Lahav VII: Ethnoarchaeology in the Tell Halif Environs: Excavations in Site 1, Complex A, 1976–1979 9781646020447

Citation preview

Lahav VII Ethnoarchaeology in the Tell Halif Environs Excavations in Site 1, Complex A, 1976–1979

r e p o r t s o f t h e l a h av r e s e a rc h p ro j e c t

Excavations at Tell Halif, Israel Series Editor: Joe D. Seger Volume I.

Pottery and Politics: The Halif Terrace Site 101 and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium b.c.e. (J. P. Dessel, 2009) Volume II. Households and the Use of Domestic Space at Iron II Tell Halif: An Archaeology of Destruction (J. W. Hardin, 2010) Volume III. The Iron Age II Cemetery at Tell Halif (Site 72) (O. Borowski, 2013) Volume IV. The Figurines of Tell Halif (P. F. Jacobs, 2015) Volume V. The Iron, Persian, and Hellenistic Occupations within the Walls at Tell Halif: Excavations in Field II, 1977–1980 (D. P. Cole, 2015) Volume VI. Excavations in Field I At Tell Halif: 1976–1999: The Early Bronze III to Late Arabic Strata (P. F. Jacobs and J. D. Seger, 2017) Volume VII. Ethnoarchaeology in the Tell Halif Environs: Excavations in Site 1, Complex A, 1976–1979 (J. D. Seger and K. E. Seger, 2018)

The Lahav Research Project is sponsored by The Cobb Institute of Archaeology Mississippi State University

and is an affiliated project of The American Schools of Oriental Research

L a h av VII Ethnoarchaeology in the Tell Halif Environs Excavations in Site 1, Complex A, 1976–1979

by

Joe D. Seger and Karen E. Seger with contributions by Oded Borowski, Paul F. Jacobs, William Adams, and Susan Arter

E isenbrauns University Park, Pennsylvania 2018

Field Photos for this volume are hosted by Open Context at “Images Documenting Ethnoarchaeology in the Environs of Tell Halif, Israel.” 2018. Joe D. Seger and Karen E. Seger, eds. Released: 2018-08-30. Open Context. URL: http://opencontext.org/projects/04df4d32 -9843-4edc-9361-132474acaa5f. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6078/M78050PQ. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Seger, Joe D., author. | Seger, Karen, author. | Lahav Research Project. Title: Lahav VII : ethnoarchaeology in the Tell Halif environs : excavations in site 1, complex A, 1976–1979 / Joe D. Seger and Karen E. Seger; with contributions by Oded Borowski, Paul F. Jacobs, William Adams and Susan Arter. Other titles: Reports of the Lahav Research Project, Excavations at Tell Halif, Israel. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns, [2018] | Series: Reports of the Lahav Research Project | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “Documents the Lahav Research Project’s work at Tell Halif in Southern Israel, focusing on the team’s excavations and related regional ethnographic research at adjacent Khirbet Khuweilifeh, an early twentieth-century settlement of Bedouin and Arab fellahin clients”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2018039846 | ISBN 9781575069821 (cloth : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Halif Site (Israel) | Excavations (Archaeology)—Israel—Halif Site. | Ethnoarchaeology—Israel—Halif Site. | Israel—Antiquities. Classification: LCC DS110.H285 S44 2018 | DDC 956.94/9—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018039846 Copyright © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802-1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ANSI Z39.48–1992.

Karen Elizabeth Seger July 12, 1939–May 18, 2014 This volume is dedicated to the loving memory of Karen E. Seger, anthropologist, archaeologist, ethnographer, educator, and cultural connoisseur.

Brief Biography of Karen E. Seger Karen Seger was born Karen Elizabeth Oswald, July 12, 1939, in Rochester, NY. From an early age she was an avid reader with wide interests in music and culture. She graduated cum laude with a BS in Education from the State University of New York at Geneseo in 1961. Soon after she met and married her first husband Leslie Rabkin, a young PhD in Psychology. They moved to Seattle where she took graduate courses in Anthropology at the University of Washington. In 1966 she traveled with Leslie to Israel to participate as Assistant Investigator on a National Institute of Mental Health grant to study the personality of the 1st generation children raised at Kibbutz Bet Alpha. In Israel she developed an interest in archaeology, and during 1968 and 1969 she participated in excavation projects throughout the country, including those at Tell Anafa, Tanannir, Samaria, Shechem, and Gezer. In 1969/70 she served as Field Supervisor for excavations in Cave I.10A at Gezer (see J. D. Seger 1988). In 1970, she returned to the U.S. where she married her second husband, Joe Seger. They returned to Israel, joining the Gezer team for the 1971 summer season. At that time Joe succeeded William Dever as Archaeological Director at Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School (now the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology) in Jerusalem. From 1971–1974 Karen served as a member of the HUC Gezer Publication Staff and as a Core Staff Member of the Phase II Excavation team. A daughter, Kariman Elizabeth, was born to Karen and Joe in 1973.

vi

Brief Biography of Karen E. Seger

In 1974, they returned to the U.S. first to the Hebrew Union College campus in Los Angeles where Karen served as Administrative Assistant at the Skirball Museum. In 1975 they again spent the summer in Israel where Karen participated as Field Archaeologist with the ASOR Tell el-Hesi Excavation team. In 1976, they moved to Omaha and, with University of Nebraska Omaha sponsorship, initiated the Lahav Research Project (LRP) and its excavations at Tell Halif. From 1976–1980 Karen served as a member of the LRP’s Phase I Core Staff, supervising its ethnographic research. In 1978, she worked as a Field Archaeologist on the City of David Project in Jerusalem, and in 1979 she received a grant from the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) to prepare a book on the photographs of the Artas village south of Jerusalem taken by Anthropologist Hilma Granqvist in the early 20th century. Karen’s book, Portrait of a Palestinian Village, was published in 1981. In addition to the Granqvist volume, Karen also contributed to a number of published archaeological reports, most significantly to Gezer V: The Field I Caves (J. D. Seger 1988) and Gezer VII: The Middle Bronze and Later Fortifications in Fields II, IV, and VIII (J. D. Seger 2013). She also authored dozens of field reports, including those that form the substantive basis for this volume, and a number of briefer articles of both a technical and popular nature. Karen moved to Tucson in 1981 where she resumed her graduate work in the Department of Oriental Studies at the University of Arizona. In subsequent years she served as Editor for the Middle East Studies Association of the Department of Oriental Studies and as Editor and Archaeologist for the National Park Service, Western Archaeological and Conservation Center. She also served as Editor and Managing Editor for the Journal of the Southwest from 1988–1992. Between June and August 1986 Karen traveled to Amman, Jordan as a “Women in Development Fellow” as part of a USAID Consortium for International Development group. In October 1988 she traveled to Yemen as a development consultant for a UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) mission to that country. In Tucson, Karen was widely engaged in community activities. From 1984 to 2008 she was a member of the Planning and Coordinating Committee and Stage Manager for the “Tucson Meet Yourself” annual multiethnic festival, and she was cofounder in 1989 of the annual Tohono O’odham Waila Festival. Throughout her life and career Karen was fascinated by native cultures and by the artifacts used in daily life. In her later years she continued to travel widely, joining tour groups to Mexico, South America, Africa, and East Asia. In 1989 she met and married her third husband, Robert White, a medical doctor. Karen and Bob’s home became a small ethnographic museum as well as a Mecca for international visitors. At her memorial service on July 19, 2014, in a eulogy titled “Collections,” her daughter Kariman reflected on her mother’s universal magnetism, how throughout her life people from all walks of life were drawn to her, how she seemed driven to “collect” and do honor to the diversity in all of the world’s cultures. Kariman’s final thoughts of her mother were that Karen didn’t just collect things; she collected people, stories, and adventures. Each beautiful material item in her home carried for her the beauty of life itself. In loving memory, Joe D. Seger, May, 2016

Table of Contents Brief Biography of Karen E. Seger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   v List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix List of Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   x List of Tables and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Series Editor’s Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Author’s Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Chapter 1  General Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 A.  The Site and Its Investigation  1 B.  Protocols for Describing Late Occupation Cave Complexes  3 C.  Work in the 1976 Season  6 D.  Work in the 1977 Season  7 E.  Work in the 1979 Season  10

Chapter 2  A 20th-Century Arab Settlement at Khirbet Khuweilifeh . . . . . . . 15 A.  Location and Setting  15 B.  Historical Background  15 C.  The Khuweilifeh Ruins  16 D.  Investigations in Cave Complex A  18 E.  Investigations in Other Cave Complexes  20 F.  Results from Ethnographic Inquiries  20

Chapter 3  Excavations at Site 1, Complex A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.  Complex A Description Detail  27 B.  The 1976 Probes in Complex A  39

1.  The 1976 Probes in S1.A1 Chamber a  39 2.  The 1976 Probes in S1.A1 Chamber c  44 3.  The 1976 Probe in S1.A Enclosure 2  47 4.  The 1976 and 1977 Probes in S1.A Enclosure 10  49

C.  The 1977 Excavations in the S1.A Complex  52

1.  The 1977 Excavations in S1.A1 Chamber a  53 2.  The 1977 Excavations in S1.A1 Chamber e  56 3.  The 1977 Excavations in S1.A Enclosures 3, 6, and 10  57

D.  Summary Correlation of Stratified Deposits in Cave Complex A  61

Chapter 4  Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh . . . 63 A.  Introductory Comments  63 B.  Summary of Catalog Classes and Categories  64 C.  Catalog of Artifacts  64 1.  Class A: Iron Objects  64 2.  Class B: Nonferrous Metal  73

viii

Table of Contents 3.  Class C: Leather  75 4.  Class D: Glass  78 5.  Class E: Stone Objects  80 6.  Class F: Shells  82 7.  Class G: Rubber Objects  82 8.  Class H: Wood and Paper  82

Chapter 5  The Zooarchaeological Remains from Cave Complex A . . . . . . .   95 A. Introduction  95 B.  Analytical Methods  97 C  Ethnohistoric Data  97 D.  Taphonomic Data  99 E.  Data Analysis  101

1.  Species Diversity  101 2.  Age Determination  102 3.  Body Part Representation  105 4.  Butchery Data  105

F. Discussion  107 G. Conclusion  110 H.  Raw Data Tables  110

Chapter 6  The Pottery from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh . . . . . . 113 A.  20th-Century Ceramics  113 B.  Early Islamic Wares  114 C.  Pre-Islamic Ceramic Remains  115

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locus Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locus List: S1.Al . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locus List: S1.A2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locus List: S1.A3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locus List: S1.A6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locus List: S1.A10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate and Description Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plates 1–6 and Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117 121 123 168 172 175 179 189 190 191 195 199 203 207 211

Field Photos (FP) are hosted by Open Context. URL: http://opencontext.org/projects/04df4d32 -9843-4edc-9361-132474acaa5f. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6078/M78050PQ.

List of Figures Figure 1.1.   Topographical map of the Halif Terrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1.2.   LRP excavation sites, 1976–1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2.1.   Plan of Khirbet Khuweilifeh, Cave Complex A with main features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2.2.   Sketch of a habia from Cave Complex B at Khirbet Khuweilifeh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2.3.   Sketch of a mitwah from el-Kom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2.4.   Map showing relationship of sites within Ramadin territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.1.   Plan of Complex A with excavation areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.2.   Plan of Complex A with principal locus references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.3.   S1.A1 E–W South Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.4.   S1.A1 N–S West Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.5.   Plan S1.A1a Phase 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.6.   Plan S1.A1a Phase 4B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.7.   Plan S1.A1a Phase 4A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.8.   Plan S1.A1a Phase 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.9.   Plan S1.A1a Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.10.  Plan S1.A1a Phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.11.  Plan S1.A1c Phases 4, 3B, and 3A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.12.  Plan S1.A1c Phases 2C, 2B, 2A, and 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.13.  Plan S1.A2 Phase 4–1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.14.  Plan S1.A10 Phase 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.15.  Plan S1.A10 Phase 2D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.16.  Plan S1.A10 Phase 2C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.17.  Plan S1.A10 Phase 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.18.  Plan S1.A10 Phase 2A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.19.  Plan S1.A10 Phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.20.  S1.A3, A6, A10 E–W South Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.21.  Plan S1.A3 Phase 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.22.  Plan S1.A6 Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.23.  Plan S1.A6 Phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3.24.  Plan S1.A3 Phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.1.   Miscellaneous metal and wood implements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.2.   Metal tools and implements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.3.   Shoes, horseshoes, and miscellaneous artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.4.   Diagram referencing locations of plowshare measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 5.1.   Drawing of Chamber a of Cave Complex A as reconstructed in the early 1980s . . . . . . . . .

 2  4 17 19 19 21 28 29 35 36 41 41 42 42 43 45 45 46 48 49 50 50 53 53 54 57 58 59 59 60 85 87 89 91 96

List of Photographs (FP = Field Photos hosted by Open Context) Photo 1.1A.  Aerial overview of the Tell Halif Area in 1945 (view to the E) (Open Context scan 1.1A) . . . . .  3 Photo 1.1B.  Aerial overview of Kibbutz Lahav and the Tell Halif area in 1976 (view to the W) . . . . . . . . . 4 Photo 1.2.   Aerial view of Tell Halif with Cave Complex A below Field I (view to the SW) (FP411) . . . . . . 6 Photo 1.3.   Entrance to Cave Complex C (view to the SW) (FP 98) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Photo 1.4.   Entrance to Cave Complex E (view to the SW) (FP 99) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Photo 1.5.   Courtyard of reconstructed Cave Complex G (view to the SE) (FP 116) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8 Photo 1.6.   Mangers inside reconstructed Cave Complex G (FP 119) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Photo 1.7.   Courtyard of Cave Complex B (view to the SW) with Tell Halif in the background and Cave Complex C to the left (FP 74) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Photo 1.8.   Entrance into Cave Complex B, Cave 5 with preserved lintel (FP 80) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Photo 1.9.   Preserved arched entryway and adjacent walls inside Cave Complex B, Cave 6 (FP 97) . . . . . .11 Photo 1.10.  Nettish forming roof cover over backside of entryway into Cave Complex B, Cave 5 (FP 135) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Photo 1.11.  Side of arched entryway into Cave Complex B, Cave 6 with reused stone block bearing a rosetta design in relief (FP 85) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Photo 1.12.  Detail of Cave Complex B, Cave 6 rosetta relief (FP 84) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Photo 1.13.  Collapsed habia in Cave Complex B, Cave 5 (FP 77) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Photo 1.14.  Mud niches in Cave Complex B, Cave 6 (FP 82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Photo 1.15.  Aerial view of Khirbet Rammamin (view to the N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Photo 2.1.   Possible cistern opening in Cave Complex A courtyard (FP 102) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Photo 2.2.   Mud and straw structures in courtyard of the Arab village of el-Kom (slide) . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Photo 3.1.   S1.A Courtyard (view to the S) (FP 62) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Photo 3.2.   Enclosure 3 niche (view to the SE) (FP 71) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Photo 3.3.   Enclosure 3 niche (view to the E) (FP 129) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Photo 3.4.   Area S1.A2 (view to the NW) (FP 132) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Photo 3.5.   S1.A1 cave entrances (view to the SW) (FP 131) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Photo 3.6.   S1.A1 Chamber e Entrance 1055 (view to the S) (FP 70) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Photo 3.7.   Dividing Walls 1022 and 1023 at S1.A1 Chamber a entrance (view to the W) (FP 16) . . . . . . .33 Photo 3.8.   Walls 1022 and 1021 collapse on west side of S1.A1 Chamber a (view to the S) (FP 64) . . . . . .33 Photo 3.9.   “Polka dots” on Wall 1018 in S1.A1 Chamber a (view to the W) (FP 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Photo 3.10.  Walls 1022, 1021, and 1018 in S1.A1 Chamber a (view to the W) (FP 67) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Photo 3.11.  Habia 1004 (view to the NE) (FP 14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Photo 3.12.  Habia 1014 (FP 25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Photo 3.13.  Mitweh 1001 and 1015 and Habia 1016 (view to the S) (FP 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Photo 3.14.  Manger 1035 and its containers, L. 1005 and L. 1027 (view to the E) (FP 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Photo 3.15.  Manger 1035 and Wall 1012 at entrance to S1.A1 Chambers b and c (view to the SE) (FP 125) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Photo 3.16.  S1.A1 Chamber a ceiling (FP 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Photo 3.17.  S1.A1 Chamber e (view to the SE) (FP 123) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Photo 3.18.  S1.A1 Chamber e (view to the NW) (FP 124) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Photo 3.19.  S1.A1 objects on Surface 1028 in Chamber a (view to the E) (FP 33) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Photo 3.20.  S1.A10 Walls 10016 and 10004 (view to the SE) (FP 198) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Photo 3.21.  S1.A10 Wall 10006 (view to the NE) (FP 91) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

List of Photographs

xi

Photo 3.22.  S1.A1 entrance to Chamber a (view to the N) (FP 287) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Photo 3.23.  S1.A1 Surface 1028 at the Chamber a entrance (view to the N) (FP 324) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Photo 3.24.  S1.A3 final overview in 1977 (view to the NE) (FP 405) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Photo 3.25.  S1.A6 final overview in 1977 (view to the N) (FP 406) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Photo 4.1.   Miscellaneous metal objects (FP 39) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Photo 4.2.   Metal objects (FP 383) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 Photo 4.3.   Miscellaneous shoes and leather objects (FP 41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 Photo 4.4.   Miscellaneous rubber objects (FP 43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Photo 4.5.   Miscellaneous wood and bone objects (FP 45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 Photo 4.6.   Miscellaneous fiber objects (FP 40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

List of Tables and Charts

Tables Table 3.1.   Correlations between depositional phases as excavated within Cave Complex A . . . . . . . . . Table 4.1.   Measurements of individual plowshare specimens (millimeter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.1.   Stratigraphic assignments for Khirbet Khuweilifeh Cave Complex A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.2.   Average bone weights for identifiable MM and LM bones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.3.   Relative proportions of identifiable and unidentifiable MM and LM bone specimens . . . . . . . Table 5.4.   Carnivore gnawed specimens by animal type and skeletal elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.5.   Relative proportion of bones by type and location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.6.   Relative proportions of bird bones by type and location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.7.   Relative proportions of identified caprine and bovine bones and unidentified MM and LM bones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.8.   Sheep to goats ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.9.   Relative proportions of LM remains by skeletal region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.10.  Relative proportions of MM remains by skeletal region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.11.  Butchering scars on caprine, cow, and camel skeletal elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.12.  Distribution of identifiable and unidentifiable medium and large specimens by count . . . . . . Table 5.13.  Number of identifiable specimens present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.14.  Distribution of bird bones by count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.15.  Distribution of MM and LM by bone count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.16.  Distribution of MM and LM by weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.17.  Number of LM remains by skeletal region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.18.  Number of MM remains by skeletal region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.19.  Caprine fusion data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.20.  Long bone fusion data for caprine, cow, and camel elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  61   90   96   99  100  100  102  102  102  104  104  104  106  111  111  111  111  111  112  112  112  112

Charts Chart 5.1.   Sheep/goat mortality profiles based on limb bone fusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  103 Chart 5.2.   Caprine mortality profiles based on tooth eruption and wear patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  103

Series Editor’s Preface This volume appears as the seventh in a planned series of reports on the investigations of the Lahav Research Project (LRP) at Tell Halif, located near Kibbutz Lahav in southern Israel. LRP research has focused widely on stratigraphic, environmental, and ethnographic problems related to the history of settlement at and around Tell Halif from prehistoric through modern times. The project was initiated in 1974 and in 1975 received sponsorship from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Since 1983 the LRP has received its primary support from the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University. During all field seasons, efforts have also been assisted by consortia of other American academic institutions and with support in Israel from the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, both in Jerusalem, and from the Joe Alon Center for Regional and Folklore Studies at Kibbutz Lahav. Throughout, the LRP has been affiliated with the American Schools of Oriental Research as one of its approved projects. LRP investigations at Tell Halif have continued through three phases (I–III) embracing twelve seasons of field excavation between 1976 and 1999. A fourth phase (IV) directed by Oded Borowski under Emory University sponsorship was initiated in 2007. Through all phases, financial support by consortium institutions was supplemented by generous gifts received as private contributions from staff members, subscribers, and worker participants. Patrons and major donors are recognized in the Editor’s Preface to Lahav I (Dessel 2009: xv–xvii). Additional contributions were received from several hundred others, and we are sincerely grateful to this very large group of individuals for their participation in and support of LRP work. At the same time, we also recognize that none of the project’s work could have been accomplished without the help of the members of Kibbutz Lahav. With warm encouragement and much material assistance, Lahav’s members provided a supportive and congenial base for the team’s field research through all of the past three plus decades. This seventh report in our LRP series focuses on excavations and related ethnographic investigations conducted during Phase I in 1976, 1977, and 1979 in Cave Complex A of Khirbet Khuweilifeh on the eastern terrace at the foot of the Tell Halif mound. These efforts were directed by Karen E. Seger, of Omaha, NE, aided by the field staff listed passim in Chapter 1. Along with the University of Nebraska, Omaha, Phase I consortium support was provided by Washington State University, Pullman, WA; Lycoming College, Williamsport, PA; St. John’s University, Collegeville, MN; and Emory University, Atlanta, GA. During Phase I, Joe D. Seger served in the role of overall Project Director, assisted by a Core Staff including Dan P. Cole, Lake Forest College, Lake Forest, IL: Mary Elizabeth Shutler, Washington State University, Pullman, WA; Karen E. Seger, Omaha, NE; Oded Borowski, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; and Paul F. Jacobs, University of St. Thomas, Houston, TX. Phase I Recording and Camp Staff included Photographer Patricia M. O’Connor; Assistant Photographers Victoria Satterthwaite and David Kudan; Draftsmen Mark Laustrup and Robert Erskin; Registrars Ann Arenstein, Melanie Montgomery, Eduardo Guerra, Julie Schram, and Robert

xiv

Series Editor’s Preface

Wise; Conservator Jeanne Smith; Technical Illustrator Judith Berkowitz; Medical Consultant Jeanne Jaggard; Camp Managers Catharine Cole, Susan Schwartz, and Nancy Jacobs; Assistant Camp Managers Jerry Sturmer and Betty Kemper; Camp Operations Manager Karl Kemper; and Cooks Muhammad Rabia, Lutfi Tanbor, and Jamal Rabia. During this period Kibbutz Lahav member Avi Navon participated in field work and provided valuable liaison with the kibbutz. Other consultants and specialists during Phase I included Israel Department of Antiquities Representative Amos Kloner; Physical Anthropologists Baruch Arensburg of Tel Aviv University and Patricia Smith of Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem; Ethnographic Advisors John Landgraf and Omar Othman, both of Jerusalem; Survey Advisor David Allon of Kibbutz Mishmar Hanegev; and Environmental advisor Dan Ratner of Kibbutz Lahav. The special focus of this volume deals with the results of ethnographic research at and related to the early 20th-century settlement of Khirbet Khuweilifeh, located immediately to the east of Tell Halif. It provides a unique study of the cultural interplay between Palestinian villagers of the southern Hebron Hills and their Northern Negev Bedouin neighbors in the period before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. As such, it provides documentation of a now largely eclipsed form of cultural adaptation in the southern Palestinian region. Joe D. Seger Cobb Institute of Archaeology May, 2016

