1988. The East Jordan Valley Survey 1976 (Part Two). Pages 189–207 in Yassine 1988. Kaptijn, E. 2009. Life on the Watershed: Reconstructing Subsistence in a Steppe Region Using Archaeological Survey: A Diachronic Perspective on Habitation in the Jordan Valley. Leiden: Sidestone. Lange, J., H. Gunkel and D. Bastian. 2012. Hydrology in the Lower Jordan River Basin: About Actual Water Resources and New Water Sources—an Analysis Based on the TRAIN-ZIN Model. No pages. Online: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:21opus–62956. Merrill, S. 1881. East of the Jordan: A Record of Travel and Observation in the Countries of Moad, Gilead, and Bashan. London: Bentley. Neef, R. 1989. Plants. Pages 30–37 in van der Kooij and Ibrahim 1989:30–37. Petit, L. P. 2009. Settlement Dynamics in the Middle Jordan Valley During Iron II–III. BAR International Series 2033. Oxford: Archaeopress. Rosen, A. 2007. Civilizing Climate: Social Responses to Climate Change in the Ancient Near East. Lanham: Altamira. Tarawneh, M. F. 2013. Rural Capitalist Development in the Jordan Valley: The Case of Deir Alla—the Rise and Demise of Social Groups. Leiden: Sidestone. Van der Kooij, G., and M. M. Ibrahim, eds. 1989. Picking Up the Threads…: A Continuing Review of Excavations at Deir ‘Alla, Jordan. Leiden: Leiden University Press. Van der Steen, E. J. 2004. Tribes and Territories in Transition: The Central East Jordan Valley in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age: A Study of the Sources. Leuven: Peeters. Yassine, Kh. 1984a. The Open Court Sanctuary of the Iron Age I Tell el-Mazar Mound A. ZDPV 100:108–18. ———. 1984b. Tell el Mazar I: Cemetery A. Amman: University of Jordan. ———, ed. 1988. Archaeology of Jordan: Essays and Reports. Amman: University of Jordan. Yassine, Kh., and E. van der Steen. 2012. Tell Mazar, Excavations on the Mound 1977– 1981, Field I. BAR International Series 2430. Oxford: Archaeopress. Zeist, W. van, and J. A. H. Heeres. 1973. Paleobotanical Studies of Deir ‘Alla, Jordan. Paléorient 1:21–37.

1

ORGANIZATION OF POTTERY PRODUCTION IN THE IRON AGE: EVIDENCE FROM TELL HESBAN AND TELL AL-‘UMAYRI Gloria London and Robert D. Shuster

One goal of ceramic technology is to describe the organizational structure of the industry responsible for producing ancient pottery. It is a topic Margreet Steiner addresses in research on Iron Age pottery excavated at Jerusalem and Tell Jawa. A pair of sites south of Amman provides additional evidence of the Iron Age industry. Mineralogical and chemical studies of cooking pots, burnished and plain wares excavated by the Madaba Plains Project at Tell Hesban and Tell al-‘Umayri address how pots were made and where they were distributed. The study is part of a larger project involving over 200 Hesban sherds from the Iron Age through mediaeval times (London and Shuster 2012). The overall aim was to assess changes and continuity in clay bodies used during nearly 2000 years of occupational history at Hesban. Petrographic and instrumental neutron activation analyses (INAA) discriminate among multiple Iron Age II local and regional workshops, not all of which were in the Madaba Plains region. Variations in tempering materials and clay bodies suggest that while potters at various production locations made the full repertoire, other potters made a more limited repertoire. Compositional analysis allows one to compare manufacture locations and ¿nd spots of pottery that have been assigned names associated with people mentioned in the Bible. For example, burnished bowls excavated between modern Amman and Kerak, are known as “Ammonite ware” given that this area and timeframe coincides with epigraphic references to biblical Ammonites. We examine if the chemical and mineralogical composition of the bowls coincides with the geology of the area texts identify as the Ammonite homeland.

