Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey 9781575067674

Citation preview

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Michael G. Hasel, Yosef Garfinkel, and Shifra Weiss with contributions by David Ben-Shlomo, Alon De Groot, Rafael Lewis and Alla Nagorsky

Institute of Archaeology, Southern Adventist University

Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2017

© 2017 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com cover design: Giselle Hasel typesetting: Raphaël Freeman, Renana Typsetting

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Hasel, Michael G., author. | Garfinkel, Yosef, author. | Weiss, Shifra, author. Title: Socoh of the Judean shephelah : the 2010 survey / by Michael G. Hasel, Yosef Garfinkel, and Shifra Weiss ; with contributions by David Ben-Shlomo, Alon De Groot, Rafael Lewis and Alla Nagorsky. Description: Winona Lake, Indiana : Eisenbrauns, [2017] | Includes bibliographical references. | Description based on print version record and CIP data provided by publisher; resource not viewed. Identifiers: LCCN 2017002028 (print) | LCCN 2017011971 (ebook) | ISBN 9781575067674 (ePDF) | ISBN 9781575067667 (cloth : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Socoh (Israel : Extinct city) | Israel—Antiquities. | Excavations (Archaeology)—Israel. Classification: LCC DS110.S63 (ebook) | LCC DS110.S63 H37 2017 (print) | DDC 933/.44—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017002028

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984.♾™

To William G. Dever for his mentorship, encouragement and friendship

Fig. 1a Four-winged lmlk-seal with the name Socoh (Meidad Suchowolski, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

Fig. 1b Two-winged lmlk-seal with the name Socoh (Clara Amit, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

Contents Foreword

ix

Acknowledgments

xi

Chapter 1: Name, Location, History of Research and Historical Context (Michael G. Hasel and Yosef Garfijinkel) 1.1. The Name Socoh 1.2. The Location of Socoh in the Shephelah 1.3. Socoh in Textual Sources 1.4. The Signifijicance of Socoh 1.5. A History of Archaeological Research

1 1 3 17 20 22

Chapter 2: Survey Methodology, Objectives and Fieldwork (Michael G. Hasel and Yosef Garfijinkel) 2.1. A History of Survey Methodology 2.2. The Socoh Survey

31 31 35

Chapter 3: Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology (Shifra Weiss) 3.1. Methodology of the Ceramic Analysis 3.2. Early Periods 3.3. Iron Age Typology 3.4. Iron Age Ceramic Distribution 3.5. Classical Periods 3.6. Islamic Periods 3.7. Two Tomb Assemblages 3.8. General Distribution Analysis

51 51 54 56 80 84 99 112 140

Chapter 4: Looted Burial Caves (Alon De Groot, Alla Nagorsky and Rafael Lewis) 4.1. Description of the Looted Burial Caves 4.2. The Pottery Collected from Cave 4

143 143 154

v

vi

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

4.3. The Pottery Collected from Cave 1 4.4. The Pottery Collected from Cave 2 4.5. The Pottery Collected from Cave 3 4.6. Discussion

163 169 174 176

Chapter 5: Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics (David Ben-Shlomo) 5.1. Introduction 5.2. Methodology of Petrographic Analysis 5.3. Geological and Pedological Setting 5.4. Petrographic Results 5.5. Discussion and Conclusions

179 179 180 181 183 193

Chapter 6: Pyrotechnical Production Activity: Slag Distribution and Analysis (Yosef Garfinkel and Shifra Weiss) 6.1. Introduction 6.2. Description of the Slag 6.3. Distribution of the Slag 6.4. Discussion

205 205 205 209 210

Chapter 7: Royal Jar Handles with lmlk and Private Seal Impressions (Michael G. Hasel and Yosef Garfinkel) 7.1. The Zaphan/Abima’az Seal Impression 7.2. The Two-Winged lmlk Seal Impression

213 214 217

Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions (Michael G. Hasel, Yosef Garfinkel and Shifra Weiss)

221

Bibliography

227

Foreword The Socoh Intensive Survey was initiated in 2010 by the Institute of Archaeology, Southern Adventist University, and the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, with the intent to conduct a large-scale excavation of the site beginning in 2011. The goal of the anticipated project was to expand the work of the Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project into a regional study focusing on the history of the Elah Valley and the expansion of Judah in the Early Iron Age. Specifijic research questions to be addressed were (1) the geopolitical interplay between the cities of Tell Zakariya-Azekah, Khirbet QeiyafaSha‘arayim and Khirbet Shuweikeh-Socoh within Judah and the border of Philistia; (2) Socoh’s stratigraphic and historical occupation; (3) its fortifijication history as a border garrison town; (4) its relationship to the major military history of the region (Philistine, Assyrian and Babylonian incursions); and (5) its larger signifijicance in the development of the Shephelah. However, after the survey was completed and application was made to the Israel Antiquity Authority for an excavation license, a simultaneous application was made by another institution. This caused a very difffijicult situation for the Israel Antiquities Authority and for the institutions applying for the license. The late Shuka Dorfman, Director of the Israel Antiquities Authority at the time, made a Solomonic judgment to allow both universities to excavate Socoh. Under these conditions we decided not to excavate the site and to move on to Tel Lachish to study similar questions about the growth of the Judean Kingdom from the 10th century BCE onward (Garfijinkel, Hasel and Klingbeil 2013). In the summer of 2010 an accidental brush fijire had burnt the vegetation covering the site, exposing architecture and the ground in a way that would be very benefijicial for an intensive survey. Aerial vii

viii

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

photos were taken in July courtesy of SkyView. This prepared the way for the intensive survey that we conducted in October 19–24, 2010. So much data was accumulated during the survey that it was decided to publish this small report volume, since very little has previously been written on Socoh. Even the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land does not have an entry on the site. Other survey publications were dated and not easily accessible to scholars. This present volume contains (1) a historical overview focusing on the location, history of research and historical signifijicance of the site; (2) an overview of the survey methodology and fijield observations; (3) a detailed account of the ceramic chronology and distribution from the 2010 Socoh Survey; (4) a study of the ceramic repertoire of four burial caves from a salvage excavation in 2004; (5) a petrographic analysis of Iron Age ceramics from various tombs; (6) an analysis of the slag and its distribution; and (7) a specialized study of two lmlk seal-impressed jar handles. All the relevant periods of occupation at Khirbet Shuweikeh-Socoh are included: Late Chalcolithic, Middle Bronze Age, Iron Age IIA, Iron Age IIB, Iron Age IIC, from the Persian to the Byzantine period, and the late Islamic period. We want to thank the following scholars for their assistance in the analysis of the ceramic corpus: Prof. David Ussishkin, Dr. Lily SingerAvitz, Dr. Katia Cytryn, Débora Sandhaus and Smadar Gabrieli. The fijieldwork, analysis of the data uncovered and publication all required extensive fijinancial support, which was obtained from various foundations and individuals as specifijied in the acknowledgements below. The authors would particularly like to express their deep appreciation to the supporting institutions that made this survey possible: the Institute of Archaeology, Southern Adventist University, and the Israel Exploration Society. The Israel Antiquities Authority under the directorship of Shuka Dorfman granted licenses for the project and assisted in the processing and storage of fijinds. We appreciate the opportunity to further the understanding of the periods of history represented at Socoh. Finally, our gratitude is extended to the organizations, foundations and individual supporters who understood the signifijicance of this important site for the early history of Judah. It was your generosity that enabled us to carry out the project from the start to printing of this fijinal report. Michael G. Hasel, Yosef Garfijinkel and Shifra Weiss

Acknowledgments Supporters The Burton and Dorothy Keppler Endowment for Excavation and Publication ASI International Foundation for Adventist Education Drs. Donn and Esther Latour Ellsworth and Sharon McKee McKee Foods Corporation Dr. Richard and Patti Miller Dr. Ronald Reece Dr. Joan Taylor Ed and Ann Zinke Doug and Christy Zinke

The Survey Expedition to Socoh Survey License: S-217/2010

General Assistance The Institute of Archaeology, Southern Adventist University The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem The Israel Antiquities Authority (Shuka Dorfman) The Israel Exploration Society Expedition Field Stafff Project directors: Michael G. Hasel (Southern Adventist University) and Yosef Garfijinkel (The Hebrew University) Survey, GIS and remote sensing: Daniel M. Perez and Michael Dant ix

x

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Ceramic analysis and statistics: Shifra Weiss Field photography: Michael G. Hasel Aerial photography: SkyView Pottery cleaning and marking: Igor Kreimerman and Peter Zilberg Survey volunteers: Students of the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University

Technical Assistance Epigraphic illustration: Ada Yardeni 3D scanning of pottery: The Computerized Archaeology Laboratory at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Artifact photography: Tal Rogovski Database and IT management: Scott Anderson and Michael Dant Publication Book design and layout: Raphaël Freeman, Renana Typesetting Language and copy-editing: Susan Gorodetsky, Marcus Shefffijield

List of Figures and Tables Figures Note: All image credits are with the Institute of Archaeology, Southern Adventist University unless otherwise stated. Fig. 1a. Four-winged lmlk-seal with the name Socoh (Meidad Suchowolski, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority). Fig. 1b. Two-winged lmlk-seal with the name Socoh (Clara Amit, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority). Fig. 1.1. Map of the southern regions of Israel, marking the main cities of the Philistines and the Kingdom of Judah. Fig. 1.2. Map of the Elah Valley with the location of the main sites along its course. Fig. 1.3. Aerial photograph of Socoh with the Elah Valley to the north and west. Fig. 1.4. The Elah Valley and Kibbutz Netiv HaLamed Heh from Socoh. Fig. 1.5. Detailed map of Socoh and its vicinity. Fig. 1.6. The perennial blue lupine flower (Lupinus pilosus). Fig. 1.7. A typical view of the blue lupine blossoms, a botanical phenomenon that is unique to Socoh. Fig. 1.8. A ruined house in the Islamic-period village of Khirbet Shuweikeh. Fig. 1.9. A large enclosure in the Islamic-period village of Khirbet Shuweikeh. Fig. 1.10. A collapsed building in the Islamic-period village of Khirbet Shuweikeh. Fig. 1.11. A well preserved at the bottom of the valley near the Islamic-period village of Khirbet Shuweikeh. Fig. 1.12. The western edge of Socoh. Fig. 1.13. Aerial photograph of the northern and western edge of Socoh. Fig. 1.14. The narrow plateau of Socoh. Fig. 1.15. Aerial photograph of Socoh showing exposed bedrock in a large portion of the site. Fig. 1.16. Exposed bedrock on Socoh with rock-cut installations. Fig. 1.17. Exposed bedrock on Socoh with a rock-cut channel and cistern. Fig. 1.18. Exposed massive architecture built on bedrock on the southern slope of Socoh. This may be part of a fortifijication system and a city gate. Fig. 1.19. A massive Iron Age wall running from east to west on the plateau. Fig. 1.20. A massive Iron Age wall running from east to west on the northern slope.

xi

xii

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 1.21. Aerial photograph of the western part of Socoh. Note the remains of the massive Byzantine building. Fig. 1.22. Close-up aerial photograph of the massive Byzantine building. Fig. 1.23. The walls of the massive Byzantine building. Fig. 1.24. Shaft tomb located in a cemetery south of Socoh, Square H. Fig. 1.25. Shaft tomb located in a cemetery south of Socoh, Square H. Fig. 1.26. Tomb located in a cemetery south of Socoh, Square H. Fig. 1.27. A fresh pile of sediment from the looting of tombs on the lower northern slope of Socoh, Squares LL and PP. Fig. 1.28. The fijirst appearance of the site of Socoh, designated as Shuweikeh Socoh, on a map (detail from Robinson and Smith 1841). Fig. 1.29. The fijirst detailed map of the site of Socoh, with Khirbet ‘Abbâd in the west and Khirbet Shuweikeh in the east (Conder and Kitchener 1880: Sheet XVII, 1/63,360). Fig. 1.30. Enlarged detail of Khirbet ‘Abbâd and Khirbet Shuweikeh (detail from Conder and Kitchener 1880: Sheet XVII). Fig. 2.1. Two types of site accumulation (Portugali 1982: Fig. 1). Fig. 2.2. Topographical plan of Socoh indicating locations of survey squares. Fig. 2.3. The survey squares were marked by a Topcon HyperLite Plus GPS base station and rover. Surveyor Daniel Perez with the base station. Fig. 2.4. A survey square of 10 × 10 m marked along the northern edge of Socoh, with a view to the Elah Valley. Fig. 2.5. The survey team at work. Fig. 2.6. Surveying on the very steep northern slope of Socoh. Fig. 2.7. Surveying the eastern part of the site in the Islamic-period village of Khirbet Shuweikeh. Fig. 2.8. The variety of pottery, stone and slag objects collected during the survey. Fig. 2.9. A royal (lmlk) Judean jar handle found in the survey. Fig. 2.10. A private seal impression on a jar handle. Fig. 3.1. Late Chalcolithic and Middle Bronze Age pottery. Fig. 3.2. Distribution of Late Chalcolithic and Middle Bronze Age pottery found at the site. Fig. 3.3. Iron Age pottery: bowls with a Judean folded rim. Fig. 3.4. Iron Age pottery: rounded bowls. Fig. 3.5. Iron Age pottery: assorted bowls Fig. 3.6. Iron Age pottery: body sherds decorated with irregular burnish . Fig. 3.7. Iron Age pottery: body sherds decorated with wheel burnish and hand burnish. Fig. 3.8. Iron Age pottery: kraters. Fig. 3.9. Iron Age pottery: kraters. Fig. 3.10. Iron Age pottery: chalices and lamps. Fig. 3.11. Iron Age pottery: cooking pots.

