Occupation and Abandonment of Middle Bronze Age Zahrat adh-Dhra' 1, Jordan: The behavioural implications of quantitative ceramic analyses 9781841719245, 9781407329444

Citation preview

BAR  S1493  2006   BERELOV   OCCUPATION AND ABANDONMENT OF MIDDLE BRONZE AGE ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

B A R

Occupation and Abandonment of Middle Bronze Age Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, Jordan The behavioural implications of quantitative ceramic analyses

Ilya Berelov

BAR International Series 1493 2006

Occupation and Abandonment of Middle Bronze Age Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, Jordan The behavioural implications of quantitative ceramic analyses

Ilya Berelov

BAR International Series 1493 2006

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1493 Occupation and Abandonment of Middle Bronze Age Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, Jordan © I Berelov and the Publisher 2006 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841719245 paperback ISBN 9781407329444 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841719245 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2006. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements

xv

Foreword

xvii

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Rationale 1.2. The Contents and Aims 1.21. Chapter 2: The Southern Levant; Settlement, Subsistence and Social Transformation in the Bronze Age 1.22. Chapter 3: Results of the Excavations of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1: Settlement Plan and Material Culture 1.23. Chapter 4: Methodology: the Recording, Analysis and Interpretation of the Ceramic Assemblage from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 1.24. Chapter 5: The Ceramic Typology and Chronology of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 1.25. Chapter 6: Economic Subsistence and Occupation Strategy at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 1.26. Chapter 7: Settlement, Subsistence and Occupation Strategies during the Late Third and Early Second Millennia BCE 1.27. Chapter 8: The Ceramic Evidence for Interpreting Discard Behaviour and Refuse Management at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 1.28. Chapter 9: Zahrat adh Dhra‘ 1: A Behavioural Perspective on a Unique Middle Bronze II Community

1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4

2. THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION

7

2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6.

7 10 11 12 15 19

The Southern Levant: Regional Geography and Social Trajectories The Middle Bronze Age Questions and Issues: Research Focus for the Middle Bronze Age The Middle Bronze Age in South Jordan: A Case Study Environmental Impact on Human Occupation of the Dead Sea Basin Conclusion

3. RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA ‘ 1: SETTLEMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CULTURE

21

3.1.

21

3.2. 3.3. 3.4.

Site Discovery and Introduction to the Archaeology and Environment of the Dead Sea Plain Project General Site Description Spatial Distribution and Classification of Features Structure Types and Artefact Distribution 3.41. One-room Structures 3.41a. Three-wall One-room Structures 3.41ai. Structure 38 3.41aii. Structure 39 3.41aiii. Structure 40 3.41aiv. Three-wall One-room Structures summary 3.41b. Four-wall One-room Structures 3.41bi. Structure 43 i

21 23 24 25 25 26 26 26 26 31 31

3.5. 3.6.

4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3.

4.4.

3.41bii. Structure 44 3.41c. One-room Structures Summary 3.42. Two-room Structures 3.42a. Structure 36 3.42b. Structure 37 3.42c. Structure 41 3.42d. Structure 42 3.42e. Two-Room Structures Summary Taphonomy and Stratigraphic Integrity Conclusion

31 31 31 31 35 36 47 47 47 52

METHODOLOGY: THE RECODING, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA ‘ 1 CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE The History of Ceramic Studies Ceramic Research in the Southern Levant Beyond Typologies: the Behavioural Analysis of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 Ceramic Assemblage 4.31. Assemblage Size, Assemblage Composition, Vessel Size Variability and Spatial Distribution 4.31a. Theory 4.31b. Methods and Procedures 4.31bi. EVE 4.31bii. EVREP 4.31biii. Vessel Size Variability and Distribution 4.31biv. Summary 4.32. Typology 4.32a. Theory 4.32b. Methods and Procedures 4.32bi. Typology 4.33. Refuse Categories and Site Formation Processes 4.33a. Theory 4.33b. Methods and Procedures 4.33bi. Abandonment Structure and Process 4.33bii. Taphonomic Processes Conclusion

55 55 56 56 58 58 59 60 60 64 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 67 67 68 68

5. THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA ‘ 1

69

5.1. The ZAD 1 Pottery Typology 5.11. Serving Vessels 5.11a. Bp Platter Bowls 5.11ai. Bp. 11 5.11b. Bd Deep Bowls 5.11bi. Bd A. 13 5.11bii. Bd C. 12 5.11c. B Bowl Bases 5.11ci. B.0.21 Disc Base, Flat 5.11cii. B.0.32 Ring Base, Flattened 5.11d. Jl Juglets 5.11di. Jd Dipper Juglets 5.12. Cooking Vessels 5.12a. Flat-bottomed Cookpots 5.12ai. Cfs A.2 Flat-bottomed Cookpots, Small 5.12aii. Cfl A. 2 Flat-bottomed Cookpots, Large

69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69

ii

5.12aiii. Cf A. 2A Flat-bottomed Cookpot, Globular 5.13. Storage Vessels 5.13a. J Jars 5.13ai. Decoration 5.13aii. J 11 Simple Rounded Rim 5.13aiii. J 13 Simple Pointed Rim 5.13aiv. J 21 Externally Thickened, Rounded Rim with Secondary Gutter 5.13av. J 22 Everted, Externally Thickened, Flattened Rim with Secondary Gutter 5.13avi. J 31 Externally Folded, Rounded End Rim 5.13avii. J 32 Externally Folded, Flattened Rim 5.13aviii. J 33 Externally Folded, Pointed End Rim 5.13b. Jar Bases 5.13bi. J.0.11 5.13bii. J.0.21 5.13biii. J.0.31 5.13c. Stoppers 5.13ci. Stp.1 5.14. Spatial Distribution and Frequency of Pottery Types 5.14a. Bowls 5.14b. Juglets 5.14c. Cooking Vessels 5.14d. Storage Vessels 5.14e. Stoppers 5.2. The Chronology of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1: Analysis of Typological Parallels 5.21. Inter-site Parallels 5.21a. Serving Vessels 5.21ai. Bp Platter Bowls 5.21aii. Bd Deep Bowls 5.21aiii. Bowl Bases 5.21aiv. B.0.21 Disc Base, Flat 5.21av. B.0.32 Ring Base, Flattened 5.21avi. Jd Dipper Juglets 5.21b. Cooking Vessels 5.21bi. Cf Flat-bottomed Cookpots 5.21c. Storage Vessels 5.21ci. J Jars 5.21cii. Decoration 5.21ciii. J 11, J 13 Simple Rims 5.21civ. J 21, J 22 Profiled Rims 5.21cv. J 31, J 32, J33 Externally Folded Rims 5.21cvi. Jar Bases 5.21d. Discussion 5.22. Intra-Site Chronology at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 5.22a. Intra-site Distribution 5.22b. Inter-site Distribution 5.3. Conclusion

72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 80 80 80 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 84 84 84 84 86 86 86 86 89 89 89 90 90 90 91 91

6. ECONOMIC SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGY AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

93

6.1.

93 94 94 97 97 97 98 98 101

Economic Subsistence and Levels of Mobility 6.11. The Economic Subsistence and Social Organization of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 6.11a. Archaeobotanical Remains 6.11b. Faunal Remains 6.11c. Summary of Archaeobotanical and Faunal Evidence 6.11d. Ceramics 6.11di. General Observations Relating to the Composition and Condition of the Assemblage 6.11dii. Vessel Size Variability and Spatial Distribution 6.11diii. Vessel Function iii

6.2. 7. 7.1.

7.2. 7.3.

6.11div. 6.11e. 6.11f. 6.11fi. 6.11fii. 6.11fiii. 6.11fiv. 6.11fv. 6.11fvi. 6.12. Conclusion

Ceramics Summary Lithics, Metals and Small Luxury Items Architecture Structural Evidence Trash Disposal Cooking Installations Stratigraphy Storage Architectural Summary Discussion

101 101 101 101 103 103 103 104 105 105 106

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES DURING THE LATE THIRD AND EARLY SECOND MILLENNIA BCE Settlement, Subsistence and the EBIV-MB II Transition 7.11. The Early Bronze IV Period 7.11a. The Negev Highlands 7.11ai. Be‘er Resisim and the Central/Large Settlements 7.11aii. Nekhes Rafha 396, The Camel Site and Small Settlements 7.11b. The Dead Sea Basin and South Jordan 7.11bi. Khirbet Iskander 7.11bii. Bab edh-Dhra‘ 7.11c. The Jerusalem Region; Repha’im Valley 7.11d. The Southern Jordan Valley 7.11di. Tell Umm Hammad 7.11dii. Tell Iktanu 7.11e. The North Jordan Valley 7.11f. Summary of the EB IV Period 7.12. The Middle Bronze II Period 7.12a. The Hauran 7.12b. The North Jordan Valley 7.12bi. Tell el-Hayyat 7.12bii. Tell Kitan, Kfar Rupin and Hamadiya-North 7.12c. The Jerusalem Region; The Repha’im Valley 7.12ci. Manahat 7.12cii. Nahal Repha’im 7.12d. The Shephelah 7.12e. MB II Urban Communities North of the Dead Sea Basin: Jericho and Tell Nimrin 7.12ei. Jericho 7.12eii. Tell Nimrin 7.12f. Summary of the MB II Period 7.13. Discussion 7.13a. Architecture 7.13b. Faunal Remains 7.13c. Archaeobotanical Remains 7.13d. Ceramics, Metals and Small Finds 7.13di. Ceramics 7.13dii. Metals and Small Finds South Levantine Society during the Late Third Millennium – Early Second Millennium Transition Conclusion

iv

107 107 107 108 108 112 113 113 113 115 115 115 115 116 117 118 118 120 120 123 123 124 124 124 124 125 125 125 126 126 126 127 128 128 129 129 131

8. 8.1.

8.2.

8.3.

THE CERAMIC EVIDENCE FOR INTERPRETING DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 Ceramic Assemblage Composition, Structure and Spatial Distribution 8.11. Assemblage Composition and Structure 8.11a. Sherds 8.11b. Estimated Vessel Equivalent (EVE) 8.12. Assemblage size 8.12a. Estimated Number of Vessels Represented (EVREP) 8.13. Summary Site Formation Processes: refuse categories, brokenness and completeness 8.21. Statistical Analysis 8.22. Brokenness 8.22a. Cooking Vessels 8.22ai. Brokenness for Cooking Vessels by Structure 8.22aii. Brokenness for Cooking Vessels by Context Type 8.22b. Storage Vessels 8.22bi. Brokenness for Storage Vessels by Structure 8.22bii. Brokenness for Storage Vessels by Context Type 8.22c. Brokenness Summary and Conclusions 8.22ci. Summary 8.22cii. Conclusions 8.23. Completeness 8.23a. Cooking Vessels 8.23ai. Completeness for Cooking Vessels by Structure 8.23aii. Completeness for Cooking Vessels by Context Type 8.23b. Storage Vessels 8.23bi. Completeness (Rim-evrep) for Storage Vessels by Structure 8.23bii. Completeness (Rim-evrep) for Storage Vessels by Context Type 8.23biii. Completeness (Categories-evrep) for Storage Vessels by Structure 8.23biv. Completeness (Categories-evrep) for Storage Vessels by Context Type 8.23c. The Completeness Rates of Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels in Context 8.23ci. The Completeness Rates of Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels Compared 8.23cii. The Completeness Rates of Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels on Floors 8.23d. Completeness Summary and Conclusions 8.23di. Completeness Summary 8.23dii. Behavioural Interpretations of Completeness 8.24. Brokenness and Completeness Compared 8.24a. Brokenness and Completeness Compared by Context Type 8.24b. Brokenness and Completeness Compared by Individual Floor Contexts 8.25. The Behavioural Interpretation of Brokenness and Completeness 8.26. De Facto and Secondary Refuse: Further Evidence for Interpreting Discard Behaviour and the Abandonment of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 8.26a. De Facto Refuse (Pot Smashes) 8.26ai. Results 8.26aii. Interpretations 8.26b. Secondary Refuse (Horizontal Displacement) 8.26bi. Results 8.26bii. Interpretations 8.26c. De Facto and Secondary Refuse Conclusions Conclusion

v

133 133 133 133 134 145 145 151 151 152 153 153 153 153 153 154 157 162 162 162 164 164 164 171 172 172 172 172 172 177 177 177 177 177 179 183 183 183 183 184 184 184 184 187 187 187 187 188

9. 9.1. 9.2.

9.3.

9.4. 9.5.

9.6.

ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1: A BEHAVIOURAL PERSPECTIVE ON A UNIQUE MIDDLE BRONZE II COMMUNITY

189

Review of Problem Occupational Strategy at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1: Economy, Architecture and Behaviour 9.21. The Subsistence Economy at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 9.22. Settlement Type and Size, and Architectural Plan 9.23. Functionality and Refuse Discard at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1: 9.24. Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1: Sedentary or Mobile? Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1: a Unique Middle Bronze II Community on the Dead Sea Plain 9.31. Occupation and Behaviour 9.32. Archaising Culture 9.33. Lack of Economic Integration 9.33a. The Pottery Tradition 9.33b. Settlement and Architecture 9.33c. Ritual Behaviour 9.33d. Trade A New Cultural Sphere in South Jordan for the Middle Bronze II Period? The Middle Bronze II Culture in South Jordan: Summary and Prospects 9.51. The Middle Bronze II Period in south Jordan 9.51a. Micromorphological Analysis 9.51b. Mapping and Dating 9.51c. Revisiting and Excavating 9.52. Next Steps in Discard Behaviour Research Conclusion

189 191 191 191 192 193 194 194 195 195 195 195 195 195 196 196 196 196 197 197 197 198 199

REFERENCES

vi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Figure 2.2. Figure 2.3. Figure 2.4. Figure 2.5. Figure 2.6. Figure 2.7. Figure 2.8. Figure 2.9. Figure 3.1. Figure 3.2. Figure 3.3. Figure 3.4. Figure 3.5. Figure 3.6. Figure 3.7. Figure 3.8. Figure 3.9. Figure 3.10. Figure 3.11. Figure 3.12. Figure 3.13. Figure 3.14. Figure 3.15. Figure 3.16. Figure 3.17. Figure 3.18. Figure 3.19. Figure 3.20. Figure 3.21. Figure 3.22. Figure 3.23. Figure 3.24. Figure 3.25. Figure 3.26. Figure 3.27. Figure 3.28. Figure 3.29. Figure 3.30. Figure 3.31. Figure 3.32. Figure 3.33. Figure 3.34. Figure 3.35. Figure 3.36. Figure 3.37. Figure 3.38. Figure 3.39. Figure 3.40. Figure 3.41. Figure 3.42.

Map of the Levant showing modern political boundaries and the location of ZAD 1 Map of sites during the Early Bronze IV Period Map of sites during the Middle Bronze II Period Early and Middle Bronze Age sites surrounding the Dead Sea Basin The Dead Sea Plain ZAD 1 on the Dead Sea Plain, indicating features cited in the text Westerly view of Wadi adh-Dhra' and Wadi al-Wai'da bordering ZAD 1 The Dana Conglomerate emerging in the Wadi Dhra', looking east Erosion of the Wadi Dhra' north of modern farmland, looking south-east Zahrat adh-Dhra' 1 after the 1999-2000 excavations The Dead Sea Plain (Zahrat adh-Dhra' region), indicating the erosion of Zahrat adh-Dhra' 1 by Wadi adh-Dhra', looking north Structure 33, located on the south bank of Wadi adh-Dhra', looking north towards ZAD 1 north Plan of Structure 38 Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 38 Unit G North Balk in Structure 38 Plan of Structure 39 Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 38 Unit H West Balk in Structure 39 Unit H East Balk in Structure 39 Plan of Structure 40 Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 40 Unit I West Balk in Structure 40 Unit I East Balk in Structure 40 Late occupation ash debris in Unit I, Structure 40 (Photo by S. E. Falconer) Two Pits in Unit I, Structure 40 (Photo by S. E. Falconer) Plan of Structures 42 and 43 Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 43 Unit Q South Balk in Structure 43 Plan of Structure 44 Broken Cooking Pots on surface L023 in Unit L, Structure 44 (Photo by S. E. Falconer) Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 44 Unit L North Balk in Structure 44 Structure 44, Unit L, including Bin Installation in foreground (Photo by S. E. Falconer) Plan of Structure 36 Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 36 Unit A North Balk in Structure 36 Plan of Structure 37 Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit D Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit E Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit F Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit M Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit N Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit V Unit F North Balk in Structure 37 Unit F West Balk in Structure 37 Unit F South Balk in Structure 37 Unit M West Balk in Structure 37 Unit N North Balk in Structure 37 Unit D North Balk in Structure 37 Broken Jars in Unit F, Structure 37 (Photo by S. E. Falconer) Structure 37 eastern and western rooms, showing lower walls F018/F019 (Photo by S. E. Falconer) vii

8 9 13 14 16 17 18 18 18 22 22 22 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 32 32 32 33 33 34 34 34 35 36 36 36 37 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 42 42 42 43

Figure 3.43. Figure 3.44. Figure 3.45. Figure 3.46. Figure 3.47. Figure 3.48. Figure 3.49. Figure 3.50. Figure 3.51. Figure 3.52. Figure 3.53. Figure 3.54. Figure 3.55. Figure 3.56. Figure 3.57. Figure 3.58. Figure 3.59. Figure 3.60. Figure 3.61. Figure 3.62. Figure 4.1. Figure 4.2. Figure 5.1. Figure 5.2a-b. Figure 5.3a-b. Figure 5.4. Figure 5.5. Figure 5.6. Figure 5.7. Figure 5.8. Figure 5.9. Figure 5.10. Figure 5.11. Figure 5.12. Figure 5.13. Figure 5.14. Figure 5.15. Figure 5.16. Figure 5.17. Figure 5.18. Figure 5.19. Figure 5.20. Figure 5.21. Figure 6.1. Figure 6.2. Figure 6.3. Figure 6.4. Figure 6.5. Figure 7.1. Figure 7.2. Figure 8.1.

Structure 37 looking north (Photo by S. E. Falconer) Plan of Structure 41 Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 41 Unit J East Balk in Structure 41 Unit J West Balk in Structure 41 Western Room in Unit J, Structure 41 (Photo by S. E. Falconer) Eastern Room in Unit J, Structure 41 (Photo by S. E. Falconer) Plan of Structure 42 Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 42 Unit K West Balk in Structure 42 Unit K East Balk in Structure 42 Structures 42 and 43 (Photo by S. E. Falconer) Structures 42, Western Room, looking southeast (Photo by S. E. Falconer) Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit F (South Balk) in Structure 37 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit M (West Balk) in Structure 37 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit D (North Balk) in Structure 37 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit H (West Balk) in Structure 39 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit I (West Balk) in Structure 40 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit K (East Balk) in Structure 42 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit K (West Balk) in Structure 42 The ZAD 1 Pottery Form Sherd size measuring chart Illustrations of the ZAD 1 Pottery Types, including Serving Vessels and Cooking Vessels Bowl bases at ZAD 1 (profile view) Bowl bases at ZAD 1 (bottom view) Dipper Juglet from ZAD 1 Cooking Vessels from ZAD 1 Illustrations of the ZAD 1 Pottery Types, including Storage Vessels with simple rims, profiled rims and folded rims Various incised decorations from ZAD 1 Antelope motif on jar from ZAD 1 Jar with gutter rim and horizontal combing Jar with folded rim and continuous combing Illustrations of the ZAD 1 Pottery Types, including Storage Vessels with folded rims, an incised antelope motif decoration and jar bases Antelope Jar from ZAD 1 Full profile of jar with folded rim and combing Perforated Storage Jar bases from ZAD 1 Jar/Juglet Stoppers from ZAD 1 Vessel type frequency for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1 Vessel type distribution for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1 Plan of Jar type distribution at Zahrat adh-Dhra' 1 Correlation of vessel type and size for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1 Location of MBIIA and MBIIB ceramic material at ZAD 1 Boundary of the spatial distribution of the ZAD 1 Pottery Culture Mendholes on Storage Jars at ZAD 1 Vessel orifice diameter and surface area correspondence scattergram for jars and cookpots from ZAD 1 Vessel orifice diameter frequency for Cooking Vessels at ZAD 1 Vessel orifice diameter frequency for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1 Relative proportions of Cookpot and Storage Jar Sherds in small rooms and walled enclosures of Structures 37, 41 and 42 at ZAD 1 Location of small non-urban sites dating to the EB IV and MB II Periods Rim diameter sizes for Cookpots at Be’er Resisim EVREP for Storage Jars, Bowls and Juglets calculated by diagnostic rim sherds in context and by structure

viii

43 44 44 45 45 45 46 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 52 59 60 70 71 71 71 72 73 74 74 75 75 77 78 78 79 79 81 81 82 85 87 88 96 96 100 100 100 109 111 147

Figure 8.2. Figure 8.3. Figure 8.4. Figure 8.5. Figure 8.6. Figure 8.7. Figure 8.8. Figure 8.9. Figure 8.10. Figure 8.11. Figure 8.12. Figure 8.13. Figure 8.14. Figure 8.15. Figure 8.16. Figure 8.17. Figure 8.18.

EVREP for Storage Jars, Bowls and Juglets calculated by ZAD 1 Categories in context and by structure Brokenness for Cooking Vessels by context type at ZAD 1 Brokenness for Storage Vessels by context type at ZAD 1 Brokenness for Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels at ZAD 1 by context type Completeness rates for Cooking Vessels by context type at ZAD 1 Completeness rates for Storage Vessels by context type at ZAD 1 calculated by Rim-evrep Rate of Completeness for Storage Vessels by context type at ZAD 1 calculated by Categories-evrep Comparative rates of Completeness between Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels by context type at ZAD 1 calculated by Rim-evrep Completeness and Brokenness correspondence for Cooking Vessels at ZAD 1 by context type where Completeness has been calculated by Rim-evrep Completeness and Brokenness correspondence for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1 by context type where completeness has been calculated by Rim-evrep Completeness and Brokenness correspondence for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1 by context type where Completeness has been calculated by Categories-evrep Completeness and Brokenness correspondence for Cooking Vessels at ZAD 1 by floor where Completeness has been calculated by Rim-evrep Completeness and Brokenness correspondence for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1 by floor where Completeness has been calculated by Rim-evrep Completeness and Brokenness correspondence for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1 by floor where Completeness has been calculated by Categories-evrep Distribution of sherds from vessels in Structure 37 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit K in Structure 42 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit L in Structure 44

ix

148 158 159 165 166 167 166 168 175 176 176 181 181 182 182 185 186 186

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. Table 3.2. Table 3.3. Table 3.4. Table 3.5. Table 3.6. Table 4.1. Table 4.2. Table 4.3. Table 4.4. Table 5.1. Table 5.2. Table 5.3. Table 5.4. Table 5.5. Table 6.1. Table 6.2. Table 6.3. Table 6.4. Table 6.5. Table 6.6. Table 7.1. Table 7.2. Table 7.3. Table 7.4. Table 7.5. Table 7.6 Table 7.7. Table 7.8. Table 7.9. Table 7.10. Table 7.11. Table 7.12. Table 7.13. Table 7.14. Table 7.15.

Structures grouped by Cluster at ZAD 1 north Structures by excavation unit at ZAD 1 north Distribution of sherds (N=) according to context type at ZAD 1 Distribution of sherds (%) according to context type at ZAD 1 Excavated area by volume (m3) at ZAD 1 Sherd Density/m3 by context type at ZAD 1 Recorded ZAD 1 quantification of pottery data for Unit H, Structure 39 Recorded ZAD 1 ware properties for pottery data for Unit H, Structure 39 Outline of procedure for calculating vessel surface area Nomenclature of pottery types and forms occurring at ZAD 1 (After Cole 1984) Vessel type frequency at ZAD 1 calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts Provenience for Bowl types (N = diagnostic rim and base forms) at ZAD 1 Provenience for Juglet types (N = diagnostic rim and base forms) at ZAD 1 Provenience for Cooking Vessel types (N = diagnostic rim and base forms) at ZAD 1 Provenience for Storage Vessel types (N = diagnostic rim and base forms) at ZAD 1 Macrobotanical remains (density: seeds/litre) from ZAD 1 by structure Faunal distribution across units at ZAD 1 by structure and unit Cooking Vessel orifice diameter size data for ZAD 1 structures Storage Vessel orifice diameter size data for ZAD 1 structures Relative proportion of sherds in interior and exterior contexts for Cookpots and Storage Jars at ZAD 1 Relative proportions of Cookpot and Storage Jar sherds in small rooms and walled enclosures in Structures 37, 41 and 42 at ZAD 1 Summary of characteristics for EB IV sites Vessel frequency at Bab edh-Dhra‘ calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts; numbers calculated from published data (after Rast and Schaub 2003) Vessel orifice diameter mean for Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels at Bab edh-Dhra‘; numbers calculated from published data Vessel frequency at Tell Abu en-Ni’aj calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts Vessel orifice diameter mean for Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels at Tell Abu en-Ni’aj Vessel frequencies by phase at Tell Abu en-Ni’aj calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts (after C. Czarzasty 2001) Summary of characteristics for MB II sites Vessel frequency at Tell Rukeis calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts; numbers calculated from published data Vessel orifice diameter mean for Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels at Tell Rukeis; numbers calculated from published data Assemblage composition of ceramic vessels from Tell el-Hayyat calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts for all areas Mean vessel diameter size for Cu, Ch and Cf cookpot at Tell el-Hayyat for all areas Mean vessel diameter size for JJ and Jl Jars at Tell el-Hayyat for all areas Relative frequency of ceramic discard by sherds in three contexts at Tell el-Hayyat by phases Relative frequency of ceramic discard by sherds in three contexts at Tell el-Hayyat by vessel class Vessel type frequency at EB IV and MB II Sites calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts

xi

23 23 24 25 25 25 61 62 63 66 80 80 80 80 81 95 95 99 100 104 104 110 114 114 117 117 118 118 120 120 122 122 122 122 122 128

Table 7.16. Table 7.17. Table 8.1. Table 8.2. Table 8.3. Table 8.4. Table 8.5. Table 8.6. Table 8.7. Table 8.8. Table 8.9. Table 8.10. Table 8.11. Table 8.12. Table 8.13. Table 8.14. Table 8.15. Table 8.16. Table 8.17. Table 8.18. Table 8.19. Table 8.20. Table 8.21. Table 8.22. Table 8.23. Table 8.24. Table 8.25. Table 8.26. Table 8.27. Table 8.28. Table 8.29. Table 8.30. Table 8.31. Table. 8.32. Table. 8.33. Table 8.34. Table 8.35. Table 8.36.

Vessel orifice diameter means for Cooking Vessels at EB IV and MB II sites Vessel orifice diameter means for Storage Vessels at EB IV and MB II sites Vessel frequency calculated by sherds in context at ZAD 1 Vessel frequency calculated by sherds in Four-wall One-Room Structures at ZAD 1 Vessel frequency calculated by sherds in Three-wall One-Room Structures at ZAD 1 Vessel frequency calculated by sherds in Two-Room Structures at ZAD 1 Surface area and rim diameters for Storage and Cooking Vessels at ZAD 1 Surface area EVE for four classes of vessels at ZAD 1 Sherd size frequency by vessel type Aggregate surface area of sherds by vessel type Assemblage composition at ZAD 1, calculated by SA-EVE from aggregate surface area of sherds for four classes of vessel. Assemblage composition at ZAD 1 calculated by sherd Counts and SA-EVE Cooking Vessel sherd size frequency by excavation unit Aggregate surface area of Cooking Vessel sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by excavation unit Storage Jar sherd size frequency by excavation unit Aggregate surface area of Storage Jar sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by excavation unit Bowl sherd size frequency by excavation unit Aggregate surface area of Bowl sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by excavation unit Juglet sherd size frequency by excavation unit Aggregate surface area of Juglet sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by excavation unit Total number of vessels and vessel frequencies calculated across excavation units Cooking Vessel sherd size frequency by context Aggregate surface area of Cooking Vessel sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by context Storage Jar sherd size frequency by context Aggregate surface area of Storage Jar sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by context Bowl sherd size frequency by context Aggregate surface area of Bowl sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by context Juglet sherd size frequency by context Aggregate surface area of Juglet sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by context Total number of vessels and vessel frequency by vessel type calculated by context at ZAD 1 Assemblage composition at ZAD 1 calculated by diagnostic rim forms, sherd counts, SA-EVE over excavation units and SA-EVE over contexts Aggregate surface area of sherds by context for four classes of vessel EVREP for Storage Jars, Bowls and Juglets calculated by diagnostic rim sherds in context and by structure EVREP for Storage Jars, Bowls and Juglets calculated by ZAD 1 Categories in context and by structure EVREP for Cookpots, Storage Jars, Bowls and Juglets calculated by SA-EVE, diagnostic rim sherds and the ZAD 1 Categories at ZAD 1 Brokenness for Cooking Vessels by context type in ZAD 1 Structures ANOVA for Brokenness and Completeness of Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels by structure Mean rates of Brokenness for Cooking Vessels by context type at xii

128 129 134 134 134 134 135 135 136 136 136 136 137 138 138 139 139 139 140 140 140 141 142 142 143 143 143 143 144 144 144 145 149 150 151 155 155 156

Table 8.37. Table 8.38. Table 8.39. Table 8.40. Table 8.41. Table 8.42. Table 8.43. Table 8.44. Table 8.45. Table 8.46. Table 8.47. Table 8.48. Table 8.49. Table 8.50. Table 8.51. Table 8.52.

ZAD 1 ANOVA for Brokenness and Completeness of Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels by context Brokenness for Storage Vessels by context type in ZAD 1 Structures Mean rates of Brokenness for Storage Vessels by context type at ZAD 1 Brokenness for Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels by context type in ZAD 1 Structures Independent T-test of the Brokenness of Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels Completeness rates for Cooking Vessels by structure and context type at ZAD 1 calculated by Rim-evrep Mean rates of Completeness for Cooking Vessels by context type at ZAD 1 ANOVA Multiple Comparison of Completeness rates among context types for Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels Completeness rates for Storage Vessels by structure and context type at ZAD 1 calculated by Rim-evrep Mean rates of Completeness (Rim-evrep and Categories-evrep) for Storage Vessels by context type at ZAD 1 Non-parametric multiple comparisons (H-Test) for Completeness (Rim-ervep) of Storage Vessels by context Completeness rates for Storage Vessels by context type at ZAD 1 calculated by Categories-evrep U-Test (Mann-Whitney) of significant difference between the Completeness rates of Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels Completeness rates for Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels by structure and context type at ZAD 1 calculated by Rim-evrep and Categories-evrep Pot Smashes at ZAD 1 The horizontal displacement of sherds from vessels at ZAD 1

xiii

157 160 161 163 164 169 170 171 173 174 177 178 179 180 184 185

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank the Jordanian Department of Antiquities for their kind assistance throughout the Archaeology and Environment of the Dead Sea Plain Project; Dr. Phillip Edwards for his tireless supervision and wise counsel during the production of my doctoral dissertation; Professor Tim Murray and the Archaeology Program at La Trobe University for their moral, financial and logistical support; Dr. Steven Falconer and the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State University for their generous assistance and hospitality; Pierre and Patricia Bikai at the American Centre of Oriental Research in Amman for their logistical backing; Professor David McCreery and the Salt Museum for allowing me to examine the Tell Nimrin ceramic assemblage; Dr. Konstantin Politis and Dr. Sarah Collins of the British Museum for showing me the Dayr ‘Ayn ‘Abata ceramic collection; Dr. Rudolph Cohen and Dr. Baruch Brandel of the Israel Antiquities Authority, for permitting me access to the Be’er Resisim and Tell Masos assemblages; Dr. William Dever for his advice and recommendations; Rudy Frank, Dr. David Frankel, Greg Defteros and Mariela Soto for their assistance in the production of illustrations; All the staff at the Australian Institute of Archaeology for allowing me access to their journal collection; Dr. Shimon Gibson, Ruth Gertler, Randy Van den Dungen Bille, Abraham Van As, Loe Jacobs and the Falconer family for their hospitality; G. J. Digger Fitzgerald for his Olympian Vision; Danny Gesundheit, Paul Sellars, Simon Star, Sara Star, Liz Sellars, Yana Gotmaker, David Leggatt, Louise Bowen, Simon Michmacher, Alexandra Ariotti, Ghattas Sayej, Asa Ferrier, Brad Ferrier, Tom Rymer, David Wines and John Meadows for their friendship; and finally my family, particularly my wife Mari, my son Nico, my parents and grandparents for all their understanding, support, patience and love.

xv

FOREWORD This monograph, which takes as its focus the tricky realm of ancient behavior, represents the culmination of research conducted for my doctoral dissertation. Like many PhD dissertations, the approach taken here may also suffer from an excess of detail. However, far from apologizing for the voluminous content, I feel that the detailed nature of this work arises from the specific necessities surrounding investigations into behavior through archaeological materials. Archaeologists frequently feel that they would like to say more on a subject then their data permits them to say. Since behavior encompasses a cognitive dimension as much as the material expressions of thoughts and traditions, behavioral archaeology can be guilty of pushing the boundaries of what is scientifically admissible. As a consequence, I wanted to ensure that my behavioral inferences were grounded in solid archaeological data, and considered all aspects of material culture pertaining to ancient behavior. The broad range of materials employed in this work includes subsistence, trade, housing, the preparation of food, waste management, as well as attitudes to communal activities and levels of permanence. I was determined to make full use of all these variables and to understand them within a framework of site formation processes which are so crucial to our interpretations of material evidence. The final product delivers what I hope is a reasonably comprehensive picture of a unique community, isolated from its contemporaries and living out a frugal existence in a harsh and marginal setting. It was never my intention to present the inhabitants of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 on the Dead Sea Plain of Jordan in a narrative about ancient life. Instead, I have made every attempt to accurately portray certain ongoing behavioral tendencies, thereby contributing to our knowledge of south Levantine Bronze Age society. A behavioral study of a Bronze Age community represents a useful and complimentary addition to the enormous body of archaeological work conducted on chronology, culture history and trade in the southern Levant. Suitably, I hope that the contents, techniques, and methodological applications presented in this work will prove useful for my colleagues in the field.

xvii

INTRODUCTION This chapter introduces the aims, methods and trajectories of the monograph: Occupation and Abandonment of Middle Bronze Age Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, Jordan: the behavioural implications of quantitative ceramic analyses. The material is presented with an opening section which explains the rationale of the work, followed by a summary of the aims and contents of each chapter.

strategies based on the availability of market resources and environmental limitations (Fall et al. 1998). The inhabitants of these settlements occupied and abandoned their homes in different ways and at different times, leaving behind them a variously preserved material record of their behaviours. The identification and interpretation of the occupation and abandonment of Bronze Age sites remains one of the principal challenges of archaeologists studying the protohistory of the southern Levant. The accurate attribution of economic strategies, occupational schedules and abandonment sequences to these sites forms a nucleus of much work that focuses on the late third millennium and early second millennium BCE (Falconer et al. 2004; Fall et al. 2002). This period of time represents a poorly understood developmental stage involving the growth of sedentary semi-urban towns and the role of smaller rural components in this development. While the dominant mechanisms postulated for the growth of semi-urban towns in the southern Levant at the beginning of the second millennium BCE have included the imposition of exogenous influences on a largely rural and pastoral landscape (Falconer 1994a, 1994b; Ilan 1998), many behavioural continuities between the late third millennium and early second millennium BCE have also been noted (Berelov 2004; Finkelstein 1991a). The behavioural continuities in the face of an outwardly changing economic and social landscape beg for a thorough characterisation and interpretation, which will hopefully lead to a more complete understanding of the reasons behind the rise and collapse of certain settlement types and their economic strategies.

1. 1 Rationale The primary goal of this work is to reconstruct prehistoric human behaviour. The interpretation of behaviour from material remains however, represents specific difficulties connected with the limitations of the archaeological record. These limitations are mainly concerned with the inability of the archaeological record to accurately reflect individual episodes of human behaviour. Instead, the archaeological record comprises a palimpsest of events that are conflated, forcing the archaeologist into a time averaging of events represented by large blocks of time (Binford 1981). Given such limitations, it may be unreasonable to suppose that an accurate reconstruction of human behaviour can occur (Murray 1999). However, such criticisms are directed against specific expectations of the material record to reflect fine-scale behavioural episodes rather than the complete inability of archaeology to answer certain, broadly defined behavioural questions. The repeated behaviour of human beings in the performance of daily tasks such as cooking, sleeping and the disposal of waste, can be observed in the material record (for example Ciolek-Torello and Reid 1974; Dever 1985; Hardy-Smith and Edwards 2004). Excavated Bronze Age sites in the southern Levant contain numerous examples of both complex and rudimentary architectural features comprising built installations, hearths, furniture, modifications, as well as associated material culture in the form of ceramics, palaeobotanical remains and faunal remains (Daviau 1993). The study of ceramic, palaeobotanical and faunal remains in architectural context provides a basis for the reconstruction of diet, eating practices and waste disposal during the Bronze Age.

The discovery and excavation of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, a Middle Bronze II site located on the Dead Sea Plain in south Jordan (Edwards et al. 2001), presented the opportunity to study the behaviour of the inhabitants of a Bronze Age settlement from the early second millennium BCE. The architectural, ceramic, palaeobotanical and faunal remains from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 allows for a comprehensive research into the behavioural patterns characterising the occupation of this site. Knowledge of site type, site function, site occupation strategy and site abandonment sequence offers evidence for the recognition and characterization of behavioural patterns. The ceramic assemblage from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 in particular, provides the basis from which to interpret patterns relating to the identification of activity areas, behaviour patterns, and refuse disposal patterns. Behavioural inferences made from the study of the ceramic assemblage in concert with other material features, form a starting point for comparisons with other contemporaneous sites, which lead to a clearer understanding of diversity during the Bronze Age in the southern Levant.

The Bronze Age in the southern Levant comprised a number of distinct settlement types including sedentary, semi-sedentary and non-sedentary sites (Albright 1949). Sedentary sites occurred as both small agricultural communities as well as large semi-urban towns with elaborate fortifications (Mazar 1990). Meanwhile, semisedentary and non-sedentary sites occurred as ephemeral encampments as well as large, sprawling settlements with permanent housing (Kenyon 1970). These diverse settlement types comprised a variety of economic

The interpretation of ceramic evidence in this work 1

INTRODUCTION represents a departure from the practices commonly employed in the southern Levant; that is utilising ceramics for the purpose of dating archaeological strata on the basis of typological evidence (for example Cole 1984; Gitin 1990). In addition to the accepted practice of dating by typological cross-referencing, the study of the ceramic assemblage from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 endeavours to make behavioural inferences based on the structure of the ceramic assemblage, including its condition, composition and spatial distribution.

within an environmental, chronological, cultural, political, economic and social context. The southern Levant is introduced as an environmentally and socially diverse region that witnessed the early development of agriculture and settled town life. Semi-urban sites appear during the Early Bronze Age, slightly postdating similar developments in Egypt and Meospotamia (Mazar 1990). The region was unified by a relatively homogeneous material culture during the Early and Middle Bronze Age. The Middle Bronze II period witnesses the re-emergence of semi-urban sites, which participate in a growing international trade within a highly fractured political landscape. Settlement during this period is concentrated in the north and on the coast while marginal regions such as south Jordan are extremely sparsely populated (Falconer 2001). Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is located in a marginal setting on the Dead Sea Plain, surrounded by an inhospitable environment and isolated from other contemporary sites. Its impoverished material culture is characterised by anachronistic features, particularly its architecture and ceramics (Berelov 2001).

The analysis of the ceramics employs a number of measures aimed at accurately quantifying the assemblage and ascertaining its level of preservation and breakage. These patterns provide evidence for reconstructing site structure (sensu Binford 1978), including the identification of refuse types, discard behaviour, and abandonment sequences. The comprehension of site structure and its relationship to site formation processes is seen as a crucial component in the interpretation of behaviour. Finally, this work endeavours to contribute to our corpus of knowledge on the Middle Bronze II period, and more specifically, human occupation of south Jordan during the protohistoric periods. Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 represents the only known settlement dating to the MB II period in the entire southern portion of the southern Levant (Berelov 2001, 2000). The abandonment of this site is associated with a general depopulation in the region towards the end of the third millennium BCE (Bienkowski 2003), which has been linked to changing environmental (Frunkin et al. 1994) and perhaps political circumstances (Palumbo 2001). The behavioural analysis of the ceramic assemblage from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 aims to increase our understanding of site abandonment processes, which in turn adds to unravelling some of the reasons behind the abandonment of south Jordan in the first part of the second millennium BCE. For one must consider that while environmental and political factors may have precipitated the abandonment of the region by fully sedentary communities at the conclusion of the Early Bronze Age, semi-sedentary and nomadic groups continued to exist in south Jordan during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Finkelstein and Perevolotsky 1990). The occupational strategies, abandonment schedules and behavioural dynamics of such groups have hitherto been poorly documented in the archaeology of the southern Levant. In view of this shortcoming, the identification, characterisation and interpretation of occupational strategies, abandonment schedules and behavioural dynamics, as they relate to both sedentary and mobile groups in the archaeological and ethnographic records, constitute an important aim of this study.

Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 represents the latest permanent settlement of the Bronze Age in south Jordan known to date. The reasons behind the abandonment of the region are not clear but are likely to be related to changing environmental conditions, defined by increased tectonic activity and erosion (Donahue 2003). The site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is spectacularly truncated, suggesting that the settlement was abandoned due to tectonic activity, ultimately leading to the deep incision of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ (House 2003). The timing of the incision of the wadi, reflecting a wider period of high erosive activity around the Dead Sea Basin, forms a key focus for the Archaeology and Environment of the Dead Sea Plain Project conducted jointly by La Trobe University and Arizona State University. 1.22. Chapter 3: Chapter 3: Results of the Excavations of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1: Settlement Plan and Material Culture This chapter describes the material culture of Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1, which was excavated by Arizona State University from December 1999 to January 2000. Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is characterised by freestanding architecture, which was visible on the surface due to the shallow deposits. Nine structures were excavated, providing a broad sample of material evidence from seven singlephase and two multi-phase units of occupation (Edwards et al. 2001). The material remains from the site included the dense accumulation of ceramic material on room floors, particularly the remains of coarse-ware cooking pots and copious lithic debris in the overburden deposits. The predominantly rectilinear houses were built of stone, room floors were sunken and no roofing materials were clearly identified.

1.2. The Contents and Aims 1.21. Chapter 2: The Southern Levant; Settlement, Subsistence and Social Transformation in the Bronze Age This chapter aims to locate the site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 2

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN While the ceramic assemblage was preliminarily dated to the MB II period, the dispersed architectural plan and pithouse design was reminiscent of Early Bronze Age examples from marginal areas such as the Negev and Sinai deserts (Beit Arieh 1992). The unusual material signature of the site, its isolation from contemporaneous settlements to the north and its location within a harsh and inhospitable climate raised questions over its function and place in the wider society of the MB II period. Such questions could only be answered with the specific analysis of the material features of the site and their relation to material evidence from other contemporaneous sites.

logic of nomenclature and his important distinction of vessel form and vessel type, enabling the study of the chronological development of both whole vessels and diagnostic attributes, such as rims, handles and bases. Following the typological analysis of ceramic attributes, the chronologically diagnostic types from Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 were cross-referenced with parallel types from other sites. The parallel references establish the date range for the site as well as for individual contexts. On the basis of the chronologically diagnostic typological attributes the site was dated from the latter part of the MB IIA period to no later than the middle of the MB IIB period. Special care was also taken to date individual structures and contexts at the site in order to establish an intra-site chronology. It seems that the the eastern part of the site may have represented the final locus of occupation. Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is also situated within a regional context in order to establish an inter-site chronology and the material culture range of the site. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage finds its closest parallels at the nearby cemetery of Dayr Ayn ‘Abata’ located 25 kilometres to the south, and then with the settlements of Jericho and Tell Nimrin, located some 50-60 kilometres to the north.

1.23. Chapter 4: Methodology: the Recording, Analysis and Interpretation of the Ceramic Assemblage from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 This chapter provides the description, explanation and justification for the methods of analysis employed to study the ceramic materials at the site. Ceramic studies in the archaeology of the southern Levant began with the development of a relative chronology through typological analysis (Bliss 1894; Petrie 1891). While this represented a critical necessity in the early days of the archaeology of the southern Levant, considerations of behaviour, occupation strategies and abandonment processes require alternative approaches.

1.25. Chapter 6: Economic Subsistence and Occupation Strategy at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1

In addition to the standard analysis of typological attributes for the purposes of establishing a site chronology, the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 ceramic assemblage required a thorough quantification, including an analysis of breakage rates and levels of completeness. These quantified variables enabled a reconstruction of site formation processes, artefact densities, distribution of discard, the identification of activity areas, room functions and site abandonment processes. Apart from aims connected with quantification, the assemblage was also analysed for vessel size variability and vessel function in context.

This chapter aims to reconstruct the economic strategies and occupational dynamics at the site. Archaeobotanical, faunal, ceramic and architectural materials are employed to interpret the main sources of subsistence, degrees of mobility and sedentism, and the dynamics of daily life including the location of areas employed for cooking, sleeping and eating. Social arrangements, including the use of shared activity areas and the construction of public architecture also form the focus of discussions in this chapter. The archaeobotanical and faunal evidence indicates that the inhabitants of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 employed a mixed economic strategy of agriculture and livestock management. Ceramic and architectural evidence suggests that while houses were arranged in family clusters, the majority of daily activities took place inside the houses. The site was inhabited by a number of small family groups that occupied the site throughout the year. The existence of public architecture was not conclusively identified. However, two large boulder fields and a large building overlooking the site may represent examples of public initiatives.

The analysis of the ceramic assemblage permitted higherlevel interpretations concerned with occupation and abandonment strategies, as well as behaviour associated with daily tasks such as cooking and eating. The results also contributed to theoretical discussions centred on the role of site formation processes in behavioural inferences and the value of ethnographic comparisons. 1.24. Chapter 5: The Ceramic Typology and Chronology of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1

1.26. Chapter 7: Settlement, Subsistence and Occupation Strategies during the Late Third and Early Second Millennia BCE.

This chapter focuses on two related aspects of the ceramic assemblage: the ceramic typology and chronology of the site. The typology of the assemblage is developed according to the basic classificatory principles established by Dan Cole in his analysis of the MB IIB ceramic corpus from Shechem (Cole 1984). Cole’s typological system was chosen due to its straightforward

This chapter aims to situate the site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 within the socio-economic landscape of the late third millennium to early second millennium BCE transition in 3

INTRODUCTION the southern Levant. This transition is marked by the collapse of semi-urban town life at the end of the Early Bronze III (EB III) period and the re-emergence of town life at the beginning of the Middle Bronze II (MB II) period. The interlude lasting approximately 300 hundred years is known as the EB IV period, and is characterised by increased settlement in marginal zones by semisedentary and non-sedentary groups. The evidence from sites dating to the EB IV and the subsequent MB II period provide a background to discussions concerning both the transformation and continuity of economic and occupational strategies during the transition.

sherd counts, SA-EVE, Rim-evrep and Categories-evrep), which individually yield contrasting outcomes. The differences in final estimations of assemblage size and composition generated by different calculation methods highlight the critical role of methodologies, which ultimately lead to higher-level interpretations of site function. The condition of the ceramic assemblage at Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 is analysed for its levels of fragmentation and preservation across distinct contexts and between different vessel classes. While levels of fragmentation (i.e. brokenness) and preservation (i.e. completeness) are roughly similar for different classes of vessels and different structures, significant differences are evident in the rates for different context types such as floors, overburden deposits and exteriors. These differences lead to the identification of the restricted number of contexts containing secondary refuse deposits, and conversely, the high number of contexts containing primary refuse deposits. These results lead to the interpretation of specific modes of use and abandonment of the site through time, which have been generally linked to nonsedentary behaviour.

The material evidence from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is presented against the evidence from other small rural sites, from a number of environmental zones. The sites comprise non-sedentary encampments, semi-sedentary villages, and sedentary agricultural villages. A full discussion of the various classes of material data including archaeobotanical, faunal, ceramic and architectural evidence proceeds with the purpose of placing Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 within the wider world of settlement types found during the transitional period. Key points of discussion include the interpretation of economic strategies, occupational types, daily behaviour and socio-political integration. The site of Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 emerges as a unique example of an isolated, politically and economically unintegrated, semi-sedentary community with a restricted and archaising material culture. Unlike all the other EB IV and MB II sites surveyed, Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 did not participate in the trade of manufactured goods, raw materials and agricultural produce. Moreover, it is not parallelled exactly by the types of occupational strategy described for other sites during the late third to early second millennium BCE. But in this respect, the chapter also raises the limitations of the material evidence assembled so far in adequately reconstructing the occupation strategies of MB sites, in the absence of a thorough quantitative analysis of ceramic assemblages and site formation processes. Such analyses are crucially lacking at many south Levantine Bronze Age sites.

These findings contrast with earlier interpretations of the site as a sedentary settlement, based on archaeobotanical, faunal and architectural data, and provide reasons for concern over the significance of assemblage composition in discussions of site function and occupation type. The results of the analysis lead to a mandatory re-examination of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 in light of variable methodologies relating to site occupation and abandonment. 1.28. Chapter 9: Zahrat adh Dhra‘ 1: A Behavioural Perspective on a Unique Middle Bronze II Community This concluding chapter is concerned with the interpretation of the occupation strategies, abandonment schedules and behavioural dynamics at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. Above all, this final exposition highlights the uniqueness of the site with respect to the contemporaneous MB world.

1.27. Chapter 8: The Ceramic Evidence for Interpreting Discard Behaviour and Refuse Management at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1

The chapter begins with an appraisal of the major concerns of the work, revisiting earlier findings, which include the social, environmental and cultural history of the south Levantine Bronze Age; the material culture, chronology, economy and occupation of Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1; the comparative role of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 within the wider Bronze Age world; and the occupation and abandonment of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 on the basis of the ceramic evidence. The exposition of the evidence leads to the need for a comparison of the key data relating to the occupation and abandonment of the site in light of the archaeological and ethnographic evidence.

This chapter aims to provide evidence for exploring the role of site structure, including site formation processes, in resolving interpretations of behaviour, site function, occupation and abandonment. The analysis of the structure of the ceramic assemblage forms the centrepiece of discussions of site structure and site formation processes carried out in the following chapter. The ceramic assemblage is analysed in two main parts: a) assemblage size and composition, and b) assemblage condition. The composition and size of the ceramic assemblage is explored through a number of methods (i.e.

The comparison of economic subsistence and settlement and architecture with discard behaviour, against a backdrop of other archaeological cases and ethnographic 4

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN observations, reinforces the suggestion that Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 represents an unusual case, defined by contrasting characteristics linked to both sedentary and mobile groups. Significantly, this uniqueness is amplified by the absence of any such examples or parallels in the Bronze Age world, which again reinforces the complexity of the southern Levant during the Bronze Age.

sphere as well as improving our models of non-sedentary behaviour in the protohistorical periods. Furthermore, it is argued that in order to effectively interpret the behaviour of the inhabitants of Bronze Age sites, encompassing their occupational strategies and abandonment schedules, a thorough exploration of site structure must take place in addition to the customary investigations of archaeobotanical and faunal remains. To this end, it is recommended that a thorough quantification or comprehensive sampling of artefacts takes place in future work on sites of the southern Levant.

The unique occupation and abandonment signature of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is underscored by a restricted and archaising material culture, bearing the hallmarks of a community that was emphatically unintegrated within the greater MB II world. These unique features are taken to represent a hitherto unrecorded MB II cultural region in south Jordan which probably included semi-sedentary and mobile groups. The discovery of this new type of community in a largely unexplored region necessitates substantial further research, comprising surveys, mapping and excavations. Further work in the region should be aimed at enlarging our knowledge of the new cultural

The major contribution of the monograph is seen to be the employment of new and alternative methodologies to identify, characterise and interpret the behavioural distinctiveness of a south Levantine MB II community, exemplifying the behavioural diversity and complexity of the southern Levant in the Bronze Age.

5

THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION IN THE BRONZE AGE This chapter introduces the geography, history, society and material culture of the southern Levant in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. In addition, current questions and research foci are described, with special reference to the specific contexts of the Dead Sea Basin and southern Jordan. Emphasis is given to the role of small, marginal communities and their role in larger, complex settlement systems.

which extend over all environmental zones, particularly during EB II and EB III (Beit-Arieh 1983; Gophna 1998). Settlement patterns are significantly altered during EB IV (Fig 2.2.) when all large sedentary towns and some smaller villages are abandoned (Finkelstein 1995; Palumbo 2001). Economic strategy becomes increasingly focused on pastoralism, seasonal sites are common, and a newly associated material culture emerges. The latter was for many years thought to have been exogenously derived (see below). A small number of sedentary, agricultural villages are newly founded and occupied in EB IV, these being primarily restricted to Transjordan (Dever 1998). The EB IV sedentary villages are best exemplified by Tell abu enNi’aj (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1989), Tell Iktanu (Prag 1974) and Bab edh-Dhra‘ (Schaub and Rast 1984), all located in the east Jordan Valley. The fortified site of Khirbet Iskander (Richard and Boraas 1984), whose foundations predate EB IV, arguably remains as the only potentially urban settlement in the southern Levant during this period (c.f. Dever 1998). By contrast the area west of the Jordan River is dominated by small, non-sedentary sites and isolated cemeteries, with settlement being particularly concentrated in the arid Negev Desert (Cohen 1999; Dever 1980; Palumbo 2001). The latter region does not witness comparable levels of human activity until the Byzantine period. Two small agricultural villages in the Repha’im Valley southwest of Jerusalem are currently the best examples of excavated EB IV sedentary settlements west of the Jordan River (Edelstein and Eisenberg 1985). The Negev settlements exemplify a pronounced shift in both settlement and subsistence strategy, which marks a departure from the urban EB II/III period, particularly west of the Jordan River. The break with the preceding EB III period is emphasized by the proportionately smaller number of sites demonstrating continuity in occupation over the EB III and EB IV periods, compared to a larger number of sites and cemeteries demonstrating continuity in occupation over the EB IV and MB II periods (Ilan 1998).

2.1. The Southern Levant: Regional Geography and Social Trajectories The southern Levant consists of the modern states of Israel and Jordan, and the Palestinian Territories (Fig. 2.1; north point refers to ‘true north’ in all figures). The region contains a variety of natural environmental zones, including highland steppe and desert, lowland desert, coastal plains, and fertile alluvial plains. This combination of environments produces a highly diverse climate, and corresponding limits to subsistence strategies. Human adaptation to these diverse conditions has produced variable material cultures throughout the history of the southern Levant (Danin 1998). The settlement and abandonment of the various environments have fluctuated through deep antiquity, and have been interpreted as the combined result of climatic variability on the one hand, and social change on the other (Dever 1987b; Frumkin et al. 1994; Ilan 1998). The Bronze Age in the southern Levant is characterized by the first significant developments in urbanization witnessed in the region (Falconer 1994a; Joffe 1993). These attempts occurred contemporaneously but on a significantly smaller scale to those experienced in Egypt and Mesopotamia (Falconer 1987b; Falconer and Savage 1995). The preceding Chalcolithic and Neolithic periods witnessed the fluorescence and ultimate consolidations of agricultural strategy and exploitation of secondary products (Bar-Yosef and Khazanov 1992), taking some 4500 years.