Author’s Preface This study appears as a testimony to the interests and intellectual energies of Karen E. Seger who saw in the ruins at Khirbet Khuweilifeh an opportunity to investigate and preserve something of the fast disappearing history of a unique form of early 20th-century C.E. cultural adaptation in southern Palestine. Sadly, in the midst of the preparation of this final report, she was stricken with pancreatic cancer. She passed away on May 19, 2014, soon after receiving the main part of the final manuscript draft of the volume. While she was unable to participate in the final stages of completing this report, it is important to note that all of the primary materials in the volume, and most especially those in Chapters 2–3 as well as the detailed locus lists and descriptions, derive immediately from her seasonal reports on the excavation efforts and her ethnographic field interviews. As acknowledged in the Chapter 1, these ethnographic investigations were also fully supported and participated in by other members of the LRP’s Phase I Staff, including Paul Jacobs and Oded Borowski, both of whom supervised Complex A excavation areas. Also helping in special ways were Dr. Mary Elizabeth “Betty” Shutler, who as the project’s Associate Director for Environmental Research, provided these efforts ongoing guidance and logistical support, and Photographer Patricia “Patty” O’Connor, who deliberately recorded the Khuweilifeh remains and documented the progress of the excavations. Patty also accompanied Karen during many of the ethnographic field interview trips. Notable also is the contribution of William H. Adams (currently Associate Professor of Anthropology at California State University Channel Islands), who helped supervise the 1979 work within the cave chambers. He, at the same time, inventoried the cave’s material culture repertoire and prepared the preliminary draft of a study from which Chapter 4 is formed. Recognition must likewise be given to the special work by Susan Arter, now at the San Diego Natural History Museum, and her analysis of the faunal assemblage from Complex A in Chapter 5. This section derives from a larger study that she produced as a thesis for her MA degree from George Washington University (Arter 1990). In addition to yielding this most substantive chapter on the animal remains at Khuweilifeh, Arter’s thesis served in many other ways as a resource for this volume. Special recognition is also due to Cobb Institute Staff members Dylan Karges and Michael Stewart. All of the illustrations in the figures, plans, and plates were rendered in their final form by Karges, while Stewart produced the digital photo renderings with imbedded captions and played “clean-up” as Copy Editor for all of the text. Beyond the exercise of their special talents, the ongoing dialogue and exchanges with and between them and their deliberate attention to all details contributed greatly in the final shaping of the prepress materials. Also, as the final editing of the manuscript was in progress, the timely assistance of Drs. Jeff Blakely of the University of Wisconsin, Benjamin Saidel of East Carolina University, and Amos Kloner of Bar Ilan University must be acknowledged. Drawing on their own scholarly

xvi

Author’s Preface

interests in the 19th- and 20th-century ethnography and history of southern Palestine, each was instrumental in helping to close some important bibliographic gaps. Finally, as I currently settle into my life in retirement, it is especially necessary to acknowledge the long term support of the Lahav Research Project’s efforts by the Cobb Institute of Archaeology and the administration at Mississippi State University. I am particularly grateful for the forbearance of my current administrative colleagues, Dr. Michael Galaty, Head of the Department of Anthropology and Middle Easters Cultures, and Dr. Greg Dunaway, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, in agreeing to help sustain my efforts to complete the LRP’s publication responsibilities going forward. Joe D. Seger May, 2016

Chapter 1

General Introduction A.  The Site and Its Investigation In the summer of 1976, between June 28 and August 1, the Lahav Research Project launched a first season of investigations at Tell Halif and in the environs of Kibbutz Lahav in southern Israel under Israel Department of Antiquities (now Israel Antiquities Authority) license No. G-23/76. Included in the project’s efforts were archaeological soundings on the Halif mound, a regional survey of sites in the surrounding area, and an ethnographic study of cave sites at the foot of the tell, the latter being thought to have been occupied into the early half of the 20th century C.E. Project work was directed by Joe D. Seger, with a Core Staff including M. E. Shutler (San Diego State University) and Dan P. Cole (Lake Forest College) as Associate Directors, and with Oded Borowski (Emory University), Paul F. Jacobs (University of St. Thomas), and Karen E. Seger (Omaha, NE) as Field Supervisors. Karen Seger served as Supervisor of the ethnographic research. Project sponsorship for the initial seasons was provided by the University of Nebraska at Omaha, and support in Israel was provided by the W. F. Albright Institute and the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology in Jerusalem, as well as by the Joe Alon Center at Kibbutz Lahav. The LRP is an approved project of the Committee on Archaeological Policy of the American Schools of Oriental Research. The series of caves surrounding Tell Halif (Arabic Tell Khuweilifeh) had aroused interest as being representative of the most recent occupation of the area prior to the establishment of Kibbutz Lahav in 1952. As part of the Khirbet Khuweilifeh ruins, they had been called “Arab Caves” or “Bedouin Caves,” but the history of their use and occupation was mostly unknown and undocumented (see fig. 1.1; photos 1.1A–B). The first informants about the caves were members from Kibbutz Lahav, who said that Bedouin (bedou) and peasants (fellahin) both lived there until 1948. Much of this original information was provided by Dodik Shoshani, an original settler of Kibbutz Lahav. Shoshani was an accomplished Arabic speaker and a student of Arab (Bedouin) culture, who served as a mediator in disputes and among Bedouin of the Northern Negev region. Also helpful were Lahav members Avi Navon, Eli Rabinowitz, and Dan Rattner, all of whom had been instrumental in collecting Arab artifacts for the kibbutz museum. In cooperation with other Kibbutz Lahav members they had brought a villager from nearby El Borj to “reconstruct” one of the caves (Complex G; see figs. 1.1 and 1.2; photos 1.1A and 1.1B).

2

General Introduction

Figure 1.1.  Topographic plan of the Tell Halif area.

In an initial examination around the base of the mound and out on the nearby Halif Terrace area, six cave complexes were visible at the foot of the east side of the tell and at least four more along the terrace to the south and east of the Project’s dig camp (Complexes A–J; see fig. 1.2; photo 1.2). A cave complex was defined as a walled, open courtyard along with its associated caves. We soon realized that there had been many other such complexes to the south and east, most of which had been buried in the course of Kibbutz building projects. A plot map of the kibbutz (fig. 1.1), based on an aerial photo from the 1960s, shows the location of many of these complexes surrounding a nearby rectangular stone-built structure. Most of the caves along the foot of the mound had been disturbed and covered over prior to our excavation seasons by the development of a circumference road and fencing, up and along the south side of the tell. Indeed, only two of the ten still identifiable complexes remained largely untouched. One of these

B.  Protocols for Describing Late Occupation Cave Complexes

3

Photo 1.1A.  Aerial overview of the Tell Halif area in 1945 (view to the east).

complexes (“Complex A” just below the Project’s Field I sounding) was chosen as the main focus of the initial work planned for the study.

B.  Protocols for Describing Late Occupation Cave Complexes The area of the mound above Complex A along with the caves on the lower slopes to the east was included in what was designated as Site 1 within the Project’s site survey numbering system. The area of the terrace east of our excavation camp was designated Site 101. Beginning with Complex A, each complex was designated by an uppercase letter (see fig. 1.2). Within each complex, architectural features and caves were given Arabic numbers. Chambers within a cave were designated by lower case letters. Room features within open courtyards were referenced as “enclosures” and designated by Arabic numbers. This system is outlined below.

4

General Introduction

Photo 1.1B.  Aerial overview of Kibbutz Lahav and Tell Halif area in 1976 (view to the west).

Figure 1.2.  LRP excavation sites, 1976–1980.

B.  Protocols for Describing Late Occupation Cave Complexes

5

1.  Complex. Make sketch, designate the complex by capital letter. A.  How many units and what types? Letter the units (Units may be Caves, Wells, Enclosures, etc.) B.  Setting. Note access roads, drainages, trails, buildings, natural landmarks, and other important reference points. C.  Flora. Note plant cover and density of plants on and surrounding site. D.  Locate on map. Is there disturbance or evidence of current use? What is the condition of the complex? 2.  Main Courtyard Enclosure. A.  Entrance. Opens from which direction? Is the passageway inclined, stepped, or level? B.  Floor. Is it bedrock, soil, or paved? Is the stone flooring worked? If so, describe and plot. C.  Wall(s) enclosing courtyard. Indicate if stone, brick, or other and describe type of treatments—including average size of stones or bricks; number of courses and of rows; dry aid or with mortar; if plastered. Describe other features and phases visible and state of preservation. 3.  Units within Courtyards (Enclosures, etc.). Designate with Arabic numbers in sequence with Caves, describe, and sketch. 4.  Caves. Designate with Arabic numbers in sequence with Courtyard Units, describe, and sketch. A.  Indicate number of chambers. Assign each a lower case letter. B.  Entrance and entranceway. Use description for walls as in 2.C. above. Indicate any special features, cut door posts, lintels, threshold, niches, carvings, or hinges. C. Interior. a.  Measure chamber’s average length, width, and height. Indicate if cave walls are natural or hewn. Describe all related features (e.g., ledges, benches, niches). b.  Constructed walls and features. Plot location(s) and indicate possible function(s) and relationships (Use 2.C checklist for walls.) c.  Ceiling. Plot holes. Indicate if plastered and/or discolored. d.  Floors. Describe (Use 2.B check list). Indicate type of sediment deposits, platform features, or lines of stones. D.  Cultural furnishings and features (e.g., hawaabi, bins, mangers, etc.). Indicate type, number, construction material, special features, contents, and condition. E.  Other cultural remains (e.g., pottery artifacts, bone, etc.). Describe density and mark clusters on sketch plan. 5.  Note and record anything else of importance not covered above. Notation Sequence: (S1) = Site 1, i.e., Khirbet Khuweilifeh; (A) = Complex; (1) = Unit (Cave, Enclosure, Courtyard Feature, etc.); (a) = Subunits (Chambers, etc.). Thus, S1.A3c. Note: The Site, Complex, and Unit within this scheme function similarly to the typical LRP recording of Site, Field, and Area.

In the places where we were excavating and describing features in detail we used the LRP’s usual recording system involving locus numbers, pottery basket units, and material culture (MC) sample references (see J. D. Seger 1980). Accordingly, S1.A1c, L. 1002 refers to Locus 1002, a debris layer in Chamber c at Site 1, in Complex A, Cave 1. In turn, basket S1.A1.31 would identify a collection of pottery, and MC# 2613, an artifact or sample group associated with that locus. While MC items are usually sub-referenced to pottery basket units, due to the plethora of ceramic samples often encountered within a locus, they are also at times used independent from pottery baskets and include related pottery samples.

6

General Introduction

Photo 1.2.  Aerial view of Tell Halif with Cave Complex A below Field I (view to the southwest).

C.  Work in the 1976 Season Objectives for the 1976 summer season focused largely on Complex A. This involved detailed mapping of the entire complex, including natural and man-made walls and installations (see fig. 2.1); describing and labeling of all architectural features, and photographing of all the details of the complex. In addition, work included plotting the locations of all the material culture items and collecting them from the upper surfaces within the complex. Finally, efforts also focused on initial excavations in various probe areas to determine the depth of the modern Arab occupation and the stratigraphy of possible earlier remains. Included with Karen Seger on the 1976 field team were Michael Lambek, Kathy Shutler, and Karen Bradley, who served as Area Supervisors, and Al Autrey, Steven Nicklas, and Leanna Rooney, who served as student volunteers. Assistance was also given by the Project’s Surveyor/Draftsman Mark Laustrup and by its Photographer Patricia O’Connor. Probes were opened in S1.A1 in Chamber a of the cave, supervised by Karen Seger and Michael Lambek. Additional smaller probes were opened at S1.A2 in the Complex A courtyard, supervised by Oded Borowski with Karen Bradley as Area Supervisor, and to the east outside its entrance in S1.A10, supervised by Paul Jacobs with Katherine Shutler as Area Supervisor. In addition to efforts in Complex A itself, the summer’s ethnographic program also included reconnaissance of the other Khuweilifeh complexes and visits to other regional sites with similar caves. (See the protocols used for describing the cave complexes in section B above.) The team also conducted bibliographic research at the Albright Institute Library and at other institutions in Jerusalem and made field trips to Arab villages in the near region searching for people who had lived at Khuweilifeh or who still had memory about the settlement. Similar trips were made to nearby Bedouin enclaves. Visits to the Joe Alon Center at Lahav and to the Beersheva Museum as well as to the Beersheba Bedouin market were also carried out in order to get comparative data related to types and uses of cultural artifacts.

D.  Work in the 1977 Season

Photo 1.3.  Entrance to Cave Complex C (view to the southwest) (FP 98).

7

Photo 1.4.  Entrance to Cave Complex E (view to the southwest) (FP 99).

D.  Work in the 1977 Season A second season of ethnographic study at Khirbet Khuweilifeh was conducted in company with other LRP field work between June 19 and July 29, 1977. Work was carried out under Israel Department of Antiquities (now Israel Antiquities Authority) license No. G-20/77. Karen Seger remained as Supervisor of the ethnographic research. She also supervised the continuing probe work in S1.A1 Chambers a and e with William Adams and Steven Nicklas as Area Supervisors. Oded Borowski supervised continuing probes in S1.A3, A6, and A10 in the outer courtyard with Karen Bradley as Area Supervisor. Project staff members Mark Laustraup and Patricia O’Connor again served as Survey/Draftsman and Photographer, respectively, and Philip Boatright assisted on the ethnographic field trips. During this second season, Complex A continued to be the focus of excavation work. With the exception of areas directly under the large installations, excavations everywhere in Chamber a were carried to or near bedrock, and a meter-wide probe was extended west across Chamber e. Major North-South and East-West Sections (figs. 3.3–4) were preserved and drawn to record the profile of the stratigraphy in the two chambers. Outside, in the courtyard of the complex, the probes in Enclosures 3 and 10 were also completed to bedrock, and the South Section (fig. 3.20) running between them across the Enclosure 6 probe was recorded. Meanwhile, investigations were carried to completion in Complexes B, C, E, G, and H and locations of other caves, cemeteries, cisterns, and features of Khuweilifeh were plotted (see

8

General Introduction

Photo 1.5.  Courtyard of reconstructed Cave Complex G (view to the southeast) (FP 116).

Photo 1.6.  Mangers inside reconstructed Cave Complex G (FP 119).

fig. 1.2). Seven additional caves (K–Q), all most likely also living complexes, were identified, bringing the total seen at Khuweilifeh to seventeen. The application of cave description protocols was used deliberately in the investigation of Complex A. However, it served only as a general guide for Complexes B–J, where excavations were not carried out and where artifacts were not systematically collected. A few artifacts, such as MC# 680, a rifle from Complex D, were picked up and registered. Complexes C–J were each described and roughly sketched (see photos 1.3–6). The brief description of Complex B that follows is typical of the type of features that were otherwise generally observed. Complex B was located just to the south of Complex A and was surrounded by a poorly built stone wall (see photo 1.7). Inside were three small enclosures, or arayish (Enclosures B1,

9

D.  Work in the 1977 Season

Photo 1.7.  Courtyard of Cave Complex B (view to the southwest) with Tall Halif in the background and Cave Complex C to the left (FP 74).

B2, and B3), and three caves (Caves B4, B5, and B6). Caves B5 and B6 had been inhabited, while Cave B4 was used for storage and had a tabun (a bread baking oven). Caves B5 and B6 both had well-constructed entrances with cut-stone doorposts, which still preserved some evidence of metal hinges. They had stone lintels behind which were thick stone walls and niches (see photos 1.8–9). The space between the entrances and the natural cave roofs had been roofed over with branches and nettish (brush, i.e., sarcopoterium spinosa) which were covered with a mud/straw mixture (see photo 1.10). The entrance to Cave B6 contained a reused stone with a cut rosette design (see photos 1.11–12). An identical rosette design was found on a lintel in Cave Complex F. Cave B5 had only one chamber and contained such features as a stone niche for a water jar in one wall, a built up “sleeping platform” in the rear, a large habia (mud and straw bin for grain storage [plural hawaabi]) lying on its side, the remains of several small hawaabi, and a mitwah (bench for storage of bedding [plural mitweh]) (see photo 1.13). Cave B6 had two chambers, the main Chamber a, containing a platform and well plastered walls, one of which had a mud-plastered niche. Chamber b was formed by a semi-circular stone wall and contained four chicken roosts built as mud lined indentations in the outer stone entrance wall. On the Chamber a side, the enclosing wall also had three small mud niches (see photo 1.14). Cave B4, with the tabun, still contained the dung ash from the firing of the oven. Kaswal (rough chaff mixed with dung used for fuel), was found in an adjacent chamber. Outside this “tabun cave” in the courtyard was a large stone bowl about .75 m in diameter. At the entrance to the courtyard was a depression, probably the opening of a cistern. It was filled with soil and was not excavated or further investigated. Ethnographic Note: Sheikh Frejat confirmed our speculations about Caves B5 and B6 being inhabited by people and animals. He also pointed out the location of Cave B4 and its tabun. Complex B was inhabited, according to him, by a relative of his, a Bedouin married to a fellaha (a peasant girl) who didn’t like living in a tent. He also said that Cave B5 had at one time been used to shelter young lambs.

10

General Introduction During the 1977 season, survey trips were again made to nearby khirbeh where additional cave complexes were identified. Nine were located at Khirbet er-Rammamin to the south (see photo 1.15), and another twelve at Khirbet Tilla near Bir Khuweilifeh, a kilometer to the west. A total of twentysix field trips for surveys and interviews were conducted, and nine visits were made by informants to the site. Among those interviewed were each of the two sheikhs of the Ramadin tribe, other members of the Ramadin, and members other Bedouin tribes in the area. Included as well were several fellahin, some of whom had previously lived or worked at Khuweilifeh. Following the season from August 7–17, library research was conducted by Karen Seger at the Palestine Exploration Fund offices in London, UK.

E.  Work in the 1979 Season While the LRP resumed its efforts at Tell Halif between June 15 and July 30, 1979, no adPhoto 1.8.  Entrance into Cave Complex B, Cave 5 with preserved lintel (FP 80). ditional excavation work related to the Khuweilifeh settlement was carried out. However, between May and July a program of ethnographic interviews and consultations was continued by Karen Seger. The main interviews were with the former population of the settlement, that is, members of the Ramadin tribe and their fellahin clients from villages in the Hebron Hills. The early date of Ramadan in 1979, beginning on July 23, made scheduling difficult, but interviews were arranged with both Ramadin Bedouin (June 18, 26–30; July 7–10, 13–14) and former fellahin residents of Khuweilifeh (July 20, 26–27). Also throughout the period, consultations were ongoing with anthropological colleagues, including Michael Lambek (University of Toronto, May 10–18), Cynthia Myntti (London School of Economics, May 15–18), Shelagh Weir (London School of Economics, June 1–31), Ziva Amir (Tel Aviv, Israel, June 19), Walid Kawar (Amman, Jordan, June 19), Gillian Hunt (Beersheva University, June 25; July 15–16), Salim Tamari (Bir Zeit University, July 5), Melford Spiro (University of California, LaJolla, July 6, 23), and Emmanuel Marx (Tel Aviv University, July 11–12, 23). These efforts resulted in the collection of additional important information and documentation relating to the history and culture of the settlement at Khuweilifeh as reported herein.

E.  Work in the 1979 Season

Photo 1.9.  Preserved arched entrance and adjacent walls inside Cave Complex B, Cave 6 (FP 97).

Photo 1.10.  Nettish forming roof cover over backside of entrance into Cave Complex B, Cave 5 (FP 135).

11

12

General Introduction

Photo 1.11.  Side of arched entryway into Cave Complex B, Cave 6 with reused stone block bearing a rosetta design in relief (FP 85).

Photo 1.12.  Detail of Cave Complex B, Cave 6 rosetta relief (FP 84).

E.  Work in the 1979 Season

Photo 1.13.  Collapsed habia in Cave Complex B, Cave 5 (FP 77). See also fig. 2.2.

Photo 1.14.  Mud niches in Cave Complex B, Cave 6 (FP 82).

13

14

General Introduction

Photo 1.15.  Aerial view of Khirbet Rammamin (view to the north).

Chapter 2

A 20th-Century Arab Settlement at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

A.  Location and Setting Khirbet Khuweilifeh is a ruin that resides on the eastern terrace at the foot of Tell Halif in southern Israel (map coordinates 1373/087913). Located 17 kilometers north of Beersheba adjoining Kibbutz Lahav, it is situated at the juncture of three geomorphologic zones at the northern edge of the Negev Desert and between the plains of the Shephelah and the Hebron Hills. It sits at the traditional boundary between the arid grazing lands of the Bedouin to the south and the peasant villages with their more fertile farm lands to the north. It also resides at an important pass up from the coastal area and into the hills to the north and east. The local environment is arid, with precipitation averaging 300 mm of rain, falling only in the winter months. Temperatures average between 28 °C in the summer and 12 °C in the winter. Degraded hills of Eocene limestone interspersed with flint and marl characterize the landscape. Only shallow lenses of Mediterranean brown forest soils and rendzina mountain soils are found on the hills, rendering them best adapted to use for grazing animals. However, deep deposits of loess soils rich in minerals fill the valley areas making them well suited for agriculture. The area exhibits a Mediterranean plant community reduced to dwarf-shrub formations by millennia of human interference. The region is subjected periodically to both extensive erosion and severe droughts. However, perennial occupation in the region is supported by the presence of the several adjacent water sources. One of these, Bir Abu Raham, is located along the valley just north of the tell, and two others, Bir Khuweilifeh and Bir Bustan, are situated along the pass, up from the valley a kilometer to the west.