List of Figures and Tables

xiii

Fig. 3.12. Iron Age pottery: a cooking pot handle with a T (or X) incision . Fig. 3.13. Iron Age pottery: jugs. Fig. 3.14. Iron Age pottery: fijinger-impressed “Qeiyafa” storage jar handles. Fig. 3.15. Iron Age pottery: handles of lmlk-type storage jars. Fig. 3.16. Iron Age pottery: lmlk-type storage jars. Fig. 3.17. Iron Age pottery: lmlk-type storage jars. Fig. 3.18. Iron Age pottery: holemouth storage jars. Fig. 3.19. Distribution of Iron Age IIA pottery found at the site. Fig. 3.20. Distribution of Iron Age IIB pottery found at the site. Fig. 3.21. Distribution of Iron Age IIC pottery found at the site. Fig. 3.22. Distribution of Iron Age pottery found at the site. Fig. 3.23. Persian–Hellenistic pottery: bowls, kraters and cooking pots. Fig. 3.24. Persian–Hellenistic pottery: juglets and storage jars. Fig. 3.25. Hasmonean pottery. Fig. 3.26. Early Roman pottery. Fig. 3.27. Late Roman–Early Byzantine pottery: lamp with decorated discus. Fig. 3.28. Late Roman–Early Byzantine pottery. Fig. 3.29. Late Byzantine pottery: Late Roman C bowl with stamp decoration. Fig. 3.30. Late Byzantine pottery: candlestick lamp with branch decoration. Fig. 3.31. Late Byzantine pottery: candlestick lamp with branch decoration – partial. Fig. 3.32. Late Byzantine pottery. Fig. 3.33. Ceramic distribution of the Classical periods represented at the site. Fig. 3.34. Early Islamic and Crusader–Mamluk pottery. Fig. 3.35. Crusader–Mamluk pottery: Hand-made Geometric Painted Ware and Hand-made Ware. Fig. 3.36. Islamic pottery: decorated handle. Fig. 3.37. Crusader–Mamluk pottery: Hand-made Geometric Painted Ware. Fig. 3.38. Crusader–Mamluk pottery: Hand-made Geometric Painted Ware. Fig. 3.39. Islamic pottery: glazed sherds. Fig. 3.40. Islamic pottery: combed sherds . Fig. 3.41. Ottoman pottery. Fig. 3.42. Ottoman pottery: Gray Gaza ware. Fig. 3.43. Ottoman pottery: combed sherd. Fig. 3.44. Ottoman pottery: pipe sherd. Fig. 3.45. Modern glazed and decorated sherd. Fig. 3.46. Ceramic distribution of the Islamic periods represented at the site. Fig. 3.47. Topographic plan of Socoh indicating the location of the two tomb areas. Fig. 3.48. Pottery from the southern tombs: bowls. Fig. 3.49. Pottery from the southern tombs: bowls. Fig. 3.50. Pottery from the southern tombs: irregular hand-burnished sherds.

xiv

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.51. Pottery from the southern tombs: kraters. Fig. 3.52. Pottery from the southern tombs: chalices and lamps. Fig. 3.53. Pottery from the southern tombs: chalice. Fig. 3.54. Pottery from the southern tombs: two sherds of a black juglet. Fig. 3.55. Pottery from the southern tombs: jugs. Fig. 3.56. Pottery from the northern tombs: platters. Fig. 3.57. Pottery from the northern tombs: bowls with Judean folded rim. Fig. 3.58. Pottery from the northern tombs: assorted bowls. Fig. 3.59. Pottery from the northern tombs: wheel burnished sherds. Fig. 3.60. Pottery from the northern tombs: chalices and stands. Fig. 3.61. Pottery from the northern tombs: lamp rims with soot. Fig. 3.62. Pottery from the northern tombs: lamp with thick base. Fig. 3.63. Pottery from the northern tombs: cooking pots. Fig. 3.64. Pottery from the northern tombs: vertically burnished juglet . Fig. 3.65. Pottery from the northern tombs: horizontally burnished juglet. Fig. 3.66. Pottery from the northern tombs: jugs and pithoi. Fig. 3.67. Ceramic distribution of the various periods represented at the site. Fig. 4.1. Topographical plan of Socoh indicating the documented burial caves as well as the survey squares. Fig. 4.2. Plan and section of Cave 1. Fig. 4.3. Entrance to Cave 1. Fig. 4.4. Interior of Cave 1. Fig. 4.5. Plan and section of Cave 2. Fig. 4.6. Entrance to Cave 2. Fig. 4.7. Plan and section of Cave 3. Fig. 4.8. Entrance to Cave 3. Fig. 4.9. Entrance to Chamber III of Cave 3. Fig. 4.10. Plan and section of Cave 4. Fig. 4.11. Shaft leading to Chamber A of Cave 4. Fig. 4.12. Shaft leading to Chamber B of Cave 4. Fig. 4.13. Pottery collected from Cave 4: bowls and juglet. Fig. 4.14. Pottery collected from Cave 4: kraters. Fig. 4.15. Pottery collected from Cave 4: closed vessels. Fig. 4.16. Pottery collected from Cave 4: chalice, lamps and installation. Fig. 4.17. Pottery collected from Cave 1: open vessels. Fig. 4.18. Pottery collected from Cave 1: closed vessels and lamps. Fig. 4.19. Pottery collected from Cave 2: bowls. Fig. 4.20. Pottery collected from Cave 2: closed vessels, stand and lamp. Fig. 4.21. Pottery collected from Cave 3. Fig. 5.1. Map of the region of Socoh with sites and geological formations mentioned in the text (after Sneh 2009). Fig. 5.2. Photos of thin sections, Groups 1a–e, 2a.

List of Figures and Tables

xv

Fig. 5.3. Photos of thin sections, Groups 3, 4, 5, 6. Fig. 5.4. Photos of thin sections, Groups 7, 8, 9. Fig. 5.5. Samples according to contexts and groups. Fig. 5.6. Samples according to types and groups. Fig. 6.1. Slag fragment found in Square D. Fig. 6.2. Slag fragment found in Square D. Fig. 6.3. Slag fragment found in Square E. Fig. 6.4. Slag fragment found in Square O. Fig. 6.5. Three pottery sherds found in Square O. Fig. 6.6. Distribution of slag collected from the site surface. Fig. 7.1. Plan of the locations where the handles were found. Fig. 7.2. Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Socoh. Fig. 7.3. Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Tell Zakariya-Azekah (Bliss and Macalister 1902, Pl 56: 29). Fig. 7.4. Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Jerusalem (photograph by Meidad Suchowolski, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority). Fig. 7.5. Close-up of Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Jerusalem (photograph by Meidad Suchowolski, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority). Fig. 7.6. Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Tel Batash (photograph by Meidad Suchowolski, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority). Fig. 7.7. Close-up of Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Tel Batash (photograph by Meidad Suchowolski, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority). Fig. 7.8. The two-winged lmlk seal impression from Socoh.

Tables Table 1.1. The diffferent fijinds collected in the survey. Table 5.1. Summary of the diffferent petrographic groups at Socoh. Table 5.2. List of samples analyzed with their petrographic grouping and suggested provenance. Table 6.1. Distribution of slag fragments in the various squares and their size category.

xvi

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 1.1. Map of the southern regions of Israel, marking the main cities of the Philistines and the Kingdom of Judah.

Chapter 1

Name, Location, History of Research and Historical Context Michael G. Hasel and Yosef Garfijinkel

Before presenting the 2010 Socoh Survey results, there is a need to clarify various misleading developments regarding the name of the site in both ancient and modern times. The name Socoh was used for three diffferent biblical cities. The Hebrew toponym is also spelled in three diffferent ways. This study focuses on Socoh located in the Elah Valley in the Judean Shephelah (Fig. 1.1). Today two Arabic toponyms are associated with the ancient site: the top of the Iron Age site was called Khirbet ‘Abbâd, while ironically a deserted Islamic-period village adjacent to the eastern border of the site was called Khirbet Shuweikeh, deriving from the Hebrew name Socoh. As a matter of fact Khirbet ‘Abbâd should have been called Khirbet Shuweikeh. Another misleading term was introduced on maps of the State of Israel after 1948, when the site was designated Tel Socoh. The khirbeh, a term used by the local Arab population for a ruined site without much accumulation, became a multilayered tell, a term used for an artifijicial hill with a thick accumulation of many cities. For these reasons, throughout this volume we will generally not use the names Khirbet ‘Abbâd, Khirbet Shuweikeh or Tel Socoh, but simply the name Socoh (Fig. 1.2).

1.1. The Name Socoh The ancient toponym Socoh was written in three diffferent ways in the Hebrew Bible: ‫( שׂ וֹכֹה‬sōchoh, 1 Sam. 17:1), ‫( שׂ ֹכֹה‬sochoh, 1 Sam. 17:1; 1 Kgs. 4:10) or ‫( שׂ וֹכוֹ‬sōchō, 2 Chr. 11:7). In the Septuagint the toponym Socoh 1

2

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 1.2. Map of the Elah Valley with the location of the main sites along its course.

is also spelled in three diffferent ways, as the translators transliterated the Hebrew text accordingly: Σοκχωθ (sokchōth, 1 Sam. 17:1), Σωχω (sōchō, 1 Kgs. 4:10) and Σοχωθ (sochōth, 2 Chr. 11:7). The spelling of the name on the royal Judean jars, dated to the 8th century BCE, is ‫שוכה‬ (Lemaire 1981). The preservation of this name in Arabic as Shuweikeh was discussed by various philologists (Rainey 1984: 231; Elitzur 2004: 110, 118, 304). The grammatical construction with fijinal ō has given rise to various interpretations (Boree 1930: 66–67). The common interpretation of the meaning of Socoh is “a branch” (Judg. 9:48–49; Kallai 1982) or “thorn bush” (Rainey 1984: 231). Socoh also occurs as a private name in the Hebrew Bible (1 Chr. 4:18), possibly the eponymous ancestor of the town of Socoh (Lance 1992a). This personal name appears on an ancient Hebrew seal impression found at Lachish (Avigad and Sass 1997: 260, No. 704). Avigad suggested that this may have been a nickname for a person originating from the town of Socoh (1997: 534). Three diffferent cities were called Socoh in the Hebrew Bible (Aharoni 1967; Rainey 1984; Kallai 1986; Lance 1992b; Hasel 2009). 1. Socoh in the north (1 Kgs. 4:10) is associated with Solomon’s third district in the land of Hepher. It has been identifijied with Khirbet Shuweiket er-Râs at the foot of the western slopes of Mount Ephraim, about 3 km north of modern Tulkarm. 2. Socoh in the southern hill country of Judah (Josh. 15:48) is listed in the tribal allotments of Joshua located in the fijifth district of Judah

Name, Location and Historical Context

3

together with the sites Shamir, Jattir and Dannah, and is identifijied with Khirbet Shuweikeh southwest of Hebron (Hasel 2009). 3. Socoh in the Judean Shephelah (1 Sam. 17:1) is the site identifijied with Khirbet ‘Abbâd and Khirbet Shuweikeh in the Elah Valley near which the famous duel between David and Goliath took place, which is the primary focus of our research.

1.2. The Location of Socoh in the Shephelah The site that appears on modern Israeli maps as “Tel Socoh” is a six-hectare site situated at an altitude of 340 m above sea level in the western part of the high Shephelah. The Israel Map Grid for the western edge is 197520/621140 and for the eastern edge 198165/620730. In the Iron Age this was a border area between the Kingdom of Judah and the Philistine city-state of Gath, commonly identifijied with Tell eṣ-Ṣafiji. It is located on the southern edge of the Elah Valley (Wādi esSant), controlling agricultural land and the main road leading from the coastal plain into the hill country of Judah (Fig. 1.3). All the major sites along this part of the Elah Valley, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah and Gath, are situated on the southern bank of the wadi. This probably indicates that the main road was located along the valley south of the brook. This emphasizes the outstanding location of Khirbet Qeiyafa, which is situated on the northern side. Socoh is located across from the modern village of Kibbutz Netiv HaLamed Heh, 8 km south of Tell Beth Shemesh and 30 km southwest of Jerusalem (Fig. 1.4). About 4.5 km to the west lies Tell ZakariyaAzekah and 2.5 km to the northwest lies Khirbet Qeiyafa-Sha‘arayim. About 14.5 km west of Socoh is Tell eṣ-Ṣafiji. Socoh was fijirst identifijied with biblical Socoh in the mid-19th century by Condor and Kitchener (see discussion below; Fig. 1.5) The climate is typically Mediterranean, with seasonal rains in the winter and a dry climate during the rest of the year. The natural vegetation of the site is composed of seasonal weeds, shrubs and small trees. The site is unique for the perennial blue lupine (Lupinus pilosus), which blossoms densely in the spring. The site’s nickname is Lupine Hill (in Hebrew Givat Haturmusim) (Figs. 1.6–1.7). For this reason, it is an offfijicially declared protected nature reserve.

4

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 1.3. Aerial photograph of Socoh with the Elah Valley to the north and west (view to the west).

Fig. 1.4. The Elah Valley and Kibbutz Netiv HaLamed Heh from Socoh (view to the north).

Name, Location and Historical Context

5

Fig. 1.5. Detailed map of Socoh and its vicinity.

Traditionally, the local Arabic designations for the site were Khirbet ‘Abbâd and Khirbet Shuweikeh. The name Khirbet ‘Abbâd was given to the prominent western part of the area, where there is archaeological sediment, while the name Khirbet Shuweikeh was given to the eastern part of the area (Guérin 1868). A deserted village of the late Islamic period is visible at Khirbet Shuweikeh to the east (Figs. 1.8–1.11). The site of Socoh is a naturally elongated, limestone hill with steep, sloping sides on the south, west and north, forming a narrow plateau (Figs. 1.12–1.14). The fourth side of the hill slopes gently toward the east. Bedrock is exposed on the site surface over 30–40% of the area and has very similar characteristics to that of Khirbet Qeiyafa. Various rock-cut installations, like water cisterns, vats and quarrying activities, remain exposed (Figs. 1.15–1.17). The southern and northern slopes are elongated, with gradual terracing caused by Iron Age fortifijication lines and building activity (Figs. 1.18–1.20). The western portion of the site is

6

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 1.6. The perennial blue lupine flower (Lupinus pilosus).

Fig. 1.7. A typical view of the blue lupine blossoms, a botanical phenomenon that is unique to Socoh.

Name, Location and Historical Context

Fig. 1.8. A ruined house in the Islamic-period village of Khirbet Shuweikeh (view to the west).

Fig. 1.9. A large enclosure in the Islamic-period village of Khirbet Shuweikeh (view to the north).

7

8

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 1.10. A collapsed building in the Islamic-period village of Khirbet Shuweikeh (view to the east).

Fig. 1.11. A well preserved at the bottom of the valley near the Islamic-period village of Khirbet Shuweikeh (view to the north).

Name, Location and Historical Context

9

more prominent and is dominated by the remains of a large building complex dating to the Byzantine period (Figs. 1.21–1.23). A few hundred meters south of the site, a cemetery of shaft tombs of the type common to the Early Bronze IV/Intermediate Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age was observed. A number of the rounded shafts can be seen open on the bedrock and have also been illegally looted (Figs. 1.24–1.26). However, the pottery collected in this area is mainly Iron Age II. Additionally, ancient burial caves have been noted on the lower part of the northern slope of the site, near survey Squares LL and PP. They were looted by robbers conducting illegal excavations (Fig. 1.27).

Fig. 1.12. The western edge of Socoh (view to the east). Note the steep slopes of the hill to the north and south. Unlike a typical tell, there is almost no space for a plateau on top. Because of this topography the site sufffers from continuing severe erosion.

10

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 1.13. Aerial photograph of the northern and western edge of Socoh (view to the south). Note the elongated shape and gradual terracing.

Fig. 1.14. The narrow plateau of Socoh (view to the east).

Name, Location and Historical Context

Fig. 1.15. Aerial photograph of Socoh showing exposed bedrock in a large portion of the site.

Fig. 1.16. Exposed bedrock on Socoh with rock-cut installations.

11

12

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 1.17. Exposed bedrock on Socoh with rock-cut channel and cistern.