1

LONDON AND SHUSTER Organization of Pottery Production

37

Clay and Petrographic Wares Clay bodies were examined in terms of composition (clay quantity and non-plastics), manipulation of the raw materials, manufacture technique, pottery type, surface treatment, and ¿ring. Iron Age potters display a tendency to use clay resources practically unaltered with few but noteworthy exceptions. The evidence suggests limited modi¿cation of the clay raw materials. Instead, the potters’ strategy was to adjust their manufacturing technique to accommodate available clays. Additives to or extractions from natural components of the clay were kept to a minimum. The dominant inclusion in Iron Age pottery was limestone. Overall there were as many as twelve major ware types at Hesban according to petrographic thin section analysis of the clay bodies (London and Shuster 2012, 631–88). No more than eight petrofabrics were used during the Iron Age. Wares 1–3 and 11 characterized post-Iron Age pottery almost exclusively. Each petrofabric has a predominant inclusion: quartz, grog, limestone, or calcite. Blends of non-plastics, with none dominant, were also used. All sherds designated as Ware 12 have some basalt. Most ware types have two versions: one for normal pots and another for cooking pots (e.g. Ware 1 and Ware 1cp). For some petrofabrics, although only one Iron Age sample is listed, Classical or later sherds were made of the same fabric. Following brief descriptions of ware types, we discuss the organization of the ceramics industry. The full report provides details of the sample and fabric types (London and Shuster 2012). INAA testing of 99 Iron Age sherds (Glascock and Neff 2012) followed the mineralogical analysis. The INAA sample included: 12 collared rim store jars, 10 cooking pots, 38 burnished bowls, and 39 samples from the normal repertoire (to serve as a control group) with a few unique pieces (Figs. 1–6).1 Ordinary jars, jugs, and bowls constituted the control group against which we compared burnished wares and cooking pots. A total of 25 sherds excavated at Tell al-‘Umayri were among the 99 samples. The sampling strategy for the petrographic and INAA compositional studies was to incorporate as much diversity as possible based on macroscopic observations of the clay bodies and rim shapes. Hesban samples derive primarily from the original Hesban excavation (Lugenbeal and Sauer 1972) to which are added a small number of cooking pots from the renewed excavation. 1. Figures 1–6 show the open and closed, large and small, plain, painted, and burnished Iron Age pots sampled for our study. Drawings are available for most sampled sherds.

38

Exploring the Narrative

Figure 1. Sherds selected for compositional analysis: PH 1–39. Drawings not available for all sampled sherds

1

LONDON AND SHUSTER Organization of Pottery Production

Figure 2. Sherds selected for compositional analysis: PH 44–105

39

40

Exploring the Narrative

Figure 3. Sherds selected for compositional analysis: PH 108–291

Figure 4. Sherds selected for compositional analysis. Collared rim storage jars: PH 292–295 from Tell al-‘Umayri 1

LONDON AND SHUSTER Organization of Pottery Production

41

Figure 5. Sherds selected for compositional analysis: collared rim storage jars from Tell al-‘Umayri, PH 296–97

Figure 6. Sherds selected for compositional analysis: PH 298–316. Burnished bowls PH 302, 304, 305, 309, and 310 show the pattern of burnish strokes

42

Exploring the Narrative

The INAA chemical study places two thirds of the samples in INAA Group 1, which is considered to represent local products. It includes all types of pots, but only one of the ten cooking pots sampled. Among ceramics assigned to Group 2 are small shapes, but no cookware or jars. It is likely to have originated outside the Madaba Plains region. INAA Groups 3 and 4 are primarily cookware. Of the 12 petrofabrics identi¿ed at Hesban, not all were used during the Iron Age. Wares 1 and 1cp have over 75% quartz inclusions. The fabric was used for nearly the full range of post-Iron Age pottery, but Iron Age sherds were sparse. No burnished or painted Iron Age pottery had more than 15% quartz. For the Iron Age sample, quartz as the dominant inclusion is found only in cooking pots. The cookware has 80–95% quartz in a clay body with 50–60% clay content. Five late Iron Age II/Persian era cooking pots (PH 61, 291, 299–301) were made from Ware 1cp as was quartz-rich PH 298. The latter, classi¿ed as Ware 12cpa, has some basalt (see below). Only one cooking pot, with predominantly quartz temper, was accommodated in INAA Group 1. Ware 1 Iron Age samples: PH 61, 291, 299, 300, and 301. With 60–80% grog, Ware 4 was limited to thin or thick walled bowls and kraters, including: (1) “Manasseh bowl” PH 54; (2) bowl/mug PH 134; (3) four black-burnished bowls known as “Ammonite Ware” PH 306, 307, 309, and 310; and (4) plain bowl PH 86. Ware 4cp was used for cooking pot PH 124. A versatile fabric, Ware 4 was amenable to cookware, burnished bowls and plain bowls. Herr (2000, 281) identi¿es the latter as the single most frequent bowl at ‘Umayri. In addition to the grog, clay content ranged from 50–75%. High clay content characterized burnished bowls (PH 307, 309, and 310) in contrast to the plain surfaced bowl (PH 86) with only 50% clay. Five of seven grog-rich bowls (PH 54, 86, 306, 309, and 310) are in INAA Group 1 while a cup/mug belongs to Group 2. Cooking pot PH 124 was assigned to INAA Group 3. Ware 4 Iron Age samples: PH 54, 86, 134, 306, 307, 309, and 310. Ware 4cp: PH 124. With slightly less grog (50–59%), limestone (25%) and quartz (20%) appear in noteworthy quantities in Ware 5. The clay content was high (60%) for a bar handled bowl from Hesban assigned to INAA Group 1. The repeated presence of knobs and bars on kraters and bowls at ‘Umayri has been noted by Herr (1991, 243). Krater PH 81 has 55% grog inclusions and some basalt (see Ware 12d below). Ware 5 Iron Age sample: PH 95. 1