Explanations seeking to account for the growth and decline of town life during the Early Bronze Age have increasingly viewed these fluctuations as the result of a combination of factors. Changes to the environment and the structure of society have been viewed both as distinct or complimentary causes. A recent example of such an approach sees the steady depletion of resources such as forest areas as resulting from population growth and concentration in urban centers. The initial effect of such a demographic shift is the transformation of the landscape from an indigenous to an anthropogenic landscape, where cereal and fruit crops become dominant over other species to meet market demands (Fall et al. 1998). The long-term effects are land stress and the inability of the urban population to effectively sustain their integrated economy, leading to the collapse and abandonment of urban centers (Falconer 2001; Finkelstein 1995; Ilan

The Early Bronze Age, comprising a series of phases termed EB Ia/b, EB II, EB III and EB IV, represents a profound social transformation leading to greater complexity. The social changes are predominantly reflected by a combination of varying economic strategies and shifts in settlement location, size and scale. The period begins with small, unfortified villages in the EB I, progressing to larger, fortified and densely populated centres in EB II and EB III (Philip 2001), and ending in small rural villages and campsites, practicing a mixture of agriculture or pastoralism in EB IV (Dever 1998; Palumbo 2001). Settlement of the southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age is characterised by a predominance of walled towns, 7

THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Figure 2.1. Map of the Levant showing modern political boundaries and the location of ZAD 1

8

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 2.2. Map of sites during the Early Bronze IV Period (All satellite imagery duplications in this monograph are duplications of “(C) CNES/SPOT Image 1992-1994”) 9

THE SOUTHERN LEVANT 1998; Marfoe 1979). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B is the first period to witness the aggregation of population in residential centres in conjunction with resource depletion, leading ultimately to collapse (Rollefson and KohlerRollefson 1992). This pattern is repeated in the Early Bronze Age and is being posited as an explanation of the urban collapse at the conclusion of EB III (Falconer 2001).

south Levantine sites by the end of this period (Bourke 1997; Dever 1987b; Gerstenblith 1983). The material culture of the Middle Bronze Age is principally distinguished from the preceding Early Bronze Age by its pottery, architecture, and metal objects. Middle Bronze Age pottery is typically striking for its morphological and stylistic break with the Early Bronze period. Early Bronze Age pottery is hand built, characterized by a preference for ledge handles and incised decoration. Morphologically the Early Bronze Age vessels tend towards a squat shape, particularly in EB IV. The vast majority of Early Bronze Age pottery is either turned on a slow wheel or is hand-built (Dever 1998; Richard 1987). By contrast Middle Bronze Age pottery follows a gradual development allowing for generally narrower shapes with greater elaboration of both base and rim forms (Cole 1984). In addition the Middle Bronze II repertoire is commonly represented by at least some vessels bearing painted motifs, a feature thought to have originated in Syria (Beck 2000; Gerstenblith 1983). The introduction of the fast-wheel had immediate effects on the character of the pottery. The potter was afforded greater flexibility in forming and design, and increased speed and accuracy in production led to augmented output and standardization (Ilan 1998; Dever 1987b; Gerstenblith 1983).

The Early Bronze Age is increasingly being seen as an urban interlude in a largely rural landscape (Falconer 1987b). Flux in urban or rural life along with both sedentary and seasonal activity depend on the social negotiation of the environment and the prevailing political climate (Dever 1992; 1998; Finkelstein 1989; Joffe 1993; Palumbo 2001; Philip 2001). 2.2. The Middle Bronze Age The Middle Bronze Age (Albright’s MB IIA, MB IIB and MB IIC) of the southern Levant is a period spanning approximately four hundred and twenty years from 1920 BCE to 1500 BCE (Marcus 2003; cf. Cohen 2002; Dever 1987b; Gerstenblith 1983 for a higher chronology). It is characterized by a return to larger, fortified town life abandoned at the conclusion of the Early Bronze III period (Falconer 2001; Mazar 1990). The Middle Bronze Age is often described as an urban phase since the comparatively high density of population in the Palestinian region is not witnessed again until substantially later during Roman times (Broshi and Gophna 1986). This was also a period of extensive urbanism and trade in the rest of the eastern Mediterranean (Mazar 1990). The names of a number of important south Levantine towns appear in the archives of foreign powers from Mesopotamia to Egypt. The Ebla and Mari archives make special reference to Hazor, whilst the Egyptian Execration Texts list several comparatively large south Levantine towns which are subsequently destroyed in the late MB II. The removal of the west Semitic Hyksos Dynasty from the throne of Egypt in the late MB II, led to a series of reprisal campaigns, principally directed against towns in the southern Levant. By the end of the Middle Bronze IIC period practically all towns and cities were heavily fortified. In the Late Bronze Age references are made to the same towns in the Amarna archives (Dever 1987, 1976; Falconer 2001; Gerstenblith 1983; Ilan 1998).

Further developments in the material culture of the Middle Bronze Age are marked by the emergence of extensive fortifications, which are characterized by sloping earthen ramparts in MB IIA. In MB IIB/C these fortifications are improved with the addition of lime coated glacis and impressive multiple-chambered gateways (Kempinski 1992; but c.f. McLaren 2003 for a revised chronology). New metal objects such as duckbill axes, daggers and swords with elaborated hafts make their way into the repertoire during this period. And, while official correspondences were conducted in Akkadian, the Middle Bronze Age also witnesses the birth of the Proto-Canaanite script (Dever 1987b; Gerstenblith 1983; Ilan 1998; Mazar 1990). The differences between the material cultures of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages led many early archaeologists to the conclusion that the new Early Bronze IV and subsequent Middle Bronze Age materials were brought in by successive migratory waves of invading Amorites from the north, who overran the local inhabitants and established a new urban culture during both EB IV and MB IIA (Albright 1949, 1932; Kenyon 1960; Lapp 1966; Tufnell 1958; Wright 1937). This impression was particularly strengthened by the extensive abandonment of EB III towns, the subsequent ruralization of the landscape during EB IV, and a resettlement of permanent agricultural villages in well-watered lowlands during the MB IIA (Broshi and Gophna 1986; Gophna and Portugali 1988; Palumbo 2001).

The archival references, coupled with artifactual evidence linking the southern Levant with Syria and Egypt in particular, suggest that towns like Hazor, Shechem, Pella, Megiddo, and Aphek (Fig. 2.3.) all participated in a trading network that spanned the Tigris-Euphrates nexus, Southern Anatolia, the Lebanon, Egypt, and finally the Levant itself. These urban centers enjoyed prosperous conditions, judging by the high concentration of luxury items and exotic imports. The role of southern Levantine towns in the ever-increasing trade network of the eastern Mediterranean is underscored by the high incidence of Cypriot vessels in many Middle Bronze II assemblages at

Admittedly the stylistic and morphological similarities of 10

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN much of the material culture excavated from Canaan and Syria are great (Dever 1987b; Gerstenblith 1983; Ilan 1998; Kenyon 1970; Mazar 1990), and it took many years before scholars turned away from the persistent migration-invasion model (Dever 1980; Prag 1974). Migration as a sole explanatory agent responsible for the change in the material culture of the southern Levant has substantially diminished in stature and appeal (Palumbo 2001). Typological evidence supporting a local genesis and continuity in some classes of vessel, together with the persistent occupation and reuse of both sites and tombs during both EB IV and MB II shows that substantial continuity in local population existed (Finkelstein 1991a; Ilan 1998). Whilst strong ceramic and possibly cultural connections between Canaan and Syria are evident, these connections are now not seen to amount to invasion or migration on a grand scale. In other words, it is now assumed that the transmission of both material culture and social organization must be a complex result of both external and internal forces (Dever 1987; Gerstenblith 1983; Ilan 1998; Tubb 1983). The explanation for social and cultural change is sought in social forces adapting to a changing environmental and political landscape.

Both Falconer (1987b) and Joffe (1991), in separate treatments of Canaanite urbanism for the Early and Middle Bronze Ages arrived at analogous conclusions. Their primary finding was to question the very existence of an urban society in the southern Levant. The authors separately concluded that the region was fundamentally rural in character, with the superimposition of towns through time. And, by implication, the atypical occurrence of larger towns in the southern Levant precipitated a further inquiry, focusing on a revision of the relationship between larger urban centers and smaller villages. Under the revised rural-urban model, the south Levantine landscape emerged as a cultural region composed of highly fragmented and independent communities, subject to local political hierarchies, which functioned under radically different principles than urban models developed for Mesopotamia (Falconer and Savage 1995). Unlike the settlement hierarchy posited for Mesopotamian urban society, small towns in the southern Levant were not rigidly dependent on larger urban centers; instead they readjusted their strategies to optimize their position in a changing market (Fall et al. 1998). Thus according to the revised model, the southern Levant represented a complex rural society, which was highly responsive and flexible to changing conditions, effectively adopting either more settled, agricultural strategy, or mobile-pastoral strategies as conditions dictated (Finkelstein 1995).

2.3. Questions and Issues: Research Focus for the Middle Bronze Age The changes in material culture and economic strategy, ruralization of the landscape and abandonment of sites and regions making up the transition from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age have not been satisfactorily explained for a number of reasons. Firstly, the causes leading to the abandonment of sedentary, fortified towns at the conclusion of the EB III period remain obscure. Secondly, the motivating factors prompting the EB IV populations to a semi-sedentary lifestyle in marginal countryside have not been identified. And, finally the rationale behind a return to settled town life and prime agricultural land during the MB II remains equally mysterious, especially since an urban hiatus in the EB IV is not represented in Syria (Dever 1976; Gerstenblith 1983; Tubb 1983).

Notionally, the inherent flexibility of south Levantine societies to adapt to changing environmental, economic and socio-political climates meant that the Early Bronze Age — Middle Bronze Age transition could now be interpreted as a single manifestation of the undulating cycle of economic and social trajectories characterizing the region through its deep antiquity. Multiple influences from social, economic, and political entities within changing environmental conditions, created a flexible society, which placed an emphasis on minimizing risk through broad market strategy. This continual adjustment and readjustment of socio-economic systems to external changes seems a more compelling explanation for change than violent invasions and migrations (Marfoe 1979). If this proposition is viewed seriously, then a greater need to understand changing economic strategies and subsistence regimes develops, prompting an investigation of these factors as they occur in the archaeological record. Essentially the archaeological manifestations of changing economies and subsistence strategies translates into identifying and interpreting various processes of occupation, change and abandonment, particularly for poorly understood periods such as the transition between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in the southern Levant.

Recent discoveries along with revised models have recast these questions within a socio-environmental interpretative framework, which seeks to improve our explanations for the fluctuating economic strategies and settlement patterns in the southern Levant. For example, the existence of a number of settled, agricultural villages and towns dating to the EB IV period has challenged the perception of this period as a purely nomadic ‘Dark Ages’ (Dever 1980; Palumbo 2001). Likewise, a broader perspective on sites along with improved survey strategies that are inclusive of smaller settlements located away from the large tells, have resulted in a greater understanding of the dynamics of settlement patterns. And further, revisions to conventional understandings of concepts such as urbanism have brought into question the very existence of urbanism and its structure in the southern Levant.

Whilst the idea of a largely rural southern Levant has taken time to gain wider acceptance, the notion of a Bronze Age society consisting of a number of distinct social and economic strategies coexisting simultaneously, has a slightly longer history (for example Lemche 1985). 11

THE SOUTHERN LEVANT The probability of a heterogeneous society precipitated a need to develop a more sophisticated set of social models incorporating a mixture of both mobile and sedentary components associated with different combinations of economic strategies. These combinations of strategies, which are not easily identified in the archaeological record, included varying intensities of agriculture, agropastoralism and nomadic pastoralism. Some significant attempts at developing new approaches were undertaken to the extent that dimorphic models as proposed by Rowton (1973a, 1973b), which divorce nomadic pastoralism from sedentary agriculture, were rebutted by Lees and Bates (1974). Newer models, which consider the ‘multimorphic’ structure of society, where varying degrees of mobility and sedentism combine in response to both environmental and social forces, have since developed (Finkelstein 1991a; Lemche 1985; Marfoe 1979; Martin 1999). The effect of this paradigmatic shift lies in the need to rewrite and restate the social history of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in such terms. The Middle Bronze Age can no longer be seen as a monolithic urban period differing radically from the preceding EB IV. Although the Middle Bronze Age represents a significant innovation in many aspects of material culture, it is better understood as an extension of Early Bronze Age south Levantine society, similarly composed of the full spectrum of economic strategies. Indeed the Middle Bronze Age presents a series of new problems, most patently evident in the changing settlement patterns and the introduction of a new material culture. However these changes, witnessed in the archaeological record, are not the results of necessarily abrupt transformations, but represent the gradual processes of human responses to a changing social, economic and environmental landscape. As we shall see later (i.e. Section 2.4 below), such gradual adaptations to changing circumstances are clearly represented by the declining sedentary population on the Dead Sea Plain in the Bronze Age. This decline is firstly witnessed by the abandonment of Bab edh-Dhra‘ in the Early Bronze Age (Rast and Schaub 2003) and later, Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 in the Middle Bronze Age (Edwards et al. 2001).

Bronze Age region of south Jordan, lending themselves entirely to the exploration of the above themes. 2.4. The Middle Bronze Age in South Jordan: A Case Study South of the Wadi Mujib (later Moab) there is some MBA evidence from surveys and some evidence for LBA sedentary occupation, for example at Balu’a, but this was not a major urban phase. South of the Wadi Hasa (later Edom), there was no settled occupation at all in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. This lack of settled occupation in the south is perhaps not surprising, since Egyptian texts of the second millennium BC imply that the area was inhabited by nomadic pastoralists herding sheep and living in tents, known to them as shasu (Bienkowski 2003: 96). Archaeological exploration of the Bronze Age in south Jordan began with the pioneering work of W. F. Albright (1924). Subsequently, extensive reconnaissance was undertaken by Nelson Glueck (1951, 1939, 1935 and 1934). More recently, surveys of southern Jordan, including the Kerak Plateau and the Dead Sea Basin down to the Gulf of Aqaba (Fig. 2.3) were conducted by a host of other scholars (Amr et al. 1996; Ibrahim et al. 1976; Kaliff and Holmgren 1995; Macdonald 1992; Miller 1979; Rast and Schaub 1974; Worschech 1985). These surveys were conducted over the course of more than seventy years. The emerging settlement pattern gleaned from this work, points to substantial human activity in the region prior to the MB II period and from the Iron II period on, but little or none in between (Falconer 2001; Glueck 1970; Miller 1991). Middle Bronze Age remains are reported from a number of sites on the Kerak Plateau (Brown 1991; Miller 1991, 1979; Worschech and Ninow 1999). While these remains do not clarify the nature of the MB II occupation in this region (Berelov 2000), they nonetheless testify to a minimal human presence on the Kerak Plateau during this period (Mattingly 1984, 1983). In the Dead Sea Basin (Fig. 2.4), survey and excavations have revealed substantial occupation during the Early Bronze I, II, III and IV (Rast and Schaub 1974). This was subsequently confirmed by the excavations of the site and cemetery of Bab edh-Dhra' and the sites of Khirbet Khanazir (MacDonald 1995) and Numeira (Rast and Scaub 1978, 1989; Schaub and Rast 1984). The Wadi Arabah survey team (MacDonald et al. 1992) reported a possible 20 locations with MB II material, but again these remains comprised small sherd scatters which constitute a minimal and enigmatic presence. Middle Bronze Age remains east of the Jordan River are concentrated in the north Jordan Valley and Jordanian Plateau. This settlement pattern is attributed to economic integration within the larger Middle Bronze Age economy focused on the Mediterranean coast and Syria (Falconer 2001).

The correct interpretation of social adaptation and transformation during the Middle Bronze Age in the southern Levant requires the careful analysis of archaeological materials from a number of distinct contexts, site types and regions. The interaction of different sites within and across diverse geographic regions, representing different socio-political structures and subsistence strategies must be properly understood if the full extent of south Levantine society is to be comprehended in its total complexity. The study of marginal, non-urban settlements, practicing a mixed strategy of subsistence in a dynamically changing landscape, offers the perfect opportunity to extend our understanding of Middle Bronze Age society. Such marginal, non-urban settlements, as exemplified by Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, occur in the largely unknown Middle

12

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 2.3. Map of sites during the Middle Bronze II Period

13

THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Figure 2.4. Early and Middle Bronze Age sites surrounding the Dead Sea Basin

14

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN In the late 1980s work began on the Byzantine Monastery of St. Lot at Dayr ‘Ayn ‘Abata. The site is situated on the eastern slopes of the Jordan Valley above the modern town of Ghor es-Safi, which overlooks the alluvial fan of Wadi al-Hasa emptying into the southern Dead Sea Basin (Fig. 2.4). The excavators uncovered Early Bronze Age cave burials and an extensive arrangement of cairn tombs dating to the MB II (Politis 1990). At approximately the same time, in 1989, Australian hydrogeologist Phillip Macumber discovered Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, a twelve hectare site 1.5 kilometers to the north-east of Bab edhDhra. A subsequent survey by a La Trobe University team established the date of the site as MB II (Edwards et al. 1998).

for these demographic and social changes in south Jordan, has come in the form of environmental change. Both desiccation in the region at the conclusion of EB III, and resource depletion caused by overpopulation have been advanced as possible causes to the gradual abandonment of south Jordan in the Middle Bronze Age (see Fall et al. 1998; Frumkin et al. 1994). 2.5. Environmental Impact on Human Occupation of the Dead Sea Basin Environmental conditions in the Dead Sea Basin are characterised by high temperatures, low annual precipitation, and active tectonics. The Dead Sea Basin was formed by violent tectonic activity during the Pliocene, completed approximately 3 million years ago (Garfunkel 1997). In the Late Pleistocene, changing environmental and tectonic conditions helped to form the saline Lake Lisan, which filled the Dead Sea Basin at approximately 60,000 years B. P. (Niemi 1997). The ancient lake extended from south of the present Dead Sea Basin to the northern end of Lake Tiberias. Environmental conditions gradually deteriorated over time, becoming increasingly arid at 18,000 B. P. The lake finally receded to occupy approximately current levels at between 13,000 and 11,000 years B. P. (Begin et al. 1974; Niemi 1997).

The discovery of these two MB II sites raises an obvious objection to the generally accepted model of occupation in southern Jordan during the MB II. It is no longer valid to assume that the region was almost entirely depopulated at the conclusion of EB IV. The existence of Zahrat adhDhra 1 and Dayr ‘Ayn ‘Abata adds weight to the scant traces of MB II material from the Kerak Plateau and the Wadi Arabah. Furthermore, the attribution of a small number of sherds associated with cairn tombs located to the southeast of the Bab edh-Dhra‘ cemetery to the Chalcolithic period (Clark 1979) may now also be reconsidered as MB II material (see Falconer in Edwards et al. 2004). This material correlates well with the site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 and provides further evidence of MB II activity on the Dead Sea Plain. The cairn tombs - now destroyed by the construction of Potash City - may have belonged to a cemetery associated with the site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. A number of issues become worthy of further investigation. Firstly, what caused the steady diminution of the population in south Jordan from the end of the Early Bronze Age? Secondly, in what ways, and for what reasons did the economic strategy of the remaining inhabitants of south Jordan in the MB II period alter to adapt to the changing social conditions and population dynamics? Thirdly, how did these inhabitants fit into the broader network of society during the MB II?

The level of the Dead Sea is highly sensitive to climatic shifts and tectonic activity, both of which are subject to rapid changes. For instance, a reduction in annual precipitation bears a direct consequence on the level of the Dead Sea, whose contraction eventually impacts on the rate of erosive activity. Similarly, substantial increases in tectonic activity along the many faults in the region may result in increased erosion over the landscape (Donahue 2003; Neev and Emery 1967). Fluctuation in any of these variables can have a profound effect on the course and trajectory of human habitation in the region. Archaeological evidence dating back to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (Edwards et al. 2001; Kuijt and Mahasheh 1998) suggests that the Dead Sea Plain (Fig. 2.5) was capable of supporting sedentary or semi-sedentary villages, surviving on a mixed economy of hunting and gathering as well as possible cultivation. Watercourses, which traverse the landscape from the Jordan Rift margin in an east-west direction, debouch into the Dead Sea. These wadis find their source in both upland runoff, as well as the perennial springs emerging from the Jordan Valley margins (Donahue 1985; Khalil 1992). The character of these sources of water determines the seasonal or perennial nature of the water supply. Importantly, human habitation has relied on these watercourses for farming, whose intensity and character have been shaped by the location and regularity of the flow. Arguably the most reliable source of water, both now as well as in the ancient past, consists of perennial springs such as the ’Ayn Wai’dah, which feeds into Wadi adh-Dhra‘ (Kuijt and Mahasheh 1998). By comparison

Although a relatively substantial EB IV occupation existed in the south of Jordan, both on the Kerak Plateau and around the Dead Sea Basin, these settlements were greater in number but smaller in size than the EB III sites preceding them (Falconer 2001; Palumbo 2001; Philip 2001). In EB IV the population tended to favor open sites, characterized by a dispersed and unagglomerated architectural plan, as opposed to walled sites. And even though the diminishing population densities of sites need not represent a population decline at the end of the 24th centrury BCE, it certainly represents a shift in economic strategy and probably social structure (Palumbo 2001). Accordingly, the changing nature of society during the EB IV in south Jordan, and the perceived abandonment of the region at the conclusion of that period are factors that stimulated discussions of settlement fluctuations, giving rise to further explanatory models. One of the most recently favored explanatory models employed to account 15

THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Figure 2.5. The Dead Sea Plain with the springs, upland runoff is unreliably sporadic while rainfall supply is negligible.

Dead Sea Plain, an area characterised by its badlands topography (Fig. 2.5), is associated with tectonic activity (Donahue 2003, 1985) and the fluctuating level of the Dead Sea (Frumkin et al. 1994). Both climate change and tectonic activity can result in an increased flow gradient, which increases the rate of erosion (Donahue 2003). In the case of climate change, a shift towards drier conditions diminishes water supply to the Dead Sea, forcing the lowering of base level. The water feeding into the Dead Sea responds to an increased flow gradient by recutting its course to a lower elevation (Frumkin et al. 1994). Responses to base level changes however, are not instantaneous and seem to increase dramatically during subsequent periods associated with increased water flow (House 2003).

Farming and herding around the Dead Sea Basin have also been influenced by the availability of suitable land. Most land around the Dead Sea Basin is composed of a mosaic of evaporites, marine limestone, and marls (Neev and Emery 1967). In the Dead Sea Plain, outcrops of the evaporitic Dana Conglomerate and Lisan Formation (Fig. 2.8) typify the barren character of the area (Edwards et al. 2001). However, various pockets of land are improved by the imposition of both Pleistocene gravel caps and alluvial fans brought in by watercourses such as the Wadi Kerak, Wadi Numeira and Wadi adh-Dhra‘ (Fig. 2.6). Understandably, human settlements such as Bab edhDhra‘, Numeira, Dhra‘, and Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 and 2, were positioned beside these watercourses and on top of the aforementioned caps and fans to take full advantage of their farming potential (Donahue 2003, 1985; Edwards and Higham 2001). Modern farms have similarly exploited favourable pockets of land, harnessing the permanent springs (Figs 2.5, 2.9).

Tests were conducted on a series of karst salt caves in Mount Sedom, located on the southwestern shore of the Dead Sea to chart the changes to climate in the region during the late Holocene (Frumkin et al. 1994). The tests assumed that wider and higher caves, formed by the dissolution of the salt structure from floodwater, indicated periods of greater moisture. Wood fragments found in the caves were dated by radiocarbon method in order to establish the relative chronology of the cave sequence. Strong correlation between cave height/width and the dates of wood fragments deposited in the caves during episodes of intense flooding determined that the fourth millennium BCE represents a period of high moisture in the region (Frumkin et al. 1994). By contrast, the second millennium represents a period of increasing aridity, and a correspondingly higher rate of erosion.

Human occupation in the Dead Sea area has been constrained by limitations to the long-term sustainability of farming around the Dead Sea Basin. The reasons for this unsustainability lie in the region’s marginal and fluctuating climate and geological instability (Frumkin et al. 1994; Neev and Emery 1967; Niemi 1997). Land chosen for its suitability in antiquity is marked by abundant evidence of erosion and tectonic activity. The sites of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, Numeira and Bab edh-Dhra‘ are all heavily eroded and truncated. The final abandonment of these sites seems to be closely linked with the erosive and tectonic activities of the wadis (Donahue 1985; Edwards et al. 2001).

The rate of erosion may also increase as a result of tectonic activity in the form of uplift. Uplift may cause perennial watercourses to emerge at a higher elevation, or for existing watercourses to change their directional course. Changes to elevation and course can cause both

Erosion around the Dead Sea Basin, particularly in the 16

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 2.6. ZAD 1 on the Dead Sea Plain, indicating features cited in the text

17

THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Figure 2.7. Westerly view of Wadi adh-Dhra' and Wadi al-Wai'da bordering ZAD 1

Figure 2.8. The Dana Conglomerate emerging in the Wadi Dhra', looking east

Figure 2.9. Erosion of the Wadi Dhra' north of modern farmland, looking south-east

18

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN increased flow gradient and a widening of a watercourse, resulting in headward erosion. The dramatic erosion of third millennium BCE sites Bab edh-Dhra‘ and Numeira led Donahue (1985) to conclude that tectonic uplift was responsible for increasing flow gradient in Wadi Kerak, Wadi adh-Dhra‘, and Wadi Numeira, resulting in headward erosion. Minor faults are associated with all three wadis, but Donahue could not conclusively support his assumptions with definitive evidence.

Donahue (1985) observed the gentle erosion of Bab edhDhra‘ by Wadi Kerak prior to and during the site’s occupation, whereas the post-abandonment period is marked by a massive increase in erosive activity, which is characterized by a 28-metre straight-sided slot in the wadi’s cross-section (Donahue 2003). Meanwhile, an EB II/III site located on the southern bank of Wadi Kerak (Edwards et al. 2004), only a few kilometers upstream to the northeast of Bab edh-Dhra‘, shows no evidence of the gradual erosion witnessed in the late third millennium. Instead, the latter site demonstrates a rapid erosion, similar to the post-abandonment erosion of Bab edhDhra‘ (House 2003). The straight-sided slot caused by rapid erosive activity affecting both Early Bronze sites in Wadi Kerak is also evident in the current channel of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ which cuts the Middle Bronze site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 (see below). This channel, located to the northeast of Bab edh-Dhra‘, flows into Wadi Kerak from the east and must post-date the Middle Bronze Age occupation of the Dead Sea Plain.

Recent geological reconnaissance in the Dead Sea Plain by a La Trobe University team, observed evidence of substantial tectonic uplift on the south bank of Wadi adhDhra‘, suggesting that Donahue was correct in his initial interpretations (House 2003). The south bank of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ has been offset up to ten metres compared to the northern bank. This faulting represents an earthquake measuring approximately 8 on the Richter scale. The faulting post-dates the occupation of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, which was abandoned by 1650 BCE at the latest, because the latter site has been fractured by the displacement. The uplift along the faults created a series of steps, descending from southeast to northwest, which increased the gradient of the flow, and eventually caused Wadi adhDhra‘ to recut its course from an original east-west orientation to a southeast-northwest one (J. Webb, pers. comm. 2003).

The only archaeological evidence for erosion in the second millennium consists of the truncated remains of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 clearly demonstrates a broader plain in the east compared to a narrow tongue of land in the west, which suggests that this site was subjected to the headward erosion of Wadi adh-Dhra‘. Unfortunately, the geomorphologic evidence for the timing of the incision of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ is inconclusive and can only suggest a period of rapid erosion that post-dates the occupation of Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 sometime after 1725 BCE (House 2003: 72). Nevertheless, the movement of both Bab edh-Dhra‘ and Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 settlements towards to the east suggests that some headward erosion coupled with tectonic activity must have occurred by the early part of the second millennium BCE. I will argue that tectonic activity, continued erosion and poor rainfall probably conspired to precipitate the final abandonment of the region at some point during the second millennium BCE (see also Chapters 6 and 9).

Climatic and tectonic investigations point to a simultaneous deterioration of the landscape as a result of falling moisture and substantial tectonic activity around the Dead Sea Basin towards the end of the third millennium BCE (Donahue 2003). Falling moisture forced the level of the Dead Sea lower, whilst uplift changed the course of some major watercourses and increased flow gradient causing major wadi incisions. Both factors may have had dramatic effects on increasing erosion in the area. The erosion led to the truncation of both sites and land suitable for cultivation. The north face of Bab edh-Dhra‘ was rapidly eroded after EB III (Donahue 1985), whilst Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 was dissected by tectonic uplift on the south bank of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ during MB II (House 2003). Likewise, the northern face of Numeira, an EBA site belonging to a wadi system south of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ and Wadi Kerak was also eroded. These episodes of uplift and erosion caused the destruction of sections of sites, as well as the truncation of the Dead Sea Plain, making conditions for habitation increasingly difficult.

Importantly, the timing of both the environmental changes and the abandonment of the region is now subject to revision. The evidence suggests that at least two environmental factors contributed to the abandonment of Bronze Age sites in the Dead Sea Basin. Both desiccation and tectonic activity during the Early Bronze Age as well as the Middle Bronze Age can be added to the list of social, political and cultural causes that were outlined earlier.

Observations drawn from environmental reconstruction are complimented by the archaeological data. Bab edhDhra‘, and as I will argue Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, both contain chronologically sensitive archaeological evidence pointing to the gradual resettlement of the sites in an easterly direction during the EB IV and later MB II respectively (Schaub and Rast 1984). Eastward resettlement may indicate that headward erosion was causing erosion of the wadis from west to east, prompting relocation to less severely truncated areas. Indeed

2.6. Conclusion For some years, desiccation and resource depletion remained the most convincing and hence persistent explanations for the subsistence shift and steady depopulation of south Jordan at the conclusion of the Early Bronze Age. The discovery of Dayr ‘Ayn ‘Abata and Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 raised doubts about the timing of 19

THE SOUTHERN LEVANT the desiccation and the extent of diminishing human activity in the area. Accompanied by revised explanatory models relying on social forces, south Jordan, and the Dead Sea Basin provide the perfect setting to study and reconsider the processes accounting for changes in subsistence, economy, settlement and abandonment in the southern Levant during the EBA-MBA transition.

Paleoenvironmental reconstruction conducted through systematic reconnaissance of the local geology and coring of ancient lake sediment beside the Dead Sea (Edwards et al 2001). A combination of these three areas of investigation hoped to answer questions relating to human interaction with, and responses to the environment from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age.

The need to gain greater understanding of the interaction between cultural and environmental changes stimulated the formation of a joint project by La Trobe and Arizona State Universities. The Archaeology and Environment of the Dead Sea Plain Project developed a research strategy that aimed to focus on three research areas: 1) Excavations of Zahrat adh-Dhra 2, a PPNA hamlet northeast of Wadi al-Wai‘dah; 2) Excavations of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, an MB II settlement south of Wadi alWai‘dah and dissected by Wadi adh-Dhra‘; 3)

The excavation and analysis of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 in particular promised to illuminate the nature of human activity in the region during the MB II. Being the sole MB II settlement site in all of south Jordan, it would provide details on the society, modes of subsistence, and abandonment behavior for this period in the Dead Sea Basin. These details are seen as being crucial to the comprehensive understanding of Bronze Age Society in the southern Levant.

20

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA’ 1 SETTLEMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CULTURE This chapter details the excavations at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, conducted from December 1999 to January 2000. The environment, locale, material culture and observations relating to the site are introduced and discussed. Particular attention is afforded to the spatial distribution of architecture and stratigraphic phasing of the structures. The situation and cultural traits of the site provide the backdrop to a discussion which locates the site within the current debate centring on the transition from the Early to Middle Bronze Ages.

human activity in the region during the PPNA and the MB II periods. And, finally, a geological survey and mapping of the region took place in order to reconstruct and track changes in the landscape over time. Together, these four components would provide a more complete and sophisticated image of human behaviour during the prehistoric and protohistoric periods. Excavation of the two sites began in the winter of 1999/2000.

3.1. Site Discovery and Introduction to the Archaeology and Environment of the Dead Sea Plain Project

Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 is located east of the Dead Sea on the Dead Sea Plain of Jordan at longitude 31° 17’ N. and latitude 35° 35’ E. (grid reference 460 203, Natural Resources Directory ‘Ar Rabba’ Geological Map, 3152 IV). It is situated 1.5 kilometres north of Dhra’ village, 1.5 kilometres north-east of the Early Bronze Age site of Bab edh-Dhra’, and two kilometres east of Ghor alMazra’a village (Fig. 2.4). The site lies approximately 180 metres below sea level and it receives between 50100 mm of mean annual rainfall. Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 covers an area of 12 hectares, which is truncated by an east-west flowing wadi known as Wadi adh-Dhra’. The most visible and best-preserved portion of the site lies to the north of the wadi and covers an area of approximately 6 hectares (Fig. 2.7).

3.2. General Site Description

The discovery of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 by Macumber in 1989 east of the Lisan peninsula on the Dead Sea Plain (Figs 2.5-6), was followed by the detailed reconnaissance of a La Trobe University survey team in 1993/1994. La Trobe University’s survey of the Jordan Valley undertook the mapping and collection of diagnostic surface artifacts (Edwards et al. 1998). The ceramic evidence, primarily in the form of coarse ware fragments from cooking vessels, dated Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 to the Middle Bronze II period (c.a. 1920-1500 BCE), making it the only settlement site definitely attributed to this period in southern Jordan (Berelov 2000). The absence of earlier or later ceramic material strongly suggested that the architectural units visible on the surface of the site belonged exclusively to the Middle Bronze II (Edwards et al. 2002).

The northern portion of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 (ZAD 1 north henceforth) contains approximately 21 architectural units, 12 wall alignments and 2 boulder fields over an area of 6 hectares (Fig. 3.1). A total of 28 structures (including the 7 structures scattered over the 6 hectares on the southern ridge) extending over an area of 12 hectares, represent a fraction of the original site. This assertion is made on the basis of a series of truncated structures presently collapsing southwards into Wadi adh-Dhra’ (Fig. 3.2). It is inconceivable that these structures were originally built in such close proximity to the edge of the wadi, and it must be assumed that the edge of the wadi lay substantially further away from them in MB II. It is also likely that some structures were entirely swept away and destroyed by the erosion of the wadi, leaving no trace of their existence. The abandonment and partial destruction of the site may indeed be linked to the incision of Wadi adhDhra’ into land occupied by the inhabitants of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 (see Section 2.5 for discussion). Nevertheless a sizeable record of the site remains intact, and a variety of structures of different size and plan are preserved.

The La Trobe University (LTU) investigations in the Jordan Valley were primarily aimed at locating sites dating to the Lower Paleolithic period. However, the initial discovery of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 led to a subsequent discovery of a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) site immediately to the northeast of the Middle Bronze Age site. Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 2, a PPNA hamlet 100 meters to the northeast of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, would later form the key research focus for the Australian team. A more general desire to understand human activity in the region and its changing environmental landscape through time required the excavation of both the Middle Bronze II and PPNA settlements. This prompted the formation of a joint project with Arizona State University (ASU). The project became known as the Archaeology and Environment of the Dead Sea Plain Project (AEDSP). The major focus of the AEDSP project was to map changes in the environment of the region through time, and to understand human responses to those changes. A drilling rig was positioned beside the Dead Sea to recover Holocene sediment cores in order to chart changes to the regional climate and flora. The excavation of Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 and Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 2 sought to elucidate

The southern portion of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 (ZAD 1 south henceforth) is sparse in architectural remains. Only 7 structures were observed, but these are identical in design and plan to the structures to the north of Wadi adh-Dhra’. None of these structures were excavated, but surface

21

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.1. Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 after the 1999-2000 excavations Fig. 3.3 for a general view). A cursory inspection however revealed an extremely large structure of approximately 25 meters in length on the back (eastern) slope. Surface remains were again clearly MB II, although Roman pottery was recovered at lower levels, down-slope to the east. The composition of the pottery assemblage from the large structure on the hillock differs from the material found at the lower site in a number of important respects (see Chapter 6 for a full discussion; and Edwards et al. 2002).

Figure 3.2. The Dead Sea Plain (Zahrat adh-Dhra’ region), indicating the erosion of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 by Wadi adh-Dhra’, looking north ceramics indicate that ZAD 1 south and ZAD 1 north, belong to the same, contemporaneous settlement (Edwards et al. 2002). Towards the eastern end of ZAD 1 south the relief rises sharply to form a natural elevation. This hillock (Fig. 3.3) is currently occupied by a local landowner, a situation which precluded excavation of the immediate vicinity (Due to limitations of access, Structure 33 could not be mapped. See

Figure 3.3. Structure 33, located on the south bank of Wadi adh-Dhra’, lookingnorth towards ZAD 1 north

22

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN flooding of Wadi adh-Dhra’ (House 2003). Limestone boulders, deposited in the immediate vicinity of the site, may have been arranged by the inhabitants into a town wall or a cultic installation.

3.3. Spatial Distribution and Classification of Features The first season of excavations at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 began in December 1999. Field School students from Arizona State and La Trobe Universities opened and completed 23 excavation units (A-T, Y-Z). These units (Fig. 3.1), ranging from 1m x 8m to 4m x 4m in size, focused on specific features of the site. Since the architectural features at ZAD 1 were clearly visible on the surface, dimensions of individual excavation squares were designed on the basis of these visible features.

Alternately, the natural occurrence of the boulders may have attracted prospective settlers since they afforded potential fortification, raw material for building, or were associated with ritual activities. Significantly, the two arrangements of boulders are difficult to explain as a purely natural phenomenon, since such boulder concentrations do not occur elsewhere at the site (note: the western boulder field is not marked on Fig. 3.1. because it lies beyond the scope of the plan).

Most units concentrated on architectural features, or areas directly adjoining structural features. Of the 23 units, 17 directly related to architecture, the other 6 being a combination of possible midden areas and test probes in a lower terrace of Wadi adh-Dhra’ (Day in Edwards et al. 2002). Most structures were excavated as units under a single letter-name except two: Structures 37 and 42. These large and more complex structures were divided into a number of squares with separate unit letters (see Table 3.2 for the nomenclature applied to structures). Both excavated and unexcavated structures, including wall fragments, were subsequently assigned an individual number designation.

Structure 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

ZAD 1 north (Fig. 3.1) was divided into four areas on the basis of four architectural clusters, which are segregated from one another by substantial areas of open space (Table 3.1). Cluster 1 comprises 5 one-room and tworoom structures (Structures 1-5) occupying a large area of land at the extreme east of the site. These structures are divided from the rest of the site by a narrow neck of land located to the west. Cluster 1 was not sampled because of its poor preservation and shallow deposition. Cluster 2 3 4

Unit of Excavation A, B D, E, F, M, N, V G H I J K, P, R P, Q L

Table 3.2. Structures by excavation unit at ZAD 1 north Two Two-room rectilinear structures were sampled in Cluster 2. Unit A exposed Structure 36, and Units D, E, F, M, N and V exposed Structure 37. The latter is the largest structure at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 (not including Structure 33, the enigmatic and massive structure on the hillock at ZAD 1 south, which could not be accessed for excavations). Structure 37 comprises one square room with an adjoining rectangular courtyard and a curvilinear corral or enclosure. It is possible that another enclosure of this type existed in association with Structure 10, located to the northeast of Structure 36. However, the exact design and association of this wall fragment is uncertain because Structure 10 and its environs have been disturbed and remain unexcavated.

Structures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 10, 36, 37 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 38, 39 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

Table 3.1. Structures grouped by Cluster at ZAD 1 north

Although separate wall fragments describing curvilinear enclosures occur among Cluster 4 (i.e. the western complex of structures) current evidence suggests that no other structure at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 resembles the plan of Structure 37.

To the west of Cluster 1 the site narrows substantially, the result of heavy erosion from Wadi Wa’idah to the north and Wadi adh-Dhra’ to the south. Three variously sized walls (6-8) cross the ridge, which then widens to the west. Cluster 2, located to the west of the narrow ridge, consists of three large two-room structures (10, 36-37) and one smaller one-room structure (9). This cluster is dissected by a megalithic boulder field (see Fig. 3.1), which was tested by Units B and C. The boulder field is one of two arrangements of silicified limestone boulders, which seems to have functioned as a town wall or perhaps a cultic site (Edwards et al. 2001). Silicified limestone is found at the rift margin and could have easily been transported downstream by the seasonal

Cluster 3 is located west of Structure 37, within and slightly beyond a second narrow tongue of land caused by the erosion of the wadis. Cluster 3 consists of seven structures (11, 13-16, 38-39) and two wall fragments (12 and 17). Structures 38 and 39, both rectilinear structures composed only of three walls, were excavated from this cluster as Units G and H. These Three-wall structures represent a distinct architectural type at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1. An exterior area (Unit O) was 23

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 sampled nearby, west of Structure 11. Structures 11 and 14 comprise a two-room plan, whilst Structures 13, 15 and 16 consist of only one room each. Although these structures were unexcavated, Structures 14-16 provided unique examples of an enigmatic interior installation type characterized by a series of parallel stone pebble alignments running lengthwise through the middle of the rooms.

and conform to a type of ‘Pit House’ construction (Fig. 3.16: note the earliest phase in this structure is here associated with surrounding walls and exterior surfaces that lie substantially higher than the floor. The original construction cut is obvious in the section drawing of Figure 3.13). This type of architecture is known almost exclusively from the Early Bronze II period, particularly at Sinai Desert sites such as Sheikh ‘Awad, Nabi Salah and Sheikh Muhsein (Beit-Arieh 1992; 1981). The rectilinear plan with a doorway positioned in one of the long walls has been associated with the ‘Arad House’ (Beit Arieh 1992: 81). At Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 the design type is defined by a sunken floor, which is substantially lower than the exterior surface level and first course of stones making up the walls, while the doorway appears to have been placed in one of the short walls (Edwards et al. 2001). House construction was achieved by the excavation of a square or rectangular trench, followed by the erection of four walls on ground level on the edge of the trench (Beit-Arieh 1981). Substantial wall collapse within small rooms in Structures 37 and 42, as well as the presence of large flat stone slabs in Structures 36 suggests that some structures may have been roofed (Edwards et al. 2001).

Cluster 4 consists of five structures (40-44) and up to seven variously sized wall fragments (18-25, 35). The five structures were excavated as Units I-L and Q-R. This area, along with structure 37, contains the deepest deposits at the site. Cluster 4 also includes the greatest variety of structure types. Rectilinear two-room (41-42), one-room (43-44) and three-wall (40) structures are all present. A number of walls, including the curvilinear Structure 35, are situated amid Cluster 4, and appear to represent boundary markers or terrace walls. Only one of these walls (Structure 20) was investigated, as Unit T. Two possible midden areas were probed in Cluster 4: Unit P, lying between structures 42 and 43, and Unit S to the northwest of structure 41. To the west of Cluster 4 there are fewer architectural features. Several walls (21-25) and one structure (26) are located in this part of the site, the western margin of which is heavily eroded. The second limestone boulder field (beyond the scope of Fig. 3.1) is found immediately to the west of this area, on a narrow spur similarly undergoing substantial erosion. This part of the site is unexcavated.

General refuse patterns associated with structures at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 are characterised by low densities of ceramic refuse in upper room fills (i.e. overburden) and exterior contexts (Tables 3. 3-4, 3.6). Lithic debris was encountered in significantly greater concentrations in the upper room fills. This pattern was reversed in lower room fills associated with occupational debris on floors, where the quantities of pottery were high while lithic material quantities were low. Floors were associated with ashy sediment and flat-lying sherds; especially cooking vessel material often discovered in clusters (see discussion in Section 6. 11di and detailed analysis in Section 8. 2di). The clusters of broken cooking vessels appeared to be largely restorable and were often associated with ash pits or hearths. Jar material was highly fragmented by comparison, and small vessels were uncommon. The vast majority of this material was excavated from the interiors of structures.

A further two units were excavated on a terrace in Wadi adh-Dhra’ as Units Y and Z. These two probes investigated the deposits, lying substantially below the level of the Bronze age settlement, to ascertain the dynamics and timing of erosion activity in Wadi adh-Dhra’. 3.4. Structure Types and Artefact Distribution The Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 structures are unified by two important characteristics: they are rectilinear in form Structure 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Site

Room Fill 81 626 46 12 101 25 37 7 14 949

Floor 57 1615 0 271 352 202 398 19 237 3151

Exterior 35 213 11 0 8 5 80 18 165 461

Table 3.3. Distribution of sherds (N=) according to context type at ZAD 1

24

N= 173 2454 57 283 461 232 515 44 416 4635

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Structure 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Site mean

Room Fill (%) 47 26 81 4 22 11 7 16 3 20

Floor (%) 33 65 0 96 76 87 77 43 57 67

Exterior (%) 20 9 19 0 2 2 16 41 40 13

N= 173 2454 57 283 461 232 515 44 416 4635

Table 3.4. Distribution of sherds (%) according to context type at ZAD 1 Structure 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Site Mean

Room Fill 10.65 7.30 6.12 2.10 4.53 8.19 8.28 4.14 6.93 87.91

Floor 4.80 5.35 0 5.16 2.80 0.63 3.00 0.34 2.31 33.74

Exterior 8.87 4.54 0.80 0 2.30 0 0 1.57 2.29 36.83

Bin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.22 2.22

Corral 0 11.96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.96

Total 24.32 53.90 6.92 7.26 9.63 22.26 28.58 6.05 13.75 172.66

Table 3.5. Excavated area by volume (m3) at ZAD 1 Structure 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Site Mean

Room Fill 7.61 23.18 7.52 5.71 22.3 1.68 2.59 1.69 2.02 8.26

Floor 11.88 137.71 N/A 52.52 125.71 115.3 63.17 56.55 102.6 83.18

Exterior 3.95 28.78 13.75 N/A 3.48 0.89 10.00 11.46 39.74 14.01

Bin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33.33 33.33

Corral 0 21.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.91

Total 23.44 211.58 21.27 58.23 151.49 117.87 75.76 69.70 177.69 160.69

Table 3.6. Sherd Density/m3 by context type at ZAD 1 The following discussion presents the excavations conducted at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, with particular attention afforded to descriptions of construction, phasing, stratigraphy, and features associated with the architecture. Excavation of the houses at Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 revealed three distinct designs, defined by the following plans: a) Three-wall One-room structures, b) Four-wall One-room structures, and c) Two-room structures, including an internal cross-wall. Sections detailing the excavations have been arranged and divided according to the three distinct architectural plans.

3.41. One-room Structures One-room structures at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 fall into two architectural categories: Four-wall and Three-wall (for example Structure 43, Fig. 3.17 and Structure 40, Fig. 3.11). 3.41a. Three-wall One-room Structures Three examples of Three-wall One-room structures were excavated: Structures 38, 39 and 40. The Three-wall structures consist of a rectilinear room, which lacks one of its short walls. Although the excavation of such

25

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 structures focused on clearly identifiable interiors of rooms positioned between the three walls, the lack of a fourth wall is incontestable on the grounds that the shallow deposits and pit house construction of the structures render all walls visible on the surface at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1.

only. This ash deposit appears to be the undifferentiated remains of a hearth (for another example see Structure 41). Finally Locus H008 represents the natural deposit under the floor matrix, which lacks any substantial quantity of artefacts. 3.41aiii. Structure 40 Structure 40 lies approximately 35 meters to the east of Structure 41; it is relatively isolated from other structures. Structure 40 is rectilinear in shape and like Structures 38 and 39 it contains only three walls, lacking an eastern north-south wall (Fig. 3.11). The upper fill of Structure 40 (Locus I001) produced substantial amounts of ceramic material, unlike most other upper fills at Zahrat adhDhra’ 1. The most likely explanation for this is that I001 was excavated as a thick and undifferentiated layer measuring between 40 cm and 47.5 cm (Figs 3.12-13). This locus contained an ash deposit located at the eastern margin of unit I, which was excavated together with the rest of I001. The ash deposit was clearly visible during excavation and in the eastern balk section drawing (Figs 3.14-15), and probably represents a hearth resting on surface I006/I007. This hearth continues beyond the eastern balk (Figs 3.12-13) and must be associated with the latest occupation of the structure. The expansion of excavations in the direction of the western wall I008, led to the discovery of wall collapse I010, intercalated between topsoil I001 and surface I006/I007 (Fig. 3.12; I010 does not intersect the east and west balks). Beneath I001 and I010, large quantities of ceramic material accompanied by ashy sediments were encountered at the level of Loci I006/I007. These floor deposits must be associated with the hearth grounded on I006/I007 at the eastern margin of the unit (Fig. 3.14). Excavation of the lower levels of I006/I007 revealed a further ash pit (Locus I011) resting on a lower floor matrix: I012 (Fig. 3.13). The excavation of Locus I012 in turn revealed two further pits (Loci I013 and I014) situated in the northwestern and southwestern corners respectively (Fig. 3.16). Unlike the ash pits in I001 and I011, I013 and I014 were dug up to 50 cm into the lower reaches of Locus I012, containing ash and ceramic material. Pits of this sort were not encountered anywhere else at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1. They represent the foundational phase of occupation in Structure 40 and antedate the upper part of Locus I012, which was not differentiated in excavations from the lower portion containing the two pits.

It is not inconceivable that this type of structure is not an intentional ‘type’ but the remains of a four-wall structure, which has been partially robbed of its building materials. However, excavations in Structure 40, which extended into the eastern exterior of that structure (Fig. 3.11), failed to locate any traces of a fourth wall, indicating that the Three-wall design was deliberate. The preservation of these structures varied from badly disturbed wall alignments and shallow deposits in the case of Structure 38, to well preserved wall alignments and deeply stratified deposits in the case of Structure 40. 3.41ai. Structure 38 Structure 38 (Fig. 3.4) contained the poorest level of preservation among the Three-wall structures; walls were preserved to only one course as intermittent stone alignments. The structure contained a comparatively low quantity of ceramic material and a low volume of sediment (Table 3.5): cultural deposits measured only 45 cm in thickness. The interior of the structure was excavated as one locus (Locus G003) and no living surface or floor was identified (Figs 3.5-6). Occasional ash lenses and increasing quantities of cooking vessel material, together with wall debris were reported at lower levels of Locus G003 but these were not thought to constitute a floor. On the basis of evidence linking wall debris, ash deposits and cooking vessel material to floor surfaces at other Structures at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, one must assume that the floor surface in Structure 38 was missed. Exterior contexts were shallow and produced little artefactual material. 3.41aii. Structure 39 Structure 39 (Fig. 3.7) lies to the southwest of Structure 38 and immediately to the west of Structures 14 and 15. Structure 39 consists of one short north-south wall and two longer, parallel east-west walls. No exterior contexts were sampled. The stratigraphy of Structure 39 (Figs 3.8-9) was limited to four loci, constituting excavations by arbitrary spits due to the particular lack of differentiation of sediments. Locus H001 represents the topsoil in the interior. This locus produced very small quantities of ceramic material. Locus H006 contained substantial amounts of ceramic material and was distinguished from H001 on the basis of wall debris, ash and pottery. The northern parts of this locus probably represent occupational debris on a floor, designated as H007. All sediment attributed to H006 was excavated as a single locus. Wall debris and pottery in lower H006 (Fig. 3.10) overlie an ashy soil apparently occurring throughout the structure which makes up part of the floor (Locus H007). The ashy deposit in H007 intersects the eastern and western sections (Figs 3.9-10)

3.41aiv. Three-wall One-room Structures summary Differences between the Three-wall structures are characterized by variability in volume of deposit and density of artefacts, which increase from Structures 38 to 39 and 40. Structures 38 and 39 are roughly the same size and rectangular in shape. Structure 40 is substantially smaller and squarer in shape. It is also distinguished by the existence of two refuse pits and two episodes of occupation abandonment. The reoccupation and use of Structure 40 contrasts with the single occupation phases of Structures 38 and 39.

26

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 3.4. Plan of Structure 38

Figure 3.5. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 38

Figure 3.6. Unit G North Balk in Structure 38

27

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.7. Plan of Structure 39

Figure 3.8. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 38

Figure 3.9. Unit H West Balk in Structure 39 28

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 3.10. Unit H East Balk in Structure 39

Figure 3.11. Plan of Structure 40

Figure 3.12. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 40 29

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.13. Unit I West Balk in Structure 40

Figure 3.14. Unit I East Balk in Structure 40

Figure 3.15. Late occupation ash debris in Unit I, Structure 40 (Photo by S. E. Falconer) 30

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN 3.41b. Four-wall One-room Structures Two structures represent the second category of One-room structures; those comprising four walls. Structures 43 and 44 are both located at the western extreme of Cluster 4. They are roughly comparable in size and consist of four walls enclosing rectangular interiors. However, a number of features distinguish Structures 43 and 44.

high concentration of potsherds support the interpretation of this bin as a specialized refuse receptacle. 3.41c. One-room Structures Summary One-room structures excavated at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 show a combination of both common and distinctive features. All structures produced greater quantities of refuse in interior loci associated with floors and living surfaces than in overburden fills and exterior deposits. The floors were associated with ashy soil and cooking vessel sherds. Three structures contained only three walls and two contained four walls. Two of the five one-room structures (38 and 39) are long and rectangular, whilst the other three structures (40, 43 and 44) are small and square in shape. One structure (40) shows evidence of repeated use and occupation, whilst the others are used for only one occupational period. Specialized refuse receptacles are found in two structures: two pits in Structure 40 (I013, I014), and a bin in Structure 44 (topsoil L008).

3.41bi. Structure 43 Structure 43 is located immediately to the west of Structure 42. The interior of Structure 43 was excavated as Unit Q while the eastern exterior was excavated as Unit P (Fig. 3.17). The structure is a rectangular house composed of four walls with a doorway in the western wall. Walls are preserved to a height of two courses in some places. Two robber pits were located on the interior of the structure: one at the southern end and one at the northern end. Excavations exposed a series of ash lenses, one of which is evident in the south balk below the level of the southern wall (Fig. 3.19). Several of these ash lenses (Loci Q002, Q005, and Q009) were associated with pottery (Fig. 3.18). However, clear and continuous living surfaces were not evident as in other structures because of the high level of disturbance in this structure. Structure 43 yielded a low density of artifactual material.

3.42. Two-room Structures Two-room structures at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 are composed of one small, rectilinear room and a long rectangular room, separated from each other by a cross-wall. Deposition, depth and wall debris is generally higher in the smaller room. Four such structures were excavated at Zahrat adhDhra’ 1: Structures 36 and 37 in the east, and Structures 41 and 42 in the west.

3.41bii. Structure 44 Structure 44 is located to the west of structure 43 and is the most westerly structure excavated at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1. It comprises one rectangular room and an adjoining, hemispherical bin at its southwest corner. A large field wall runs from east to west on Structure 44’s southern side (Fig. 3.20). Apart from a small robber pit in the northern corner, the structure is characterized by good preservation. Walls are preserved to three courses in some places, especially in the western Wall L003.