Fig. 1.18. Exposed massive architecture built on bedrock on the southern slope of Socoh. This may be part of a fortifijication system and a city gate.

Name, Location and Historical Context

13

Fig. 1.19. A massive Iron Age wall running from east to west on the plateau (view to the north).

Fig. 1.20. A massive Iron Age wall running from east to west on the northern slope (view to the southeast).

14

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 1.21. Aerial photograph of the western part of Socoh (view to the west, taken after the site was burned). Note the remains of the massive Byzantine building.

Fig. 1.22. Close-up aerial photograph of the massive Byzantine building (view to the south, taken after the site was burned).

Name, Location and Historical Context

Fig. 1.23. The walls of the massive Byzantine building (view to the northeast).

Fig. 1.24. Shaft tomb located in a cemetery south of Socoh, Square H.

15

16

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 1.25. Shaft tomb located in a cemetery south of Socoh, Square H.

Fig. 1.26. Tomb located in a cemetery south of Socoh, Square H.

Name, Location and Historical Context

17

Fig. 1.27. A fresh pile of sediment from the looting of tombs on the lower northern slope of Socoh, Squares LL and PP.

1.3. Socoh in Textual Sources Socoh appears frequently in textual sources of the Iron Age that deal with military campaigns, largely due to its strategic location as a border city of Judah oposite Philistia. Because of the context of these appearances, one of the important elements for investigation is Socoh’s role in the geopolitical dynamics of the region. Each of the textual sources will be examined briefly to ascertain three major elements: (1) the location and identifijication of Socoh; (2) the signifijicance of Socoh as a border city; and (3) features of Socoh that may be detected archaeologically. Egyptian Records. Egyptian records documenting the campaigns of Egyptian kings to the southern Levant often recorded the cities they encountered in these regions by name (Ahituv 1984; Hasel 1998). Although several campaigns to Canaan have been recorded with hundreds of toponyms included, the Shephelah region and its cities are largely absent from these accounts and from topographical lists of the New Kingdom (Helck 1971: 256–309, with the exception of Gezer; Hasel 1994, 2008) and Papyrus Anastasi I, an Egyptian text recording

18

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

the historical geography of Canaan (Fischer-Elfert 1986; Allen 2003). The absence of sites in the Shephelah is notable when compared to other regions in Canaan. Although a number of sites in the Shephelah have signifijicant remains from the Late Bronze Age (Lachish, Azekah, Beth Shemesh and Gezer), and several appear in the Amarna letters (Lachish, Gezer and Gath; Na’aman 2011: 282), there appears to be some correspondence between this silence and the lack of Late Bronze Age remains from surveys conducted at other sites like Socoh. Hebrew Bible. The site is fijirst mentioned in Josh. 15: 35, where the site is listed in the territory of Judah. The order in which Socoh appears is “Adullam, Socoh, Azekah.” This would be a natural progression through the Elah Valley, as Azekah is on the western edge of the Judean Shephelah. Identifijications of Adullam with Khirbet esh-Sheikh Madhkur, Socoh with Khirbet ‘Abbâd/Shuweikeh and Azekah with Tell Zakariya have been suggested and would confijirm this geographical progression along the Elah Valley from east to west (Rainey 1983: 7). The close proximity of these cities in the Elah Valley is reafffijirmed in the account of the battle between Israel and Philistia recorded in 1 Sam. 17:1–2: “Now the Philistines gathered their armies together at Sochoh which belongs to Judah; they camped between Sochoh and Azekah in Ephes Dammim. And Saul and the men of Israel were gathered together, and they encamped at the Valley of Elah, and drew up in battle array against the Philistines.” The biblical tradition from the early monarchy afffijirms that Azekah and Socoh were indeed close to one another, as the list of cities in Josh. 15 indicates. Socoh too was apparently on the border of Philistia, since after their defeat the Philistines were pursued back to the gates of Ekron and Gath (1 Sam. 17:52). In all of the cases so far, there appears to be a consistent portrayal of Socoh as a border city located close to Azekah in the Elah Valley near Sha‘arayim. Sha‘arayim has now been identifijied with the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Adams 2009; Garfijinkel and Ganor 2009; Garfijinkel, Ganor and Hasel 2014). As a border city Socoh would have played a crucial defensive role as one of the gate cities into the hill country. This role of defense is addressed in 2 Chr. 11: 5–12, where the fortifijication of 15 cities is attributed to Rehoboam (Aharoni 1967; Garfijinkel

Name, Location and Historical Context

19

1988; Japhet 1993). The dating to the reign of Rehoboam assumes an association with the campaign of Shishak, and some scholars have suggested that these cities would have been refortifijied in anticipation of his Asiatic campaign (Selman 1994), in response to it, or a combination of both (Williamson 1982: 241; Japhet 1993: 666). Others have redated this tradition to Hezekiah (Na’aman 1974, 1979, 1986) or Josiah (Junge 1937: 73–80; Alt 1953: 306–315; Fritz 1981). The sequence of the Chronicler places Socoh with Adullam. During the time of Ahaz, the city appears to have been taken for a short time by the Philistines (2 Chr. 28: 18). Although Socoh with Azekah may have been reinhabited following the exile (Neh. 11: 30), it is not mentioned again in biblical sources. Epigraphic Records. Judean royal (lmlk) jars are a prominent pottery type of the Iron Age in Judah. Today we know they were already produced in the 9th century BCE (Shai and Maeir 2003; Gitin 2006). They were widely spread in the 8th century BCE and were found in large quantities in the destruction of Level III at Lachish, attributed to the Sennacherib campaign of 701 BCE (Ussishkin 1976, 1977, 2004: 2133–2147; Vaughn 1999a). The handles of these jars were stamped with offfijicial seals of the Kingdom of Judah, including iconographic symbols and inscriptions. Various classifijications have been suggested for these seal impressions (Diringer 1934; Lemaire 1981; Grena 2004). Usually the upper part of the impressions includes the phrase lmlk (to the king), followed by one of four city names: ḥbrn (Hebron), śwkh (Socoh; Figs. 1a–1b), zyp (Ziph) and mmšt (unknown place). Various interpretations have been suggested over the years as to the function of these jars: (1) containing wine from four diffferent royal vineyards (Diringer 1934; Rainey 1982b); (2) administrative units based on military defense (Yadin 1961); (3) preparation by Hezekiah for Sennacherib’s campaign (Na’aman 1979, 1986; Ussishkin 1976, 1977, 2000). The function of the royal jars is beyond the scope of this study. It is well known among Israeli archaeologists that many stamped handles have been found on the surface of Socoh. Recently, six handles collected from the site were published. These include two private seal impressions with the names ‫שחר‬/‫ יהוכל‬and ‫צפנ‬/‫הושע‬, three lmlk

20

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

stamped handles and one rosette impressed handle (Lipschitz and Amit 2011, Nos. 4–6, 8–9, 11). Another eroded lmlk stamped handle was uncovered during salvage excavations along the modern road at the foot of Socoh (Khirbat el-Mas‘ud), bearing the inscription lmlk [św] kh (Nagorsky 2007: Fig. 7). The name Socoh is also known on a fijiscal bulla of unknown provenance (Barkay 2011). Unlike a usual bulla that bears a personal name, a clay sealing of the type known as “fijiscal bullae” bears a city name and other information, like lmlk (to the king) and a year number. These items are associated with the taxation system of the Judean Kingdom (Avigad 1990; Barkay 2011). The importance of Socoh is highlighted by the fact that it was one of the four major cities mentioned on lmlk royal jar handles and in other sources. This has two implications. First, the city was inhabited during the 8th century BCE, when the jars were being produced. Second, it was an important administrative center during this period. Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in the 4th century CE, records that there are two villages by the name Sukchoth in the territory of the tribe of Judah at the ninth milestone on the road from Eleutheropolis (Beth Guvrin) to Aelia (Jerusalem) (Freeman-Grenville 2003: 86). Talmudic Sources. A famous Jewish sage of the fijirst half of the 3rd century BCE was Antigonus of Socoh, a successor of Simon the Just. He was the fijirst noted Jew to bear a Greek name, an indication of the process of Hellenization in Judah (Herr 2007: 198).

1.4. The Signifijicance of Socoh The Shephelah is an important region of Israel that has been studied in the past by a number of geographers (Rainey 1980, 1983; Galil 1985; Dagan 1992b, 2006). In the Iron Age the Shephelah was one of several districts in Judah (cf. Rainey 1983: 1; Dagan 1992b, 1996). Its eastern boundary is defijined by the division between the Cenomanian limestone hills of Judah (the central hill country) and the homogeneous zone of Eocene limestone that is separated by a long, narrow trough

Name, Location and Historical Context

21

created by the exposure of Senonian chalk (Karmon 1971: 245; Baly 1974: 41). According to Rainey, “all of the identifijiable towns in this trough are assigned to the Shephelah” (1983: 2). It has been suggested that the southern boundary with the Negev may be placed just north of Tel Ḥalif in the narrow pass formed by a break in the Eocene ridge (Rainey 1983: 2). The western boundary is still a matter of debate, although there is a clear distinction in the Hebrew Bible between the Shephelah and the coastal plain, historically the territory of the Philistines. It is precisely at this border between Philistia and Judah that Socoh is situated on the line of east-west hills that formed the southern border of the Elah Valley. “The geopolitical importance of the area was enhanced by the several valleys, or wadis, that traverse it from east to west,” giving clear access to the higher terrain of the Judean hills from the coast (Rainey 1983: 2). Socoh stands to the south on the eastern edge of the Elah Elah Valley as it empties into the coastal plain and Philistia. One of the main east-west roads inland leading from the Via Maris passed from Ashkelon to Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣafiji) in Philistia past the Judean cities of Azekah (Tell Zakariya) and Socoh and on up to Jerusalem and Bethlehem (Dorsey 1991: 182; cf. Tappy 2000: 12, Fig. 3). For this reason Socoh would have served as a key fortifijied city at the crucial border between Judah and Philistia, as well as against other polities (Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia) who regularly employed the coastal highway for trade or military campaigns. The critical role played by these cities is reflected in several historical accounts during major conflicts in the region, between Israel and the Amorite kings (Josh. 10: 10–12), Israel and Philistia (1 Sam. 17), Israel and Egypt (Shishak, 2 Chr. 12), Judah and Assyria (Sargon II and Sennacherib) and Judah and Babylonia (Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. 34: 7; Lachish letter 4). It was precisely because the defeat of the Shephelah was the fijirst step in conquering Judah that Socoh was one of the cities said to be fortifijied by Rehoboam (2 Chr. 11: 9). The signifijicance of these historical references for the geopolitical dynamics of this border city will be addressed more completely below. During the Bronze Age the strategic location of the Shephelah dictated that its inhabitants not only witness but participate in several important developments, including the period of imperial rule by Egypt during the Late Bronze Age demonstrated so vividly in the

22

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Amarna letters. The Amarna letters mention the surrounding sites of Gezer (Ross 1966; Izra’el 1978), Qîla (Keilah; Amarna Tablet 280: 25–28), Lachish (Amarna Tablet 329, 333) and possibly Yaramu (Jarmuth?, cf. Albright 1942: 36 n. 30; but see Rainey 1983: 4). Gezer is mentioned again in inscriptions of Thutmose III (Ahituv 1984: 101–102) and Merenptah (Hasel 1994, 1998, 2003, 2004). The ensuing struggle for control after the demise of Egyptian military occupation (Weinstein 1981; Hasel 1998) and the political upheaval caused by the influx of the “Sea People” and Israelites made this area central in the theater of operations of these events. It seems unlikely that Socoh played a crucial role, if any, during this period, since it remains somewhat enigmatic from the written sources. Survey and excavation can clarify this situation. As Philistine control of the coastal plain solidifijied in the Iron Age, its influence on Socoh is not altogether clear. It is interesting to note that the Philistines camped “between Socoh and Azekah” at Ephes Dammim, the location of the famous battle between David and Goliath the Gittite (a man of Gath) according to the biblical tradition (1 Sam. 17: 1–3). Yet another biblical tradition describes a battle that took place at the similarly named Pas Dammim (1 Chr. 11: 13). These traditions apparently reflect a historical memory of heavy military confrontations in the Elah Valley between the kingdoms of Gath and Judah in the late 11th and early 10th centuries BCE. In the Iron Age II numerous international incidents place the Shephelah at one of the critical junctions of political and economic intrigue. The campaign by Shoshenq I/Shishak around 925 BCE apparently resulted in the fortifijication of the city by Rehoboam. Recent excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa indicate the importance of the Elah Valley in the defensive development and organization of early Judah (Garfijinkel and Ganor 2009; Garfijinkel, Ganor and Hasel 2010, 2012, 2014). The role of Socoh in this development was one of the reasons for the intensive survey of the site.

1.5. A History of Archaeological Research Extensive survey work in the southern coastal plain, known in the biblical narrative as the Shephelah, began in 1838 with the American

Name, Location and Historical Context

23

explorers Edward Robinson and Eli Smith (1841: 348–350). Based on Eusebius, they wrote: On arriving at Beit Nettîf, we were surprised and gratifijied to fijind ourselves surrounded by several places, whose distances from Eleutheropolis are specifijied by Eusebius and Jerome. Thus the distance both of Beth-shemesh and Zorah is given at ten Roman miles towards Nicopolis; that of Jarmuth (Jarmuch) also at ten miles towards Jerusalem, and that of Socoh (Shuweikeh) at nine miles towards the same city, probably on another road. The fijirst three places all lay within a circle of an hour and a half west of north from Beit Nettîf; and these distances, we thought, might perhaps serve us in some measure as a clue, in our research after the site of Eleutheropolis itself.  . . . We crossed the water-bed of the valley, now dry, and soon came upon the ancient road, which had followed down Wady elMusŭrr. The other or Gaza branch goes offf more to the left, and crossed Wady es-Sûr near an immense Butm-tree about twenty minutes south of the junction of the vallies. On our left, in a gap of the southern hill, we now had the ruins of Shuweikeh, the Socoh of the plain of Judah, which is enumerated with Jarmuth, Adullam, and Azekah, and lay nine Roman miles from Eleutheropolis towards Jerusalem.  . . . Another mention of Socoh enables us to determine the ancient name of this fijine valley; and fijixes it as the scene of a memorable event in Scripture history, the combat of David and Goliath . . . And the valley between the armies, the valley of Elah, in which the combat took place, could well be no other than the present Wady es-Sŭnt. It tooks its name Elah of old from the Terebinth (Butm) of which the largest specimen we saw in Palestine still stands in the vicinity (1841: 348). Thus, these two great scholars were the fijirst to identify Shuweikeh with Socoh, and the Wadi es-Sŭnt with the Elah Valley (Fig. 1.28). The French explorer Victor Guérin (1868) reported on Khirbet ‘Abbâd to the west and Khirbet Shuweikeh to the east. He also suggested, based on Eusebius and the similarity of the Arabic name to the

24

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

biblical name, that this is the location of biblical Socoh. A few years later Conder and Kitchener, on behalf of the Survey of Western Palestine, visited the place and described it as: “Foundations and ruined walls, caves, cisterns, heaps of stones, and two rock-cut wine presses” (1883: 125). As to the historical identifijication, they wrote, “Socoh (Joshua xv. 35) was known in the fourth century as 8 or 9 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jubrin), on the road to Jerusalem. This agrees with the position of Khŭrbat Shuweikeh” (1883: 53) (Figs. 1.29–1.30). During their excavations in the region, Frederick Jones Bliss and Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister (1902: 66–67) rejected the identifijication of Khirbet Shuweikeh with Socoh, based on the late pottery found at the site. They rather identifijied Tell Zakariya with Socoh, stating: “We would suggest that the preservation of the name at Khurbat Shuweikeh, three miles away, may be due to the not uncommon transference of names from one site to another.” Bliss (1907: 292) later elaborated his views in the volume The Development of Palestine Exploration: “My application of the pottery-scale to Khurbet Shuweikeh, a site above the Valley of Elah, proved it to be late, thus confijirming my suspicions that these slight remains could not be those of the city

Fig. 1.28. The fijirst appearance of the site of Socoh, designated as Shuweikeh Socoh, on a map (detail from Robinson and Smith 1841). Note in the upper part of the map Tell Zakariya (Azekah), Jarmuth and Beit Nettif.