LONDON AND SHUSTER Organization of Pottery Production

43

Wares 6 and 6cp with 60% or more limestone inclusions were used for open and closed pots of all sizes. Clay content varied from 45–70%, but was high in the four burnished bowls. Plain pots and painted krater PH 89 have less clay (45%). The substantial range in the clay fraction suggests it was an easy fabric to use. Ware 6 sherds were assigned to Group 1, except for the cult stand, plaque, and six burnished bowls each from Hesban and ‘Umayri. Ware 6 Iron Age samples: PH 1, 6, 14, 21, 22, 29, 31, 44, 45, 89, 97, 100, 112, 128, 136, 137, 294, 295, 304, 308, 311, and 312. Ware 6cp: PH 91. Sherds with 50–59% limestone belong to Ware 7. The clay component was high (60–70%) for bowls of all archaeological periods, but jugs of the Iron Age and mediaeval eras display low clay content (45%). Iron Age jug (PH 8) and bowls (PH 70 and 75) belong to INAA Group 1. Ware 7 Iron Age samples: PH 8, 50, 70, 75, and 297. Blends of rounded non-plastics, including calcite (30–40%), characterized Ware 8. Quartz, limestone, and grog were present in fairly equal amount in three bowls and a krater. PH 305 was the only burnished bowl high in calcareous inclusions (30% each of calcite and limestone). Ware 8 Iron Age samples: PH 30, 65, and 305. Clay bodies with blends of non-plastics, but lacking calcite, de¿ne Ware 9. A version of Ware 9 appears in virtually all archaeological periods for every shape except cookware. It characterized nearly 20 Iron Age samples and three Late Bronze/Iron Age I collared rim store jars (PH 292, 293, and 296) from ‘Umayri. Clay matrices have 30–65% clay content. Most of the ¿fteen Ware 9 sherds selected for INAA belong to Group 1. Jug PH 69 was assigned to INAA Group 3, which consists primarily of cookware. Ware 9 was virtually restricted to Iron Age jugs, juglets, and jars. Iron Age samples: PH 23, 33, 35, 37, 39, 51–53, 56, 69, 71, 79, 101, 108, 118, 130, 292, 293, and 296. Wares 10b and 10cpa were markedly different fabrics, each overÀowing with over 80% calcite inclusions. Ware 10cpa, with 92–98% angular, crushed, sieved, and sorted calcite (0.01–0.5mm in size) was used for seven cooking pots. Red ¿ring PH 84 and 98 with ground calcite, have narrow mouths, handles, and were made in a new tradition. A painted Àask is the sole product of Ware 10b, an import to the region. Nonplastics include 80% ground (0.15 mm) calcite in a clay-rich body, which would have inhibited sweating or leakage. This piece was assigned to INAA Group 2. Ware 10cpa cooking pots were assigned to INAA Group 3. Iron Age samples: Ware 10b PH 87. Ware 10cp: PH 57, 59, 60, 66, 84, and 98.

44

Exploring the Narrative

Another set of petrofabrics, Ware 12, contains basalt as a minor component of clay bodies used to shape open forms and cookware exclusively. Basalt was sparse (< 1–4%) except for PH 81. Basalt can be native to clay or an intentionally crushed inclusion as for the Bethsaida Iron Age pottery (London and Shuster 1999, 179–85). The small quantity present in the Hesban sherds suggests that basalt was not selectively added to clay. It was present only in types that bene¿t from some control over the size and type of non-plastics: cooking pots and burnished thin walled bowls. They are the two categories of pots that show a strong preference for a single type of non-plastic, such as grog or quartz. Basalt equipment was likely used to crush rocks or sherds for use as tempering material. Accordingly, basalt then entered the clay matrix unintentionally. Most samples with basalt have some grog inclusions. Basalt with over 90% quartz, Ware 12a, characterized an Iron Age cooking pot and post-Iron Age ceramics. The red ¿ring cooker has a moderately high ratio of clay to non-plastics and belongs to INAA Group 3. It has a rim shape that was uncommon at Hesban. Ware 12a Iron Age sample: PH 298. Basalt with predominantly limestone, Wares 12b and 12cpb, characterized three bowls: a stepped base, PH 129, two black-burnished bowl rims and a lone cooking pot, PH 55. The latter had only a trace of pyroxene (65%) or low (30–45%) clay content. The highest and lowest clay fractions in jugs in particular represent the most extreme values in the entire Hesban collection. They were deliberate choices made by potters and their clients in a pattern that was repeated from the Iron Age to mediaeval times. Jugs with 30% clay would have made ideal water coolers with the ability to sweat their contents and maintain a low temperature. At the opposite end, jugs and jars with 70–90% clay content were amenable for Àuids, which preferably would not leak through the