3.42a. Structure 36 Structure 36, located immediately to the east of the eastern boulder field is orientated in a NNE-SSW direction (Fig. 3.25). Excavation concentrated on the northern portion of the structure. The interior of the structure provided the bulk of the excavated material, with representative samples taken from the north (Locus A014), east (Locus A008) and west (Locus A001) exteriors (Fig. 3.26). Two small areas (Unit A south and Unit B) were sampled in the larger, rectangular room south of cross-Wall A004 but these were poor in artifactual remains. A deep deposit of topsoil (Locus A003a-c) was located in the western part of the small northern room (Figs 3.26-27). The eastern part of the room contained an extremely shallow topsoil deposit (Locus A006a) and consisted predominantly of wall debris (Locus A006b-c). Wall debris A006c and Locus A003c yielded substantial pottery, some bone, and a concentration of stone slabs, which constitute the only evidence for roofing material found at ZAD 1. Debris beneath Loci A003 and A006 was designated as Locus A011a. A probe to investigate the stone slabs was designated Locus A012.

Topsoil contexts yielded little ceramic material, particularly on the interior. Lower exterior Loci L012, L013, L014, L015, and L022 (Figs 3.21-22), produced greater quantities of ceramic material compared to other exterior contexts elsewhere on the site. This was particularly true of the southern exterior where jar sherds lying close to the southern wall (Locus L002) were uncovered. The lower reaches of interior Loci L018 and L019 produced substantial quantities of wall debris, particularly against the western wall (Locus L003). The wall debris overlies Floor Debris Locus L023, which is characterized by pockets of ash and clusters of cooking vessel material (Fig. 3.21, 3.23). Two distinct clusters were identified: one against Wall L003 and one in the northeast corner. Natural and sterile Floor matrix Locus L024 was composed of a calcareous, compact sediment. The bin installation (Fig. 3.24) built against Wall L003 contained a clear stratigraphic sequence (Fig. 3.23), with varying quantities of ceramic refuse increasing with depth. Lower Loci L021 and L025 yielded substantial ceramic material and a grinding stone. The grinding stone in Locus L021 and the pottery in Locus L025 protrude from underneath the stone perimeter of the bin. The depth of the deposit and

The northern exterior was excavated as Locus A014 and the partially robbed out interior immediately to the south of Wall A013 was excavated as Loci A003, A006, and A011. An ashy floor (Locus A015) was discovered in the northeast part of the structure, beneath Locus A011 (Fig. 3.27). 31

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.16. Two Pits in Unit I, Structure 40 (Photo by S. E. Falconer)

Figure 3.17. Plan of Structures 42 and 43

Figure 3.18. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 43 32

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 3.19. Unit Q South Balk in Structure 43

Figure 3.20. Plan of Structure 44

33

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.21. Broken Cooking Pots on surface L023 in Unit L, Structure 44 (Photo by S. E. Falconer)

Figure 3.22. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 44

34

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 3.23. Unit L North Balk in Structure 44 3.42b. Structure 37

part of the Eastern Room near the northern wall (E006), whilst the centre of the room was located predominantly in Unit F. The stratigraphy in Unit E was not correctly identified, and the Eastern Room portion associated with this unit was excavated employing only two loci (E003 and E008) from topsoil to natural deposit (Fig. 3.30).

Structure 37 is the largest structure at ZAD 1 North and provides the largest sample of artefacts at the site. This structure consists of two rectilinear rooms and a curvilinear corral or enclosure (Fig. 3.28). The two rectilinear rooms are situated beside the southern edge of the spur overlooking Wadi adh-Dhra’, and are roughly aligned along the east-west axis of the site.

The Eastern Room (Units E and F) contained a large amount of wall debris represented by Loci E003 and F008 (Figs 3.30-31, 3.35). In Unit F the wall debris is also detected in Locus F010, which contains a substantial quantity of broken jar material. Jar sherds in the lower reaches of Locus F010 and Locus F013 (Figs 3.35-36, 3.41) belonged to restorable vessels and represent vessels abandoned on the floor surface of Phase I. The lower portion of Locus F013 represents occupational debris resting on an earlier floor surface Locus F015 (Phase II). Floor matrix and earlier fill below it, were also excavated as Locus F015. The lower reaches of Locus F015 contained another sequence of wall debris (associated with Phase III) but this was not distinguished by the naming of a separate locus (eg: Figs 3.35, 3.37). Ideally, the material built up on Locus F013 below the wall debris should have been assigned a separate locus number. Likewise, the fill below Floor F013 should have been distinguished from Floor F013 and the occupational debris resting on Floor F015. Unfortunately, floor, fill and occupational debris were all excavated as Locus F013. Finally, the fill below the Floor F015 should have been distinguished from the occupational debris resting on the foundational Floor F020. The earliest phase of occupation is represented by Walls F018 and F019 (Figs. 3.35-37, 3.42) and an underlying floor (Locus F020) beneath the wall debris in lower Locus F015. In Unit E the entire sequence is represented by Locus E003 and the partially robbed out and adjoining Locus E008.

Structure 37 is divided into four major spatial components: the large western room, the small eastern room, the courtyard/corral, and the exterior (Figs 3.28, 3.43). Structure 37 contains the deepest (up to 97.5 cm) cultural deposits at the site. The eastern room contains three phases of occupation, of which two are associated with separate phases of architecture. The western room is lower than the eastern room due to a natural slope; the lower reaches of unit N in the western room are almost a meter lower than associated loci in unit F of the eastern room. The Eastern Room of Structure 37 was predominantly excavated in Unit F. A small portion of the room in the north was excavated as Unit E. The stratigraphy in Unit F (Figs 3.31, 3.35-37) is fundamentally distinct from the depositional sequences encountered in most of the other structures at ZAD 1. Topsoil (Locus F005), wall fall (Locus F008), floor debris (F010), and the floor (F013) in the upper phase (Phase I) overlie a middle phase (Phase II), marked by floor F015. Phase II in turn overlies a lower phase (Phase III), which is associated with earlier architecture. Two small walls (F018 and F019) form a corner below upper Walls F001 and F002. Wall F018, which extends from north to south below and marginally west of upper Wall F001, may align with a lower wall in the corral: Wall D006 (Figs 3.28, 3.40). The lower walls prove the contention that an earlier structure, which extended further north into the later corral, was levelled and rebuilt as Structure 37. Deposits associated with Phase III are represented by the lower reaches of Locus F015 and floor Locus F020 (Figs 3.31, 3.35-37).

The stratigraphy primarily reconstructed from Unit F suggests up to three distinct phases of occupation and use in the eastern room, two of these supported by architectural phases. Loci F013, F015 and F020 represent three floor surfaces, the first two associated with the late architectural phase (Phases I-II), and the last associated with an early architectural phase (Phase III).

Excavation of the upper phase demonstrated that the floor level was slightly higher nearer to the walls but lower in the centre of the room. The overlying floor debris followed a similar pattern. Unit E occupied only a small

35

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.24. Structure 44, Unit L, including Bin Installation in foreground (Photo by S. E. Falconer)

Figure 3.25. Plan of Structure 36

Figure 3.26. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 36

36

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 3.27. Unit A North Balk in Structure 36

Figure 3.28. Plan of Structure 37 37

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.29. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit D

Figure 3.30. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit E

Figure 3.31. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit F

38

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 3.32. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit M

Figure 3.33. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit N

Figure 3.34. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 37, Unit V

39

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.35. Unit F North Balk in Structure 37 The Western Room of Structure 37 (Fig. 3.28) is rectangular in shape and is larger but marginally shallower than the Eastern Room. The Western Room was excavated as Unit M in the east and Unit N in the west. A small portion east of Unit M was excavated as Unit F (Loci F006 and F012), and Unit E (Locus E009).

The excavation of the Corral or enclosure north of the main structure was excavated by Units E, D, M and a bit of Unit N (Fig. 3.28). Excavations were concentrated on the southeast corner of the Corral, against Walls E006 and E001/D001 in Units D and E. Topsoil represented by Loci E004 and D003 yielded to discontinuous ash lenses and cooking vessel material (Figs 3.29, 3.40). Substantial ash and cooking vessel material was encountered in lower Loci E010, D007, D009, and D011. A lower wall (Locus D006), belonging to the early phase and running from south to north, was found beneath but slightly offset to upper Wall D001. Multiple, successive floor surfaces were not identified as they were in the Eastern Room.

The Western Room’s deposits (Figs 3.32-33, 3.38-39) correlate with the upper phase in the Eastern Room. Topsoil Locus M003 yielded to wall-fall Locus M006. Floor debris Loci M007 (lower) and M010 yielded to ashy floor Locus M008 and upper hearth deposit Locus M011. Locus M012 represents the deep ash deposit contained within hearths dug into the natural soil Locus M013. Unlike the Eastern Room, floor deposits in the Western Room were defined by substantial ash and cooking vessel material. The western portion of the Western room represented by Unit N produced a different pattern (Figs 3.33, 3.39). Top soil, wall debris and floor deposits were excavated as Loci N001 and N012, whilst floor matrix was excavated as Loci N011 and N017. The latter were characterised by ash deposits and some cooking vessel sherds. Natural gravel, underlying the floor was designated as Locus N009. A lower north-south wall (Loci N008/016) was discovered in the eastern half of unit N (Fig. 3.39), at almost two meters lower than Wall N004, which represents the upper phase. Wall N008/016 (Fig. 3.28) is found substantially further to the east of Wall N004. The former wall seems to represent the earlier phase of architecture, identified in the Eastern Room by Walls F018 and F019. This idea however, cannot be supported due to the absence here of the successive floors found in the Eastern Room, suggesting that Wall N008/016 most probably represents an internal division within the Western Room, and hence a contemporaneous component of the N011/N018 Floor. The wall fall (Fig. 3.39), ash and cooking vessel debris excavated as part of N001 lower, lying adjacent to Wall N008/016 are therefore associated with an occupation correlated to both Walls N004 and N008/016.

Exterior contexts were sampled on all sides of the structure by all 6 units. Unit V represented the largest sampling area (Fig. 3.28). Exterior contexts showed little stratigraphic differentiation. Most exterior contexts (i.e. E002, F007, M001, N003 and N005) were excavated as one locus, only Units D and F showing stratigraphic differentiation (Figs 3.29, 3.31, 3.35, 3.37). Units D and F lie on the eastern side of the structure, which contained the greatest volume of deposits. The sediment was heaped against the eastern wall of the structure as if it was either washed or blown from the east along the natural, eastwest slope. Exterior contexts produced little artefactual material, with the exception of Unit V. Structure 37 yielded a number of important features relating to construction, occupation and use of space at the site. The small and large rooms are functionally distinct in the upper phase since jar material is prevalent in the eastern, smaller room and cooking vessel material is prevalent in the larger western room. There is no definitive evidence for roofing in either room. The small eastern room is rich in storage jar material, occupies a comparatively small area, and contains the deepest deposits of any structure, comprising a total of three phases of occupation. The corral area produced the bulk of its evidence for occupation in its lower reaches associated with the lower wall D006 (Fig. 3.40). This

40

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 3.36. Unit F West Balk in Structure 37

Figure 3.37. Unit F South Balk in Structure 37

Figure 3.38. Unit M West Balk in Structure 37

41

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.39. Unit N North Balk in Structure 37

Figure 3.40. Unit D North Balk in Structure 37

Figure 3.41. Broken Jars in Unit F, Structure 37 (Photo by S. E. Falconer)

42

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 3.42. Structure 37 eastern and western rooms, showing lower walls F018/F019 (Photo by S. E. Falconer)

Figure 3.43. Structure 37 looking north (Photo by S. E. Falconer) 43

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.44. Plan of Structure 41

Figure 3.45. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 41

44

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 3.46. Unit J East Balk in Structure 41

Figure 3.47. Unit J West Balk in Structure 41

Figure 3.48. Western Room in Unit J, Structure 41 (Photo by S. E. Falconer)

45

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.49. Eastern Room in Unit J, Structure 41 (Photo by S. E. Falconer) may indicate that the upper and lower walls (D001 and D006 respectively) relate to architecture representing distinct functional episodes: a house in the early phase and a corral in the late phase. Evidence for a corral in the early phase is inconclusive since Wall D006 may relate to the continuation of the main north-south wall represented by F019 (and F018 running east-west) in the lower phase of the eastern room (Figs 3.28, 3.36-37, 3.42). This hypothesis argues that the dimensions of the main structure in the early phase (Phase III in the Eastern Room) were distinct from the dimensions in the later phase: for example, during the early phase, the main structure was broader from north to south. This floor plan is inferred from the position of the early walls F018, F019 and D006. No evidence of a cross-wall or indeed a third wall, were recovered in the west, which may even suggest a one-room, three-wall structure type in the early phase. The development of a larger structure with a corral through time possibly relates to changes in site function over time.

Excavations began in the western room, west of Wall J003. Topsoil and room fill Loci J004 and J008 (Figs 3.45, 3.47) produced brown, chalky, hard packed layers with very little ceramic material. Ceramic material became abundant in Locus J009, particularly in the lower reaches. The bottom of Locus J009 yielded substantial quantities of cooking vessel material, which was particularly concentrated in one cluster in the south-western corner (Fig. 3.48). A further cluster was excavated slightly lower next to Wall J 003 in floor debris J026.

3.42c.Structure 41 Structure 41 is located on the western end of the site within Cluster 4. It rests close to the northern edge of the site overlooking Wadi Wa’idah and lies to the northeast of Structure 42, Unit K. Structure 41 is composed of one small room, with a longer, rectangular courtyard room attached (Fig. 3.44). The two rooms are separated by a cross-wall (Locus J002), which runs from northeast to southwest. The long axis of the structure is orientated from east to west.

There is no evidence for a functional segregation of space in Structure 41. Cooking vessel clusters associated with ash deposits were identified in both the eastern and western rooms. Interestingly, two such clusters were excavated in the western room (Fig. 3.48) along with a further cluster and third hearth (Loci J022/23) excavated east of Wall J002 in the courtyard (Fig. 3.49). The presence of three hearths attributable to the same phase of occupation does not occur at any of the other structures at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1.

Similar patterns of deposition were witnessed in the eastern room (Figs 3.44, 3.46). Fill Loci J005, J017, and J021 (Figs 3.45, 3.46) produced brown, chalky, hard packed layers with little ceramic material. Loci J022 and J023 representing a floor and hearth debris respectively yielded substantial ash deposits accompanied by a cluster of cooking vessel fragments in J023 (Fig. 3.49). Exterior loci were shallow and produced little in the way of ceramic material.

46

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN 3.42d. Structure 42 Structure 42 (Fig. 3.50), situated southwest of Structure 41, comprises one small western room, and a larger rectangular room or courtyard in the east. The latter room has been cut by the erosive activity of Wadi adh-Dhra’ on the structure’s southern side (Figs 3.1-2), and only half of it is preserved. After Structure 37, Structure 42 contains the most abundant artefactual assemblage at the site.

Room function is not apparent in Structure 42 since both jar material and cooking vessel material accompanied by ash is found in both the smaller and larger rooms. Multiple phases representing successive occupations of the structure could not be definitely established since only one clear floor surface was identified. 3.42e. Two-Room Structures Summary Two-room structures at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 showed a number of both common and divergent features. Floor plans consisted of one smaller room and one larger room. No evidence for roofing in the larger rooms was discovered in any structure. Larger rooms generally contained less wall debris, artefact debris and depth than the smaller rooms. This could not be established for Structure 36 due to limited excavation area, whilst the relative depths of larger and smaller rooms in Structures 37, 41 and 42 were comparably similar. Clear differentiation of room function was evident in Structure 37 but in no other structure. Reoccupation and reuse of structures was also only clear in Structure 37, although some possible reuse may have occurred in Structure 41, and possibly in Structure 42.

Excavation began in the smaller, western room (Figs 3.50, 3.54-55). Substantial wall debris (Locus K006) was encountered immediately below topsoil Locus K003 (Figs 3.51-52). The brown, chalky, hard packed layers of Loci K010 and K017 contained low densities of artefacts. These loci yielded to floor debris Locus K019, which was characterised by ash deposits and broken pottery in the form of a cluster of cooking vessel sherds. Of particular note was the discovery of a restorable jar with a rare zoomorphic motif incised on the shoulder (Vessel KSJ32). This vessel was predominantly excavated from Locus K019, with further sherds recovered from Loci K010 and K017 (see Chapters 5 for detailed discussion). Floor Debris Locus K019 peeled off in clear layers. It was initially excavated as one thick layer, but was divided into K019A and K019 B in later excavation when the western baulk was excavated following the stratigraphic separation that was evident in the section (Fig. 3.52). The underlying Loci K020 and K022 represent floors. These, and further Loci K021, K023, and K024 yielded very low quantities of artefacts. Close inspection of the western section in the western room indicates that a number of windblown layers, characterized by a series of finely laminated horizontal lines, were deposited throughout the stratigraphic sequence. However these were not detected during excavation.

3.5. Taphonomy and Stratigraphic Integrity The distribution of pottery sherds belonging to the same vessel over distinct vertical contexts provided information on post-depositional processes at the site. The lack of vertical displacement of sherds in a context such as a room, suggests that a high degree of stratigraphic integrity exists for that given context. On the other hand, substantial vertical displacement of sherds in a context suggests that a poorer level of stratigraphic integrity exists for that given context. Pottery sherds were linked by joins to demonstrate that sherds derived from the same pot. Individual vessels were distributed across vertically distinct contexts in Structures 37, 39, 40 and 42. In the Eastern Room of Structure 37 this was exemplified by Vessels fsj1, fsj5 and fsj6 where Loci F010 and F013 represented occupational debris and floor matrix respectively, while F008 represented wall collapse (Fig. 3.56). In Unit E of the Eastern Room of Structure 37 vertical displacement occurred with Vessel esj5, where Loci E004 and E010 represented fill and occupational debris respectively. In the Western Room of Structure 37 Vessels msj1, msj2, msj3, nsj 1, nsj10, nsj2 and mcp2 were vertically and horizontally displaced across layers (Fig. 3.57). In the Corral of Structure 37, dsj9 was dispersed between topsoil layer D003 and the underlying D007 (Fig. 3.58).

The floors in the eastern room (Fig. 3.50) did not penetrate to the same depth as those in the western room. Topsoil Locus K004 (Figs 3.51, 3.53) yielded to wall debris and fill Loci K008 and K009. Room fill K012 and the upper portion of Locus K013 produced little artifactual material and were characterised by the same brown, chalky, hard packed layers seen in the western room and in the fills of Structure 41. The lower reaches of Locus K013 yielded substantial concentrations of broken jar material, which increased in the floor debris of Locus K014. The latter overlay artifactually sterile gravel Locus K015. Exterior contexts represented by Loci K005 and K011 (Fig. 3.51) to the northeast of the western room in Unit K produced some cooking vessel material on an exterior surface (K011). No surfaces were found in Unit R to the ESE of K005/K011, where the northern exterior of the eastern room was excavated as Locus R003. The western exterior represented by Unit P produced some cooking vessel material, and showed stratigraphic differentiation between the upper Locus P001 and lower P002.

In Structure 39, Vessel hsj10 was dispersed between occupational debris layer H007 and floor matrix H008 (Fig. 3.59). In Structure 40 Vessels isj15, isj21, isj35 and istp1 were vertically displaced across layers (Fig. 3.60). Vessel isj15 was vertically dispersed between wall debris layer I010 and floor matrix I012. Vessel isj21 was 47

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.50. Plan of Structure 42

Figure 3.51. Harris Matrix representation of the stratigraphy of Structure 42 48

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 3.52. Unit K West Balk in Structure 42

Figure 3.53. Unit K East Balk in Structure 42

Figure 3.54. Structures 42 and 43 (Photo by S. E. Falconer)

49

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.55. Structures 42, Western Room, looking southeast (Photo by S. E. Falconer)

Figure 3.56 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit F (South Balk) in Structure 37

Figure 3.57 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit M (West Balk) in Structure 37

50

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 3.58 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit D (North Balk) in Structure 37

Figure 3.59 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit H (West Balk) in Structure 39

Figure 3.60 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit I (West Balk) in Structure 40

Figure 3.61 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit K (East Balk) in Structure 42

51

RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 3.62 Distribution of Sherds from vessels in Unit K (West Balk) in Structure 42 vertically dispersed between Phase I floor I006 and Phase II floor I012. Vessels isj35 and istp1 were vertically dispersed between ash deposit I011 and floor matrix I012. In the Eastern Room of Structure 42, Vessel ksj21 was displaced across three layers: fill deposit K013, occupational debris K014 and floor matrix K015 (Fig. 3.61). In the Western Room of Structure 42, Vessel ksj32 was vertically dispersed between four layers: fill deposits K010 and K017, occupational debris K019 and floor matrix K021 (Fig. 3.62).

main part of the site. Some data were collected south of Wadi adh-Dhra’ during the 2001 mapping season (Edwards et al. 2002). The excavated structures provided information on the plan, stratigraphy, construction and artefact densities at the site. Two main groups of structures were sampled at ZAD 1 north: One-room and Two-room. Examples of One-room and Two-room structures occurred in all areas of the site. Evidence of roofing was equivocal, possibly occurring in the smaller rooms of the two-room structures (Edwards et al. 2001). Discard of refuse consistently occurred on the interior of structures in higher densities compared to exterior contexts. Specialized refuse receptacles containing high densities of jar material occurred in two structures, both of which were the One-room type: Structures 40 and 44. These receptacles differed in one crucial respect: the bin in Structure 44 (L008) was situated on the exterior of the structure, whilst the two pits in Structure 40 (I013, I014) were situated on the interior of the structure. The location of the bin on the exterior of Structure 44 correlates with the highest proportion of exterior refuse at the site. Floors were identified by the presence of flat-lying pottery sherds associated with ashy soil. This occurred in seven of the nine excavated structures. The pottery on the floors was predominantly restorable cooking vessel material. Successive abandonment and occupation was witnessed in Structures 37 and 40, and possibly in Structures 41 and 42. Structure 37 was the only structure to extend reoccupation through successive architectural phases as opposed to reoccupation of existing structures. Likewise, this structure contained the only example of curvilinear architecture associated with domestic quarters. The function of this curvilinear corral however, remains unclear.

The vertical displacement of potsherds at Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 never exceeded a distance of 50 cm and was generally limited to sherd migrations between contiguous layers. Vertical displacement was confined to the movement of sherds between wall collapse, occupational debris and floor matrix deposits in all but one case. Only Structure 40 contained evidence for the movement of sherds between two floors (Fig. 3.60), which are separated by a shallow fill (i.e. 25 cm). However, the excavator’s failure to isolate the floor surface resting on top of I006 from the fill below it may in fact explain how sherds from Vessel isj21 were reported from two vertically distinct floors. It is highly likely that the sherd found in Locus I006 in fact represents occupational debris resting on floor I012. The results suggest that the deposits at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 represent a reliable excavated sequence characterised by medium to high stratigraphic integrity. This notion is confirmed by the minimal dispersion of ceramic material vertically through the occupational sequences. 3.6. Conclusion A total of nine structures were excavated at Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 from December 1999 to January 2000. No structures were excavated south of Wadi adh-Dhra’, or from the eastern cluster of structures (Cluster 1) on the

Further analysis of these features, in concert with an inspection of the artefact assemblages, will enable the reconstruction of the chronology, occupation type and

52

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN abandonment behaviour at the site. The Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 structures demonstrate a number of similarities and differences across the site, relating to occupation, plan and construction. This may be linked to the function of these structures or the chronological development and transformation of the site through time. Questions relating to the function and chronology of these structures and the site in general can only be answered with a proper

appreciation of the artefact repertoire, particularly the ceramic assemblage. The following chapter, which deals with methodological principles and procedures, endeavours to define, explain and justify the analytical and interpretive framework for understanding the occupation and abandonment of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 through a study of the MB II ceramics.

53

METHODOLOGY: THE RECORDING, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF THE ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE This chapter sets out the methodological principles and procedures utilized in the recording, analysis and interpretation of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 ceramic material. Specific strategies concerned with the explanation of site function, occupation, abandonment and site formation are introduced and justified in connection with the study of ceramic materials. The interpretation of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 focuses on further developing the use of ceramic materials as an artefact class capable of providing evidence of human behaviour, in addition to the established employment of ceramic materials in Near Eastern archaeology as a means of constructing relative chronologies.

tone for much of the ceramic research to follow in Palestine. The practice of seriating types by frequency to determine the relative date of an assemblage was adopted by many Near Eastern (Albright 1932; Kenyon 1960; Macalister 1911-12; Tufnell 1958; Wright 1937) and American (Kroeber 1916; Spier 1917) archaeologists. While typological studies of ancient ceramics concentrating on chronology remained popular, new approaches to ceramics began to emerge in the 1940s. This modern phase, termed by some (Shepard 1956) as the Contextual phase of ceramic studies, gained momentum in the 1950s. Ceramic technology, ethnoarchaeology and quantification studies all developed out of this relatively recent tendency to pursue inquiries beyond mere descriptions and dates. Ceramic technology (Matson 1951) for instance, aimed to study factors surrounding the manufacture and production of ancient ceramics, whilst ceramic ethnoarchaeology (David 1972) used ethnographic evidence to assist archaeologists in their inferences from ceramic data. Quantification studies of pottery (Baumhoff and Heizer 1959; Orton 1975) explored alternate ways of measuring assemblages to reconstruct the varying proportions of functional types. Although quantification is related to seriation, the goals of quantification were rooted in the desire to learn about the total assemblage and the possible significance of assemblage composition (Orton et al. 1993).

4.1. The History of Ceramic Studies The roots of systematic research in the field of ancient ceramics are found in early typologies of the nineteenth century (for example Thomsen 1848). The aim of these typologies was to classify archaeological materials on the basis of artefact class and chronology. Whilst the former proved indispensable to the arrangement of vast collections of excavated materials bound for museums in the nineteenth century (Graslund 1987), the latter found favour among archaeologists worldwide (Orton et al. 1993). Archaeologists working in the Americas, Europe and the Near East grappled with the task of arranging their excavated materials in chronological order (Orton 1993). The relative dating of contexts by bounded assemblages enabled archaeologists to consider suites of artefacts as representative samples of ancient societies that could later be applied to the study of the geographic extent of cultures. The typological enterprise was an essential component in early definitions of archaeological cultures, both in temporal and spatial senses (Klejn 1982).

The continuing innovation in the study of ancient ceramics, principally by north American archaeologists (for example Arnold 1985; Deal 1998; Kramer 1985; Longacre 1970; Rice 1981; Schiffer 1987), coincided with, and was partly in response to the growing appeal of ideas embodied by processual archaeology (Binford 1962). The latter harnessed existing but disparate strategies as well as inventing and systematizing a range of new ones, among which the most important was the emphasis on scientific principles and the testing of hypotheses based on anthropologically derived sets of questions. Besides the formulation of strict research strategies, processual archaeology undertook the significant task of unravelling the dynamics of site formation, which included the utilization of ceramic data. The testing of hypotheses by a process of deduction was based on the concept of the hypothetico-deductive model developed by Karl Hempel, which was eventually deemed to be unsuitable to the particular characteristics of the social sciences (Gibbon 1989). But while the success of processual archaeology has been mixed in that its strategies have not always resulted in a greater understanding of the archaeological record (Sabloff 1981), the role of site formation studies in the transformation of the field of ceramic studies cannot be underestimated (Schiffer 1987). Notwithstanding the

Flinders Petrie, excavating royal cemeteries at Naqada and Ballas in Egypt, conducted possibly the most significant research among the early attempts to develop chronological sequences in the late nineteenth century. Petrie was confronted with a series of artefact-rich tomb groups, which he classified in chronological order through a process of seriation (Petrie 1899). Petrie dated tombs on the relative frequency of chronologically diagnostic artefacts, arguing that these artefacts represented horizons abundant in particular types of artefacts. The same artefacts may have occurred at earlier or later times but in much smaller numbers in comparison with a different, emerging type of artefact dominant and characteristic of that period. Petrie (1891) subsequently applied the same methods in 1890 at Tell el-Hesi, when he was commissioned to excavate biblical Lachish by the Palestinian Exploration Fund. These excavations were continued by his assistant F. J. Bliss (1894), who undertook to develop, improve and refine Petrie’s ceramic chronology for ancient Palestine. Bliss set the 55

METHODOLOGY influence of processual archaeology on a generation of ceramic archaeologists in the USA, its intellectual effects did not always filter through to archaeologists working in other regions such as the Near East (Dever 1981); ideas embodied by the New Archaeology were criticised by Near Eastern archaeologists on the basis of fundamental differences between the natures of the archaeological record in different parts of the world (Wright 1975, 1971). Site formation processes pertinent to Near Eastern tells are vastly different to those observed in the Americas, resulting in a different set of expectations for the expressiveness of the archaeological record (Dever 1996). Nevertheless, fieldwork employing modern techniques appeared in the 1960s, translating by the 1980s into significant doubts over the reliability of ceramic chronologies and stratigraphic sequences (Risser and Blakely 1989). A small number of ceramic archaeologists working in the Near East conducted important research outside the scope of ceramic chronologies (See 4.2 below). However, the great majority working in the southern Levant continued to produce typological studies of ceramic assemblages that focused on a preoccupation with chronology (see for example Beck 2000; Cole 1984; Gitin 1990). Predictably, the emphasis on chronology affected the scope and type of knowledge derived about the ancient societies under study.

The need to monitor changing material culture in deep stratigraphic sequences, combined with a desire to associate various settlements with Biblical towns both geographically and temporally, saw a great emphasis placed on the refinement of chronological systems and the proliferation of typologies. Simultaneously, the study of smaller, single period, shallow sites was retarded partly because such sites did not generate the same levels of interest among the public or financing institutions, and partly because the study of such sites involved strategies vastly different from typological investigation. Notably, even when investigations into smaller settlements did take place (for example Cohen and Dever 1981, 1980, 1979), they resulted in ceramic research which contextualized these sites in a typological framework (Dever 1980). But critically, the emphasis on typological investigation meant that parallel investigations into the social and cultural aspects of ancient communities as inferred from ceramic studies did not develop at the same rate as in the archaeology of the Americas. In recent years the foci of archaeological research in the southern Levant have expanded and proliferated. Social archaeology (Levy 1998, 1996) has grown in popularity and relevance (see also Section 2.3), and this has prompted the development of a variety of approaches to studying ceramics, building on the pioneering work of Franken (Franken 1974; Franken and Kalsbeek 1969) in the field of ceramic technology. Ceramic studies developed for the investigation of social structure have focused on mortuary practice and ritual (Dever 1987a; Ilan 1996), as well as modes of production (Edwards 1993; Edwards and Segnit 1983), exchange (Falconer 1987a, 1987b; Knapp 1989; Knapp et al. 1988), quantification (Knapp 1987), economy and trade (Blakely 1988), and ceramic ethnoarchaeology (Edwards 1982; McQuitty 1985, 1984; McQuitty and Lenzen 1989; Saidel 2001, 2000). However, further ceramic themes concerning functional elements of pottery and its social significance have been poorly explored. Notable exceptions include a growing awareness of the emergence of new types during the Chalcolithic in response to the secondary products revolution (Grigson 1998; Lipschitz et al. 1991; Lovell 2001), as well as a significant investigation of the relationship between ceramic types and function (Saidel 2002a, 2002b; Schroder 1999). Likewise, ceramic researchers at Tell el-Hesi were confronted with the problem of site formation processes (Risser and Blakely 1989), representing another important step away from typological studies. Unfortunately, there has been a general absence of studies focusing on both the compositional elements of ceramic assemblages and their role in reconstructing the formation of the archaeological record.

4.2. Ceramic Research in the Southern Levant Research into the ancient pottery of the southern Levant has focused on the elaboration of both chronological and regional typologies (for example Amiran 1969; Dever 1980; Garfinkel 1999; Gerstenblith 1983). A number of important factors have contributed to the need for such work. Firstly, Near Eastern sites (often mounds or tells) are primarily characterized by their deep stratigraphy, frequently containing artefact sequences representing human occupation lasting millennia. Meanwhile, tomb assemblages associated with these large sites are often unstratified, requiring sophisticated cross-referencing methods to achieve chronological resolution (for example Jericho, Kenyon 1960). Secondly, many tells in the southern Levant were excavated because of their identification with towns described in the Old Testament (for example Lachish as Tell el Hesi: Bliss 1894; Petrie 1891; and later, Lachish as Tell ed-Duweir: Tufnell 1958). Sites with biblical affiliations were deemed to require a chronological context. Thirdly, artefact sequences, predominantly in the form of pottery types, were subject to rapid changes in antiquity, which were often correlated with observable changes in the architectural phases of sites. The accurate classification of these artefact sequences formed the basis for the organization of stratigraphic phasing, later serving as the fossil directeurs of changing material cultures through time. Significantly, changing material culture was often equated with changing archaeological cultures, representing different and distinct cultural and ethnic groups (see Albright 1949, and Chapter 2.2).

4.3. Beyond Typologies: the Behavioural Analysis of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 Ceramic Assemblage The rising interest in social archaeology, subsistence, mobility and the human-environmental interface, has 56

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN begun to transform the questions archaeologists address to archaeological data in the southern Levant, especially for the proto-historical periods of the Bronze Age. The role of ceramic studies in this transformation lies in its ability to reconstruct behaviour by examining the structure of assemblages, and the archaeological record in general. Smaller, single-period sites like Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 provide the perfect setting to study processes like site function, occupation, abandonment structure and behaviour with the help of ceramic data because they are subject to different post-depositional processes than are tell sites. Tell sites are characterised by an enormous number of depositional episodes resulting in stratigraphic complexity caused by the reoccupation and destruction of earlier deposits (Dever 1981). In contrast, small singleperiod sites offer less complex records possibly containing traces of relatively undisturbed, final abandonments. A great number of case studies exist from the American southwest (Lightfoot 1994, 1993; Montgomery 1993; Reid 1985, 1973), which detail the focused application of ceramic data to problems such as site occupation type, occupation length, and abandonment. These have not yet been applied to the study of Bronze Age sites in the southern Levant (see Chapter 1 for discussion). Therefore, the ceramic assemblage from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is employed here to reconstruct patterns that are suitable to the study of the following: 1.

2.

over a number of years. Problems connected to definitions of sedentism and mobility include the identification of mobile and sedentary components within one community, as well as the classification of groups that reside in settlements for extended periods of time on a seasonal basis (Kent 1991). Rowton (1973b), who identified the symbiosis of dimorphic (i.e. sedentary and nomadic, sensu Rowton 1973a) elements to be characteristic of West Asian society, termed the phenomenon ‘enclosed nomadism’ (Rowton 1974) in preference to seminomadism or semi-sedentism. Bearing in mind such considerations, the recognition of sedentism and mobility at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 will be attempted at both site and structure level where possible. For varying degrees of sedentism, as well as combinations of sedentary and mobile occupations, may impact on interpretations of total occupation length at the site. It is possible that while some parts of the site were occupied continuously throughout the occupational history of the settlement, other areas were occupied intermittently or briefly. Due to a lack of radiocarbon dates for Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, occupation length is preliminarily calculated by typological methods along with considerations of artefact densities. Typology is particularly important in estimating the period of use for particular vessel types, which help to define the chronological range of occupation.

Site type and function: Site type is defined in direct relationship to its function, or the set of economic and social activities undertaken by the inhabitants during the occupation of the site. Examples of site types consist of ephemeral hunting camps, seasonal villages occupied by agro-pastoralists, fully sedentary farming villages and walled semi-urban towns. The positive identification of each site type proceeds through the analysis of a number of classes of archaeological materials and architectural, including botanical and faunal remains. While traditional methods do not employ ceramic materials for identifying site type, I believe that a number of ceramic variables will assist in the attribution of site type and function to Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. Ceramic variables included in the analysis consist of assemblage size, assemblage composition, vessel size variability and spatial distribution.

3.

Length and type of occupation: Length of occupation relates to the length of time that a site has been occupied, including an approximate range of dates for that occupation (see Chapter 5). Length of occupation is necessarily linked to type of occupation, which is here taken as one of sedentary, seasonal, or semi-sedentary. Sedentary occupation is defined by the continued presence of a group of people at a site throughout the year (Edwards 1989: 9). Meanwhile, the seasonal occupation of a site comprises the multiple abandonment and reoccupation of a settlement by a group of people 57

Abandonment structure and the archaeological signature of non-sedentary communities: Abandonment structure relates to the archaeological signature of various abandonment practices and the site formation processes resulting from abandonment and post-abandonment (Nelson and Schachner 2002). The range of abandonment practices consists of anticipated permanent, unanticipated permanent, anticipated seasonal, and unanticipated seasonal abandonment (Cameron 1993). While individual phases of occupation at sedentary sites normally contain evidence for single planned or unplanned abandonment, the abandonment signature of nonsedentary occupations comprises multiple planned and unplanned abandonments (Brooks 1993). Since the occupation strategy of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 may have comprised a combination of both sedentary and non-sedentary components, the study of nonsedentary occupation and abandonment strategies forms a vital component of this study. The repeated use and abandonment of seasonally occupied sites require the careful study and identification of different abandonment practices through a study of the combination of botanical, faunal and artefactual remains. In particular, ceramics offer an opportunity to study abandonment structure across different parts of the site, detailing possible differences in abandonment strategies in different residential structures. Refuse categories, consisting of de facto, primary and secondary refuse materials and their

METHODOLOGY interplay with the taphonomic record allow for a reconstruction of abandonment schedules.

Miller 1986), which offered an alternative measure for estimating relative proportions of vessel classes in an assemblage. Orton (1975) formalized the measure of average weight and surface area of a vessel by calling it the estimated vessel equivalent (EVE). The EVE enabled the formal expression of proportions of vessels represented in an assemblage. For instance, if the average weight of a cooking pot measured 3.75 kg or its average surface area measured 3,025 cm2, either figure could be employed as an EVE. For example, if the total weight of cooking pot sherds in one context amount to 4.20 kg, then the presence of at least two vessels is inferred on the basis of an EVE of 3.75 kg. Once all vessel classes are calculated by EVE, accurate vessel numbers can be provided on the basis of EVE, which corrects for the variable Brokenness of certain types of vessels.

4.31. Assemblage Size, Assemblage Composition, Vessel Size Variability and Spatial Distribution 4.31a. Theory Assemblage composition is a broad category incorporating a number of different measures, which can be used to test for and interpret a variety of archaeological questions. However, the primary aim of ascertaining assemblage composition in ceramic studies is to understand the relative percentage of varying classes of vessels; for example the ratio of serving vessels to storage vessels. Calculating the size of an assemblage in terms of its total number of vessels, including the relationship of vessels to sherds, as well as its proportionate breakdown into vessel classes, is generally referred to as ‘quantification’ (Orton 1993; Orton et al. 1993). The task of quantifying an assemblage can be approached by a number of methods, all of which yield different, but valuable data.

The next step in the quantification of a pottery assemblage is the determination of the number of vessels in an assemblage, sometimes described as the minimum or maximum number of vessels (MNV or MaxNV). In order to make these estimations, Orton (1993) distinguished between EVE and the estimated number of vessels represented (EVREP) in a sherd assemblage. The EVREP differs from EVE because the former estimates the approximate number of vessels surviving in the archaeological assemblage, whilst EVE calculates the statistical proportions of each vessel class. The EVREP can be computed by a number of means including rim, base or handle counts, as well as the combination of sherds belonging to the same vessel class or ware category into sherd ‘families’, which are counted as one vessel per family (Smith 1983). Depending on which EVREP method is chosen, estimates will favour either an MNV or MaxNV count. For instance, EVREP counts based on rim numbers will produce an MNV (minimum) total, whilst a sherd family method, which treats each distinct body sherd as one vessel, will produce MaxNV (maximum) totals.

The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage is sufficiently small (c.a. 5, 500 sherds) to achieve the total quantification by a number of different measures. Comprehensive quantification of assemblages is rarely attempted because of the prohibitively large size of some tell assemblages, which makes the analysis of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 ceramics unusual. Crude quantification of assemblages proceeds by sherd counts. As far back as the 1950s Baumhoff and Heizer (1959) realized that counting sherds alone might present misleading information because it does not provide accurate information on the number of vessels represented by an assemblage of sherds. Different vessels break unequally because of their varying size and mechanical strength. Orton (1975) has called this ‘Brokenness’ (see 4. 33bii for a definition). If a vessel is large and built from friable material fired at a low temperature, it will break into more fragments than a smaller vessel built from finer clay and fired at a higher temperature. Consequently the former vessel will be over-represented in the assemblage from sherd counts alone. The solution to this problem has been to recalculate sherds into an expression of vessel counts (Orton 1993). The earliest methods (Baumhoff and Heizer 1959) utilized sherd weight, divided by sherd count for every vessel class. If it were possible to ascertain the average weight of each whole vessel in a particular class, then it would also become possible to estimate the relative fraction of a vessel represented in an assemblage by the total weight of sherds present. Likewise, the results derived from dividing sherd weight by the number of sherds indicated which classes of vessels were over-represented or under-represented by simple sherd counts.

Once the relative frequencies of vessel classes are calculated, vessels must be analysed for size variability. While ideal calculations of vessel size should consider the total dimensions of a vessel, in reality it is not always possible to do so. Consequently, the most common approach to measuring the size of vessels is by rim-arc matching to determine the orifice diameter of a vessel (Orton 1993). Although ethnographic studies have shown that the correlation between vessel height and orifice diameter is not always strong (Shott 1996b), there has been insufficient investigation into this correlation for archaeological cases. At present, orifice diameter remains the most reliable indication of vessel size from sherd evidence, particularly for open-mouthed vessels. Vessel size has potential bearing on site interpretation and behaviour at both intra-site and inter-site levels of comparison. Particular contexts may reflect distinct functional characteristics on the basis of vessel type and size frequencies. Spatial study of these features is therefore significant and necessary.

As more archaeologists saw the importance of quantifying assemblages accurately, new variations on approaches were developed. For instance, in certain cases the surface area of a vessel could be estimated just as effectively as its weight (Childress 1992; Glover 1972; 58

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Date:

ZAD 1 Pottery Analysis Locus:

Basket:

Pieces: Relationship:

rims

Sherd No:

bodies

Season:

Joins with:

bases

vessel - ware family - class

Structure: Same as:

Common: baskets

total

loci

Shape: general small - medium - large - uncertain

specific cooking pot - storage vessel - bowl - juglet - undecided Fabric:

texture very fine - fine - medium - coarse - very coarse hardness soft - medium - hard mineral inclusions none - few - medium - many organics inclusion size small - medium - large inclusions colour black - red - white - grey size range distribution uniform - irregular carbon base - wall - rim core none - diffuse - distinct - interior - exterior core colour

Decoration:

combing horizontal - vertical incisions wavy lines - cross hatch applique impressions light - puncture incised motifs - geometric - zoomorphic position on vessel rim - below rim - neck - shoulder - body - base

Rim:

course straight - everted - incurved - externally folded profile constant - thinning - thickening - swelling end rounded - flattened - pointed - indented diameter dominant

Body:

mm. range

sherd dimensions small

medium

wall thickness at below rim Base:

-

-

mm. width dominant

large

mm. body

type round - flat - ring diameter

mm. range

-

mm.

very large -

mm. base

-

mm.

mm.

Comments:

Figure 4.1. The ZAD 1 Pottery Form vessels, including refits and ‘sherd families’. The sizes of rim and base diameters are given where applicable. The recording of this information begins at the level of the individual sherd, which generates raw sherd counts for all vessel classes. Sherd counts can then be employed to calculate the density of sherds for all contexts (sherds/m2 for floors) and the Brokenness of vessels in all contexts. These estimates are important because they may highlight differences in average sherd sizes in different stratigraphic contexts.

4.31b. Methods and Procedures The quantification of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage is derived from information recorded on the ZAD 1 Pottery Form (Fig. 4.1). The purpose of this form was to record a number of pre-determined attributes observed about the sherds (see Table 4.1 for an example). Information categories include size, thickness, colour, texture and decorative elements. These attribute states appear on the form together with estimates of the number of sherds comprising individual

59

METHODOLOGY

Figure 4.2. Sherd size measuring chart 4.31bi. EVE Surface area has been chosen for the quantification of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage because surface areaEVE (SA-EVE) estimation of complete vessels from the profile drawings of incomplete vessels is a reliable and simple task. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage was amenable to close scrutiny due to its small size, enabling the partial, yet substantial refitting of a number of vessels. The refitting of sherds allowed for the reconstruction of complete vessel profiles in a number of cases.

individual sherds from different vessel classes are measured using a spherical scale (see Fig. 4.2). The spherical scale is an approximate measure, placing sherds in approximate surface area size categories. Its design was chosen because of the speed with which one could measure sherds, obviating the need to measure each sherd for length and width. 4.31bii. EVREP The estimated number of vessels represented in the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage is calculated by grouping sherds into a range of categories of relationship, which guides the conversion of sherds into vessel counts. Once the raw data has been recorded (see Tables 4.1-2), the sherds are grouped into vessels based on the Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 categories of relationships. These categories define up to six possible relationships or associations between sherds, which are primarily established on the

The SA-EVE was calculated from vessel profile by AUTOCAD, a software package that is capable of calculating surface area and volume by computing three dimensional proportions from a two dimensional drawing (Table 4.3). Once the SA-EVE is established, the surface areas of 60

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN basis of refits, sherd families, and a general association based on vessel class. Sherds that are grouped through refits belong to the vessel category of relationships (see above). Likewise sherds that are excavated together from the same context comprising an identical ware defined by texture, colour and inclusions, may also be grouped in the vessel, or the less certain, vessel-ware category. Sherds resembling the same ware attributes, which do not obviously belong to the same vessel are designated the Unit Loc. Bag Sherd Joins Rel. Ves. S M L No. h 6 11 15 cp1 1 h 6 11 5 c cp2 69 12 1 h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h

6 6 7 7 7 8 6 6 1 6 8 1 1 6 6

10 22 24 35 26 31 11 11 6 22 31 1 3 22 11

h h h h

6 6 6 6

10 22 11 11

h

6

22

c 4 2 1 8 All 7 1 7.35.3 1,2 2 9 25,20,7 ,31,24 3 7 4 9,11,57 ,22,10, 4 2,8,11, 5

c v c c

w

cp2 cp2 cp3 cp3 cp3a cp4 cp5 cp6 cp7 sj1 sj10 sj11 sj11 sj12 sj12 sj12 sj13 sj2 sj3

ware level of relationship. Sherds with a more dubious vessel relationship are allocated to a ware-class category. The class category, on the other hand comprises individual sherds, which belong to the same class of vessel, but represent one vessel per sherd because they could not belong to the same vessel. Such sherds have been referred to in the literature as ‘orphan sherds’ (Lightfoot 1994).

VL

Tot. 1 82

23 8 1 37 5 1

31 1 42 1

2 1

2

1 1 8 1 2 3

4

3

7

1

1 1 11

7

6

1 1

4

1 1

Rim Dm. Wd. No. Bods. Wd. Base Wd. No. sr ecr

10 1 300- 11 5 500

scr

11 3

scr 440 secrfl 320

10 1 10 1

65

12 f

10 12

17

14 f

20 14

23 1 11 9 8

ecfl 280 efp

13 1 5 1

1

11 5

7

etkfl 480

13 1 1 11

sj3

KEY: Loc.: Locus Rel.: Relationship between sherds (ie. v = vessel; w = ware; c = class) Ves.: Vessel Number (ie. cp1 = cooking pot 1; sj1 – storage jar 1) S.: Small Sherd = 10 cm2 or less M.: Medium Sherd = 40 cm2 or less L.: Large Sherd = 90 cm2 or less VL.: Very Large Sherd = 160 cm2 or less Tot.: Total Number of Sherds (cm2) Rim: Rim Type (ie. simple, everted, inverted) Dm.: Rim Diameter (mm) Wd.: Width (mm) No.: Number of Sherds

Table 4.1. Recorded ZAD 1 quantification of pottery data for Unit H, Structure 39

61

9

10 15 12

16

METHODOLOGY

Unit h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h

Rel.

Ves. sj1 sj2 cp1 c cp2 cp2 cp2 w sj3 sj3 sj3 sj4 c cp3 cp3a cp3 vwc sj5 sj5 vwc sj6 sj6 v sj7 c sj8 sj8 sj9 v sj10 cp4 cp5 cp6 c sj11 sj11 c cp7 c sj12

Tot. 1 1 1 82

Text. Hard. Incs. Org. Size Col. Distr. Carb. Core Colour vc h m sml bwr p df 5yr 7/6 Orange m h m s bw f 7.5y 8/2 Light Gray vc s m wr

limp a/limp

11

c

m

m

m

b

f

ch

1 31 42 1 3

c

h

m

s

bw

f

m

h

me

s

b

f

df

3

c

sm

m

sm

bg

f

df

2 4

cvc

s

m

sm

brwg f

df

1 2

cvc m c mh

me m

s s

b w

f f

ds

1 1 3

vc vc

m m

sml m

brw r

p p

df df

df

Deco

10yr 7/3 Dull Yellow Orange a/limp

s s

y

5yr 7/8 Orange

10r 6/6 Reddish Orange a/limp a/limp ch

8 7 KEY: Rel.: Relationship between sherds Ves.:Vessel number Tot.: Total number of sherds Text.: Texture (ie. fine, medium, coarse, very coarse) Hard.: Hardness (ie. soft, medium, hard) Incs.: Mineral inclusions (ie. none, few, medium, many) Org.: Organics present Size: Size of inclusions Col.: Colour of inclusions Distr.: Size range distribution of inclusions (ie. uniform, irregular) Carb.: Carbon traces present on vessel Core: Core properties and location (none, diffuse, distinct, interior, exterior) Colour: Surface colour (Munsell) Deco.: Decoration (ie. appliqué, light impressions, horizontal combing)

Table 4.2. Recorded ZAD 1 ware properties for pottery data for Unit H, Structure 39

62

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Procedure for computing volume of vessels: 1.

Open picture file in AutoCAD – a normal drawing session.

2.

Establish scale of the picture by drawing a line from end to end of the scale bar in the picture. Measure this line in AutoCAD and compare with stated length of the picture file scale bar. Use the computed scale correction later to scale the drawing to actual size.

3.

Draw a line on the vertical axis of the vessel in the picture – either on a line in the picture or by choosing mid point of base and opening.

4.

Note: a polyline is an AutoCAD line form which has more that two points in it, as opposed to a simple straight line with two points only, one at each end. The polyline is the basis of curved lines. A polyline can be manipulated by the software to make a smooth curve, although in this exercise that was not done as it can produce an incorrect result at a sharp corner, for instance where the side profile meets the base. Enough points in the drawn curves ensure accuracy.

5.

Draw a polyline over the profile of the vessel by picking points along the inside of the shape in the picture, points close where the curve is tight, farther apart where curve is open. Join the top of this inner line to the axis with a horizontal line, representing the top of the enclosed volume. Draw another polyline following the base of the vessel from the bottom of the inside profile to the axis. Join all four lines making a polyline describing a section of the inside shape.

6.

At this stage apply the scale factor to the drawn lines to make the profiles actual size as stated by the scale bar in the picture.

7.

This enclosed shape can now be rotated around the axis of the vessel to form a solid model of the inside volume. This model can then be interrogated by AutoCAD to find the volume in the drawing units, and other numbers like surface area, centre of mass, inertia and other physical properties.

8.

Note that two lines describing the inside and outside of the wall of the vessel could be enclosed to find the volume of clay 0 10 cm. Table 4.3. Outline of procedure for calculating vessel surface area (After Autocad 1993-1994)

The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage necessitates a combined approach for the calculation of EVREP because of the vastly different ware properties characterizing the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 cooking vessels on the one hand and the storage jars and serving vessels on the other. The ‘sherd family’ method functions accurately for the storage and serving vessels due to the high variability of ware between individual vessels, defined on a macro level by colour, texture and non-plastic inclusions. For example it is clear that the jar sherd from Unit H, Locus 8, Bag 31, Sherd 1 (expressed as 8. 31. 1) belongs to the same vessel as 7. 35. 3 (ie. SJ10) because the two sherds can be mended (Table 4.1). However, the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 method for calculating EVREP also provides for the combination of sherds 9, 11, 57, 22, 10, and 4 from Unit H, Locus 6, Bag 11 into one vessel (SJ3) because these sherds probably belong to the same vessel on the basis of their ware characteristics (Tables 4.1-2). Serving and storage vessel sherds are easily distinguished from one another by ware and can be combined or segregated into different vessel batches.

For example, a number of contexts, and even different phases, may contain sherd scatters that belong to the same vessel. These sherd scatters can be combined into a sherd family and treated as one vessel. Sherd families have therefore provided evidence on site formation processes by demonstrating the distribution of artefacts across stratigraphic boundaries (Section 3.5). Refitted sherds from different contexts are a stronger demonstration of the same phenomenon. In contrast to serving and storage vessels, cooking vessels are characterized by their homogenous ware properties, which render them unsuitable for the derivation of EVREP by combining sherds into sherd families. Individual cooking vessels are not distinguishable by body sherds alone, unlike serving and storage vessels, which are individually distinct. Consequently, cooking vessel sherds are assigned to the class category of relationships, denoting ‘orphan sherds’, unless they were excavated together as a smashed pot. As a result, the EVREP for cooking vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is calculated from rim sherds only. Rim sherds from cooking vessels can be assigned to 63

METHODOLOGY individual pots by the variability of measured rim orifice diameters, which very occasionally also demonstrate distinct ware characteristics.

occupation at a site as well as the seasonal or permanent nature of that occupation. While the similarity of attributes in ceramic types within or between sites is an accepted method for establishing the general contemporaneity of deposits (for example Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984), the persistence of certain types for a period of time, has also been used to determine the chronological range of site occupation (for example Edelstein et al. 1998). Contemporaneity of sites and the chronological range of occupation determined by attribute similarities is a useful method because it can be verified by cross-dating or direct radiometric methods. Pottery consumption and production have been inferred from studies on the accumulation rates of pottery, which can likewise lead to interpretations of length and type of occupation (Varien 1999; Varien and Potter 1997).

4.31biii. Vessel Size Variability and Distribution Vessel size at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is normally inferred by measuring rim sherd diameter, or by measuring complete vessel profiles where possible. In order to maximise information on vessel size from ceramic data, restored vessels were tested for correlations between vessel height, surface area and orifice diameter. Strong correlations in some vessels (see Chapter 6.11dii) have suggested that orifice diameter provides a good indication of vessel size (defined by height and/or surface area). Indeed, most ceramic reports on south Levantine assemblages provide data on vessel size, expressed in terms of orifice diameter or vessel height (see Amiran 1978; Rast and Schaub 1989). Therefore, inter-site comparison of vessel size must proceed by orifice diameter or vessel height in most cases (see 4. 32bi below for full discussion). In this study, surface area was preferred over height or weight because of its role in calculating EVE (see Section 4. 31bi above).

The typological method is a system of classification, which groups vessels on the basis of shared attributes. Initially typologies were constructed with the assumption that for every vessel type there exists a finite range of attributes which define the type. It was thought that the attributes are found within all examples of this type in equal measure (see Adams and Adams 1991). However, types are polythetic, and contain a range of attributes that fluctuate widely between examples of any given type (Clarke 1968). The very notion of the existence of an ideal type as conceived by the potters of an ancient culture is misleading and should be seen as a faulty archaeological construct (Adams and Adams 1991; Klejn 1982). That said, typologies are practical devices and often function well in robustly classifying assemblages for specific purposes. They work best when they are constructed to resolve specific archaeological issues. These may include the chronological range of an assemblage, the spatial and cultural affiliations of a decorative technique, or the evidence for modes of production on the basis of wares (Adams and Adams 1991). In light of this, detailed recording of all possible attributes provides a sound record of the assemblage from which one may construct a number of potential typologies (Frankel 1993).