Name, Location and Historical Context

25

Fig. 1.29. The fijirst detailed map of the site of Socoh, with Khirbet ‘Abbâd in the west and Khirbet Shuweikeh in the east (Conder and Kitchener 1880: Sheet XVII, 1/63,360). Note Khirbet Qeiyafa (Kiafa) in the upper left corner and Beit Nettif in the upper right corner.

Fig. 1.30. Enlarged detail of Khirbet ‘Abbâd and Khirbet Shuweikeh (detail from Conder and Kitchener 1880: Sheet XVII).

of Shocoh once fortifijied by Rehoboam. Robinson did an immense service in providing that the ancient nomenclature has so largely survived in modern Arabic names. These are of the highest value as clews. But in some cases sites are known to have shifted. In the

26

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey modern Shuweikah we probably fijind the survival of the name Shocoh, which must be looked for in the vicinity, possibly, as I have suggested, at Tell-Zakarîya, which is either Azekah or Shocoh.”

In 1903 John P. Peters (Baum and Wright 1903: 31) visited the sites excavated by Bliss and Macalister and made a strong case for the identifijication of Socoh with Khirbet Shuweikeh. He describes his visit: “In examining the sites excavated by the Palestine Exploration Fund in the Shephelah, – es-Safiji, Zechariah, Judeidah, and Sandahannah, – I was much impressed by the incompleteness of the excavations; that not one spot was thoroughly excavated . . . Dr. Bliss, in his account of the excavations at Tell Zachariah, seems inclined to identify it with the ancient Socoh. I visited Suweikeh. The position is one of great strategic importance. There were rock-cut steps at one point, ascending to a door in the remains of a wall built of huge stones. Not far from this were a few columns of the Roman period or later. On another side were terraces and fragments of walls. Nothing above ground is necessarily of early date. From this fact and the apparent shallowness of the debris, Dr. Bliss reached the conclusion that ancient Socoh is not likely to have stood here. The evidence of the name in connection with the strategical importance of the position and the extent of the remains which is considerable, lead me to suppose that, unless it be proved to the contrary by excavations, this is the site of ancient Socoh, in which case Tell Zachariah would be Azekah and Tell eṣ-Ṣafiji Gath. These are the three strategical positions on the wady Sunt, the ancient Vale of Elah.” William F. Albright conducted a survey there on April 2–11, 1924 and gave this description of the site, which confijirmed Peters’ observations (1924: 9): “From Deir edh-Dhibbân we pushed on into the Valley of Elah, south of Azekah (Tell Zakarîyeh), and followed up the valley, perhaps over the very ground where tradition placed the memorable dual between David and Goliath, to Khirbet Shuweikeh. Since the fellahin now call the western of the two ruins, called Khirbet ‘Abbûd

Name, Location and Historical Context

27

in the Survey, Khirbet Shuweikeh, we may suppose that there is a confusion in the Survey. Both ruins were examined by Petrie and later by Bliss, who reported nothing earlier than Roman–Byzantine, and for this reason doubted the identifijication with Socoh. Since Shuweikeh is identical with an ancient Sôcôh in two other cases in Palestine, and the general location is excellent, this anomaly has always puzzled me. As a matter of fact, however, it does not exist. Had these two scholars examined the slopes of the hill carefully, as we did, they would have found them covered with pre-exilic potsherds, including numerous ring-burnished bits, as well as many handles of the royal jar stamped type, though none of them stamped. We also found pieces of massive Jewish fortifijication wall still in situ, though most of the wall was probably removed for building purposes by the later Greco-Roman occupants of the site. The total absence of a tell, which so struck Dr. Bliss, is simply explained; Socoh was not a Canaanite town at all and was fijirst fortifijied by Rehoboam, probably in a very hasty and perfunctory manner.” The following year Albright returned again and wrote, “A visit to Khirbet ‘Abbâd and Khirbet Shuweikeh, just to the east of it, confijirmed previous results, which the writer has described elsewhere. The latter is exclusively Arabic, but gives us the name of the ancient site, located at the much higher Khirbet ‘Abbâd. Khirbet ‘Abbâd is covered with Roman and Byzantine debris, but hollows and especially on the terraced sides of the hill are innumerable sherds of the Early Iron, phases I–II (cir. 1200–600 B. C.)” (Albright 1925: 10–11). George Adam Smith, in his book The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, described the site: “This plain is probably the scene of David’s encounter with Goliath; for to the south on the low hills that bound the Wady es-Sunt is the name Shuweikah, probably Socoh, on which the Philistines rested their rear and faced Israel.” In a footnote he cites the earlier hesitation of Bliss (Smith 1931: 161, note 3). German scholars also visited the site of Socoh during the early part of the 20th century (Dalman 1909: 13; Alt 1928: 26–27). The French scholar Félix-Marie Abel in his Géographie de la Palestine accepted the identifijication, “SOCHO, Kh. ‘Abbād, voisin de Kh. Šuweiké, au dessus

28

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

des chemins qui unissent la vallée du Térébinthe avec Maréša d’une part, avec Bethléem de l’autre” (1938: 467). In the second half of the 20th century, Israeli archaeologists began surveys of the area (Aharoni and Amiran 1955; Kallai 1960). A much broader systematic survey of sites in the Judean Shephelah was conducted by Yehuda Dagan (1992a, 1992b, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2006). Based on Albright’s observations, the identifijication of Khirbet ‘Abbâd as biblical Socoh has become a consensus among scholars (Abel 1938: 467; Baly 1974: 146; Albright 1960: 30–31; Aharoni 1967: 300; Rainey 1980, 1983: 7; Dorsey 1991; Tappy 2000). A Byzantine church and monastery were briefly excavated at the northwest foot of Socoh in 1980, a fijinal report was published (Gudovitch 1982, 1996; Tzaferis 1996). Since then random discoveries have been made by individuals visiting the site. Some of these were recently published, including two private seal impressions with the names ‫שחר‬/‫ יהוכל‬and ‫צפנ‬/‫הושע‬, three lmlk stamped handles and fijive rosette impressed handles (Lipschitz and Amit 2011: Nos. 4–6, 8–9, 11; Koch and Lipschitz 2013: 59). During salvage excavations conducted in 2003 along the modern road at the foot of Socoh (Khirbat el-Mas‘ud), an Early Bronze IV/ Intermediate Bronze Age site was revealed (Nagorsky 2007). In February 2004, following illicit looting of burial caves at Socoh, four caves were documented and pottery sherds were collected by A. Nagorsky and R. Lewis. The project was carried out under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority (License No. A-4199). The documentation of these caves and the pottery collected from them is presented for the fijirst time in Chapter 4 of this publication. In February, 2010 a terracotta plaque fijigurine of a female goddess was found by a visitor on the surface of the site. This fijigurine was handed over to the Israel Antiquities Authority and was published recently (Ganor 2011). Our interest in the site began in July, 2010, when an accidental fijire burnt all the vegetation on the surface. It was decided to conduct aerial photography in order to document as much of the site during this unique situation. In October, 2010 an intensive survey was conducted and the results are reported in this volume.

Name, Location and Historical Context

29

In 2011 a two-week excavation season was conducted by Yuval Goren on behalf of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. As presented in a lecture, the research design was aimed to locate the pottery workshop of the royal (lmlk) Judean storage jars at the site. No report of this project has been published to date. Even prior to the burning, visitors to Socoh could see massive buildings on the acropolis of the site, some 1–2 m in height and encompassing much of the summit of the hill. The city wall to the north of the site could also be discerned over a length of some 20–30 m. Due to the local topography, only the external face of the wall is exposed and the inner part is buried under archaeological remains. It was noted that the city wall is composed of cyclopean stones, some weighing 3–6 tons, similar to the Iron Age outer casemate wall of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Garfijinkel, Ganor and Hasel 2012, 2014: 131–133). At the summit of the hill are the massive remains of a rectangular building. At its center is a large open courtyard where, in part, the bedrock is exposed on the surface. Inside the building and farther to the east, ancient cisterns were cut into the bedrock, which were then blocked with large boulders during the 20th century CE. Numerous press installations are also noticeable along the trails made by visitors. Various architectural elements are scattered around, including large threshold stones, well-cut stones and large stone weights. Elsewhere on the site, stone walls of various sizes, rock-cut installations, caves and heaps of stones are visible. The evidence indicates that this is not a tell, a multi-layered mound with a thick accumulation of human activity, but a short-lived thin-accumulation ruin, many remains of which stand exposed to this very day.

Chapter 2

Survey Methodology, Objectives and Fieldwork Michael G. Hasel and Yosef Garfijinkel

2.1. A History of Survey Methodology Two main tools are used in archaeological fijield research: excavations and surveys. Each of these tools provides distinct information and relates to diffferent research goals. Archaeological excavations provide accurate information in a confijined area, working stratigraphically through a site. Archaeological surveys, on the other hand, yield less accurate information but offfer spatial aspects to the research at hand. The two tools complement each other. A survey produces information on a large area, but the information is relatively sparse and requires the context and the sequence found in excavations (Dagan 2000: 5–9). Since the Survey of Western Palestine, archaeological surveys are divided into two types: regional and site surveys (Conder and Kitchener 1883). Regional surveys provide information on the various periods in which the region was inhabited, the intensity of the settlement in each period. In other words, regional surveys locate the archaeological sites that may be later excavated. Site surveys provide higher–resolution information on a given site. In most cases, site surveys are used as a preparatory tool for excavations. A survey of a specifijic site is carried out in order to determine the chronology and intensity of the settlement at the site. Furthermore, this type of survey may assess which locations on the site were settled in diffferent periods. There are three phases in the history and development of archaeological survey. The First Phase. The fijirst phase of survey work took place during the late 19th century, as European and American explorers began to visit sites 31

32

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

and try to connect modern Arabic names with ancient place names in historical sources (Robinson and Smith 1841; Guérin 1868). In much of the literature these ventures are described as exploratory excursions or fijield trips. The discipline of archaeology was just being established and a base of information on the geography and topography of the land had not yet been developed. This was a time of geographical and historical information-gathering, and most of these visits did not involve the collection of material culture or careful documentation of features at the sites visited (with the exception of Jerusalem). The Second Phase. Beginning in the 20th century, when ceramic typology was being developed and refijined, surveys began to include the collection of sherds and other artifacts to determine the occupational history of sites. At the beginning of this development these surveys were not systematic but involved investigators randomly picking up sherds and discarding them at the site (Bliss 1907; Albright 1924). This method allowed the development of hypotheses about the overall settlement periods represented at a given site and the estimation of population size (Zorn 1994). With time, surveyors began to develop more refijined techniques that involved questions about demographics and settlement patterns from multiple sites over a broader region (Broshi and Gophna 1984, 1986; Finkelstein 1988; Dagan 1992b, 2000, 2004). The Third Phase. A more defijined methodology was developed emphasizing the spatial resolution of the collected material. Now the site was not approached as one unit but divided into specifijic collecting units. Notable fijieldwork examples of this approach can be found in the research of Portugali (1982) and Shai and Uziel (2014). The methodology of the Socoh Survey of 2010 was based on that of Portugali. Yuval Portugali (1982) proposes a survey technique that focuses on assessing the settlement pattern of a specifijic site. This technique is unique due to its attempt to locate areas on the site surface where one is most likely to unearth fijinds from a period of interest. Each layer in the site covers the earlier layers. Hence, in principle, in order to reveal a certain occupational phase of interest at a site, the archaeologist is forced to excavate through a number of later occupational phases. Portugali’s method was developed for the Jezreel Valley Regional

Survey Methodology, Objectives and Fieldwork

33

Fig. 2.1. Two types of site accumulation. A: shelved accumulation. B: sealed accumulation (Portugali 1982: Fig. 1).

Project and has two main goals. The fijirst is assessing the size of the settlements in the diffferent periods at multi-layered sites. The second is determining where on each site one should excavate in order to reveal any period of interest with the minimum possible amount of time and efffort. Portugali’s survey method is based on three main assumptions. The fijirst is that the period from which the highest percentage of pottery is collected is the period that may be revealed immediately beneath the surface in that location on the site. The second is the distinction between two types of accumulation in sites with multiple phases: sealed accumulation and terraced accumulation. In sealed accumulation (Fig. 2.1:B), each life phase covers the one that came before, so each phase seals the earlier phases and is sealed by the later ones. In shelved accumulation (Fig. 2.1:A), diffferent life phases cover diffferent areas of the site, creating a terraced model. In this type of accumulation each phase covers only part of the earlier phase, and therefore the site surface is made up of shelves; immediately under the surface of each shelf one may fijind a diffferent period. This perception is signifijicant for the survey method, because it means that even if there is sealed accumulation in a large part of a surveyed site, it may be possible to excavate a phase of interest without excavating through all the later phases if there is shelved accumulation in even a small area. Some sites are made up mainly of sealed accumulation and others mainly of

34

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

shelved, but most sites are made up of a combination of the two. The third assumption is that the depth of the archaeological accumulation at a site is positively related to its number of occupational phases (Portugali 1982: 171–172). The survey method proposed by Portugali is divided into four stages. The fijirst stage includes intensive topographic mapping of the site in order to identify and locate areas with sealed accumulation and those with shelved accumulation. The second stage, the collection stage, is done in squares of 5 × 5 m, reaching 10–20 cm beneath the surface in order to overcome the problem of vegetation coverage. The location of the squares is determined according to the mapping of the diffferent shelves of accumulation. On each shelf of accumulation no less than two squares are located (the number of squares on each shelf depends on the size of the area). Therefore, on each site surveyed there are between 25 and 40 squares. The third and fourth stages include sorting, registration and feedback on the process (1982: 172–176). Portugali uses a variety of statistical models in order to make a cartographic analysis of the data collected in surveys in the Jezreel Valley and then reconstruct the settlement pattern in the diffferent periods in the valley area. The survey at Socoh was conducted using Portugali’s methodology for fijieldwork and using his main principles for analyzing the material that was collected. The objective of the Socoh Survey was diffferent from that of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project, as it was a single site survey done as preliminary research before possible excavations at the site and was not a survey of multiple sites in a larger region concerned with the settlement pattern of that region. Accordingly, the analysis of the data collected was carried out using only a small part of the models that Portugali (1982: 176–186) uses in his research. In summary, the history of research at Socoh reflects the historical progression of approaches to survey methodologies. First, in the 19th century, the site was visited and described by Robinson and Smith and by Guérin, as well as by Conder and Kitchener on behalf of the Survey of Western Palestine. During this phase the site was identifijied as biblical Socoh, based on Eusebius’ descriptions and the similarity between the Arabic name and the biblical name. Second, when pottery

Survey Methodology, Objectives and Fieldwork

35

typology was being developed and refijined, the identifijication of the site was a matter of debate. Bliss argued that the lack of Iron Age pottery precluded Khirbet Shuweikeh from being identifijied with biblical Socoh. Using the same survey methodology, Albright, who recognized Iron Age pottery there, supported the identifijication with Socoh. This identifijication has not been disputed since. Third, our survey employed controlled sampling and mapping together with data analysis based on modern methods of survey work established by Portugali.