B.  Historical Background Because of the presence of the high mound, its adjacent wells, and the obvious other ruins in the vicinity, the Khuweilifeh area was occasionally mentioned by early explorers and travelers who passed through the region. In Rene Grousett’s Histoire des Croisades III it is reported that on June 23, 1192, “Richard the Lion Heart surprised and defeated a force of 300 cavalrymen who

16

A 20th-Century Arab Settlement at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

were sent by Saladin to protect a caravan coming from Egypt. The battle took place at Bir Khuweilifa (Citera Rotunda) where the caravan stopped for water” (102–106). Edward Robinson, in his Biblical Researches in 1841 wrote, “There was said to have been formerly a tower or castle at Khuweilifeh . . . but the fortress is now level with the ground and only a few loose stones and foundations mark its former existence. The place is known, at the present day, chiefly as a well on the road between Doheriyeh [Dahariyeh] and Gaza where the Tiyahah Arabs water their flocks” (Robinson and Smith: 217–218). The “tower” of which Robinson speaks seem quite clearly to be the traces of Byzantine and early Islamic structures which litter the mound slopes and terrace area. In 1875, Lieutenant Condor wrote of “Umm el Ramamin and Khuweilifeh identified with towns belonging to Simeon and now inhabited only by Arab tribes” (51). And Kitchener, in 1878, mentions Khuweilifeh as “a large and important ruin commanding a pass through which the main road leads from the hills to the plain. A large partially artificial plateau was probably the site of some important fortress, of which there are no traces except cisterns. The valley down to the well shows many traces of ruined buildings” (1878: 13). The “artificial plateau” can hardly be other that Tell Halif itself. Scholars have identified Tell Halif with various ancient biblical sites such as Ziklag (Abel 1936: 89; Simons 1959: 60–69; J. D. Seger 1984), Hormah (Naʾaman 1980: 136–52), and Roman Thellah (Avi-Yonah 1976b: 16). Nearby Khirbet Umm er-Ramamin is thought to have retained the name of the Biblical city of Rimmon (rimmon meaning pomegranate in Hebrew). The terrace below the tell, that is, Khirbet Khuweilifeh, appears on some maps as Tilla, a Jewish Byzantine period site. This identification is supported by Amos Kloner (1980: 26–28; 1984: 324–26), who follows Avi-Yonah in suggesting that the mound site was ancient Biblical Rimmon (see Dessel 2009: 12–13 for further discussion of the site’s identification). The name Khuweilifeh, however, probably goes back only to the Islamic period. It could be translated as “the ruin of the little successor” (Arabic calif). On the other hand, W. F. Albright (1938: 2) thought it to be derived from the proper name of a person or tribe, “Khalafa.” Tombs and other remains uncovered in kibbutz building activities since the 1950s and during the investigations by the LRP have revealed evidence that the Khuweilifeh area, including the ancient mound, was in fact inhabited on and off for the past 6000+ years. Although vulnerable in times of severe drought, its strategic location, the presence of good water in wells along the western and northern valley approaches, and the adjacent fertile agricultural land clearly made habitation at the site desirable. Several famous military encounters took place at Khuweilifeh, including the previously mentioned battle between Richard the Lionhearted and Saladin in the 12th century; Ibrahim Pasha’s march through the area during his conquest of Syria in 1832 (see commentary in Finn [1881]: 333ff.); and Allenby’s fight with the Turks at Khuweilifeh on November 2–3, 1917, during the Third Battle of Gaza in World War I (see Grainger 2006: 124–145; Falls and Becke1930: 63–69, 108; and Gullett 1941: 408–426).

C.  The Khuweilifeh Ruins The principle ruins of Khuweilifeh are situated on the terrace to the east and southeast below Tell Halif. The remains of the settlement consist largely of a series of dwelling sites in caves in the soft Eocene chalk shelves that form the terrace. These caves were carved out by karst action

C.  The Khuweilifeh Ruins

17

Figure 2.1.  Plan of Khirbet Khuweilifeh, Cave Complex A.

and human occupation. Many of these form complexes, that is, units framed within courtyard areas surrounded by high stone walls. The settlement area also includes other smaller caves, the foundations of a large stone building, two cemeteries, and ruins of a weli (a Muslim sanctuary) as well as cisterns and wells and traces of a roadway (see fig. 1.2; photos 1.1A–B). The LRP has conducted archaeological research at Tell Halif since 1976. In addition to excavation of the mound’s more ancient remains, a major initial focus of LRP study was the Khuweilifeh ruins and its early 20th-century history as an Arab settlement. Although 19th- and

18

A 20th-Century Arab Settlement at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

early 20th-century archaeologists and other explorers have expressed considerable interest in Palestinian ethnography, research of the material culture of either ancient or recent Arab societies within the region has been limited. The existence of the Arab ruins at Khuweilifeh, plus the presence in the area of former inhabitants, provided an excellent opportunity for combined archaeological and ethnographic investigations.

D.  Investigations in Cave Complex A Beginning in the 1976 research season, excavation work was conducted in Cave Complex A located at the foot of the tell below Field I (see photo 1.2 and chap. 3). Work in its caves and in its courtyard turned up hundreds of artifacts and MC samples, the greatest concentration being just inside the entrance formed by walls in front of Chamber a, the main domestic chamber of the complex (see fig. 2.1). Finds included fragments of woven cloth and embroidery; ceramic vessels and sherds; and items of iron, brass, glass, leather, rubber, stone, and wood. Some of the items could not be immediately identified, while others were recognizable as domestic utensils, agricultural tools, parts of animal harnesses, and bits of cloth and clothing. The most remarkable finds were several iron plowpoints and iron and brass artillery shell casings (see ch. 4). Complex A was comprised of an enclosed courtyard adjacent to one large cave (Cave 1) on the south with six chambers (Chambers a–f; see fig. 2.1). The cave was divided internally by a north-south wall with Chamber a and its subsidiaries Chambers b–d on the east and Chamber e and its subsidiary Chamber f on the west. These were fronted to the north by the large, walled courtyard area, itself divided in its east and west corners by small walled enclosures (Enclosures 2 and 3). Enclosure 3, just inside the entrance on the east, had a large, arched niche on the inside of its outer wall. In the center of the courtyard there was a cistern-like opening in the bedrock. Walls in front of the cave chambers provided separate entrances into each of the two main sections (Chambers a and e). The courtyard itself was entered from the east, beyond which there were walls forming other sets of semi-enclosed units (Enclosures 4–6 and 10). The stratigraphy on the cave floors was not complicated. Early in the 20th century C.E., when Chamber a was last prepared as a living unit, it was cleaned out down to bedrock, leaving little evidence of earlier habitation. Uneven areas of the floor were filled in with stones and soil and covered over by a smoothed mud packing. Most of the artifacts and samples from this chamber were found in deposits directly on this prepared surface. These remains were in turn sealed by the collapsed stones of the entrance structures, by fall from the decaying chalk and mud plaster of the cave ceiling, and by miscellaneous debris and dust that had been thrown or blown into the cave through the years. The presence of some army ration tins, bits of rubber, and bones of small animals on and in this upper debris were taken as representative of temporary uses of the cave during its post-abandonment period after 1948. Chamber a had served as the primary living area. On its walls and ceiling were remnants of mud and straw plaster, and both were decorated with white wash décor in a polka-dot design. Against the rear bedrock wall a rectangular sleeping platform was laid out (see fig 2.1). This platform consisted of a thick fill layer of huwwar (soft limestone plaster), bordered by lines of small boulders, which was covered with a surface of mud and straw plaster. Along the back wall and elsewhere in the chamber there were other structures made of mud and straw over frames made of basketry, wood, and occasionally of tin. Five of these were identified as hawaabi (fig.

D.  Investigations in Cave Complex A

19

Figure 2.2 (left).  Sketch of a habia from Cave Complex B at Khirbet Khuweilifeh. Figure 2.3 (right).  Sketch of a mitwah from el-Kom.

2.2) and two others as mitweh (see fig. 2.3). The hawaabi are rectangular bins that stand on four legs. They have a large circular or oval opening at the top, with a smaller circular opening on the bottom front. The mitweh were each built onto the southern wall of the cave with four stones as feet. They formed rectangular benches 2 m long and respectively, .75 and 1 m wide, with flanking sides .50 to .60 m high. The bare bedrock surface below these deposits also revealed several man-made cuttings or depressions with channels leading to and/or from them. These could not be dated but were clearly made prior to the final phase of habitation. Three smaller chambers were located leading off from Chamber a: Chambers b and c to the east, and Chamber d to the south. Chambers b and c were parts of a fairly open and irregularly carved niche area immediately left of the main entrance. They were separated by a narrow stone wall. Chamber c was extended with another narrow wall separating it from Chamber a. Within Chamber a, against this wall and along the adjacent bedrock, was a two-chambered stone bin or manger covered with straw and mud plaster. Chamber d, which was carved off of Chamber a, was a more contained space that was entered through a narrow opening in the rear of the cave. All three of these units were seemingly used for storage. Remains in Chamber d suggest that it was used to store tibin (smooth chaff), which was used to make the wall and ceiling plaster that helped to seal the chambers from insects and snakes. Chamber e, with its separate entrance, had stone-walled mangers built along its front, side, and back walls; and its floor was littered with mud and straw. Chamber f, in the west, was entered through Chamber e through a narrow passage between a built wall and the south wall of bedrock. Chamber f had no installations, but its floor had ample traces of straw. Chambers e–f were presumably used for penning livestock, with Chamber f most likely serving for the storage of fodder. A modest collection of domestic artifacts was found in the litter on these surfaces. Investigations within the outer courtyard showed that the surrounding walls were also, for the most part, built directly on bedrock and were contemporary with the modern cave occupation. They were constructed of both unworked fieldstones and hewn blocks. Some of the cut stones retained bosses, indicating reuse from earlier Islamic or Roman/Byzantine structures.

20

A 20th-Century Arab Settlement at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

E.  Investigations in Other Cave Complexes There were nine other domestic units like Complex A that were still accessible at Khirbet Khuweilifeh in 1976 (Cave Complexes B–J, see figs 1.1–2). Efforts were made to describe and map each of these. In addition, some fifteen smaller caves suitable for storage and animal folds were identified. An unknown number of other caves belonging to the settlement were buried during the construction of Kibbutz Lahav buildings. In the years prior to the initiation of the LRP investigations, kibbutz members had employed villagers from nearby El-Borj to reconstruct Cave Complex G on the central terrace area to serve as a witness to the settlement’s lifestyle. By the mid-1980s this complex was also engulfed by kibbutz expansion.

F.  Results from Ethnographic Inquiries While excavations were being carried out in Complex A, inquiries were made in several neighboring Arab villages in the Hebron Hills area in an effort to discover parallels between their present and/or recent lifeways and those that likely existed at Khuweilifeh before 1948. At the same time, interviews were begun with people in the area who still remembered the settlement and/or who had actually lived there. From these informants, much of the material culture excavated from Complex A was identified as to type and use, and information on the history of the community and its inhabitants was gathered. Sheikh Mohammed al Frejat of the Ramadin Bedouin tribe of the Tiaha Confederation considered Khuweilifeh to be the permanent camp of his family before 1948. The Bedouin lived there with peasant (fellahin) clients who worked as shepherds, sharecroppers, craftsmen, and traders. According to the Ramadin, the cave complexes were inhabited mostly by peasant families, while the Bedouin lived in tents. In 1942, a large stone house (identified in the terrace ruins, see photo 1.1B) was built by Khalil al Frejat, father of the Sheikh Mohammed, and early in 1948, a mill powered by a German generator was added. The house was surrounded by an orchard of fruit trees. One of these was still standing nearby the ruins in 1977. Sheikh Mohammed related that during the 1948 Israeli-Arab war, the Hazail tribe convinced the Jews that the Ramadin would be disloyal to the new state of Israel, and so, they were driven away from Khuweilifeh to the east, beyond the 1948 Jordan-Israel border, where they have since then been settled. After the Six-Day War in 1967, the Ramadin have been able to visit Khuweilifeh, but their former camp area is now part of Kibbutz Lahav, which was founded at the site in 1952. The Ramadin tribe, who themselves refer to Ramadin as an ashira (family or section), say they are descended from a common ancestor called Ramadan. Arif al Arif states that the father of Ramadan was from the Shomar Mountains in Arabia near Negd (1937). He also says that the Ramadin were in the Negev before the Tiaha tribes and only joined with them later. The Ramadin were under one sheikh until the time of Sheikh Ibrahim Ibn Ayad al Masamreh, when they divided into two groups as they are today. Jaussen, in his lists of Negev Bedouin tribes, names Ramadin al Masamreh and Ramadin al Meleih, with al Masamreh and al Meleih as the names of the sheikhs (1948: 71). Arif al Arif lists Ramadin Masamreh and Ramadin Shu’ur among the Tiaha (1937). Sometime after 1937, Hasan al Masamreh and Salame al Shu’ur were replaced by the Mandate Government with sheikhs from the Frejat and Zagharna sections (i.e., families). The second generation of these latter families, Sheikh Mohammed al Frejat and Sheikh Sirhan al

E.  Investigations in Other Cave Complexes

Figure 2.4.  Map of sites within Ramadin territory.

21

22

A 20th-Century Arab Settlement at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

Zagharna were the representatives of the Ramadin in the late 1970s and served as informants for our study. These sheikhs both explained that each is the leader of half of the tribe, that is, of eight families or sections. But several problems remain with regard to understanding the structure of the Ramadin tribe. If a confederation is to be understood in terms of physical territory, then the Ramadin is a sub-confederation (under the Tiaha Confederation). Moreover, politically, the Ramadin are not one unified group or tribe (assuming that a tribe is to be defined as a political unit); they are de facto two separate units. A further problem is how to define the composition of the separate units, as each of the sheikhs give different lists of section names comprising the respective groups. The Ramadin profess that their land (before 1948) stretches from Tatret and Deir Sayide west to Bir Khuweilifeh (about 7 km) and from Khirbet Za’ak south to Khirbet er Ras and Shamshaniyat (about 10 km; see fig. 2.4). Different families or sections had permanent camps at different sites, the Frejat at Khuweilifeh, the Zagharna at Shamshaniyat, the Dagharmeh at Ramamin, and so forth. Although Sheikh Mohammed al Frejat was adamant that only the Frejats held land at Khuweilifeh, other informants mentioned other Ramadin as well as fellahin who also owned land there. The population figures on the Ramadin vary greatly. E. Mills, in the 1931 Census of Palestine, lists a figure of 583 Ramadin (1931: 2–4, 18), while Arif al Arif lists 56 in the tribe (1937). In H. V. Muhsam, the Ramadin have a population of 908 (1966). In 1977 the Ramadin sheikhs said there were about 1,500 people, including some on the East Bank (i.e., in Jordan). It could not be determined exactly how long the Ramadin had been in the Khuweilifeh area. The sheikhs will not admit that they have not always been there, and perhaps they simply do not know. The initial date of when Khuweilifeh became a permanent camp and when the fellahin joined them there is also uncertain. The best agricultural land of the Ramadin was out in the Trough Valley running north-south just to the east of Khuweilifeh. After tribal boundaries were fixed by the Turks in the 1870s (see Marx 1967: 95) and farming became more important, the planting and harvest seasons were mostly spent at Khuweilifeh. Such residence was supported by the presence of the several adjacent water sources: Bir Abu Raham, along the valley just north of the Tell, and the excellent wells of Bir Khuweilifeh and Bir Bustan a kilometer to the west. Marx writes, “Only after the area had become safe and the tribal boundaries settled (the final demarcation took place only in 1917) did peasants gradually come to live in Bedouin areas (1967: 95).” We located some peasants who first came to Khuweilifeh at that time. They said that before 1917 many peasants used to trade with the Bedouin and bring goods to a big weekly market at Khuweilifeh. These traders presumably came only briefly and then returned to their villages. Himadeh comments as follows about a frontier merchant: “At certain seasons he opens his shop near the camps of the Bedouin. He supplies them with a few groceries and in turn buys all that the Bedouin have to sell. Credit transactions are not uncommon” (1938:363). Several informants stated that during the Ottoman Period prior to 1917 peasants joined the Bedouin to escape severe taxation and conscription into the army. Granott writes, “Thus on account of the burden of debts, the fellaheen abandoned in despair agricultural labor and their peasant life and turned Bedouin in order to find refuge from creditors and money lenders” (1952: 61). In 1977 informants Abda Samir and Abdul Raham Sharabati lived in a small community just outside Hebron as was typical of many of the former Khuweilifeh fellahin. They had come to Khuweilifeh in 1917 during what they described as difficult times. They started a “store,”

F.  Results from Ethnographic Inquiries

23

selling dried figs and tomatoes, rice, olives, dibs (grape treacle), and some clothing. They were paid both with money and with grain which they sold in Hebron. They also cultivated some of the Ramadin land on a sharecropping basis and received one-third of the yield. In around 1920 they stopped trading and worked only as sharecroppers, coming to Khuweilifeh in the fall at planting time and returning to Hebron after the harvest in the spring. They did not bring their families with them but lived for that part of the year in caves both at Khuweilifeh and Ramamin. They said they had good relations with the Bedouin but used to laugh at them because “they were even afraid of trucks passing by.” Another fellah informant, a wealthy landowner and shopkeeper from Hebron (who requested anonymity), also claimed to have had a “store” in Khuweilifeh. In addition, he said he owned 200 dunams of land, some at Khuweilifeh and some at Shamshaniyat, which he sold just before 1948 Photo 2.1.  Possible cistern opening in the Cave Complex “for political reasons.” Ibrahim Khalil al Kaayke, a buyer and A Courtyard (FP 102). seller of used clothing and owner of a small store in Dahariyeh in 1977, was born at Khuweilifeh. His father, Khalil, was a carpenter and specialized in making wooden plows. Khalil and his family along with two of his brothers and their families all lived in the Site 1A Complex, which explains the numbers of plow points found there. The brothers were sharecroppers, and they also cared for some of the Frejat’s animals. Sheikh Mohammed confirmed this and reported that several cows and a camel had been stabled in Chamber e. When asked how a camel could enter through such an apparently low doorway, he said that with the rubble cleared away it was high enough. The Kaaykes came to Khuweilifeh in 1932 and found Complex A with its hawaabi and mitweh already there. They said that a family called Hdur had previously lived there after coming from Egypt with the army of Ibrahim Pasha a century earlier. Interviews with Sheikh Mohammed also provided information about the Complex A courtyard. The courtyard entrance had a door, a wooden one with an iron lock. The enclosures were arayish, or sheds. The arayish within the courtyard were summer living and sleeping areas which, during the warm seasons, were roofed over with branches. The niche in Enclosure 3 (see photos 3.2–3) was used for a water jar (zir) as were other wall niches. The opening in bedrock within the courtyard (see photo 2.1), according to the Sheikh, was not a cistern but was used for the storage of smooth chaff (tibin) and was connected with the Complex D cave adjacent to the

24

A 20th-Century Arab Settlement at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

Photo 2.2.  Mud and straw structures in courtyard of the Arab village of el-Kom.

north. The arish just outside the courtyard (Enclosure 6) was used at some stage in the making and selling of iron pointed plows by the inhabitants. Information from both Bedouin and peasant sources indicates that the fellahin were the principle residents of the caves at Khuweilifeh. The Bedouin did admit that “occasionally” some of them lived in the caves. Sheikh Frejat’s grandmother, who distributed seed to the sharecroppers, lived in a cave with grain stores, and a Frejat man who married a peasant woman from the Kaayke family had lived in Complex B. During extreme winter weather and storms, the Bedouin were known to leave their tents (which at times blew down) to stay temporarily in the caves with the fellahin. However, all the outfitting of the caves as living places was done by the fellahin. The men sometimes assisted in the leveling of the floors and the plastering of walls and ceilings, but the women constructed the hawaabi, mitweh, and tabuns. Some of the Bedouin women were said to have also learned these skills. Most of the various other material culture items collected from Complex A were purchases either from Hebron villages or Gaza, provided by itinerant traders, or made by hand by the peasants. The Bedouin said that their women made rugs and did embroidery and that the men made animal harnesses and bags from leather. Already by the late 1970s the style of living, as found in the Khuweilifeh caves, had nearly disappeared from the villages in the Hebron Hill region. During our investigations, previously used dwelling caves were seen at El Borj, Deir Samit, and Khirbet Sweika, but these had by then already been replaced by houses and were used only for storage. At El Kom, we documented a large cave that was still inhabited. Its residents were an older couple whose adult children had built modern houses on the hill above the cave. They were still using hawaabi for grain storage, mitweh for bedding, and many of the other items of material culture like those that were found in Complex A. The old couple said that their family had lived there for 100 years. In the houses

F.  Results from Ethnographic Inquiries

25

of their children, plasticized grain sacks and built in concrete shelves replaced the hawaabi and mitweh. In fact, nowhere else could we find these particular mud and straw furnishings still being made. We did, however, find in the villages numerous other items including tabuns (ovens), bee hives, chicken roosts, jar stands, salt containers, and summer arayish still being constructed by women using the mud and straw plaster technique (see photo 2.2). Most of the domestic and agricultural tools found in the Khuweilifeh complexes were also still in general use, although plastic, tin, and other metals were found to be rapidly replacing the basketry, ceramic, and wood items. Klein described the peasant life style as follows: “The internal arrangements of the fellahin dwellings are very primitive. The room is divided into two parts, one of which is occupied by the cattle (oxen, donkeys, and fowls), and the other, which is reached by a few steps, forms the living room of the family. . . . The living room has a cemented floor, as the cattle are not admitted, it can be kept fairly clean. . . . There are perhaps several corn bins which the women make out of clay and straw” (1939). Baldensperger outlines the situation similarly: “In most cases they have only one room divided into three parts. The darkest part, where the straw is kept for winter, is furnished with big clay receptacles made by the women on the spot to store away the wheat, barley, lentils, and so on. The other part is divided into the lower or forepart to lodge the animals, and the elevated or hinder-part, where the family cooks, eats, sleeps, and sits . . . the courtyard is similar to the inside and may be considered as the summer habitation for the room has generally no issue other than the door, rendering it intolerable during the hot summer months. A booth is . . . made above the elevated part of the court and visitors are received there.” (1901: 252). Taufik Canaan writes that caves are used as dwellings only by the poor, by criminals hiding out, and by shepherds; or if the caves are near a village, for storage or animal folds. He reports seeing Bedouin living in caves in mountain areas near the desert. He states, “Only if a cave is used as a dwelling, a stable, or a staff-room are a wooden door and a few steps constructed and the interior made more inhabitable. Some caves by means of a stone front and wooden door have been converted into dwelling houses” (1933: 4). Our investigations have shown clearly that the Khuweilifeh enclave in various ways represented lifeways similar to those described by Canaan. Complex A thus serves somewhat as a “type site” for such a pattern of cultural adaptation. However, it appears to have been much more established, developing through time from a seasonal camp into a permanent settlement with year round habitation.