48

Exploring the Narrative

walls. Hand-painted geometric jugs of the mediaeval times were the water jugs of their day (London and Shuster 2012, 728–30). In addition to differences in the clay fraction for jugs, potters varied the clay used for thin and thick bowls, large and small. By adjusting the percentages of organic material and non-plastics, potters created bowls able to absorb their contents when desirable. The chief difference in the clay matrices of the Ware 8 krater and small burnished bowls was the low quantity of clay (45%) in the krater versus the bowls (70%). Claypoor fabrics typify each of the three kraters in the sample: Ware 12d krater (PH 81), Ware 8 (PH 30), and Ware 6 (PH 89). Clay bodies with abundant inclusions meant porous walls able to absorb whatever beverage was mixed in the krater. As a result, the walls would retain the Àavour of beer or wine, etc. In contrast, most burnished bowls have a higher percentage of clay (70–75%) which results in less porous walls and prevents unwanted seepage through the vessel wall. Nevertheless the bowls and krater were fabricated from the same petrofabrics in terms of dominant inclusion. Clay-rich bodies are exempli¿ed by the dense fabric of powdered calcite ( 10 cm 2b. Everted triangular rim 2c. Inwardly thickened slight Àaring 2d. Out turned, short neck 2e. Externally thickened with single ridge on neck 2f. Externally thickened with multiple ridges on neck. 2g. Ridged rim J2 Total J3. “Vestigial” collared J3. rim jar: distinguished from “classic” collaredrim pithoi by its short neck, inward sloping shoulder, and unobtrusive ridge-like collar. Jars Total

91 6 11 14 1 32 32 5 37 3 1 4 1

74 31 8 1 3 3 5 51 17 16 2 6 2 5 1 49 1

101

92 Jug

Exploring the Narrative Jg1. “Dipper”: Bs3 Pointed probably belong to this type. Jg2. Handle joins at rim

Jg3. Handle joins below rim.

Bases

Painted Body Sherds

1

Bs1. Flat Bs2. Ring Bs3. Pointed (= Jg1) Bs4. Rounded

Jg1a. Trefoil rim. Jg1 Total

11 11

Jg2a. Simple/thickened rim— no long pro¿les. Likely to include a variety of whole forms including juglets. Jg2b. Ridged rim Jg2 Total Jg3. Simple Àaring rim.

19

Jugs Total Miscellaneous Rims Rims Total Bs1. Bs2. Bs3. Bs4. Bases Total Painted Body Sherds Total

34 53 566 61 17 1 3 82 16

Total Diagnostic Sherds

664

1 20 3

ROUTLEDGE ET AL. A Late Iron Age I Ceramic Assemblage

Figure 4. Pottery forms from KMA

1

Fig. No. 1 2 3 4 5

Reg. No.

Form Bowl 1a Bowl 1b Bowl 1c Bowl 1d Bowl 2a

Diameter (cm) 17 15 24 26 15

Fabric Colour n/a 10 R5/8 7.5 YR7/4 n/a 5YR7/4

5I05.85.21 A2.18.126 A2.36.40 5I05.90.8 5I05.90.24

6 7 8 9 10 11

CMS 3G46.48.8 5I05.88.41 2G87.179.2 5I05.80.9 A2.31.1

Bowl 2b Bowl 2c Bowl 3 Bowl 4 Krater 1 Krater 2a

19 12 16 22 22 21

n/a n/a 10YR8/2 7.5YR8/3 10YR8/2 7.5YR7/4

12 13 14 15

2G87.107.2 2G86.108.1 B1.5.3 2E21.26.1

Krater 2b Krater 2c Krater 3 Krater 4

30 38 25 26

na 2.5YR7/6 5YR7/4 5YR8/3

Surface Treatment & Colour slip ex/in. 5YR8/1 slip ex/in. 10 YR 8/3 none none slip ex/in. 10YR8/2 paint ex. 2.5YR4/4 n/a none none none none slip ex. 2.5YR8/2 paint ex. 5YR4/4 none slip in. 2.5YR7/4 slip ex/in. 2.5YR8/2 slip ex. 10YR8/2 paint ex. 7.5YR6/3

93

94

Exploring the Narrative

Figure 5. Pottery forms from KMA

Fig. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1

Reg. No.

Form

A1.1.45 4J41.50.1 2E21.16.2 5I05.134.9 2G87.22.19 2G87.36.8 5I05.244.1 2G87.120.3 2G86.142.2 2E21.12.3 A2.27.69

C-Pot 1a C-Pot 1b C-Pot 1c C-Pot 1d C-Pot 2a C-Pot 2b C-Pot 3a C-Pot b C-Pot 4 Jar 1a Jar 1b

Diameter (cm) 10 9 10 10 10 12 29 32 21 7 8

Fabric Colour 5YR4/4 2.5YR4/6 5YR5/4 7.5YR8/4 2.5YR6/4 5YR4/4 7.5YR7/4 n/a 2.5YR6/6 5YR8/4 5YR6/4

Surface Treatment & Colour none none none none none none blackened none none none none

ROUTLEDGE ET AL. A Late Iron Age I Ceramic Assemblage 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