2.2. The Socoh Survey In July 2010 a massive brush fijire accidentally consumed the site, resulting in the exposure of architecture and producing outstanding conditions for an archaeological surface survey. The burnt surface was noticed during a site tour during the regular excavation season at Khirbet Qeiyafa. The directors decided to contact SkyView to take high-resolution aerial images of Socoh to document the architecture and other visible features on the site. The Socoh Survey was initiated in October 19–24, 2010 in order to take advantage of the burning of the site’s surface, which had removed the cover of vegetation, before the winter rains began. This was an intensive survey to examine the site, the periods of settlement and the state of preservation of the archaeological materials and architecture in order to ascertain whether the site would be suitable for future excavation. The plan was that a pilot season of excavation would begin in 2012. The survey team was directed by Michael G. Hasel, Director of the Institute of Archaeology, Southern Adventist University, and Yosef Garfijinkel, professor at the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The surveyors were Michael Dant and Daniel Perez, professor of computing and museum coordinator respectively at Southern Adventist University. Students from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem provided volunteer support.

36

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 2.2. Topographical plan of Socoh indicating locations of survey squares.

The methodology of the survey was to place 60 squares of 10 × 10 m within topographic units across the site (Fig. 2.2). The exact location of the squares was randomly assigned inside the topographical units. Coordinates of the four corners of the squares were taken by a Topcon HyperLite Plus GPS base station and rover (Fig. 2.3). These squares were marked with GPS coordinates according to the Israeli Transverse Mercator and were designated A–Z, then AA–ZZ and then AAA–EEE, making a total of 57 squares (Figs. 2.4–2.7). In each square all the vegetation was removed and close to 100% of the material culture remains seen on the surface were collected. These included mainly pottery and slag, but also some stone tools, glass and brick (Fig. 2.8). The location of the squares was determined in accordance with the topography of the site, and so every topographical unit is represented in the survey. Sometimes the topography was very steep and the squares were slanted. Since the site is about 6 hectares in size, close to 10% of the site was intensively surveyed.

Survey Methodology, Objectives and Fieldwork

Fig. 2.3. The survey squares were marked by a Topcon HyperLite Plus GPS base station and rover. Surveyor Daniel Perez with the base station.

Fig. 2.4. A survey square of 10 × 10 m marked along the northern edge of Socoh, with a view to the Elah Valley (view to the northwest).

37

38

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 2.5. The survey team at work. A square of 10 × 10 m was marked and all material culture remains carefully collected. Square A, where many large slag fragments were found, is located at the southern foot of Socoh (view to the southeast).

The Socoh Survey was initiated in order to choose an excavation area for a period of interest according to the distribution of the ceramic representation of that period. The idea was that if close to 100% of the fijinds on the surface of sample units (squares) was collected, then the ceramic representation of various periods in each sample unit would indicate what period might be found immediately beneath the surface. The higher the representation of a certain period in the ceramic assemblage collected from a square, the more likely it would be to fijind remains of that period in excavations in that area. In other words, in the area where a high percentage of pottery from period X was found, one would be more likely to unearth artifacts from that period during excavations. Using this method, site surveys used as preliminary research before excavations would provide information, not only regarding the various periods in which the site was settled, but also in which areas the site was inhabited in each period. This information could direct the excavators to excavate and reveal a period of interest using the minimum amount of time and efffort.

Survey Methodology, Objectives and Fieldwork

39

Fig. 2.6. Surveying on the very steep northern slope of Socoh (view to the northwest).

What follows are the observations made in the fijield for each square with documentation of (1) location, (2) general description, (3) surface visibility and (4) fijinds collected. Square A was the fijirst surveyed. The square was located at the bottom of the site to the southeast near the modern dirt road that surrounds the site. A large amount of slag was discovered in this square and the adjacent squares to the west (B and C). Most of the pottery here appears to be Iron Age, with only one small Byzantine fragment found. Visibility: 100%.

40

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 2.7. Surveying the eastern part of the site in the Islamic-period village of Khirbet Shuweikeh.

Fig. 2.8. The variety of pottery, stone and slag objects collected during the survey.

Square B was located directly west of Square A at the bottom of the site to the southeast near the modern dirt road that surrounds the site. Again, large amounts of slag were found in the square with a large quantity of Iron Age pottery. Visibility: 100%.

Survey Methodology, Objectives and Fieldwork

41

Square C was located directly west of Square B at the bottom of the site to the southeast near the modern road that surrounds the site. Again, large amounts of slag and Iron Age pottery were found. Visibility: 100%. Square D was located on a terrace to the north of Squares A–C, immediately above Square A. Again, large amounts of slag and Iron Age pottery were found. A thick lamp base of the the late Iron Age II was found in this square. Visibility: 100%. Square E was located on the same terrace to the north of Squares A–C, west of Square D and above Square B. Again, large amounts of slag and Iron Age pottery were found. In these fijirst fijive squares only a few Byzantine sherds were found and most of the pottery seems to be Iron Age. Visibility: 100%. Square F was situated on the highest terrace on the east part of the summit. The majority of the pottery is Iron Age, with one red-slipped and wheel-burnished sherd observed. Visibility: 100%. Square G was located in the center of the lower part of the site. It was largely covered by grass, with only 5% visibility. Square H was situated away from the site to the south along an adjacent road where a series of shaft tombs had previously been illegally excavated. The robbers left a pile of debris immediately outside one of at least fijive tombs that could be seen. The debris was within Square H and was fijilled with large quantities of pottery from the Iron Age and perhaps earlier periods. Of signifijicance were a fragment of a redslipped, hand-burnished bowl and a black juglet handle from the Iron Age II and a large piece of a Late Bronze or Iron Age krater. A large number of human bones were also discovered in the debris left by the tomb robbers. Visibility: 50%. Square I was situated northwest of Square A where a large concentration of pottery (sherd scatter) was found to have been left by the tomb robbers. Visibility: 80%. Square J was located on a lower terrace in the north-central part of the lower site, just north of Square F in an open area. There was a mixture

42

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

of Hellenistic and Byzantine pottery with some Iron Age material as well. Visibility 95%. Square K was in an enclosed area outside what may be a lower city wall in the south-central part of the lower city. This may be an important area to excavate, based on aerial photography, since it seems to be enclosed on the north by a wall standing several courses in height, a road and then a second wall. Could this have been a kind of casemate, or how was the structure used in antiquity? Excavation of a few squares in the future could resolve this issue. The pottery gathered was from later periods. Visibility: 0%. Square L was on the southeast side of the site, located above Square A and D on a second terrace below the very top of the site. Burnt vegetation. Visibility: 100%. Square M was located on the steep slope to the northeast of the site. The area mostly consisted of bedrock. Visibility: 95%. Square N was located to the west of Square M and east of Square D along the same line. It lies on the norther slope to the site. Near this square two large rock-cut cisterns were found. Visibility due to grass: 45%. Square O was located between Squares N and G in the north-central, upper part of the lower site next to the edge of the northern slope. A cistern opening (noted above under Square N) is immediately to the north of the square. Visibility: 25%. Collected: 1 bag pottery, 1 bag slag, Square P was situated on the steep northern slope to the north of Square M. It was largely covered by grass. Bedrock is exposed in several areas. Visibility: 20%. Square Q was located to the west of and downslope from Square P on the northern slope of the site. It was northeast of the cisterns described under Square N and directly north of Square N. There is some bedrock, but the area is heavily overgrown. Visibility: 25%. Square R was located back on the southern upper part of the lower site on the second terrace, west of Square L. A great deal of the bedrock was exposed and the rest of the square was covered by grass. Visibility:

Survey Methodology, Objectives and Fieldwork

43

45%. Near this square a two-winged lmlk seal impression was found (Fig. 2.9).

Fig. 2.9. A royal (lmlk) Judean jar handle found in the survey.

Square S was situated in the center of the lower site. Some bedrock could be seen in the southern part of the square. Visibility: 95%. Square T was situated east of a wall running north-south across the northern part of the lower site. Visibility: 95%. Square U was situated in a series of three squares (U, V, W) running along an area believed to be inside the Iron Age outer city wall. The wall is preserved for three visible courses in some places and is built of huge megalithic stones resembling those of Khirbet Qeiyafa. This would be a prime spot for excavation in the future. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square V was situated directly west of Square U along the inner part of the outer wall of the city to the north of the site before the slope begins. Visibility: 100%. Square W was located directly west of Square V along the inner length of the outer wall of the city to the north of the site before the slope begins. Visibility: 100%.

44

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Square x was situated partially on a second terrace and partially on a steep slope, north of Square W and northwest of Square Y. The sherds collected were mostly Iron Age. Visibility: 100%. Square Y was situated on a second terrace, east of Square x and west of Square Z on the northern slope of the site and below the outer face of the possible Iron Age city wall. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square Z was situated east of Square Y on the second terrace on the northern slope of the site and below the outer face of the possible Iron Age city wall. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square AA was situated on the fijirst terrace below the high point of the site in the northwest section of the site, north of Square CC and south of Square BB. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square BB was situated on the second terrace below the high point of the site in the northwest section of the site, facing the Elah Valley. It is north of and downslope from Square AA. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square CC was situated inside a large building in the southeast corner of the high point of the site, south of Square AA. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square DD was situated on the fijirst terrace below the high point of the site in the northwest section of the site, east of Squares AA and BB. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square EE was situated on the second terrace below the high point of the site in the northwest section of the site, facing the Elah Valley. It is north of and downslope from Square DD. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square FF was situated on the fijirst terrace below the high point of the site in the northwest section of the site, northeast of Square EE and southwest of Square DD. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square GG was situated on the fijirst terrace below the high point of the site in the northwest section of the site, northeast of Square FF. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%.

Survey Methodology, Objectives and Fieldwork

45

Square HH was situated on the high point of the site, northeast of Square CC. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square II was situated at the bottom of the slope in the northwest corner of the site, north of Square KK and east of Square NN. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square JJ was situated on the northwest edge of the site overlooking the Elah Valley, upslope from Square II and east of Square KK. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square KK was situated on the northwest edge of the site on a terrace overlooking the Elah Valley, immediately west of Square JJ and upslope from Square II. Some architecture (houses?) can be seen on the surface here. A royal jar handle with the private seal impression of Zaphan/ Abima‘az was found here (Fig. 2.10; point 139; 328.82 m). The area was burned. Visibility: 100%.

Fig. 2.10. A private seal impression on a jar handle.

Squares LL and PP were situated on the northwest edge of the site, west of Square II and slightly upslope, and were joined together to form an area of 10 × 20 m. They cover several tombs that had previously been illegally excavated and robbed. The robber piles were left and were

46

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

covered with a large quantity and variety of Iron Age pottery, including an 8th-century BCE oil lamp, a red-slipped, wheel-burnished platter and bowls. Chalice fragments were also found. Two Qeiyafa fijingerprint handles were found in Square PP. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square MM is situated at the very bottom of the western slope facing the Elah Valley, northwest of Square II and northeast of Square NN. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square NN was situated on the lower part of the northern slope, downslope from and north of Squares LL and PP. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square OO was situated on the second terrace on the western edge of the site immediately west and downslope from QQ. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square QQ was situated on the western slope on the fijirst terrace above Square OO to the southwest. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square RR was situated in the center of the high point of the site against a collapsed wall located to the south. It is in the west-center of the large building west of Square QQ. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square SS was situated within an enclosure of massive stone walls on the west of the upper part of the site, east of Square RR and west of Square QQ. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square TT was situated on the southwest slope toward the south of the site outside the large central building, south of Square RR and upslope and north of Square ZZ. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square UU was situated on the southern slope of the upper site between the central large building and the large lower wall running east-west, north of Square WW. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square VV was situated outside the central building complex to the southeast, next to the road running up the slope of the site, east of Square UU. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square WW was situated on the second terrace on the southern slope

Survey Methodology, Objectives and Fieldwork

47

of the site, downslope from and to the south of Square UU. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square XX was situated on the third terrace on the southern slope of the site, downslope from and to the south of Square WW. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square YY was situated on the southern slope of the site, downslope from and to the west of Square XX. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square ZZ was situated on the southern slope of the site midway between the base of the site and the upper monumental building, west of Square YY and downslope from and south of Square TT. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Collected: 1 bag pottery, 1 basalt grinding stone. Square AAA was situated on the southern slope of the site midway between the base of the site and the monumental building, west of Square ZZ. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square BBB was situated on the southwestern slope of the site on the second lowest terrace, just above the modern road that begins to wind around the site from the north to the south, west of Square AAA. The area was burned. Visibility: 100%. Square CCC was situated in the far east-central area of survey in the ruins and rubble of an Islamic-period village, north of Square DDD. Visibility: 0%. Square DDD was situated in the far east-central area of survey in the ruins and rubble of an Islamic-period village, south of Square CCC and north of Square EEE. Visibility: 60%. Square EEE was situated in the far east-central area of survey in the ruins and rubble of an Islamic-period village, south of Square DDD in the lowest area level with the modern road that leads south from the site. There is a well preserved stone-lined well to the southwest of the square, probably dating from the occupation of the Islamic-period village. Visibility: 100%.