Chapter 3

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

A.  Complex A Description Detail Beginning in 1976, the focus of our study was Cave Complex A at the foot of the mound on the east side of Tell Halif. Its choice was quite natural both because of its relationship to the series of probe trenches planned for Field I on the nearby tell slope and because Complex A was the best preserved unit at Site 1. Complex A consisted of one large cave, Cave 1, with two entrances. It was divided into two main chambers (Chambers a and e) with four auxiliary chambers (Chambers b, c, d, and f) (see figs. 2.1; 3.1–2). A stone wall surrounded the courtyard area and continued along the top and front edge of the cave’s entranceways (Walls 6002, 3002, 2006, and 2006A; see photo 3.1). The courtyard was entered from the east where the north jamb of its doorway still remained standing. The area within the courtyard contained two enclosures (Enclosures 2 and 3) formed by partially standing stone walls. A cistern-like opening in the bedrock was exposed in the center of the courtyard surface. Another set of enclosure areas had been built just outside and to the northeast of the courtyard entrance (Enclosures 4, 5, 6, and 10). The enclosure just inside the entrance (Enclosure 3) included an arched niche in the west side of its east wall (Wall 6002; see photos 3.2–3). On the west side of the courtyard a bedrock ledge was visible below Wall 2006 in Enclosure 2 (see photo 3.4). It was initially thought that this might be another, howbeit blocked, entrance into the cave’s chambers. There were two entrances into to Cave 1, one into Chamber a and a second into Chamber e (see photo 3.5). The portal leading into Chamber a was almost completely destroyed. However, it was evident that a doorway had existed there between Walls 1013 and Wall 1023, as the doorposts and other collapsed wall stones lay in the entrance. Judging from other cave entrances, such as the one in nearby Complex B (see photo 1.10), it would seem that a roof had covered the section from the entrance walls to the natural ceiling of the cave. The portal (Entrance 1055) into Chamber e was built flush with the front drip-line of the cave roof, and although the lintel had fallen down, the door posts were preserved (see photos 3.6). The two main rooms of Cave 1, Chamber a and Chamber e, were separated by a series of stone walls running north-south as Walls 1023, 1022, 1021, and 1018. All were built slightly differently but were connected to each other. Wall 1023 contained many cut stones (see photo 3.7). It included a square built “pillar” section reaching up to the natural cave roof, which formed the east side of the entrance to Chamber e. Walls 1022 and 1021 were constructed of medium-sized boulders, parts of which had collapsed and tumbled into Chamber a (see photo 3.8). The southernmost section of Wall 1018 remained covered with a straw-and-mud plaster. It was decorated on the Chamber a side with “polka dots” of white lime (see photo 3.9). The function of the wall

28

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Figure 3.1.  Plan of Complex A Excavation Areas.

series was clearly to divide the cave into a domestic area (Chamber a; see photo 3.10) and a stable area (Chamber e; see photos 3.17–18). Chamber a was the most distinctive in that it contained a number of installations built of wet straw and mud plaster over basketry frames. Five of these installations were found in various states of preservation and were identified as hawaabi, free-standing storage containers for grains and other foodstuffs. The most typical ( judging from other examples seen in Arab villages) were each 1–1.5 m tall, .6 m wide at the top, .5 m wide at the bottom, and 1 m wide across the face. The walls of these hawaabi were 3–5 cm thick. They stood on four legs, with a large circular or

A.  Complex A Description Detail

29

Figure 3.2.  Plan of Complex A with Principal Locus References.

oval top opening and small circular opening near the bottom on the front side. Hawaabi 1016, 1026, and 1004 are of this general type. Habia 1004 had an additional feature built on later, a shelf near the bottom of the back composed of a stone base and flat sheets of tin covered with mud plaster (see photo 3.11). Habia 1019 was also freestanding but had curved walls and looked like a “sits bath” (see photo 3.9). Habia 1014 was only .5 m high. It was round and shaped like a ceramic storage jar with just one round hole in the top (see photo 3.12). Two other mud/straw installations, L. 1001 and 1015, were built onto the south wall of the cave (see photo 3.13). Each installation was built on four stone feet. They formed rectangular­

30

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Photo 3.1.  S1.A Courtyard (view to the south) (FP 62).

basins­, respectfully, 1.37 m and 1.83 m long and 1 m wide, with side walls preserved to a height of .5–.6 m. The bottoms were reinforced with pieces of wood. These were identified as mitweh, which were used for daytime storage of bedding. Remains of straw and mud slabs from other installations were also found on the cave floor, but these had disintegrated and could not be identified as to form or use. Other installations in Chamber a included Platform 1002, formed by a line of cobbles running parallel to southern cave wall across the southeast corner of the chamber adjacent to Mitwah 1001. This structure was filled with huwwar, covered with mud plaster, and was subsequently identified as a bed platform. “Manger” 1035 was a stone bin formed by a line of medium-sized boulders, covered with mud and straw plaster, and divided into two containers (L. 1005 and 1027; see photos 3.14–15). It was built just north of Habia 1004, up against the cave’s east bedrock wall and along Wall 1011, which otherwise separates Chamber a from Chamber c. Al-

Photo 3.2.  Enclosure 3 niche (view to the southeast) (FP 71).

31

A.  Complex A Description Detail

Photo 3.3.  Enclosure 3 niche (view to the east) (FP 129).

Photo 3.4.  Area S1.A2 (view to the northwest) (FP 132).

though similar in shape to many of the animal mangers in Chamber e, it may have functioned somehow in food preparation, being adjacent to a habia and in the domestic area of the cave. One the west side of Chamber a, “Bench/Wall” 1024 was composed of a line of boulders parallel to Walls 1023 and 1022. The space in between these features was filled with dirt. The L. 1024 boulders may accordingly have served as a bench, or table, or even as another bed platform, but the specific function could not be finally determined. The cave’s ceiling, its natural walls, and the one standing section of dividing wall (L. 1018) were all covered with mud-and-straw plaster similar to that used in the construction of

32

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Photo 3.5.  Area S1.A cave entrances (view to the southwest) (FP 131).

the installations­(see photo 3.16). The stratigraphic detail of the probes in Chamber a is summarized below in Sections B.1 and C.1. Ethnographic Note: Sheikh Frejat confirmed our idea that Chamber a had been used as the dwelling’s domestic area. With the exception of L. 1014, which was probably used for flour, he also certified that the mud/straw free standing installations were hawaabi and were used for grain storage. He identified Installations 1001 and 1015 along the back wall as mitweh and told us their use was as shelves for day time bedding storage. We later saw both types of installations in caves and houses in Arab villages. Hawaabi have now for the most part been put out of use by grain sacks, and mitweh in houses are replaced by niches built into the walls and covered with a curtain. The sheikh identified the small chambers leading off from Chamber a (i.e., Chambers b, c, and d) as being for storage. Chamber d, he said, was for tibin, traces of which still remained

Photo 3.6.  S1.A1 Chamber e Entrance 1055 (view to the south) (FP 70).

33

A.  Complex A Description Detail

Photo 3.7.  Dividing Walls 1022 and 1023 at S1.A1 Chamber a entrance (view to the west) (FP 16).

Photo 3.8.  Walls 1022 and 1021 collapse on west side of S1.A1 Chamber a (view to the south) (FP 64).

on the floor. He didn’t remember the exact purposes of Chambers b and c (really one chamber separated by a stone wall, L. 1012), and the probe dug in Chamber c (see 3.C.2 below), did not give us clearer evidence of its function. The wall and ceiling plaster, the sheikh explained, was to make the cave clean and habitable and to seal the walls from bugs, snakes, etc.

Chamber e, with its separate entrance (L. 1055), was thought to be an area for animals because the only visible installations were crudely built stone mangers built along the walls at floor level. Immediately inside of its entrance, the floor of Chamber e was covered by a rockfall from its front walls (see photo 3.17). When first entered, the floor farther inside the chamber was covered with fallen ceiling plaster and the deteriorating installations of mud and stone. Two

34

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Photo 3.9.  “Polka dots” on Wall 1018 in S1.A1 Chamber a (view to the west) (FP 13).

Photo 3.10.  Walls 1022, 1021, and 1018 in S1.A1 Chamber a (view to the west) (FP 67).

mangers, L. 1052 and 1053, each about 4.5 m long and .7 m wide, were found against the back cave wall. Two smaller, semicircular mangers, L. 1051 and 1057, were constructed along the west side of Walls 1021 and 1022 that divide the two main chambers, and an additional manger, L. 1045, also semicircular in shape, was built west of Entrance 1055 against the south side of Wall 1054 (see plan, fig. 3.2, and E–W South Section, fig. 3.3). These three mangers varied in length from .50 to .75 m and in width from .15 to .25 m. Chamber f, which opens off of Chamber e, contained no installations. Straw residues found on its floor suggest that it had probably functioned as storage area for animal fodder. The floors of both Chambers e and f were littered with samples and artifacts, although fewer in number than in Chamber a.

A.  Complex A Description Detail

Figure 3.3.  S1.A1 E–W South Section

35

36

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Figure 3.4.  S1.A1 N–S West Section

37

A.  Complex A Description Detail

Photo 3.11.  Habia 1004 (view to the northeast) (FP14).

Photo 3.12.  Habia 1014 (FP 25).

Ethnographic Note: Sheikh Frejat said that several cows and a camel had been stabled in Chamber e and that our interpretation of the rock mangers was correct. Manger 1045 had been where the camel was fed. When asked how a camel could enter such a low entrance (L. 1055), he answered that at present, it was very much filled up with rubble but had originally been high enough. According to him, the animals kept in Complex A belonged to the Bedouin and were only cared for by the peasants who lived there.

Additional features of Complex A Cave 1 included two round holes in the ceiling which were blocked from above. One was to the east of Wall 1022 in Chamber a and the other to the

38

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Photo 3.13.  Mitwah 1001 and 1015 and Habia 1016 (view to the south) (FP 12).

Photo 3.14.  Manger 1035 and its two containers (L. 1005 and 1027) (view to the east) (FP 27).

west of that same wall in Chamber e. Each was about .8 m in diameter. Informants indicated that these shafts were used to pitch down animal food into the mangers. In the case of the hole in Chamber e, this would have been practical, but it is questionable whether Manger 1035 in Chamber a served for animal use. In any case, such ceiling shafts were also noted in many other complexes and they may otherwise have functioned simply to provide for air circulation in the caves. There was also a hole at the back of Chamber a in the wall above the mitweh. This connected through to Cave 5 in Complex B, but the breakthrough appears to have been accidental.

39

B.  The 1976 Probes in Complex A

Photo 3.15.  Manger 1035 and Wall 1012 at entrance to S1.A1 Chambers b and c (view to the southeast) (FP 125).

Photo 3.16.  S1.A1 Chamber a ceiling (FP 17).

B.  The 1976 Probes in Complex A 1.  The 1976 Probes in S1.A1 Chamber a In 1976 an initial probe was opened in Chamber a of Cave 1 (S1.A1a) in order to examine the stratigraphy on the chamber’s surface. This was to test the assumption that this was where the

40

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Photo 3.17.  S1.A1 Chamber e (view to the southeast) (FP 123).

Photo 3.18.  S1.A1 Chamber e (view to the northwest) (FP 124).

main domestic activity had taken place and to determine the relationships between several visible installations and structures in the chamber. These included Manger 1035 and Habia 1004 on the east side and Walls 1021 and 1024 on the west. A 1-m wide north-south probe was excavated running east-west 4.25 m across the chamber between these loci to the north side of the established east-west datum line. An intersecting north-south datum line was also plotted (see fig. 3.1). After excavating through the 3 upper phases, the profile of the south balk of the probe was drawn, and the probe area was expanded to the south by 2 m into the southeast quadrant (see

B.  The 1976 Probes in Complex A

41

Figure 3.5 (left).  Plan S1.A1a Phase 5. Figure 3.6 (right).  Plan S1.A1a Phase 4B.

fig. 3.1, Area S1.A1a). On the west end of this initial probe, excavation work had quickly come down on bedrock, which lay only a few centimeters below the surface debris. Finally, the 1-m wide line of the initial probe was extended to the east into Chamber c (see S1.A1c) as well as to the west across the width of Chamber e (see Section B.2 below) completing the South Section across the whole cave area (see figs 3.3–4). The probes in the S1.A1 Chamber a demonstrated that the remains represented five main depositional phases recorded as Phases 5–1 (base to top) with occasional subphases. a.  Phase 5 Phase 5 in Chamber a is represented by the bedrock floor of the cave and, with it, the bases of two pits, L. 1037 and 1032, that cut into it (see fig. 3.5). The cutting for Pit 1037 is a shallow depression of, at most, .9 m in depth in the south central part of the probe. Pit 1032 is .32 m deep and has a narrow channel about .05 m wide running east, most probably from Pit 1037. However, this channel was discovered while cleaning for photos at the end of the 1976 season, and its terminus to the east was not traced out. It runs under the western limit of Cobbles 1034, which still remained unexcavated in 1977.

42

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Figure 3.7 (left).  Plan S1.A1a Phase 4A. Figure 3.8 (right).  Plan S1.A1a Phase 3.

b.  Phase 4B Locus 1041 is the principal deposit representing Phase 4B. It is a fill that lenses onto bedrock covering the east half of the probe (see fig. 3.6). It varied in depth from .1 m on the west to .5 m on the east where it served to level up above a sharp drop off of the bedrock. Fill 1041 runs beneath the stones of Manger 1035. It consisted of lenses of red clay with inclusions of pebbles, some bone, and lithic and iron fragments along with pottery, including 50 Roman/Byzantine and 7 modern Arab sherds. c.  Phase 4A Phase 4A includes L. 1038, a coarse fill with some pottery and artifacts covering Phase 4B Fill 1041 (see fig 3.7). It also provides leveling over the bedrock dip in the east but runs up to, not under, the stones of Manger 1035. The contents from Phase 5 Pits 1032 and 1037, which were cut into bedrock, are also put into this phase, although there can be no certainty as to exactly when they were filled. Pit 1032 was partially covered by the L. 1028.1 makeup for Phase 2 Surface 1028. It contained ash and a broad sample of pottery, including Iron Age, Hellenistic, and Roman/Byzantine materials along with two 20th-century Gaza ware sherds. Pit 1037 was also below Phase 2 Surface Makeup 1028.1 and contained miscellaneous artifacts and stone chips.

B.  The 1976 Probes in Complex A

43

  d. Phase 3 For Phase 3, three main loci were identified: Surfaces 1033 and 1036 and Cobbles 1034 (see fig. 3.8). All three of these rested on top of Phase 4A Fill 1038. The two surfaces lay at the same relative level, separated only by a line of large cobbles. To the west they are flanked by the cobbled area of L. 1034. Cobbles 1034 and these surfaces seem to be a final stage in the process making the eastern floor area level. Surfaces 1033 and 1036 run up to the stones of Manger 1035, indicating that it was established as a feature of this phase. Phase 3 remains also include Surface Makeup L. 1036.1 and 1033.1 as well as L. 1039, the soil between the cobbles of L. 1034. On the east these features were covered by Phase 2 Surface 1028 and its makeup. However, on the west side of the probe (in the west 1.50 m) bedrock lay immediately below Surface 1028.   e. Phase 2 The principal locus of Phase 2 is Surface 1028, which spread across the whole area of the probe (see fig 3.9). A semicircular row of stone, L. 1030, was sitting on Surface 1028 Figure 3.9.  Plan S1.A1a Phase 2. and seems to have been in use with it. To the west, the surface extends beyond the L. 1030 stones but becomes patchy at about 1 m from Bench Wall 1024 and Wall 1021. To the east, Surface 1028 runs up against Manger 1035. Habia 1004 seems also to have been situated on Surface 1028 and was certainly used with it. Pit 1029 (very likely an animal hole) along the north balk was cut (burrowed) from Surface 1028. L. 1028.1 represents the surface’s makeup. Surface 1028 is clearly to be associated with Surface 1042 in Chamber c, both representing the latest occupation surfaces within the eastern part of the complex. Many in situ artifacts were found associated with the clearance of Surface 1028 and its makeup in 1976 (see photo 3.19). Along with miscellaneous ceramics, these included an artillery shell (coffee grinder?); many tin cans; and various items of cloth, leather, iron, and wood. f.  Phase 1 Phase I was identified as Debris 1003. It was the uppermost deposit overlying the Phase 2 Surface 1028 remains (see fig 3.10). It clearly represented material deposited during the period after 1948 when the cave ceased being used for a dwelling place. The L. 1003 remains were cleared all across the 1976 probe area from against Manger 1035 and Habia 1004 on the east to Bench Wall 1024 and Wall 1021 on the west. This locus produced a wide variety of material culture remains, representing what most probably includes a mixture of final occupation and

44

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

post-­occupation deposits. Its materials are clearly contemporary with L. 1007 remains in the probe in Chamber c. g. Summary There is no doubt that the installations and debris layers in Chamber a were built and deposited during Arab occupation in the pre-1948 period. The .75 m depth of the fills above the bedrock floor on the E were deliberately laid down to make a level occupation floor, that is, Surface 1028. However, Pits 1037 and 1032 with their (apparently) connecting channel may represent some sort of installation in use before the floor was leveled, but no data were available to help ascertain when exactly these cuttings were made. 2.  The 1976 Probes in S1.A1 Chamber c In 1976 a probe was also opened in Chamber c (S1.A1c) to examine the stratigraphy and to test the depth of deposit out to the eastern limit of the cave. From the probe in Chamber a it was already clear that the bedrock sloped down sharply to the east and Photo 3.19.  S1.A1 objects on Surface 1028 in Chamber a it was thought that if there were any traces (view to the east) (FP 33). of a pre-Arabic occupation in the cave they might be found at these lower levels. The original 1-m wide probe from Chamber a was continued east along the main E–W South Section line (see fig. 3.1). It extended 2.6 m west from the easternmost natural wall of the cave to the east face of Wall 1011. Rockfall from Wall 1012 and the instability of that wall prevented excavations from exposing bedrock in the north central section along the north balk. Across the remainder of the probe four main depositional phases (Phases 4–1) with three additional subphases (Phases 2C–A and 3B–A) were revealed. a.  Phase 4 Phase 4 (see fig 3.11, Phase 4) is the bedrock floor of Chamber c, which, unlike the bedrock in the Chamber a probe, seems to have been artificially scarped. This suggests that the areas of Chambers b and c were cut down to form additions to the main part of Cave 1. It is also possible that the Chambers b and c floors were part of an earlier installation in the bedrock. b.  Phase 3 Phase 3 is represented by leveling materials above the Phase 4 bedrock, which slopes slightly off to the north. Its main features include Wall 1046, Cobbles 1047, and Debris 1048. These were added in two depositional subphases (3B–A).

B.  The 1976 Probes in Complex A

45

Figure 3.10 (left).  Plan S1.A1a Phase 1. Figure 3.11 (right).  Plan S1.A1c Phases 4, 3B, and 3A

c.  Phase 3B Phase 3B (see fig. 3.11, Phase 3B) consisted only of Debris 1048, a layer of compacted clay and ashy soil with inclusions of pebbles and pottery which lay directly above bedrock. This was the foundation upon which Phase 3A Wall 1046 and Cobbles 1047 were built. d.  Phase 3A Phase 3A (see fig 3.11, Phase 3A) features include Wall 1046 and Cobbles 1047. Wall 1046 was a line of medium-to-large-sized boulders, running from the north across the center of the probe area, not quite touching the south balk. It was three rough courses, .4 m high, and one to two rows wide. Cobbles 1047, a platform of smaller stones, ran up to Wall 1046 from the east. Together they may form some simple installation, perhaps a crude bin. e.  Phase 2 Phase 2 is represented by compacted Surface 1042 along with Walls 1011 and 1012. Three subphases of preparation and makeup activity (2C–A) were discerned.

46

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Figure 3.12.  Plan S1.A1c Phases 2C, 2B, 2A, and 1.

f.  Phase 2C The Phase 2C preparation levels (see fig 3.12, Phase 2C) below Surface 1042 included several fill deposits that cover the Phase 3A structures. Running from the base of Wall 1012 was Fill 1043, a .43-m thick layer of very damp clay-like soil, which contained a mixture of ancient and modern Arab pottery. A ring of stones, L. 1044, lay within Fill 1043 and was later identified as part of its rocky matrix. Flanking L. 1043 on the west side of the probe was L. 1049, a very compact deposit of chalk bedrock pieces sloping up below Wall 1011. At points, Wall 1011 appears to have been built directly on this chalk. The tops of both L. 1043 and L. 1049 reach to approximately the same levels, the former lensing out to the east and the latter sloping up to the west. g.  Phase 2B Phase 2B (see fig 3.12, Phase 2B) includes compacted Surface 1042 and Wall 1011. L. l042 is a thin but well compacted surface of clay. It is most probably the pre-1940 use surface, although it showed few traces of domestic use and produced just 5 Roman/Byzantine sherds. It provides the

B.  The 1976 Probes in Complex A

47

founding base for Wall 1012 and probably also for Wall 1011. Wall 1011 is composed of large boulders one to two rows wide and is preserved up to 9 courses, 2.2 m high. It separates Cave 1 Chambers a and c and provides the back of Manger 1035. It appears to have been founded together with the laying in of Surface 1042 and on the Phase 2C makeup and leveling materials. h.  Phase 2A Phase 2A (see fig 3.12, Phase 2A) is marked by the construction of Wall 1012, which runs 2.55 m west from the east wall of the cave, separating Cave 1 Chambers b and c. It is one-row wide and is preserved in four crude courses reaching the ceiling at the east wall of the chamber. It was founded on Phase 2B Surface 1042 but along its west central section had collapsed south onto the L. 1007 deposits of Phase 1. i.  Phase 1 Phase 1 (see fig 3.12, Phase D) was represented by L. 1007, a soft powdery deposit with a high straw and dung content also containing numerous tin cans. L. 1007 represents post-1948 materials comparable to L. 1003 in Chamber a. The collapse of Wall 1012 along the north balk belongs to this phase as does the use of Wall 1011 which, although built earlier, has remained standing until the present. j. Summary The stratigraphy in S1.A1 Chamber c was for the most part similar to that of Chamber a, that is, with preparation fills and use surfaces dating to the pre-1948 period of Arab use. With the exception of the apparent artificial cutting of the bedrock floor, all recovered materials clearly date to that period. It is interesting to note, however, that in the single place where the L. 1048 deposit was fully sealed, that is, below Fill 1049, only Iron Age pottery was found (see MC# 906). 3.  The 1976 Probe in S1.A Enclosure 2 There were two purposes in initiating a probe in Enclosure 2 of Complex A. The first was to test the stratigraphy of the courtyard in a place where the bedrock did not lay open. The second was to see whether the ledge of bedrock along the west side of the enclosure might be an opening into adjacent Cave 1 Chamber f. Accordingly, a probe 1 m x 2.5 m was laid out along the south face of Wall 2005 (see fig. 3.1; photo 3.4). Four stratigraphic levels (Phases 4–1) were identified. a.  Phase 4 Phase 4 (see fig. 3.13, Phase 4) was identified as bedrock. It was exposed only in the east 1 m of the probe. Beyond this point, bedrock drops sharply off to the west. b.  Phase 3 Phase 3 (see fig. 3.13, Phase 3) included the establishment of Walls 2005 and 2006 along with the deposit of a rubble fill, L. 2004. This locus was arbitrarily separated at .04 m below the top of Phase 2 Surface 2003 and was excavated to an indeterminate stopping point. Rubble Fill 2004 was composed of pebble-to-boulder-sized rocks. It produced a few Iron Age sherds but predominantly Late Arab pottery. Wall 2006 runs north-south 3.5 m from its bonding with Wall

48

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Figure 3.13.  Plan S1.A2 Phases 4–1.