Once the variability of vessel size was established for Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, vessel size variation was examined by stratigraphic context. The concentration of some size groups in specific contexts can yield behavioural information about the site. Observed patterns might provide particularly powerful insights in conjunction with the distribution of vessel classes across the site. 4.31biv. Summary The preliminary reconstruction of vessel function can be achieved with accurate estimations of assemblage composition. The calculation of the relative proportion of vessel classes in the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage has provided data on important behavioural issues, including the preferences for certain types of vessels in different contexts and residential units. Likewise, vessel size variability and spatial distribution of size groups provides additional data for reconstructing context function, as well as household size. The reconstruction of context by function is further improved by information relating to the length and type of occupation, which directly impacts on the condition and survival rates within the archaeological, or ‘death’ assemblage (Orton 1993; Orton et al. 1993; Varien and Potter 1997). The archaeological or ‘death’ assemblage relates to the condition of the ceramic assemblage as it is excavated, in contrast to its use and discard during its period of use. Information pertinent to the length and type of occupation provides clues which assist in reconstructing the site formation processes responsible for the transformation of a ‘life’ assemblage into a ‘death’ assemblage.

The most common application of typology in the archaeology of the southern Levant falls in the realm of chronology. As such, one of the most reliable forms of estimating the length of occupation for sites in the southern Levant lies in the comparative study of ceramic typology. Recent criticism of the chronological limitations of typologies, particularly for the Middle Bronze Age (Ilan 1998), has stressed the non-synchronous appearance of certain types, and has advocated the use of radiocarbon dating to test and correct typological assumptions (Falconer 2001). In the temporary absence of radiocarbon dates for Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 a typological approach has been employed for the initial determination of occupation length at the site.

4.32. Typology The typological system employed at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 follows the basic methodology devised by Dan Cole (1984) in his treatment of the MB II B-C pottery from

4.32a. Theory Ceramic data have the potential to elucidate length of 64

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Shechem. The decision to adopt Cole’s methodology in particular rests in the latter’s consideration of form and type as distinct features relating to chronology and function. The rationale of this separation lies in the earlier conflation of these two features by scholars such as Kenyon (1960), predominantly as a result of an emphasis on whole vessels from tombs. Cole makes the pertinent observation that pottery types analysed from tombs do not always appear in settlement assemblages, and unlike types excavated from settlement assemblages, those excavated from tombs are often recovered from non-stratified deposits. This means that formal indicators of chronological change at the attribute level, such as rims, bases, and handles can be overlooked in favour of typological features relating to shape, function, size, and decoration at the artefact level. Formal changes to rims, bases and handles may be observed in stratified deposits without information on typological features such as vessel shape, dimension, decoration and ultimately function. The formal approach also considers a technological component in the chronological development of forms, explored thoroughly by scholars like Van As and colleagues (Van As and Jacobs 1996/1997).

regarded as reasonably accurate. This is in large part due to the special conditions under which the site was excavated. Since architecture was visible on the surface, many of the best-preserved and largest structures were excavated, enabling the attribution of all pottery samples to known stratigraphical and functional contexts. In addition, all excavated soil was sieved. Type and form, as used by Cole (1984), are analysed as distinct features. Type relates to the entire vessel and therefore considers size, function and shape. Large jars, platter bowls, flat-bottom cooking pots, and dipper juglets are all examples of types. Coding of types uses the vessel category first (Table 4.4). Jars are represented by the letter J, bowls are represented by the capital letter B, and cooking pots by the capital letter C. Qualifying attributes relating to function, shape, and size follow. For example large jars are designated by the code Jl, whilst platter bowls are designated by the code Bp. In summary, attributes relating to type are represented by letters at the beginning of the vessel code. Form relates to the construction and shape of diagnostic features such as rims, bases and handles. Variation in these features is expressed numerically, following the vessel type code. These variations represent stylistic, functional, and sometimes chronological aspects of a vessel. A large jar with a simple rim, flat base, and no handles represent the full set of attributes presented in the typology. Such an example would be designated with the code Jl.1.0.1. In this example the first number 1 describes the simple rim, the 0 describes the absence of handles, and the final 1 describes the flat base. A full list of codes relating to vessels and attributes are presented below in the discussion of individual types and summarised in Table 4.4.

4.32b. Methods and Procedures The resolution of site occupation length and type of occupation proceeds from the analysis of typological attributes. Typological attributes are pooled from the detailed recording of all attributes and descriptions of the pottery assemblage. 4.32bi. Typology The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage was excavated from a settlement site. Its diagnostic attributes are therefore characterized by a predominance of rim sherds, and to a lesser extent, base sherds. A number of vessels were restored to reflect their shape and size. Reconstructions of vessel types have been made where possible on the basis of mended vessels or secure information from other sites. In the latter case, formal attributes relating to rims or bases referenced from other sites may provide information on the vessel types present at Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 identified on the basis of formal attributes alone. Finally, estimations of vessel size can often be confidently made on the basis of vessel rim diameter and vessel wall width. An important emendation to Cole’s system is the issue of vessel size. I have observed that the size attribute is not applied consistently by Cole, nor is the size of vessels between assemblages ever compared. For instance, size categories for jars between EBA Arad (Amiran 1978), EBA Bab edh-Dhra‘ (Schaub and Rast 1984), MB II Aphek (Beck 2000), and MB II Shechem (Cole 1984) differ. Vessel size categories were definitively determined at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 for each individual vessel type (see Section 5.2b).

Once the basic repertoire of types had been established according to Cole’s attribute categories and nomenclature, the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 types were compared to typologies from other MB II sites in order to refine both the general chronological range of the type series as well as the spatial distribution of certain attributes or types across geographic regions and sites. Further study into the provenience and frequency of types across Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 suggests that different parts of the site were settled at different times, and were occupied for different periods of time. 4.33. Refuse Categories and Site Formation Processes 4.33a. Theory Abandonment theory (see Nelson and Schachner 2002 for a discussion) is a field of archaeological investigation which was initially inspired by British archaeologist David L. Clark (1973). However, the systematic exploration of abandonment was carried out by archaeologists working in the American southwest (for

While the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage consists of a small sample, estimates of the frequency of types can be

65

METHODOLOGY

Type Platter Bowl Small, Globular, Deep Bowl Large, Carinated, Deep Bowl Small, Flat Bottom Cooking Pot Large, Flat Bottom Cooking Pot Dipper Juglet Jar

Code Bp Bd A Bd C

Rim Form Simple, Rounded Simple, Pointed External Ridge, Rounded End

Code 11 13 21

Cfs A.2

External Ridge, Flattened End

22

Cfl A.2

Externally Folded, Rounded End

31

Jd J

Externally Folded, Flattened End Externally Folded, Pointed End

32 33

Base Form Flat Disc Ring

Code 11 21 31

Table 4.4. Nomenclature of pottery types and forms occurring at ZAD 1 (After Cole 1984) example Schiffer 1972). It has since gained in popularity, and the study of the abandonment of sites has now been applied to many case studies further afield (see Cameron and Tomka 1993).

material during its use and consumption compared to the condition of the ‘death assemblage’ (Orton 1993), or what is excavated (see 4.31biv for definition). Specifically these differences can reflect different abandonment processes and scheduling (Stevenson 1982).

The study of abandonment was particularly impelled by a need to account for the depopulation of a great number of sites and regions across the American southwest in the late first and early second millennium CE. (Nelson and Schachner 2002). Abandonment processes were associated with specific archaeological patterns, which had already been observed through the study of site structure, taphonomy and refuse patterns (Binford 1978; Schiffer 1987, 1972). The study of formation processes provided a significant starting point for the understanding of site and regional abandonment structure (Reid 1985, 1973). The specific relationship between site formation processes and abandonment is now referred to as the study of abandonment structure (Nelson and Schachner 2002).

Implicit in abandonment theory is the notion of curation (Binford 1978). Curation has been defined as the “degree of use or utility extracted, expressed as a relationship between how much utility a tool starts with – its maximum utility – and how much of that utility is realized before discard” (Shott 1996a). However, for other scholars, curation often implies the preservation or continued use of a tool beyond its original context of use, and even function (For example Deal 1998). The particular relevance of curation to abandonment lies in both the deliberate removal of usable objects from the archaeological record by groups abandoning a site, as well as the deliberate caching of artefacts during abandonment for later use at an anticipated time of return. Both forms of curation, which are not always identifiable in the archaeological record, result in specific states of the archaeological record in terms of refuse categories (Webb 1995): the former results in an abundance of primary and secondary refuse because the usable items (or de facto refuse) have been removed; the latter results in de facto refuse because usable items have been cached (see below for definition). Additionally, planned and deliberate abandonment could conceivably result in low levels of de facto refuse, whilst sudden abandonment could result in high levels of de facto refuse (Stevenson 1982). Refuse categories are defined by Schiffer (1987, 1972) in the following manner: 1. De facto refuse: usable items found in the archaeological record 2. Primary refuse: artefacts disposed in their location of use 3. Secondary refuse: unusable artefacts disposed away from their location of use

Whilst the Bronze Age of the southern Levant witnessed numerous episodes of depopulation and repopulation across sites and regions during a number of phases, no systematic study of abandonment processes or structure has taken place. Episodes of depopulation have been linked to causal factors such as foreign invasions (Albright 1949, Ilan 1998), economic downturns (Dever 1992), and environmental catastrophes (Donahue 1985), but no demonstration of abandonment and abandonment structure has been forthcoming from archaeological data excavated from south Levantine Bronze Age sites (for a Cypriot example see Frankel and Webb 2001). Abandonment structure studies the condition of the archaeological record in order to interpret the type of abandonment. Most commonly, abandonment is interpreted as either a planned or unplanned event, as well as either a seasonal or permanent type of abandonment. Ceramic data has been particularly useful in studying abandonment structure because ceramics can be excavated in a number of varying states or conditions, which reflect their use and discard. In other words, there is a distinct difference between the condition of ceramic

Most importantly the use of curation as a sensible concept for the interpretation of abandonment structure is limited 66

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN by the inability of archaeologists to evaluate claims relating to the removal of objects from a site for use elsewhere. Consequently the removal or ‘curation’ of usable items away from a site, resulting in higher levels of either primary or secondary refuse (and no de facto refuse) cannot be reasonably asserted. I believe that conditions suggestive of curate behaviour should consist of a number of clear contexts where de facto refuse materials prevail. Such scenarios imply possible caching of usable artefacts for future use, as in the case of seasonably abandoned sites. The co-occurrence of several living quarters at a site, some rooms containing high quantities of secondary refuse, others de facto refuse, may indicate that the former living quarters were abandoned either before or differently to the latter (see Section 4.33b below). However, it is virtually impossible to determine whether the usable artefacts found in one room were indeed curated from such other areas containing predominantly secondary refuse.

reasoning is based on ethnographic observations, which detail the reuse of abandoned rooms or external areas as dumps by groups who continue to live at the site after prior occupants have abandoned their residences, or the site as a whole (see Deal 1998). The subsequent transport, discard and breakage of pottery in such situations results in a highly fragmented assemblage. The studies of refuse categories and the condition of the archaeological record provides useful evidence for reconstructing site and room abandonment, and the type of occupation at both the room and site level. As such, this sort of study is the logical extension to understanding occupation length and function. Likewise it is an important step in the enrichment of archaeological praxis in the southern Levant in an endeavour to develop finescale behavioural reconstructions. 4.33b. Methods and Procedures Procedures and methods concerned with abandonment structure and taphonomy are primarily concerned with ensuring the accurate measurement of the condition of the ceramic assemblage. Specific measures of the preservation of whole vessels on floors in contrast to orphan sherds, provide evidence for the categorization of refuse and discard.

Studies into refuse categories and their relationship to abandonment have compared the relative frequencies of refuse categories in specific contexts. For instance Montgomery (1993, after Reid 1973) measures and compares the density of so-called ‘fill sherds’ (or discarded, unusable pottery sherds) to the number of whole pots on floors. Lightfoot (1993) on the other hand measures and compares the number of orphan sherds to the number of vessel sherds on a room floor. Both studies interpret high frequencies of whole pots as evidence of de facto refuse, reflecting either an unplanned abandonment, or abandonment with the anticipation of return.

4 33bi. Abandonment Structure and Process Abandonment structure is primarily derived from the comparison of the frequency of contexts with whole or partially whole vessels, and the density of orphan sherds in the same contexts. This method follows the principles of Reid’s Relative Room Abandonment Measure (1973), which determines the proportions of refuse categories in rooms, leading to interpretations of abandonment structure and process. A number of versions of Reid’s scale have been developed in applications to ceramic data from sites in the American southwest. Montgomery (1993) adopts the scale largely unchanged and plots the density (sherds/m2) of ‘fill sherds’ occurring on a floor on the horizontal axis and the number of ‘floor pots’ on the vertical axis. A scatter plot is thus generated, showing the clustering of rooms reflecting states of early to late abandonment. Montgomery is not specific about the sorts of proportions which define either late or early abandoned rooms, but admits that extreme cases are more easily identified or classified. Ideally the abandonment patterns are defined by the high frequency of secondary refuse (fill sherds) in early abandoned rooms, which have been reused as dumps, and the high frequency of whole pots on floors in late abandoned rooms, most probably reflecting a sudden or long distance abandonment that was permanent. Lightfoot (1993) takes a more detailed approach, accommodating the presence of incomplete but almost whole vessels on floors by plotting orphan sherds on the horizontal axis and ‘vessel sherds’ on the vertical axis. In this instance ‘vessel sherds’ reflect whole pots or sherds belonging to whole pots. Lightfoot’s nomenclature for the axes is more suitable for the ZAD 1 assemblage because it considers reconstructed vessels.

These studies are possible because of the high incidence of both restorable and whole pottery at sites in the American southwest. By contrast, archaeologists working in the southwest are much less explicit about the condition of pottery falling between the orphan sherd and whole pot states. In other words, there is a lack of precisely quantified definitions or scales for pots which are less than totally complete or restorable. The practical need to accommodate such data, which occurs most commonly in pottery assemblages, along with the more ideal extreme states of whole pots and orphan sherds requires that a suitable measure or scale be employed. The brokenness and completeness (Orton 1993; Schiffer 1987) measures are particularly useful in this respect. Both measures can be expressed at the level of the individual pot and at the level of the assemblage, enabling the quantification of vessels in terms of their partial or total survival in the archaeological record (See 4.33bii for formulas and definitions). Brokenness and completeness not only enables the formal expression of the condition of artefacts but also assists in the determination of activity area function. The comparatively early abandonment of some rooms in settlements, reflecting planned or anticipated abandonment yields particularly high densities of secondary refuse (Lightfoot 1993), which is characterized by a high level of brokenness (Schiffer 1987). This 67

METHODOLOGY Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 ceramics were isolated as whole vessels by satisfying one of two criteria: 1) when sherds belonging to the same vessel amount to more than 40 % of the EVE for that vessel class, and 2) when an obvious cluster of related vessel sherds was excavated from a surface, most frequently a hearth, in the case of cooking pots. The justification for this approach lies in the fundamentally fragmented and scattered state of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 serving and storage vessels on the one hand, and the high number of observable cases of floor hearths containing seemingly complete but smashed cooking vessels. Important assumptions involve the identification of the aforementioned cooking pots as either de facto or primary refuse, and the proposal that broken storage and serving vessels containing more than 40 % of their original ceramic material probably do not represent secondary refuse. The 40% of a vessel proportionately surviving in the assemblage is an arbitrary marker that takes into account the imprecise nature of using size categories for measuring surface area, which underestimates the surface area of sherds, and the inability to assign some sherds to one vessel on the basis of ware, where sherds cannot be mended (See 4.31bii). As a working model then, secondary refuse is defined by orphan sherds which have been excavated from contexts lacking any restorable vessels, especially contexts not defined as living surfaces or floors. At Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 these comprise exteriors and middens. Primary refuse is defined by vessels comprising between 10-39 % of EVE, particularly on floors. And de facto refuse is defined by vessels comprising 40 % or greater of EVE, particularly restorable vessels on floors.

deposition. Fragmentation rates of ceramic assemblages therefore provide insights into the trajectory of archaeological materials after discard, and hence further evidence for evaluating room and site occupation and abandonment. Orton (Orton et al. 1993) calculates Brokenness and completeness by the following formulas: Brokenness: Sherd count / Estimated Vessel Equivalent Completeness: Estimated Vessel Equivalent / Estimated Vessels Represented These calculations are applicable at the level of the assemblage as well as at the level of individual vessels. Consequently, rooms may be compared on the basis of their respective levels of brokenness and completeness. Schiffer (1987) advocates the use of a completeness index (CI), which measures the fraction of a vessel surviving by measuring the surviving sherds. The CI represents a whole vessel by the number 1.0, half a vessel as 0.5 and so on. By taking the different fractions for different vessels one can calculate an average rate of completeness for an entire stratigraphic context. Refitting, as well as the employment of brokenness and completeness measures, has been chosen to evaluate formation processes at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. These methods are also expected to assist in the quantification of the assemblage and categorization of refuse types, leading to accurate interpretations of abandonment structure and types. 4.4. Conclusion

Refuse categories are calculated by determining both the general and precise conditions of an assemblage by employing the brokenness and completeness measures (Orton 1993). These measures can quantify and express the precise condition of vessels, which are partially complete on the one hand, or not entirely definable as orphan sherds on the other. Properly speaking, the measure of brokenness and completeness belong to the pursuit of understanding site formation processes.

This chapter has demonstrated some of the capabilities of ceramic data. Researches into site function, occupation length, seasonality, abandonment and taphonomy have all effectively utilised ceramic data to arrive at important conclusions. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage can now be effectively marshalled to reconstruct these patterns for the site, which contributes to the understanding of human behaviour at small Bronze Age sites in the southern Levant. Thereby, significant methodological advances are made for ceramic studies in the southern Levant. Ceramic material is here utilised beyond mere questions of chronology and typology, and new themes, such as abandonment and behaviour, are introduced through methods drawn from a wide range of archaeological genres. Importantly, these new approaches stress the significance of quantitative data. Having established the methodological framework, rounding the interests and aims of this research, a thorough analysis of the ceramic data from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 may now proceed. Chapter 5 will present the results from the analysis of the ceramic assemblage at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1.

4.33bii. Taphonomic Processes Distinguishing the cultural and natural causes which shape the archaeological record can be greatly assisted by the close analysis of the condition of ceramic assemblages. Brokenness and completeness measures of both vessels and contexts provide sensitive information about discard contexts (Schiffer 1987). Refitting and gathering sherds from different contexts that belong to the same vessel provides useful illustrations of the dispersal of archaeological materials after they have been discarded. Likewise, highly fragmented ceramic material indicates possible deterioration and re-deposition, as well as providing evidence for reconstructing sequences of

68

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 This chapter presents the ceramic typology of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 and also its chronology. The date and length of occupation are established predominantly through typological analysis of the pottery, which is subsequently employed as a comparative tool to place Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 in relation to other sites in the southern Levant. The typological relationship to other sites is explored both chronologically and spatially by focussing on the distribution of typological attributes in the southern Levant. Likewise, the typological analysis extends to the interpretation of the occupation of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 at an intra-site level. An intra-site comparison of chronologically sensitive ceramic types across different architectural units provides information on the differential occupation and abandonment of individual Structures at the site. Importantly, chronological data may provide clues to whether the site was occupied continuously or sporadically.

5.11c. B Bowl Bases (Figs 5.1 e-f – 5.2 a-b, 5.3 a-b) 5.11ci. B.0.21 Disc Base, Flat (Figs 5.1 e, 5.2 a, 5.3a) The flat disc base at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is characterised by its squared, raised, and slightly concave disc profile. The vessel walls sweep gently upwards at a wide angle into a hemispherical shape. 5.11cii. B.0.32 Ring Base, Flattened (Figs 5.1 f, 5.2b, 5.3b) The ring base at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is sufficiently high to almost be classified as a pedestal base. Our example belongs to a necked (Bn) or Carinated (Bc) vessel with a sharp carination. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 example is characterised by its high, concave footed stance. The walls of the vessel climb up at a steep angle, and carinate sharply towards the centre. 5.11d. Jl Juglets (Figs 5.1 l, 5.4) 5.11di. Jd Dipper Juglets (Figs 5.1 l, 5.4) The Jd at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is characterized by a convex base, a slightly incurved simple rim, one loop handle, and a gentle angle at the shoulder. The handle is attached at the shoulder and slightly below the rim. The neck is moderately long.

5.1. The ZAD 1 Pottery Typology 5.11. Serving Vessels 5.11a. Bp Platter Bowls (Fig. 5.1 a-b) 5.11ai. Bp. 11 (Fig. 5.1 a-b) The Bp occurs at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 in one formal type, defined as Bp. 11. This vessel has a simple, rounded, and slightly incurved rim, which has been marginally thickened on the interior. The examples from Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 vary in their degree of depth and shallowness, but all are undecorated. A version of this vessel at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 (Fig. 5.1 b) is characterised by its shallow, hemispherical shape. The rim course is straight and vertical with a rounded rim end. A slight ridge or gutter has been formed on the exterior where the rim has been pushed inwards to make it vertical. Immediately above the ridge the rim has been flattened. Morphologically Bp. 11 conforms to a hemispherical shape.

5.12. C Cooking Vessels (Figs 5.1 g-k, 5.5) 5.12a. Flat-bottomed Cookpots (Figs 5.1 g-k, 5.5) Cooking vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 conform to three sub-types of the flat-bottomed cookpot (Cfs A. 2, Cfl A. 2 and Cf A. 2a). 5.12ai. Cfs A.2 Flat-bottomed Cookpots, Small (Figs 5.1 g-h, 5.5) The Cfs A. 2 is a coarse, hand-built vessel with a flat base, straight-sided upright walls and a simple rim. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 type is decorated on the exterior with a rope-moulding appendage, which follows the entire circumference of the upper wall. Thumb or stick impressions, which do not normally pierce the vessel wall, are positioned between the rope moulding and rim end. One example at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is characterised by the complete absence of rope moulding appendage decoration. Most commonly these vessels occur in Munsell colour 2.5 YR 6/8 Orange.

5.11b. Bd Deep Bowls (Fig. 5.1 c-d) 5.11bi. Bd A. 13 (Fig. 5.1 d) Bd A. 13 occurs at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 without slip. This vessel is characterised by a slightly everted and tapered rim and its upright, vertical profile. The rim end is pointed and has been formed by applying pressure just below the rim end. This has caused a slight groove to develop at the top of the vessel wall below the rim.

5.12aii. Cfl A. 2 Flat-bottomed Cookpots, Large (Figs 5.1 i-j, 5.5) The Cfl A. 2 at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is a large vessel, often occurring with an open stance of the vessel wall. Whilst the walls are straight, they are angled away from the centre of the vessel. A few examples are further distinguished by a pronounced curvature of the vessel wall. The walls of these vessels are slightly everted and curve away from the centre of the vessel. The curvature is most pronounced closer to the rim.

5.11bii. Bd C. 12 (Fig. 5. 1 c) The Bd C. 12 occurs at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 without the white wash that is common to it at other sites. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 bowl has an everted, squared rim, and belongs to a large globular vessel. Morphologically this vessel is characterised by its flaring mouth, whilst the walls of the vessel extend away from the centre into a shoulder immediately below the rim. 69

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

70

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 5.2a-b. Bowl bases at ZAD 1 (profile view)

Figure 5.3a-b. Bowl bases at ZAD 1 (bottom view)

Figure 5.4. Dipper Juglet from ZAD 1 71

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 5.5. Cooking Vessels from ZAD 1 5.12aiii. Cf A. 2A Flat-bottomed Cookpot, Globular (Fig. 5.1 k) The Cf A. 2A at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is characterised by the inverted orientation of the rim and wall, but contains thumb impressions below the rim, defining it as a member of the Cf A. 2 family. Morphologically this type appears to resemble a globular vessel where the maximum diameter lies at the mid point of the body. The vessel shape, produced by its incurved walls conforms to the Cf B. 3 vessel. However this impression may simply be the result of an incorrectly interpreted stance; this is a common result of an insufficiently large rim sherd, particularly from a hand built vessel.

5.13aii. J 11 Simple Rounded Rim (Fig. 5.6 a-b) J 11 is characterised by its everted, simple rim, and occurs with a straight rim course or a slightly everted, open stance. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 example occurs occasionally with a thin cream wash. 5.13aiii. J 13 Simple Pointed Rim (Fig. 5.6 c-e) J 1.3 is a variation of J 11 and is distinguished from the latter by its pointed end. It is otherwise identical to the J 11 vessel. 5.13aiv. J 21 Externally Thickened, Rounded Rim with Secondary Gutter (Fig. 5.6 f)

5.13. Storage Vessels (Figs 5.6 a-l, 5.7-10, 5.11 a-f, 5.1213)

J21 is characterised by its elaborated rim section caused by a secondary external ridge or gutter. The rim end is flattened or slightly rounded, and the orientation is everted. One vessel is decorated with horizontal combing on the shoulder.

5.13a. J Jars (Figs 5. 6 a-l, 5. 7-10, 5. 11 a-f, 5. 12-13) 5.13ai. Decoration Body decoration on the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 jars takes two related forms: combing and incision. The former occurs predominantly on the shoulder of the vessel in a variety of forms: horizontal bands, continuous combing, dots, notches, wavy lines, and a combination of vertical and horizontal lines (Fig. 5.7). Whilst combing can be associated with some vessels, wavy lines, dots, and notches are also encountered on individual sherds. A rare zoomorphic motif incised on the shoulder of a vessel occurs only on one jar at ZAD 1 (Figs 5.8, 5.11 a, 5.12). The motif shows a series of 8 antelope with varying orientation of the horns walking above hoof tracks represented by incised notches.

5.13av. J 22 Everted, Externally Thickened, Flattened Rim with Secondary Gutter (Figs 5.6 g-h, 5.9) J 22 (Fig. 5.6 g) is characterised by the pronounced eversion of the rim, which has been brought up, turned out, and flattened at the top. A gentle ridge or gutter is placed below the rim. A variation of this type occurs at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 (Figs 5.6 h). It is distinguished from the classic J22 by its more acute eversion of the rim stance. The rim has been pushed further out and down, forcing the end to point downwards. J 22 also occurs with horizontal combing on the shoulder (Fig. 5.9).

72

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 5.6. Illustrations of the ZAD 1 Pottery Types, including Storage Vessels with simple rims, profiled rims and folded rims 73

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 5.7. Various incised decorations from ZAD 1

Figure 5.8. Antelope motif on jar from ZAD 1

74

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 5.9. Jar with gutter rim and horizontal combing

Figure 5.10. Jar with folded rim and continuous combing 75

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 5.13avi. J 31 Externally Folded, Rounded End Rim (Figs 5.6 i-l, 5.10)

5.13b. Jar Bases (Fig. 5.11 g-j) 5.13bi. J.0.11 (Fig. 5. 11 g-h) J.0.11 (Fig. 5.11 g) is flat, wide, and joins the lower body at a 45-degree angle. A variation of this type of base occurs with a greater angle (> 45 degrees) between body and base, producing a more rounded effect (Fig. 5.11 h). Two bases, which conform to the J.0.11 form, were recovered with perforations at the centre of the base. The perforations were included for a distinct purpose, which separates these vessels functionally from the regular unperforated-base vessels, and were fashioned prior to the firing of the vessel (Fig. 5.14).

J 31 is characterised by its externally folded rim. The rim end is rounded, and a lower, external ridge has been created at the junction of the rim and neck by applying pressure to the exterior of the rim during forming. The profile of the rim is triangular. The body dimensions of this vessel are defined by a squat, ovoid shape and a low, vertical neck. The base is flat, and curves gently into the vessel wall at more than 45 degrees. A number of variations are observed at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. These include vessels characterised by the sloping, incurved orientation of their rim (Fig. 5.6 i). This rim is formed by pinching the neck and inclining the rim end towards the centre of the vessel. An interior groove and corresponding exterior ridge have been formed as a result of the pressure applied when pointing the rim inwards. Decoration on this type of vessel varies from the application of a light cream wash to continuous horizontal combing over the entire vessel. One example of a vessel displaying continuous horizontal combing also contained a potter’s mark or design (Figs 5.6 l, 5.10).

5.13bii. J.0.21 (Fig. 5.11 i) J.0.21 is characterised by its flat, slightly raised disc base. The base edge is gently rounded, and extends laterally beyond the line of the vessel wall. Vessel walls extend out at a 45-degree angle. 5.13biii. J.0.31 (Fig. 5.11 j) J.0.31 is characterized by its convex, raised ring base with a low-footed profile. The base edge is pointed, curving away from the vessel body. The vessel walls extend upwards at a 45-degree angle from the base.

5.13avii. J 32 Externally Folded, Flattened Rim (Figs 5.8, 5.11 a and 5.12)

5.13c. Stoppers (Fig. 5.15) 5.13ci. Stp.1 (Fig. 5.15) Stp.1 is characterised by a rounded sherd manufactured from a fired storage jar sherd (Fig. 5.15).

J 32 is characterised by its hammerhead rim profile. The rim was formed by bringing up the short neck and pinching the end. An external square ridge was formed, and the rim was essentially flattened at the top to produce an almost horizontal course. The upper body is characterised by a rounded shoulder while the lower dimensions of the vessel are narrower and tapering towards the base. Rim and upper body are connected by a short, inclined neck, combining to produce a squat, bulbous and top-heavy ovoid shape. The base, which is flat and roughly proportionate to the diameter of the rim, joins the body at a sharp angle of 45 degrees. One example from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 was finished with a light cream slip, accompanied by an incised zoomorphic motif containing 8 antelope positioned on the shoulder of the vessel (Figs 5.8, 5.11a and 5.12; see also Section 5.13ai above). The 8 antelope, which are individually distinguishable by the slightly different orientation of the head and horns in each case, represent a row of animals that are arranged in a continuous horizontal procession. This is a rare and well-executed design.

5.14. Spatial Distribution and Frequency of Pottery Types The spatial distribution and frequency of pottery types at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 demonstrates patterns suggestive of chronological differences between the occupations of different parts of the site. General vessel frequency patterns calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts are characterised by the predominance of cooking vessels, followed by storage jars, bowls and finally juglets (Table 5.1). 5.14a. Bowls Bowls at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 were recovered from only two excavated contexts in Structures 37 and 39. The remainder were collected from surface remains associated with a number of structures (Table 5.2). Platter bowl Bp. 11 occurs twice at the site as surface remains beside Structures 31 and 28, on the south bank of Wadi adh-Dhra‘.

5.13aviii. J 33 Externally Folded, Pointed End Rim (Figs 5.11 b-f and 5.13): J 33 is characterised by its folded, thickened rim. The rim course is straight and the rim end is pointed. An external gutter was created at the base of the rim by applying pressure to the exterior of the folded rim. Variations of this rim form are distinguished by the rim course, which can be either incurved (Fig. 5.11 d) or everted (Fig. 5.11 b-c). This vessel is occasionally decorated with a faint, sparse horizontal combing. However, most examples are undecorated.

Deep bowl Bd A. 13, which occurs only once at the site was recovered from surface remains on the south side of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ beside Structure 27. Deep bowl Bd C. 12 from Structure 39 was the only one of its type excavated from the site. Bowl bases B. 021 and B. 032 were both excavated from Structure 37 as the only examples of bowl bases at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1.

76

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 5.11. ZAD 1 Pottery Types: Storage Jars (J3) and Bases

77

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 5.12. Antelope Jar from ZAD 1

Figure 5.13. Full profile of jar with folded rim and combing 78

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 5.14. Perforated Storage Jar bases from ZAD 1

Figure 5.15. Jar/Juglet Stoppers from ZAD 1

79

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 suggesting that rim form differences did not correlate with functional differences.

5.14b. Juglets One largely intact dipper juglet (Jd) was excavated at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 from Structure 37 and a further juglet fragment was excavated from the Eastern Room of Structure 42 (Table 5.3).

Type J 1, characterised by a simple, slightly thickened rim, occurred in excavated contexts in Structures 37, 39, and 41 (Table 5.5, Figs 5.16-18). J 1 is the second at ZAD 1 (33% of total). The greatest number of examples (N = 7) were collected from surface remains at Structure 33, whilst the greatest density of examples from an excavated context occurred at Structure 37 (N = 5).

5.14c. Cooking Vessels Flat-bottomed cooking vessels Cfs A. 2 and Cfl A. 2, representing both large and small varieties occurred across the entire site in large quantities and in all excavated contexts (Table 5.4). The distribution of vessel size variability across different rooms is treated below (See Section 6.11d). Vessel Cf A. 2a, most abundant jar type found characterised by the globular shape of the vessel body, occurs only once at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 in Structure 41.

Type J2, characterised by an externally profiled rim with a lower, secondary gutter occurred in excavated contexts at Structures 36 and 37 (Table 5.5, Figs 5.16-18). J 2 is the least numerous jar type found at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 (19% of total). The greatest number of examples (N = 5) were collected from surface remains at Structure 33 whilst the greatest number of examples in an excavated context occurred in Structure 36 (N = 2).

5.14d. Storage Vessels Storage vessels demonstrate the greatest variability in both distribution and frequency between the various Structures at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. Storage vessel types fall into three major type categories according to three broad distinctions in rim form: types J1-J3 (see Section 5.13). These forms occurred in various sizes (Fig. 5.19),

Vessel Type Frequency

Bowls (%) 4.23

Juglets (%) 1.41

Type J3, characterised by an externally folded rim occurred in excavated contexts in all Structures except for Structures 40 and 41 (Table 5.5, Figs 5.16-18). Type J 3 is the most abundant jar type found at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 (48% of the total). The largest number of examples (N = 4) was excavated from Structure 37 (N = 4).

Cooking Pots (%) 55.63

Storage Jars (%) 38.73

Table 5.1. Vessel type frequency at ZAD 1 calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts Provenience 27 Surface 28 Exterior 31 Surface 37 Unit F 37 Unit E 39 All Contexts

Bp. 11 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

Bd A. 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Bd C. 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 (H006.22.7) 1

B.0.21 0 0 0 1 (F008.88.1) 0 0 1

B.0.32 0 0 0 0 1 (E004.7.1) 0 1

Table 5.2. Provenience for Bowl types (N = diagnostic rim and base forms) at ZAD 1 Provenience 37 Unit E 42 Unit K All Contexts

Jd 1 (E008.18.1) 1 (K014.45.7) 2 Table 5.3. Provenience for Juglet types (N = diagnostic rim and base forms) at ZAD 1

Provenience 41 Site-wide All Contexts

Cfs A. 2 5 33 38

Cfl A. 2 1 37 38

Cf A. 2a 1 (J009.95.9) 0 1

Table 5.4. Provenience for Cooking Vessel types (N = diagnostic rim and base forms) at ZAD 1

80

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Provenience Unit O 2 Surface 32 Surface 33 Surface 36 37 39 40 41 42 44 All Contexts

J1 0 0 0 7 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 14

J2 0 0 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 8

J3 1 2 2 2 1 5 1 0 0 3 2 19

J.0.11 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 0 9

J.0.11 perforated 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2

J.0.21 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

J.0.31 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Stp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2

Table 5.5. Provenience for Storage Vessel types (N = diagnostic rim and base forms) at ZAD 1

Figure 5.16. Vessel type frequency for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1

Figure 5.17. Vessel type distribution for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1 81

82

N

1 - 44 = Structures A - Z = Excavated Units

Key:

L

P-R

T

Cluster 4

Jar Type 1 Jar Type 2

I

Jar Type 3

Figure 5.18. Plan of Jar type distribution at Zahrat adh-Dhra' 1

32

Cluster 3

O

33

M-N

DD

E-F

Boulder Field

B

Cluster 2

Cluster 1

(10 Km. south)

ZAD 1 adh-Dhra'

Dhra' Site

15 km

N

Dayr Ayn-Abata

Numeira

Potash City

-D

k h ra'

a l -K e ra

Wa d i ad h

W a di

The Dead Sea Basin

Scale: 1: 4000

0

Khanzazir

Ghor To Kerak al-Mazra'a

Bab adh-Dhra'

Dead Sea

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN The jar base types demonstrated a pattern characterised by the occurrence of the more elaborate J.021 and J.031 types in the southeast part of the site only. Type J.011 occurred at all parts of the site including Structures 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42, while types J.021 and J.031 occurred only in Structure 33 (Table 5.5).

MB IIC. Meanwhile it is absent from MB IIA Stratum GF at Tell Beit Mirsim but present in MB IIB Stratum D and MB IIC Stratum E. It occurs regularly throughout the MB II sequence at Megiddo (in Strata X-XIII), and in MB IIB-C tomb groups III-V at Jericho. Close parallels for the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 examples come from MB IIAB phases at Tell Nimrin (Dornemann 1990, Fig. 6: 2-3) and MB IIB Jericho H.xxix-xxx and H.xxviia as bowl class A (Kenyon 1982, Fig. 103: 11, 31). The Bp. 11 must therefore be placed anywhere from MB IIA to MB IIC.

5.14e. Stoppers Stoppers occurred only in the western part of the site in Structures 40 and 42 (Table 5.5). 5.2. The Chronology of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1: Analysis of Typological Parallels

5.21aii. Bd Deep Bowls (Figs 5.1 c-d) The Bd A. 13 at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 finds a close parallel with a rim form from MB IIA-B Tell Nimrin (Dornemann 1990, Fig. 6: 25). However, the latter vessel may belong to a type with a more globular shape. Another three close examples come from the Jericho bowl class F in MB IIC contexts H.lii-liii, and MB IIB contexts H.xxxiv and H.xxx-xxxi (Kenyon 1982, Fig. 112: 17, 23, 29). The existence of this type throughout the MB IIB-C phases of the Jericho MB II sequence suggests that it is not ideal for further constricting the limits of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 MB II chronology. It does however recommend a later date in the MB IIB-C range.

The following analysis presents individual vessel types and their chronological attributes which have been established in relation to assemblages from other stratified MB II sites. The typological analysis of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage relies substantially on Cole’s (1984) typological formulation of the MB II assemblage from Shechem (see Section 4.32a). The best evidence for reconstructing the chronology of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 ceramic assemblage proceeds from two lines of evidence: the formal properties of the types and the relative frequency of types as a proportion of the entire assemblage. The rationale for this approach lies in the chronological distribution of ceramic types in the MB II period. Many types found in the MB IIA persist into MB IIB and MB IIC. New types also appear in MB IIB and MB IIC which augment the established MB IIA repertoire (Cole 1984). As a result, an assemblage comprising both MB IIA and MB IIB forms should conservatively be interpreted as an MB IIB assemblage.

The Bd C. 12 at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 occurs without the white wash commonly associated with this type of vessel (Cole 1984, Pl. 7: h). Cole argues that there is no correlation between rim form and body type in this category, precluding any speculation on the exact morphology of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 vessel. Nevertheless, Cole raises the possibility that this rim form may belong either to a wide-mouthed large storage vessel or a cylindrical bowl at Shechem (Cole 1984). Other parallels for the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 example are found at MB IIB Tell Jericho H.xxvi as bowl class G (Kenyon 1982, Fig. 115: 5) and at MB IIA Aphek (Beck 2000, Figs 8.10: 6; 8.12: 7). The Bd C. 12 form must be placed somewhere in the MB IIA-B range.

However, not withstanding the practice of dating assemblages by the latest chronological types, the distribution of ceramic types at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 also showed marked differences between individual structures. This implied that perhaps not all excavated structures at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 were occupied or abandoned contemporaneously (see Sections 6.12, 8. 26c, 9.24). Consequently, greater emphasis was placed on the dating of individual structures by employing chronologically diagnostic types. To understand the chronology of individual structures and site areas, a general discussion of the frequency of chronologically diagnostic types is followed by a more specific appraisal of types in their archaeological context.

5.21aiii. Bowl Bases (Figs 5.1 e-f – 5.2 a-b, 5.3 a-b) Bowl bases cannot be easily attributed to specific vessel types during the MB II period. A bowl type may occur with a variety of base forms. As a general rule however, simple disc bases predominate in MB IIA assemblages, yielding their place to more elaborated ring and pedestal varieties in MB IIB-C assemblages (Cole 1984, p.60). The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 bowl bases described below reflect the characteristics of MB IIA-B assemblages. 5.21aiv. B.0.21 Disc Base, Flat (Figs 5.1 e, 5.2 a, 5.3a) At Shechem this base form is associated with the early MB IIB phases, but it is also encountered in later MB IIB-C phases in lesser frequencies on platter bowls (Cole 1984, p. 61). This type becomes generally less common compared to the concave disc base in the later MB II. Parallels are found at Shechem (Cole 1984, Pl. 20: b, c, g), Tell Nimrin (Dornemann 1990, Fig. 7: 35) and the Jericho tombs (Kenyon 1982, Fig. 153: 4, 8, 10-12) in

5.21. Inter-site Parallels 5.21a. Serving Vessels 5.21ai. Bp Platter Bowls (Figs 5.1 a-b) The Bp. 11 occurs throughout the MB II sequence at most sites. Consequently, it is not a chronologically precise or helpful index for identifying the presence of either MB IIA or MB IIC (Cole 1984, p. 41). Bp. 11 increases in frequency at Shechem from 0.06% in MB IIB to 0.19% in 83

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 MB IIB contexts. The B.0.21 at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 should be dated to the MB IIB period.

chronological types (Cf A.2 and Cf A.2a). The Cf A.2 vessel is encountered primarily in MB IIA contexts. Albright (1932) initially argued that the emergence of this type should be attributed to the MB I (EB IV) on the basis of his Stratum I-F at Tell Beit Mirsim. This chronological phasing of the Cf was subsequently adopted by other scholars (for example Shipton 1939; Tuffnell 1958). Tufnell (1958) associated this vessel with the Caliciform culture of EB IV on the basis of one sherd, but admitted that the sherd may have been intrusive.

5.21av. B.0.32 Ring Base, Flattened (Figs 5. 1 f, 5. 2b, 5. 3b) The ring base occurs once at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. The simple form is associated with the early MB IIB phases at Shechem, yielding to the more elaborate B.034 in the later MB IIB/C phases (Cole 1984, p. 61). The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 example is sufficiently high to almost be classified as a pedestal base, a form that appears in the middle of the MB IIB period. Our example belongs to a necked (Bn) or carinated (Bc) vessel with a sharp carination. Examples of this type of base are found at Shechem (Cole 1984, Pl. 21: n), MB IIB Manahat (Edelstein et al.1998, Fig. 4.3: 23), and MB IIB Jericho which has a pedestal variety (Kenyon 1982, Fig. 159: 34). Importantly, this type is absent from MB IIA assemblages, particularly at Aphek (Beck 2000, p. 213) and Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984). The B.0.32 form at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 should be dated to the MB IIB period.

The existence of a similar, but bell-shaped vessel with two ledge handles dating to the EB IV period further complicated the chronology of the Cf vessel. The bellshaped vessel was first identified at Aro‘er in an EB IV context (Olavarri 1969: Fig. 5:12) and again recognized in EB IV Phase 5 at Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984: Fig. 13.3). The excavators at Tell el-Hayyat argued that on the basis of formal characteristics such as the ledge handles, as well as the stratigraphic phasing, this vessel should be placed typologically earlier than the MB II Cf cookpot, which does not occur until the subsequent MB IIA Phase 4 at Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984: p. 58). It is now generally accepted that the Cf vessel does not occur in the EB IV period and instead marks the beginning of the MB IIA period (Cole 1984; Amiran 1969). But the major importance of this vessel lies in its typological development since it was persistently employed to distinguish between the internal chronological divisions of the MB II period.

5.21avi. Jd Dipper Juglets (Figs 5.1 l, 5.4) The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 dipper juglet type, characterized by a convex base, slightly incurved simple rim, one loop handle, and a gentle angle in the shoulder treatment, conforms to Cole’s MB IIB type (Cole 1984, p. 69). This dipper juglet type contrasts with the MB IIA preference for stumpy or flattish bases, a feature that has been associated with MB IIA Aphek in the coastal plain (Beck 2000). Both types, however, are present in the MB IIA Tell Nimrin assemblage (Dornemann 1990, Fig. 7: 12-13), which lies some 60 km to the north of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. The absence of the stumpy base juglet at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 may point to an exclusively MB IIB occupation. This is supported by the fact that even though the gentle shoulder angle of the Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 juglet is normally associated with MB IIA assemblages, it remains in the MB IIB-C assemblage of Jericho even after the more angular version has emerged. The Jd is common to MB IIB assemblages but it is not always helpful in determining a more precise chronology within the period. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 type finds a strong parallel in MB IIB contexts at Shechem (Cole 1984, Pl. 27: b-c, f-h) and the Jericho tombs (Kenyon 1982, Fig. 183: 4-5). The Jd at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 should be dated to the MB IIB period.

Albright’s original typology for the Cf placed the vessel with perforations below the rim and above the rope moulding (Cole’s Cf A.1) at the beginning of the MB IIA sequence. The perforations, which were thought to be steam holes (Albright 1932; Cole 1984), became vestigial features during the latter part of the MB IIA. Perforations not piercing the vessel wall, fashioned by thumb or stick, represent the MB IIA-MB IIB transition. Cole terms this vessel Cf A.2 and reports its minimal presence in the late MB IIA stratum (Stratum XXI) at Shechem (Cole 1984). The vessel disappears by Albright’s MB IIB Stratum E at Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932) and is practically unrepresented at MB IIB Shechem in Stratum XX. The early dating of Cf A.1 and Cf A.2 was subsequently confirmed by the existence of this vessel at Aphek (Beck 1975), another significant MB IIA site. Significantly, the Cf A.3, a vessel that Albright places later in the chronology (Albright’s MB IIB Stratum E) is absent from the Aphek assemblage. There appears to be only a minimal, early presence of MB IIB at Aphek on the basis of other vessel classes, especially bowls (Beck 2000). Meanwhile, Cf A.1 and Cf A.2 are common to all other MB IIA assemblages. They are found in Stratum XV at Megiddo (Shipton 1938) and Phases 3 and 4 at Tell el Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984).

5.21b. Cooking Vessels (Figs 5.1 g-k, 5.5) 5.21bi. Cf Flat-bottomed Cookpots (Figs 5.1 g-k, 5.5) Ubiquitous though this type of pottery is, being found in all sites of the MB I in southern and central Palestine, such as Jerusalem, Jericho, Ai, Bethel, Tell ed-Djeriseh, etc., it has so far almost escaped attention, or has been erroneously referred to the Neolithic age, that limbo of the Palestinian archaeologist (Albright 1932: 15). Cooking vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 conform to two

84

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 5.19. Correlation of vessel type and size for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1 The Cf A.3, which follows the Cf A.2, is defined by the disappearance of the perforations below the rim seen in Cf A.1 and Cf A.2. Type Cf A.3 is the most common type found at MB IIB Shechem in Stratum XX (Cole 1984). The walls of the Cf vessel begin to curve inwards and the rope moulding moves up the vessel wall towards the rim in MB IIB Strata XIX and XVIII at Shechem. The rope moulding also experiences a slight elaboration, beginning to resemble a piecrust form by the time of the Cf B.3. The latter vessel is found in Albright’s MB IIB Strata E1 and E2, and in other strictly MB IIB assemblages like Tell el Msas (Fritz and Kempinski 1983), Tell el Milkh (Kochavi 1967), Manahat (Edelstein et al. 1998), and square N40/W20 at Tell Nimrin (McCreery 1994). The Cf B.3 vessel is ubiquitous in the southern Levant during the MB IIB/C (Edelstein 1998) being found in MB IIB/C assemblages from Gezer (Dever 1974) and Jericho (Kenyon 1982), to Megiddo (Shipton 1938). The morphology of the Cf vessel continues to evolve into a globular shape by the MB IIC, represented at Shechem by the vessel Cf B.4 (Cole 1984).

has been made, but this does not refute Cole’s position that the two types represent the MB IIA since Aphek, unlike Tell el-Hayyat and Megiddo, lacks MB IIB. The greatest problem with the chronology advanced by Cole is that Cf A.1, Cf A.2, and Cf A.3 occur together in MB IIA phases at Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and MagnessGardiner 1984) and MB IIB phases at Manahat (Edelstein et al. 1998). In fact Cf A.3 is reported from the earliest levels at Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984), a site containing both EB IV and MB IIA. Given that the Cf of the MB II seems to occur in most of its typological manifestations in early MB II phases at a number of sites, some revision to Cole’s sequence is necessary. It is argued here that neither the presence, nor the extent of perforations on the Cf vessel are diagnostic of its chronological development. Instead, it is suggested that the chronological development of the Cf vessel is marked by its morphology. Vessels from MB IIA Aphek and MB IIA Tell el-Hayyat are consistently everted or have upright walls. Except for possible exceptions at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982), the author has not observed incurved or globular vessels of the Cf B.3 and Cf B.4 type in strictly MB IIA contexts. The latter vessels occur together with Cf A.1, Cf A.2, and Cf A.3 in MB IIB contexts only. Furthermore, the relative frequencies of everted Cf types compared to incurved Cf types in MB IIB assemblages have never been reported. It may well be that the occurrence of the Cf A and Cf B.3 types together in MB IIB contexts may represent an early phase of MB IIB. As has been suggested by Cole (1984) and Falconer (pers. comm. 2002), MB II assemblages, like most other material culture assemblages do not follow monothetic patterns where certain types disappear suddenly and new types appear in their place (cf. Clarke 1968). Instead, many features of the MB IIA repertoire continue for the entire MB II sequence while later types and forms are progressively added,

The chronology of the Cf vessel elucidated above is based primarily on the early work of Albright (1932) and its subsequent reworking by Cole (1984). Whilst the sequence seems to hold for most stratified sites, and equally for unstratified sites on the basis of correlation with other vessel classes, exceptions have been reported. Maier (2000: 38) pointedly remarks that Albright’s chronology for the Cf vessel “does not sustain close scrutiny”. Attributes of both Cf A.1 and Cf A.2 have been observed in the same phase, and indeed on the same vessel in a number of assemblages. At Tell el-Hayyat the two types occur together throughout Phases 3 and 4 (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984) and a similar pattern is observed in Stratum XVI at Megiddo (Shipton 1938). At Aphek (Beck 1975) a comparable observation 85

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 gradually dominating the later assemblages. This allows for the co-existence of earlier and later types in MB IIB/C contexts. In this instance, the Cf A everted form continues into the MB IIB period where the Cf B incurved form makes its first appearance. Therefore, the relative frequency of the everted form compared to the incurved form should be an important chronological matter. At Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, the clear dominance of the everted form indicates that this assemblage should be dated to the early MB IIB at the very latest.

complete absence of MB IIC. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 cooking vessels find close parallels with examples from MB IIA-B contexts at Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum F (Albright 1932: Pl 41:6), Megiddo Stratum XIII (Shipton 1938: 35), Jericho H.xxiv-xxx (Kenyon and Holland 1982: Figs 140-2), and Tell Nimrin Area I, squares N4540/W25-20 (Dornemann 1990: Fig. 8. 1-4, 6).

A further chronological consideration related to the Cf cookpot is the comparative status of the wheel-made globular hole-mouth cooking vessel (Cole’s Ch). Cole (1984) initially argued that the Cf vessel gradually yielded its place to the wheel made, globular Ch form, which became more prevalent in the later phases of the MB II. However it has subsequently been shown that both vessels occur throughout the MB II sequence. For example at Aphek the two vessels occur concurrently from the earliest levels (Beck 2000), and at Tell elHayyat the Ch vessel outnumbers the Cf vessel in the early phases (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984). The appearance of the globular Ch vessel in early MB II assemblages should not be surprising given its preferred status in EB IV assemblages. Although the preceding EB IV period showed a distinct preference for broad, flat bases among its jars and jugs, globular cooking pots with rounded bases represent the dominant cooking pot type during that time (for example Gitin 1975). The status of the Ch cooking vessel should therefore be associated with discussions concerning the different functions of cooking vessels, which is treated below (see Chapter 6).

5.21ci. J Jars (Figs 5.6 a-l,5. 7-10, 5.11 a-f, 5.12-13) 5.21cii. Decoration (Figs 5.7, 5.11a and 5.12) Body decoration on the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 jars occurs in two related forms: combing and incision. The ZAD 1 motifs include a combination of vertical and horizontal lines, horizontal bands, continuous combing, dots, notches, wavy lines and wavy lines bordered by horizontal combing (Fig. 5.7). The combination of vertical and horizontal lines is a rare decorative technique during the MB II period, whilst examples of horizontal bands, continuous combing, dots, notches and wavy lines are frequently encountered in MB IIA-B contexts at Shechem (Cole 1984, Pl. 38: c), Jericho (Kenyon 1960, Fig. 137: 1-2, 4), and Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932, Pl. 3: 3, 6). Interestingly, the motif depicting wavy lines bordered by horizontal combing is another design not generally associated with the MB II period and is more common during the EB IV period (Albright 1932; Cohen 1999).

5.21c. Storage Vessels (Figs 5.6 a-l,5.7-10, 5.11 a-f, 5.12-13)

The rare zoomorphic motif of eight antelope incised on the shoulder of a vessel at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is a type of decoration known from only two other sites in the southern Levant. One example was recovered from an antiquities dealer in Kerak and has been attributed to an EB II-III tomb deposit from Bab edh-Dhra’ (Saller 1965). The small jar from Bab edh-Dhra’ shows one ibex incised on the shoulder. Another example comes from an EB IVMB I tomb at Gibeon (Pritchard 1963, Fig. 35: 1; Fig. 95: 8-9) and shows a series of nine ibexes also incised on the shoulder. The Gibeon motif is framed by two horizontal lines composed of incised notches and is the closest parallel to the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 Antelope jar. While most of the decorative attributes of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 storage vessels are represented among MB II assemblages, several features are also strongly related to the preceding Early Bronze Age. The decoration of the storage vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 should most likely be attributed to the very early part of the MB II period.

At Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 there is no evidence for the globular cookpot. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 cooking vessels conform almost exclusively to Cole’s Cf A.2 type. One vessel appears to resemble the shape of a Cf B.3 vessel because of its incurved walls (see for example Section 5.12aiii and Fig. 5.1 k). However this may simply be the result of an incorrectly interpreted stance; this is a common result of an insufficiently large rim sherd, particularly from a hand-built vessel. The presence of this vessel is not surprising since both Cf A.2 and Cf B.3 types are found together at Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984), Manahat (Edelstein et al. 1998), and Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1983). However, the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 Cf B.3 example contains perforations below the rim just like the other Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 vessels. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage is therefore dominated heavily by Cf A.2, with one example of a Cf A.2-Cf B.3 transitional type. There are no vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 that lack perforations below the rim, and the rope moulding is never elaborated or high on the vessel wall as is seen in later MB IIB/C examples.