5I05.75.112 2G87.1.11 5I05.31.47 2G87.132.1 5I05.75.174 5I05.80.148 3H04.04.7 5I05.56.31 2E21.06.9 4J41.12.2 5I05.53.105 2E21.CU.1 3H04.7.1 2G87.18.10 5I05.35.82 3H04.4.17

Jar 1c Jar 1d Jar 1e Jar 1f Jar 2a Jar 2b Jar 2c Jar 2d Jar 2e Jar 2f Jar 2g Jar 3 Jug 1 Jug 2a Jug 2b Jug 3

8 10 10 8 11 15 12 14 14 18 14 15 3 8 8 6

7.5YR4/2 n/a n/a n/a 10YR8/3 10YR8/2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10YR8/3 10YR6/6 n/a n/a 5YR5/4

95

slip ex. 10YR8/1 none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none

In general, the forms found at KMA ¿t together as a coherent assemblage from the very end of the Iron Age I period. Among the key features indicating this position are the predominance of cooking jugs and the short-necked “vestigial” collared rim jar. This very Late Iron I context is supported by the similarity between KMA’s radiocarbon dates and those from contexts in Palestine classi¿ed in relative terms as “end of Iron Age I” by Amihai Mazar (2008, 101–3). Looking at the summary statistics of sherd frequencies across the broad functional categories one is struck by the dominance of serving and eating vessels (esp. bowls) over storage jars or cooking pots. This pattern may be the result of a number of factors. Since we have not yet calculated the minimum number of vessels that produced our sherd assemblage, it is possible that the higher rim-to-body ratio in bowls means that bowls produce more diagnostic sherds per broken vessel than other forms. Alternatively, it is possible that the occupation of KMA was brief enough that its ceramic assemblage represents vessels in contemporary use, without signi¿cant impact from differential breakage and replacement rates. In other words, households would own and use considerably more serving and eating vessels than cooking pots or storage jars at any one time. As Porter (2011) has argued, serving and eating vessels would have been played a signi¿cant role in the small-scale commensal politics of hosting and feeding guests within the village, a fact suggested by the limiting of painted decoration to such vessels. Finally, with regard to storage jars, our excavations showed that grain was stored directly in open bins built into specially designed rooms within houses. Hence, in contrast to Early Iron I contexts such as those at 1

96

Exploring the Narrative

Tall al-’Umayri, large pithos do not appear to have been used for grain storage at KMA. Indeed, we did not discover any storage jars with a rim diameter greater than 20 cm. Type Distribution In seeking parallels for the forms found in the KMA assemblage it soon became clear that proximity and date were the most signi¿cant factors in determining the degree of similarity between KMA and the published ceramic assemblage at any other contemporary site. This is illustrated very simply in Table 2 and Fig. 6. Here we have selected a number of single-period sites, or strata from multiple-period sites, dated for the most part to the Late Iron Age I period.1 For each site we have counted the proportion of published ceramic forms that match forms from the KMA typology. We have then measured the straight-line distance from KMA to each of these sites and plotted the percentage of shared ceramic forms against this distance. Despite the relative crudity of this measure, we can see a strong linear relationship between distance from KMA and similarity to the KMA ceramic assemblage (r = –0.77). Madaba Tomb “A,” Madaba Tomb “B” and Tall al-’Umayri Integrated Phases 12–13 are exceptions, having fewer parallels to KMA than the regression line would predict given their proximity to the site (r= –0.98 with these 3 sites removed). This is very interesting since these are also the three contexts that are not clearly Late Iron Age I in date. Madaba Tomb “A” and Tall al-’Umayri I.P. 12–13 date to the Early Iron I period, while Madaba Tomb “B” contains many forms generally dated to Iron II A and early Iron IIB periods. Hence, proximity and contemporaneity are reÀected very strongly in the degree of similarity between assemblages. While this may seem intuitively obvious, it must be remembered that this pattern shows through very strongly despite the widely divergent proportions and raw numbers of vessels that have been published from each site. This suggests that forming and decorative traditions in the Late Iron Age I period were very regional in nature, indicating a clear predominance of local interaction over inter-regional travel or exchange. This pattern becomes even clearer when we consider the evidence for clay and temper sources provided by petrographic analysis.

1. Sources for the published pottery used in this comparison are as follows: Kh. al-Mudayna al-Mu’arradjaʊOlàvarri 1977–78, 1983; Madaba Tomb AʊHarding 1953; Madaba Tomb BʊThompson 1986; LahunʊPorter 2007; Swinnen 2009; Tell Deir ‘AllaʊFranken 1969; HesbanʊHerr 2012; UmayriʊHerr 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002; Yoqne’amʊZarzecki-Peleg, Anidjar and Ben-Tor 2005; QasileʊMazar 1985. 1

ROUTLEDGE ET AL. A Late Iron Age I Ceramic Assemblage

97

Table 2. Distance and similarity of Early Iron Age assemblages compared to KMA Site

Distance from KMA (km)