48

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Table 1.1 lists the diffferent fijinds collected in each square according to seven categories: (1) square; (2) total number of pottery sherds collected; (3) number of indicative pottery sherds collected; (4) number of stone tools collected; (5) number of slag fragments collected; (6) number of glass vessels collected; and (7) number of brick pieces collected. Table 1.1. The diffferent fijinds collected in the survey. Pottery sherds

Indicative pottery sherds

Stone tools

Slag fragments

Glass vessels

Brick pieces

A

487

36

 

6

 

 

B

175

23

 

2

 

 

C

262

29

 

2

 

 

D

365

37

 

8

 

 

E

227

25

 

7

 

 

F

457

52

1

 

 

 

G

143

17

 

1

 

 

H

344

117

 

 

 

 

I

99

23

 

 

 

 

J

271

21

 

 

 

 

K

32

3

 

 

 

 

L

262

33

 

1

 

 

M

165

16

 

 

 

N

83

11

 

 

 

 

O

216

26

 

13

 

 

P

194

20

 

 2

 

 

Q

56

7

 

 2

 

 

R

194

19

 

 6

 

 

S

227

21

 

 

 

 

T

560

71

 

 

 

 

U

294

29

 

 

 

 

V

391

43

 

 

 

 

Square

49

Survey Methodology, Objectives and Fieldwork Pottery sherds

Indicative pottery sherds

Stone tools

Slag fragments

Glass vessels

Brick pieces

W

136

10

 

 

 

 

X

110

29

 

 

 

 

Y

354

32

 

 

 

 

Z

344

36

 

 

 

 

AA

371

36

 

 

 

 

BB

387

52

 

 

 

 

CC

221

15

 

 

 

 

DD

252

16

 

 

 

 

FF

319

24

12

 

 

 

GG

247

35

 

 

 

 

HH

128

17

 

 

 

 

II

318

68

 

 

 

 

JJ

262

80

 

1 

 

 

KK

271

48

 

 

 

2

LL

292

133

 

 

 

 

MM

232

58

 

 

 

 

NN

270

65

 

 

 

OO

283

37

 

 

 

PP

272

54

 

 

5

QQ

258

18

 

 

 

RR

41

12

 

 

1

SS

332

47

 

 

 

TT

279

21

 

 

1

UU

186

13

 

 

 

VV

265

24

 

 

 

 

WW

241

29

1

 

 

 

XX

246

46

 

 

 

YY

475

71

1

 

 

ZZ

303

64

2

 

 

AAA

342

51

 

 

 

Square

 

 

50

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey Pottery sherds

Indicative pottery sherds

Stone tools

BBB

314

27

 

CCC

55

6

 

DDD

150

18

1

EEE

198

24

 

Square

Slag fragments    

Glass vessels

Brick pieces

 

4

 

 

 

 

1

 

Chapter 3

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology Shifra Weiss

3.1. Methodology of the Ceramic Analysis The object of this chapter is to analyze the ceramic assemblage collected during the Socoh Survey and identify suitable excavation areas accordingly. During the survey a large number of artifacts were collected, including pottery, some large stone tools, flint tools, very few glass and brick fijinds and a large amount of varied slag. This chapter deals with the chronology and distribution of ceramic representation of various periods at the site. The focus of the potential excavation at the site was to investigate the expansion and growth of the Judean Kingdom in the Shephelah from the 10th to 8th centuries BCE. Accordingly, the ceramic analysis of the Iron Age was carried out at higher resolution than that of other periods represented at the site. The Iron Age pottery was divided into Iron Age IIA, Iron Age IIB and Iron Age IIC in order to derive from the fijinds a more accurate assessment of the settlement distribution during these periods. The sherds were counted and weighed according to the squares from which they were collected. Preliminary sorting of the ceramic assemblage divided body sherds from diagnostic sherds such as rims, handles and bases. They were counted by group and recorded according to square. As expected from a survey assemblage, only a portion of the rims, bases and handles collected were chronologically indicative. In addition, the body sherds were analyzed according to properties such as material type, type of inclusions, fijiring method, production method, and whether the sherds showed signs of slip, diffferent types of 51

52

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

burnish, ridges, combed decoration, glaze or painted decoration. This information enabled the identifijication of chronologically indicative body sherds. These chronologically indicative sherds were recorded according to type, period and provenance (survey square); each sherd was given a separate registration number. At this point one (or two) of the main periods represented was determined for each of the squares, in accordance with the period(s) with which the majority of chronologically indicative sherds collected were identifijied. At this point the non-indicative sherds were discarded and returned to the site. The analysis of the indicative sherds was completed with the help of scholars from diffferent areas of expertise. Initially, the entire ceramic assemblage was analyzed with the guidance of Prof. Yosef Garfijinkel. This was followed by a review of the Iron Age pottery by Dr. Lily SingerAvitz and Prof. David Ussishkin. They added a number of important characteristics that helped distinguish between the diffferent centuries in the analysis of the Iron Age pottery. The analysis of the pottery from the Classical periods benefijited from the assistance of Débora Sandhaus, while the pottery from the Islamic periods was completed with the assistance of Dr. Katia Cytryn. The Islamic hand-made Geometric Painted Ware was evaluated with the assistance of Smadar Gabrieli. The ceramic assemblage collected during the 2010 survey of Socoh includes 14,258 ceramic sherds with a total weight of ~180 kg. The assemblage includes 1,015 rims, 668 handles, 312 bases and 12,263 body sherds. There are 904 chronologically indicative sherds, including 582 rims, 121 handles, 48 bases and 174 body sherds. The following periods are represented in the ceramic assemblage: Late Chalcolithic, Middle Bronze Age, Iron Age IIA, Iron Age IIB, Iron Age IIC, Persian–Hellenistic, Hasmonean, Early Roman, Late Roman–Early Byzantine, Late Byzantine, Early Islamic, Crusader–Mamluk and Ottoman. This survey includes material collected from two tomb areas at the site. As explained in Chapter 1, the nature of this site attracts antiquities robbers. The two tomb areas were looted by robbers prior to the survey. The pottery from these areas was collected from heaps of material left behind on the site surface by the robbers. As a result, the pottery is in a much better state of preservation and can be analyzed at higher resolution. The material collected from the tomb areas was

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

53

analyzed separately and is presented at the end of this chapter; each tomb area is treated as an independent assemblage. These same tombs were looted in 2004, as a result of which archaeological documentation and collection of pottery sherds were carried out by Alla Nagorsky and Rafael Lewis of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Their results are presented for the fijirst time in Chapter 4 of this publication. In the tomb areas, the pottery was collected mainly from the robber piles but also from the site surface within the squares. As a result, most of the pottery derives from the tombs, but some of the pottery is from the site surface. It was possible to distinguish between these two groups according to the preservation of the sherds. Sherds from the tombs are well preserved and have clean breaks (some even have fresh breaks and sharp edges), while sherds from the site surface are rolled and worn. Photographs of the ceramics collected in this area demonstrate this well: see below the photographs of the chalice (Fig. 3.53) and the lamp (Fig. 3.62) versus the photograph of the “Qeiyafa” storage jar handles (Fig. 3.14). Hence, the pottery from the tomb areas identifijied as collected from the site surface was analyzed together with the pottery collected in the other squares and not as part of the tomb assemblages. It includes 16 chronologically indicative sherds. Although the pottery from the tomb areas is not included in the distribution analysis of the pottery collected from the survey, the location of the tombs and the chronology of the pottery collected from them are important aids to understanding the site. The collection squares were distributed over the site to provide information about the size and scope of the site’s settlement in diffferent periods. The aim of this strategy was to assess the potential of excavation areas for researching a certain period of interest, in this case the Iron Age II. The tomb areas represent a diffferent type of activity; they are outside the settled area of the site but are still closely related. Sixty-seven chronologically indicative sherds were analyzed by Dr. David Ben-Shlomo using thin section petrography analysis (TSPA). Seven of the analyzed sherds are handles of lmlk-type Judean storage jars collected from various squares. The other 60 sherds were collected from the two tomb areas, 27 from the southern tombs and 33 from

54

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

the northern tombs. The TSPA sample number, group and suggested provenance of each analyzed sherd are presented in this chapter in the tables of relevant fijigures. Thirty-nine additional sherds from the salvage excavation of four looted burial caves (presented in Chapter 4) were included in the TSPA analysis. The petrographic analysis is presented in Chapter 5.

3.2. Early Periods The Late Chalcolithic Period A very small number of sherds (7) are chronologically indicative of the Late Chalcolithic period. The material is heavily eroded. Two types were identifijied: 1. Triangular handles with straw temper (Fig. 3.1:1). 2. Hand-made disc bases (Fig. 3.1:2). The material was collected from four squares (Fig. 3.2); one square (M) is at the eastern edge of the site, while the other three squares (KK, OO and PP) are adjacent to one another at the western edge of the site. The Late Chalcolithic period is not the main period of any of these squares and it is represented in very small amounts (less than 6% of the chronologically indicative sherds collected from these squares). Fig. 3.2 presents the squares in which the Late Chalcolithic sherds were found, as opposed to Figs. 3.19, 3.20, 3.21, 3.33 and 3.46, which present squares in which the period discussed is the main period represented in the square. It may be noted that a Late Chalcolithic occupation level was found at the adjacent site of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Garfijinkel, personal communication).

The Middle Bronze Age A very small number of sherds (5) are chronologically indicative of the Middle Bronze Age. The material is heavily eroded. Two types were identifijied: 1. Thick ring bases (Fig. 3.1:3). 2. Thick disc bases (Fig. 3.1:4).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

55

The material was collected mainly from one square (MM) (Fig. 3.2), situated at the northwestern edge of the site. The Middle Bronze Age is one of the two main periods represented in Square MM, secondary to the Iron Age. Middle Bronze Age sherds are a third of the chronologically indicative sherds collected from this square. Square MM is situated close to the area where an Early Bronze IV/Intermediate Bronze Age site was revealed during salvage excavations conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority in 2003 (Nagorsky 2007).

Fig. 3.1. Late Chalcolithic and Middle Bronze Age pottery.

Vessel

No.

Square/Reg. No.

Remarks

1

Triangular handle with straw temper

PP5

Heavily eroded

2 3 4

Hand-made disc base

PP7

Heavily eroded

Thick ring base

MM5

Heavily eroded

Thick disc base

MM2

Heavily eroded

56

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.2. Distribution of Late Chalcolithic and Middle Bronze Age pottery found at the site.

3.3. Iron Age Typology A signifijicant amount of Iron Age pottery was collected from a large portion of the squares. In total, 397 sherds collected from the site surface are chronologically indicative of the Iron Age. This is more than 40% of the chronologically indicative sherds collected in general (904 sherds) and more than 50% of the chronologically indicative sherds collected from the site surface excluding the tomb areas (771 sherds). Of the 397 chronologically indicative sherds, there are 185 bowls, 14 kraters, two chalices, one stand, three lamps, 21 cooking pots, two juglets, 38 jugs, 111 storage jars and 19 holemouth storage jars. The analysis of the Iron Age pottery is organized typologically. Where possible, the chronology of each type will be addressed within the typological discussion. After this, the distribution of the pottery will be discussed. Bowls (Figs. 3.3–3.7). Of the bowls collected from the site surface, 185

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

57

are chronologically indicative of the Iron Age II. Many types of bowls were collected, but not all provide chronological precision within the diffferent centuries of the Iron Age II. Twelve types were identifijied. More than 20% of the Iron Age bowls are bowls with Judean folded rims, occurring in two types (Nos. 1–2). The second most common bowls are rounded bowls, most with a simple rim, which may be divided into four types (Nos. 3–6). In addition, a variety of assorted bowls were collected in smaller numbers, among which six types were identifijied (Nos. 7–12). 1. Bowls with a Judean folded rim (Fig. 3.3:1–6). These are rounded bowls with an outward-folded rim, their diameter ranging from 15 to 23.5 cm. Bowls of this type are typical of Iron Age IIB–C assemblages at many Judean sites; at Tel Batash they are referred to as BL13 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 31, 39–40) and at Tel Lachish they are referred to by Tufnell as B13 (Tufnell 1953: 277–279). 2. Bowls with a smoothed Judean folded rim (Fig. 3.3:7–9). These bowls are typical of the 7th century BCE. They are somewhat more delicate than the previous type and their rim is “pressed” or “smoothed.” They difffer from the bowls typical of the 8th century BCE (Fig. 3.3:1–6), in which the folded rim is more pronounced and somewhat triangular. 3. Small rounded bowls with a simple rounded rim and a diameter of ~15 cm. There are some variations: a fairly shallow bowl with a slight carination right below the rim (Fig. 3.4:1), deeper bowls with a vertical rim (Fig. 3.4:2–3) and a shallow bowl with a slightly inverted rim (Fig. 3.4:4). 4. Medium-sized rounded bowls with a simple rounded rim and a diameter of 24–26 cm. There are some variations: a vertical rim (Fig. 3.4:5), a soft carination in the lower part of the body (Fig. 3.4:6) and a slightly inverted rim (Fig. 3.4:7). 5. Small–medium-sized rounded bowls with a thickened inverted rim and a diameter of ~18 cm (Fig. 3.4:8). 6. Small–medium-sized rounded bowls with a groove below a vertical rim and a diameter of ~20 cm (Fig. 3.4:9). This bowl is decorated with red slip and burnish of exceptionally high quality inside and

58

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

outside the vessel. It also bears wheel burnish on the inside and outside of the rim. 7. Medium-sized rounded bowls with a round thickened rim, slightly inverted. Their diameter ranges between 20.5 and 26.5 cm (Fig. 3.5:1–3). Bowls of this type are found in Iron Age IIA contexts, for example in Stratum IV at Tel Batash, where it is referred to as BL28. It is suggested there that this is the early version of the Judean folded rim type, common in the Iron Age IIB–C (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 38–39). 8. Small to medium-sized open bowls with a shelf-like rim. Their diameter ranges between 17.5 and 26.5 cm (Fig. 3.5:4–5). 9. Small softly carinated bowls with a flanged rim (Fig. 3.5:6). This type is common in Level III at Tel Lachish and is referred to by Tufnell as B7 (Tufnell 1953: 273). 10. Small deep bowls with an inward-protruding shelf rim and a diameter of 17.5 cm (Fig. 3.5:7). This type is unique. Its rim resembles the hammer-head rims of kraters common in the Iron Age IIA (e.g., KR 14a at Tel Batash; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 63), but it is too small to be considered a krater. 11. Medium-sized carinated bowls with a simple rim (Fig. 3.5:8). This type of bowl is present in the 10th-century BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa, referred to as CBL5 (Kang 2012: 49). 12. Small platters with thick walls, a cut rim and a diameter of ~10 cm (Fig. 3.5:9). Platters with cut rims are found in Iron Age II contexts. They were found in Levels II–IV at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as B11 (Tufnell 1953: 275; Zimhoni 2004a: Fig. 25.2.1; Zimhoni 2004b: Figs. 26.3:12, 26.54:2). This platter is smaller than most of the examples from other sites. A large number of platters were collected from the northern tombs and will be discussed below (Fig. 3.56). It is worth noting that platters constitute a much larger portion of the bowls collected in the northern tombs (14/36) than of the Iron Age bowls collected from the general site surface (6/185). Nearly 40% of the Iron Age bowls are burnished (72/185) and many of them are decorated with red slip. On a small number of the bowls (7/72) the burnish is irregular hand burnish typical of the Iron Age IIA

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

Fig. 3.3. Iron Age pottery: bowls with a Judean folded rim. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Vessel Bowl with Judean folded rim

Square/Reg. No. V12

Remarks Hand burnish inside

Bowl with Judean folded rim

AA16

Wheel burnish inside

Bowl with Judean folded rim

F21

Bowl with Judean folded rim

T7

Bowl with Judean folded rim

T9

Bowl with Judean folded rim

U13

Bowl with smoothed Judean folded rim

P11

Bowl with smoothed Judean folded rim

V9

Bowl with smoothed Judean folded rim

A11

Wheel burnish inside (Fig. 3.7:4)

59

60

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.4. Iron Age pottery: rounded bowls. No.