5.21ciii. J 11, J 13 Simple Rims (Figs 5.6 a-e) Plain, everted rims (J. 11, J. 13) are the second most common type found at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. Cole (1984) reports that this rim declines in the latter MB IIB/C across the southern Levant, and it is not found in great quantities in the Shechem MB IIB Jl repertoire. The JJ class at Shechem in MB IIB contains a greater proportion of this form, but is nevertheless outnumbered by the profiled J 2 form as it is in the Jl class. These patterns are

On the basis of this evidence it can be argued that the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage contains elements of MB IIA and possibly early MB IIB repertoires with a 86

87

N

MBIIA MBIIA-MBIIB 1 - 44 = Structures A - Z = Excavated Units

Key:

MBIIA

Cluster 4

Cluster 3

Figure 5.20. Location of MBIIA and MBIIB ceramic material at Zahrat adh-Dhra' 1

MB IIA - MB IIB

Cluster 2

Cluster 1

(10 Km. south)

ZAD 1

adh-Dhra' Potash City

Dhra' Site

15 km

N

Dayr Ayn-Abata

Numeira

To Kerak

W a di

-D

k hra'

a l -K e ra

Wa d i ad h

Scale: 1: 4000

0

Khanzazir

Ghor al-Mazra'a

Bab adh-Dhra'

Dead Sea

The Dead Sea Basin

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 5.21. Boundary of the spatial distribution of the ZAD 1 Pottery Culture not observed at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, where the J. 11 and J 13 forms occur frequently and in various sizes (Figs 5.1619). This rim form is found almost exclusively in the MB IIA and early MB IIB Strata XX and XIX at Shechem but it also occurs in later MB IIB-C contexts at Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum D (Albright 1932, Pl 14: 4, 6), and in Tomb H11 at Jericho (Kenyon 1960, Fig. 206: 5). The form is generally well attested at most MB IIA and MB

IIB sites, with good examples from Aphek (Beck 2000, Fig. 8.13:5), Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and MagnessGardiner 1984, Fig. 16: 19, 21), Manahat (Edelstein et al. 1998, Fig. 4.6:4), and Tell Nimrin (Dornemann 1990, Fig. 7:7). Cole makes the observation that this type is usually associated with a low neck in the MB IIA and early MB IIB, specifically with reference to Shechem, Tell Beit Mirsim, and Jericho (Cole 1984, p.75). The

88

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 vessels, which conform to this early characteristic in the preference for low-necked jars, should be dated to the MB IIA or early MB IIB period.

Phase 4 at Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984, Fig. 16:4; 1983, Fig. 3: 16), Tell Nimrin (Dornemann 1990, Fig. 7: 15-17, 21), and Jericho xxxii-xxxiii (Kenyon and Holland 1982, Figs 133: 16, 20, 22). All of the above examples are from early contexts. The examples from Jericho provide an extremely close parallel and they occur only in the settlement. This is an important consideration since the Jericho tombs contain late MB IIB/C materials deposited in EB IV tombs. Kenyon reports that these tombs were most likely reused during the MB II period, the excavated material representing the latest use of the tombs in MB IIC (Kenyon 1960). It is therefore instructive that the only examples of J 3 are found in the early phases of the settlement along with forms like J 1, but not in the tombs (Kenyon and Holland 1982). This scenario suggests that the J 3 belongs early in the MB sequence, either in MB IIA or early MB IIB. Likewise the existence of this type in the MB IIA Phase 4 at Tell el-Hayyat and in the early MB II squares at Tell Nimrin supports an early chronology for this type. On the basis of this evidence, the J 3 from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 should be dated to the MB IIA-MB IIB timespan.

5.21civ. J 21, J 22 Profiled Rims (Figs 5.6 f-h, 5.9) Tooled, externally folded, profiled rims occur less frequently than any other jar rim form at Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1. Two variations of this form (J 21 and J 22) constitute the entire range. No internally profiled rims or the later, elaborately profiled MB IIB-C rims were identified at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. The J 2 rim form is reported as early as the late MB IIA Stratum at Shechem (Cole 1984, p. 74), where it is subsequently overtaken by the more elaborated Jl 4. But, in contrast to the dominance of the more elaborate J 4 form in late MB IIBC contexts at Shechem, the J 2 rim is the persistently preferred form at the MB IIB-C Jericho tombs, MB IIB Gibeon and MB IIB Tell Beit Mirsim. Good examples of the J 2 rim form in MB IIB assemblages are found at Manahat (Edelstein et al. 1998, Fig 4. 6: 3, 5-17), Gezer (Dever 1986, Pl. 4: 7; Str. 12-11), Tell el Msas (Fritz and Kempinski 1983), and Phase 3 at Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984, Fig. 19: 13-14). Strong parallels for the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 J 21 examples are seen in MB IIB contexts at Jericho (Kenyon 1982, Fig. 128: 31), Tell Nimrin (Dornemann 1990, Fig. 7: 26), and Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1983, Fig. 3: 17). The J 22 at ZAD 1 finds close parallels particularly at MB IIB Jericho H xxxiii and H xxxiva (Kenyon and Holland 1982, Fig. 127: 3, 7; 129: 32) as well as at Shechem MB IIB Stratum XIXs (Cole 1984, Pl. 32: l). The occurrence of the J 2 in MB IIA and its gradual domination of MB IIB assemblages indicate that this vessel should be placed within the late MB IIA-MB IIB spectrum at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1.

5.21cvi. Jar Bases (Fig. 5.11 g-j) The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 jar bases occur predominantly as Cole’s J.0.11, which is characterized by its plain, flat design. This is the only base form that occurs at ZAD 1 north, where there are no examples of the more convex J.0.13, which only occur at ZAD 1 south. Of particular note is the resemblance of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 base form to the EB IV/MB I bases, which tend towards larger diameters. This generally fits with the view that flat bases predominate in the early MB II, later yielding to a convex type (Cole 1984, p. 76; Gerstenblith 1983). The flat base is common to all MB IIA-MB IIB assemblages, particularly at Jericho (Kenyon 1960, Fig. 137: 4) and Tell Nimrin (Dornemann 1990, Fig. 7: 31-32).

5.21cv. J 31, J 32, J33 Externally Folded Rims (Figs 5.6 i-l, 5.8, 5.10, 5.11a-f, 5.12-13) Rims with one external fold and a tapered edge (J 3) are the most frequently occurring jar rim form at Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1. As with the other two rim forms, J 3 occurs among both large and small vessels (Fig. 5.19). It most commonly occurs as Jl 32 (tapered edge), and occasionally as Jl 31 (rounded edge). The J 3 form has not received much attention in the literature, mainly because apart from Cole’s work on Shechem, exhaustive typological studies based on rim form are not common for the MB II and this form does not occur at Shechem. Examples of the simple, folded J 3 rim form occur in early MB IIA contexts such as Aphek (Beck 2000, Fig. 10. 4: 3), but the neck stance and orientation of the fold are unlike the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 examples. Furthermore, the Aphek examples are usually decorated with painted motifs, a feature not present on any vessel at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. The closest parallels to the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 type are found in MB IIB contexts at the Dayr ‘Ayn-‘Abata tombs (Collins et al. 2002; Politis 1995), the Jericho settlement H.xxxii-xxxiii (Kenyon and Holland 1982, Figs 127: 22; 135: 19) and at Tell Nimrin (Dornemann 1990, Fig. 7: 23, 25). Further MB IIA-B parallels to the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 forms are found in

Jar bases with perforations in the centre of the vessel’s base are known from Early Bronze Age deposits at Marki Alonia in Cyprus (D. Frankel pers. comm. 2002), Middle Bronze Age contexts at ‘Umm el-Marra in western Syria (Curvers and Schwartz 1997) and Dayr ‘Ayn-‘Abata 25 kilometres south of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 (Collins et al. 2002; Politis n.d.), and from a Late Bronze Age context at Tell Hadidi in Syria (Dornemann 1981). The occurrence of perforated bases from jars throughout the Bronze Age suggests that they are a poor chronological marker and rather represent a functional attribute. Two further jar base types were recovered from the survey of Structure 33 (Fig. 5.11i-j). These types occur in Cole’s JJ category (Cole 1984, p. 77; Pl. 43: e, k). A flat disc base (JJ.0.21) and a simple ring base (JJ.031) conform to Cole’s early MB IIB types. Cole argues for a similar pattern of increasing elaboration detected in jar rim forms during the late MB IIB/C for base forms. The JJ.0.21and JJ.031 base forms at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 should be dated to the MB IIB period.

89

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 5.21d. Discussion

BCE) until the middle of that period (1725 BCE) for a period of 75 years.

Early pottery types with clear MB IIA pedigree are characterized by jars with simple rounded rims and thickened rims with a single fold. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 storage jar types also lack handles and have wide flat bases. Thus, the three formal attributes of rim, base and an absence of handles at ZAD 1 north imply an MB IIA date (Amiran 1969; Gerstenblith 1983; Cole 1984; Beck 2000). These early features are present in later assemblages, but according to Cole (1984) they occur with less frequency than diagnostically later types. At Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 these two types (J 1 and J 3) occur more frequently than the later J 2 form (Fig. 5.16). Jars with elaborated, externally profiled rims (J 2) are poorly represented compared to the other two jar types (i.e. J 1 and J 3). In any case, J 2 occurs in some assemblages as early as the MB IIA. While no examples of the later, convex jar base were found at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, an example of a mildly elaborated ring base and a disc base belonging to a jar or jug suggests a later occupation, probably in MB IIB.

These three scenarios are based solely on the chronologically diagnostic evidence of the ceramic assemblage, without reference to any other evidence. A consideration of the spatial distribution of types in their contexts of deposition further elucidates the chronological range and type of occupation at the site and in individual structures. 5.22. Intra-Site Chronology at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 5.22a. Intra-site Distribution The ceramic material at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 was obtained from two areas: the nine excavated structures north of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ (ZAD 1 north), and the area south of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ (ZAD 1 south), which was mapped and surveyed during the 2001 season (Edwards et al. 2002, 2001). The latter includes Structure 33, located on the ‘citadel’ in the east of the site, and a scatter of structures along the southern bank of Wadi adh-Dhra‘. The material discussed thus far relates to types, which fall into two main categories: 1) those types which could conceivably belong to either MB IIA or MB IIB, and 2) those types which most probably belong to MB IIB only. In other words the first category is chronologically earlier or equal to the second. The first category is characterized by jars with simple or thickened rims, wide flat bases, and no handles. Also in this category one may include the dipper juglet, the bowl with a disc base and the flatbottomed cooking pots. The second category is characterized by the bowl with the slightly elaborated ring base, jars with externally profiled rims, and slightly elaborated jar-jug ring and disc bases.

Other ceramic forms not exclusively associated with MB IIA are cookpots, bowls and juglets. Cookpots at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 conform to a basic type (Cf A.2), which begins in MB IIA but does not continue past the middle of MB IIB in most assemblages. The dipper juglet (Jd) lacks the flat or stumpy base of many MB IIA examples, but its gentle shoulder angle is suggestive of an earlier MB IIB type. Likewise, forms associated with later MB IIB assemblages, such as the heavily elaborated bowl ring base are not found. Instead a more restrained ring base (B. 0. 32) is represented. There seems to be a total absence of late MB IIB and any MB IIC ceramic types at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. Generally speaking the only types that may possible contradict a strictly MB IIA date are the bowl and jar/jug ring bases, and to a lesser extent the slightly raised disc bases. However, these bases do not contradict an exclusively MB IIA date since ring bases also occur in MB IIA assemblages. The greatest problem with a strictly MB IIA dating lies in the fact that all the MB IIA ceramic types from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 also occurs during the early MB IIB, which allows for a possible MB IIB dating. The available evidence (presently ignoring factors connected to the use and abandonment of the site) presents the following chronological scenarios: 1. 2.

3.

The types from the first category representing MB IIAMB IIB not only occur more frequently than types from the second category representing MB IIB only (see Section 5.14 and Table 5.5 above), but they also occur in all parts of the site. In contrast, the types from the second category occur in a restricted number of contexts. Figure 5.17 shows the occurrence of jar types by context. MB IIB types occur in three structures: 33, 36, and 37. MB IIA-MB IIB types occur in all structures. The combination of late jar and bowl base types occurs in only two Structures: 33 and 37. Significantly, Structures 36 and 37 lie in close proximity to one another beside the eastern boulder field and are both Two-room Structures. None of the other seven excavated Structures demonstrate any evidence for late chronological forms representing an exclusively MB IIB occupation.

The site was occupied continuously or with interruptions sometime during the MB IIA (ca. 19201800 BCE) only, for a period of up to 120 years. The site was occupied continuously or with interruptions either from the beginning or somewhere in the MB IIA (ca. 1920 BCE) until the middle of the MB IIB (ca. 1725 BCE) for a period of up to 195 years. The site was occupied continuously or with interruptions from the beginning of MB IIB (1800

On the basis of this evidence one may suggest that a later occupation, which is represented by the second category (MB IIB), was localized in three Structures: 33, 36 and 37. Furthermore, the complete absence of the MB IIB types from the rest of the site suggests that not all parts of the site were occupied simultaneously (Fig. 5.20). Figure 90

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN 5.20 shows the distribution of later and earlier material at the site. Later types are limited to the eastern part of the site in Structures 36 and 37. Multiple phases evident in Structure 37 do not resolve this picture any further. The lower phase (i.e. Phase III) of Structure 37 produced one jar rim only, but this was significantly an early type J 3. The western part of the site, consisting of Structures 3844 contained exclusively early material dating to the MB IIA or possibly the early part of the MB IIB. The total absence of clearly MB IIB types from the western part of the site suggests that this part of the site was abandoned earlier than the eastern part of the site.

include horizontal combing bordering incised wavy lines and the incision of a zoomorphic motif. Although the zoomorphic motif decoration also occurs to the northwest at Gibeon, it closely links Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 to a regional tradition incorporating Early Bronze Age Bab edh-Dhra‘. The occurrence of this decorative technique at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 and Bab edh-Dhra‘ argues for a certain degree of cultural continuity in the Dead Sea Basin from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age. The existence of this decorative technique at Gibeon, which lies to the west of Jericho, limits the incision of zoomorphic features on vessels to the southern half of the southern Levant.

The distribution of chronologically sensitive types at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 suggests that the site was probably settled in the late MB IIA and abandoned some time before the middle of the MB IIB. The western and central parts of the site comprising Structures 38-44 were abandoned before the eastern part of the site comprising Structures 36-37. Structure 33, located on the ‘citadel’ south of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ also represents the latest period of occupation at the site during MB IIB. The sequence of settlement and site abandonment, characterised by the abandonment of the western part of the site prior to the eastern part, supports the geological model which nominates the headward erosion of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ from west to east as a primary factor responsible for the abandonment of the site (see Section 2.5 for a discussion).

Locating the cultural horizon of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 in the southern portion of the southern Levant is supported by the strong typological links between Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 and Jericho and Tell Nimrin to the north, and Dayr ‘Ayn‘Abata to the south (see Fig. 5.21). These three sites all contain examples of the everted flat-bottomed cookpot, handless jars with folded rims, and in the case of Dayr ‘Ayn-‘Abata at least six examples of jars with perforated bases (Collins et al. 2002). The latter feature has otherwise only been reported from distant Cyprus and Syria and has been associated with fermentation techniques (see Section 6.11d). 5.3. Conclusion The chronological evidence discussed above indicates that Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 was occupied for a period of up to 195 years sometime between 1920 BCE and 1725 BCE. Nevertheless, a more narrow dating sequence may also be suggested on the basis of the differential occupation and abandonment of individual structures. The latest occupation and final abandonment of the site took place in the eastern part of the site in Structures 36 and 37. The large Structure 33 on the south bank of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ likewise conforms to evidence suggesting a later, or MB IIB date. The extreme eastern end of the site was not excavated, but surface pottery did not show any evidence for a post MB IIA occupation.

5.22b. Inter-site Distribution The ceramic type corpus from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 displays a number of attributes linking it with the typological repertoire of southern Levantine sites dating to the first half of the MB II period. However, the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 types simultaneously demonstrate a small number of unique attributes that situate the pottery within a distinctly local tradition. General characteristics linking Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 to the broader MB II world include disc and ring bowl bases, flat-bottomed cookpots and jars with simple and profiled rims. These features seem to appear in most early MB II assemblages including MB IIA Aphek without the profiled rims (Beck 2000), MB IIA Megiddo (Ilan 2000, Shipton 1938), MB IIB Pella (Edwards 1993), MB IIA-B Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984), MB IIB Jericho (Kenyon 1960), MB IIA-B Tell Nimrin (Dornemann 1990), MB IIB Manahat (Edelstein et al. 1998) and MB IIB Dayr ‘Ayn-‘Abata (Collins et al. 2002; Politis n.d.).

On typological evidence the earliest occupation took place on the western end of the site, centred on Structures 41, 42, and 44. The earliest phase of Structure 37 however, particularly its eastern room, designated by excavation Units E and F, may also belong to the initial occupation. This is suggested by a distinct and earlier phase (i.e. Phase III) of architecture (see Section 3.4c ii and Fig 3.28) as well as the absence of later MB IIB diagnostic types in the lower occupation fills.

Unique features, which distinguish Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 as a manifestation of a local regional phenomenon, include perforated jar bases, squat handless jars with folded rims and vessel decoration consisting exclusively of combing and incision comprising elements of motifs present in earlier regional EBA assemblages such as Bab edh-Dhra‘ and the EB IV Negev sites. Archaising motifs specifically

Since some of the material shows the probable presence of early MB IIB, it is more than likely that site was also inhabited after 1850 BCE. This contention is supported by the belief that the MB II horizon in the southern Levant appeared on the coast (c.a. 1920 BCE) and spread gradually inland (Cohen 2002; Falconer 2001; 91

THE CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 Ilan 1998; Marchetti and Nigro 2000; Marcus 2003, 1998). Such a view would place the introduction of MB IIA ceramic material into south Jordan at a significantly later date than on the coast or in the north Jordan Valley (see Marchetti and Nigro 2000). This problem can only be resolved by the continued dating of MB II sites across different regions by radiocarbon method. The need for further radiocarbon dates for the MB II period has already been forcefully advanced by several scholars, most recently by David Ilan (1998) and Ezra Marcus (2003).

probably took place at Structures 33, 36 and 37 sometime from the end of the nineteenth century BCE (ca. 1825) to the beginning of the eighteenth century BCE (ca. 1775). The abandonment of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 represents the end of a Bronze Age cultural tradition around the Dead Sea Basin. The following chapter (Chapter 6) will aim to reconstruct the economic subsistence and occupation strategy at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 through several complementary strands of material evidence. This reconstruction will contribute to improving our understanding of the character and diversity of Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age sites in the southern Levant.

On the basis of the above evidence the settlement of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 should be dated to the later part of the MB IIA (c.a. 1850). The latest abandonment most

92

ECONOMIC SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGY AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 Typological evidence relating to the chronology of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 demonstrated that the site was occupied for up to 195 years between 1920 BCE to 1725 BCE (see Chapter 5). The western part of the site was abandoned first, while the latest occupation took place in the eastern part of the site at Structure 37. This chapter aims to evaluate the evidence for economic subsistence and occupation strategy at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 in order to better comprehend site type and function. A further goal related to interpretations of subsistence and occupation includes the location of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 within theoretical discussions of strategies of human adaptation to environmental and economic variables in prehistory. By focussing on the behavioural patterns, economic activities and occupational schedules at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 and comparing them to similar evidence from other sites of the Bronze Age in the southern Levant (see Chapter 7), a better understanding of subsistence and mobility in the Bronze Age may emerge. Subsistence and mobility are interpreted here through a number of complimentary lines of evidence: archaeobotany, fauna, architecture and ceramics. Issues of interpreting subsistence strategies such as pastoralism, agropastoralism and agriculture along with their accompanying levels of mobility and sedentism, are explored for employment in later discussions of the Bronze Age in the southern Levant (see Chapter 7).

and Khazanov 1992). Pastoralism is defined as an economic activity characterised by a “dependence on domestic herd animals held as property” (Chang and Koster 1986: 99). This broad definition does not specify the extent of the dependence on herds and hence includes both pure nomadic pastoralism, involving a total dependence on herd animals, as well as village-based transhumance, comprising a more limited pastoral component. Strictly speaking, specialised pure nomadic pastoralism did not develop until comparatively recently since this form of pastoralism requires the use of mounted animals (see Khazanov 1984). For quite some time, researchers have argued that pastoralist groups in the southern Levant practiced various forms of mixed subsistence strategies involving varying degrees of pastoralism, agriculture and trade (for example Lees and Bates 1974; Martin 1999). However, interpretative challenges remain to precisely reconstruct the contribution of pastoralism, agriculture and trade to the subsistence of prehistoric south Levantine peoples on the basis of archaeological evidence. Traditional approaches to interpreting site function and economy have focused primarily on the study of palaeobotanical and especially faunal records (for example Payne 1973). However, these records are not always abundant at sites from the Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age periods nor do they always provide unambiguous evidence for subsistence strategies (Levy 1992). For instance, the equation of nomadic pastoralism with the presence of sheep and goats in archaeological assemblages is erroneous, reflecting consumption patterns rather than herd management. Similar difficulties plague the employment of age and sex distributions among the death assemblages of herds for reconstructing principal herd function relating to either milk or meat (Chang and Koster 1986).

6.1. Economic Subsistence and Levels of Mobility One of the principle difficulties in defining the economy of small marginal sites during the prehistory and protohistory of the southern Levant is the accurate reconstruction of various modes of subsistence. The factors leading to the adoption of either limited animal husbandry in sedentary villages or a highly mobile village based transhumance are complex and not completely understood. Broadly speaking, the choice of economic strategy is based on a combination of variables which include the environment, availability of resources, intergroup competition, as well as socio-political conditions (Levy 1992). However, the archaeological interpretation of the strategy adopted and the causes leading to a particular choice is complicated by the number of possible combinations of strategies along the pastoral nomadic - sedentary agricultural continuum, as well as the intransigent nature of the archaeological record (Finkelstein 1992b).

While archaeological interpretations have generally relied on such animal-related or plant-related assumptions regarding economic strategies and pastoral production methods (Levy 1992), a further, widely employed assumption involves the association of pastoralism with non-sedentary groups, and agriculture with settled villages (for example Cohen 1999; Dothan 1959; Dever 1992, 1980; Kenyon 1979; Perrot 1984; Rowton 1977). Associations of this kind have generated additional assumptions built on increasing circularity (c.f. Kent 1991). For example, the identification of seasonality or levels of mobility contain an expectation of providing evidence for economic strategies or modes of pastoral production (Noy-Meir and Seligman 1979). But, although the exclusive association of pastoralism with nonsedentary communities has now been overturned because scholars have long recognised the mixed nature of most

Interpretive strategies have been noticeably affected by disagreements over prevailing definitions of economic types, particularly those involving pastoral production systems. The loose employment of the term pastoralism among archaeologists exemplifies the divisions, creating frequent complications in interpreting sites (Bar-Yosef 93

ECONOMIC SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGY AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 south Levantine groups’ economies (Bentley 1991; Finkelstein 1991a; Lemche 1985; Prag 1992), establishing levels of mobility and seasonality is still legitimately employed to provide evidence for transhumant elements in a population (for example Rosen 2003; Saidel 2002b). Unfortunately for archaeologists, the identification of seasonality and levels of mobility can be as troublesome as the identification of pastoral production systems from faunal assemblages (Edwards 1989).

based on other classes of material evidence forecast the correlation of refuse patterns with intensity and type of occupation, architectural plan with social structure and specialised features, and finally ethnographic parallels with behavioural patterns linked to eating, sleeping, and livestock management. Simplistic ethnographically derived definitions of the site as either a sedentary village or seasonal camp are eschewed, in favour of an exploration of the archaeological evidence as a reflection of the variability of Bronze Age society.

Attempts to recognize levels of mobility in the archaeological record are fraught with difficulties largely connected to correlating ethnographic observations with prehistoric material evidence. While providing a methodological framework for reconstructing prehistoric behaviour, much of the evidence gathered from ethnoarchaeological studies in fact demonstrates the difficulties involved with archaeological interpretations (for example Banning and Kohler-Rollefson 1992; O’Connell 1987; Saidel 2000, 2001; Simms 1988). Specifically, archaeologists have noticed the constant dissonance between the ethnographic present and the prehistoric past, which is best characterised by different levels of economic specialisation (for example Lancaster and Lancaster 1991). South Levantine prehistoric peoples participated in diverse economic strategies comprising agriculture, pastoralism, trade and manufacture, which was very seldom restricted to just one of these strategies (Lees and Bates 1974; Martin 1999). Consequently, the employment of palaeobotanical, faunal, ceramic, lithic, architectural and ethnographic data for reconstructing economic strategy, should all be considered together (Chang and Koster 1986). And while interpretations of agriculture, pastoralism or trade may proceed from suites of evidence rather than individual indicators, assumptions regarding the association of mobility with pastoralism, which can assume many forms, and sedentism with agriculture, should be explicitly avoided.

6.11a. Archaeobotanical Remains Analysis of archaeobotanical remains across six structures found distinct spatial patterning. Concentrations of cultigens, including grape, fig, barley, bread wheat and legumes were discovered in the western part of the site. Samples were especially rich in Structures 40, 41, and 42, and moderately rich in Structure 44. In contrast, the eastern part of the site, represented by Structure 37, produced high concentrations of field weeds and wild legumes (Table 6.1). In an interesting exception to this pattern Unit N, representing the western extreme of the Western Room of Structure 37, produced a concentration of grape and cultivated legumes (Edwards et al. 2001; Meegan 2002). The archaeobotanical evidence demonstrates agricultural activity at the site during all periods of its occupation (Meegan 2002). This claim is made due to the substantial presence of cultigens, including orchard crops such as grape in the hearth and hearth dump deposits of Structures 40, 41 and 42, which are attributed to the early MB IIA-MB IIB occupation of the site. The presence of cultigens in Structure 37, albeit in lower densities than in the western structures, demonstrates that agricultural activity continued to the end of the occupation of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 during MB IIB. Archaeobotanical samples were retrieved from a wide range of temporally and spatially diverse contexts at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, providing a representative cross-section through time and space.

The interpretation of economic strategy and levels of mobility at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 acknowledges these methodological difficulties while attempting to employ the available archaeological and ethnographic data to compliment our understanding of such issues for the Bronze Age in the southern Levant (see Chapter 7).

The presence of cultigens, particularly orchard crops, provides some limited evidence for reconstructing occupational dynamics at the site. Cultigens such as grapes require close maintenance and several years to produce quality fruit (Lines 1995; Stager 1985a; Walsh 2000), meaning that some portion of the population needed to remain at the site for a sufficient period of time throughout the year to tend these crops.

6.11. The Economic Subsistence and Social Organization of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 The aims of this analysis include the reconstruction of social organization and economic strategy of Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1. Economic strategy and occupational dynamics are explored through a direct consideration of the faunal and archaeobotanical evidence, and inferences based on architectural plans, ceramic refuse patterns, storage facilities and ethnographic parallels. Specific expectations linked to economic subsistence at the site include the correlation of certain types of crops and animal species with levels of mobility, while inferences

The harvesting of grapes typically takes place in the autumn, which implies the occupation of Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 between September and November. Given the generally higher average temperatures in the Dead Sea Basin than the rest of the southern Levant, harvesting may have taken place in the early autumn. Significantly, perennial crops are present in both the western part of the site (Structures 40, 41, 42 and 44), which was possibly abandoned in the early MB IIB, as well as the eastern part 94

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Plant Barley Wheat Bread Wheat Fig Grape Olive Cultivated Legumes Wild Legumes Field Weeds Wild Taxa Rachis/Internodes Total Assemblage Total Cereal Total Orchard Total Cultigens

Structure 36 22 0 17 17 0 0 0

Structure 37

Structure 40

Structure 41

Structure 42

45 6 0 178 150 0 56

412 28 33 11 156 0 89

50 22 0 67 11 0 0

173 6 11 373 6 0 22

Structure 44 33 33 0 78 6 0 39

0 45 50 6 157

1,776 2,434 1,353 28 6026

17 50 457 212 1465

17 33 61 6 267

84 334 679 150 1838

184 824 267 45 1509

39 17 56

107 328 435

562 167 729

72 78 150

202 379 581

105 84 189

Table 6.1. Macrobotanical remains (density: seeds/litre) from ZAD 1 by structure (after Meegan 2002) Structure

36 37 37 37 40 41 42 44 All Contexts

Unit

A D E M I J K L

No. of Identifiable Bone Fragments (Ovis/Capra) 2 0 0 18 0 1 10 3 34

No. of Identifiable Bone Fragments (Sus) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Total No. of Bone Fragments 6 9 8 154 1 45 65 4 292

Table 6.2. Faunal distribution across units at ZAD 1 by structure and unit (after Metzger in Edwards et al. 2001: 154) of the site (Structure 37), which was abandoned later in the MB IIB. The recovery of grapes from structures representing an earlier and later occupation and abandonment indicates that grapes were harvested throughout the occupational history of the site. Interestingly, the occupation of the site linked to Structure 37 is associated with low densities of cultigens, and comparatively high concentrations of wild taxa, which may possibly be linked with functional differences between the structures. This assertion may be supported on the basis of some architectural features (see Section 6.11f below).

In addition to the evidence offered by the cultivation of grapes, the scheduled harvesting of barley, wheat and legumes likewise provide evidence for the occupation of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 during certain parts of the year. The maintenance of these seasonal crops revolves around a harvest in the late spring and early summer (Arnon 1972), which extends the occupation of the site into May and June. All parts of the site contain evidence for the cultivation of barley, wheat and legumes, indicating that these crops were also harvested throughout the occupational history of the site. 95

ECONOMIC SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGY AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

Figure 6.1. Mendholes on Storage Jars at ZAD 1

70 y = 0.0077x + 13.629

Vessel Orifice Diameter (cm)

60

2

R = 0.9985

50 40 30 20 y = 0.0028x + 0.8082 10

2

R = 0.9987

0 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2

Surface Area (cm ) Jars

Cookpots

Linear (Jars)

Linear (Cookpots)

Figure 6.2. Vessel orifice diameter and surface area correspondence scattergram for jars and cookpots from ZAD 1

96

6000

7000

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN 6.11b. Faunal Remains The paucity of the faunal record at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is the probable result of preservational problems (Edwards et al. 2001). Six of nine excavated structures provided evidence for faunal remains at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 (Table 6.2). The most abundant samples came from the deepest deposits at the site (see also Tables 3.3-6), in Structures 37 (Unit M), 41 (Unit J) and 42 (Unit K). Structures with substantial but shallower deposits, such as Structures 36 (Unit A), 40 (Unit I) and 44 (Unit L) yielded only modest samples. The greatest concentration was found in Structure 37 (58.56% of the total), followed by Structures 42 (22.26% of the total) and 41 (15.41% of the total). Of the 292 bones recovered from the site only 35 were taxonomically identifiable (Edwards et al. 2001). The assemblage was dominated by the remains of domestic sheep/ goat (N=33), with a single bone from a domestic pig. There was a complete absence of commensal animals and hunted varieties.

at the site. On the other hand, the mere presence of herd animals at the sites may offer clues to the occupational schedules of the site given the known grazing patterns of contemporary pastoral groups. The availability of pasture around the Dead Sea Basin during the winter months combined with the susceptibility of young sheep/goats to the winter cold of the highlands (Simms 1988) suggests that Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 should have been occupied at least during the winter months from December to March. This interpretation is supported by the early appearance of pasture on the warm eastern slopes above the Dead Sea and on the banks of the wadis feeding into it during the winter months (Meadows 2001; Noy-Meir and Seligman 1979). The winter occupation of the site by a pastoralist component of the population may even be extended into the spring when harvested field systems of barley and wheat provide grazing opportunities for herds (see Section 6. 11a above; Levy 1992). 6.11c. Summary of Archaeobotanical and Faunal Evidence Direct evidence linking archaeobotanical and faunal data to economic strategy at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 comprises the presence of perennial and annual cultigen varieties and domesticated animals. Cultigen varieties, which include fruit, lentils, barley and wheat demonstrate that the inhabitants of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 practiced agriculture. Domesticated animals indicate that the inhabitants of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 practiced animal husbandry. Perennial varieties such as grape provide evidence for some form of sedentary or semi-sedentary occupation by agriculturalists, particularly in the autumn months during harvest. Seasonal varieties such as barley, wheat and legumes extend the period of occupation into the late spring and early summer when these crops were harvested. Domesticated animals were unlikely to be kept on the site during the summer and autumn months due to a lack of pastureland. However, the availability of land suitable for grazing during the winter and spring months indicates that an occupation from winter to the beginning of summer by pastoral elements of the population represents a reasonable assumption. The interpretation of an agro-pastoral economy comprising seasonally scheduled tasks connected to agricultural production and grazing of herds, represents a sedentary occupation with a specialised grazing component performed by shepherds.

While the faunal evidence from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 represents a typical assemblage for marginal sites, demonstrating animal husbandry (Edwards et al. 2001), the reliance of the inhabitants on ovicaprines does not in itself signify an exclusively transhumant economic strategy. This contention is supported not only by the palaeobotanical evidence (see Section 6.11a above) but the presence of domesticated pig. The consumption of domesticated pig on site is surprising given this taxon’s association with sedentary groups that were able to access substantial water resources (see for example Falconer 1995; Flannery 1983; Grigson 1987; Levy 1992). Two further considerations linked to occupation strategy and the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 faunal assemblage structure include the relative frequencies of hunted animals and the age-sex profiles among the slaughtered animals. Although the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage has been diminished by the likely effects of poor preservation, the complete absence of commensals on the one hand and hunted species on the other is illuminating. Hunting appears to represent a supplementary component of the diet even at sedentary sites like nearby Bab edh-Dhra‘ (Finnegan 1978; Rast and Schaub 2003). The absence of hunted species combined with the overwhelming presence of sheep/goat in the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 faunal assemblage suggests that herded animals comprised the great majority of meat consumed at the site.

6.11d. Ceramics This section presents the ceramic evidence for reconstructing the occupation and abandonment of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, as well as inferring aspects connected to daily behaviour. The interpretation of occupation and abandonment relates to the use of the site as a perennially occupied settlement or a seasonally occupied village. Meanwhile, discussions of behaviour concern the identification and characterisation of activity areas, storage facilities, discard of trash, and eating practices. The interpretation of occupation, abandonment and daily behaviour proceed from the analysis of assemblage composition, vessel size variability and spatial

Evidence for levels of mobility and seasonal schedules at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 from age-sex profiles is somewhat limited. While the long established methodology of studying kill-off patterns of herds to determine dietary practices and herd management at sites (for example Cribb 1984) has been brought into question (Chang and Koster 1986) the value of this approach to determining site seasonality should not be underestimated. Unfortunately, the poor preservation of the Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 assemblage did not provide sufficient evidence for kill-off rates to be linked with occupation scheduling 97

ECONOMIC SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGY AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 distribution, vessel function and ceramic discard.

relationship with a correlation coefficient of 0.9992. Cooking vessels with an orifice diameter of 24 cm corresponded to vessels with a substantially smaller surface area and height than cooking vessels with a diameter of 30 cm, and, in turn 60 cm. The regression equation for vessel orifice diameter – surface area correspondence among the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 cooking vessels demonstrated that there is an increase of 0.0077 cm in orifice diameter for every 13.629 cm2 increase in surface area. Storage vessels also showed a strong linear relationship with a correlation coefficient of 0.9994. Storage vessels with an orifice diameter of 10 cm corresponded to vessels comprising a surface area and height substantially lower than storage vessels with a diameter of 12 cm or 16 cm. The regression equation for vessel orifice diameter – surface area correspondence among the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 storage vessels demonstrated that there is an increase of 0.0028 cm in orifice diameter for every 0.808 cm2 increase in surface area. Given the positive relationship between vessel surface area and orifice diameter size presented above, the following discussion of vessel size variability and spatial distribution treats orifice diameter size as a proxy for vessel size.

6.11di. General Observations Relating to the Composition and Condition of the Assemblage Standard vessel frequency calculation based on diagnostic forms shows that the Cf cooking vessel, which occurs in all parts of the site (Table 5.4), dominates the ceramic assemblage at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 (56 %). Plain storage jars with a restricted orifice of less than 20cm represent the second most abundant form (39 %). Small items such as bowls and juglets are poorly represented (Table 5.1). The great majority of all excavated ceramic were recovered on floors on the interior of structures, and to a lesser extent within enclosed courtyards (Tables 3.34, 3.6). Cooking vessels occurred as pot smashes in Structures 37, 41, 42 and 44, while storage jars occurred as pot smashes only in Structure 37 (Edwards et al. 2002). Storage jars seem to have been highly curated judging by the frequent mend holes observed on all parts of vessels (Fig. 6.1). The relative paucity of smaller vessels, the curation of jars and the abundance of cooking vessels, which were frequently encountered as de facto refuse on floors (see Fig. 3.21 for an example), may indicate that small items and usable jars were generally removed during episodes of abandonment. In contrast, locally hand-built cooking vessels may have been stored on floors for possible reuse during future reoccupations of the site. The removal of small items by mobile groups has been suggested for similar archaeological cases (for example Prag 1991b) and observed in ethnographic cases (Cribb 1991). Meanwhile the relative abundance of cooking vessels among ceramic assemblages attributed to mobile groups has been noted at other south Levantine sites (Saidel 2002a; Sebanne at al. 1993).

Cooking vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 occurred in a broad range of sizes (Fig 6.3) with an orifice diameter mean of 34.13 cm (Table 6.3). The rim diameter range for cooking vessels was 18-60 cm. The majority of vessels measured between 30 cm and 38 cm in orifice diameter. A few vessels with orifice diameters measuring less than 26 cm represented smaller than average vessels, while larger vessels occurred with orifice diameters of 44 cm, 52 cm and 60 cm. Apart from Structure 38, which lacked diagnostic rim sherds from cooking vessels, all other structures contained vessels with orifice diameters between 30 cm and 38 cm. Small vessels measuring less than 24 cm in rim diameter were only found in Structures 36, 37 and 40, while large vessels measuring greater than 40 cm were only found in Structures 37, 39, 41 and 44. Structure 37 contained the largest vessels and the greatest range of vessel sizes.

6.11dii. Vessel Size Variability and Spatial Distribution Vessel orifice diameter was measured from suitable rim sherds over four vessel classes (cooking vessels, storage vessels, bowls and juglets) across the site. Substantial vessel size variability was witnessed among cooking vessels and storage jars in all parts of the site, but greatest variability occurred in the larger structures. These larger structures also contained the largest samples of pottery at the site. The greatest variability in vessel size occurred among cooking vessels, and to a lesser extent in storage vessels, with virtually negligible levels of variability in bowls and juglets. Consequently, discussion of size variability is limited to cooking vessels and storage vessels.

Cooking vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 occurred in a variety of sizes across all structure types (Table 6.3). Apart from Structure 37, no discernable differences between structures or structure types were apparent on the basis of the size distribution for cooking vessels. Structure 37, which was the largest structure excavated at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 showed great variability in vessel size. However, since no other structures demonstrated a correlation between vessel size variability and structure type and size, vessel size variability must be associated with the functional differences of vessels or structures rather than structure size. It is however possible, following associations of vessel size with group size at other archaeological sites (Ciolek-Torello and Reid 1974), that the vessel size differences in Structure 37

The estimation of vessel size calculated from orifice rim diameter displays a relatively linear relationship between total vessel size (based on vessel height and surface area) and rim diameter. From the limited number of whole and partially restorable cooking vessels and storage vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 it was possible to demonstrate that a linear relationship exists (see Fig. 6.2 and Table 8.5). For example, cooking vessels showed a strong linear 98

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN reflect differences in group size between this structure and the other structures at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1. Structure 37 contained the largest cooking vessels, suggesting that the large vessels were used to serve a large group of people. Similar observations have been advanced by Prag (2004) at Tell Iktanu (see Chapter 7 for full discussion).

Structure 33 contained a greater number of larger vessels (i.e. 20 cm in orifice diameter) than Structure 37, which is reflected in higher mean orifice diameters (15.43 cm) for the former structure. The largest vessel at the site measured 28 cm in orifice diameter and was discovered in Structure 39. The western part of the site, represented by Structures 41, 42 and 44, contained storage vessels that were generally larger than the size mean for the site. Structures 41, 42 and 44 contained size means of 14 cm, 17 cm and 14 cm respectively (Table 6.4). Structure 41 was limited to one rim only, whilst Structures 42 and 44 showed a broad range of sizes. Vessels in Structure 44 in particular ranged from 10 cm to 18 cm, whilst the size range in Structure 42 was narrower, reflecting larger vessels of 16 cm and 18 cm in orifice diameter. Structure 42 contained the largest size mean for storage vessels at the site.

Storage vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 occurred in a relatively narrow range of sizes (Fig. 6.4). The orifice of these vessels is characterised by a gently thickened rim atop a restricted, slightly flaring, narrow but short neck, resting on a squat body (see Section 5.13). This style of orifice represents the only type of jar at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 and its design seems to be uninfluenced by vessel size (Fig. 5.19). Vessels used in this analysis were drawn from material excavated from Structures 36-44 (see Chapter 3), surface material collected from the eastern part of the site near Structures 2 and 32, and substantial sherd scatters in the vicinity of Structure 33.

Storage vessels in Structures 2, 32 and 36, located in the eastern part of the site fell into a medium range of sizes, between 12 cm and 15 cm in orifice diameter. Exterior excavated context Units B and O yielded one vessel each with orifice diameters of 10 cm and 12 cm respectively.

The size distribution for storage vessels at Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 was characterised by a mean size of 15 cm and a vessel size range of 10 cm to 28 cm (Table 6.4). The majority of vessels measured between 12 cm and 14 cm in orifice diameter. A few vessels with orifice diameters measuring less than 12 cm represented smaller than average vessels, while larger vessels occurred with orifice diameters of 16 cm, 18 cm and 20 cm. Size variability seemed to have been significantly affected by sample size and structure size. Large samples, such as those found in large Structures 33 and 37, contained the greatest variability of vessel sizes.

General site patterns for storage vessels were characterised by a narrow distribution of vessel size. Storage vessels with an orifice diameter of 12 cm represented the most commonly occurring size. These small vessels (i.e. 12 cm in orifice diameter) occurred most frequently in the larger Structures 33 and 37. Apart from structure 39, Structures 33 and 37 were also the only ones which contained larger vessels measuring over 20 cm in orifice diameter. The other structures at Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 most commonly contained smaller vessels measuring 10 cm in orifice diameter and occasionally large vessels measuring between 14 cm to 18 cm in orifice diameter.

Storage vessels in Structure 37 ranged in size from 10 cm to 20 cm in orifice diameter with a relatively low mean of 13 cm. Structure 37 contained the full spectrum of vessel sizes including small and large vessels. Structure 33 similarly contained the full spectrum of vessel sizes present at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 with a range of 12 cm to 20 cm in orifice diameter. However, Structure/Unit 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 b All Contexts

Diameter Mean (cm) 31.38 37.41 38.67 32.60 31.74 31.00 36.00 32.17 32.00 34.13

Diameter Range (cm) 18-38 24-60 32-44 18-38 26-40 26-38 36-36 26-40 28-36 18-60

Table 6.3. Cooking Vessel orifice diameter size data for ZAD 1 structures

99

ECONOMIC SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGY AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 Structure/Unit 2 32 33 36 37 39 41 42 44 b o All Contexts

Diameter Mean (cm) 13.00 15.00 15.43 14.00 13.41 16.00 14.00 16.67 14.00 10.00 12.00 14.52

Diameter Range (cm) 12-14 14-16 12-20 13-15 10-20 10-28 14-14 16-18 10-18 10-10 12-12 10-28

Table 6.4. Storage Vessel orifice diameter size data for ZAD 1 structures

Figure 6.3. Vessel orifice diameter frequency for Cooking Vessels at ZAD 1

Figure 6.4. Vessel orifice diameter frequency for Storage Vessels at ZAD 1

100

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN The size distribution of cooking vessels and storage vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 indicated that the largest Structures 33 and 37 contained the largest vessels and the greatest range of vessel sizes. Structure 39 contained an example of a large cooking vessel and a large storage vessel, while Structures 41, 42 and 44 all contained examples of storage vessels that were larger than the site size mean for storage vessels. These results suggest that apart from Structures 33 and 37 only a minor correlation of vessel size with structure size and type is evident. The simultaneous presence of large vessels and high sizerange variability in Structures 33 and 37 suggests that these structures serviced a larger group of people, who were occupied with a greater diversity of activities when compared to the other structures at the site (see 6.11diii and 6.11eiv below).

Dhra‘ 1 suggests that this cultivated crop may have been used for fermenting beer as well as being boiled and eaten as gruel, perhaps directly from the Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 cooking vessels. Legumes, which were also harvested at the site, may have been consumed in a similar manner. Prag (2004) also makes the suggestion that large cooking vessels with orifice diameters greater than 50 cm were possibly employed in the production of beer (see Chapter 7). 6.11div. Ceramics Summary The vessel repertoire from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 contains elements common to many domestic assemblages at Bronze Age sites in the southern Levant (Daviau 1993). Nevertheless, the assemblage is unique in its restricted nature since it lacks many of the characteristic types common to the MB II period (Amiran 1969). These include plain and painted examples of platters, cups, bowls, lamps, hole mouth cooking pots and jars, pithoi and jugs, all of which occur regularly at both urban and rural sites dating to the MB II period (Daviau 1993). The restricted nature of the ceramic assemblage underlines a preference for very basic and essential items, which in some cases are also characterised by their small size and portability. This type of assemblage may arise from three possible causes: 1) a response to seasonal mobility; 2) the repertoire of an isolated and economically unintegrated population; or 3) the replacement of ceramics with other perishable containers not surviving in the archaeological record. These three possible causes are assessed in Chapters 8 and 9.

6.11diii.Vessel Function Functional considerations related to the ceramic assemblage are firstly evident in the exclusive use of flatbottomed cooking pots for use on hearths and the employment of portable, handless jars with a restricted orifice, occasionally containing a perforated base. The cooking pots with broad orifices (Fig. 5.1g-k), sharply contrast with the hole-mouth cooking pots that were used to prepare and mix food without heat. This is a situation observed at other contemporaneous sites (for example Schroder 1997; see also Chapter 7 for discussion). The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 cooking pots contained traces of carbon on the lower exterior of the vessel while the bases resemble the condition of the upper exterior, suggesting that the vessels were placed within a fire rather than suspended above the flame (see Skibo 1992 for discussion of use-life alteration). The relative absence of bowls and cups combined with the large number and manner of exploitation of cooking pots at Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1, suggest that they were used for communal dining as well as cooking. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 cooking vessels may have functioned as a common plate that served several people simultaneously.

6.11e. Lithics, Metals and Small Luxury Items Stone tools at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 occurred exclusively as informal, retouched blades. The great majority of this material was excavated from overburden deposits (Staples pers. comm. 2004). No evidence of copper ore or bronze tools and weapons was observed at the site. Similarly there was a complete absence of small luxury items such as jewellery, scarabs and other personal adornments. The lack of any items connected to trade suggests that Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 was a poorly integrated community of the MB II period.

Storage vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 conformed to three basic rim forms. All three rim forms occurred in a similar range of sizes (Fig. 5.19), suggesting that the different rim forms did not represent functional differentiation. Larger storage jars were located in larger structures (33 and 37), which may be linked to more extensive storage needs for these. Apart from the concentration of larger vessels in Structure 33, jars with handles were only observed on its surface, indicating that Structure 33, located on a hilltop overlooking the site, may have functioned as a distinct storage area or elite residence. The preference for storage vessels with restricted orifices (Figs 5.6, 5.11) has been linked to the transport of goods and short-term storage (Schroder 1997), practices also consistent with a mobile population. Meanwhile, the perforations observed on two of the jar bases at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 have been linked to vessels employed in the production of beer at other Bronze Age sites (Gates 1988). The abundance of cultivated barley at Zahrat adh-

6.11f. Architecture The architecture at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 provides additional evidence for reconstructing settlement strategies and the behavioural dynamics connected to daily tasks. 6.11fi. Structural Evidence Three main rectilinear types of structure were recorded at the site: 1) One-room, three-wall, 2) One-room, fourwall, and 3) Two-room. Variations of these three categories came in the form of additional cross-walls, oblique adjoining walls, corrals, and small, internal stone alignments, the function of which remains uncertain at this stage. These three types of structure were arranged in four clusters at the main part of the site (ZAD 1 north), and one further cluster, south of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ (ZAD 1 101

ECONOMIC SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGY AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 south) to the west of Structure 33 (see Fig. 3.1 and Chapter 3 for full discussion).

1985). However, the transformation of single room houses into multi-cellular residential units, which can be chronologically charted from the Neolithic to the Iron Age, has also been observed within single periods at sites. For example, at ‘Ain Ghazal Banning and Byrd (1987) argue that architectural development undergoes distinct phases linked to the foundation and expansion of kinship groups. While the foundational phase is characterised by simple, rectilinear structures, expansion is characterised by the increased segregation of space into multiple rooms. Furthermore, the addition of adjoining or nearby structures is associated with the growth of families, resulting in the need for new houses beside the familial house (for an alternate view of the architectural development at ‘Ain Ghazal, see Rollefson and KohlerRollefson 1992). The development of family house groups may result in the concentration of activities such as cooking and socialising in commonly shared courtyard areas. Similar interpretations were applied to architectural patterns observed at Jericho (Kenyon 1957) and were later adopted for Be‘er Resisim (Dever 1985). Meanwhile, the application of spatial distribution of family houses among modern Arab villages to archaeological data was performed by Stager (1985b), and Lancaster and Lancaster (1997) with similar conclusions.

On the basis of the architectural evidence, there are no distinctive correlations of structure types and clusters with functional, chronological and typological factors. Nevertheless, the architecture at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 architectural units possess a number of features linked to economic and social life. And apart from the residential structures, wall lines and megalithic markers provide additional evidence of stone arrangements linked to social and economic functions. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 houses reflect a substantial investment of labour. Firstly, the pit-house construction required the excavation of a substantially large volume of soil and the subsequent collection and assembly of stones. The size of stones used in the construction of houses range from 30x40 cm to 100x100 cm, while boulders in the two boulder fields measure up to 300 cm across. The movement of these stones and boulders would have represented an arduous undertaking. While the best-preserved Structure (i.e. 42) stood 4 courses high in addition to the subterranean portion of the structure, stone tumble suggests that several more courses formed the original height of the walls. Since no definitive roofing material was discovered it has been suggested that a roof may have been constructed from a perishable material such as brush or thatch, particularly over the smaller rooms in the Two-room Structures (Edwards et al. 2001). Significantly, Two-room Structures are represented in every Structure Cluster.

The houses at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 are all freestanding. Structures do not share common walls or courtyards and it seems that most activities, such as cooking and sleeping took place on the interior. Hearths were limited to the interior of structures and enclosed private courtyards, while exterior surfaces with associated traces of activity areas were not observed. The architectural patterns at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 do not entirely cohere with the kinship structure used to interpret architectural evidence above. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 houses indicate a distinct preference for independent activities focused on the interior of the house, perhaps in discrete, small family groups. But while these groups may have cooked and eaten separately, their houses were situated in close proximity to other small, possibly related groups, a fact best exemplified by the arrangement of Structures 41-44 in Cluster 4 at the western end of the site (Fig. 3.1). The Structure Cluster at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 may therefore represent a related group of people who nonetheless functioned independently of one another in certain components of their lives.

Up to three of the nine excavated structures show evidence of renovation, rebuilding or reoccupation. Renovation activities have been linked to changes in the social structure and economy of settlements through time (for example Banning and Byrd 1987). Structure 37 contained at least two rebuilding phases, both of which included a Corral enclosure. Structure 41 contained three distinct hearth areas: two non-contemporary hearths in the Western Room (see Fig. 3.48) and one in the Eastern Room (see Fig. 3.49). Structure 40 showed evidence for reuse above the foundational floor, established through traces of a cooking fire in the upper fill (see Fig. 3.15). The renovations and reoccupations suggest that these structures were used and remodelled over an extended period of time, which may be linked to the adjustment of architecture in response to changes in the size and composition of groups. For example, Structure 37 was enlarged, perhaps out of a necessity to accommodate a growing family. Meanwhile the reoccupation of Structure 40 was less substantial than the initial occupation, suggesting a possible change in the function of the structure through time.

The interpretation of economic activity from architectural plan can be attempted for a few individual structures at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 by linking animal management to structure access. Two-room Structures, either sealed or lacking one short wall, rendering the structure open on one end, may be associated with the corralling of livestock. We may speculate that even the open area where no wall was erected could have been sealed off with bushes as has been reported from ethnographic observations of shallow stone pens (Palmer 1871; Saidel 2002b).

The early development of architecture in the southern Levant is characterised by the evolution of the incipient PPNB single-room broadroom house into the multicellular EB II/III house design (Helms 1984; Wright 102

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Of the four excavated Two-room Structures, Structures 36, 37 and 41 represent closed or sealed structures, while Structure 42 represents an open or unsealed structure lacking a fourth wall. While Structure 37 qualified as a closed structure, it demonstrated the most probable evidence of architecture associated with animal management, containing a curvilinear enclosure or corral attached to a large Two-room Structure. Significantly, the small rooms in Structures 36, 41 and 42 contained hearths and cooking potsherds, while in Structure 37 the small eastern room contained a number of storage vessels. Cooking hearths and cooking pots were also discovered in all of the One-room Structures, suggesting that Oneroom Structures and the small rooms in all Two-room Structures apart from Structure 37 functioned as living quarters. Meanwhile, the shallow cultural deposits in the large rectilinear rooms of Structures 36, 41 and 42, are suggestive of courtyard deposits possibly associated with animal enclosures. The shallow cultural deposits in the enclosure of Structure 37 indicate that this area too may have functioned as an animal pen or enclosure.

emphasis on regular cleaning. The lack of house maintenance is attested by the relative absence of secondary refuse areas or middens. Only Structure 40 and 44 contained evidence of specialised refuse receptacles. While the two pits in Structure 40 (Loci I013 and I014) probably functioned as hearth dumps and were significantly located on the interior of the structure, the exact function of the bin adjoining Structure 44 remains equivocal. The general lack of house maintenance has occasionally been linked to the behaviour of mobile groups, who do not habitually maintain pristine conditions in living quarters (Cribb 1991; Joyce and Johannessen 1993; Watkins 1989). However, contrary examples, characterised by regular sweeping of large objects from tent interiors have also been noted in ethnographic observations (Banning and KohlerRollefson 1987; Simms 1988). The relatively messy state of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 houses may be linked to occupation and abandonment cycles (see Chapters 8-9 for full discussion). 6.11fiii. Cooking Installations Cooking installations at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 occurred as slightly sunken fire pits or open surface hearths, which were defined by the concentration of ashy soil and associated cookpot material. These installations were encountered on the interior of structures and in walled enclosures but they did not occur on exteriors of structures. The majority of cooking hearths occurred on the interior of structures. Such hearths were clearly observed in Structures 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 44.

In addition to the specialised enclosure in Structure 37, a number of wall lines trace the possible remains of boundary markers or animal enclosures, which are located in the vicinity of the Structure Clusters. Wall lines representing boundary markers or enclosures are best exemplified by Structures 2, 6-8, 12, 17-18, 20-24 and 35 (Fig. 3.1). Structures 2 and 35 in particular appear to represent the remnants of an enclosure in the west of the site.

6.11fiv. Stratigraphy Stratigraphic evidence may be used to interpret repeated, seasonal occupations at sites. However, evidence for seasonal occupations at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is limited by the lack of successive floor levels interspersed with natural, windblown sediment layers in any of the structures at the site. The layers seen in the western section of the Western Room of Structure 42 (Unit K) did not contain any cultural material pertaining to distinct floor surfaces above the foundational floor (Loci K019, K020 and K022). Admittedly, successive occupations on a seasonal basis may be archaeologically invisible as distinct and successive occupation layers may conflate from trampling to show one thick occupation layer. However, this phenomenon does not successfully resolve the issue. The best evidence for seasonality remains the reoccupation of Structures 37 and 40 (see Section 6.11ei above). While the reoccupation of Structure 40 may be interpreted as ephemeral on the basis of ash scatters from a cooking fire, the rebuilding of Structure 37 must be seen as a substantial enterprise not generally associated with mobile groups. In both cases reoccupation of the structure occurred substantially higher than the foundational floor indicating some form of filling or levelling activity, particularly in Structure 37. The extensive filling and levelling of a house floor is suggestive of a permanent rather than seasonal reoccupation of a site.