Khirbat Mudayna al-Mu’arraja Lahun Madaba Tomb A Madaba Tomb B Tell Hesban Umayri Tell Deir ‘Alla G–H Tell Qasile XI–X Yoqne’am XVIII–XVI

Total published types

Number that match KMA

Proportion

5

28

23

0.821

20 48 48 58 65 105

22 69 81 96 149 68

13 21 12 44 22 17

0.591 0.304 0.148 0.458 0.148 0.250

136 169

32 81

4 5

0.125 0.062

㻌 Figure 6. Plot of site distance from KMA against proportion of parallel pottery forms

1

98

Exploring the Narrative

Petrography Petrographic analysis was conducted on a sample of 51 rim sherds from KMA. From this sample, six distinct petrofabric groups were de¿ned. These petrofabric groups were de¿ned by the relative mineral abundance of aplastic inclusions evident in the thin sections, observed using 40×– 400× magni¿cation with a polarising microscope. Degree of sorting as well as roundness and angularity of inclusions were identi¿ed using comparison charts (Pettijohn, Potter and Siever 1987). Since detailed descriptions of these petrofabric groups have been published elsewhere (Routledge, Klassen and Porter, 2003) we will focus in this paper on the interpretation of these results. All of the six petrofabric groups identi¿ed at KMA seem to have been derived from clay sources available on the Karak Plateau and its adjacent wadi systems. It would appear that three of these petrofabric groups derive from clay sources that would have been available immediately adjacent to the site (KMA petrofabric groups 2–4). Two of the petrofabric groups are characterised by the presence of argillaceous rock fragments (e.g. shale and siltstone) and hence are likely to have originated from exposures of the Kurnub formation northwest along the edge of Wadi al-Mujib or directly west of the site (KMA petrofabric groups 1 and 5). Argillaceous rock inclusions are noted in all four of the petrofabrics de¿ned for Late Iron I pottery from al-Lehun by Steiner and Jacobs (2008). However, the al-Lehun petrofabrics lacked the coarse volcanic rock that is characteristic of ¿ve of the six petrofabrics from KMA. The presence/absence of this volcanic material may distinguish clay sources from south and north of Wadi al-Mujib. KMA petrofabric group 6 is likely to have originated from an area adjacent to the marl-rich Fuhays, Hummar and Shu‘ayb formations of the Ajlun group, which are exposed north of the site in the lower reaches of Wadi al-Nukhayla and in Wadi al-Mujib. However, it is also possible that such clay was also available from the immediate vicinity of KMA. Based on the petrographic analysis, it would appear that the ceramic vessel production industry at KMA was relatively unspecialised. On the whole there does not seem to be any strong correlation between vessel form and vessel fabric. The one exception to this rule is the cooking pots (petrofabrics 4 and 5), where a particular clay source and temper was sought out and procured by the potters. Note that in general, the use of temper does not appear to be a technique common to the vessel industry at KMA. For example, while chaff tempering is common in early Iron Age fabrics at Lahun (Steiner and Jacobs 2008) and Madaba (S. Klassen, 1

ROUTLEDGE ET AL. A Late Iron Age I Ceramic Assemblage

99

personal communication), only 3 of the 51 samples from KMA showed any sign of chaff. The cooking pots, however, contain crushed calcium carbonate temper from two distinct sources. Monocrystalline calcite is common to KMA petrofabric group 4 (source adjacent to site), whereas limestone appears to be the temper used in KMA petrofabric group 5 (non-adjacent source). Although similar, it would appear that two different potting traditions are apparent. Monocrystalline calcite is more stable at higher temperatures and the decomposition is less intense than limestone (Shoval et al. 1993). The crystalline nature is also retained reducing defects in the vessel. The cooking-pot petrofabrics are distinguished in a number of other ways as well. While the other KMA petrofabrics contain some samples made with fossil-rich clay, none of the cooking pots were made with such fossiliferous clays. Similarly, the majority of the KMA samples have a groundmass that is either slightly optically active or inactive suggesting that ¿ring temperatures were relatively high. However, this is not the case for the cooking pots. In each case the ground mass was optically active suggesting ¿ring at a lower temperature for these particular vessel forms. Of relevance to this last point are the results of our re-¿ring experiments. Re-Firing Experiments In order to investigate KMA’s ceramic technology further, a sample of 10 sherds was chosen from the site for re-¿ring and examination under a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) (see Smith 2012). When a previously ¿red clay body is exposed to temperatures higher than those at which it was ¿red it will undergo further vitri¿cation and dehydration, resulting in further sintering of the clay particles and changes in the pore structure. These changes can be observed by examining the sample before and after it is exposed to incrementally higher temperatures. Once the original ¿ring temperature has been exceeded changes in the ceramic body of the sample should be visible under the SEM. Because re¿ring analysis is destructive and this experiment was limited by time and money, the samples were chosen purposively from undecorated body sherds that seemed to represent a range of ware and functional types. Unfortunately, this selection did not include obvious cooking-pot wares, which are exceedingly rare among the body sherds from KMA. Once selected, the samples were cut into roughly 1cm cubes using a diamond-coated circular saw in order to be examinable under the SEM. The tops of the samples were then coated with a ¿ne layer of gold using 1