Vessel

Square/Reg. No.

1

Small rounded bowl with simple rim

GG8

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Small rounded bowl with simple rim

Y15

Small rounded bowl with simple rim

KK26

9

Rounded bowl with groove below upright rim

D18

Small rounded bowl with simple rim

NN17

Medium-sized rounded bowl with simple rim

JJ33

Medium-sized rounded bowl with simple rim

XX23

Medium-sized rounded bowl with simple rim

XX24

Rounded bowl with inverted rim

G9

Remarks

Wheel burnish inside Red slip, high-quality burnish inside and outside

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

Fig. 3.5. Iron Age pottery: assorted bowls. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Vessel Rounded bowl with inverted rim

Square/Reg. No. YY26

Remarks

Rounded bowl with inverted rim

NN21

Rounded bowl with inverted rim

II17

Open bowl with shelf-like rim

JJ8

Hand burnish inside

Open bowl with shelf-like rim

T15

Wheel burnish inside

Softly carinated bowl with flanged rim

MM15

Small deep bowl with inward-protruding shelf rim

JJ32

Carinated bowl with simple rim

D21

Platter with thick walls and cut rim

ZZ7

Irregular burnish inside

61

62

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

(Fig. 3.6). On approximately half of them (39/72) the burnish is organized in parallel lines known as wheel burnish. This is typical of the Iron Age IIB and continues to some extent into the Iron Age IIC (Fig. 3.7:1–2). In many cases (26/72) it is difffijicult to classify the decoration as irregular or wheel burnish (Fig. 3.7:3–4); this may be indicative of an intermediate phase reflecting an occupation level at the site during the late 9th–early 8th centuries BCE.

Fig. 3.6. Iron Age pottery: body sherds decorated with irregular burnish (1: XX1, 2: Z9, 3: G8).

Kraters (Figs. 3.8–3.9). Of the kraters collected from the site surface, 14 are chronologically indicative of the Iron Age II. The kraters are medium to large in size, with a diameter range of 25–42.5 cm. Two sherds include a handle extending from the rim (Figs. 3.8:4, 3.9:2). The rest include the rim and up to two thirds of the profijile of the vessel. The kraters collected are not decorated. They may be divided into four types. The fijirst three types are hammer-head rim kraters typical of the Iron Age IIA. This is the generic krater of Stratum IV at Tel Batash, referred to as KR14 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 62–64), and appears in several variations in the 10th-century BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Kang 2012: 64–68) and in other assemblages of this period. They difffer somewhat in shape and rim type. 1. Rounded kraters with a rounded or flat-topped hammer-head rim, ranging in diameter from 28 to 41 cm (Fig. 3.8:1–3). This type is common in Stratum IV at Tel Batash, referred to as KR14b (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 63), and in the 10th-century BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa, referred to as KR5 (Kang 2012: 66–67).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

63

Fig. 3.7. Iron Age pottery: body sherds decorated with wheel burnish (1: V8, 2: II7) and hand burnish (3: WW8, 4: U13).

2. Kraters with an angled-in ledge rim, a concave body and a diameter of 32 cm (Fig. 3.8:4). Kraters of this type usually have two or four handles extending from the rim to the body. The remnants of one handle are visible on one of the sherds collected (Fig. 3.8:4). Kraters of this type are common in Stratum IV at Tel Batash, referred to as KR14c (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 63–64), and in the 10thcentury BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa, referred to as KR1 (Kang 2012: 64).

64

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.8. Iron Age pottery: kraters. No.

1 2 3 4

Vessel Rounded krater with rounded or flattopped hammer-head rim Rounded krater with rounded or flattopped hammer-head rim Rounded krater with rounded or flattopped hammer-head rim Krater with angled-in ledge rim

Square/Reg. No. II22 WW5 WW6 JJ23

Remarks

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

Fig. 3.9. Iron Age pottery: kraters. No.

1 2 3 4

Vessel Open krater with ledged hammer-head rim

Square/Reg. No. KK23

Open krater with ledged hammer-head rim

JJ22

Open rounded krater with thickened folded-out rim

D22

Open rounded krater with thickened folded-out rim

D20

Remarks

65

66

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

3. Open kraters with a ledged hammer-head rim (Fig. 3.9:1–2). These kraters have straight (Fig. 3.9:1) or slightly inverted (Fig. 3.9:2) walls that rise to a ledge-like hammer-head rim. In some the ledge rim protrudes inward (Fig. 3.9:1), while in others it protrudes outward (Fig. 3.9:2). Kraters of this type are common in Stratum IV at Tel Batash, referred to as KR14b (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 63), and in the 10th-century BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa, referred to as KR6 (Kang 2012: 67). 4. Open rounded kraters with a thickened folded-out rim and a diameter of ~40 cm (Fig. 3.9:3–4). These kraters resemble the Judean folded rim bowls typical of the Iron Age IIB–C. This is the most common krater type in Stratum III at Tel Batash, referred to as KR6, and it continues to some extent into Stratum II. Some of the large bowls of the Judean folded rim type referred to as B13 at Tel Batash are associated with this type as well (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 68, 39–40). This type was also found in Levels III–II at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as types 120, 123, 643, 644 of B13 (Tufnell 1953: 278, Pls. 81:120, 82:123, 101:643–644). A large number of similar kraters were found in Level III at Tel Lachish (Zimhoni 2004b: Figs. 26.20:9–10, 26.32:10–11, 26.42:2–3, 26.43:8). In addition, four kraters of this type were found in Levels V–IV there, referred to as B24 (Zimhoni 2004a: 1671). It seems that this type appears in the Iron Age IIA, is common in the Iron Age IIB, and continues into the Iron Age IIC. It has been suggested that this type developed from the hammer-head rim type in the later part of the Iron Age II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 64). Chalices (Fig. 3.10:1–2). Two rim sherds of chalices were collected from the site surface. They are chronologically indicative of the Iron Age II. They both have an everted rim, but difffer somewhat in shape and rim. Two types are described below. Although it is difffijicult to draw chronological conclusions within the Iron Age II for chalices because of their variation in shape, some chronological precision is suggested below. 1. Chalices with a round bowl, a shelf-like slanting everted rim and a diameter of ~15 cm (Fig. 3.10:1). This type of chalice appears in the 10th-century BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa, referred to

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

67

as CH2 (Kang 2012: 61–62). A chalice of this type was also found in the 9th-century BCE assemblage of the Giv‘ati Parking Lot excavations in Jerusalem (Ben-Ami 2013: Fig. 3.2:8) and in Level IV at Tel Lachish (Zimhoni 2004a: Figs. 25.31:23, 25.36:6). Chalices with everted rims were found in Strata IV–II at Tel Batash, referred to as CH4 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 55–56); at Tel Batash this type varies in shape and has a long chronological span. The most similar examples found at Tel Batash are from Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pls. 84:9, 85:7). It seems that this chalice is more typical of the Iron Age IIA. 2. Chalices with a shallow carinated bowl and an everted rim (Fig. 3.10:2). A similar chalice was found in Level III at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as Cha.159 (Tufnell 1953: 280–281, Pl.83:159). As mentioned above, chalices with everted rims were found in Strata IV–II at Tel Batash and referred to as CH4, but they vary in shape (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 55–56). The most similar example found at Tel Batash is from Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 14:13). It seems that this chalice is more typical of the Iron Age IIB. Lamps (Fig. 3.10:3–4). Three lamp sherds collected are chronologically indicative of the Iron Age. The lamps are of two types. 1. Lamps with a low disc base (Fig. 3.10:3). This type is common in Stratum III at Tel Batash and continues to some extent into Stratum II at the site. It is referred to there as LP3a (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 133–134). This lamp is typical of Level III at Tel Lachish (Zimhoni 1997: Fig. 5.7:15–16; Zimhoni 2004b: Figs. 26.13:3, 26.34:7, 26.37:6) and also appears in Level II at the site (Zimhoni 2004b: Fig. 26.56:18). The low disc lamp is typical of the Iron Age IIB. It is the development of the saucer-base lamp typical of the Iron Age IIA and continues to some extent into the Iron Age IIC. 2. Lamps with a high disc base (Fig. 3.10:4). This lamp is typical of the Iron Age IIC. At Tel Batash lamps of this type were found solely in Stratum II and are the most common lamp in this level, referred to as LP3 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 133–134). Lamps of this type are typical of Level II at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as

68

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey L10 (Tufnell 1953: 282–286, Pl. 83:153; Zimhoni 2004b: Figs. 26.54:17, 26.55:18–19). Lamps with high disc bases are typical of the Iron Age IIC and are used as a parameter for diffferentiating between Iron Age IIB and Iron Age IIC assemblages in Judah (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 133, Lily Singer-Avitz, personal communication).

Fig. 3.10. Iron Age pottery: chalices and lamps. No.

1 2 3 4

Vessel Chalice with round bowl and shelf-like slanting everted rim

Square/Reg. No. T6

Chalice with shallow carinated bowl and everted rim

KK32

Lamp with low disc base

D1

Lamp with high disc base

K1

Remarks

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

69

Cooking Pots (Fig. 3.11). Twenty-one of the cooking pot sherds collected are chronologically indicative of the Iron Age. They are classifijied into fijive types. 1. Open carinated cooking pots with a vertical triangular rim and a diameter of 27.5 cm (Fig. 3.11:1–2). One of the sherds collected gives almost half of the profijile of the vessel, showing an open carinated body. This sherd also bears scars of a handle extending from the rim to the body (Fig. 3.11:2). Cooking pots of this type are well known from other sites. They have a shallow body with a carination near the top and a rounded base. The shape of these cooking pots is the continuation of the typical Late Bronze Age cooking pots, which have a flaring triangular rim. The change to a vertical rim and the appearance of handles mark the transition to the Iron Age. This type of cooking pot is typical of Iron Age I assemblages throughout the country and continues into the Iron Age IIA (Amiran 1963: Pl. 76). This is the most common cooking pot found in Stratum V at Tel Batash, referred to as CP4a (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: 71–72). It was also found in smaller numbers in Stratum IV of the site, referred to as CP4 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 80–81). This cooking pot is also common in Strata XII–X at Tell Qasile, referred to as CP1a (Mazar 1985: 52), in Strata III–II at Beth Shemesh (Grant and Wright 1938: Pls. LXII:28, LXIII:31–32) and at many other sites in this period (Amiran 1963: Pl. 76). It should be noted that this type is absent from the 10th-century BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Kang 2012: 68). 2. Open cooking pots with an inverted, pushed-out rim (Fig. 3.11:3). These are open cooking pots with an inverted, pushed-out rim interior and a diameter of ~27 cm. This cooking pot is typical of the Iron Age IIA. It usually has two loop handles extending from the rim to the carination of the wide body; bases are rarely found. This is the most common cooking pot of Stratum IV at Tel Batash, referred to as CP15 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 81–82), and the most typical cooking pot of the 10th-century BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa, referred to as CP6 (Kang 2012: 71). This type was found in Level V of

70

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Tel Lachish, referred to by Zimhoni as CP6 (Zimhoni 1997: 127), as well as Level IV of the site (Zimhoni 2004a: Fig. 25.28:21). 3. Open cooking pots with a stepped rim (Fig. 3.11:4–8). These are open cooking pots with a stepped rim exterior and a diameter of ~20 cm. This cooking pot is typical of the Iron Age IIA–B; it usually has a rounded base and two loop handles. Some of the rims have an upright stance (Fig. 3.11:4–5), while other rims have an inverted stance (Fig. 3.11:6–8). Some of the rim tops are truncated (Fig. 3.11:4–6), while others are rounded (Fig. 3.11:7–8). The “stepped rim cooking pot” is the most common cooking pot of Stratum III at Tel Batash, referred to as CP7 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 81–84). This type was found in Levels V–IV at Tel Lachish, referred to as CP3 (Zimhoni 2004a: 1681–1683), as well as in Level III (Zimhoni 2004b: 1794). 4. Closed cooking pots with a pinched rim exterior (Fig. 3.11:9–10). These are deep, closed, thin-walled cooking pots with a protruding, pinched ridge below the rim and a diameter of ~15 cm. This cooking pot is typical of the Iron Age IIC. It is common in Stratum II at Tel Batash, referred to as CP10 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 86). It is common in the northern Negev and the coastal plain as well, but less so in the Judean Shephelah (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 86). Fig. 3.11. Iron Age pottery: cooking pots. No.

1

Vessel Open carinated cooking pot with vertical triangular rim

Square/Reg. No. II11

2

Open carinated cooking pot with vertical triangular rim

XX11

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Open cooking pot with inverted, pushed-out rim

KK9

Open cooking pot with stepped rim

X5

Open cooking pot with stepped rim

JJ21

Open cooking pot with stepped rim

SS17

Open cooking pot with stepped rim

V15

Open cooking pot with stepped rim

XX9

Closed cooking pot with pinched rim exterior

A8

Closed cooking pot with pinched rim exterior

XX10

Closed cooking pot with everted grooved rim

F18

Closed cooking pot with everted grooved rim

CC15

Remarks Scars of handle extending from rim to body

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

71

Fig. 3.11. Iron Age pottery: cooking pots.

5. Closed cooking pots with an everted, grooved rim (Fig. 3.11:11–12). These are closed, deep cooking pots with an everted grooved rim, thin metallic walls and a neck diameter of ~15 cm. This cooking pot is typical of Judean assemblages of the late 7th–early 6th centuries BCE. It is the most common cooking pot in Stratum II at Tel Batash, referred to as CP11 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 87), in Level II at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as “Deep-bodied

72

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey vessels with flared necks” and by Aharoni as CP100 (Tufnell 1953: 309–311; Aharoni 1975: 15; Zimhoni 2004b: Fig. 26.54:6), and at many other Judean sites.