6.11fii. Trash Disposal The archaeobotanical, faunal and ceramic refuse patterns from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 all demonstrated a strong tendency towards depositing trash on the interior of structures (see Tables 3.3-5, 6.1-2). Ceramic refuse provided the bulk of the evidence for studying the location of trash disposal. Exterior contexts contained extremely low densities of ceramic refuse (13 %), with the majority of refuse occurring as floor debris (67 %) and overburden room fill (20 %). The high density of ceramic discard occurring on floor surfaces was linked to the high proportion of structures containing primary and possibly de facto refuse (see Section 8.2d and Chapter 9 for full discussion). Discard distribution for individual vessel classes conformed to general patterns discussed above. Cooking vessels and storage vessels both occurred in interior contexts in more than 85 % of cases (Table 6.5). Analysis of refuse patterns among interior contexts in Structures 37, 41, and 42 demonstrated differences in discard behaviour between the smaller roofed rooms and larger walled enclosures. Results showed that cooking vessels occurred more abundantly in walled enclosure areas, whilst jars occurred more abundantly in smaller, roofed areas (Table 6.6, Fig. 6.5). Some variability existed between the individual structures, but there generally appears to have been a low 103

ECONOMIC SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGY AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

100

Number of Sherds in Enclosure

90 80

70

Structure 37 Cookpot Structure 41 Cookpot

60

Structure 42 Cookpot

50

Structure 37 Storejar Structure 41 Storejar

40

Structure 42 Storejar

30

20

10 0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of Sherds in Small Room

Figure 6.5. Relative proportions of Cookpot and Storage Jar Sherds in small rooms and walled enclosures of Structures 37, 41 and 42 at ZAD 1 Vessel Type Cooking Vessels (%) Storage Vessels (%)

Interior 86.56 88.53

Exterior 13.44 11.47

Table 6.5. Relative proportion of sherds in interior and exterior contexts for Cookpots and Storage Jars at ZAD 1 Vessel Type Cooking Vessels (%) Storage Vessels (%)

Room 17.04 50.49

Courtyard 82.96 49.51

Table 6.6. Relative proportions of Cookpot and Storage Jar sherds in small rooms and walled enclosures in Structures 37, 41 and 42 at ZAD 1 6.11fv. Storage Storage facilities provide a further line of evidence for investigating levels of mobility and economic strategy. It seems that the latest occupation of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is coupled with an increased demand for storage facilities. This argument is made on the basis of late (MB IIB) chronologically diagnostic types in Structures 33 and 37 (Fig. 5.20). Surface survey of Structure 33 showed a heavy dominance of storage jar sherds to other classes of vessels, suggesting that Structure 33 functioned as a storage area or a specialized, perhaps public building. The jar material from Structure 33 was unusual because of the presence of handles. Handles do not occur anywhere else on the site and were recovered along with jar rims from seemingly larger vessels (Table 6.4). If Structure 33 functioned as a storage area for the entire site, it could be linked to a permanent or sedentary phase of occupation at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 since extensive storage facilities have generally been linked to

permanent, sedentary occupations (see Byrd 1994; Reid 1989; Schroder 1997). Specialised storage facilities may have also been located in the Eastern Room of Structure 37 and the bin adjoining Structure 44. This assertion is presented on the basis of smashed storage vessels on the floor of the upper phase in Structure 37 and substantial jar material in the bin of Structure 44. The correlation of storage facilities at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 with an MB IIB occupation on the basis of typological analysis receives support from the timing of the incision of Wadi adh-Dhra‘. The location of Structures 33 and 37 at the eastern end of the site together with the headward erosion of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ in an easterly direction (see Sections 2.5 and 5.22a) not only lend credence to the theory that the eastern end of the site was abandoned later than the western end, but that the latest occupation should be associated with increased storage activities. The above hypothesis is further strengthened by the location of 104

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Structure 33 on the south bank of the wadi. It seems unlikely that a storage facility or any important building should be placed in an inaccessible position, separated from the main site by a chasm, which suggests that the headward erosion of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ may have progressed very gradually towards the east (c.f. House 2003). This gradual headward erosion may have precipitated the abandonment of structures in the west of the site while structures in the east remained unaffected by the incision of the wadi.

6.11fvi. Architectural Summary The architecture at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 provides some limited evidence for the interpretation of economic subsistence and social structure. This evidence suggests that the site was occupied by independent family units (possibly including extended families), some of which were involved with livestock management. The architecture demonstrates low levels of specialization with all structures containing evidence of cooking activities, limited storage facilities, and some features associated with livestock management. Some Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 houses demonstrated that renovations had taken place, which may be linked to altering group dynamics over time. Evidence for public architecture is limited to the large ‘citadel’ Structure 33 containing great quantities of storage jar sherds. The Zahrat adhDhra‘ 1 architecture suggests an increased complexity through time, which is expressed by building renovations and increased storage facilities. These changes may reflect an increased emphasis on food production and a growing population. Most importantly, the general lack of either elite or specialised residences reflects a low-level authority regime, possibly structured around a tribal system. The existence of contemporaneous, possibly related groups in the region is supported by the isolated cemetery at Dayr ‘Ayn ‘Abata (Politis 1995) and the extensive cairn tomb zone south of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 (Clark 1979; Edwards et al. 2004; see also Chapters 2 and 5). These groups may have formed part of a wider network encompassing both sedentary and mobile activities, a scenario described elsewhere by Rowton for Western Asia in the Bronze Age (1973a, 1973b).

One difficulty with the above hypothesis includes the possibility that Structure 33, which remains unexcavated, could have been used at all times during the occupation of the site, and like Structures 37 and 40, it contained more than one phase of occupation. The function of Structure 33 as a storage facility throughout the occupational history of the site might suggest that part of the population at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 remained at the site permanently. This interpretation is supported by the presence of perennial crops in structures (see Section 6.11a above). Although the exclusive association of storage facilities with sedentism remains equivocal (c.f. Edwards 1989; Hole 1978; Prag 2004), storage areas have been linked with a long term and sedentary occupations, characterised by a greater intensity of food production compared to sites occupied by mobile groups (Reid 1989; Schroder 1999, 1997). The transition of communities from mobile to sedentary occupations is often marked by the segregation of public and private space and the restricted access of private houses (Watkins 1990). In addition, private houses may demonstrate a reduction of food-processing activities, which are subsequently carried out in public or shared areas (Byrd 1994). Whilst communal food preparation may apply equally to sedentary or mobile societies, increased specialization of activity areas can be generally correlated with more permanent occupations (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1991). Accordingly, the concentration of storage jars around Structure 33 and the restricted access of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 residential structures conforms to an interpretation of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 as a sedentary village.

6.12. Discussion The data presented in Sections 6.11a-e (above) provide the basis for interpreting the occupational dynamics of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘1. These dynamics include the resolution of site function, economic strategy, levels of mobility, and general observations relating to activity areas, daily behaviour and trash disposal. Scenarios relating to the occupation of the site by a social group practicing diverse economic strategies were explored through archaeobotanical, faunal, ceramic and architectural data. These imply several possible scenarios, which are linked to the chronological development of the site.

A further observation linked to these interpretations includes the unresolved function of Structure 33, which has not been excavated. The possibility that Structure 33 represents an elite residence built on a hilltop and separated from the main site by a chasm during the midMB IIB period does not represent an unacceptable proposition. Moreover, the association of storage with sedentary societies does not preclude a portion of the population from being mobile. Nevertheless, neither of these two comments present a problem for the interpretation of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 as a sedentary village since such villages often contained a mobile population in their midst, the size of which fluctuated through time (see Edwards 1989; Rowton 1973b).

The site was settled in MB IIA with the construction of several houses and was occupied for a relatively short period of time. Some structures may have been added alongside earlier structures over time due to possible increases to the population. The western part of the site was abandoned before the eastern part of the site. Independent family units are pervasive at the site through time, and these gradually adapt to a changing economic strategy, which is reflected in increasing storage requirements. Economic strategy is characterised by a mixture of agriculture, which is 105

ECONOMIC SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGY AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 characterised by perennial and annual crops, and some form of livestock management, which is interpreted from the courtyard and corral architecture at the site. Some or all portions of the population remain at the site permanently indicating a sedentary community or a village-based transhumance. Agricultural activity and perhaps a growing population precipitated the need for greater storage facilities and the pooling of resources. Typological evidence suggests that increased storage and possibly public architecture centred on the eastern part of the site, emerges in the latter part of the occupational history of the site. The fact that the site may have migrated towards the east has already been suggested by the headward erosion of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ (see also Section 2.5). Finally, daily life was characterised by a preference for household independence, which is supported by the location of cooking facilities on the interior of structures, the lack of communal courtyards containing trash deposits, and the dispersion of individual residences across the site. Food consumption is characterised by the use of cooking pots for cooking barley or lentil dishes and the employment of these vessels as common bowls. Mobile components of the population are represented by the restricted nature of the ceramic repertoire, which is characterised by abundant and disposable cooking pots and portable jars with a restricted orifice.

6.2. Conclusion Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 was occupied by a number of family groups sometime between 1920 BCE and 1725 BCE. The inhabitants of the site subsisted largely on agriculture with a component of animal husbandry. The diet consisted of legumes, barley, wheat, grapes and fig with a limited amount of meat from domesticated sheep and goat and possibly pig. The population do not seem to have practiced hunting. It remains unclear whether the inhabitants of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 were engaged in specialised pastoralism or whether livestock management comprised a small portion of their subsistence strategies. Occupation at the site was probably permanent for at least some part of the population. The inhabitants of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 seem to have been entirely unintegrated into the larger MB II world, judging by the total absence of any bronze items, jewellery, scarabs, Canaanean Blades or painted pottery, but probably interacted with highly mobile populations in the vicinity. The existence of this mobile component among the local population is supported by the extensive cairn tomb field south of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, as well as the isolated cemetery at Dayr ‘Ayn ‘Abata. These findings, based on the analysis of the archaeobotanical, faunal, architectural and ceramic data underscore the difficulties involved in the definitive reconstruction of subsistence strategies, occupation schedules and social organization at prehistoric sites. Nevertheless, the preliminary results indicate that Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 represents a hitherto undiscovered example of an isolated, marginal MB II community occupied with a mixed economic strategy, and employing a unique material culture repertoire. Its idiosyncrasies (see Chapter 7) suggest that the range of lifestyles and community types that existed in the Bronze Age of the southern Levant have not been properly understood to this point. Limitations concerning the interpretation of sites like Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 underscore the potential problems associated with our definitions of pastoralism, sedentism and mobility as well as our ability to understand the nature of interaction between groups that represented various economic strategies. The inadequacy of our current understanding precipitates the need to situate Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 within the wider world of the Bronze Age in the southern Levant, both culturally and in terms of socio-economic praxis. The following chapter (Chapter 7) will endeavour to compare the occupational dynamics of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 to other known sites in the Bronze Age to fully comprehend its position in Bronze Age society.

A slightly different interpretation of the evidence emphasises the role of specialised agricultural tasks, which may have been performed seasonally, and specific functions related to the architecture and pottery. In this interpretation, a mixture of economic strategies was practiced throughout the occupational history of the site, with social groups involved in agricultural practices and livestock herding. Some of the inhabitants concerned with agriculture remained at the site permanently while those connected with livestock management may have moved away from the site during the hot summer months. Architectural Structure-Clusters represent family units while individual structures represent distinct economic activities, which focus on different aspects of subsistence. Chronologically diagnostic types indicating a late occupation in MB IIB in Structures 33 and 37 are actually contemporaneous with the MB IIA/IIB types present in other structures, and are instead associated with a functional difference among the pottery types rather than a later occupation. Functional differences are characterised by the concentration of storage in Structures 37 and particularly Structure 33. Daily life was characterised by traits that are identical to those described above.

106

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES DURING THE LATE 3RD AND EARLY 2ND MILLENNIA BCE. This chapter aims to refine interpretations of the economic strategy and occupational dynamics at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 by placing the site within the greater context of subsistence and occupational strategies in the EB IV and MB II periods. The comparison of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 with other sites and settlement systems is stimulated by the desire to understand the extent to which social, cultural, political and environmental factors determine or contribute to economic strategy, degree of sedentism and expression of daily behaviour. Specific features constituting the investigation include the architectural, ceramic, faunal and archaeobotanical patterns reported from sites. Behavioural indicators include activity loci such as cooking areas and the location of refuse discard, as well as evidence for religious practice, social stratification and participation in market and exchange.

such as Kfar Rupin (Gophna 1979), Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984), Manahat (Edelstein et al. 1998) and now Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 (Edwards et al. 2001) provide the artefactual repertoire from which to characterise economies alternative to large-scale, densely populated urban centres such as Hazor, Megiddo and Pella (see Dever 1987b; Gerstenblith 1983; Ilan 1998; Mazar 1990). The existence of both sedentary villages during the EB IV period and non-sedentary settlements during the subsequent MB II period complicates previous conceptions of late third millennium and early second millennium societies. Moreover, the sedentary and non-sedentary communities of both periods suggest that ancient south Levantine society is characterised by very varied settlement types, which now prompts a revision of our prior understandings. Given that rural village sites occupy an important and persistent place in the social and economic landscape of the southern Levant, and following from the work of Fall, Falconer and Lines (2002, 1998), it would seem useful to compare agrarian communities or semi-sedentary agro-pastoral communities from the EB IV period to agrarian communities or semi-sedentary agropastoral communities from the MB II period. In this way we can begin to examine the attributes which characterise mobile and sedentary groups throughout the Bronze Age and to expand current perspectives about urbanism, sedentism, pastoralism and behaviour in terms of the available material evidence. Thus, the following analysis attempts to review the general traits attributed to the economic systems and occupational strategies of sites dating to the EB IV and MB II periods.

7.1. Settlement, Subsistence and the EBIV-MB II Transition General observations pertaining to settlement and subsistence patterns between 2300 BCE and 1500 BCE are characterised by an emphasis on the collapse of urban society across the southern Levant at the end of the 24th century BCE (Dever 1998) and the re-emergence of sedentary town life at the beginning of the second millennium BCE (Falconer 2001). While the EB IV period (c.a. 2300-2000 BCE) is generally represented by non-urban, semi-sedentary, agro-pastoral communities extending to both the prime and marginal zones of the southern Levant (Palumbo 2001), the MB II period (c.a. 2000-1500 BCE) is contrastingly represented by urban, sedentary, agricultural communities confined to the prime land zones of the coastal plain and northern valleys (Ilan 1998).

7.11. The Early Bronze IV Period Sites dating to the EB IV period extend into all environmental zones of the southern Levant. These include the Coastal Plain, the Jezreel Valley, the Beth She’an Valley, the Jordan Valley, the Kerak Plateau, the Dead Sea Basin, the Negev Highlands and the Hill Country encompassing Samaria and Judea (Fig. 2.2). A significant amount of our excavated evidence emanates from the Negev Highlands sites. While a few sites have been excavated in other zones, these constitute only a fraction of the total, with cemetery excavations and surface surveys constituting the bulk of the information (Dever 1998). Sites reviewed in this section include the Negev Highlands sites of Be’er Resisim, Nekhes Rafha 396 and the Camel Site, the south Jordanian sites of Khirbet Iskander and Bab edh-Dhra’, the North and South Jordan Valley sites of Tell Iktanu, Tell Umm Hammad and Tell Abu en-Ni’aj, and the Jerusalem region sites of Nahal Repha’im and Manahat.

The classification and definition of these two periods have evolved over time with the addition of data from recent excavations and surveys (see also Chapter 2). In effect, the EB IV period has been recast in light of the identification and excavation of several sedentary towns such as Tell Abu en-Ni’aj (Falconer and MagnessGardiner 1991), Tell Iktanu (Prag 1989, 1974) and Nahal Repha’im (Eisenberg 1990), which date to the EB IV. Nowadays there is even scope to include an urban component within the period after the excavations at Khirbet Iskander in the Jordan Valley (Richard and Boraas 1984). In a similar vein the identification of scores of small villages and encampments dating to the MB II period scattered through the hill country (Finkelstein 1995, Finkelstein et al. 1997) and the coastal plain (Gophna and Beck 1981), forces a revision to our understanding of the MB II period as an exclusively urban period. Excavated MB II villages 107

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES The following section represents a brief survey and discussion of the excavated evidence from EB IV sites by individual region (see Table 7.1), noting relevant and available data pertaining to subsistence and occupation strategies in relation to the data generated from Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1.

dimorphism led to the development of explanatory models based on ethnographic observations (for example Johnson 1969), particularly of Bedouin herd management practices (for example Noy-Meir and Seligman 1979). The consequences of the dimorphic approach not only limited the scope of possible economic strategies attributable to the ancient groups under study, but also stereotyped the range of relationships between more mobile and less mobile groups. The polymorphic structure envisaged by Lemche (1985), which under Finkelstein (1991) assumed a multimorphic paradigm represents a more realistic characterisation of the economies of ancient people who do not fit within purely nomadic or sedentary modes. The wide range of adaptive strategies that people employ in response to changing environmental, cultural, political and market circumstances (Marfoe 1979; Palumbo 2001) must be considered when archaeologists confront the material evidence. Examples that help to illustrate the difficulties connected to defining economic and occupation strategies are presented below for the EB IV period in the Negev Highlands.

7.11a. The Negev Highlands The Negev highlands are situated within the central Negev Desert of southern Israel. Archaeological surveys over the course of seventy years identified a number of Early Bronze Age sites in the Negev region, particularly in the moister Negev Highlands (for example Cohen 1999, 1985a, 1984, 1980, 1979, 1974; Glueck 1958b, 1958a, 1957, 1955b, 1955a). Small climatic fluctuations through time caused the periodic expansion of sedentary groups into the northern Negev region, most notably during the Chalcolithic period (Levy 1992). Otherwise, the Negev has normally been associated with non-sedentary marginal groups, which were particularly active in the region during the EB IV period (Dever 1980). Several sites dating to the EB IV period have been excavated within the last thirty years, which many archaeologists have interpreted as belonging to seminomadic pastoralists (for example Cohen 1992b, 1999; Dever 1992; Finkelstein 1989; Rosen 2003; Saidel 2002a, 2002b). The generally accepted model of settlement proposed for the Negev Highlands sites includes a tripartite classification of sites into Central, Large and Small Settlements (Cohen 1992b). Dever (1980) extended the settlement system to encompass the Hebron Hills, which he argued, formed the summer grazing lands of the Negev pastoralists. The connection of the Hebron Hills cemeteries to the Negev sites was made on the basis of ceramic affiliations (Dever 1998, 1992, 1980), a contention which has been subsequently challenged by scholars such as Finkelstein (1995, 1992a, 1989).

The most comprehensively excavated and reported EB IV sites comprising detailed evidence on all classes of material evidence include Be’er Resisim (Cohen and Dever 1981, 1980, 1979), Nekhes Rafha 396 (Saidel 2002b) and the Camel Site (Rosen 2003). These three sites reflect occupation strategies in the Negev Highlands during the EB IV period, providing a set of useful data for reconstructing the subsistence base and occupational dynamics of EB IV settlements in this region. 7.11ai. Be’er Resisim and the Central/Large Settlements Be’er Resisim (Fig. 7.1) is an example of a Central Settlement, which is defined by the concentration of up to hundreds of structures on one hilltop covering an area of between 0.3 and 2.0 hectares (Cohen 1992b: 107-8). Other Central Settlements include Ein Ziq, Mashabbe Sade, Har Sayyad, Nahal Nissana and Har Yeruham while Large Settlements, which do not exceed 0.2 hectares in area (Cohen 1992b: 117) are exemplified by Be’er Hayyal, Avnon, Har Harif and Nahal Ezuz (Fig. 2.2). These settlements are comparatively small given the known range of human settlement types for the Bronze Age (Fletcher 1986). Nevertheless, this situation is not unexpected, since small sites within a settlement hierarchy often do not exceed one hectare. Cohen (1992a, 1992b) distinguishes between three types of settlement plans among the Central and Large Settlements: 1) curvilinear dwelling units of up to five rooms surrounding a small courtyard, 2) curvilinear or rectilinear dwelling units built in a continuous circle enclosing the settlement from the outside world, and 3) curvilinear dwelling units adjoining a courtyard, all concentrated on a large central square, with animal pens built on the periphery and alleys radiating from the square to the exterior of the settlement.

Cohen (1992b) maintained that the occupation of Central Settlements such as Be’er Resisim occurred year-round while Small Settlements such as Nekhes Rafha 396 functioned as grazing stations occupied on a seasonal basis. This interpretation, which has been criticised for its inability to demonstrate the association of individual Large Settlements with Small Settlements as contemporaneous links in a larger socio-economic system (Finkelstein 1989), was vaguely constructed on the basis of “…the rich architectonic, ceramic, and other finds” (Cohen 1992b: 125). It can be said that attempts by scholars to explain the material culture repertoire and settlement patterns of the Negev during EB IV by proposing occupation strategies centred on a seasonal round of herd grazing, proceeded from the long-held characterisation of south Levantine society as a dimorphic society (Dever 1992, 1980 Rowton 1973a, 1973b, 1967). The emphasis on

108

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Figure 7.1. Map of excavated EB IV and MB II sites used in the discussion of Chapter 7

109

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES

Table 7.1. Summary of characteristics for EB IV sites Be’er Resisim represents the first type of Central Settlement, located on a hilltop in close proximity to a permanent well. The excavators conjectured that the surrounding wadi banks and floors could have been farmed for seasonal crops (Cohen and Dever 1981). Agricultural activity at the site however, seems to have been limited, judging by the absence of sickle segments and inconclusive evidence from the archaeobotanical assemblage; the first two seasons did not show any direct evidence for the processing of wheat or barley. Evidence for trade on the other hand was abundant, including shell from the Red Sea, copper from Wadi Feinan, and ceramic vessels from Transjordan (Cohen and Dever 1981). Along with the imported trade items, the faunal, architectural and ceramic data formed the key lines of evidence for understanding the economic strategy and occupation strategy at the site.

distinguished by its curvilinear clusters of both roofed and unroofed, one-room, stone structures. This type of architecture is standard for the entire Negev region during the EB IV period (Cohen 1999). Three large clusters were composed of smaller household clusters, which consisted of roofed sleeping quarters and unroofed storage rooms. The unroofed structures were distinguished by the absence of a central stone pillar acting as a roof support. Roofed structures probably functioned only as sleeping quarters for one or two adults. This assertion was based on reconstructions of houses from in situ doorjambs and lintels, which suggested that these structures stood only 1.5 meters high (Dever 1985). Each structure cluster was composed of a group of structures arranged around an unroofed courtyard. Floors of structures were slightly sunken and occasionally built with descending stone steps. No ritual or public buildings were found at the site (Cohen and Dever 1981). However, a cluster of structures located on higher ground to the south was interpreted to represent a possible ‘elite’ complex (Dever 1985:20). Dever’s interpretations have been challenged on the basis of ethnographic observations, which indicate that mobile groups may only use built structures as storage facilities, preferring to sleep in tents. In addition, the differentiation of architectural clusters on the basis of size and complexity and the correlation of these differences with social rank have also been questioned (see Finkelstein 1989). These criticisms however, may themselves be limited by their reliance on ethnographic parallels, and the questionable relevance of such parallels to Bronze Age society.

The faunal assemblage was heavily dominated by juvenile goat (90 % of the total) but there was also substantial evidence for hunting (Cohen and Dever 1981). The dominance of goat was not surprising given the suitability of this animal to rugged terrain and frequent movement in contrast to sheep, which is valued for its superior secondary products (see Levy 1992). The faunal evidence, strengthened by the large number of animal pens at the site, was interpreted to indicate a pastoral transhumant economy (Cohen 1999, 1992b; Cohen and Dever 1981, 1979). Be’er Resisim contained 80 structures scattered over an area of one hectare. Dever (1985: 21) estimated the population of the settlement on the basis of ethnographic parallels to number approximately 80 inhabitants. Architecture at the EB IV site of Be’er Resisim was

The ceramic assemblage at Be’er Resisim was characterized by a comparatively even spread of cooking vessels and storage vessels. Cooking vessels occurred 110

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

4.5

4

Number of Vessels

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0 8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

Diameter Size (cm)

Figure 7.2. Rim diameter sizes for Cookpots at Be’er Resisim (After Cohen and Dever 1981) predominantly as the globular hole-mouth variety, which demonstrated great variability in size (Fig. 7.2) and rim profile (Cohen and Dever 1981). Storage jars showed substantial variability in ware and colour. Relative vessel frequencies seem to have varied between contexts. However cooking pots of different sizes frequently appeared together, suggesting that vessels of varying size may have represented functional differences. Serving vessels occurred in smaller quantities, predominantly as deep bowls (these impressions were formed during the author’s cursory inspection of the ceramic assemblage in Jerusalem during January-February 2001). The high proportion of cooking vessels at Be’er Resisim relative to other types of vessels typifies the vessel repertoire of most Negev sites dating to the EB IV period (Cohen 1999). The ceramic assemblage seemed highly incomplete with no restorable vessels reported (W. G. Dever, pers. comm. 2002). Published results indicate that assemblages with low rates of completeness are not representative of all EB IV Negev sites, with Ein Ziq in particular demonstrating high completeness levels in some contexts (Cohen 1992b: 119, Fig. 11).

Seasonal occupation of Be’er Resisim has been inferred from its faunal, ceramic and human mortuary data. The faunal assemblage at Be’er Resisim consisted predominantly of juvenile male goats, which was interpreted to indicate that the site was occupied between winter and spring (Cohen and Dever 1981). The few burials uncovered in the vicinity of the site do not represent the extensive burials comprising shaft tomb complexes normally associated with mobile EB IV populations (Dever 1987a; Palumbo 1987). Dever (1980) established typological links between the ceramic assemblage of Be’er Resisim and the assemblages of ‘Ain es-Samiyeh (Dever 1972) Jebel Qa’aqir (Gitin 1975) and Khirbet el-Kirmil (Dever 1975), cemeteries located in the Hebron Hills (Fig. 2.1). The proposal that these assemblages represent the seasonal movement of the same population was advanced by Dever (1987a, 1980), and while initially accepted with qualifications (Finkelstein 1991a), now seems to be out of favour (Finkelstein 1995). The typological relationship between cemeteries and settlements need not reflect the activities of the same mobile population (see also Berelov 2000). The economy at Be’er Resisim most likely involved intensive pastoral transhumance, supplemented by limited hunting and trade. This assertion is supported by the faunal, ceramic, architectural, metallurgical and small finds evidence from the site, which points to a wellintegrated community surrounded by related, contemporaneous villages. The occupation strategy at the site most probably consisted of both sedentary and mobile components. Some portion of the population remained at the site on a permanent basis while others abandoned the site on a seasonal basis to find pasture for herds. It is unclear whether the herding elements of the population moved their herds to the smaller Negev sites or to the Hebron Hills. However, the absence of extensive

Refuse patterns at Be’er Resisim indicated that most daily activities were performed on the exterior of domestic units. The great majority of all refuse, including ceramics, bone and lithic debris was discovered on the exterior of structures, concentrated in open courtyard areas (Cohen and Dever 1981). Activities associated with cooking occurred exclusively on the exterior of structures, also mostly in open courtyard areas. No hearths were discovered on the interior of structures and no hearths were reported (Cohen and Dever 1981). Cookpot vessel walls were frequently marked by carbon residue suggesting that they were placed within hearths for cooking (see Skibo 1992).

111

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES cemeteries in the Negev Highlands together with typological connections of the Negev sites with Hebron Hills cemeteries, suggests that some of population migrated seasonally to the Hebron Hills buried their dead there during the summer months.

the the the and

The restricted ceramic repertoire, comprising only 584 sherds belonging predominantly to storage and cooking vessels, is also linked to the archaeological signature of mobile groups (Saidel 2002a, 2002b). The excavator (Saidel 2002b) employs petrographic evidence to link pottery from Be’er Resisim and Ein Ziq to Nekhes Rafha 396 in order to support Cohen’s paradigm (1992b) that the inhabitants of Large or Central Settlements migrated seasonally with their flocks to Small Settlements like Nekhes Rafha 396. These inhabitants are said to have cached jars and cooking pots at the site for future use, but this idea is unexplored as no restorable or whole vessels were reported from the site. The material evidence from Nekhes Rafha 396 has been interpreted to represent a small mobile community that employed a pastoral economic strategy supplemented by trade and the limited production of shell and ground stone.

While the majority of Central and Large Settlements conform to the general patterns found at Be’er Resisim, Har Yeruham (Fig. 2.2) represents a notable anomaly. The latter site is distinguished by its rectilinear architecture, which was initially constructed during the Early Bronze II period and reoccupied during EB IV. This architectural style closely resembles the Early Bronze Age architecture of the southern Sinai (Beit Arieh 1992, 1986). A further notable exception to the material signatures of Be’er Resisim and most other EB IV Negev Highlands sites is expressed by the refuse patterns at the site of Ein Ziq (Fig. 2.2). The unusual refuse patterns at Ein Ziq represent abandonment processes which differed from those of most other Negev Highlands sites. For example, the abandonments of Be’er Resisim and Ein Ziq proceeded in a contrasting manner. This assertion is made on the basis of the poor survival rates of vessels at Be’er Resisim compared to the high survival rates of vessels at Ein Ziq (Cohen 1999). While the evidence from Be’er Resisim most probably reflects planned abandonment strategies, the evidence from Ein Ziq suggests that this site was abandoned either hurriedly or with the anticipation of return (c.f. Stevenson 1982).

The Camel Site represents a further example of a Small Settlement, first constructed and predominantly occupied during the EB II period. Rosen (2003) reports the predominance of hole-mouth cooking vessel sherds, located away from the architectural units. The predominance of cooking vessels at Early Bronze Age Negev sites is also reported by Cohen (1999), Haiman (1991) and Saidel (2002b). High quantities of cooking vessels, along with a generally restricted repertoire of types are taken to represent the archaeological signature of non-sedentary people (Saidel 2002a). However, despite such assertions, and the excavator’s (Rosen 2003) deliberate emphasis on the paucity of ceramic material, which is expressed by the fewer than 1000 sherds (31 diagnostic) recovered from the site, references to ceramic studies involving fragmentation patterns, vessel counts and spatial distribution are lacking.

7.11aii. Nekhes Rafha 396, The Camel Site and Small Settlements Rekhes Nafha 396 is a small EB IV settlement (the most numerous type in the central Negev). Cohen (1992b) defines ‘Small settlements’ as sites occupying an area of less than 0.1 hectares. According to the excavator (Saidel 2002b), Rekhes Nafha 396 is characterised by a few animal pens defined by circular enclosures; and also a dominance of projectile points, a small pottery assemblage, a copper ingot, shell, and a small number of sheep/goat bones.

The site is otherwise characterised by the presence of copper, millstones and beads, which underscores the integrated nature of EBA pastoral society in the Negev region. Rosen (2003) interprets the Camel Site as a Pastoral-Nomadic settlement by default, on the basis of low artefact densities, low numbers of sickle fragments and the architectural construction and layout. The latter includes a number of curvilinear rooms surrounding a courtyard. The interpretation of the Camel Site as a Pastoral-Nomadic settlement by default unfortunately represents a serious methodological weakness that fails to take into account the great number of intermediary positions along the sedentary-nomadic continuum (Finkelstein 1991a).

While excavations produced a few broken sickle segments, Saidel (2002b) interprets the evidence to suggest that hunting and agriculture represented only minor components of the economy in comparison to livestock rearing and management. The strongest indication of animal husbandry at Nekhes Rafha 396 was the existence of stone animal pens, which may have been raised by the addition of bushes, a practice observed among recent pastoralist groups (Palmer 1871). Such pens are common to many other EBA sites in the Negev (Haiman 1992). The interpretation of pastoralism as a dominant economic strategy on the basis of animal pens rather than faunal records (Saidel 2002a) has been advanced elsewhere for the Negev region (for example Cohen 1992b; Rosen 2003). The small number of bone fragments from ruminants is explained by a combination of site formation processes and the low meat content in the diets of many pastoralist groups (Saidel 2002b).

On the basis of the evidence from the Camel Site and other Negev sites such as Nekhes Rafha 396, Rosen (2003) makes the point that pastoralism during the Bronze Age constituted more than the search for pastures on the periphery and involved speculative trade; a contention reinforced by the ground stone, bead and shell industry of both sites. The presence of copper implies that most Negev sites were integrated within a long distance trading network during the EB IV. 112

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN 7.11b. The Dead Sea Basin and South Jordan South Jordan, an area encompassing the northern end of the Dead Sea down to the Gulf of Aqaba, contained several sites dating to the EB IV period, including the copper rich Feinan, Bab edh-Dhra’, Al-Lajjun, Khirbet Ader, Khirbet Aro’er and Khirbet Iskander (Palumbo 2001). Of these, Bab edh-Dhra’ and Khirbet Iskander represent the two most comprehensively excavated and reported sites dating to this period.

dry, and winters are mild to warm with occasional rain. The area receives between 50-100 mm of annual rainfall and thin soils overlie infertile substrates composed of gravels and the Dana Conglomerate. The site lies beside Wadi al-Kerak, which conducted both seasonal upland runoff and perennial spring water in ancient times (Rast and Schaub 2003). It has been suggested that precipitation in the region declined steadily through the Early Bronze Age (Frumkin et al. 1994), restricting human habitation to areas with perennial water sources such as the Dead Sea Plain (Donahue 1985). Human over-exploitation of natural resources such as wood during the urban Early Bronze Age compounded subsistence difficulties during subsequent periods (Fall et al. 1998).

7.11bi. Khirbet Iskander Khirbet Iskander (Richard and Boraas 1984) is currently the only large, probably fortified sedentary site dating to the EB IV period in the southern Levant. However, due to the general lack of similarities connected to size and social organization between Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 and Khirbet Iskander, this site is not treated in detail. Khirbet Iskander is a 4.5-hectare site located on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, which is characterised by extensive fortification walls originally erected during the EB II/III period. Evidence of other public architecture includes storage facilities such as large stone silos. The limited exposure of the architecture at the site inhibited the reconstruction of a town plan. However, rectilinear stone and mud brick houses composed of interconnected rooms provide a general insight into the style and construction of the domestic architecture. Tabun style ovens, which are defined by large, deep, normally hemispherical clay installations associated with bread baking (McQuitty 1985, 1984), were frequently located on the interior of rooms, a situation which seems to have persistently surprised the excavators who expected such oven installations to occur in exterior courtyards (Richard and Boraas 1984). The site contained abundant evidence for a large, sedentary, fully integrated community including an extensive ceramic repertoire, metal objects and luxury items.

Economic strategy at the EB IV site of Bab edh-Dhra’ was largely interpreted from the presence of both perennial and seasonal crops. Whilst traditional views of EB IV society commonly emphasize a heavily dominated pastoral economy (Dever 1992, 1980), the plant assemblage at Bab edh-Dhra’ suggests that the site was substantially agricultural. The presence of olive and grape, along with seasonal cereal and legume crops reflected an extensive strategy of cultivation and harvesting (Richardson and McCreery 1978). The faunal assemblage revealed a mixture of both domesticated and wild taxa dominated by domesticated sheep and goat (Finnegan 1978). Extensive remains of storage jars and saddle querns east of the EB IV settlement were linked to industrial activities (Rast and Schaub 1978). The production and trade of ceramic vessels to nearby Numeira in the EB III (Beynon et al. 1986) and to more distant Be’er Resisim in the EB IV (Cohen 1999) were also established on the basis of petrographic analysis. The sprawling EB IV settlement at Bab edh-Dhra’ covered a total area of 5 hectares. However, settlement was not continuous across this area, and possibly only 10 % of that area was occupied during the EB IV period (Rast and Schaub 1978). The Bab edh-Dhra’ EB IV settlement was built over the EB II/III town only in the Field XVI sanctuary area. Otherwise, major loci of occupation were situated east (Field X) and south (Field IX) of the EB II/III town (Rast and Schaub 2003; Schaub and Rast 1984). Some EB III remains were discovered beneath the earliest phase in Field IX (Rast and Schaub 1978; Schaub and Rast 1984). Continuity between the EB III town and EB IV settlement was evidenced by the ongoing use of the EB III cult precinct by the early EB IV population.

7.11bii. Bab edh-Dhra’ The Dead Sea Basin witnessed the growth of town life during the Early Bronze Age when the local population nucleated around the site of Bab edh-Dhra’. During EB II and EB III Bab edh-Dhra’ contained a cult precinct, public buildings and was fortified by a town wall. The site of Numeira, located further south along the eastern side of the Dead Sea represented smaller rural settlement associated with Bab edh-Dhra’ by a ceramic industry on the basis of petrographic evidence (Beynon et al. 1986; Rast and Schaub 2003, 1974). Human occupation in the region diminished during the EB IV period with the disappearance of settlements at Numeira and Khanazir sites and the reconfiguration of the settlement at Bab edhDhra’ (Rast and Schaub 2003). Changes to human occupation around the Dead Sea Basin during EB IV represents a wider transformation of economic and occupational strategies in the southern Levant in response to changing cultural, political and economic circumstances (Palumbo 2001).

The EB IV population continued an Early Bronze II/III tradition, which favoured a rectilinear broad room design, commonly referred to as the ‘Arad House’ (Amiran 1978; Rast and Schaub 2003). This house type, characterized by a doorway in the long wall of the structure, occurred extensively during the Early Bronze Age (Wright 1985), particularly in the south of Canaan, which at this time is thought to have incorporated the Sinai Desert (Beit Arieh

Bab edh-Dhra’ is located on the Dead Sea Plain of Jordan (Rast and Schaub 1974). Summers are extremely hot and 113

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES 1992, 1981). The examples from Bab edh-Dhra’ EB IV were generally freestanding, although some houses shared walls, particularly in Field IX. Most houses were composed of one long, rectilinear room, conforming to the classic broad room plan common to the Neolithic period (Wright 1985). However, one structure in Field IX contained an incomplete cross-wall, dividing the room into two (Rast and Schaub 2003), a feature linked to a later typological development, which emerges in the Early Bronze Age (Wright 1985). A number of both walled and open courtyard-enclosures were reported, suggesting communal behaviour among housing complexes. Differences between complexes also included variations in the size and elaboration of the houses (Rast and Schaub 2003). The first of four EB IV phases was constructed entirely from mud brick, whilst later ones were composed of stone foundations and upper mud brick walls. The EB IV settlement, occurring in three architectural clusters, was un-walled and less densely built up than the EB II/III settlement (Rast and Schaub 1978; Schaub and Rast 1984).

standard ceramic vessel repertoire comprising serving, storage and cooking vessels; functionally discrete architecture including a domestic and a cultic area; and evidence for the trade of ceramics and copper. The trade of ceramics to Numeira (Beynon et al. 1986) and Be’er Resisim (Cohen 1999; Saidel 2002b) was established on the basis of petrographic evidence. Meanwhile, copper was most probably obtained from the mines in Wadi Feinan, some 50 km to the south. The evidence led the excavators to conclude that the site represented a sedentary population during EB IV (Rast and Schaub 1978). The site also appears to have been well integrated into the greater EB IV society to the north and west.

The ceramic assemblage from EB IV Bab edh-Dhra’ consisted of 1151 diagnostic sherds from Fields IX, X and XVI. The majority of the material was excavated from Field XVI, which was defined as a sanctuary area. Patterns of vessel frequency reflected the functional differences between the sanctuary and the residential domestic areas represented by Fields IX and X. The former assemblage consisted predominantly of lamps, while the latter assemblage consisted of high proportions of serving vessels, lower frequencies of storage vessels, and still lower frequencies of cooking vessels (Table 7.2). The ceramic assemblage demonstrated clear functional differences between the sanctuary area and the domestic areas (Rast and Schaub 2003).

Vessel Type

Vessel Frequency (%)

Cooking Pots

10

Storage Jars

24

Serving Vessels

59

Lamps

7

Table 7.2. Vessel frequency at Bab edh-Dhra’ calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts; numbers calculated from published data (after Rast and Schaub 2003) Vessel Type Cooking Pots Storage Jars

Orifice Diameter Mean (cm) 17 12

Table 7.3. Vessel orifice diameter mean for Cooking Vessels and Storage at Bab edh-Dhra’; numbers calculated from published data (after Rast and Schaub 2003)

Refuse patterns at Bab edh-Dhra’ also demonstrated variation between different contexts such as interiors, exteriors and courtyards. Patterns from the domestic areas (Fields IX and X), which comprised house interiors, partially walled enclosures, and open courtyards, were characterised by high fragmentation rates, the material occurring both on the interior and exterior of structures in roughly equal measures. Meanwhile, patterns from the sanctuary associated with Field XVI were characterised by low fragmentation rates, with the majority of ceramic refuse occurring on the interior of the sanctuary (Rast and Schaub 2003, 1978; Schaub and Rast 1984).

While the site of Bab edh-Dhra’ continued to exist into the EB IV, only an isolated cemetery dating to this period was discovered in its southern hinterland at Khirbet Khanazir, (MacDonald 1995). Given that the cemetery at Bab edh-Dhra’ continued to be used during the EB IV period, the cemetery at Khirbet Khanazir (Palumbo 2001) may have been associated with mobile groups that seasonally grazed the nearby area. These sites constitute a component of a comparatively substantial EB IV population in south Jordan, which included the Dead Sea Basin and the Kerak Plateau where other sedentary villages such as Aro’er (Olavarri 1969) Khirbet Ader and Al-Lejjun (Albright 1924) thrived during the EB IV period (Fig. 2.2). Dozens of potsherd scatters lacking associated architecture dating to the EB IV period have been reported across the Kerak Plateau by Mattingly (1984, 1983), adding evidence to an additional, nonsedentary component of the population in south Jordan. The existence of varied groups relying on diverse occupational strategies supports the notion that a full spectrum of economic pursuits existed during EB IV.

Cooking installations at Bab edh-Dhra’ occurred most frequently in courtyard areas. However, occasional hearths were also discovered on the interior of structures (Rast and Schaub 1978; Schaub and Rast 1984). Both tabuns and fire pits were in use (R. T. Schaub, pers. comm. 2002). The EB IV settlement at Bab edh-Dhra’ was characterised by the presence of perennial and annual crops; domesticated and hunted animal species; a 114

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN 7.11c. The Jerusalem Region; Repha’im Valley Salvage excavations in the Repha’im Valley, located approximately 2-3 kilometres southwest of the Old City of Jerusalem, uncovered two villages dating to the EB IV period: Nahal Repha’im and Manahat (Eisenberg and Edelstein 1984; Edelstein and Eisenberg 1985). These two villages represent the most comprehensively excavated EB IV sites west of the Jordan River outside the Negev region, providing a good data set for the study of EB IV economy and occupation in this region.

abandonment processes resulting from the violent destruction of the site. The excavators seem to have overlooked the possibility that pottery caches may have also resulted from other unplanned abandonments as well as seasonal abandonments with the anticipation of return (Stevenson 1982). Tabun ovens used for cooking occurred on the interior of rooms (Eisenberg 1990: 152). On the basis of the faunal, archaeobotanical, ceramic and architectural data, the EB IV villages of the Repha’im valley were interpreted to represent sedentary agrarian communities that also practiced animal husbandry, pottery production and trade. The site of Nahal Repha’im seems to have been abruptly abandoned, resulting in an abundance of de facto ceramic refuse (Eisenberg 1993).

While the EB IV remains from Manahat were severely disturbed by subsequent rebuilding during the MB II period (Edelstein and Greenhut 1988-89), the surviving evidence, including the domestic and public architecture, installations and artefacts, indicated that this village closely resembled the nearby, but much better preserved village of Nahal Repha’im (Eisenberg and Edelstein 1984; Edelstein and Eisenberg 1985).

7.11d. The Southern Jordan Valley Excavated EB IV sites in the southern Jordan Valley region are represented by Tell Iktanu and Tell Umm Hammad (Palumbo 2001). Tell Iktanu (Prag 1989) is a striking example of a dispersed, marginal semi-sedentary settlement, while Tell Umm Hammad represents a large settlement, occupied intermittently since the Chalcolithic period (Helms 1986).

The EB IV village of Nahal Repha’im, Stratum III, was characterised by a dispersed settlement covering approximately 5 hectares. The architecture was defined by rectilinear, multi-cellular houses that frequently contained a second storey and comprised stone foundations with a brick superstructure. The simple, multi-cellular architectural style from Nahal Repha’im is an Early Bronze Age precursor to the multi-cellular courtyard townhouse architecture so common to urban sites during the MB II period (Wright 1985). Public architecture was exemplified by the large public hall in Area 1100 and a circular enclosure in Area 1200 (Eisenberg 1990).

7.11di. Tell Umm Hammad According to Helms (1986) Tell Umm Hammad covered an area of up to 44 hectares. The site is situated in the Ardha Triangle on the fan of Wadi Zarqa. During the EB IV period the settlement was characterised by rectilinear stone and mud brick architecture, which consisted of multi-roomed houses that were arranged in blocks divided by streets and alleys. The community probably practiced some form of agriculture, which was attested by the presence of mortars and Canaanean blades bearing gloss on both sides. Copper and bronze objects, as well as a full ceramic repertoire including serving, cooking and storage vessels were reported (Helms 1986, 1984). The ceramic assemblage, which reflects mainly domestic activities and storage, along with the Canaanean blades and metal items indicate that Tell Umm Hammad was a well integrated, sedentary community of the EB IV landscape.

The economy of these villages in the EB IV was based on caprovine husbandry, which was supplemented by pig and cattle raising, as well as trade. Horwitz (1989a, 1989b) argues that the presence of domesticated pig at the Repha’im Valley sites in EB IV should be interpreted to indicate a sedentary occupation. Agricultural produce was defined by the presence of grains, legumes and orchard crops including olives and grape. According to Edelstein and Milevski (1994, 1990) the Canaanites of the EB IV period farmed the valley beds because of the poor soil cover that characterised the remaining area. Meanwhile, evidence for trade consisted of scarabs, Canaanean blades, and to a lesser extent, metal daggers and beads discovered in the nearby tombs (Eisenberg 1993).

7.11dii. Tell Iktanu Tell Iktanu is located 150m below sea level 20 km east of Jericho. The site overlooks Wadi Hisban and stretches 800m North/South and 600m East/West. Megalithic walls, which were interpreted to represent either animal pens or terraces, marked the western extreme of the settlement. The site was characterised by well-planned rectilinear architecture divided by narrow streets (Prag 1989). Broad-houses composed of one or more interconnecting rooms with an adjoining courtyard were neatly organised in a grid pattern (Prag 1990). Possible pillar supports for roofing and dense sherd scatters were identified within at least two rooms during the 1989 excavations (Prag 1990). Prag (1974) linked this architectural tradition to other EB IV towns, including

The locally produced ceramic assemblage at Nahal Repha’im was dominated by storage vessels and serving vessels, frequently occurring as restorable items. Area 1100 contained in situ storage vessels and specialised refuse pits while abundant de facto refuse most notably exemplified by several storage jars lining the walls, was also discovered in Area 1200 and Area 800 (see Eisenberg 1990, Fig. 139). Pottery caches were frequently encountered on the interior of structures at Nahal Repha’im and were interpreted to represent 115

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES Aro’er, Ader and Har Yeruham (see Section 7.11a above), which all contained rectilinear multi-roomed architecture built of stone, or a combination of stone and mud brick.

Area H where several more vessels were abandoned in situ. During the 1990 excavations at Tell Iktanu, Prag (1991b) reported the further recovery of restorable vessels which had been smashed in situ, from the southeast room in Square 14 and the southern room in Square 15 of Area A. This assemblage was again heavily dominated by jars, jugs and teapots, which the excavator interpreted as a common household repertoire. The fact that the items were restorable and not destroyed by burning, together with the fact that no small vessels or objects were present, suggested that the site was temporarily abandoned with the anticipation of return (Prag 1991b: 56-7). The ceramic signature at Tell Iktanu, defined by the common occurrence of restorable vessels representing de facto refuse cached on abandoned floors, supports the excavator’s assertion that the departing inhabitants perhaps anticipated returning to the site when these vessels could be reused. The caching of pottery on floors suggests that the inhabitants occupied the site seasonally (Stevenson 1982).

Evidence for agricultural production at Iktanu includes the presence of mortars, Canaanean sickle blades and archaeobotanical remains in the form of barley, wheat, pea, lentil, bean, pistachio, grape, fig, olive and carob (Prag 2004). Tell Iktanu contained evidence for sheep, goat (dominant species) and small cattle herding. The consumption of gazelle increases towards the end of the occupation, which the excavator interprets to signify a greater emphasis on hunting (Prag 2004, 1974). Metals and pendants were identified at the site during the 1989 excavations, which supported the notion of trade and exchange with other contemporaneous groups (Prag 1990). Ceramic evidence from Tell Iktanu is characterised by an abundance of restorable vessels from its EB IV Phase 2. Most vessels were medium sized storage jars with a capacity of 20 to 60 litres, while large vessels with a capacity of between 61 and 98 litres were also occasionally encountered (Prag 2004). The next most frequently occurring class of vessel were cooking vessels, which varied greatly in size, with some vessels measuring over 50 cm in orifice diameter. Some contexts at Tell Iktanu also contained storage silos. Prag (2004: 447) reports that the combined capacity of storage vessels within individual rooms amounted to similar totals calculated for individual silos. This factor was interpreted to indicate a “defined regime of household storage in relation to silo capacity” (Prag 2004: 447), which suggests that individual households were expected to meet their own storage needs.

The evidence from Tell Iktanu indicated that the inhabitants relied on a mixed economy of agriculture, livestock management and hunting. The extensive storage facilities indicate an agricultural surplus economy, suggesting that the population was largely sedentary. Meanwhile, contingents of the population occupied with livestock management may have grazed their flocks in the nearby pastures and supplemented their feed with the stubble of harvested barley fields in April and May (Prag 2004). Tell Iktanu must be seen as a sedentary agricultural village, which may have been seasonally occupied towards the end of its history. 7.11e. The North Jordan Valley Occupation of the north Jordan Valley in the EB IV period is represented by the excavated sites of Tell Abu en-Ni’aj and Tell el-Hayyat (Palumbo 2001). The EB IV settlement at Tell el-Hayyat was disturbed by subsequent building activities during the MB II period (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984). However, the material culture from Tell Abu en-Ni’aj (Falconer et al. 2001, 1998) provided solid evidence from which to study the economy and occupation of these sites during the EB IV period.

Ceramic refuse patterns at Tell Iktanu led to several suggestions relating to the use and abandonment of the site (Prag 2004). The broad-houses in Area H and Square 13 of Area A contained abundant sherd scatters, particularly in the south-east room of the structure in Area A. The sherd scatter in Area A, Square 13 comprised 513 cooking pot sherds and 693 plain ware sherds, consisting mainly of storage vessels, with some jugs, bowls and spouted vessels such as teapots included. Prag (1990: 121) interpreted the ceramics to represent a ratio of 1:4 in favour of the plain ware because of the higher brokenness of cooking pot ware. This assumption, however, was not substantively quantified. A few sherds belonging to the aforementioned group of vessels were uncovered in the main northern room, which also contained a further few small vessels. The excavator identified the small southern room (Area A, Square 13) as a pantry, which had been abandoned with its contents in situ, while the spread of sherds to the northern room represented the result of cultural rather than natural processes. These remains represented the latest occupation of Tell Iktanu, reflecting abandonment of the area. Similar abandonment practices were replicated in

Tell Abu en-Ni’aj is located in the fertile northern reaches of the Jordan valley, where dry farming is possible during most seasons. The architecture is characterised by densely arranged mud brick multicellular houses, including storage installations, pits and tabun ovens. De facto ceramic refuse, principally in the form of storage jars was occasionally encountered at the site (Falconer et al. 2001, 1998). The ceramic assemblage from Tell Abu en-Ni’aj was dominated by serving vessels (45%), with smaller numbers of storage jars (32%) and cooking pots (23%) 116

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN over the occupational history of the site (Table 7.3). Cooking pots declined in number over time, while serving vessels simultaneously increased in number (Tables 7.4, 7.6), phenomena linked to possible changes in food consumption practices (Czarzasty 2001). Vessel size variability through time shows a marginal increase in the size of cooking vessels while the size of storage jars remains relatively unchanged (Table 7.5). Vessel Type Cooking Pots Storage Jars Serving Vessels

existence of sedentary, agrarian communities, which included pastoral economies, during the late third millennium BCE. 7. 11f. Summary of the EB IV Period Excavated sites dating to the EB IV period in the southern Levant attest to a dynamic and regionally differentiated society. Profound differences in material culture, economic strategy and occupation type characterise the various regions occupied during the EB IV period (Table 7.1). While groups of varying levels of mobility, subsisting on a mixed economy of limited dry farming and pastoralism, and particularly in trade and small crafts manufacture characterised the economies of the Negev sites, settlements in the northern Jordan Valley and Repha’im Valley were characterised by a sedentary agrarian lifestyle. Meanwhile, the central Jordan Valley and Dead Sea Basin sites reflected an intermediary position on the nomadic-sedentary continuum, as was indicated by their involvement in agriculture and pastoralism in relatively marginal settings. The urban and fortified Khirbet Iskander probably represented an EB IV community that is exceptional even to our revised paradigm of late third millennium society in the southern Levant. But, most importantly, the sites described above were all located within settlement systems linking them to other contemporaneous sites, permitting interaction and the mutual exchange of commodities and ideas. Within this network of exchange participated sedentary, semisedentary and fully mobile groups who opportunistically adapted to variable climatic, economic and social conditions.

Vessel Frequency (%) 23 32 45

Table 7.4. Vessel frequency at Tell Abu en-Ni’aj calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts (after C. Czarzasty 2001) Tell Abu en-Ni’aj provides a long diachronic record of animal and crop management, which was characterised by high levels of barley cultivation and the consumption of sheep/goat, pig and cattle. The latter two species increased proportionately throughout the occupational history of the site (Falconer et al. 2004; Fall et al. 2002, 1998). The increases in cattle in comparison to sheep/goat, the emerging importance of orchard crops such as grape (Fall et al. 2002, 1998) as well as evidence of pottery production and trade (Jones 1999) were interpreted to signify that Tell Abu en-Ni’aj played an active role in a thriving regional market economy (Falconer et al. 2004). The EB IV north Jordan Valley sites of Tell el-Hayyat and Tell Abu en-Ni’aj provide further evidence for the

Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All Phases

Holemouth Cooking Pot Orifice Diameter Mean (cm) 18 18 18 17 17 16 17 17

Short Neck Cooking Pot Orifice Diameter Mean (cm)

Jars Orifice Diameter Mean (cm)

17 17 17 17 16 16 15 16

14 14 14 14 14 15 14 14

Table 7.5. Vessel orifice diameter mean for Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels at Tell Abu en-Ni’aj (after C. Czarzasty 2001)

117

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES

Table 7.6. Vessel frequencies by phase at Tell Abu en-Ni’aj calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts (after C. Czarzasty 2001) 7.12. The Middle Bronze II Period

of the EB period. During the MB II period, necropolises were located throughout the Hauran in various forms: intramural and built tombs such as tumuli (Schroder 1997). This variability in tomb types and styles seems to contradict the generally accepted notion that cultures are conservative in their adoption of diverse burial practices (for example Binford 1971).