2005 to a point where it corners with Wall 2006A, which turns east to block the outer front of Cave 1 Chambers e and f (see figs. 3.1–2, photo 3.4). Wall 2005 runs 8 m from its corner with Wall 2006 to its terminus in the central courtyard. It was built of fieldstones one-to-three rows (1 m) wide and stood 6 courses (1.57 m) high. At the east end of the probe, Wall 2005 was founded on bedrock. However, to the west where bedrock dropped off, its foundation levels below Rubble Fill 2004 were not reached. At its west end, Wall 2005 was bonded with Wall 2006, which was likewise three rows (1.5 m) wide. However, Wall 2006 was founded above a bedrock ledge and stood just four courses (1 m) high. Moreover, to the south where it turned to the east as Wall 2006A, its upper courses dipped slightly under another protrusion of bedrock blocking the front side of Cave 1 Chamber e. Excavation in Fill 2004 in the west end of the S1.A2 probe was stopped at an arbitrary point at the end of the 1976 season. However, items of material culture (MC# 863, see fig. 4.2.7) found in L. 2004, including tabun fragments, tesserae, shell, bone, bronze fragments, and an iron sickle blade, seem to support the idea that another entrance into Cave 1 Chamber f may at one time have existed there.

B.  The 1976 Probes in Complex A

49

Figure 3.14.  Plan S1.A10 Phase 3.

c.  Phase 2 Above L. 2004 lay compacted Surface 2003, which was identified as Phase 2 (see fig 3.13, Phase 2). On and in its matrix were a fair number of artifacts, including Roman/Byzantine sherds and various types of Modern Arab pottery plus beads and iron musket balls as well as glass, bone, tin, and iron fragments. Surface 2003 was the pre-1948 use surface of the enclosure. Belonging to this phase was also L. 2002, a 1.35 m x .3 m pit cut along Wall 2005 from the level of Surface 2003. Several iron artifacts, including an iron plowshare (MC# 807, see fig. 4.1.3) were found in this pit. Surface 2003 ran up to both Walls 2005 and 2006, confirming their use together during this occupation phase. d.  Phase 1 The uppermost remains of Phase 1 (see fig. 3.13, Phase 1) included only Wall 2005, Wall 2006, and the soil and debris of L. 2001. Prior to actual excavation, artifacts were picked up from the top of L. 2001. These materials presumably represent items that accumulated since 1948 after the last use phase of the complex. Debris 2001 runs up against Wall 2005. To the west, following the removal of .1 m of Debris 2001 all across the probe, a low straw/mud-lined niche became visible just along the ledge of bedrock below Wall 2006. This niche had probably been used as a roost for chickens or other birds during the Phase 2 occupation in the complex. 4.  The 1976 and 1977 Probes in S1.A Enclosure 10 The 1976 probe in Enclosure 10 (S1.A10) was begun on July 11 under the supervision of Paul Jacobs and Katherine Shutler. Objectives of the probe were to investigate the stratigraphy of the area within Enclosure 10 located to the east outside of Complex A proper. This probe ran 2.5 m (NE-SW) x 2 m (NW-SE), south of a crudely constructed enclosure structure (Wall 10003; see

50

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Figure 3.15 (left).  Plan S1.A10 Phase 2D. Figure 3.16 (right).  Plan S1.A10 Phase 2C.

figs. 3.1–2). In 1977, the area of this probe was expanded westward by another 1.5 m in a 1.25 m NW-SE unit. Excavation here revealed three main phases (Phases 3–1) with Phase 2 marked by four construction subphases (Phases 2D–A). a.  Phase 3 The earliest phase in this probe was represented by bedrock in which two cuttings were noted (L. 10021 and 10022; see fig 3.14). Bedrock cut in the northeastern sector of the area (L.10021) appears to be a channel or drain. Whether the cutting was natural or artificially made could not be determined. To the southwest, at the south balk, a portion of what is apparently a cupmark (L. 10022) was exposed. This lay directly below Flagstones 10018 of Phase 2D. b.  Phase 2 Phase 2 in the Enclosure 10 probe is represented by NE-SW Wall l0004, which flanked the east side of the probe and extended on 5 m to the southwest, cornering there with a 4.5-m long arm running to the northwest (see figs. 3.1–2). Wall 10004 was founded on bedrock and served as the major architectural feature used throughout subphases D–A of Phase 2. c.  Phase 2D In this early Phase 2 subphase (see fig 3.15) Wall 10016, a 1.75-m long, two-row-wide, stone structure ran NE-SW across the area, abutting Wall 10004 (see photo 3.20). Both Walls 10004 and 10016 were founded on or very close to bedrock. In this subphase, flagstone and cobbled Surface 10018 lay against these walls. A small patch of this same surface was exposed as L. 10033 in the 1977 probe area to the west. To the northeast was Surface 10020, composed mostly of beaten earth with a few cobbles and flagstones. Residing on bedrock below the surfaces in the

B.  The 1976 Probes in Complex A

51

Photo 3.20.  S1.A10 Walls 10016 and 10004 (view to the east) (FP 198).

1976 probe were Makeup Fills 10018.1 and 10020.1. Exposed with these surfaces were several large, flat-lying stone slabs bordered by upright stones (L. 10019A), which possibly belonged to a doorway threshold. However, a final determination regarding these remains could not be made. d.  Phase 2C In Phase 2C in S1.A10 (see fig 3.16), Wall 10004 continues in use with a new cobbled surface, L. 10015, which was added across the whole exposed area and ran against Wall 10004’s face. This surface incorporated the top of the Phase 2D Wall 10016 as part of the cobbling. In the 1977 S1.A10 probe, area Surface 10027 continued this floor level to the west. Associated with the makeup preparation for Surface 10015 was Fill 10015.1. Below this, flanking the sides of Phase 2D Wall 10016, were the deposits of Fills 10017 (southwest) and 10019 (northeast). Along with traces of earlier Iron Age and Persian period pottery, these fills produced clear evidence of modern period Arab presence. e.  Phase 2B Subsequent Phase 2B in S1.A10 (see fig. 3.17) included the construction of another wall, Wall 10006. This wall was also traced across the 1977 probe area as Wall 10025. Wall 10006/10025 was a structure of large boulders 5 m long and .44–1.08 m wide (1–2 rows) (see photo 3.21). It butted the west face of Wall 10004 and was founded in Trench 10008 amid a series of fills (L. 10010 and 10013) that covered Phase 2C remains. Flanking Wall 11006/10025 to the southwest was beaten earth Surface 10005/10026, and to the north lay compacted Earth Surface 10012. Surface 10005/10026 sealed Trench 10008. Remains on these surfaces and from their associated makeup layers (L. 10005.1/10026.1 and 10012.1) provide a wide range of evidence, including LB I and Iron Age sherds along with Arab glazed and modern Arab materials.

52

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Photo 3.21.  S1.A10 Wall 10006 (view to the northeast) (FP 91).

f.  Phase 2A During Phase 2A in S1.A10 (see fig. 3.18), Wall 10006/10025 was again used along with Wall 10004. To the southwest, Phase 2B Surface 10005/10026 continued in use. However, to the northwest, the new phase was marked by the presence of Surface 10009, a beaten earth floor which was added above Surface 10012. Remains from Surface 10009 and its makeup, L. 10009.1, provided further evidence of continuing 20th century C.E. occupation. g.  Phase 1 Phase 1 remains in S1.A10 (see fig. 3.19) consisted of a shallow layer of loosely compacted soil and debris (L. 10001/10023) covering Phase 2A structures, leaving only the tops of the Wall 10004 stone line exposed. On the northeast the area was flanked by SE-NW Courtyard Wall 10003, which represents the only other architectural feature of Phase 1. It was 1.25–2 m wide, constructed of dry-laid boulders and cobbles, and stood 1.4 m high. It stretched southeast and northwest, forming the arching arms of a crude enclosure barrier. From the north end of the S1.A10 probe it ran some 8 m to the southeast. To the northwest it stretched another 10 m to a juncture with Wall 6002, at which point it formed a connection with Wall 3002, the main Complex A outer enclosure structure (see figs. 3.1–2). Only upper surface debris levels (L. 10001/10023) were associated with Wall 10003, making it a very late addition to the Complex A related architecture.

C.  The 1977 Excavations in the S1.A Complex During the 1977 season excavations in Cave 1 Chamber a (S1.A1a) continued to be the primary focus. Work here first completed the 1976 probe sections to bedrock (see fig. 3.2), and then proceeded phase by phase to clear the levels throughout most of the chamber, leaving only the

C.  The 1977 Excavations in the S1.A Complex

53

Figure 3.17 (left).  Plan S1.A10 Phase 2B. Figure 3.18 (right).  Plan S1.A10 Phase 2A.

larger installations and remains immediately below them in situ. At the same time in the outer courtyard, a series of additional probe areas were dug across Enclosures 3, 6, and 10 (S1.A3, A6, and A10) along the northwestern walls of the complex, extending the 1976 Enclosure 10 probe west across the complex’s eastern entrance structures. 1.  The 1977 Excavations in S1.A1 Chamber a With the exception of surfaces and fills below the major installations, the whole area of S1.A1a was cleared to bedrock. Materials excavated in 1977 were separated according to the five main depositional phases identified in 1976. a.  Phase 5 Phase 5 identifies bedrock and includes only the Pit 1097 cutting near Pit 1032 (see figs. 3.4–5) in the bedrock floor. Bedrock Wall or Ledge 1078 may have preexisted at this time but its use associates only with Phase 2B occupation. b. Phase 4 Phase 4 is represented by remains that served to level the bedrock floor of the E side of the chamber, including the soils of L. 1094 and Cobble Fill 1096 in Pit 1097. c.  Phase 3 Phase 3 includes a series of plaster levels (L. 1072 and 1073) used as makeup in preparation for Phase 2B clay Surfaces 1028 and 1064 (see fig. 3.4) and also includes Foundation Trenches 1081 and 1095, respectively, for Walls 1018 and 1082. Also original with this phase are Walls

54

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Figure 3.19.  Plan S1.A10 Phase 1.

1063, 1082, and 1086 (see fig. 3.2), each of which predates the laying of Phase 2B Surface 1028. Wall 1021 is probably also to be associated here, and the walls forming Manger 1035 were also founded at this time. d.  Phase 2 Phase 2, for which two subphases (2B and 2A) could be observed, represents occupation levels in use until the abandonment of the site in 1948 (see fig 3.1). e.  Subphase 2B Subphase 2B represents the initial Phase 2 occupation and includes “Bedrock Wall” 1078, the construction of Steps 1087, Entrance 1088, and Walls 1013 and 1023 at the front of the chamber (see fig 3.4). Surface 1028 as well as 1064 of the sleeping platform were also prepared at this time. Added also was Firepit 1070, which was exposed below Habia 1026 in the center of the chamber. f.  Subphase 2A Subphase 2A is represented by the continued use of clay Surface 1028 all across the chamber along with the deposits and installations built or lying directly on it. These include Walls 1024, 1083, 1018, 1077, and 1021; Installation 1002; Hawaabi 1016, 1019, and 1026; Mitweh 1001 and 1015; Debris 1093; and Jar Stand 1061 along with smashed Habia 1062 and 1065 with Debris 1084. g.  Phase 1 Phase 1 represents the accumulation of fills, rocks, and debris from roof-fall and collapse that occurred following the site’s abandonment in 1948. In the Chamber a entrance lay Debris 1010, the soil and stone collapse from the doorway and roofed-over portion at the cave mouth (see

C.  The 1977 Excavations in the S1.A Complex

55

Photo 3.22.  S1.A1 entrance to Chamber a (view to the north) (FP 287).

Photo 3.23.  S1.A1 Surface 1028 at the Chamber a entrance (view to the north) (FP 324).

photo 3.22). Below this debris was L. 1067, representing similar collapse of perhaps a slightly earlier date (see fig. 3.4). This debris is contiguous with the L. 1003 materials excavated in 1976 that also rested on Surface 1028 (photo 3.23). To the west this collapse is represented by stony Debris 1079. In the middle and to the rear of the chamber are Debris 1020 (with some habia fragments), L. 1017 (the same as L. 1003 but above Surface 1064 within Walls 1018, 1063, and 1082 over the sleeping platform), and L. 1060 (a spill of rocks, perhaps from Installation 1002).

56

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Photo 3.24.  S1.A3 final overview in 1977 (view to the northeast) (FP 405).

Photo 3.25.  S1.A6 final overview in 1977 (view to the north) (FP 406).

2.  The 1977 Excavations in S1.A1 Chamber e In 1977, an excavation area was also opened across Chamber e of Cave 1 (S1.A1e) to test the nature of stratigraphic remains there (see figs. 3.1–2). The E–W Section line from Chamber a was extended west across Wall 1023/1022 and on to Manger 1053 and the southwest cave wall (see E–W South Section, fig. 3.3.) and a 1-m wide probe area was plotted to its north. Remains along this section were shallow, covering bedrock in depths of less than .3 m. Only two depositional Phases (Phases 2–1) were identified.

C.  The 1977 Excavations in the S1.A Complex

57

Figure 3.20.  S1.A3, A6, A10 E–W South Section.

a.  Phase 2 Phase 2 in Cave 1 Chamber e was represented by Surface 1068 composed of clay and ash, which was traced overlying bedrock all across the probe. Associated with this surface in the center of the chamber was a rough circular patch of cobblestones (L. 1069 and 1091; see figs. 3.1–2). These cobbles covered the ashy soil of L. 1098, and together they filled in a depression in bedrock (see fig 3.3). It could not be determined whether these loci represented a crude hearth or served more simply as leveling for the surface. Surface 1068 was evidently the pre-1948 occupation floor in this chamber. b.  Phase 1 Representing Phase 1 in Cave 1 Chamber e was Debris 1050, composed of coarse red to brown soils with straw, pebbles, boulders, and miscellaneous cultural remains (see fig. 3.3). Materials included in this locus were collected from all across the chamber and likely represent both preand post-1948 accumulations. 3.  The 1977 Excavations in S1.A Enclosures 3, 6, and 10 The 1977 excavations across Enclosures 3, 6, and 10 (S1.A3, A6, and A10) were a continuation of the work initiated in Enclosure 10 in 1976. These probes involved the investigation of deposits on the west side of Enclosure 10; of the structures of Enclosure 6 just outside and east of the main enclosure wall (Wall 6002) adjacent to the complex’s eastern entrance; and of the structures of Enclosure 3 within the complex’s northeast interior corner. These 1977 probe areas

58

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Figure 3.21.  Plan S1.A3 Phase 3.

extended from the west edge of the S1.A10 probe section for 6.9 m (i.e., 8.9 m from Wall 10004) to the midpoint in Enclosure 3 (see S1.A3, A6, A10 South Section, fig. 3.20; S1.A10 1976 and 1977 phase plans, figs. 3.14–19; and S1.A3, A6 1977 phase plans, figs. 3.21–24; also see photos 3.24–25). As in the 1976 S1.A10 probe, three stratigraphic phases (Phases 3–1) were identified in these areas. a.  The 1977 Excavations in S1.A10 As in the 1976 S1.A10 probe, three stratigraphic phases (3–1) were identified in this western extension. (i)  Phase 3 The earliest phase, Phase 3 (see fig. 3.14), was identified in the 1977 S1.A10 excavations only in a small .50 m by .75 m probe exposing bedrock in the southeast corner of Area S1.A10 (see fig. 3.20). (ii)  Phase 2 As in 1976, Phase 2 in the 1977 S1.A10 probe area is represented by four subphases (Phases 2D–A) (iii)  Phase 2D Phase 2D (see fig. 3.15) is represented by Surface 10033, a sterile, beaten earth layer which served to level off the uneven bedrock. This same floor continues to the east as Surface 10018 in the 1976 S1.A10 probe area. (iv)  Phase 2C Phase 2C (see fig. 3.16) is represented by Surface 10027, another beaten earth floor, which corresponds to 1976 Surface 10015. Included below it were two debris layers, L. 10031 and 10032, both of which contained Byzantine sherds and fragments of glass.

C.  The 1977 Excavations in the S1.A Complex

59

Figure 3.22 (left).  Plan S1.A6 Phase 2. Figure 3.23 (right).  Plan S1.A6 Phase 1.

(v)  Phases 2B–A Phases 2B–A (see figs 3.17–18) in the 1977 probe are both represented by Wall 10025, a continuation west of Wall 10006, which was uncovered in the 1976 probe. South of this is Surface 10026, which continues Surface 10005. 1977 excavation work was not conducted north of Wall 10025. (vi)  Phase 1 As in the 1976 S1.A10 probe area, Phase 1 in 1977 is represented by materials covering the upper surface (see fig. 3.19). Debris 10023, uncovered in 1977, is the same as Debris 10001, uncovered in 1976. b.  1977 Excavations in S1.A6 and A3 The 1977 excavations in S1.A Enclosures 6 and 3 were identified by three main stratigraphic phases (Phases 3–1), which corresponded to those found in S1.A10. (i)  Phase 3 Bedrock representing Phase 3 (see fig. 3.21) was identified again only in S1.A3 where it was reached below Phase 2 Debris 3007 running to the north and east below the foundations of Walls 3002 and 6002. (ii)  Phase 2 Phase 2 in turn was primarily represented by several architectural features, the principal ones being Wall 6006 and Surface 6008 in S1.A6. Wall 6006 was built with large boulders, two rows and 1 m wide (see fig. 3.22). It stood two courses high and was the continuation west of Phases

60

Excavations at Site 1, Complex A

Figure 3.24.  Plan S1.A3 Phase 1.

2B–A Wall 10025 in S1.A10. Wall 6006 was flanked on the south by Surface 6008, corresponding to S1.A10 Surface 10026. Surface 6008 was a metalled floor founded on a series of deep fills of hard-packed debris (L. 6008.1 and 6009). Both Wall 6006 and Surface 6008 terminate at the juncture along the east face of Wall 6002, raising the prospect that it, too, may be a Phase 2 feature. However, this was not confirmed during excavations. North of Wall 6006, in a 1 m wide probe extension (fig. 3.22) was Fill 6005, below which lay Debris 6010. This extension was initiated to probe for the foundations of Wall 6006, but this objective was not reached. The effort was abandoned when a layer of large boulders were encountered below L. 6010. Above Surface 6008, along the line of the E–W South Section (see fig. 3.20) was Tabun 6004, which associated with the Phase 2 occupation. It was flanked by ashy fills of Debris 6003 and Pit 6007, which appear also to represent Phase 2 deposits. In Enclosure 3, Debris 3007, which directly covers bedrock, contained only late Arabic ceramics and also may be included with this phase (see fig. 3.20). (iii)  Phase 1 Features representing Phase 1 occupation across these probe areas (see figs. 3.23–24) include the main enclosure walls of Complex A, that is, Walls 6002 (E) and 3002 (N) along with semicircular Terrace Wall 6011/10030, which forms Enclosure 6, and the crude external Wall 10003, which forms Enclosures 4, 5, and 10 outside to the east. Within Enclosure 3, Wall 6002/3002 is flanked by Surfaces 3001 and 3006, while Enclosure 6 to the east, outside of Wall 6002, is covered by Surface 6001. These upper surfaces are poorly articulated and marked by an accumulation of rough cobbles and tell debris. Surface 6001 clearly runs west against Wall 6002, indicating clearly its Phase 1 use. In Enclosure 3, Surface 3001, of a very similar makeup to Surface 6001, similarly ran against the south face of Wall 3002 (see fig. 3.24). However, Fill 3003, a debris layer with reddish brown soil, pebbles, and larger stones below it (see fig. 3.20), continued under the Wall 3002 foundations This certifies Wall 6002/3002 as a Phase I feature. Notable is the fact that the level of Surface 3001 is full meter lower than Surface 6001. Surface 3006, under the arch of En-

61

D.  Summary Correlation of Stratified Deposits in Cave Complex A Table 3.1.  Correlations between Depositional Phases As Excavated within Cave Complex A

Strata

Areas S1.A1a I: Post-1948 Debris 1 II: Surface Pre-1948 2 2B Surfacing 3 Surfacing

S1.A1c 1 2A 2B

S1.A1e 1 2

S1.A2 1 2

S1.A3 1 1

2C

III: Leveling

4A

3A

IV: Fills on bedrock

4B

3B

V: Bedrock

5

4

3

2

4

3

S1.A6 1 1

S1.A10 1 2A 2B

2

2C

2

2D 3

closure 3, is in a slightly raised niche within Wall 6002 (see fig. 3.20). It, along with the makeup soils of L. 3006.1 found beneath it, also belong clearly to Phase 1.

D.  Summary Correlation of Stratified Deposits in Cave Complex A Table 3.1 references the correlations between depositional phases as excavated within Cave Complex A. At places, the cleared bedrock areas show traces of artificial leveling along with occasional indications of channeling and pitting, perhaps of natural origins. This is followed by one or more episodes of filling and leveling in order to prepare flatter surface areas. Above this, several subphases of surface buildup were detected, dating apparently to occupation during the 1930s and early 1940s. The latest of these surface areas were subsequently littered with debris from collapsing architecture and installations along with residues from later occasional squatting and more modern intrusions.

Chapter 4

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh by William H. Adams and Joe D. Seger

A.  Introductory Comments This is a general summary of materials recovered during the 1976 and 1977 excavations within Cave Complex A (S1.A) at Khirbet Khuweilifeh. Its purpose is to provide a catalog of some artifact types along with modest descriptions and some illustrations of the finds recovered (see figs. 4.1–3 and photos 4.1–6, which appear at the end of this chapter, beginning on p. 85). The materials date broadly from the latter part of the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century. The artifacts are generally hand-crafted or made in small shops. Only a few were machine-made. Most of the artillery shells (Catalog A8) date from World War I, and one distance gauge (Catalog B2h) has Turkish markings on it. Several rifle cartridges (Catalog B4c) also date from this war. Three of these cartridges (Catalog B4c, variety 1) are British (made in 1914, 1915, and 1917) while one is Turkish. During World War I, a skirmish was fought between British and Turkish forces near Khuweilifeh (see chap. 2.B and Grainger 2006: 124–145), and these materials quite likely originated then. Four other cartridges date from or after World War II, and these may well have been deposited during or in the wake of the Israeli War of Independence in 1948 when the Bedouin and fellahin abandon the site. One other cartridge (B4c, variety 3) postdates 1886, but could date any time later. The beads (Catalog D4) were made in Italy during the mid to late 19th century, and most of the glass artifacts date from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Given the presence of ration cans and paper scraps with dated Hebrew script (Catalog H3), we must assume some use of the cave after 1948. In summary, the handful of clearly dateable artifacts would indicate occupation of the cave site from the 1880s until the 1948 War, with interim use thereafter. But given the paucity of 19th century materials, the more permanent settlement may not have been established until the early 20th century. In any case, the data represented by these artifact groups correspond well with the oral and written histories of the area. Where relevant Artifact names in Arabic are included parenthetically in italics, ‘F’ indicates names provided by Sheikh Frejat and ‘S’ indicates names provided by Sheikh Sirhan. Authors’ note: This chapter is edited and updated from “A Preliminary Descriptive Report on Material Culture from Cave Complex A, Khirbet Khuweilifeh,” submitted to the Israel Department of Antiquities, 1978.