100

Exploring the Narrative

a sputter coating machine. This provides an electrically conductive surface. Gold was chosen for this experiment as it can often provide a much better image quality than that achieved using carbon coating methods (Weldon 2009, 244). In a preliminary experiment sample sherds were cut into several pieces that were each ¿red at a speci¿c temperature before being mounted in resin and carbon coated. In contrast, by using gold coating and one unmounted sample that can be re¿red multiple times, it proved possible always to investigate roughly the same part of the sample. Since it was not known how homogenous the samples were this approach was more bene¿cial, providing a better level of comparison than looking at different sections of the original sample. The samples were mounted on a carbon pad and grounded using carbon tape connecting the coated surface to the sample holder to prevent a build-up of electrostatic charge. Originally it was hoped that the coating would survive the re¿ring process and no further coating would be necessary. Unfortunately the coating was severely degraded by this process which resulted in poor image quality and electrostatic charge so the samples had to be re-coated after each increment of ¿ring. The prepared samples were initially imaged without undergoing any ¿ring to provide a control image for each sample. The images were taken at a setting of 20kv at 500× magni¿cation with a working distance of roughly 35mm. During this stage the samples were also analysed using the SEM’s Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) attachment. This was set to roughly 2000 cps over a period of 100 seconds with the sample tilted to an angle of 30°. The EDS provides a semi-quantitative analysis of the chemical composition of the sample using virtual internal standards. Although EDS has a relatively shallow depth of analysis it is an extremely quick method for gaining a general picture of the contents of the sample. In this experiment a general chemical composition was required to identify the inclusion of any substances that might have an impact on the sintering processes, such as Àuxes. The samples were then placed in a furnace at a temperature of 700° C for 1 hour and then removed to cool in the air. After cooling, the samples were subjected to a repeat of the coating process and then placed in the SEM where they were visually investigated to search for any changes in the structure that would suggest the original ¿ring temperature had been reached. Photographs were taken at 20kv and 500× magni¿cation. This process was then repeated for all samples at temperatures of 800°C and 900°C, with samples 5I05.140 and 5I05.273.12 also being ¿red at 1000°C. A starting temperature of 700°C was chosen as the lowest threshold as this is roughly the temperature found in an open ¿re 1

ROUTLEDGE ET AL. A Late Iron Age I Ceramic Assemblage

101

(Peterson and Peterson 2002, 33) and it is therefore unlikely that the ¿ring temperature would be below this. As well as this it is dif¿cult to determine lower ¿ring temperatures than 700°C using this approach. This is partly due to the fact that this approach has an accuracy of ±30 to 100°C (Rice 1987, 430). Results The results of the EDS provided a semi-quantitative analysis of the chemical composition of the samples. This was done to determine the presence and quantity of any elements that may have served to reduce the temperature of various sintering processes (Àuxes). Fluxes reduce the temperature at which certain sintering processes are able to take place (Worrall 1986, 220). Common Àuxes within clay are calcium, potassium, iron, sodium and magnesium oxides (Hamer and Hamer 2004, 39). There are also substances that will counteract the effect of Àuxes within a clay body. Alumina (Al203) is refractory and therefore can help to increase the melting point of the clay as well as to add strength to the pots (Hamer and Hamer 2004, 8). The percentage weight of Àux elements and aluminium are presented in Table 3. Table 3. Firing temperatures, % weight of Àuxing agents and % weight of aluminium for KMA sherds used in re-¿ring experiment

Sample 5I05.322.3 5I05.273.12 5I05.315.1 5I05.278.1 5I05.306.10 5I05.140 5I05.179.41 5I05.270.1 2G86.125.2 2G86.127.1

1

Original ¿ring temperature (°C) 700–800 700–800 700–800 700–800 700–800 800–900 700–800 700–800 700–800 700–800

% weight of Àux elements (potassium, magnesium, iron, sodium, calcium) 5.33 10.67 18.25 11.6 8.92 8.14 7.57 11 16.16 13.4 Average (Mean) 11.104 StdDev 3.968327943

% weight of aluminium 2.45 0 9.09 8.19 3.58 2.72 4.9 4.42 7.62 6.2 Average (Mean) 4.917 StdDev 2.87138004