The Middle Bronze II period in the southern Levant commonly brings to mind large urban centres located in the northern and coastal areas of the region (Mazar 1990). While such associations reflect the most visible aspect of the period, the existence of small communities practicing a mixture of economic and occupational strategies needs more consideration (Falconer 1994a, 1994b). A small number of agrarian sites have now been excavated, providing a basis for interpreting the role of rural society within the larger MB II world. Small unfortified, nonurban communities dating to the MB II period are best exemplified by Tell Rukeis in the marginal Hauran region, Tell el-Hayyat, Kfar Rupin, Tell Kitan and HamadiyaNorth in the fertile north Jordan Valley, Nahal Repha’im and Manahat in the Repha’im Valley near Jerusalem, Giv’at Sharett in the Shephelah region and Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 in the Dead Sea Plain region (Fig. 7.1). The following discussion presents a brief survey of the excavated evidence from small-scale sites dating to the MB II period (Table 7.7), which may be added to the large corpus of small unfortified MB II sites that have been identified in surveys of the Coastal Plain (Broshi and Gophna 1986; Gophna and Beck 1981) and Hill Country (Finkelstein 1995, 1991; Finkelstein et al. 1997).

The architecture at Tell Rukeis, which covered an area of approximately 0.8 hectares (McLaren 2001), followed a familiar plan for fortified settlements in the MB II period (Kempinski 1992b), including rectilinear multi-roomed structures radiating from the fortification towards the interior. A continuous row of rooms was built along the interior and exterior wall of the fortifications (Betts et al. 1996), a design feature common to other fortified MB II sites such as Shiloh (Finkelstein 1988). Extensive storage facilities were uncovered at the site including specially built silos in Areas 1-3 as well as copious ceramic material linked to storage (Schroder 1999). Over half the ceramic fragments at the site came from undecorated storage vessels while fine ware and cooking vessels were rarely encountered (Table 7.8). Although painted wares occurred occasionally, incised combing decoration was more common. The majority of the ceramics dated to the MB IIC period and were excavated from the cellular rooms and the silos as secondary refuse (Betts et al. 1996). The ceramic assemblage from Tell Rukeis comprised a majority of restricted vessels (74%), while vessels with an unrestricted orifice constituted 25 % of the total. Storage jars comprised 80% of the total assemblage while cooking pots comprised only 4% and serving vessels 16%. These vessel frequencies were interpreted to suggest that long-term dry storage and the transport of liquids was of major importance at the site. In contrast there was little evidence for food processing and preparation with the application of heat. Vessel size distribution at Tell Rukeis reflects the functional diversity of storage vessels, which occurred in a range of sizes, and the simultaneously narrow functional role of cooking vessels, which occurred as generally globular pots with restricted orifices (Table 7.9).

7.12a. The Hauran The excavations of fortified Tell Rukeis aimed to explore settlement patterns in agriculturally marginal lands. The excavators argued that during the MB II period agricultural activity spilled over into marginal areas such as the Hauran (Betts et al. 1996). The Hauran region is distinguished by the high frequency of MB II sites along the Wadi el-’Ajib, many of which were fortified. The large number of sites was linked to commercial activity across the Syro-Palestinian territories, representing a high level of socio-political integration (Schroder 1997). Another point of interest was the pervasive fortification of even the smallest hamlets (Eames 2001). Diachronic changes to the settlement system in the region was characterised by the fortification of many MB II sites in direct contrast to the unwalled settlements 118

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

Table 7.7. Summary of characteristics for MB II sites

119

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES Judging by the archaeobotanical, architectural and ceramic data the economy at Tell Rukeis seems to have been based around the production of agricultural surpluses. Evidence for annual cultigens and perennial orchard crops such as barley and grape was abundant although olive wasn’t found on the site (Schroder 1997).

interpreting subsistence, community organization, cult and trade during the MB II period. 7.12bi. Tell el-Hayyat Tell el-Hayyat is located in the north Jordan Valley at 236 meters below sea level, on a terrace containing fertile alluvial soil, originally washed in by wadis to the east. The site is situated above the flood plain of the Jordan River, and receives 300 mm of annual rainfall. Winters are rainy and mild and summers are hot and humid, enabling dry farming to occur (Falconer 1995). Rich clays, pasturage and wood were available nearby (Fall et al. 1998).

Tell Rukeis was interpreted to represent a component of the Wadi al-’Ajib region settlement system, itself a thriving link in a trading network, principally concerned with surplus goods such as olive oil, wine and grains. Social outgrowths of this dynamic trade were characterised by a complex social hierarchy headed by a ruling elite with distributive powers. Interestingly, this social system was not seen to have consisted of a sedentary, urban elite, but instead was composed of tribal nomadic groups that were related to the sedentary agriculturalists (Schroder 1997: 243-4). The interpretation of this area as independent and selfsufficient again reinforces the generally varied and independent character of the southern Levant previously outlined by Falconer (1995; see also Chapter 2). Vessel Type Cooking Pots Storage Jars Serving Vessels

Ample data from faunal and archaeobotanical remains through five distinct occupational phases at the site provided a diachronic picture of subsistence and trade for a rural village over the entire sequence of the Middle Bronze Age. Five successive phases of occupation in MB II were built on a foundational phase of EB IV, which was typologically related to nearby Tell Abu en-Ni’aj (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1989). Key changes to economic strategy, characterized by an increased preference for perennial over seasonal crops, sheep over goat, and pig over cattle, were seen to have resulted from changes in the regional market rather than environmental shifts (Fall et al. 1998). These changing patterns reflected Tell el Hayyat’s desire for greater self-reliance, already confirmed by the maintenance and elaboration of a temple complex over four phases (Magness-Gardiner and Falconer 1994). Domesticated animals constituted 95 % of the faunal assemblage at Tell el-Hayyat. The relative abundance of sheep over goat in the later phases reflected the growing importance of secondary products (Falconer 1995). Likewise perennial crops such as grape, olive and fig increased through time as a result of their greater market value compared to seasonal cereals crops (Lines 1995). A pottery kiln discovered at the site was also linked to the production and trade of ceramics, particularly fine ware vessels (Falconer 1987a, 1987b). The inhabitants of Tell el-Hayyat showed an awareness of local markets and a social flexibility to affect changes in economic strategy in response to niches within those markets (Falconer 1995).

Vessel Frequency (%) 4 80 16

Table 7.8. Vessel frequency at Tell Rukeis calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts; numbers calculated from published data (after Schroder 1997) Vessel Type Cooking Pots Storage Jars

Orifice Diameter Mean (cm) 21 22

Table 7.9. Vessel orifice diameter mean for Cooking Vessels and Storage Vessels at Tell Rukeis; numbers calculated from published data (after Schroder 1997) The evidence suggested that while these sites participated in a thriving marketplace they were also self-reliant and strongly focused on a village-based economy.

On the basis of perennial fruit crops and the high percentage of pig, an animal not suited to pastoralism (Horwitz 1989a, 1989b; Levy 1992), the data are thought to reflect the material patterns of a sedentary population. The contention that the site was sedentary is also supported by the presence of the pottery kiln, which was associated with sustained manufacturing activity. The substantial amounts of sheep and goat in the faunal assemblage however, suggested that part of the population might have engaged in pastoral activities. This interpretation is based on Kohler-Rollefson’s (1992) model developed for the PPNB that foresees competition for land between agriculture and grazing, leading to part of the population spending extended periods of time away from the town.

7.12b. The North Jordan Valley Small communities in the north Jordan Valley profited from the benefits of their proximity to large urban centres such as Beth She’an and Pella, their access to the Jordan River and the fertility of their soils. These conditions assisted with the development and maintenance of a largely agrarian society, which herded animals and cultivated crops for both subsistence and surplus. These agricultural and livestock surpluses could be traded to the nearby urban centres (Fall et al. 2002, 1998). But despite the imposing presence of the nearby larger urban centres, the north Jordan Valley sites demonstrated a surprising independence not initially attributed to them in earlier writing on the MB II period (for example Albright 1949). The material culture of these sites provided evidence for 120

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Tell el-Hayyat covered an area of 0.5 hectares (Facloner and Magness-Gardiner 1983). Falconer (1987b) estimated that the village housed no more than 150 inhabitants on the basis of population densities (Fall et al. 1998). Domestic structures from phase 5 at Tell el-Hayyat were built over an earlier EB IV occupation (phase 6). However, the first clear evidence of domestic architecture at the site was encountered in phase 4. A temple appears to have served as the central focus of the village from phase 5 onwards. The domestic structures were rectilinear and composed of mud brick, with stone foundations appearing in phase 2. Shared walls were not reported, but houses seem to have been densely arranged around the temple, encroaching on one another, each with a separately walled and enclosed courtyard. Although this sort of plan was not unusual, shared walls were more common at other MB II sites (For example see Edelstein et al. 1998). Domestic structures did not exhibit any pronounced differences in size or elaboration. Roofed quarters were identified on the basis of postholes as well as a marked difference in the quality of construction between the walls of the houses and the walls of the courtyards. In addition, the courtyards covered a substantially larger area than the living quarters. Increasingly, from Phases 5 to 3, there was a pronounced segregation of space between the temple complex and domestic structures. This segregation was formalized by the erection of a wall between the two areas (Falconer 1995; Magness-Gardiner and Falconer 1994).

Jars at Tell el-Hayyat occurred most commonly as shortnecked, squat vessel types during the latter phases of the MB IIB-C, while in the MB IIA, an elongated, narrownecked vessel type was in favour. The increasing preference for squat, short-necked jars has been linked to the changing role of trade in the region through time (Falconer 1995) since narrow-necked or restricted vessels were presumably more suited to frequent movement and transportation (see also Schroder 1997). Jar orifice diameter mean sizes over Phases 3 and 4 showed a decrease in vessel orifice size through time (Table 7.12). The decrease in orifice size may indicate that either there was still a great emphasis on vessel movement and transportation in the later periods of occupation, or that the contents of the vessels with a larger orifice were different from the contents of the vessel type with a smaller orifice. The discard of ceramic and faunal refuse demonstrated a sustained practice of depositing the majority of household trash on the exterior of living quarters. Faunal remains at Tell el-Hayyat were discarded in the following contexts: domestic interior, domestic exterior, temple interior and temple exterior. Domestic interiors included all walled areas, comprising both roofed rectilinear rooms and enclosed courtyard areas attached to them. Domestic exteriors were represented by alleys and open areas. For the purposes of this study, only domestic structures were considered because of the absence of a temple at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1. However, it is important to note that the refuse patterns in interior and exterior contexts of the temple contained significant differences compared to domestic areas. Specifically, there was an absence of pig bones in the temple complex and a proportionately smaller percentage of cookpot material compared to domestic areas, especially in the early phases 5 and 4 (Magness-Gardiner and Falconer 1994). These patterns suggested that the temple complex occupied a specialised economic role in the community.

The ceramic assemblage at Tell el-Hayyat was dominated by storage vessels in phases 5 and 4 (Table 7.10). This dominance diminished through time, particularly in relation to serving vessels, in both temple and domestic contexts. Cooking vessels increased proportionately in domestic areas, and substantially in temple areas through time (Falconer 1995). However, the proportion of cooking vessels did not exceed either storage vessels or serving vessels over the course of the MB II at Tell elHayyat.

Faunal discard patterns were characterised by profound differences in the location, type and amount of faunal refuse among domestic structures. For instance in phase 4, 65 % of all pig bones occurred on the exterior of structures, and in phase 3 this figure increased to 83 %. Exterior contexts were similarly littered with sheep and goat bones at 82 % in phase 4 and 87 % in phase 3 (Falconer 1995). These results suggest that the majority of faunal refuse was discarded in exterior contexts. However, the majority of this exterior refuse came in the form of slaughter offal, specifically the head of the animal. Exterior contexts were dominated by the heads of slaughtered pigs, while the heads of slaughtered sheep and goat occurred more frequently on the interior of domestic structures.

The proportional increase in cooking vessels relative to other types coincided with the growing preference for the straight sided, hand built MB II Cf cookpot at Tell el-Hayyat (see Cole 1984 and Section 5.21bi). These vessels increased proportionately through time in relation to the upright rim (Cu) and hole mouth (Ch) cookpots, representing an anomalous sequence in the context of other MB II sites, which show a relative increase in Ch and Cu cookpots through time (Beck 2000; Cole 1984; Falconer 1995). Significantly the Cf cooking vessel was also characterized by a substantially larger diameter than the other cookpot types. The diameter size of the Cf cookpot increased through time, whilst the diameter size of the other types decreased through time (Table 7.11). The emergence of the Cf cooking vessel, which is linked with a larger orifice diameter, may reflect changes in diet and eating customs.

Analysis of ceramic discard at Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer 1995) was restricted to diagnostic sherds from jars and cookpots from phases 3 and 4, the most representative

121

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES

Phase Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 All Phases

Cooking Vessels (%) 26 27 21 25

Storage Vessels (%) 36 50 58 48

Serving Vessels (%) 38 23 21 27

Table 7.10. Assemblage composition of ceramic vessels from Tell el-Hayyat calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts for all areas (after Falconer 1995)

Phase

Cu diameter mean (cm) Ch diameter mean (cm)

Cf diameter mean (cm) All Cookpot diameter mean (cm)

Phase 3

15.29

19.33

28.54

26.88

Phase 4

15.96

19.50

26.38

23.98

Phase 5 All Phases

18.54 16.70

26.00 20.75

23.81 27.86

22.78 24.07

Table 7.11. Mean vessel diameter size for Cu, Ch and Cf cookpot at Tell el-Hayyat for all areas

Phase Phase 3 Phase 4 All Phases

JJ diameter mean (cm) 11.61 13.64 12.75

Jl diameter mean (cm) 16.22 18.87 18.01

All Jars diameter mean (cm) 12.79 15.63 14.51

Table 7.12. Mean vessel diameter size for JJ and Jl Jars at Tell el-Hayyat for all areas

Phase Phase 3 Phase 4 Phases 3 and 4 Phases 3 and 4 (%)

Alley 370 442 812 64

Interior 9 122 131 10

Enclosure 125 200 325 26

Table 7.13. Relative frequency of ceramic discard by sherds in three contexts at Tell el-Hayyat by phases (after Falconer 1995)

Vessel Type Cookpot Cf Cookpot Cu Cookpot Ch Jar Jug JJ Jar Large Jl Jar Small Js

Interior (%) 17 11 19 9 7 0

Alley (%) 50 58 52 65 71 100

Enclosure (%) 33 31 29 26 22 0

N= 343 86 21 477 234 3

Table 7.14. Relative frequency of ceramic discard by sherds in three contexts at Tell el-Hayyat by vessel class

122

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN phases for the early MB II period. Phase 5, the earliest phase of the MB II at the site, was excluded from analysis due to the absence of domestic architecture. The Tell elHayyat assemblage was characterised by a low incidence of de facto material and did not contain many restorable items. Exterior contexts, consisting of alleys and middens comprised 64 % of the total amount of excavated cookpots and jars. Interior contexts, consisting of rooms, buildings and enclosed courtyards, comprised 36 %. Significantly, of the 36 %, the majority (26 % of the total discard) was recovered from enclosed courtyard areas, emphasizing the low density of refuse on the interior of domestic structures (Table 7.13).

available evidence suggested that these sites compared closely to Tell el-Hayyat, reflecting sedentary, agrarian village-based economies. Tell Kitan, located 12km north of Beit She’an represens a further example of a rural village characterised by independent features including its own temple complex. During the MB IIA, Tell Kitan was an open village covering an area of less than 1 hectare. Domestic areas were poorly preserved, but evidence of rectilinear architecture with specialised refuse pits containing predominantly cooking vessels, jars and kraters was uncovered. During the MB IIB, the site was fortified and a mud-brick temple was erected. Residential areas were again poorly preserved, but the excavator reported the frequent occurrence of intramural infant jar burials in residential housing (Eisenberg 1993, 1976). The evidence from residential areas was generally not well reported. However, the available settlement description, including the central orientation of the temple with its surrounding residential areas was reminiscent of the settlement plan at Tell el-Hayyat.

The location of discard among the individual vessel classes demonstrated fairly consistent patterns (Table 7.14). Cooking vessels occurred most frequently in interior contexts, consisting of room interiors and enclosed courtyards, while jars were recovered most frequently from alleys and middens. At Tell-el-Hayyat cooking installations occurred in all contexts as formally built tabuns. Some open hearths were also observed (Falconer, pers. comm. 2002). However, most commonly, cooking installations were found in walled enclosures and alleys as tabun ovens (Falconer 1995). The sidewalls of cookpots were not substantially marked by carbon residue, which may be explained by the use of tabun ovens, which would have diminished the amount of direct contact between fire and vessels.

MB IIA-B Kfar Rupin, located only a few kilometres to the west of Tell el-Hayyat was characterised by densely built rectilinear multi-cellular mud-brick architecture. Evidence of a small temple, similar in design to those uncovered at Tell Kitan and Tell el-Hayyat also came to light during the brief excavations. The ceramic repertoire included bowls, kraters, flat-bottomed (cf) cooking pots and storage jars. The village was interpreted by the excavator to represent a sedentary agricultural community (Gophna 1979).

The evidence from Tell el-Hayyat indicated that the inhabitants maintained relatively clean conditions on the interiors of domestic structures. Enclosed courtyards, which were the scene of food preparation activities contained greater quantities of domestic refuse. Alleys and open areas comprised the bulk of refuse not tolerated within the house, such as animal cascasses and large broken vessels such as storage jars.

Hamadiya-North exemplifies a poor MB IIB settlement defined by a few shabbily constructed stone houses conforming to a rectilinear broad room plan. There was an absence of painted wares and luxury goods (Maier 2000). This settlement was characterised by some de facto jar material, courtyard architecture with tabun ovens and flat-bottomed (cf) cooking pots. The remains of a tournette-type potter’s wheel provided evidence for pottery production. While admitting that the site had suffered extensively from modern disturbance, the excavator interpreted the limited evidence from the site as representing the remains of a poor, sedentary agrarian community.

Tell el-Hayyat demonstrates the simultaneous integration of a village in a larger regional market as well as a villagebased independence, designed to cater for the subsistence needs of the community. Greater emphasis on regional demands through time were characterised by increases in sheep, olives and perhaps larger, squatter jars, while products designed for local consumption were characterised by high frequencies of pig and larger handbuilt cooking pots. Judging by the discrete segregation of house and walled courtyards complexes, the inhabitants of Tell el-Hayyat must have resided in restricted family units where cooking, eating and sleeping took place in privacy. In contrast, exterior contexts were regarded as areas where the inhabitants could dispose of their waste materials. Communal needs were met by the centrally located temple.

7.12c. The Jerusalem Region; The Repha’im Valley Occupation of the Repha’im Valley during the MB IIB period represented the regeneration of agrarian communities in the region, which had previously flourished during the preceding EB IV period. According to Edelstein and Milevski (1994) the Canaanites farmed the Repha’im Valley beds during the MB II period in the same manner as they did during the EB IV because of the skeletal soil cover in the remaining areas. Apart from the comprehensively excavated villages of Manahat and Nahal Repha’im, building remains dating to the MB II period were also discovered at Er-Ras and at Ein Yael.

7.12bii. Tell Kitan, Kfar Rupin and Hamadiya-North Information relating to the economies and occupations of Tell Kitan, Kfar Rupin and Hamadiya-North is far more limited than from Tell el-Hayyat. Nevertheless, the 123

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES Curiously, the excavators observed that the building plans associated with the MB II rural settlements in the area did not differ from the private houses at urban sites such as Hazor, Tel Michal, Gezer or Beth Shemesh. In contrast, the house plans at other rural sites follow an alternate, broad room and courtyard plan (Wright 1985). The Repha’im Valley settlements must be seen to have represented the rural component of the larger, culturally related urban world of the MB II period.

Cultic activity at the site was supported by the discovery of a temple, and the interment of the dead in nearby caves (Eisenberg 1991). Special finds included scarabs, bronze weapons and ceramic vessels linked to votive offerings (Eisenberg 1993). Potter’s wheels were found in houses in Area 300, 400 and 1600, indicating substantial pottery manufacture for local consumption and possibly for trade. An important example of this pottery tradition included a rare large storage jar decorated in relief with six snakes, which was discovered in the entrance room of Area 1300 (Eisenberg 1990: 154).

7.12ci. Manahat The MB IIB village of Manahat covered an area of 4 hectares, overlying the poorly preserved remains of the EB IV village. The MB IIB settlement was enclosed by a continuous, circular belt of houses, each consisting of a number of interconnecting rooms that looked out onto a courtyard. Some of the courtyards were apparently roofed (Edelstein et al. 1998). The settlement predominantly consisted of sprawling, multi-room rectilinear domestic architecture built from stone and mud brick. Walls and occasionally floors were plastered, while formal installations such as benches and tabun ovens frequently occurred in courtyards. Internal hearths were also reported. The paucity of in situ restorable pottery suggested to the excavators that inhabitants abandoned the settlement taking their possessions with them (Edelstein and Greenhut 1988-89; Edelstein and Milevski 1990).

Like Manahat, the economy of Nahal Repha’im was primarily based on animal husbandry and the cultivation of annual and perennial crops. During the MB II period cattle increased relative to other species and agriculture increased relative to animal husbandry. The high number of storage vessels at the site was interpreted to signify the trade of consumable goods such as olive oil and wine (Edelstein et al. 1998). Nahal Repha’im represents a further example of a rural community characterised by economic and religious selfreliance. Its proximity to other contemporaneous sites underscores the dynamic nature of rural life in the region during the MB II period. 7.12d. The Shephelah Giv’at Sharett was located in the Shephelah region of central modern Israel, an area defined by the foothills lying between the Judean Hills to the east and the Coastal Plain to the west (Fig. 7.1). The site was characterised by a temple complex and seemingly planned, rectilinear stone architecture. The multi-room long houses were separated by alleys leading to the exterior of the settlement, which was otherwise un-walled. The site contained substantial de facto ceramic material defined by smashed storage vessels left in situ on room floors. These rooms were interpreted as community storage facilities, which also comprised built stone silos. Domestic contexts contained formal tabun ovens for cooking. Giv’at Sharett represents a further example of an agrarian community characterised by independent economic and religious features (Bahat 1993, 1975).

The economy of Manahat was principally characterised by the cultivation of perennial and annual crops as well as the husbandry of sheep/goat, which comprised 80% of the total faunal assemblage. Agricultural produce was defined by the presence of grains (barley in particular), legumes and orchard crops such as fig, grape and olive (Edelstein et al. 1998). Ceramic and ground stone evidence attested to local pottery and ground stone manufacture, while sickle blades for agriculture were imported. The recovery of several metal items as well as scarabs and seals testified to the integrated nature of this community during the MB II period (Edelstein et al. 1998). 7.12cii. Nahal Repha’im The MB IIB village of Nahal Repha’im was built over the preceding 5 hectare EB IV settlement. The plan of the MB IIB village was characterised by scattered complexes of domestic structures. These were rectilinear in plan, composed of stone and varied in size and design from three-room single storey structures to large six-room, two-storey structures with a courtyard. Tabun ovens occurred both in courtyards and on the interior of rooms (Eisenberg 1993). Several pottery caches defined by large storage jars lining interior walls were discovered at Nahal Rephaim, particularly in Area 2000 and Area 700. Building 2720 contained enormous deposits of in situ storage and cooking pottery (Eisenberg 1990: 152). These pottery caches were interpreted to represent the abandonment practices at the site, resulting in the removal of only small items (Eisenberg 1993).

7.12e. MB II Urban Communities North of the Dead Sea Basin: Jericho and Tell Nimrin Although this study has so far concentrated on a discussion of small non-urban sites dating to the MB II period, a number of factors impel a brief consideration of the fortified urban communities of Jericho and Tell Nimrin. Firstly, the ceramic assemblage from Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 is typologically linked to these two sites (see Chapter 5). Secondly, our current models of agropastoral economies are defined by either dimorphic or multimorphic organization, encompassing a settlement hierarchy which governed the exchange of commodities and ideas. The multimorphic organization model presupposes that larger sites in the vicinity of Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 would have formed a focus for economic and 124

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN cultural interaction. Jericho and Tell Nimrin represent, geographically, the closest contemporaneous sites to Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, which necessitates a closer consideration of their possible relationship to the site. The following discussion presents a brief outline of the major characteristics of these sites.

Other important finds included scarabs, seals and metal items, which linked the site with other contemporaneous settlements of the MB II period. Tell Nimrin represented a culturally and economically well-integrated community of the MB II period. 7.12f. Summary of the MB II Period The MB II period in the southern Levant was characterised by a vital rural element, which complemented and co-existed with the larger urban centres. The relationship between the urban and rural communities was built around a thriving marketplace where agricultural and manufactured commodities could be exchanged. This relationship was best exemplified by the role of Tell el-Hayyat in a marketplace dominated by nearby urban Pella (Falconer 1987a, 1987b). The manufacture of pottery for subsistence and trade at Tell el-Hayyat coupled with an increasing emphasis on orchard crops and pig raising attested to a simultaneous participation in village-based needs and the needs of a local/regional market (Fall et al. 2002, 1998).

7.12ei. Jericho The site of Jericho, located in the southern Jordan Valley north of the Dead Sea, contained evidence of an EB IV occupation which was largely eroded and destroyed by subsequent rebuilding during the MB II period. The EB IV occupation was characterised by poorly preserved mud brick rectilinear architecture. The exact plan of the settlement has remained unclear due to the poor preservation (Kenyon 1981). The occupation seems to have relied on at least limited agriculture as well as animal husbandry and trade (Hopf 1969; Prag 1974). The greatest body of material evidence for the EB IV occupation of Jericho proceeded from the nearby tombs, which were also reused during the MB II period (Palumbo 1987).

The emerging pattern from the excavated materials of rural settlements reflected an independent social structure, which allowed the smaller non-urban settlements to govern their own affairs (Table 7.7). This self-governance included the ability of villages to manage their own finances and to perform worship in their own temples. Independent temples were excavated at a number of villages including Tell el-Hayyat, Tell Kitan, Kfar Rupin, Nahal Repha’im and Giv’at Sharett. Meanwhile, villages like Tell el-Hayyat, Manahat and Nahal Repha’im demonstrated a varied economy, which was increasingly geared towards local exchange and market needs.

The MB II settlement at Jericho seemed to have been first occupied in the MB IIA period, which was not fortified until the MB IIB (c.f. Marchetti 2003). During the MB IIB-C occupation Jericho became an urbanised, fortified centre characterised by shop-lined streets, storage facilities and public buildings. The site comprised mudbrick rectilinear courtyard architecture, which occasionally showed evidence for second storeys, conforming to a town-house plan common to urban MB II settlements (Wright 1985). Tabun ovens and silos were found both on the interior of houses as well as in courtyards (Kenyon 1981). The economy was dominated by the cultivation of annual and perennial crops (Hopf 1969), the raising of livestock dominated by sheep/goat and cattle (Clutton-Brock 1971), and a participation in the regional trade of the MB II world. MB II Jericho represented an urban settlement integrated into the wider world of the southern Levant.

The full spectrum of site types and occupation strategies in the MB II period also includes the poor agricultural settlement of Hamadiya-North, characterised by a restricted and basic ceramic repertoire and the absence of any public architecture; the marginal and fortified agricultural community of Tell Rukeis; and the isolated village of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1. Tell Rukeis demonstrates a specialised response to its position along a major trading route, while the inhabitants of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 were able to subsist in a marginal environment by employing the full range of available subsistence strategies, in the apparent absence of available markets. The larger urban communities of Jericho and Tell Nimrin offered longdistance market possibilities, but there is no evidence that these were even occasionally exploited.

7.12eii. Tell Nimrin Tell Nimrin is located in the southern Jordan Valley to the northeast of the Dead Sea and Jericho. Limited exposure of the MB II settlement revealed an unfortified one-hectare site dating to the MB IIA period, which was subsequently fortified during the MB IIB period. The domestic areas demonstrated limited evidence for mud brick rectilinear architecture with small courtyards and tabun ovens. The inhabitants of the site subsisted on a mixed economy of annual and perennial crops, livestock herding dominated by sheep/goat and cattle, limited hunting, and trade (Flanagan and McCreery 1990; Flanagan et al. 1994, 1992). The ceramic corpus from Tell Nimrin is typologically linked to the Jericho ceramic tradition in the MB IIB-C periods. The assemblage demonstrates a full repertoire of types connected to domestic needs; including bowls, jars, jugs, lamps and cooking vessels (Dornemann 1990).

The excavated evidence from the MB II sites shows subtle differences relating to variations in their respective economies and occupational strategies. While sites such as Tell el-Hayyat, Nahal Repha’im and Manahat, which successfully participated in markets, demonstrate a full repertoire of ceramic vessel types, animal species and crop types; marginal sites such as Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, Tell Rukeis and Hamadiya-North possess more restricted 125

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES assemblages reflecting specialised responses to their cultural and natural environments. But while the vast majority of the aforementioned MB II villages contain several common traits linked to the activities of daily life, Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 demonstrates a number of profound differences, which differentiates it from its contemporary relatives. Key differences include the freestanding, clustered architecture dispersed over a large area; the lack of any tradeable items such as Canaanean blades or the wheel; the lack of public buildings, particularly the common ‘Migdol’-style temple; the exclusively interior orientation of daily tasks; and the severely restricted ceramic assemblage containing archaising motifs, mostly connected to the preparation and serving of food. These differences may have been connected to factors such as occupational strategy and cultural identity, which will both be discussed in the following section.

resembled those of the other sites described above. Their chief architectural type is the multi-cellular house, which includes internal divisions and rooms. Unroofed areas are generally interpreted as courtyards, which form the central focus of the household. The settlement plan described above has also been interpreted as a natural defensive system to restrict access to the settlement (for example Cohen 1992a). An additional plan common to the EB IV period consists of the arrangement of houses in structure clusters. Sites such as Be’er Resisim in the central Negev have a number of such clusters, with each one containing several common courtyards. The scattered house-clusters at Bab edh-Dhra’ may also be conceivably added to this architectural arrangement, and Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 certainly fits within this tradition, albeit during the MB II period. The uniqueness of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 is best exemplified by the absence of shared walls between any of its houses. Apart from Tell el-Hayyat, no other EB IV or MB II site possesses this freestanding design type. However, even Tell el-Hayyat differs from Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 in its densely clustered domestic architecture, deliberately focused on the temple area. The Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 housing is contrastingly scattered and unfocused on ritual or special buildings.

7.13. Discussion The presentation of evidence pertaining to the economic and occupational strategies of several rural sites in the EB IV and MB II periods suggests that several different settlement types existed. A number of key material traits characterise the differences between the various settlement types. These generally consist of architectural design and plan, faunal assemblage, archaeobotanical assemblage and ceramic assemblage. The following discussion attempts to compare and contrast the relative frequencies and spatial distribution of material evidence from the aforementioned sites, stressing the particular relevance of certain traits to Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1.

Finally, it is important to note that the architectural traditions common to rural sites of the EB IV and MB II periods are differentiated from the urban residential style, which commonly comprises a two-storey town-house overlooking a courtyard. These houses were developed out of a need to increase domestic space within a densely built urban environment, and characterise the domestic quarters of practically all large, urban fortified sites in the southern Levant, including Jericho, Megiddo and Hazor (Ben-Dov 1992; Daviau 1993; Wright 1985). Possible exceptions to this rural-urban architectural division are found among the houses from Manahat and Nahal Repha’im, which conform more closely to the urban model (Edelstein et al. 1998).

7.13a. Architecture Densely clustered rectilinear houses composed of either mud-brick or stone mark the architectural style associated with most rural settlements during the EB IV-MB II period. House foundations were normally built of stone, while the superstructure was constructed of stone or mudbrick. The curvilinear architecture of the EB IV Negev sites represents an exception to the rectilinear plan present in all other parts of the southern Levant during the late third millennium and early second millennium BCE.

7.13b. Faunal Remains Although domesticated sheep/goat habitually constitute the majority of animal species found in both urban and rural south Levantine archaeological faunal assemblages, information on the relative frequencies of the occurring species and changes to these frequencies can provide a useful measure for interpreting economic strategies over time. For instance, a greater number of sheep compared to goats may indicate a more settled community with a greater emphasis on secondary products (Levy 1992) while high frequencies of pig may indicate not only a moister climate but a sedentary community with an emphasis on localised needs (Falconer 1995; Horwitz 1989a, 1989b).

The architectural arrangement of houses in settlements dating to this period generally allows for the division of individual houses by alleys or streets. This spatial arrangement is seen in the EB IV period at the sites of Har Yeruham and Nahal Nissana in the central Negev, Nahal Repha’im in the Repha’im Valley, and Tell Umm Hammad and Tell Iktanu in the Jordan Valley. During the MB II period a similar arrangement of houses is witnessed at Giv’at Sharett in the Shephelah, Nahal Repha’im and Manahat in the Repha’im Valley and Tell Rukeis in the Hauran. While the limited exposure of architecture at Tell el-Hayyat, Kfar Rupin and Tell Kitan could not definitively establish this type of plan, the available evidence, showing the arrangement of residential quarters around temple compounds at these three sites, suggests that their architectural plans

While an emphasis on goat herding and limited hunting in the communities of the central Negev and Dead Sea Basin betray the effects of the marginal environmental conditions throughout the EB IV and MB II periods, sites 126

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN in the Repha’im Valley and Jordan Valley demonstrate major diachronic changes in animal exploitation patterns. In the Repha’im Valley, Horwitz (1989a, 1989b) reports the relative increase of cattle and equid to other species from EB IV to MB II, which she interprets as the increasing requirement for traction during the latter period. The relative increase in average ages of animals through time is interpreted as an increased emphasis on secondary products during the MB II. In the north Jordan Valley, there is a noticeable shift from an emphasis on sheep/goat herding and cattle for traction at EB IV Tell Abu en-Ni’aj, to secondary products from sheep, as well as meat for local consumption from pigs at MB II Tell elHayyat (Falconer et al. 2004; Fall et al. 2002, 1998). Meanwhile the faunal remains from Tell Iktanu may reflect the community’s intermediary position between sedentary agricultural and mobile pastoral strategies, characterised by the dominance of sheep/goat, small numbers of cattle and evidence for hunting, the latter increasing in the final phase of occupation (Prag 1974).

rely heavily on the production of agricultural goods (Cohen 1999; Rosen 2003; Saidel 2002b). In contrast, the economies of sites in the Repha’im Valley (Edelstein et al. 1998) and northern Jordan Valley (Fall et al. 2002, 1998) show substantial evidence for the cultivation of both annual cultigens such as barley, wheat and legumes as well as perennial orchard crops such as grape, fig and olive. The heavy emphasis on barley and grape cultivation in the EB IV period yielded to greater concentration on wheat and olive cultivation in the MB II period. These changes are linked to the emerging role of regional markets during the MB II period and the attempts of these communities to exploit such market opportunities (Falconer et al. 2004). While Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 and Bab edh-Dhra’ on the Dead Sea Plain demonstrate a much greater reliance on agriculture than the sites in the central Negev, this limited agrarian base reflects neither the scale of agricultural activity displayed by the Jordan Valley and Repha’im Valley sites, nor the opportunities afforded by the larger markets, particularly during the MB II period. Comparatively greater market opportunities during the EB IV period on the east side of the Dead Sea are attested by the cultivation of olives at Bab edh-Dhra’ (Richardson and McCreery 1978), a practice which disappears by the MB II period at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 (Meegan 2002). However, even at the isolated, marginal community of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, there is substantial evidence for the cultivation of barley, legumes, grapes and figs (Edwards et al. 2002), representing crops not cultivated at the central Negev sites (Cohen and Dever 1980; Rosen 2003; Saidel 2002b). In the southern Jordan Valley, evidence for agricultural production comprises a full suite of crops at Tell Iktanu (Prag 2004), while at Tell Umm Hammad, circumstantial evidence for farming is limited to mortars and Cannaanean sickle blades (Helms 1986). Interestingly, the Cannaanean sickle blade, which has been connected to agricultural practices, and was apparently traded from manufacturing centres in the north (Rosen 1997), is completely lacking at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 and at the central Negev sites, although its circulation is still attested in the MB II period. The simultaneous absence of formal sickle blades and the overwhelming archaeobotanical evidence for cultivation at Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 must lead to questions over inferences that correlate the lack of sickle blades with a lack of agriculture (for example Rosen 2003; Saidel 2002b). Finally, the archaeobotanical evidence from Tell Rukeis, which is characterised by high frequencies of barley and grape with no evidence of olives on site (Schroder 1997), compares favourably with the Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 data.

The faunal evidence demonstrates a lack of uniformity among contemporaneous sites. Environmental constraints clearly determine the nature of animal exploitation in marginal settings such as the Dead Sea Basin and the central Negev while sites with better access to water, pasture and markets display greater flexibility in adapting to changing circumstances. Consequently, the diachronic patterns witnessed among the north Jordan Valley and Repha’im Valley sites demonstrate adaptive strategies involving a larger suite of animals compared to the static faunal record demonstrated by EB IV Bab edh-Dhra’ and MB II Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1. The unique character of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 is underscored by the relative absence of hunted species and the limited presence of domesticated pig. While such characteristics are understandable among sedentary agrarian villages such as Nahal Repha’im, and Tell elHayyat, they are absent from semi-sedentary communities such as Tell Iktanu, Bab edh-Dhra’ and Be’er Resisim, all of which contain evidence of hunting but lack domesticated pig. 7.13c. Archaeobotanical Remains Archaeobotanical evidence, principally in the form of grains and orchard crops provides evidence of diet and the exchange of produce (for example Lines 1995; Meegan 2002). Farming practices have sometimes also been interpreted through the presence or absence of sickle blades, which are connected to harvesting, when crop data has been lacking (for example Rosen 2003; Saidel 2002b).

The archaeobotanical evidence from EB IV and MB II sites reinforces the strong environmental component of agricultural potentials. For example, the central Negev was not successfully farmed until the Byzantine period when innovations in irrigation systems permitted water management (Rosen n. d.). Nevertheless, market factors played a role in the extent to which communities were

The archaeobotanical evidence for the EB IV-MB II transition once again reflects the environmental limitations on farming in regions of the southern Levant. The lack of archaeobotanical evidence coupled with a paucity of sickle blades from the central Negev sites has led to the conclusion that the EB IV population did not 127

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES able to maximise their agricultural resources. This factor is best illustrated by the ability of Tell Rukeis to effectively produce agricultural surplus, most probably for trade in the Hauran during the MB II period (Schroder 1997), as well as the greater variety of crops utilised by the inhabitants of Bab edh-Dhra’ during the EB IV (Richardson and McCreery 1978) compared to the geographically and socially isolated Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 during the MB II (Meegan 2002). The ability of the inhabitants of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 to successfully farm the generally inhospitable Dead Sea Plain profited from their access to perennial spring water. Even so, the agricultural activities undertaken at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 represented the subsistence requirements of the inhabitants rather than surplus for trade. From this perspective the farming community of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 is best compared to the communities of Tell Iktanu and Tell Umm Hammad rather than the fully sedentary agrarian communities of the Repha’im and north Jordan Valleys.

restricted ceramic repertoires consisting mainly of smallmedium cooking pots and storage jars with smaller numbers of bowls and cups. Larger sites such as Ein Ziq contained a greater range of vessel types and sizes compared to smaller sites like Nekhes Rafha 396. However, this pattern was not consistent, since some large sites like Be’er Resisim also contained a relatively restricted repertoire (Cohen 1999). Several scholars have specifically remarked on the relative abundance of holemouth cooking pots at the central Negev sites in comparison to other vessel types (for example Saidel 2002a; Sebanne et al. 1993). This pattern is reflected in the high proportion of cooking vessels at the Camel Site (Table 7.15). A full repertoire of types was observed at Bab edh-Dhra’ reflecting a basic domestic assemblage with the addition of lamps excavated from the sanctuary area (Table 7.15). Storage jars were relatively abundant, especially in the ‘industrial’ area at the eastern end of the site, but the assemblage was clearly dominated by serving vessels (Rast and Schaub 2003). The excavators of Bab edhDhra’ note a general size reduction from the EB III to the EB IV phases, which correlates well with the smallmedium vessels of the EB IV Negev sites and anticipates the smaller sized jars at the nearby, isolated MB II sites of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1.

7.13d. Ceramics, Metals and Small Finds The recovery of pottery vessels, metal objects and other items provides crucial information on the behavioural aspects of daily life as well as evidence for trade and cultural contacts. 7.13di. Ceramics Ceramic assemblages across the various EB IV and MB II sites showed considerable variability (Table 7.15). While the agricultural villages in the Jordan Valley (Falconer 1995) and Repha’im Valley (Edelstein et al. 1998; Eisenberg 1991, 1990) comprised diverse ceramic repertoires consisting of large and small storage vessels (Tables 7.16-7), bowls, cups, cooking vessels and platters in both the EB IV and MB II periods, the other sites demonstrated a more restricted repertoire of ceramic types. The central Negev sites generally contained

Vessel Type

Camel Site

Cooking Pots (%) Storage Jars (%) Serving Vessels (%)

31 44 25

At Tell Rukeis there was a heavy emphasis on storage, with only a small percentage of vessels functionally connected to the preparation of food (Schroder 1997). This pattern was extended to the rest of the region with nearby sites also reflecting practices associated with the storage and transport of commodities (Eames 2001). The heavy emphasis on storage correlates with a high range of storage vessel types and sizes, resulting in a larger diameter mean (see Table 7.17).

Tell Abu enNi’aj 23 32 45

Bab edhDhra’ 10 24 66

ZAD 1 54 40 6

Tell elHayyat 25 48 27

Tell Rukeis 4 80 16

Table 7.15. Vessel type frequency at EB IV and MB II sites calculated by diagnostic rim and base form counts Site Be’er Resisim Bab edh-Dhra’ Tell Abu en-Ni’aj Tell Rukeis Tell el-Hayyat Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1

Orifice Diameter Mean (cm) 18 17 17 21 24 34

Table 7.16. Vessel orifice diameter means for Cooking Vessels at EB IV and MB II sites

128

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Site Bab edh-Dhra’ Tell Abu en-Ni’aj Tell Rukeis Tell el-Hayyat Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1

Orifice (cm) 12 14 22 15 15

Diameter

these vessels (Edwards et al. 2002), a feature also witnessed at the central Negev sites (Cohen 1999).

Mean

The assemblage composition and survival rates of vessels across the various sites once again underline the unique archaeological signature of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1. No other site demonstrates such a comparatively low emphasis on serving vessels and a correspondingly high emphasis on cooking vessels. Only EB IV assemblages from the central Negev sites compare closely to that of Zahrat adhDhra’ 1. Meanwhile, the relatively high survival rates of vessels at sites such as EB IV and MB II Nahal Repha’im, Giv’at Sharett, Tell Iktanu, and Tell Abu enNi’aj, are generally connected to storage vessels rather than cooking vessels. The differences evident in the Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 ceramic assemblage seem to be connected with a specific and perhaps idiosyncratic use and abandonment of the site (see Chapter 9).

Table 7.17. Vessel orifice diameter means for Storage Vessels at EB IV and MB II sites The ceramic assemblage from Tell Iktanu represents a common repertoire of types connected to domestic functions (Daviau 1993), defined by abundant storage jars and vessels used for the preparation of foods (Prag 2004, 1991b). Finally, the ceramic repertoire at MB II Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 was extremely restricted. The assemblage was dominated by cooking vessels, with smaller numbers of storage vessels and an extremely small number of serving vessels (Table 7.15). The jars at ZAD 1 North were notable for their relatively small to medium size and the absence of handles (Berelov 2001; Edwards et al. 2001). Otherwise, the cooking vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, which occurred exclusively as the Cf type, were generally larger than the cooking vessels at the other sites (Table 7.16). All the other MB II sites except Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 contained examples of the wheel-made Ch cookpot.

7.13dii. Metals and Small Finds The discovery of copper and bronze tools, personal adornments, seals, scarabs, beads and shell attests to the participation of certain sites within EB IV/MB II exchange networks. Principally, this involves copper from Feinan in the Wadi Arabah and shells from the Red Sea area (Palumbo 2001). Practically all the agricultural villages in the Jordan Valley (Falconer 1995) and Repha’im Valley (Edelstein et al. 1998) contained evidence of metal tools and personal adornments including occasional seals and scarabs, and these features were also generally present at the central Negev sites (Cohen 1999), Tell Rukeis in the Hauran (Betts et al. 1996) and Bab edh-Dhra’ in the Dead Sea Basin (Rast and Schaub 2003). Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 is the only site, which lacks any metal tools, personal adornments, seals or scarabs, and beads or shell (Edwards et al. 2001). The restricted nature of the material culture at Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 can be seen as the result of a low level of integration within the wider MB II world in contrast to the other known sites, regardless of their economic strategies or their chronological, cultural and geographic contexts.

The assemblages vary greatly, reflecting use and abandonment practices at the various sites. While MB II Manahat contained virtually no restorable items, Nahal Repha’im and Giv’at Sharett contained abundant de facto refuse in both EB IV and MB II contexts. Tell el-Hayyat, Tell Abu en-Ni’aj and Tell Iktanu all showed differential survival rates of pottery vessels relative to room and area. While occasional whole vessels were recovered from floors at Tell Abu en-Ni’aj (Falconer et al. 2001, 1998), Tell Iktanu demonstrated the deliberate caching of small assemblages in small rooms (Prag 1991b, 1990). The ceramics at Tell el-Hayyat were predominantly excavated as secondary refuse.

7.2. South Levantine Society during the Late Third Millennium – Early Second Millennium Transition

At the central Negev sites pottery survival rates varied greatly. While Be’er Resisim contained virtually no restorable vessels, Ein Ziq contained abundant de facto pottery material (Cohen 1999). The two sites in the Dead Sea Basin also demonstrated variability in the survival rate of pottery vessels. Bab edh-Dhra’ showed a low survival rate among its pottery assemblage (Rast and Scaub 2003) while Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 demonstrated a comparatively high rate of survival, particularly among cooking vessels. The abandonment of cooking vessels on floors at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 reflects specific abandonment processes possibly connected to seasonal occupations. Meanwhile, jars seem to have been highly valued judging by the great number of mend-holes on

The material evidence from several rural EB IV and MB II sites across the southern Levant, has provided a strong indication of both the continuity of economic strategies as well as the transformation of economic strategies through time. Small rural villages operated independently and self-sufficiently of larger urban centres, particularly during the MB II period, while remaining highly integrated components of a larger economic system. The type of economy adopted by the inhabitants of these sites reflects market opportunities and environmental constraints, as well as the ability of communities to successfully exploit such opportunities.

129

SETTLEMENT, SUBSISTENCE AND OCCUPATION STRATEGIES The individual and organizational capabilities of communities may explain discrepancies between prosperous MB II agrarian communities such as Tell elHayyat and poorer villages like Hamadiya-North, which lacked the associated material culture and level of social organization reflected in a temple complex. In a similar vein we may compare the success of sedentary rural EB IV villages such as Nahal Repha’im to the semi-sedentary subsistence economies of Jericho and Tell Iktanu. And again, one may contrast the disappearance of the EB IV villages in the central Negev by the end of the third millennium BCE with the continuity of village life from EB IV Tell Abu en-Ni’aj to MB II Tell el-Hayyat in the Jordan Valley, as well as EB IV to MB II Nahal Repha’im in the Repha’im Valley. While the disappearance of the Negev sites perhaps reflects the inability to sustain a semisedentary village economy in the face of emerging urbanisation and a changing environment (Finkelstein 1991b, 1989; Saidel 2002a), the continuities in the Jordan and Repha’im Valleys reflect the pervasive success of some rural communities to adapt to changes in political and market systems.

reflects organizational changes to communities through time in response to shifting economic, political and environmental conditions. The continued use of isolated EB IV cemetery at Khirbet Khanazir during the sedentary or semi-sedentary occupation of nearby Bab edh-Dhra’ (MacDonald 1995) represents a foretaste of the MB II scenario when the inhabitants of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 attempted to subsist from limited agricultural possibilities in view of an increasingly nomadic presence attested by the isolated MB II cemetery at Dayr ‘Ayn ‘Abata (Politis 1995). Significantly, the continued exploitation of the Dead Sea Plain during the increasingly arid EB IV and MB II periods, underscores the persistent role of this area as a buffer against hyper-aridity. Accordingly Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 represent the only known MB II sedentary farming community in south Jordan. The settlement fluctuation in the central Negev and the Dead Sea Basin provide the basis for an amendment to current models of EB IV society. The EB IV period does not so much represent a pastoral interlude between two urban periods, as it does a sedentarization of highly mobile groups in marginal areas, particularly in the central Negev. In contrast, during the MB II period, previously sedentary populations in marginal areas such as the Negev and the Dead Sea Basin undergo a renomadization. These changes reflect the profound flexibility of south Levantine peoples in marginal environments. In this context the example of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, aided by the buffered environment of the Dead Sea Plain, may be associated with a resilience against the prevailing economic and occupational strategies of the region. For when one compares the material culture of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 to other sites a number of significant features are immediately apparent.

While the north Jordan Valley and the Repha’im Valley represent an economic and social resilience despite changing circumstances, other regions were subject to fluctuations, which were characterised by the nomadization and sedentarization of the local populations. The central Negev and Hauran sites perhaps best illustrate the changing nature of economic and political circumstances and the responses of local populations to these changes. If Finkelstein’s thesis is correct, and the EB IV populations in the Negev represented a sedentarizing population, a factor that increased this population’s archaeological visibility, then this is best accounted for by increases in opportunities perhaps created by the disappearance of controlling polities such as EBA Arad and a less hostile environment (see Finkelstein 1991b). Meanwhile, and perhaps paradoxically, the emergence of fortified settlements such as Tell Rukeis in the MB II probably reflects the growing opportunities created by trade between the Levant and Syria and Mesopotamia (Eames 2001; Betts et al. 1996; Schroder 1997).

The material culture of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 is characterised by a severely restricted repertoire of utilitarian vessels, the absence of trade items and public architecture. Although the archaeobotanical evidence suggests that the population may have been sedentary, the settlement does not resemble any of the agricultural villages to the north, such as the well-planned semi-sedentary communities of Tell Iktanu and Tell Umm Hammad, or the semi-sedentary villages of the central Negev. In contrast to Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, the central Negev sites reflect a highly integrated settlement pattern characterised by a relatively homogeneous material culture. The central Negev sites were actively involved in trade and manufacture in addition to their supposedly pastoral economy (Cohen 1999, 1992; Rosen 2003; Saidel 2002a). And while the restricted ceramic repertoire of the central Negev Small Settlements associated with seasonal occupations seems reminiscent of the ceramic signature at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, the size and scale of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, which effectively dwarfs even Central Settlements such as Ein Ziq and Be’er Resisim, provides a further anomaly: the 12 hectares covered by Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 represents one of the biggest settlements of the EB IV/MB II period. In this respect, only the enormously scattered settlement of Tell Umm Hammad and the larger MB II urban towns can compare with the size of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1. However,

The lack of sustainable environmental conditions so characteristic of the fertile valleys to the north, coupled with diminishing political and economic activity in the region, may point to the reasons for the possible nomadization of the Dead Sea Basin population during the MB II period. Given the great diversity of EBA sites around the Dead Sea Basin, diachronic changes to settlement patterns and economic systems on the Dead Sea Plain cannot simply be explained by changes to the environment alone (c.f. Donahue 1985; Frumkin et al. 1994). The integrated EBA settlements along the eastern side of the Dead Sea are largely abandoned at the conclusion of EB III. The population declines and becomes less visible during the EB IV period, and finally ends with the abandonment of the isolated community of Zahrat adhDhra’ 1 in the MB II period. This settlement trajectory 130

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN unlike the large MB II urban towns, Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 and Tell Umm Hammad represent a hitherto poorly documented settlement type in the protohistory of the southern Levant, defined by its low density: the so-called ‘dispersed settlement’ type (c.f. Fletcher 1986).

early second millennium is marked by the enduring economic strategies of small agricultural communities and mobile pastoral groups. These economic activities provide a backdrop to the disappearance of large, fortified urban centres at the conclusion of EB III and their re-emergence in MB II.

Current models of regional settlement in the Bronze Age of the southern Levant have not hitherto considered isolated settlements lacking contact with the rest of the MB II world (see Khazanov and Bar-Yosef 1992), because none have been previously identified (until Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1). The sherd scatters reported from the Wadi Arabah (Macdonald 1992) and the Kerak Plateau (Brown 1991; Miller 1979) dating to the MB II period coupled with the cemetery at Dayr ‘Ayn ‘Abata (Politis 1995) and the possible MB II cairns on the Dead Sea Plain (Edwards et al. 2004) testify to the possibility of mobile groups in south Jordan that were contemporaneous and even related to Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1. Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 can be interpreted to represent an additional stage in the settlement hierarchy of the southern Levant during the MB II, which occupies an enigmatic intermediary position on the nomadicsedentary continuum. If Manahat, Nahal Repha’im, Giv’at Sharett, Tell Abu en-Ni’aj, Tell el-Hayyat, Kfar Rupin, Tell Kitan and Hamadiya-North all represent fully sedentary communities dating to the EB IV and MB II period, and the small sites in the central Negev represent seasonal encampments, then Tell Rukeis, Tell Iktanu, Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 and the Central and Large settlements of Ein Ziq and Be’er Resisim may represent intermediary, semi-sedentary examples, hitherto poorly known in the archaeological record, and poorly defined in terms of recent ethnography.

Economic and social developments associated with this transition are characterised by the relatively permanent nomadization of the Dead Sea Basin by the end of the MB II period, as well as the temporary and partial sedentarization of the central Negev region during the EB IV period. These developments seem to be connected with the changing economic, political and environmental opportunities available to the inhabitants of these regions. Meanwhile, settlements located in fertile regions like the north Jordan Valley and Repha’im Valley demonstrate an economic and social resilience that permits them to maintain long-established practices throughout the EB IV and MB II periods. The activities of both marginal and centrally located groups derive from an independent political framework, which is integrated by economic necessities into regional markets. The material culture traits associated with these developments are linked to the differential signatures of either more sedentary or more mobile groups, as well as the fluctuating archaeological visibility of highly mobile groups. Specific features are exemplified by the full spectrum of architectural, faunal, archaeobotanical, ceramic and metals assemblages occurring at sedentary agrarian communities, and the simultaneously restricted repertoire of attributes occurring at seasonal sites (i.e. Juli 1978). Sites like Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1, Tell Iktanu and the Central Settlements in the central Negev, which occupy an intermediary position along the sedentarynomadic continuum, are particularly ill-defined in terms of artefactual characterizations.

An understanding of the occupation strategies of such villages, practicing varying degrees of agriculture, animal husbandry and trade, is highly problematic. Foremost is the difficulty associated with the identification of the archaeological signature of mobile groups in contrast to sedentary groups. Often it is unclear whether a site contained a mobile population occupying a site seasonally, or a combination of mobile and sedentary populations occupying the site both seasonally and annually.