64

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

B.  Summary of Catalog Classes and Categories The descriptive catalog that follows includes several types of material culture from the cave. Pottery, cloth remnants, faunal materials, and lithic blade groups are not included. The other cave materials are divided into Classes and Categories as follows. Class A: Iron (see photos 4.1–2; figs. 4.1–2) Category 1.  Tin Cans 2.  Nails and Other Fasteners 3.  Horseshoes 4.  Cutting Tools 5.  Picks, Hoes, and Other Digging Tools 6.  Miscellaneous 7.  Harness and Plow Objects 8.  Artillery Shells Class B: Nonferrous metal Category 1.  Coins 2.  Miscellaneous 3.  Jewelry 4.  Ammunition Class C: Leather `(see photo 4.3; fig. 4.3) Category 1.  Shoes 2.  Miscellaneous

Class D: Glass Category 1.  Buttons 2.  Mirrors 3.  Jewelry 4.  Beads 5.  Bottles and Jars 6.  Containers Class E: Stone Category 1.  Grinding Implements 2.  Miscellaneous 3.  Balista Class F: Shell Class G: Rubber (see photo 4.4) Category 1.  Buckets 2.  Miscellaneous Class H: Wood and Paper (see photos 4.5–6) Category 1.  Basketry 2.  Wooden Implements 3.  Paper Objects

C.  Catalog of Artifacts Catalog References Codes: MC# = Material Culture number; N = number of items (if more than 1); H = height; D = diameter; L = length; W = width; T = thickness; C = circumference; mm = millimeters; Arabic names in italics, with F = Sheikh Frejat, with S = Sheikh Sirhan. 1.  Class A: Iron Objects Category A1: Tin Cans (see photo 4.1) A1a

Tin cans, round. Seam crimped (interlocked); usually opened with downward punctation; contents solid since entire lid opened. N 20.

C.  Catalog of Artifacts

A1b

A1c

A1d A1e A1f

A1g A1h A1i

A1j A1k A1l

A1m

MC# H mm D mm Additional comment 941a, 2736 35 100 587a, 781, 516 50 67 # 516 embossed on end “s” 2583 55 55 783 68 88 bent at top, cloth ball attached 579, 834b, 580, 85 76 embossed on top “s” 581, 585a, 539 508, 2660 927 114 85 520, 924, 2616 115 77 538 120 103 Tin cans, round. Same as Ala above, but opened with two knife stabs, indicating liquid contents. N 2. MC# 888a, b H 88 mm; D 75 mm Tin cans, round. Seam crimped; resealable “sterno” type can. N 3. MC# 784, 941b, H 57 mm; D 63 mm 943 Tin can lid. Internal, fits inside can top. MC# 544 H 34 mm; D 65 mm Tin can lid. External, fits over top. MC# 2880 H 12 mm; D 70 mm Tin can, sardine. Seam along top only, crimped; bottom one piece with sides; bottom edge rounded; shape oval. MC# 834c H 37 mm; L 160 mm; W 80 mm Tin can, sardine or meat. Seam crimped; shape trapezoidal; opened at small end. MC# 2811 L 102 mm; W 60 mm; H 32 mm Tin can lid. Internal; embossed “SVC” on concave surface. MC# 2783 H 8 mm; D 46 mm Tin can, benzine. Seam crimped; rectangular; embossed on side “SHELL BENZINE” with scallop shell; top and bottom removed. MC# 586 H 350 mm; D 230 mm Tin can, benzine (?). Seam crimped; rectangular; embossed on side “SHELL”. MC# 2619 H 275 mm; L 230 mm; W 230 mm Tin can, benzine (?). Seam crimped; embossed on side “SHELL”. Top cut off. MC# 936 H 350 mm; L 210 mm; W 278 mm Tin can, oil. Seam flat folded; embossed “Vacuum Oil Company Inc.” Side fragment only, two punched holes for a rope bail. MC# 572 H 250 mm; W 80 mm Tin can top. Square can; bail handle in center, diagonal; two holes in corners opposite still sealed. N 4. (Top to MC# 936?) MC#537, 512, L 220 mm; W 220 mm 514, 731

65

66 A1n

A1o A1p A1q

A1r

A1s A1t A1u

A2a

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh Tin can top. Rectangular can; handle in middle, bail 70 mm x 41 mm plate; one opening (D 42 mm) in corner, lead sealed. MC# 545 L 230 mm; W 130 mm Tin can, oil (?). Rectangular; seam flat folded; fragment only. MC# 511 H 190 mm; W 295 mm; L 90 mm Tin can handle bail; oval. MC# 2964a L 112 mm; W 38 mm; D 4 mm Tin can handle bail; oval. N 2. MC# 2842b, L 71 mm; W 32 mm; D 3 mm 2964b Tin can, resealable. Seam simple flat folded; resealable for dry contents; lid band 21 mm from lip. MC# 889 H 210 mm; W 210 mm; L 140 mm. Tin can fragment. Sheet from large tin can, nailed to wood to form lid or other part of a box. MC# 2962 Tin can fragment. Large fragment cut using tin snips or bolt cutters. MC# 585a Tin can fragments. Too incomplete to classify. N 34. MC# 515, 531, 592, 600, 605, 617, 618a, 656, 657, 717, 733, 748, 791, 799, 822, 2517a, 2530, 2550, 2586, 2617, 2692, 2738, 2817, 2834, 2841, 2846, 2904, 2940, 2941, 2947, 2958, 2970, 2560, 2555

Category A2: Nails and Other Fasteners

Nails, common wire cut. Shank circular, head circular. N 23. MC# L mm D mm D (head) mm 2935a, b, c; 10 2987a; 616 663 46 4 618b 52 4 6 2938 52 4 6 652 50 3 6 614 60 3 6 2691 65 4 2705 75 6 8 758 98 5 9 2976 98 5 9 2920a, b, c 103 5 9 2731d 103 6 9 613 100 5 14 2971 110 7 12

C.  Catalog of Artifacts

A2b A2c

A2d

A2e

A3a

A3b

A3c

67

2605 130 4 9 2987b 155 8 14 2731c 3 6 Nail, tapered shank. MC# 2663 L 45 mm; D 10 mm; D (head) 19 mm Nails, handmade. Shank square to rectangular: T-head rounded on top, folded over double, head shape ranges from anchor to oval in profile. MC# 916, fig. 4.3.8. N11. MC# L mm W mm T mm D (head) mm 619 85 5 5 12 649a, b, c, d 108 10 6 2731b 150 10 7 2842a 126 8 6 12 2731a 164 8 8 2544a 180 15 13 916 110 11 8 20 2534a      (not measurable) Bolt, round headed. N 2. MC# L mm W mm T mm 2797 90 20 37 2862 86 13 29 Railroad Spike. MC# 2508 L 115 mm; W 10 mm; D 10 mm; D (head) 23mm

Category A3: Horseshoe

Horseshoe, foreign (hathweh el franji) Standard manufactured horseshoe; U-shaped. MC# 606, fig. 4.3.4. N 2. MC# L mm Max W mm T mm Open W mm 606 130 120 10 95 2821 130 117 10 73 Donkey shoe, foreign (hathweh) Smaller than A3a; U-shaped; #917a has rectangular holes; #2623 has round inset holes. N 2. MC# L mm Max W mm T mm Open W mm 917a 75 75 4 75 mm 2623 73 78 6 75 mm Mule shoe, Arab (hathweh arabi) Flat, oval plate; back curves upward; 3 holes each side for nails; MC# 2727 has hole in center; fig. 4.3.7. N 3. MC# L mm Max W T mm 2727 130 115 3 2607 125 110 3

68 A3d

A3e

A3f

A4a A4b

A4c

A4d A4e

A4f

A4g A4h A4i A4j

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh 2984 130 103 6 Donkey shoe, Arab (hathweh arabi) Similar to above except smaller; flat oval; back curves upward slightly, straight; 2 nail holes near front on both sides; minor variations in size and shape. MC# 2899, fig. 4.3.5; MC# 917b, fig. 4.3.6. N 5. MC# L mm Max W mm T mm 2832a 97 75 2 2832b 75 59 2 2899 88 70 3 2584 90 60 2 917b 88 67 3 Horseshoe, or heel plate. Semicircular iron plate with 5 holes; for heel of human shoe, or hoof of horse. MC# 2683 L 80 mm; Max W 20 mm; T 2 mm Heel plate. For horse or human shoe; iron crescent plate for heel. MC# 591a L 58 mm; Max W 20 mm; T 1 mm

Category A4: Cutting Tools

Knife or sword blade. Tip fragment; back straight, edge curves to tip. MC# 2988 L 150 mm; W 35 mm; T 2 mm Knife blade. Back straight; edge tapers to within 55 mm of tip then curves upward; pointed at proximal end to fit into handle, hole for peg; fig. 4.2.3. MC# 710 L 215 mm; L blade 170 mm; W 22 mm; T 2 mm Knife blade (F: sakine). Back curves up slightly; edge tapers to a curving tip; rattail handle bent upward at proximal tip. MC# 2815 L 215 mm; L blade 160 mm; W 21.5 mm; T 2 mm Knife blade (F: sakine). Same as MC# 2815 but handle longer and straight; fig. 4.2.2. MC# 635 L 30 mm; L blade 189 mm; W 20 mm; T 2 mm; Sickle (S&F: shushara). Blade curves to form right angle; edge serrated; blade tapers; handle rat-tail, proximal end bent over (i.e., wood handle about 95 mm long); fig. 4.2.4. MC# 933 L 363 mm (along curve); W 25 mm; T3 mm Sickle. Tip fragment; blade curves, tapers; backed strongly reinforced; handle area missing; fig. 4.2.8. MC# 694 L blade 190 mm; W 12 mm; T 5 mm Sickle. Similar to MC# 694; back not reinforced as much; fig. 4.2.7. MC# 863 L blade 270 mm; W 18 mm; T 3 mm Spoon/fork handle. Cast; fig. 4.2.14. MC# 2638 L handle 100 mm; W 18 mm; T 5 mm Sheep shears. Handles only. fig. 4.2.13 MC# 2822 L handle 115 mm; W 55 mm Bolt cutters. Commercial; fig. 4.2.15; photo 4.2

C.  Catalog of Artifacts MC# 2810 L handle 250 mm Saw blade. MC# 920 (too rusted to describe)

A4k

A5a

69

Category A5: Picks, Hoes and Other Digging Tools

A5b

A5c A5d

A5e

A5f

A5g

A5h A5i A5j

A5k A51 A5m

Adze (S: coadoom; F: faas or ashashe). Used for digging and for cutting grass for camel. Blade x-section concave/convex; knurled edge (to hit hard surfaces); other end is a hammer; blade 75 degrees from handle; fig. 4.2.9. MC# 912 L 145 mm; Max W (blade) 57 mm; D handle 27 mm Hoe (S: hasab hadiid). Heavy duty; blade thick, set at 70 degrees; blade end knurled; fig. 4.2.10. MC# 2729 L 150 mm; Max W (blade) 133 mm; D handle 41 mm Hoe. Similar to standard American garden hoe; blade only; fig. 4.2.12. MC# 2653 H 150 mm; W 128 mm; T 2 mm Axe (S: fass; F: sharshaq). Similar to MC# 912 but blade parallel to handle; blade expands sides, curved cutting edge; cutting edge knurled; (S: for cutting nettish; F: for cutting wood); fig. 4.2.E. MC# 778 L 149 mm; L blade 72 mm; Max W blade 53 mm; D handle 30 mm Pick (F: kashi; ax for digging onion and garlic). One end for hammer, square shank and head; bent downward parallel to handle to form hook; fig. 4.2.6. MC# 711 L 140 mm; D handle 20 mm Pick. Manufactured; pointed end diamond x-section; bladed end lozenge shaped; handle rectangular; fig. 4.2.1. MC# 2730 L 275 mm; L handle 52 mm; D handle 10 mm Adze (S: sha’arah; F: gadoom). Blade only; cutting edge curved; sides straight, taper toward handle; tear drop shaped hole in center (for pulling nails); fig. 4.2.11. MC# 2603 L 95 mm;H 70 mm Pick. Conical, point only, hollow, knurled proximal end; fig 4.3.10. MC# 2535 L 120 mm; D handle 26 mm Prod. Crescent points on end of haft, flat bar curves over wooden handle; fig. 4.3.13. MC# 2985 L 185 mm; W 70 mm; L handle 26 mm Pitchfork. Shank and tines form arc; shank completely wrapped around; four tines, round; fig. 4.1.14; photo 4.2. MC# 2916 L shank 110 mm; L tines 250 mm; D tine 8 mm; D shaft 38 mm Pick (patish). Point only; flat (rectangular x-section), slight curve longitudinally. MC# 915 L blade 107 mm; W 25 mm; T 9 mm Punch. Pestle shaped; end broken; fig. 4.3.11. MC# 553 L 78 mm; D handle 34 mm Punch. Conical; broad head. MC# 2921 L 115 mm; D near head 20 mm

70 A6a

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh Category A6: Miscellaneous

A6b A6c A6d A6e A6f A6g A6h

A6i

A6j A6k A6l A6m A6n A6o A6p A6q A6r A6s

Iron bar tool. Rectangular x-section; proximal end knurled, distal end broken. MC# 2914 L 195 mm; D cross-section 22 mm x 6 mm Leaf spring. Broken. MC# 922 L 150 mm; W 55 mm; T 6 mm Iron object. Badly rusted. MC# 658 L 100 mm; W 95 mm; T 20 mm Pipe. One end sealed with iron, other plugged with stick. MC# 700 L 160 mm; D out 20 mm; D in 18 mm Pistol, barrel. Badly rusted; probably muzzle loading musket. MC# 808 L barrel 215 mm; D out 20 mm; D in 14 mm Chain. Flat band, figure-8 links. MC# 282 L link 22 mm Hinge, strap. Flat iron bar with 3 holes (D 7 mm) and bent over end. MC# 937 L 300 mm; W 30 mm; T 6 mm; D pin 18 mm Oil can (or lamp). Made from tin can; conical top joins cylindrical neck; tube joins cone near its bottom; spout at end of tube; seams soldered; fig. 4.3.9. MC# 2661 H 195 mm; D 100 mm; L tube 195 mm; D top hole 25 mm Baling wire. N 5. MC# 834a, 2645, D 2–4 mm 2682, 2910, 2972 Wire, 2-ply. MC# 2534 D 3 mm Bar. MC# 2911 L 50 mm; D 10 mm Bar. Fragment. N 2. MC# 642, 650 D 1 mm Sheet metal. N 2. MC# 2641, 918 L 450 mm; W 147 mm Chain link. MC# 2527 L 30 mm; W 25 mm; D 4.5 mm Chain. Four links. MC# 564 L 47 mm; W 35 mm; D 3 mm Bottle cap. Screw-on. MC# 2503 H 10 mm; D 31 mm Hinge. Piton, driven into stone or wood. MC# 2517 L 110 mm; D hole 20 mm Band. For shank of shovel or similar tool; riveted. MC# 2544b W 23 mm; D 51 mm; T 1 mm Bucket. Bottomless; cylindrical; no evidence of bail. MC# 2881 H 190 mm; D 270 mm

C.  Catalog of Artifacts A6t

A6u A6v A6w A6x

A6y

A7a

A7b A7c

A7d A7e A7f A7g A7h A7i A7j

71

Enamelware bowl. Enamel white; bottom missing; lip slight; sides nearly parallel in x-section; large piece of cloth at bottom suggests it might be sieve. MC# 736e H 105 mm; C 330 mm; T 5 mm Bail or handle. Iron wire. MC# 923 H 40 mm; W 72 mm; D 4 mm Thimble. N2. MC#786, 2796 H 20 mm; D in 18 mm Barbed wire spools. N 2. MC# 587b, 946 Barrel hoops or straps. Riveted. N 6. MC# H mm T mm 2777 17 1.5 2683, 2802, 2986 23 1.5 2857 30 2 2820 45 3 Pipe. Iron; bent into U-shape. MC# 2835b H 85 mm; W 129 mm; D out 13 mm; D in 2.5 mm

Category A7: Harness and Plow Objects

Brace (S: tabal). Flat iron rod bent into right angle brace; three holes on main shaft, on bent arm; fig. 4.1.10. MC# 2739 L 178 mm; W 13 mm; T 3 mm Harness linkage. Three iron links strapped with galvanized wire; fig. 4.1.7. MC# 2624 Harness hardware (F: garasa). Iron rod in flat S shape wrapped with sheet metal; goes under camel’s chin; fig. 4.1.6. MC# 2637a L 103 mm; D 5 mm Harness “piton.” Large square nail with flat eye; for fastening harness to plow; fig. 4.1.8. MC# 2637b L 105 mm; W 9 mm; T 9 mm Same as A7d but more rounded eye, fig. 4.1.9. MC# 2640a L 123 mm; W 11 mm; T 11 mm Harness ring. Oval. MC# 2640b D 67 mm x 53 mm; D wire 7 mm Harness ring. Round. MC# 2652 D 58 mm; D wire 5 mm Harness ring. Round. MC# 2616 D 57 mm; D wire 5 mm Harness ring. Round. MC# 2696 D 30 mm; D wire 4 mm Harness ring. Round. MC# 2667 D 45 mm; D wire 4 mm

72

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

A7k

A7l

A7m A7n

A8a

A8b A8c A8d A8e

Plow cinches. Iron bands of varying size for cinching plow onto wooden shaft; MC# 2737, fig. 4.1.11. N 7. MC# W band mm T band mm W shaft mm T shaft mm 2737 17 3 74 65 2812 17 3 65 58 2929 17 5 60 50 628 15 3 58 58 2963?* 25 1 85 50 2989 * 17 2 53 30 2639 * 17 1 107 97 *Riveted, too large or too small to fit over point shaft Plowshares. Square to rectangular shank; blade curves longitudinally; ridged longitudinal axis; shoulder angles and widths vary considerably, as do most measurements; shank is the only consistent measurement, tip angle acute, reinforced by folding edge over (as in MC# 934) or applying extra piece (MC# 739); one specimen has been worn completely at shoulders and has been repaired by putting new point and half a blade on it; MC# 2699 is a repair half-point; MC# 892, 2512, 807, figs 4.1.1, 3; MC# 2512, fig. 4.12; photo 4.2. N 29. See table 4.1 (p. 90) for mm measurements of individual specimens. MC# 851, 2780, 2809, 2875, 287la, b, and c were too fragmented to provide complete measurements, and MC# 2946 and 2835a could provide none. See fig. 4.4 for location of measuring points (A B C D E F G H I J K L numbers = measurements in mm; 1 2 3 numbers = degrees of angle). Buckle. D ring. MC# 2742 H 30 mm; W 30 mm; T 3 mm Brace. Flat bar with hooked projection on end; two holes 75 mm apart. MC# 718 L 200 mm; T 18 mm; D hole 9 mm

Category A8: Artillery Shells

Tapers at distal end; internal screw (D 67 mm); MC# 913, 2823, figs. 4.1.4–5. N 10. MC# L mm D out mm D in mm 913, 686, 684, 940, 235 83 67 685, 709, 2732, 2819a, 2823, 2839 Same as A8a but smaller. N 2. MC# 683, 2819b L 190 mm; D out 74 mm; D in 62 mm Same as A8a but larger. MC# 2867 L 245 mm; D out 80 mm; D in 62 mm Head only (100 mm). MC# 879 D out 111 mm Cap to 100 mm, slides over shell, holds on detonator head. MC# 687

C.  Catalog of Artifacts A8f

73

Cylinder, tapers only slightly at distal end. MC# 611 L 230 mm; D out 68 mm; D in 60 mm; photo 4.2.