102

Exploring the Narrative

The original ¿ring temperatures of the samples have been collected in Table 3. From this we can see that 9 out of the 10 samples have a ¿ring temperature that can be deduced to be above 700°C but lower than 800°C. Sample 5I05.140 has a higher suggested ¿ring temperature at somewhere between 800°C and 900°C. However, this may be due to experimental error, and ideally should be investigated again to con¿rm the results of this experiment. The samples have undergone different levels of changes. Some appear to have changed a lot more than others after re¿ring at 800°C. This could suggest that although the majority of samples have a ¿ring temperature between 700°C and 800°C there is at least some degree of variation within this range. Unfortunately, the approach used in this study has an accuracy of ±100°C, hence it is unlikely that a more accurate original ¿ring temperature could be determined with this technique. The samples were chosen to represent a variety of pottery from the site. The samples included sherds of a variety of thicknesses, colours and visible grain sizes. As a trial experiment, however, it was not practical to integrate the re¿ring experiment with the petrographic analysis, hence we are not certain how many different petrofabric groups were represented in our small sample. Whatever the case, and despite the visual diversity of the samples, all but one had a similar original ¿ring temperature of 700–800°C. This temperature could be reached through open-¿ring, but would be dif¿cult to maintain and stabilise over an extended period of time. Hence, the consistency of the KMA ¿ring temperatures suggests the use of a well-controlled kiln. Indeed, this consistency might lead one to imagine a single communal kiln where all pottery examined in this experiment would have been ¿red at the same temperature and in the same conditions. However, this consistency may also have been facilitated by the presence of Àuxes in the samples. Table 3 shows the percentage weight of the samples that are made up of elements that can act as Àuxes. From this we see that there is certainly some variation between the amounts in which these elements are present in the samples. However, we cannot determine from these results which of these elements are present in a state that acts as a Àux (for example MgO, K2O, CaO and Fe2O3). Therefore we cannot be entirely sure what percentage of the sample’s weight is made up of Àuxes. A more sensitive and extensive chemical composition could be attained to ascertain a more accurate measurement of any Àuxes in the sample. If we accept, however, that it is likely that at least some of these elements will be present in a Àux form, then this could account for the homogenous nature of the ¿ring temperature. The presence of Àuxes may have allowed for clays 1

ROUTLEDGE ET AL. A Late Iron Age I Ceramic Assemblage

103

that may otherwise have required a higher original ¿ring temperature to be ¿red at the same temperature as other clays. Although the potters would not have known they were adding elements that contained speci¿c compounds such as K2O they were possibly aware that mixing certain materials with their clay allowed them to create a diverse range of pots but ¿re them at similar temperatures. This could have been done as a practical measure as it would have allowed the use of one means of ¿ring for a multitude of pottery. It may have also been a requirement given the possibility that they did not have access to ¿ring equipment that could produce temperatures exceeding 800°C. There is a large amount of variation in the amount of aluminium that is present within the samples. As with the elements that can act as Àuxes, we do not know how much of the aluminium present will have been in the form of Alumina Al2O3. This makes it hard to determine to what extent this will have counteracted the inÀuences of any Àuxes. With the exception of 5IO5.273.12 we can see that the amount of aluminium present is higher in samples with a higher percentage weight of possible Àuxes. This suggests that the presence of the aluminium is counteracting the Àuxes in some way. However, whether this was also intentional or a natural feature of the clay is not possible to judge without further experimentation. What makes the presence of Àuxing agents particularly interesting is the fact that petrographically non-cooking pot fabrics exhibit a groundmass that is either slightly optically active or inactive. This suggests that ¿ring temperatures were relatively high. However, our re¿ring experiments have suggested that ¿ring temperatures were low to medium for kiln ¿ring. Hence, the difference between the groundmass of cooking and non-cooking pot fabrics could be the result of the addition of Àuxes to the latter or the absence of naturally occurring Àuxes from the nonfossiliferous clays selected for making cooking pots. Clearly a follow-up study is needed in which the composition of cooking-pot wares from KMA are examined for the presence or absence of Àuxing agents. Conclusions The evidence and analysis reviewed in this paper shows that the ceramic industry at KMA was largely local in terms of its raw materials, organisation and distribution. Pottery in Late Iron I central Jordan was not, therefore, a widely traded commodity, either on its own or as a container for some more desirable substance. At the same time, the KMA potters were clearly skilled, able to make knowledgeable and strategic choices in 1

104

Exploring the Narrative

the production of cooking pots and able to ¿re their pots under very stable and consistent conditions, perhaps aided by the addition of Àuxing agents or by the purposive selection of clay sources rich in such agents. Furthermore, despite being a largely local product, those decorating pots showed a clear knowledge of motifs and conventions in common circulation on both sides of Wadi al-Mujib in the Late Iron I. If we return to the question of historical narratives raised at the beginning of this paper, the analysis of pottery fron KMA can make some interesting contributions. First, while there is clearly interaction between sites in the Wadi Mujib system marked by shared knowledge and represented by common motifs and forms, this interaction does not take the form of closely integrated systems of production and trade. Indeed, so far, the evidence from KMA points to a largely self-suf¿cient site. Links to Balu‘a may exist in the form of petrofabrics containing inclusions of argillaceous rock as Balu‘a is located adjacent to outcrops of the Kurnub formation. However, the lack of correlation between these petrofabrics and particular ceramic forms and the relatively short distance between KMA and sources of argillaceous rock (