The definition, characterization and interpretation of material features from the intermediary sites form the focus of future research and constitute one of the major goals of the next two chapters. The survey of the general scene leads us back, armed with a repertoire of new analytical techniques and interpretive frameworks, to reconsider our focal site of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1. Chapter 8 will attempt to present the ceramic evidence pertaining to site structure at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1. After having considered the conventional type of ceramic evidence available, including vessel frequencies, typologies and size variabilities, the comprehensive sampling and analysis of the ceramic assemblage from Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 1 now permits us to delve much further into the nature and character of the enigmatic MB II settlement. An exploration of assemblage composition, size and structure will enable us to explore correlations between certain types of assemblages and particular types of sites.

The consequence of the difficulty of site interpretation necessitates the need to devise interpretive strategies based on site structure and behaviour. Artefact discard strategies and assemblage structure correlated with ethnographic evidence may help to identify certain features that can be linked to mobile, semi-sedentary or sedentary practices. Such an approach may further assist the interpretation of sites comprising the middle ground of multimorphic society of the southern Levant during the Bronze Age. 7.3. Conclusion The transition between the late third millennium and the 131

THE CERAMIC EVIDENCE FOR INTERPRETING DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 8. 11. Assemblage Composition and Structure 8. 11a. Sherds Calculation of the relative frequency of vessels by sherd counts shows that the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 ceramic assemblage is characterised by the dominance of cooking vessel sherds. Sherd frequency patterns across the site (Table 8.1) indicate that cooking vessels dominate the other classes of vessels at 62.4%, compared to 37.24% for storage vessels, and 0.36% for serving vessels (0.22% for bowls, and 0.14% for juglets). Cooking vessel material exceeds the other vessel classes in all contexts including the interiors and exteriors of Four-wall One-room, Threewall One-room, and Two-room structures. Tables 8.1-4 express the relative proportion of vessel classes by sherds as they occur in the three structure types.

Discussions in the previous two chapters concluded that Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 represents a unique example of a rare settlement type in the southern Levant. The existence of this settlement type, composed of a dispersed, low-density architectural plan and a restricted artefactual assemblage, attesting to a low level of economic and social integration, also underscores the economic and social diversity characteristic of south Levantine Bronze Age communities. This diversity is reflected in the distinct material repertoires of various EB IV and MB II sites, which also represent a number of diverse site occupation and abandonment strategies. Site occupation and abandonment dynamics, which reflect sedentary, semi-sedentary or mobile occupational strategies, varied between sites because their inhabitants were governed by specific economic and social constraints. While it was shown that the archaeological signature of both urban and rural sedentary communities could successfully be discerned, there was greater difficulty in interpreting and characterising the archaeological signatures of mobile and semi-sedentary communities. As a result, and because of the unique nature of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, the correlation of site occupation and abandonment dynamics with the specific composition and structure of the ceramic assemblage from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, constitutes the principal investigation in Chapter 8. Here, ceramic evidence for interpreting artefact discard behaviour at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 is presented. The data have been generated and organized in light of the explicit aims outlined in Chapter 4, which include the quantification, structural analysis and spatial distribution of the ceramic assemblage, going beyond treatments hitherto the norm in the southern Levant for the MB II.

The largest proportion of cooking vessel sherds occurs in the Four-wall One-room structures at 74% (Table 8.1). The Three-wall One-room structures contain a comparable proportion with 72% (Table 8.1). The Tworoom structures contain a proportionately greater amount of jar material (41%) than the other structure types, as well as evidence of greater frequencies of other vessel classes such as bowls and juglets (Table 8.1). No juglet sherds were positively identified in any of the Four-wall One-room structures. One bowl sherd (L012.25.7/LBl1) was excavated in a Four-wall One-room structure (Unit L, Structure 44), and another bowl sherd (H006.22.7/HBl1) was excavated in a Three-wall Oneroom structure (Unit H, Structure 39). Individually, the structures reveal distinct patterns (Tables 8.2-4). Of the Four-wall One-room structures, Structure 44 is heavily dominated by cooking vessel material, at 75%. Structure 43 contains a lower frequency of cooking vessel material, at 44% (Table 8.2). However, the small sample size (N = 25) casts doubt on the reliability of the frequencies in this structure. In addition, Structure 43 was disturbed by robbing activity, and is consequently not ideal for reflecting refuse patterns. The poor preservation and condition in Structure 43 means that Structure 44 provides the sole reliable sample for the Four-wall One-room structure type.

8.1. Ceramic Assemblage Composition, Structure and Spatial Distribution The relative frequency of vessel classes is presented in three major forms by context and at a site level (see Section 4.31): sherd count, Estimated Vessel Equivalent (EVE) and Estimated number of Vessels Represented (EVREP). Each quantification method generates information relating to slightly different behavioural questions. While sherd counts provide basic measures of artefact densities and vessel frequencies, EVE estimates the surface area of whole vessels, which can generate data on the survival rates (i.e. completeness) and breakage patterns (i.e. brokenness) of different vessel classes in context (see Section 8.2). The EVREP measure provides data on the size of the ceramic assemblage by calculating the actual number of vessels surviving in the archaeological record.

The Three-wall One-room structures differ markedly from one another (Table 8.3). Structure 38 produced comparatively few sherds (N=57), whilst Structure 40 contained a large assemblage of sherds (N=484). The assemblage in Structure 39 comprised 283 sherds. All Three-wall One-room structures were dominated by cooking vessel material, particularly Structures 38 and 39 (84% for both structures). However, Structure 40 contained a proportionately higher proportion of storage vessel sherds (36%) to cooking vessel sherds (64%) 133

DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 Context Four-wall One-Room Structures Three-wall One-Room, Structures Two-Room Structures Site

Cookpot (%) 74.00

Jars (%) 25.78

Bowls (%) 0.22

Juglets (%) 0.00

N= 462

72.00

27.65

0.35

0.00

826

58.84 62.40

40.73 37.24

0.24 0.22

0.19 0.14

3715 5003

Table 8.1. Vessel frequency calculated by sherds in context at ZAD 1 Structure 43 44

Unit Q L

Cookpot (%) 44.00 74.77

Jars (%) 56.00 25.00

Bowls (%) 0.00 0.23

Juglets (%) 0.00 0.00

N= 25 437

Table 8.2. Vessel frequency calculated by sherds in Four-wall One-Room Structures at ZAD 1 Structure 38 39 40

Unit G H I

Cookpot (%) 84.00 84.00 64.00

Jars (%) 16.00 15.65 36.00

Bowls (%) 0.00 0.35 0.00

Juglets (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00

N= 57 283 484

Table 8.3. Vessel frequency calculated by sherds in Three-wall One-Room Structures at ZAD 1 Structure 36 37 41 42

Unit A D,E,F,M,N,V J K,P,R

Cookpot (%) 60.00 61.47 75.00 37.84

Jars (%) 40.00 38.00 25.00 62.00

Bowls (%) 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00

Juglets (%) 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.16

N= 218 2693 243 609

Table 8.4. Vessel frequency calculated by sherds in Two-Room Structures at ZAD 1 compared to Structures 38 and 39. The proportion of cooking vessel sherds to storage vessel sherds in Structure 40 fell very close to the site mean of 37.24% for storage vessel sherds and 62.40% for cooking vessel sherds (Table 8.1).

structures vary significantly: the assemblage in Structure 36 is composed of 60% cooking vessel sherds and 40% storage vessel sherds, while the assemblage in Structure 41 contains 75% cooking vessel sherds and 25% storage vessel sherds.

Two-room structures contain a greater number of sherds (N=3715) and a greater diversity of vessel classes than the One-room structures (Table 8.4). Two-room structures contain a proportionately greater quantity of storage vessel sherds (40.73%) to cooking vessel sherds (58.84%) than the One-room structure type. Likewise, serving vessel sherds (bowls 0.24%, juglets 0.19%) occur more frequently in the Two-room structures (0.43%) than in the One-room structures (0.36%).

General patterns for sherd distribution reflect a direct relationship between structure type, sample size and vessel frequency variability. Two-room structures contain a greater sample size because a greater volume of soil was excavated in these larger structures (Table 3.5). A greater volume of excavated soil has yielded a large sample and high diversity of vessel classes, leading to wider variability in vessel frequencies. Nevertheless, even Structure 37, containing the largest sample of sherds and the greatest diversity of vessel classes, reflects general site trends, defined by abundant cooking vessel material, followed by moderate amounts of storage vessel material, and extremely small numbers of serving vessel material.

Separately, the Two-room structures also demonstrate distinct characteristics. Structure 37 contains the greatest number of sherds (N = 2693), which constitutes 54% of the total assemblage. Structure 42 contains the second highest quantity of sherds (N = 609) and the highest frequency of storage vessel material (62%) of any structure. Structures 36 and 41 contain assemblages of 218 sherds and 243 sherds respectively. However, the relative frequencies for vessel classes in these two

8. 11b. Estimated Vessel Equivalent (EVE) EVE is a measure of the mean weight and/or surface area of a vessel class, which has been calculated on the basis of a whole vessel’s dimensions. This measure enables the 134

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN formal expression of both the proportion of an individual vessel surviving in an archaeological assemblage, as well as a more accurate estimation of assemblage composition than those provided by sherd counts or minimum number of vessels by rim sherds. The proportion of a whole vessel surviving in the archaeological record is calculated by dividing the aggregate surface area of sherds belonging to an individual vessel by the mean EVE for that vessel class. Meanwhile, assemblage composition is calculated by dividing the aggregate surface area of sherds for each vessel class by the corresponding mean EVE of each vessel class in a given context and then comparing the results between vessel classes (see Section 4. 31bi).

Both storage vessel and cooking vessel types show significant variability in size based on surface area (Table 8.5). An example of a small storage vessel contains a surface area of 3213.85 cm2, whilst an example of a large storage vessel has been calculated at 5342.00 cm2. Cooking vessels show an even greater range of sizes. An example of a small cooking vessel was calculated at 1275 cm2, whilst an example of a large vessel was calculated at 5993.84 cm2. Bowls and juglets did not provide an adequate sample to show size variability or range. These figures permit a recalculation of assemblage size and composition on the basis of SA-EVE at both site and individual structure level. First, the aggregate surface area of sherds is calculated for each class to establish a raw surface area number to be converted to a vessel count. Tables 8.7-8 provide data on the aggregate surface area of sherds for each class of vessel. The aggregates are then divided by the SA-EVE for each vessel class, which determines the vessel count, or the minimum number of vessels (MNV) at the site (Table 8.9). Lastly, an estimate of the relative frequency of vessels by class is expressed as a percentage.

The EVE at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 has been calculated for four vessel classes (cooking vessels, storage vessels, bowls and juglets) on the basis of surface area (cm2) using the Autocad software package (see Section 4.31bi, and Fig. 4.2). The EVE by surface area for the four vessel classes represents the most frequently occurring size (i.e. modal size) of vessel in each class. The representative size category for each vessel class was preliminarily established on the basis of orifice diameters. Subsequently, orifice diameters were correlated with vessel surface areas for 8 restorable vessels. Five cooking vessels and three storage vessels were utilised to establish the correlation. This approach was chosen because the relationship between vessel orifice rim diameter and surface area proved to be linear for 3 cooking vessels and 3 storage vessels (see Section 6.11d and Fig. 6.2 above). Given the small number of restorable vessels (N=11) on the one hand and the large number of rim diameter readings (N=119) on the other, a linear relationship between orifice diameter size and surface area added confidence to the selection of EVEs for the four vessel classes. Once the modal size categories were calculated for vessel orifice rim diameter in the four vessel classes, the corresponding surface area for each orifice size could be utilised as the EVE for that vessel class. Table 8.5 illustrates the relationship between vessel surface area and rim diameter size for 6 vessels.

Vessel Surface Area Storage Jar Example 1 3213.85 cm2

Rim Diameter 10 cm

Storage Jar Example 2 3991.72 cm

12 cm

2

16 cm

Cookpot Example 1

1275.00 cm2

24 cm

Cookpot Example 2

2754.20 cm2

34 cm

Cookpot Example 3

2

60 cm

Storage Jar Example 3 5342.00 cm

5993.84 cm

Table 8.5. Surface area and rim diameters for Storage and Cooking Vessels at ZAD 1 A comparison of sherd count and SA-EVE methods shows that the relative frequency of vessels by class experiences slight adjustments (Table 8.10). For instance, cooking vessels diminish in proportion from 62 % by sherd count to 58 % (19 vessels) by SA-EVE, whilst storage vessels remain fairly constant, diminishing from 37.24 % by sherd count to 37.18 % (13 vessels) by SA-EVE. Bowls and juglets increase in proportion from comprising less than 1 % of the total assemblage by sherd count to 6 % (1 bowl and 2 juglets respectively) by SA-EVE.

While the relative paucity of juglets and bowls (including diagnostic rims) at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 meant that EVEs for these vessels had to be established on the basis of restorable vessels only, mean sizes for the orifice diameters of cooking vessels and storage vessels (see Section 6.11d, Figs 6. 3-4) provided a reliable sample for calculating the most frequently occurring sizes for these two classes of vessel. Table 8.6 shows the most frequently occurring sizes of vessels in the four vessel classes by surface area (cm2), representing the EVE or SA-EVE (Surface Area EVE) for each vessel class. The calculations for the four classes of vessel (i.e. cookpots, storage jars, bowls and juglets), show that storage vessels with a surface area of 3991.72 cm2 are the largest of the four. Cooking vessels are the next biggest, with an SAEVE of 2754.20 cm2, followed by bowls (565.42cm2) and juglets (336.60cm2).

Vessel Cookpot Storage Jar Bowl Juglet

SA-EVE (cm2) 2754.20 3991.72 565.42 336.60

Table 8.6. Surface area EVE for four classes of vessels at ZAD 1

135

DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 It is important to note that these calculations represent a more precise method of estimating assemblage composition than sherd counts across the entire site, but do not reflect the maximum number of vessels at the site. The reason for this is that the EVE method does not distinguish sherds as individual vessels, but combines them by class to arrive at an estimate of the minimum number of vessels represented by an aggregate of the total number of sherds available in the archaeological inventory. Differences in calculating the total number of vessels at a site also become apparent when one compares the gross sherd aggregates calculated across the entire site with aggregates based on individual structures. When the EVE method is applied to individual structures and contexts, the sum of vessels increases at the site level because vessel numbers are carried to the nearest round figure for every context and structure. For instance, 0.6 vessels become 1 vessel in Vessel Type Cookpot Storage Jar Bowl Juglet All Vessels

Structure 40 and 0.2 vessels become 1 vessel in Structure 41, the sum of which is 2 vessels. In contrast, calculations made at the site level combine 0.6 vessels from Structure 40 and 0.2 vessels from Structure 41 to comprise 0.8 vessels of the total aggregate at the site. The number of vessels at the site increases because initial calculations at a site level combine all sherds from all structures without considering spatial boundaries. But notwithstanding the differences between the site, structure and context levels of calculation, the EVE measure for vessel classes still grossly underestimates the total number of vessels represented (EVREP). The EVE method does not consider sherds to be representatives of individual vessels. Instead sherds are treated as components of a vessel class, which ignores individual vessels and their breakage dynamics. In other words, EVE calculates vessel frequency and assemblage composition, but not assemblage size.

Medium Sherds (40 cm2) 594 654 6 2 1256

Small Sherds (10 cm2) 2114 1207 5 4 3330

Large Sherds (90 cm2) 57 94 1 0 152

Very Large Sherds (155 cm2) 6 11 0 1 18

Total Sherds 2771 1966 12 7 4756

Table 8.7. Sherd size frequency by vessel type Vessel Cookpot Storage Jar Bowl Juglet All Vessels

Small Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 21140 12070 50 40 33300

Medium Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 23760 26160 240 80 50240

Large Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 5130 8460 90 0 13680

Very Large Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 930 1705 0 320 2955

Total Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 50960 48395 380 440 100175

Table 8.8. Aggregate surface area of sherds by vessel type Vessel Cookpot Storage Jar Bowl Juglet

Total Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 50960 48395 380 440

SA-EVE (cm2) 2754.20 3991.72 565.42 336.60

Number of Vessels 18.50 12.12 0.67 1.31

Vessel Frequency (%) 56.75 37.18 2.06 4.02

Table 8.9. Assemblage composition at ZAD 1, calculated by SA-EVE from aggregate surface area of sherds for four classes of vessel. Vessel Cookpot Storage Jar Bowl Juglet

Vessel Frequency by Sherd Counts (%) 62.40 37.24 0.22 0.14

Vessel Frequency by SA-EVE (%) 56.75 37.18 2.06 4.02

Table 8.10. Assemblage composition at ZAD 1 calculated by sherd counts and SA-EVE

136

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN SA-EVE calculations made at the context level reveal different patterns in assemblage composition to those calculated across the entire site. Tables 8.11-18 present the sherd size frequencies for four vessel classes, which forms the basis for calculations of the aggregate surface area of sherds for cookpots, storage jars, bowls and juglets for each excavation unit. The aggregate surface area is divided by the SA-EVE for each vessel class to estimate the number of vessels in each excavation unit. Table 8.19 summarizes this information to provide the total number of vessels for four classes at the site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 calculated over individual units of excavation. The unitlevel calculations have increased the total number of vessels from the SA-EVE calculations at the site level, and have significantly altered the proportions of the respective vessel classes. For instance the number of cooking vessels has increased from 19 to 31 vessels, but the proportion of this class relative to the other classes has diminished from 57% to 47%. The number of jars doubled from 13 to 26, and increased from 37% to 39%. The number of bowls experienced the sharpest rise from 1 to 6 vessels, and from 2% to 9%. The number of juglets also increased from 2 to 3, and from 4% to 5 %. Calculations using SA-EVE by excavation unit have diminished the proportion of cooking vessels in the assemblage from 62% (as calculated by raw sherd counts) to 47%.

Unit A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q T V All Units

Small Sherds (10 cm2) 63 28 5 97 52 68 30 138 212 112 111 224 582 263 9 23 6 23 68 2114

Medium Sherds (40 cm2) 18 2 1 31 12 63 11 27 18 45 28 43 177 96 1 0 2 3 16 594

Further calculations based on structures and contexts rather than excavation units alter the number and proportions between vessel classes only marginally. Tables 8.20-27 present the sherd size frequencies for four vessel classes (cookpots, storage jars, bowls and juglets), which form the basis for calculations of the aggregate surface area of sherds for each excavation context or structure. Exterior contexts are combined with the nearest room unless they represent a distinct, isolated exterior context, such as Unit O. Tables 8.28-29 summarize this information by providing the total number of vessels for the four vessel classes, as well as a recalculated vessel frequency figure derived from discrete contexts. Table 8.28 shows that cooking vessels and storage vessels diminish in number compared to calculations derived from excavation units. Cooking vessels diminish from 31 to 28 vessels (Table 8.19), but remain relatively constant at 47 % of the total assemblage. Storage vessels drop from 26 to 24 vessels but increase slightly from 39% to 40% of the total assemblage. The number of bowls drops slightly from 9% (6 vessels) to 8% (5 vessels) of the total assemblage. Juglets remain constant at 5 % (3 vessels) of the total assemblage.

Large Sherds (90 cm2) 0 0 0 1 0 13 1 2 6 5 4 5 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 57

Very Large Sherds (155 cm2) 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6

Table 8.11. Cooking Vessel sherd size frequency by excavation unit

137

Total Sherds 82 30 6 129 64 145 42 167 236 162 145 272 774 366 10 23 8 26 84 2771

DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 Small Sherd Surface Area (cm2) A 630 B 280 C 50 D 970 E 520 F 680 G 300 H 1380 I 2120 J 1120 K 1110 L 2240 M 5820 N 2630 O 90 P 230 Q 60 T 230 V 680 All Units 21140 Unit

Large Sherd Medium Sherd Surface Area (cm2) Surface Area (cm2) 720 0 80 0 40 0 1240 90 480 0 2520 1170 440 90 1080 180 720 540 1800 450 1120 360 1720 450 7080 1350 3840 450 40 0 0 0 80 0 120 0 640 0 23760 5130

Very Large Sherd Total Sherd SA-EVE Surface Area Surface Area (cm2) 2 (cm ) (cm2) 155 1505 2754.20 0 360 2754.20 0 90 2754.20 0 2300 2754.20 0 1000 2754.20 155 4525 2754.20 0 830 2754.20 0 2640 2754.20 0 3380 2754.20 0 3370 2754.20 310 2900 2754.20 0 4410 2754.20 0 14250 2754.20 310 7230 2754.20 0 130 2754.20 0 230 2754.20 0 140 2754.20 0 350 2754.20 0 1320 2754.20 930 50960 2754.20

Vessels 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 31

Table 8.12. Aggregate surface area of Cooking Vessel sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by excavation unit Unit A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R T V All Units

Small Sherds (10 cm2) 41 14 0 55 19 270 15 21 116 35 239 23 201 44 64 7 7 2 13 21 1207

Medium Sherds (40 cm2) 27 4 1 10 12 223 8 16 55 18 69 17 108 42 21 6 6 0 5 6 654

Large Sherds (90 cm2) 3 0 0 1 0 38 1 2 6 6 19 1 8 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 94

Very Large Sherds (155 cm2) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

Table 8.13. Storage Jar sherd size frequency by excavation unit

138

Total Sherds 71 18 1 66 31 532 24 39 179 61 333 41 317 94 85 13 14 2 18 27 1966

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Small Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 410 140 0 550 190 2700 150 210 1160 350 2390 230 2010 440 640 70 70 20 130 210 12070

Unit A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R T V All Units

Medium Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 1080 160 40 400 480 8920 320 640 2200 720 2760 680 4320 1680 840 240 240 0 200 240 26160

Large Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 270 0 0 90 0 3420 90 180 540 540 1710 90 720 720 0 0 90 0 0 0 8460

Very Large Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 0 0 0 0 0 155 0 0 310 310 930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1705

Total Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 1760 300 40 1040 670 15195 560 1030 4210 1920 7790 1000 7050 2840 1480 310 400 20 330 450 48395

SA-EVE (cm2)

Vessels

3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72

1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26

Table 8.14. Aggregate surface area of Storage Jar sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by excavation unit Unit E F H L M N All Units

Small Sherds (10 cm2) 3 1 0 1 2 1 8

Medium Sherds (40 cm2) 4 1 1 0 0 0 6

Large Sherds (90 cm2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Very Large Sherds (155 cm2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Sherds 7 2 1 1 2 1 14

Table 8.15. Bowl sherd size frequency by excavation unit Unit E F H L M N All Units

Small Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 30 10 0 10 20 10 80

Medium Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 160 40 40 0 0 0 240

Large Sherd Very Large Sherd Total Sherd Surface Area Surface Area Surface Area (cm2) (cm2) (cm2) 0 0 190 0 0 50 0 0 40 0 0 10 0 0 20 0 0 10 0 0 320

SA-EVE (cm2)

Vessels

565.42 565.42 565.42 565.42 565.42 565.42 565.42

1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Table 8.16. Aggregate surface area of Bowl sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by excavation unit

139

DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 Unit

Small Sherds (10 cm2) E 1 F 2 K 1 All Units 4

Medium Sherds (40 cm2) 0 2 0 2

Large Sherds (90 cm2) 0 0 0 0

Very Large Sherds (155 cm2) 2 0 0 2

Total Sherds 3 4 1 8

Table 8.17. Juglet sherd size frequency by excavation unit Unit E F K All Units

Small Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 10 20 10 40

Medium Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 0 80 0 80

Large Sherd Very Large Sherd Surface Area Surface Area (cm2) (cm2) 0 310 0 0 0 0 0 310

Total Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 320 100 10 430

SA-EVE Vessels (cm2) 336.60 336.60 336.60 336.60

1 1 1 3

Table 8.18. Aggregate surface area of Juglet sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by excavation unit The conversion of SA-EVE into vessel numbers at an excavation unit and context level results in significant changes to assemblage composition compared to vessel frequency data derived from diagnostic rim sherds, sherd counts and gross SA-EVE over the entire site. Table 8.29 presents the vessel frequencies for Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 by the five methods: diagnostic rim sherds, sherd counts, gross SA-EVE over the entire site, SAEVE over excavation units and SA-EVE over contexts. Assemblage composition calculated from SA-EVE at a context level represents the most reliable method for retrieving vessel frequency data. This method obviates the discrepancies connected to the differential survival rates and fragmentation rates of different vessels. The greatest changes to assemblage composition resulting from the application of the SA-EVE method at a an excavation unit and context level is the relative decrease in the frequency of cooking vessels and increase in serving vessels at the site compared to the non-SA-EVE methods. The proportional decrease of cooking vessels to other classes between the quantification methods is linked to the higher fragmentation rate of cooking vessels, which is supported by the great number of small sherds attributed to this vessel type compared to the other vessel types (see Table 8.20)

(i.e. vessel surface area) to constitute one whole vessel by SA-EVE in any class. This suggests that the surviving proportions of vessels at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 are actually low, and that strong differences between the survival rates of pottery types may exist in this assemblage. The majority of contexts show a very even distribution of cooking and storage vessels, at roughly 50% for each class respectively. Structures with multiple contexts, like Structure 37, demonstrate greater complexity, reflecting greater vessel variability and functional distinctiveness between contexts. Meanwhile some contexts clearly show a greater level of fragmentation compared to other contexts. For example, Structure 40 contains a proportionately greater number of small sherds to medium sherds compared to the Eastern Room of Structure 37 and the Western room of Structure 42 (Tables 8.20 and 8.22). Vessel Type Number of Vessels Vessel (%) Cookpot 31 Storage Jar 26 Bowl 6 Juglet 3 All Types 66

Analysis of assemblage composition across individual contexts provides information about the survival rates and fragmentation rates of different vessel types across discrete contexts. Table 8.30 indicates that most contexts barely contain sufficient quantities of sherds

Frequency 46.97 39.39 9.09 4.55 100.00

Table 8.19. Total number of vessels and vessel frequencies calculated across excavation units

140

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Context Structure 36 Unit C Structure 37 Corral Structure 37 West Room Structure 37 East Room Upper Structure 37 East Room Lower Structure 38 Structure 39 Structure 40 Structure 41 West Room Structure 41 East Room Structure 42 West Room Structure 42 East Room Structure 43 Structure 44 Unit O Unit T All Contexts

Small Sherds (10 cm2) 91 5 165 845

Medium Sherds (40 cm2) 40 1 47 273

Large Sherds (90 cm2) 0 0 1 20

Very Large Sherds (155 cm2) 155 0 0 2

Total Sherds

43

23

2

0

68

25

40

11

1

77

30 138 212 37

11 27 18 9

1 2 6 3

0 0 0 0

42 167 236 49

75

36

2

1

114

29

13

4

2

48

82

15

0

0

97

29 224 9 23 2114

2 43 1 3 594

0 5 0 0 57

0 0 0 0 6

31 272 10 26 2771

286 5 213 1140

Table 8.20. Cooking Vessel sherd size frequency by context Context Structure 36 Unit C Structure 37 Corral Structure 37 West Room Structure 37 East Room Upper Structure 37 East Room Lower Structure 38 Structure 39 Structure 40 Structure 41 West Room Structure 41 East Room Structure 42 West Room Structure 42

SA-EVE (cm2)

Vessels

2754.20 2754.20 2754.20

1 1 2

21480

2754.20

8

0

1530

2754.20

1

990

155

2995

2754.20

2

440 1080 720 360

90 180 540 270

0 0 0 0

830 2640 3380 1000

2754.20 2754.20 2754.20 2754.20

1 1 2 1

750

1440

180

155

2525

2754.20

1

290

520

360

310

1480

2754.20

1

820

600

0

0

1420

2754.20

1

Small Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 910 50 1650

Medium Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 800 40 1880

Large Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 0 0 90

8450

10920

1800

310

430

920

180

250

1600

300 1380 2120 370

141

Very Large Total Sherd Sherd Surface Surface Area Area (cm2) (cm2) 155 1865 0 90 0 3620

DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 East Room Structure 43 Structure 44 Unit O Unit T All Contexts

290 2240 90 230 21140

80 1720 40 120 23760

0 450 0 0 5130

0 0 0 0 930

370 4410 130 350 50960

2754.20 2754.20 2754.20 2754.20 2754.20

1 2 1 1 28

Table 8.21. Aggregate surface area of Cooking Vessel sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by context Context Structure 36 Unit C Structure 37 Corral Structure 37 West Room Structure 37 East Room Upper Structure 37 East Room Lower Structure 38 Structure 39 Structure 40 Structure 41 West Room Structure 41 East Room Structure 42 West Room Structure 42 East Room Structure 43 Structure 44 Unit O Unit T All Contexts

Small Sherds (10 cm2) 55 0 76 245 288

Medium Sherds (40 cm2) 31 1 16 150 234

Large Sherds (90 cm2) 3 0 1 16 38

Very Large Sherds (155 cm2) 0 0 0 0 1

Total Sherds 89 1 93 411 561

1

1

0

0

2

15 21 116 35 18 54 196 14 23 64 13 1207

8 16 55 18 9 22 53 12 17 21 5 654

1 2 6 6 3 14 5 1 1 0 0 94

0 0 2 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 11

24 39 179 61 31 96 254 27 41 85 18 1966

Table 8.22. Storage Jar sherd size frequency by context Context Structure 36 Unit C Structure 37 Corral Structure 37 West Room Structure 37 East Room Upper Structure 37 East Room Lower Structure 38 Structure 39 Structure 40 Structure 41

Small Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 550

Medium Sherd Surface Area (cm2)

Large Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 270

Very Large Sherd Total Sherd Surface Area Surface (cm2) Area (cm2) 0 2060 0 40 0 1490

SA-EVE Vessels (cm2)

760

1240 40 640

2450

6000

1440

0

9890

3991.72

3

2880

9360

3420

155

15815

3991.72

4

10

40

0

50

3991.72

1

150 210 1160 350

320 640 2200 720

0 0 310 310

560 1030 4210 1920

3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72

1 1 2 1

90

90 180 540 540 142

3991.72 3991.72 3991.72

1 1 1

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN West Room Structure 41 East Room Structure 42 West Room Structure 42 East Room Structure 43 Structure 44 Unit O Unit T All Contexts

180

360

270

155

965

3991.72

1

540

880

1260

930

3610

3991.72

1

1960

2120

450

0

4530

3991.72

2

140 230 640 130 12070

480 680 840 200 26160

90 90

0 0 0 0 1705

710 1000 1480 330 48395

3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72 3991.72

1 1 1 1 24

8460

Table 8.23. Aggregate surface area of Storage Jar sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by context Context Structure 37 Corral Structure 37 East Room Upper Structure 37 West Room Structure 39 Structure 44 All Contexts

Small Sherds (10 cm2) 3 1

Medium Sherds (40 cm2) 4 1

Large Sherds (90 cm2) 0 0

Very Large Sherds (155 cm2) 0 0

Total Sherds

3 0 1 8

0 1 0 6

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

3 1 1 14

7 2

Table 8.24. Bowl sherd size frequency by context Context Structure 37 Corral Structure 37 East Room Upper Structure 37 West Room Structure 39 Structure 44 All Contexts

Small Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 30

Medium Sherd Large Sherd Surface Very Large Area (cm2) Sherd Surface Surface Area (cm2) Area (cm2) 160 0 0

Total Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 190

SA-EVE (cm2)

Vessels

565.42

1

10

40

0

0

50

565.42

1

30

0

0

0

30

565.42

1

10 80

40 0 200

0 0 0

0 0 0

40 10 320

565.42 565.42 565.42

1 1 5

Table 8.25. Aggregate surface area of Bowl sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by context

Context Structure 37 East Upper Structure 42 All Contexts

Small Sherds (10 cm2) 3 1 4

Medium Sherds (40 cm2) 2 0 2

Large Sherds (90 cm2) 0 0 0

Very Large Sherds (155 cm2) 2 0 2

Table 8.26. Juglet sherd size frequency by context

143

Total Sherds 7 1 8

DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 Context

Small Sherd Surface Area (cm2) Structure 37 30 East Upper Structure 42 10 All Contexts 40

80

Large Sherd Surface Area (cm2) 0

0 80

0 90

Medium Sherd Surface Area (cm2)

Very Large Sherd Total Sherd SA-EVE Vessels Surface Area Surface Area (cm2) 2 (cm ) (cm2) 310 420 336.60 2 0 0

10 430

336.60 336.60

1 3

Table 8.27. Aggregate surface area of Juglet sherds converted to vessels from SA-EVE by context Vessel Type Cookpot Storage Jar Bowl Juglet All Types

Number of Vessels 28 24 5 3 60

Vessel Frequency (%) 46.67 40.00 8.33 5.00 100.00

Table 8.28. Total number of vessels and vessel frequency by vessel type calculated by context at ZAD 1 Vessel Type Vessel Frequency by Vessel Diagnostic Rim Frequency by Forms (%) Sherd Count (%) Cookpot Storage Jar Bowl Juglet All Types

54.35 39.86 4.35 1.45 100.00

Vessel Frequency by Vessel Frequency by SASA-EVE over Whole EVE over Excavation Site (%) Units (%)

62.40 37.24 0.22 0.14 100.00

56.75 37.18 2.06 4.02 100.00

46.97 39.39 9.09 4.55 100.00

Vessel Frequency by SA-EVE over Contexts (%) 46.67 40.00 8.33 5.00 100.00

Table 8.29. Assemblage composition at ZAD 1 calculated by diagnostic rim forms, sherd counts, SA-EVE over excavation units and SA-EVE over contexts Aggregate SA-EVE of One of Cooking Complete Vessel Cooking Sherds Vessel (cm2) (cm2) Structure 36 1865 2754 Unit C 90 2754 Structure 37 3620 2754 Corral Structure 37 21480 2754 West Room Structure 37 1530 2754 East Room Upper Structure 37 2995 2754 East Room Lower Structure 38 830 2754 Structure 39 2640 2754 Structure 40 3380 2754 Structure 41 1000 2754 West Room Context

Aggregate SA-EVE Aggregate of Storage of One of Juglet Vessel Complete Sherds Sherds Storage Vessel (cm2) 2 2 (cm ) (cm )

SA-EVE of One Complete Juglet (cm2)

Aggregate SA-EVE of Bowl Sherd of One (cm2) Complete Bowl (cm2)

2060 40 1490

3992 3992 3992

0 0 0

337 337 337

0 0 190

565 565 565

9890

3992

0

337

30

565

15815

3992

200

337

50

565

50

3992

0

337

0

565

560 1030 4210 1920

3992 3992 3992 3992

0 0 0 0

337 337 337 337

0 40 0 0

565 565 565 565

144

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Structure 41 East Room Structure 42 West Room Structure 42 East Room Structure 43 Structure 44 Unit O Unit T All Contexts

2525

2754

965

3992

0

337

0

565

1480

2754

3610

3992

0

337

0

565

1420

2754

4530

3992

10

337

0

565

370 4410 130 350 50960

2754 2754 2754 2754 2754

710 1000 1480 330 48395

3992 3992 3992 3992 3992

0 0 0 0 210

337 337 337 337 337

0 10 0 0 320

565 565 565 565 565

Table 8.30. Aggregate surface area of sherds by context for four classes of vessel Two main problems connected with calculating vessel frequency by SA-EVE demand clarification because the small sample size and the varying completeness and brokenness of types may lead to misleading results (See Sections 4.33bii and 8.21-22). The two problems specifically concern the poor survival (or low completeness) of storage vessels and serving vessels in the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 assemblage, as well as the arbitrariness of calculations of assemblage composition by employing excavation units (a misleading measure of ancient occupational space) rather than contexts. In the first instance, a possible explanation for variations between calculations by SA-EVE at site level as opposed to context level lies in the greater amount of cooking vessel sherds (by surface area) than any other class of vessel found in the assemblage. Incomplete storage and serving vessels, represented by only 10% of the original surface area of the vessel, are still represented as one vessel in the context under study. In contrast, the same excavation unit or context may contain cooking vessel sherds amounting to 90% of the total surface area of a vessel. However, these cooking vessel sherds are also only represented as one whole vessel in the calculations for that context, which may present a misleading vessel frequency ratio, not evident in sherd counts.

aggregates with the imposition of context-delineated spatial boundaries. 8.12. Assemblage size 8.12a. Estimated Number of Vessels Represented (EVREP) The EVREP is defined as a measure of the number of vessels present in an archaeological assemblage, which may be variously estimated as the minimum number of vessels (MNV) or maximum number of vessels (MaxNV). EVREP differs from EVE because the former estimates the approximate number of vessels surviving in the archaeological assemblage, whilst EVE calculates the relative proportions of each vessel class according to the dimensions of whole vessels. In other words, while EVE predominantly calculates vessel frequencies and fragmentation rates, EVREP calculates assemblage size. The EVREP at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 was calculated by two methods: 1) Diagnostic rim sherd counts or Rim-evrep, and 2) the employment of the ZAD 1 categories (see Section 4.31bii) or Categories-evrep. Calculations of assemblage size by Rim-evrep generated a MNV figure, because (for example) all rim sherds from the same vessel class with the same rim diameter excavated from a single context were combined into one vessel, irrespective of any detectable differences in the fabrics of individual vessels. The Rim-evrep method is perhaps the most common method used to estimate EVREP at Near Eastern sites and represents a conservative estimate of assemblage size. The ZAD 1 categories (or Categories-evrep) on the other hand, generated a MaxNV figure based on the total number of sherds in the assemblage, including body sherds as well as diagnostic rims and bases. The primary utility of the ZAD 1 categories, which formally express the strength of a relationship between sherds is that they attribute individual sherds or groups of sherds to individual vessels. This attribution enables both the grouping of more than one sherd into one vessel on the basis of joins or ware similarities, as well as the identification of a vessel by a solitary sherd. This system of classification by vessel detects differences in ware, colour, texture and size between vessels from the same

In the second instance, it is suggested that calculations derived from the analysis of material grouped by context is quantitatively more accurate than material grouped by excavation unit or by site. Excavation units are seen as arbitrary divisions of space, which do not always reflect discrete activity areas. Analysis at a site level suffers from the opposite problem in that provenience is not considered when quantifying discrete vessels. The main objection to context-specific quantification is that EVE does not detect differences between individual vessels from the same context. It is therefore necessary to further consider fine-scale differences between vessels, which can only be detected through joins, ware differences and diagnostic features. However, the latter is more imperative when calculating assemblage size and composition for individual contexts rather than composition across the entire site (see Section 8.12 below). For the most accurate estimations of vessel frequency and assemblage composition at a site, SA-EVE must be applied to sherd 145

DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 context, providing a more accurate estimation of the number of vessels in the ‘death assemblage’ than mere diagnostic sherd counts.

transported away from the site. Significantly, the number of storage vessels increased dramatically from Rim-evrep (36 vessels) and SA-EVE (24 vessels) calculations to the Categories-evrep calculations (468 vessels), providing a MaxNV estimate of assemblage size compared to the MNV estimates generated by Rim-evrep and SA-EVE (Table 8.33).

The ZAD 1 categories system of analysis (See Section 4.31b, Fig. 4.2 for the ZAD 1 pottery form) also provides information on discard behaviour by linking sherds from an individual vessel which are excavated from different contexts (See Section 8.2d). Unfortunately, the extremely friable and homogeneous quality of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 cooking pot ware did not permit the analysis of these vessels by the categories system. Total reconstruction of cooking vessels was impossible because the intact edges required for refitting had disintegrated. Likewise, the homogeneity of the ware rendered the grouping of sherds by discrete ware type impossible for this class of vessels. By contrast jars (storage vessels), bowls, and juglets were particularly amenable to this sort of analysis; these vessels could be sorted and quantified accurately by context on the basis of refits and ware attributes.

Categories-evrep calculated by structure and context adds further resolution to assemblage size (Table 8.32). High vessel counts were observed in Structures 37 (138 vessels), while moderate vessel counts were recorded in Structure 40 (80 vessels) Structure 36 (40 vessels) Structure 42 (63 vessels) and Structure 44 (69 vessels). Low vessel counts were observed in Structure 38 (22 vessels), Structure 39 (27 vessels), Structure 41 (24 vessels) and Structure 43 (11 vessels). Individual contexts notable for their high vessel counts included the exteriors of Structures 42 and 44, the floor in the Corral of Structure 37, as well as the floor in Structure 40 Phase II (Table 8.32, Fig. 8.2).

Table 8.31 presents the Rim-evrep at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 across distinct contexts and structures. Cooking vessels (N=58) outnumbered storage vessels (N=36), bowls (N=7) and juglets (N=3) across the site. Individual structures and contexts demonstrated significant diversity in assemblage size. High vessel counts were observed in Structures 36 (17 Vessels), 37 (32 Vessels) and 44 (17 Vessels), while moderate vessel counts were observed in Structures 39 (8 Vessels), 40 (9 Vessels), 41 (8 Vessels) and 42 (9 Vessels). A low vessel count was recorded in Structure 43, while Structure 38 did not produce any vessels according to the Rim-evrep measure (Table 8.31). Individual contexts with high vessel counts were exemplified by the Western Room floor and overburden deposit in Structure 37, the floor in Structure 39 and all contexts in Structure 36 (Fig. 8.1). Figure 8.1 shows that floor deposits generally contained the greatest number and density of vessels at the site.

Notable patterns generated by Rim-evrep (Fig. 8.1), reflecting possible functional distinctiveness among individual contexts, included the high numbers of storage jars in all contexts of Structure 36, the floor of Structure 39 and the floor of the Eastern Room of Structure 42, while high numbers of cooking vessels were observed in the exteriors of Structure 37 and 44, the Western Room overburden and floor of Structure 37, the Western Room floors of Structures 41 and 42. Two additional observations can be made in relation to the EVREP data. Firstly, calculations of EVREP by Categories-evrep suggested that EVREP calculations by diagnostic rims sherds may underestimate the assemblage size of some vessel classes. The number of storage vessels rose sharply from 36 (MNV) by Rim-evrep to 468 (MaxNV) by Categories-evrep at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 because many pots which are represented by body sherds may have had rim sherds lost. Secondly, the variability of EVREP across individual contexts and structures is noteworthy because structures with high vessel counts do not represent a single structure type or a cluster of structures in one location. For example, Structures 37 and 42 are both large Two-room Structures, while Structure 40 is a small One-room Three-wall Structure, and Structure 44 is a One-room Four-wall Structure with a bin. These structures, which all contained contexts with high EVREP totals, are situated in different parts of the site. Such patterns suggest that there is no simple correlation between assemblage size and structure size, type and location. Assemblage size and composition may instead be linked to discard behaviour, and the structure of abandonment. Further analysis of the condition of the assemblage is needed before the significance of assemblage size for individual structures and for the site can be fully appreciated (see Sections 8.21-24 for analysis and Chapter 9 for discussion).

Table 8.32 presents the EVREP for jars, bowls and juglets calculated by the ZAD 1 categories for each structure and context. This analysis significantly increased the vessel count from 60 vessels calculated by SA-EVE (Table 8.28) and 114 vessels calculated by Rim-evrep (Table 8.31) to 478 vessels (Table 8.32-33). Nevertheless, Categoriesevrep represents a more realistic estimate than the vessel count determined by EVE and Rim-evrep because all sherds were hand sorted and classified into varying strengths of relationship. According to the Categoriesevrep measure Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 contained a total of 468 storage jars, 7 bowls and 3 juglets. The ratio of bowls and juglets to jars in this analysis amounts to 67 jars to every bowl, and 156 jars to every juglet. The results (Table 8.32) support estimates of a low proportion of small serving vessels, initially calculated by raw sherd counts (Table 8. 4). Possible explanations include the higher level of brokenness and lower level of completeness among storage vessels and cooking vessels compared to serving vessels (see Sections 8.21-22), as well as the possibility that portable storage jars and serving vessels were curated and 146

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN

4 4 B in 4 0 P it s

4 4 F lo o r 4 2 W e s t e rn R o o m F l o o r 4 2 Ea s t e rn R o o m F l o o r 4 1 W e s t e rn R o o m F l o o r 4 1 Ea s t e rn R o o m F l o o r 4 0 F l o o r P ha s e 2 4 0 F l o o r P ha s e 1 3 9 F lo o r 3 7 Ea s t e rn R o o m Lo w e r F l o o r 3 7 Ea s t e rn R o o m U p p e r F l o o r 3 7 W e s t e rn R o o m F l o o r 3 7 C o rra l F l o o r 3 6 F lo o r

R i m- e v re p f o r J ug le t s

4 4 Ov e rb urd e n

R i m- e v re p f o r B o w ls

4 3 Int e ri o r

R i m- e v re p f o r S t o ra g e J a rs

4 2 W e s t e rn R o o m Ov e rb urd e n

R i m- e v re p f o r C o o ki ng V e s s e ls

4 2 Ea s t e rn R o o m Ov e rb urd e n 4 1 W e s t e rn R o o m Ov e rb urd e n 4 1 Ea s t e rn R o o m Ov e rb urd e n 4 0 Ov e rb urd e n 3 9 Ov e rb urd e n 3 8 Int e ri o r 3 7 Ea s t e rn R o o m U p p e r Ov e rb urd e n 3 7 W e s t e rn R o o m Ov e rb urd e n 3 7 C o rra l Ov e rb urd e n 3 6 Ov e rb urd e n

4 4 Ex t e ri o r 4 3 Ex t e ri o r 4 2 Ex t e ri o r 4 1 Ex t e ri o r 4 0 Ex t e ri o r 3 8 Ex t e ri o r 3 7 Ex t e ri o r 3 6 Ex t e ri o r 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

E s t im a t e d N u m b e r o f Ve s s e ls R e p re s e n t e d ( E VR E P )

Figure 8.1. EVREP for Storage Jars, Bowls and Juglets calculated by diagnostic rim sherds in context and by structure

147

DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1

4 4 B in 4 0 P it s

4 4 F lo o r 4 2 W e s t e rn R o o m F lo o r 4 2 Ea s t e rn R o o m F lo o r 4 1 W e s t e rn R o o m F lo o r 4 1 Ea s t e rn R o o m F lo o r 4 0 F lo o r P ha s e 2 4 0 F l o o r P ha s e 1 3 9 F lo o r 3 7 Ea s t e rn R o o m Lo w e r F lo o r 3 7 Ea s t e rn R o o m U p p e r F lo o r 3 7 W e s t e rn R o o m F lo o r 3 7 C o rra l F lo o r 3 6 F lo o r

4 4 Ov e rb urd e n 4 3 Int e rio r 4 2 W e s t e rn R o o m Ov e rb urd e n 4 2 Ea s t e rn R o o m Ov e rb urd e n 4 1 W e s t e rn R o o m Ov e rb urd e n 4 1 Ea s t e rn R o o m Ov e rb urd e n 4 0 Ov e rb urd e n 3 9 Ov e rb urd e n 3 8 Int e rio r 3 7 Ea s t e rn R o o m U p p e r Ov e rb urd e n 3 7 W e s t e rn R o o m Ov e rb urd e n 3 7 C o rra l Ov e rb urd e n 3 6 Ov e rb urd e n

4 4 Ex t e rio r 4 3 Ex t e rio r 4 2 Ex t e rio r 4 1 Ex t e rio r 4 0 Ex t e rio r 3 8 Ex t e rio r 3 7 Ex t e rio r 3 6 Ex t e rio r 0

10

20

30

40

50

Es t ima t e d N umb e r o f V e s s e ls R e p re s e nt e d ( EV R EP ) C a t e g o rie s - e v re p f o r S t o ra g e J a rs

C a t e g o rie s - e v re p f o r B o w ls

C a t e g o rie s - e v re p f o r J ug le t s

Figure 8.2. EVREP for Figure. 8. Storage Jars, Bowls and Juglets calculated by ZAD 1 Categories in context and by structure

148

60

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Structure Number and Context Type Structure 36 Exterior 36 Overburden 36 Floor 36 Total Structure 37 Exterior 37 Corral Overburden 37 Corral Floor 37 Western Room Overburden 37 Western Room Floor 37 Eastern Room Upper Overburden 37 Eastern Room Upper Floor 37 Eastern Room Lower Floor 37 Total Structure 38 Exterior 38 Interior 38 Total Structure 39 Overburden 39 Floor 39 Total Structure 40 Exterior 40 Overburden 40 Floor Phase 1 40 Floor Phase 2 40 Pits 40 Total Structure 41 Exterior 41 Eastern Room Overburden 41 Eastern Room Floor 41 Western Room Overburden 41 Western Room Floor 41 Total Structure 42 Exterior 42 Eastern Room Overburden 42 Eastern Room Floor 42 Western Room Overburden 42 Western Room Floor 42 Total Structure 43 Exterior 43 Interior 43 Total Structure 44 Exterior 44 Overburden 44 Floor 44 Bin 44 Total Site Total

Rim-evrep for Cooking Vessels 1 2 2 5 3 1 1 5 5 1 2 1 19 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 8 1 0 2 1 3 7 1 0 1 1 2 5 0 1 1 5 1 2 2 10 58

Rim-evrep for Storage Jars 5 4 3 12 1 0 0 2 4 0 2 1 9 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 6 36

Rim-evrep for Bowls 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7

Table 8.31. EVREP for Storage Jars, Bowls and Juglets calculated by diagnostic rim sherds in context and by structure

149

Rim-evrep for Juglets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 Structure Number and Context Type Structure 36 Exterior 36 Overburden 36 Floor 36 Total Structure 37 Exterior 37 Corral Overburden 37 Corral Floor 37 Western Room Overburden 37 Western Room Floor 37 Eastern Room Upper Overburden 37 Eastern Room Upper Floor 37 Eastern Room Lower Floor 37 Total Structure 38 Exterior 38 Interior 38 Total Structure 39 Overburden 39 Floor 39 Total Structure 40 Exterior 40 Overburden 40 Floor Phase 1 40 Floor Phase 2 40 Pits 40 Total Structure 41 Exterior 41 Eastern Room Overburden 41 Eastern Room Floor 41 Western Room Overburden 41 Western Room Floor 41 Total Structure 42 Exterior 42 Eastern Room Overburden 42 Eastern Room Floor 42 Western Room Overburden 42 Western Room Floor 42 Total Structure 43 Exterior 43 Interior 43 Total Structure 44 Exterior 44 Overburden 44 Floor 44 Bin 44 Total Site Total

Categories-evrep Categories -evrep Categories -evrep Categories -evrep for Storage Jars for Bowls for Juglets All Vessels 4 0 0 4 16 0 0 16 20 0 0 20 40 0 0 40 23 0 0 23 16 0 0 16 35 1 0 36 20 0 0 20 10 0 0 10 6 0 0 6 22 1 2 25 2 0 0 2 134 2 2 138 2 0 0 2 20 0 0 20 22 0 0 22 3 0 0 3 23 1 0 24 26 1 0 27 1 0 0 1 14 0 0 14 9 0 0 9 50 0 0 50 6 0 0 6 80 0 0 80 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 4 0 0 4 10 0 0 10 24 0 0 24 31 0 0 31 7 0 0 7 12 0 1 13 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 8 63 0 1 64 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 11 0 0 11 28 1 0 29 4 0 0 4 16 0 0 16 20 0 0 20 68 1 0 69 468 7 3 478

Table 8.32. EVREP for Storage Jars, Bowls and Juglets calculated by ZAD 1 Categories in context and by structure

150

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 IN JORDAN Vessel Type Cookpot Storage Jar Bowl Juglet All Types

EVREP Calculated by SA-EVE 28 24 5 3 60

EVREP Calculated by Diagnostic Rim Sherds 58 36 7 3 114

EVREP Calculated by the ZAD 1 Categories NA. 468 7 3 478

Table 8.33. EVREP for Cookpots, Storage Jars, Bowls and Juglets calculated by SA-EVE, diagnostic rim sherds and the ZAD 1 Categories at ZAD 1 8.13. Summary

formation processes (Section 8.2).

Significant trends relating to the size and composition of the ceramic assemblage at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 underline the importance of employing numerous methods in the analysis of assemblages. The EVE method, which determined that storage vessels contained the largest surface area among the vessels classes, enabled the calculation of vessel frequencies beyond diagnostic rim sherd and raw sherd counts. The use of raw sherd counts, SA-EVE and EVREP generated different results on assemblage size and composition at site and context level. Cooking vessels were clearly dominant, ranging between 62% by sherd counts and as low as 47% by SA-EVE (determined by context). Storage vessels were the next most frequently occurring class of vessel after cooking vessels, ranging between 37% by sherd counts and 40 % by SA-EVE (determined by context). Serving vessels, comprising bowls and juglets, constituted the lowest frequency, comprising 0.36% by sherd count and 13% by SA-EVE (determined by context).

Calculations of EVREP by the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 categories demonstrated that up to 468 storage vessels were used in nine structures, throughout the occupational history of the site (Table 8.32). Most vessels were excavated from occupational debris and floor deposits (Fig. 8.2). These results, reflecting a MaxNV figure, compare to a total of only 36 storage vessels, 58 cooking vessels, 7 bowls and 3 juglets calculated by the Rimevrep method (Table 8.31). The disparity between the Rim-evrep and Categories-evrep measures suggests that calculations of assemblage size based solely on MNV counts may severely underestimate the size of archaeological assemblages. The underestimation of assemblage size impacts on levels of completeness and interpretations based on artefact densities and accumulation. Finally, the differences in EVREP between some contexts suggest that assemblage size must be considered in concert with an analysis of site function and site formation processes. For while EVREP totals reflect the number of vessels present in an archaeological assemblage, they do not provide information on the particular context of the vessels in question.

Contexts showed variability in the relative frequencies of vessel classes calculated by SA-EVE. Functionally distinct contexts were suggested by the dominance of one class over another. Clear examples of this phenomenon were illustrated by the dominance of storage vessel material in the upper phase of the Eastern Room of Structure 37, and a corresponding dominance of cooking vessel material in the Western Room and Corral of Structure 37 (Table 8.30). Similarly, the upper phase of the Eastern Room in Structure 37 compared to its lower phase, contained a greater frequency of storage vessel material than cooking vessels and serving vessels (Table 8.30). The lower phase of the Eastern Room in Structure 37 contained a greater quantity of cooking vessels in relation to storage vessels.

8.2. Site Formation Processes: refuse categories, brokenness and completeness The condition of the ceramic assemblage excavated from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1 provides information for reconstructing site formation processes, which impact on higher-level behavioural interpretations of occupation and abandonment. Ceramic material has been analysed here for its level of preservation in different contexts, information that can be linked to use and discard behaviour associated with pottery at the site. The preservation and state of the ceramic assemblage has been measured according to the following criteria:

Structural characteristics of the ceramic assemblage derived from sherd size frequencies indicated that cooking vessels broke into smaller sherds than storage vessels and serving vessels (Table 8.7). In addition, distinct contexts demonstrated differential fragmentation patterning; for example the low fragmentation rate in the Eastern Room of Structure 37 as compared to the high fragmentation rate in Structure 40 (Tables 8.22-23). The calculation of fragmentation, discard and spatial distribution of sherds is further considered in the following discussion on site

Brokenness (see below for formula): the degree to which pottery is fragmented, at both the individual vessel level and assemblage level across different contexts. The brokenness of vessels translates into the number of sherds vessels break into on average for every context. The measure of brokenness may be affected by the sample size employed for calculations. For instance, a context containing a small quantity of sherds coupled with a high vessel count will result in a low rate of brokenness. In 151

DISCARD BEHAVIOUR AND REFUSE MANAGEMENT AT ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 1 contrast, a context containing a large quantity of sherds coupled with a high vessel count will result in a high rate of brokenness. Accurate interpretation of the rate of brokenness is therefore dependent upon a comparison of brokenness with the corresponding rate of completeness for each context.

Chi-square test finds that there isn’t homogeneity of variance (i.e.