2.  Class B: Nonferrous Metal B1a B1b B1c B1d B1e

B2a B2b B2c B2d B2e B2f

B2g

B2h

B2i

Category B1: Coins

“Turkish.” Copper and silver; paper thin; hole for suspending. MC# 2600 D 19 mm “British Mandate 50 mils.” Silver plate or alloyed with copper; hole. MC# 723 D 23 mm; T 1 mm “Turkish.” Copper and silver; hole. MC# 2857 D 18 mm; T 1 mm “Turkish.” Copper; 4 holes. MC# 2744 D 32 mm; T 2 mm “Crusader.” Copper, gold plated; “SMUENT” vertical, “OAN*COREL” around edge; figure with halo facing tree (?); reverse: “SITTA XPEDAT” “RECISISTEDVC”; figure with halo. MC# 2844

Category B2: Miscellaneous

Undetermined wire, brass. Possibly spark plug lead. MC# 811 L 45 mm; D 13 mm; T 3 mm Lamp top. Similar to sun burner; brass, thin. MC# 667 Wire, copper. Twisted, probably repair for shoe MC# 543. MC# 2825 L 120 mm; D 2 mm Wire, copper. Both ends flattened. MC# 2565 L 100 mm; D 2.5 mm Wire, copper. Scrap. MC# 2706 L 300 mm; D 1.7 mm Wire, copper. Wrapped 4 times around in a 37 mm x 20 mm loop, perhaps originally on a piece of wood. MC# 2625 D 18 mm Distance gauge for artillery shell, brass. Truncated cone; doughnut top, concentric circles with 3 holes; side calibrated into 21 units of 5 each (these are for +/-300°). MC# 2794 H 8 mm; D top 48 mm; D bottom 57 mm Distance gauge for artillery shell, brass. Flat-tipped cone; writing on top in Turkish “B7•5 YASER 900 NABA” or “7.5 PASER TOHASMET NARA.” Similar to B2g. MC# 2981 Band. Brass; flat, oval band to wrap around a handle. MC# 2990 L 10 mm; W 30 mm

74 B2j

B3a B3b

B3c B3d

B4a

B4b B4c

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh Nail. Lead; broad head, tapered round shank. MC# 2501 L 31 mm; D head 17 mm; D shank 8 mm

Category B3: Jewelry

Copper bracelet. Gold plated; four strands of 1.5 mm copper wire; inside ground flat. MC# 2716 Copper bracelet. Gold plated; four strands of 1-mm copper wire; one half is 2-strand, which becomes 4-strand at midpoint. MC# 2651 Earring, brass wire. Oval, thin wire. MC# 2611 D 8 mm Disc. Brass disc, apparently not a coin; no stringing hole. MC# 2973 D 22 mm; T 3 mm

Category B4: Ammunition

Musket balls. Lead. N 11. MC# 849, D 12.5 mm 805, 830, 919, 865, 806, 729, 795 (flat), 774, 2686 Bullet, steel jacketed. MC# 2808 L 32 mm; D 7 mm Rifle cartridges. Brass. Variety 1: Neck constricts just below rim. N 4. Variety 2: Neck straight. N 4. Variety 3: Neck straight, stepped head. MC# Variety Headstamp L mm D rim D neck D slug 2784 1 P 10 15 S67 56 11.2 11.1 8.5 2795b 1 D. 6 14 S 57 11 11.3 8.5 2508 1 C./S67/1/17 — 11.2 1.5 — 2522 1 Arabic in53 11.2 11.4 9 scription 2795a 2 1941 11A 56 13 11.1 8 MH 921 2 1942 11A — 11 11 — K2 2864a 2 15 11A 56 13 11 — 2587 2 11 /l\ L15 55 13 11 8 2864b 3 E GR 1886 60 16.2 13 11.8 (note: for MC# 2522, the inscription includes a crescent symbol with star along with what is mostly likely a date and perhaps the word ‘mauser’ in Arabic; for MC# 2864b, “GR” is presented in the intertwined trademark style of the Austrian manufacturer George Roth)

C.  Catalog of Artifacts

75

3.  Class C: Leather (see photos 4.3) C1a

Category C1: Shoes

C1b

C1c

C1d C1e C1f C1g C1h C1i C1j

C1k C1l C1m C1n C1o

Shoe, sole only. Tire rubber; heel straight; sole nailed. MC# 2994 L 240 mm; W 85 mm Shoe, child’s. Not turned; heel leather, one layer but 2 pieces diagonally joined, 5 wire cut brads in each piece; sole leather sewn by hand (irregular); upper leather, machine stitched with double rows of stitching across transverse arch; burlap fill, cloth lining; upper 1 piece; slipper style with iron buckle; leather insole, either foot. Note: This was probably a commercially made shoe for which the sole was replaced at home. MC# 746 L 160 mm; W 65 mm; H 38 mm Shoe, child’s. Not turned; heel leather over cardboard, low; 10 nails; sole leather, glued; upper one piece red leather, machine stitched; iron buckle added or repaired (strap black leather poorly sewn), cut low; for left foot. MC# 523 L 115 mm; W 48 mm; H 35 mm Shoe, heel only. Tire rubber, 3-ply cotton; nailed. MC# 2798 L 65 mm; W 85 mm Shoe, heel only. Tire rubber, 4-ply cotton, nailed. MC# 2533 L 70 mm; W 65 mm Shoe, heel only. Tire rubber, nailed. MC# 2898 L 75 mm; W 70 mm. Shoe, sole fragment only. Tire rubber, nailed. MC# 2983 Shoe, sole fragment only. Tire rubber, nailed. MC# 2960 Shoe, child’s. Sole only, heel leather nailed; sole sewn and nailed leather; welt, right. MC# 2980 L140 mm; W 55 mm Shoe, canvas. heel, tire rubber, nailed; sole tire rubber, nailed; upper canvas with leather toe shield, machine stitched top to toe, most of upper missing; upper is commercial, insole black cloth, cotton scrap, not original, right. Note: This was a commercially made shoe, resoled with tire rubber. MC# 2518 L 179; W 60 mm Shoe. Tire rubber sole. MC# 2613 L 260 mm; W 100 mm Shoe. Sole only; tire rubber, 3-ply, upper leather nailed and sewn to sole, right foot. MC# 2781 L 282 mm; W 110 mm Shoe. Sole only; upper leather; sole tire rubber, nailed with many wire cut nails. MC# 2647 L 335 mm; W 125 mm Shoe, sole only. Tire rubber, hand sewn, left foot. MC# 2884 L 280 mm; W 115 mm Shoe. Heel tire rubber, nailed; sole tire rubber, nailed; upper mostly burlap, leather toe shield and heel shield; cotton cloth lined; slipper style; welt strip, left. MC# 2582 L 220 mm; W 85 mm; H 60 mm

76 C1p

C1q

C1r C1s

C1t

C1u

C1v C1w

C1x

C1y

C1z

C1aa

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh Shoes. Leather, heelless; sole tire rubber, “BALOON”, (518b) “NON SKID” (518c); 3-ply 2 diagonal with simple weave between; upper leather, burlap lined; slipper style; back half of upper missing but nails indicate it was originally present; leather strap over arch through slit in leather, pair. MC# 518b, fig. 4.3.1. N 2. MC# 518b, c L 305 mm; W 114 mm Shoe, leather. Heel leather, two layers; sole leather, not turned, sewn, no welt; upper leather, 4 pieces, winged toe, 3 iron eyelets; cut low, left. Note: the outside of heel and sole are worn clear through. MC# 931 L 296 mm; W 100 mm; H 75 mm Shoe. Sole only; leather; heel nailed; sole sewn and nailed. MC# 942 Shoe. Not turned, sole and heel only, heel tire rubber, thin (2 mm), wire nailed; sole leather, sewn; repaired with 13 wire cut nails at toe; insole leather. MC# 2614 Shoe. Sole and heel only. Heel repaired with two pieces, wire nailed; sole leather, sewn, not turned, Either foot. MC# N/A (lost tag) L 230 mm; W 98 mm Shoe, sole and heel only. Heel leather, single piece, nailed, sole leather sewn, not turned; toe pointed. MC# 2788 Shoe, partial (heel missing). Sole leather, toe rounded, sole nailed, not turned; upper leather. MC# 2711 W 88 mm Shoe. Sole heel and part of upper only; heel tire nailed; sole leather, toe round; 9 wire nails downward around toe; upper leather, either foot. MC# 935 L 22 mm; W 90 mm Shoe, child’s. Sole only; heel missing, nailed; turned; sole leather; sewn, right foot. Note: 1 red bead MC# 2836b found with shoe. MC# 2836a L 140 mm; W 58 mm Shoe fragments too incomplete for analysis, discarded. N 16. MC# 541, 696, 2758, 704, 509, 2589, 2620, 2790, 2724, 2833, 2785, 2695, 2733, 2735, 734, 584 Shoe, leather, not turned. Heel 3 pieces leather, sole leather, welt; upper leather, 3 pieces; toe plain; 8 iron eyelets; repaired by 4 copper wires strapped through upper and sole, one iron wire, 5 wire cut nails driven through upper toe into sole; other wire cut nails hold sole on, right foot. Note: Outside of heel and sole worn through, fig. 4.3.2. MC# 543 L 270 mm; W 110 mm; H 85 mm Shoe, leather, not turned. Sole and portion of heel only; heel (or patch) tire rubber chunk, wire nailed onto the pointed toe end of sole; sole leather, machine stitching 4 mm in from edge, 11 wire cut nails driven through uppers into sole, for either foot. MC# 518a L 300 mm; W 110 mm

C.  Catalog of Artifacts C1bb

C1cc

C1dd

C1ee

C1ff

C1gg

C1hh

C1ii C1jj C1kk

C1ll

C2a C2b

77

Shoe, leather, not turned. Heel leather, nailed; upper leather over coarse burlap over leather inside; cut low (repaired by wire cut nails driven through upper into sole); most of upper missing, either foot, fig. 4.3.1. MC# 518b L 302 mm; W 105 mm Shoe, heel and sole only. Heel tire rubber, nailed onto pointed end of leather sole; sole sewn, unturned, patch at ball; mate to MC# 518d; fig 4.3.3. MC# 2908 L 250 mm; W 90 mm Shoe, canvas. Heelless; sole flat, tire rubber, glued onto canvas upper; sole tread ripple; upper canvas, fine weave, 3 piece, possibly rubber coated; insole rubber; 5 eyelets, rows parallel; cut low; left foot. MC# 2545 L 270 mm; W 102 mm; H 75 mm Shoe. Heel, leather bottom, cardboard 7 layers; heel nailed; upper 3 piece leather; 5 eyelets, plain; decoration hole between stitching; cut low; leather inner lining with canvas filler, right foot. MC# 578 L 260 mm; W 85 mm; H 75 mm Shoe. Heel, leather bottom, wood inside (heel repaired by using 4 wire cut nails driven from above, and 7 large dome headed tacks) heel nailed; sole leather; welt, upper 3 piece leather, sewn and riveted; 4 eyelets, iron; lining cloth; cut low, left foot. MC# 519 L 280 mm; W 110 mm; H heel 17 mm Shoe. Heel, tire rubber chunk; sole leather (worn through middle of transverse arch); sole sewn; toe pointed; not turned; upper burlap sewn on; probably slipper cut, either foot. MC# 626 L 245 mm; W 108 mm Shoe, Heelless. Sole tire rubber, nailed and sewn upper leather; welt strip; upper 2 piece, toe piece slipper cut with two parallel slits in tongue for slip through strap; insole leather, for right foot. MC# 570 L 240 mm; W 120 mm Shoe. Toe upper only; similar to MC# 570, with fleur de lis stitched on top of toe. MC# 517a Shoe. Upper only, burlap with leather over toe, riveted and sewn. MC# 517b Shoe. Heel, cloth layers over leather [repair]; heel nailed; sole leather; leather half sole, no welt; upper 3 piece leather; plain; repaired by replacing most of inside back with a piece from a different shoe from opposite side, also patched on right outside; 5 eyelets on original side, brass; cut low, right foot. Note: outside sole worn. MC# 2511 L 300 mm; W 100 mm; H 85 mm Shoe insole. Foam rubber. MC# 2908

Category C2: Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous leather fragments. N 3. MC# 527, 836, 561 Decorative patch. Red, diamond shape. MC# 852 L 42 mm; W 30 mm

78 C2c C2d C2e C2f C2g

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh Strap. Pointed end, three unevenly spaced holes in center. MC# 594 L 100 mm; W 17 mm; T 2 mm Strap. Holes at 10, 28, 228, 240, 340, and 360 mm marks. MC# 2588 L 380 mm; W 22 mm; T 2 mm Strap. 1 hole at midpoint. MC# 2741 L 160 mm; W 29 mm; T 2 mm Strap. Holes at 95, 138, 157, 200, 240, 255, 275, and 289 mm marks. MC# 2659 L 330 mm; W 26 mm; T 2 mm Strap. Two pieces joined with copper wire, no holes. MC# 2868 L 330 mm; W 48 mm; T 2 mm

4.  Class D: Glass D1a

D2a D2b

D3a D3b D3c D3d

D3e D3f

D4a

Category D1: Buttons

Button for shirt. White; 4 holes. MC# 821b D 12 mm; T 2 mm

Category D2: Mirrors

Mirror fragment. Rectangular. MC# 2863 L 10 mm; W 8 mm; T 1.2 mm Mirror fragment. Round. MC# 758 D 50 mm; T 1 mm

Category D3: Jewelry

Bracelet. Fragment; glass clear, twisted spiral design; yellow spiral rod inside. MC# 847a D bracelet 70 mm; D rod 5 mm Bracelet. Fragment; simple rod, glass light green opaque; interior flat. MC# 2801a D bracelet 60 mm; D rod 6 x 4 mm Bracelet. Fragment; simple rod, glass translucent cobalt blue. MC# 821a D bracelet 50 mm Bracelet, fragment. Glass dark blue; cross-section simple rod with 2 small blue and white spiral rods applied. MC# 2849 D bracelet 70 mm; D rod 7 mm x 10 mm Bracelet, fragment; simple rod; glass translucent blue. MC# 827a D bracelet 70 mm; D rod 3 x 6 mm Bracelet. Fragment; rod, outside mauve-red with scallop ripple design. MC# 2831a D bracelet 60 mm; D rod 2 mm x 8 mm

Category D4: Beads Fragment. Blue. MC# 654

C.  Catalog of Artifacts D4b D4c D4d

D4e D4f D4g D4h

D5a D5b

D5c

D5d D5e D5f D5g D5h

D5i

79

Mandrel wound. Light blue translucent. MC# 2801b D 7 mm; D hole 2 mm; L 7 mm Cast. Bubbles; blue translucent; nipple alongside hole. MC# 2859 D 9 mm; D hole 4 mm; L 5 mm Mandrel wound. Light blue, translucent MC# 2523 D 9 mm; D hole 3 mm; L 7 mm Drawn. Simple, blue. MC# 2649 D 4 mm; D hole 1.7 mm; L 3 mm Drawn, tube. Red. MC# 2704 D 2 mm; D hole 1 mm; L 9 mm Drawn, tube. Red. MC# 2856 D 2 mm; D hole 7 mm; L 9 mm Drawn. Red, rounded both ends, transverse hole in middle. MC# 2836b D 3 mm; D hole 1.5 mm; L 8 mm

Category D5: Bottles and Jars

Jar stopper. Glass clear; edges “crunched” down, two flakes driven off side, fig. 4.3.12. MC# 2622 Bottle. Side fragments only; glass olive green dark (i.e., “black glass”); turn paste mold (horizontal stria but also vertical seam). N 7. MC# 2592, 2746, D 80 mm; T 5–6 mm 2509a, 2701, 2713, 728, 2944 Bottle. Side and heel fragments; glass light olive green; turn paste mold; heel rounded; kick up flat. N 4. MC# 2778, 2694, D 70 mm; T 6 mm 821c, 2923 Bottle, shoulder fragments. Vertical seam, glass light green. N 2. MC# 947, 2957 D 90 mm; T 3.5 mm Bottle, side fragments only. Green glass, turn paste mold. N 2. MC# 2807, 2762 Bottle, side fragment. Glass clear green. MC# 827b Bottle, side fragment. Glass clear; turn paste mold. MC# 2680 D 60 mm Bottle, neck only. Glass clear (bottle green); seam vertical to below lip, horizontal seam 9 mm below lip; vertical over lip to orifice and around tope of orifice. MC# 2720a D out 49 mm; D in 37 mm Bottle, base only. Round; three 5-pointed stars on side near heel; vertical seam; base mark ‘GGF’; spread seam. MC# 2720b D 29 mm; T 2 mm

80

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

D5j D5k D51 D5m D5n D5o

D6a

D6b D6c

Jar lid. Clear glass. MC# 847b D orifice 23 mm Glass fragment. Glass clear, flat. MC# 644 T 4 mm Bottle. Corner side fragment; probably paneled; glass clear. MC# 2694 T 1–3 mm Bottle base. Glass, blue; no seams. N 2. MC# 716, 720 H kick up 25 mm; D 110 mm Glass fragments, clear. N 2. MC# 2903a, b Bottle, base and side fragments. Glass amber brown, turn paste mold; low flat kick up. MC# 2648 H 15 mm; D 90 mm.

Category D6: Glass Containers

Free blown glass. Fragments only, could be Roman/Byzantine to mid-19th century; glass clear. N 5. MC# 2669, 2670, T 2–5 mm 648a, 864, 762 Handle. Barely more than fused sand, black rough exterior. MC# 948 Bowl. Glass green; free blown; rim sherd with melted handle and base of handle articulate; ring of glass applied 7 mm below lip; handle scalloped. MC# 2670 H lip 60 mm; D handle 105 mm; H 95 mm

5.  Class E: Stone Objects E1a

E1b

E1c

E1d

E1e

Category 1: Grinding Implements

Grinding mill. Basalt, fine vascular; upper “doughnut;” round; bottom flat; side curves in at top, top flat; center hole polished. Note: part of 2-piece circular grinding installation. MC# 557 D 360 mm; H 47 mm; D hole 90 mm Grinding mill. Bioclastic limestone; two piece circular; upper stone, flat top except lips upward around center hole. MC# 794 D 420 mm; D hole 70 mm Grinding mill. Bioclastic limestone; two piece circular; upper stone plano-convex; center hole. MC# 2883 D 360 mm; D hole 40 mm Grinding slab. Fine sandstone; roughly cut, circular, no visible preparation of grinding surface (surface uneven); grinding motion was both circular and back/forth. MC# 2882 D 240 mm; T 28 mm Grinding slab. Coarse sandstone; rough cut oblong; grinding surface irregular. MC# 567 L 25 mm; W 19 mm; T 40–55 mm

C.  Catalog of Artifacts E1f

E1g E1h E1i

E1j E1k E1l

E2a E2b

E2c

E2d

E3a

E3b E3c E3d

81

Grinding stone. Basalt, fine vesicular; fragment; grinding surface with “washboard” ridges 14 mm apart. MC# 2855 L 142 mm; W 95 mm; T 95 mm Grinding stone. Basalt, flat polished grinding surface; domed top. MC# 2906 H 30 mm; D 40 mm Grinder. Limestone; fragment; both cross-sections plano-convex. MC# 2948 L 170 mm; W 140 mm; T 65 mm Grinder, hand. Orthoclastic limestone; cobble with ground side; one side used somewhat as pecking stone. MC# 908a L 80 mm; W 60 mm; T 60 mm Grinder, hand. Marl; rectangular, edges rounded; surfaces ground and pecked. MC# 267a L 73 mm; W 48 mm; T 58 mm Grinder, hand. Limestone; disc, upper and lower surfaces for grinding. MC# 862 D 85 mm; T 47 mm Grinder. Vesicular basalt; shaped handle; grinding surface polished; longitudinal cross-section rectangular. MC# 682 L 120 mm; W 80 mm; H 92 mm

Category 2: Miscellaneous

Pecking tool. Flint cobble, flat oblong; ends and sides battered. MC# 2895 L 100 mm; W 70 mm; T 40 mm Watering bowl, for animals. Sandstone, coarse; simple wide concavity in large cobble. MC# 944 L cobble 300 mm; L concavity 230 mm; W 160 mm; T cobble 15 mm; D concavity 45 mm Worked stone (used as hammer). Sandstone, coarse; oblong; pecked over entire surface; groove pecked around stone; small concavity on one flat side; fig. 4.3.14. MC# 2566 L 210 mm; W 125 mm; T 70 mm Panel or box lid. Orthoclastic limestone; fragment; carved design; back pecked flat. MC# 2634 L 210 mm; W 159 mm; T 50 mm

Category 3: Balista

Balista, faceted. Flint; cylindrical, 4-sided, flattened, ends battered; probable use as grinding stone, or at least shaped by grinding. MC# 2630 L 65 mm; W 65 mm; H 50 mm Balista, faceted. Flint; faceted by grinding. MC# 2838 L 50 mm; W 55 mm; H 60 mm Balista. Flint; cylindrical. MC# 886 L 50 mm; W 50 mm; H 55 mm Balista, ball. Flint, spherical. MC# 651 D 57 mm

82

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

6.  Class F: Shells F1a F1b

Conch. Hole drilled for suspension. MC# 2515 L 55 mm Clam. Broken. N 2. MC# 647, 727

7.  Class G: Rubber Objects (see photo 4.4) G1a

G1b

Category 1: Buckets

Bucket (goofah). Made from tire rubber, nailed together from three pieces—bottom, side, handle bail. MC# 2549 H 330 mm; D base 140 mm Bucket (goofah). Barrel-shaped; bottom flat, circular; sewn on reinforced seam; bail (MC# 2596); made from tire rubber. N 2. MC# 569, 506 H 330 mm; D top 180 mm; Max D 200 mm; D base 170 mm

8.  Class H: Wood and Paper (see photo 4.5–6) H1a

H2a

H2b

H2c

H3a H3b

Category 1: Basketry

Basket. Coiled straw; large coils; straw; repaired with cloth patch. MC# 524 D 200 mm; H 40 mm; T 15 mm

Category 2: Wooden Implements

Winnowing screen. Thin slat of wood curved/bent into circle, nailed; cloth (fine simple weave) nailed over one end with a batten strip. MC# 911 D 285 mm; H 53 mm; T 3 mm Rake tooth. Proximal end rectangular, nailed to rake; shaft has rounded edges; longitudinal cross-section is concavo-convex; fig. 4.1.13. MC# 2818 Plowshare shank. L-shaped piece of wood; plowshare fits over bottom part with plow cinch (A7k) securing it; 2 holes drilled on upper arm; fig. 4.1.12. MC# 2662

Category 3: Paper

Cardboard box. MC# 525 L 110 mm; W 95 mm; H 35 mm Paper fragment. Printed in Hebrew, date 8/53 MC# 2526

C.  Catalog of Artifacts H3c

H3d

Cigar box. Paper; printed on box: “Univers...Virginia Cigars” with writing in Hebrew below. MC# 2750 Paper fragments. N 3. MC# 629, 2813, and 521

83

84

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

Figure 4.1 (right).  Miscellaneous metal and wood implements    1.  Iron plowshare, Category A7l, MC# 892, S1.A2 Environs, L. 2001.    2.  Iron plowshare, Category A7l, MC# 2512, S1.A1.1, L. 1021 (see photo 4.2).    3.  Iron plowshare, Category A7l, MC# 807, S1.A2.2, L. 2002.    4.  Metal artillery shell casing, Category A8a, MC# 913, S1.A2 Environs, L. 2001.    5.  Metal artillery shell casing, Category A8a, MC# 2823, S1.A1.78, L. 1067.    6.  Iron harness hardware, Category A7c, MC# 2637a, S1.A1.36, L. 1067.    7.  Iron harness hardware, Category A7b, MC# 2624, S1.A1.33, L. 1067.    8.  Iron harness hardware, Category A7d, MC# 2637b, S1.A1.36, L. 1067.    9.  Iron harness hardware, Category A7e, MC# 2640a, S1.A1.36, L. 1067.   10.  Iron plow brace. Category A7a, MC# 2739, S1.A1.57, L. 1067.   11.  Iron plow cinch, Category A7k, MC# 2737, S1.A1.57, L. 1067.   12.  Wood plowshare shank, Category H2c, MC# 2662, S1.A1.40, L. 1021.   13.  Wood rake tooth, Category H2b, MC# 2818, S1.A1.78, L. 1067.   14.  Iron pitchfork, Category A5j, MC# 2916, S1.A1.101, L. 1067 (see photo 4.2).

P. 84

86

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

Figure 4.2 (right).  Metal tools and implements    1.  Iron pick, Category A5f, MC# 2730, S1.A1.57, L. 1067 (see photo 4.2).    2.  Iron knife blade, Category A4d, MC# 635, S1.A1, L. 1003.    3.  Iron knife blade, Category A4b, MC# 710, S1.A2 Environs, L. 2001.    4.  Iron sickle blade, Category A4e, MC# 933, S1.A2 Environs, L. 2001.    5.  Iron axe, Category A5d, MC# 778, S1.A1, L. 1016 (see photo 4.2).    6.  Iron pick, Category A5e, MC# 711, S1.A2 Environs, L. 2001. (see photo 4.2).    7.  Iron sickle blade, Category A4g, MC# 863, S1.A2.11, L. 2004.    8.  Iron sickle blade, Category A4f, MC# 694, S1.A1, L. 1003.    9.  Iron adze, Category A5a, MC# 912, S1.A2 Environs, L. 2001.   10.  Iron hoe, Category A5b, MC# 2729, S1.A1.57, L. 1067.   11.  Iron adze, Category A5g, MC# 2603, S1.A1.29, L. 1017.   12.  Iron hoe, Category A5c, MC# 2653, S1.A1.41, L. 1028.1.   13.  Iron Sheep Shears, Category A4i, MC# 2822, S1.A1.78, L. 1067.   14.  Metal Spoon/Fork Handle, Category A4h, MC# 2638, S1.A1.36, L. 1067.   15.  Iron Bolt cutters, Category A4j, MC# 2810, S1.A1.57, L. 1067 (see photo 4.2).

88

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

Figure 4.3 (right). Shoes, horseshoes, and miscellaneous artifacts    1.  Leather shoe, Category C1p, MC# 518b, S1.A1, L. 1003.    2.  Leather shoe, Category C1z, MC# 543, S1.A1, L. 1003.    3.  Leather shoe, Category C1cc, MC# 2908, S1.A1.90, L. 1024.    4.  Iron horseshoe, Category A3a, MC# 606, S1.A1, L. 1028.P.    5.  Iron donkey shoe, Category A3d, MC# 2899, S1.A1.96, L. 1010.    6.  Iron donkey shoe, Category A3d, MC# 917b, S1.A1, L. 1023.    7.  Iron mule shoe, Category A3c, MC# 2727, S1.A1.57, L. 1067.    8.  Iron nail, Category A2c, MC# 916, S1.A1, L. 1023.    9.  Metal oil can (used as lamp), Category A6h, MC# 2661, S1.A1.41, L. 1026.   10.  Iron Pick Head, Category A5h, MC# 2535, S1.A1.9.   11.  Iron Punch, Category A5l, MC#553, S1.A1, L. 1005.   12.  Glass Jar Lid, Category D5a, MC# 2622, S1.A1.32, L. 1019.   13.  Metal Prod, Category A5i, MC# 2985, S1.A1.122, L. 1028.P.   14.  Worked Stone (used as hammer), Category E2c, MC# 2566, S1.A1.17, L. 1065.

90

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh Table 4.1.  Measurments of Individual Plowshare Specimens (Millimeter)

MC#

2728a 2728b 2728c 2728d 2728e 2728f 2728g 612 934 2699 2780 2809 892 739 807 2512 2885 2875 851 2871a 2871b 2871c 2979a 2979b 2979c 2979d 607

A

62 55 50 65 55 64 54 64 50 — 60 68 55 72 55 60 60 60 55 60 57 60 54 55 58 60 52

B

46 48 45 45 50 45 47 60 45 — 55 50 60 70 58 42 58 65 50 55 45 55 54 46 55 45 52

C

140 140 172 170 165 140 150 170 140 — — 145 135 160 150 160 — — — — 110 — 154 150 120 130 145

D

45 42 63 65 60 45 50 50 40 — — 40 55 43 40 65 — — — — 25 — 52 45 40 35 50

E

F

G

170 155 180 187 175 170 190 180 175 — — 200 170 197 175 165 — — — — 180 — 175 170 170 170 170

60 40 65 60 — 62 90 50 50 108 30 80 30 55 75 60 103 36 33 45 55 45 63 60 60 55 60

295 240 282 290 245 276 330 292 280 — — 325 265 310 300 270 328 — — 280 285 — 290 280 300 280 290

H

35 29 35 31 32 33 22 37 31 38 40 40 30 40 33 35 40 35 30 37 33 35 34 36 33 37 30

I

J

13 7 18 13 15 14 20 16 13 13 — 23 10 13 13 15 22 — — — 22 — 14 18 15 18 15

27 21 50 23 30 33 28 27 27 — — 28 20 22 20 25 35 — — — 29 — 32 28 28 31 18

K

28 27 66 30 50 40 31 32 34 — — 33 35 29 33 35 40 — — — 33 — 43 42 29 41 28

L

28 31 73 33 56 40 34 34 36 — — 35 42 30 37 38 42 — — — 33 — 45 40 30 43 29

1

2

109 105 100 105 105 95 100 100 — — 90 95 105 100 110 95 95 105 — 90 90 — 92 100 120 130 105

105 85 85 75 95 95 95 95 90 — — 85 110 85 110 78 — — — — 90 — 70 75 100 110 85

3 55 50 70 65 55 53 50 50 45 60 60 55 40 45 60 65 70 52 35 50 45 60 50 55 60 50 60

C.  Catalog of Artifacts

Figure 4.4.  Diagram referencing locations of plowshare measurements.

Photo 4.1.  Miscellaneous metal objects (FP 39).

91

92

Material Culture from Cave Complex A at Khirbet Khuweilifeh

Photo 4.2.  Metal objects: MC# 778, axe; MC# 2916, pitchfork; MC# 711, pick; MC# 611, artillery shell; MC# 2810, bolt cutters; MC# 2512, plowshare; MC# 2730, pick (FP 383).

Photo 4.3 (left).  Miscellaneous shoes and leather objects (FP 41). Photo 4.4 (right).  Miscellaneous rubber objects (FP 43).

C.  Catalog of Artifacts

Photo 4.5 (left).  Miscellaneous wood and bone objects (FP 45). Photo 4.6 (right).  Miscellaneous fiber objects (FP 40).

93

Chapter 5

The Zooarchaeological Remains from Cave Complex A by Susan Arter

A. Introduction In this chapter, data from animal bones recovered during the Site 1, Cave Complex A excavations are compared to the ethno-historically derived picture of the subsistence strategies at Khirbet Khuweilifeh, a mixed farming/pastoral community settlement reliant on the meat, milk, and muscle of domestic animals. Information from ethnographic interviews has provided insights into the lifeway’s of the fellahin family that lived in Complex A. The complex contained a domestic living space (Chamber a, fig. 5.1; also see Borowski 1986: 215); a stable area (Chamber e) where cows, camels, and donkeys were kept; a roosting area for pigeons (Chamber d); and a storage area (Chamber c), which may also have sheltered young animals. There were also three walled courtyard enclosures (2, 3, and 6) identified as summer living and sleeping areas (see fig. 2.1 and layout of excavation areas in figs. 3.1–2; see also chap. 2.D). With this ethnographic information in mind, the faunal assemblage is reviewed in terms of the following questions: (1) What animals are present in the faunal assemblage from Cave Complex A? (2) Do these remains suggest use of the animals for both food and traction? (3) Does the assemblage indicate whether the inhabitants raised their own animals for consumption, acquired them from elsewhere, or both? (4) Do the animal remains reveal anything about optimization strategies used by Khuweilifeh’s herders? (5) Do the animal remains offer any information about the duration of the inhabitants’ stay in the cave complex? (6) Is there any information in the interviews that is not reflected in the zooarchaeological assemblage? (7) Does the zooarchaeological assemblage reflect information not reflected in the interviews? Analysis of Cave Complex A vertebrate remains was initiated in 1983 by Dr. Melinda Zeder, zooarchaeologist at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), Washington, D.C. Analysis was completed by the author at NHNM laboratories in 1988 and 1989. A total sample of just under 1,000 bones was studied, 249 of which were identified to the taxonomic level of subfamily or better. The excavation strategy was designed to sample stratigraphically controlled contexts within the cave’s chambers and enclosure areas within the complex courtyard (see figs. 3.1–2). An inventory was developed for all discrete excavation units (loci), which were ranked from

96

The Zooarchaeological Remains from Cave Complex A

Figure 5.1.  Drawing of Chamber a of Cave Complex A as reconstructed in the early 1980s following the completion of LRP excavations. The work was done by villagers from the Lahav region as part of the program of the Joe Alon Center in preparation for the opening of the Center’s Museum of Bedouin Culture in 1986 (see Borowski 1986).

Table 5.1.  Stratigraphic Assignments for Khirbet Khuweilifeh Cave Complex A Description

Strata I

Cave complex surface debris

II

Loci in use until site abandonment in 1947

III

Loci associated with cave preparation and construction for habitation

IV

Fill loci used to level bedrock floor

V

Pits cut into bedrock floor (predates al-Kaayke occupation)

high-priority, use-related contexts to low-priority, construction-related walls and fills. Analysis proceeded according to a system developed by Zeder. This system included two stages of analysis: first, a preliminary quantitative study of all bones, and second, a highly detailed, qualitative analysis of bones from stratigraphically secure proveniences. As noted in chapter 3, a total of five main stratigraphic phases were identified within Complex A (table 5.1; see also table 3.1). The loci and associated faunal remains from each excavation area were assigned to their respective strata. The cave complex had good primary floor deposits. However, many loci were fills associated with preparation of the cave for occupation by the fellahin. Accordingly, while all bones were subject to preliminary analysis, only those from secure occupational contexts within Strata I and II underwent detailed analysis. Those from Strata III and IV were excluded, as their deposits were comprised of outside construction materials during renovations by the fellahin, rather than of occupational debris. Although Stratum I did include some post-occupational debris, including roof collapse and late intrusions,

B.  Analytical Methods

97

the majority of material culture remains within this stratum were left by the fellahin occupants. The total number of large and medium mammal bones recovered from Strata I and II was 440, a number sufficient to allow for the identification of animals exploited at the complex and to examine evidence of animal consumption and management at Cave Complex A.

B.  Analytical Methods During the preliminary phase of analysis, bones were identified to the taxonomic level of species, family, or subfamily (e.g., caprinae, in cases where goat remains could not be distinguished from those of sheep). Unidentified mammals were categorized as large (cow- to donkey-size), medium (sheep/goat-size), or small (rabbit- to dog-size). All bones were counted and weighed, and any unusual specimens were recorded. As noted above, this preliminary analysis was begun in Israel by Zeder in 1983. The second, more detailed analysis was conducted by the author in 1988 and 1989, in Zeder’s laboratory at the Smithsonian Institution. All information recorded during preliminary and detailed stages of analysis were entered into the Filemanager Database system designed by Zeder and senior computer programmer Charlotte Child. Taxonomic identifications conducted during the detailed phase of analysis were made either on a morphological or metrical basis using modern comparative skeletal collections housed at the National Museum of Natural History; comparative references were also consulted (Boessneck 1969; Sisson and Grossman 1953). Each bone was identified to the taxonomic level of family, genus, or species and coded for up to 30 different attributes, including skeletal element, degree of fragmentation, and bone weight. Where possible, age data were collected by recording stages of long bone fusion or tooth eruption and occlusal wear patterns. Butchering scars, animal modifications (such as carnivore gnawing), burning, and evidence of bone pathology was also recorded when present. In addition, a detailed set of measurements was taken on complete or partially complete bones according to protocol developed by von den Driesch (1976) at the Institute for Domestic Palaeoanatomy, Munich University. Bones encountered during the detailed analysis that could not be identified to the level of subfamily or better were recorded as unidentifiable. However, this term is misleading, as it was possible to retrieve useful information such as size (e.g., medium- vs. large-sized mammals) and general skeletal region (i.e., head, axial, or limb bones). Unidentified specimens were also counted and weighed. Medium mammal (MM) remains are almost certainly sheep or goat; these include medium-sized skull fragments, mandibles, vertebra, and rib and limb fragments. Those identified as large mammals (LM) from Khuweilifeh are most likely cow remains. Taken together, identifiable and unidentifiable bone counts, weights, animal size, and skeletal region combine to facilitate a more accurate assessment of the faunal assemblage from the cave complex.

C.  Ethnohistoric Data The ethnohistoric data indicate that Cave Complex A was occupied year-round by the alKaayke family from the early 1930s until 1947. Mr. al-Kaayke’s two brothers also lived at the

98

The Zooarchaeological Remains from Cave Complex A

complex on a seasonal basis. Mr. al-Kaayke produced and repaired wooden plows for those engaged in agriculture pursuits within fields surrounding Khuweilifeh. With the help of his wife and children, the family is also said to have worked a portion of land owned by the Bedouin. One of Mr. al-Kaayke’s brothers also worked as a sharecropper and the other as caretaker of Sheikh Frejat’s cows. Material culture items excavated from Cave Complex A support the ethnohistoric data provided by Mr. al-Kaayke indicating that his family lived in Chamber a and stabled animals in Chamber e. The interviews indicate that he conducted carpentry work at the complex and that people would come there to purchase his plows or have him repair broken ones. He sold or repaired plows and would then wait six months until harvest season, at which time he received payment in the form of wheat, barley, and straw. He is also said to have received lambs and chickens as payment. The al-Kaaykes also kept shares of grain they grew on Bedouin land. According to interview data collected by K. Seger and Arter, the al-Kaaykes kept cows, donkeys, a camel, chickens, pigeons, and rabbits within Complex A. They also had dogs and cats. Sheikh Frejat reported that the al-Kaaykes used their own cows and camel to plow the fields. In his volume Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina (1939), Gustaf Dalman stated that all farmers in the study area kept a small number of bulls for work in the fields as well as two to four milk cows. He indicated that milk cows were very important animals not used for labor but instead to bear young and produce milk (Dalman 1939). According to the Sheikh, the al-Kaaykes cared for approximately 40 cows, including working cattle and milk cows. He claimed that all but a small number of these cows belonged to his (the Sheikh’s) father, and that the al-Kaaykes were responsible for milking the cows in exchange for a percentage of the milk as well as one-quarter of the newborn cows from the herd. It is unclear whether they received both bulls and cows, nor were numbers provided regarding the number of milk cows versus work bulls owned by the al-Kaaykes. The al-Kaaykes ate meat on religious holidays and during special occasions such as weddings or when visitors came. It was reported that once a year they would slaughter one of their young cows. For the feast of Ramadan, or 70 days later in celebration of the yearly pilgrimage to Mecca, they would purchase an animal and bring it home to slaughter. They also purchased goats from the markets for weddings. These animals may have come from markets located in Beersheba to the south, or from Hebron and Pelugot to the north. The al-Kaaykes also received gifts of lamb’s meat from Sheikh Frejat on special holidays. It is useful to note that at some point during the time they lived at Khuweilifeh, a Frejat Bedouin married one of the al-Kaaykes and moved into the adjacent Cave Complex B (see chap. 2). Most likely the Bedouin in Complex B raised sheep and goats, and shared meat with their fellahin in-laws living in Complex A. According to the ethnohistoric data, the fellahin in Cave Complex A made and ate bread, produced dairy products, and kept chickens for their eggs. They also ate chickens and pigeons, though much less frequently. As noted, they ate cow, sheep, and goat meat on special occasions. Interviews with the eldest son of the al-Kaaykes included no mention of hunting wild game. It does not appear there was much need to hunt, although they may have hunted for sport, as Sheikh Mohammad claimed his father did. Using the ethnohistoric data presented above as a baseline for understanding fellahin subsistence at Cave Complex A, we now turn to the bone data to evaluate the physical evidence of meat consumption and animal husbandry at the Khuweilifeh settlement.

99

D.  Taphonomic Data Table 5.2.  Average Bone Weights for Identifiable MM and LM Bones (weights in grams are rounded to the nearest whole numbers) Chamber/Enclosure

a

c

d

e

2

6

Average Bone Wt.

Medium Mammal

3

3

— 

4

1

3

3

Large Mammal

14

12

369

15

25

5

31

D.  Taphonomic Data A profile of animal exploitation and consumption at Khuweilifeh’s Cave Complex A can be derived from the analysis of bone fragments recovered at the site. Among the patterns evident from the faunal assemblage are the types and relative proportions of animals utilized and consumed, the ages at which they were culled, evidence of butchering practices, and meat portions consumed. (See the data sets in tables. 5.2–20.) Before discussing these data, it is important to assess the degree to which post-depositional factors may have altered the integrity of the assemblage. Over the last several decades, zooarchaeologists have focused on taphonomic factors that limit the reliability of faunal data as a direct reflection of human subsistence strategies. So while animal bones from archaeological context do reflect meat consumption, particularly when butchered bones are present, taphonomic factors can alter the initial deposition and composition of faunal assemblages, thereby skewing the picture of food consumption (Yellen 1977). With this in mind, the assemblage was assessed for taphonomic processes such as dog gnawing and trampling by humans and animals. Table 5.2 shows the average weight (degree of fragmentation) of MM and LM bones by Chamber (a, c, d, and e) and Enclosure (2 and 6) as a means of assessing post-depositional factors and their effects on bone preservation. It should be noted that only three bones were recovered from the surface of Chamber d. There are no subsurface specimens, as this room was not excavated. The degree of fragmentation was calculated by dividing the respective total weights of MM and LM remains (see table 5.12) by their bone counts (see table 5.15), resulting in an average bone weight per fragment. Higher average bone weights indicate less fragmentation, and lower average bone weights reflect a higher degree of fragmentation or post-depositional alteration (Zeder 1985). Dissimilarities in average bone weights for MM remains and for LM remains from different excavation areas would indicate that these deposits were differentially affected by taphonomic processes. Similarities in bone fragment weights from different excavation areas will reflect uniform taphonomic alteration of the bone assemblage. The degree of fragmentation among MM and LM bones in main Chambers a and e, and in auxiliary Chamber c, are comparable and reflect a relatively uniform pattern of breakage within these excavation areas. The degree of MM bone fragmentation in Enclosure 6 is similar to those in Chambers a, c, and e. However, the fragmentation of MM and LM bones in Enclosure 2 was very different than that of the bone fragments in the cave chambers. Specifically, LM fragments in Enclosure 2 are more fractured, but MM fragments are less fractured. The anomalous size of bone fragments in Enclosure 2 and among LM remains in Enclosure 6 may have to do with their location outside of the cave chambers. The bones recovered within the cave chambers may

100

The Zooarchaeological Remains from Cave Complex A

Table 5.3.  Relative Proportions of Identifiable and Unidentifiable MM and LM Bone Specimens (see table 5.13 for raw number counts) Chamber/Enclosure

a

c

d

e

2

6

Average %

Identifiable

53%

46%

100%

55%

33%

42.5%

47%

Unidentifiable

47%

54%

 0%

45%

67%

57.5%

53%

Table 5.4.  Carnivore Gnawed Specimens by Animal Type and Skeletal Element Sheep/Goat

Cow

Camel

Equid

Mandible

2

 

 

 

Rib

1

2

 

 

Humerus Proximal

 

 

1

 

Radius Shaft

1

 

 

 

Metacarpal Complete

1

 

 

 

Metacarpal Proximal

2

 

 

 

Metacarpal Shaft

 

1

 

 

Pelvis Complete

 

 

 

1

Femur Shaft

1

 

1 

 

Tibia Shaft

1

1

Metatarsal Complete

2

 

 

 

Metatarsal Proximal

1

 

 

 

Metatarsal Shaft

1

 

 

 

1st Phalanx

1

 

 

 

Total Per Species Gnawed Specimens Percent Gnawed

 

174

30

2

2

14 of 174

4 of 30

2 of 2

1 of 2

8%

13%

100%

50%

have been less subject to animal trampling than were those located outside of the cave. The anomalous fragmentation index for Chamber d is due to the low bone count coupled with two of the heaviest skeletal elements recovered (2 partial camel limbs). Overall, the similarities in bone fragment size within the cave chambers indicate uniform taphonomic alteration, whereas fragmentation patterns in the outer enclosures reflect the opposite (except for MM remains from Enclosure 6), generally indicating differential breakage between exterior and interior locations. Another way of assessing post-depositional processes across the cave complex is by examining the relative proportions of identifiable (ID) and unidentifiable (UNID) bone by excavation area. Since it may be assumed that relative proportions of unidentifiable bone will be greater in samples that are more fragmented, dissimilar proportions of ID and UNID within excavation areas would indicate they were differentially affected by taphonomic processes. Conversely, similar proportions of ID and UNID bones taken from different excavation areas would indicate that taphonomic alteration of the site was uniform. Within Chambers a, e, and c the relative proportions of ID to UNID remains are comparable, with close to half of the total number of bones falling within each category (table 5.3). However, there was a somewhat higher proportion of UNID bones in Enclosure 6 and a consid-

E.  Data Analysis

101

erably higher proportion of UNID bones in Enclosure 2. Overall, the distributional pattern for ID and UNID bones in table 5.3 is similar to the distributional pattern of bone fragment sizes in table 5.2. Both data sets suggest that most chambers within the cave were subject to uniform breakage patterns, whereas Enclosures 2 and 6, located outside the cave, were subject to differential breakage. Carnivore gnawing, a third index of taphonomic processes, is evidenced by pit marks and furrowed grooves on bone samples. All carnivore-gnawed bones were recorded and tallied. The number of gnawed bones was divided by the total number of bones in the sample to determine what percentage of the assemblage was affected by carnivores (table 5.4). Of 208 identifiable large- and medium-sized bones, only 21 caprine (sheep and/or goat), cow, camel, and equid bones were affected. Of these, the largest percentages of gnawed remains were among the cow, camel and equid bones. This may be a sample bias due to their low numbers; however, it may well indicate both a greater degree of gnawing on large animal bones and the possibility that carnivores may have dragged large mammal bones off-site. The general picture of caprine remains reflects minimal destructive carnivore activity. That said, considering how much smaller sheep/goat bones are relative to camel, cattle, and donkey, it is possible that any number of sheep/goat elements could have been entirely consumed by dogs, leaving no evidence of their existence. The lack of secondary, subsurface trash deposits prevents the opportunity to compare the condition and relative proportions of MM vs. LM bones from living surfaces to those found in contexts less vulnerable to post-depositional damage. However, the elevated proportion of caprines compared to those of larger domesticates (see E. 1. Species Diversity section below), does not indicate heavy carnivore destruction nor consumption. The taphonomic data indicate the interior cave chambers of Cave Complex A were uniformly affected by taphonomic processes. This conclusion is drawn from comparable fragmentation indices among MM and LM bones and from the similar percentages of identifiable and unidentifiable remains across chambers. In contrast, the data indicate a different picture for Enclosures 2 and 6, located outside the cave chambers. With the exception of MM bones from Enclosure 6, the size of bone fragments from the exterior areas are dissimilar both to each other and to the average size of bone fragments in the interior areas. The unequal numbers of ID and UNID bones in the exterior areas also contrast with the roughly equal proportions of ID and UNID bones in the chambers themselves. These data indicate that post-depositional processes affected Enclosures 2 and 6 to a greater degree than the chambers inside the cave.

E.  Data Analysis 1.  Species Diversity The range and relative proportion of species consumed was assessed by quantifying the number of identifiable specimens present (NISP) within the assemblage. The NISP, combined with counts and weights for unidentified MM (caprine) and LM (likely cattle) remains, provides an “assumption-free measurement of the relative proportions of food-related species” (Zeder 1985: 168–69). The faunal assemblage from Khuweilifeh includes a range of domestic species, as shown in tables 5.5 and 5.6. Site wide, caprines account for the largest proportion of species (70%),

102

The Zooarchaeological Remains from Cave Complex A Table 5.5.  Relative Proportions of Bones by Type and Location*

Chamber/Enclosure

a

c

d

e

2

6

Average %

Sheep/Goat

60%

79%

—

77%

36%

97%

70%

Cow

15%

3%

—

23%

36%

—

12%

— 

—

33%

—

—

3%