One cooking pot handle collected bears a pre-fijired T (or X) incision (Fig. 3.12). Cooking pot handles incised with a marking of this type are common in late Iron Age assemblages at Judean sites (late 8th–early 6th centuries BCE). Similar handles were found in Level III at Tel Lachish (Zimhoni 2004b: Fig. 26.36:3; Zimhoni 1997: Fig. 5.6:4, 6) and in Level II at the site (Zimhoni 2004b: Fig. 26.56:16). They appear in Stratum II at Tel Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 65:9; 95:3–4) and at many other sites: Jerusalem, Ramat Raḥel, Tell Beit Mirsim, Arad, Beersheba, Tel ‘Ira and Ḥorvat ‘Uza (Maeir 2010). This marking appears exclusively in Judah on one handle of cooking pots of all types in late Iron Age assemblages. The marking is similar to the Hebrew letter ‫ת‬ (taw). It has been suggested that the marking is an abbreviation of the Hebrew word ‫( תרומה‬offfering) referring to the contents of the vessels. The concept suggested is that these markings represent a cultic offfering system related to the biblical cultic practice of ‫ תרומה‬and that this system was part of the economic and administrative developments in the Judean Kingdom of the late Iron Age (Maeir 2010).

Fig. 3.12. Iron Age pottery: a cooking pot handle with a T (or X) incision (GG1).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

Fig. 3.13. Iron Age pottery: jugs. No.

1 2 3 4 5

Vessel Narrow-necked jug

Square/Reg. No. JJ31

Narrow-necked jug

L14

Wide-necked jug

Q8

Wide-necked jug

XX14

Wide-necked jug

II13

Remarks

Cooking jug?

73

74

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Jugs (Fig. 3.13). Forty-one of the jugs collected are chronologically indicative of the Iron Age. Three of them are decorated with red slip. Most of the sherds are rims (36/41) and half of the sherds have handles (24/41). Unfortunately, the sherds do not provide long enough profijiles for further chronological precision within the Iron Age II. They may be divided into two types. 1. Narrow-necked jugs (Fig. 3.13:1–2). These are jugs with a narrow neck and a handle extending from a simple vertical rim. Their neck diameter ranges from 4 to 7 cm. 2. Wide-necked jugs (Fig. 3.13:3–5). These are jugs with a wide neck and a handle extending from a simple upright rim. Their neck diameter ranges from 10 to 17 cm. Some of these jugs seem to be the “cooking jug” of the Iron Age IIA (Fig. 3.13:3) due to their distinct dark red material with white lime inclusions. This type of jug was found in Stratum IV at Tel Batash, referred to as JG30 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 109). Other jugs may be of the wide-necked jug more common in the Iron Age IIB–C (Fig. 3.13:4); this type is common in Strata III–II of Tel Batash, referred to as JG11 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 111–112). Storage Jars (Figs. 3.14–3.18). Of the storage jars collected at the site, 130 sherds are chronologically indicative of the Iron Age II. More than half of the sherds collected are rims (74/130), some are bases or body sherds (12/130) and many are handles (45/130). They may be divided into four types. Nineteen rims collected are from cylindrical holemouth storage jars, common in the Iron Age IIB–C at Judean sites. The holemouth storage jars collected may be divided into two types according to their rims (Nos. 3–4). 1. “Qeiyafa” storage jars (Fig. 3.14). Three fijinger-impressed “Qeiyafa” storage jar handles were collected. Storage jars with fijingerimpressed handles are typical of the Iron Age IIA in Judah (Kang 2012: 140–151). 2. “lmlk-type” storage jars (Figs. 3.15–3.17). This includes rims and handles of lmlk, “lmlk-like” and Rosette storage jars. These types are grouped together due to the difffijiculty in distinguishing between

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

75

Fig. 3.14. Iron Age pottery: fijinger-impressed “Qeiyafa” storage jar handles (1: PP1, 2: PP2, 3: JJ2).

them among unstamped surface fijinds. The types in this group are common in the Iron Age IIB–C in Judah. Most of the handles collected are of this group (38/45). Two of the handles collected bear impressions; they are discussed in Chapter 7. This group has been discussed by many scholars and is referred to at Tel Batash as SJ8–9 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 93–97) and at Tel Lachish by Tufnell as Type 484 (Tufnell 1953: 315–316) and by Zimhoni as SJ1–2 (Zimhoni 2004b: 1794–1896). Some of the rims collected have an inverted neck more typical of the lmlk and “lmlk-like” storage jars of the Iron Age IIB (Fig. 3.16), while others have a straight neck with a slightly everted rim more typical of the Rosette storage jars of the Iron Age IIC (Fig. 3.17). Many of the handles and some of the rims are of the distinct grayish-brown ware with white grits typical of the lmlk storage jars. Seven lmlk-type storage jar handles were petrographically analyzed using TSPA (sample Nos. 61–67). Six of these handles appear in Fig. 3.15. They belong mainly to TSPA group 1a. Ben-Shlomo observes in Chapter 5: “Thus all jars were locally made in the central Shephelah, including the lmlk-type jars, which are rather homogeneous. Yet, these are not standardized enough to prove the existence of a local production center (possibly a regional center?) at the site of Socoh.” For further information, see Chapter 5.

76

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

3. Holemouth storage jars with a plain shelf rim (Fig. 3.18:2–3). These have a smooth and inverted shelf rim; in some the rim is horizontal (Fig. 3.18:2), while in others it is slightly angled up (Fig. 3.18:3). This type is common in the Iron Age IIC at Judean sites. They are common in Strata III–II of Tel Batash, referred to as SJ10b (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 105–107), and in Level II at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as Class S8 (Tufnell 1953: 315), as well as at other Judean sites. 4. Holemouth storage jars with a ridged rim (Fig. 3.18:4–5). These have a ridged horizontal rim, in some cases protruding outward (Fig. 3.18:5). This type is common in the Iron Age IIB–C at Judean sites. It is common in Strata III–II of Tel Batash, referred to as SJ10b (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 106–107), and in Levels III–II of Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as Class S12 (Tufnell 1953: 315), as well as at other Judean sites.

Fig. 3.15. Iron Age pottery: handles of lmlk-type storage jars (1: KK2, 2: E1, 3: JJ1, 4: D2, 5: D3, 6: BB3, 7: BB2).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

Fig. 3.16. Iron Age pottery: lmlk-type storage jars. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Vessel lmlk-type storage jar

Square/Reg. No. AAA6

lmlk-type storage jar

AAA7

lmlk-type storage jar

II16

lmlk-type storage jar

NN24

lmlk-type storage jar

NN25

lmlk-type storage jar

SS18

lmlk-type storage jar

TT7

lmlk-type storage jar

OO13

lmlk-type storage jar

YY7

lmlk-type storage jar

ZZ12

Remarks

77

78

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.17. Iron Age pottery: lmlk-type storage jars. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Vessel lmlk-type storage jar

B13

Square/Reg. No.

lmlk-type storage jar

JJ37

lmlk-type storage jar

N3

lmlk-type storage jar

N4

lmlk-type storage jar

OO14

lmlk-type storage jar

P10

lmlk-type storage jar

X12

lmlk-type storage jar

YY8

lmlk-type storage jar

YY17

lmlk-type storage jar

YY19

Remarks

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

Fig. 3.18. Iron Age pottery: holemouth storage jars. No.

1 2 3 4 5

Vessel Holemouth storage jar with plain shelf rim

Square/Reg. No. JJ24

Holemouth storage jar with plain shelf rim

Z2

Holemouth storage jar with plain shelf rim

N1

Holemouth storage jar with ridged rim

BB1

Holemouth storage jar with ridged rim

E2

Remarks

79

80

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

3.4. Iron Age Ceramic Distribution The Iron Age pottery collected from the site surface constitutes over 50% of the chronologically indicative sherds. In addition, the pottery collected from the two tomb areas, which will be discussed later in this chapter, is chiefly Iron Age. This presents a clear picture of intense occupation of the site during this period. The types collected range chronologically from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age IIC, and some even extend to the Persian period. Many types are solely indicative of the Iron Age IIA, IIB or IIC, while none of the types collected are solely indicative of the Late Bronze Age or the Iron Age I. It is therefore evident that the site was occupied during the Iron Age IIA–C. The site continued to be occupied during the Persian period; this will be discussed later in this chapter. Chronological precision within the Iron Age II is difffijicult to achieve in surveys. Many types continue from the Iron Age IIA into the Iron Age IIB (such as wide-necked jugs and open-stepped rim cooking pots), and many others continue from the Iron Age IIB into the Iron Age IIC (such as bowls with Judean folded rims, bowls decorated with wheel burnish, closed globular cooking pots, and cylindrical, holemouth storage jars). Where precision may have been achieved using the characteristics of full profijiles, the survey (like most surveys) yielded mainly short rim sherds. Therefore, it was not clear how survey squares that yielded Iron Age pottery should be classifijied. Nonetheless, there are types (such as irregularly hand-burnished bowls, hammer-head rim kraters, saucer-base lamps, open cooking pots with pushed-out rims and fijinger-impressed storage jar handles) that are indicative of the early Iron Age II and there are types that are indicative of the late Iron Age II (such as bowls with smoothed Judean folded rims, lamps with high disc bases, closed cooking pots with a pinched rim exterior and closed cooking pots with everted grooved rims). Therefore, the method chosen for classifying squares was the following. Squares with “generic” Iron Age pottery and some early Iron Age II types were classifijied as Iron Age IIA. Squares with “generic” Iron Age pottery and some late Iron Age II types were classifijied as Iron Age IIC. Squares with neither early nor late Iron Age II types were classifijied as Iron Age IIB.

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

81

This created a statistical bias; many squares were classifijied as Iron Age IIB because no distinct early or late types were collected from them, but they still may represent the earlier or later stage of the Iron Age II occupation at the site. Survey squares in which the Iron Age IIA is the main period represented are mainly on the western side of the site; they are mostly situated beneath the summit of the site, on the top third of the slope (Fig. 3.19). The percentage of sherds chronologically indicative of the Iron Age IIA was especially high in Squares II, JJ, KK and OO, which are clustered on the northwestern side of the site, as well as in Square XX, situated in the middle of the southern slope (on the top third of the slope). Squares H and I are essentially the collection area of the southern tombs, whose assemblage will be presented later in this chapter. However, since the pottery collected from these squares is chiefly Iron Age IIA, they are included in this distribution analysis.

Fig. 3.19. Distribution of Iron Age IIA pottery found at the site.

82

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Survey squares in which the Iron Age IIB is the main period represented are numerous (Fig. 3.20). They are clustered on the northern and southern slope of the northwestern edge of the site and on the eastern side of it. The percentage of sherds chronologically indicative of the Iron Age IIB (or the Iron Age in general, as explained above) was especially high in three areas. One cluster of squares is located on the western side of the southern slope. It includes Squares YY, ZZ, AAA and BBB. Another cluster is located on the eastern side of the site (west of the Mamluk ruins). It includes Squares A, B, C, D, E, G, N, O and P; a lmlk seal-impressed jar handle (discussed in Chapter 7) was found in this area. A third cluster is located on the northwestern slope; it includes Squares MM, NN, GG and QQ. The northern tombs (Squares LL and PP) are also included in this last cluster. The assemblage from this area will be presented at the end of this chapter. However, since the pottery collected from these squares is chiefly Iron Age IIB–C, they are included in this distribution analysis.

Fig. 3.20. Distribution of Iron Age IIB pottery found at the site.

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

83

Survey squares in which the Iron Age IIC is the main period represented are situated on the eastern side of the summit and on the northwestern side of the site (Fig. 3.21). The percentage of sherds chronologically indicative of the Iron Age IIC was especially high in Squares F and K (on the eastern side of the summit). The distribution of the diffferent stages of the Iron Age II is presented in Fig. 3.22.

Fig. 3.21. Distribution of Iron Age IIC pottery found at the site.

84

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.22. Distribution of Iron Age pottery found at the site.

3.5. Classical Periods A total of 178 sherds collected from the site surface are chronologically indicative of the various Classical periods. They constitute less than 20% of the chronologically indicative sherds collected in general (904 sherds) and ~23% of the chronologically indicative sherds collected from the site surface excluding the tomb areas (771 sherds). The chronologically indicative sherds range from the Persian–Hellenistic period to the Late Byzantine period. Of the 178 chronologically indicative sherds, 65 are typical of the Persian–Hellenistic period, 30 are typical of the Hasmonean period, 11 are typical of the Early Roman period, 16 are typical of the Late Roman–Early Byzantine period and 23 are typical of the Late Byzantine period. As explained earlier in this chapter, this survey focuses on the Iron Age. The pottery collected from the various Classical periods will therefore be presented in broad terms and will receive a more

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

85

general analysis. The pottery from these periods will be presented in chronological order. The types chronologically indicative of each of the various periods will be addressed, followed by presentation of the distribution of the pottery chronologically indicative of the Classical periods. The pottery distribution of these periods will be analyzed at lower resolution than the Iron Age distribution, and will be presented in a general manner.

Persian–Hellenistic Pottery A large portion of the sherds chronologically indicative of the Classical periods are typical of the Persian–Hellenistic period (65/178). These types include bowls, kraters, cooking pots, juglets, jugs and storage jars. 1. Fine Ware saucers (Fig. 3.23:1); medium-sized, red-slipped, Fine Ware saucer with ring base and base-groove on inner part. This type usually has an overhanging or interior-thickened rim and an internal central depression. It is considered a local, deeper version of Attic black-slipped table vessels. This type is found in Strata VA–IVB of Tel Dor, fijirst appearing during the late 4th century BCE and continuing to the 2nd century BCE (Berlin 2015: 634, Pl. 6.1.2:3, Photo 6.1.1:1). 2. Bowls with a ledge rim (Fig. 3.23:2); rounded bowl with out-turned ledge-like rim. This type usually has a low ring base. It is represented in the later phase of the Late Persian–Early Hellenistic occupation level of Khirbet Qeiyafa. This type fijirst appears during the late 3rd century BCE (Sandhaus 2009: 209, Fig. 12.1:5; Sandhaus and Kreimerman 2015: 261, 263, 5:2; Stern 2015: 567, Pl. 5.1.1:6). 3. Bowls with wedge-shaped decoration (Fig. 3.23:3); triangular wedgeshaped impressions below the thickened rim of a large deep bowl. This decoration is found on bowls, kraters and holemouth storage jars during the Persian period. It appears in Stratum IV at En-Gedi and is dated to the late 6th–4th centuries BCE (Stern 2007: 212, Fig. 5.2.11:1–4; Stern 2015: Pl. 5.1.25:2). 4. Kraters with a ledge rim (Fig. 3.23:4); deep krater with protruding shelf-like rim and straight walls. It is found in Stratum IV at En-Gedi and is common in the late 6th–4th centuries BCE (Stern 2007: 212, Fig. 5.2.12:8).

86

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

5. Cooking pots with a triangular rim (Fig. 3.23:5); cooking pot with flaring short neck and triangular profijiled rim. This type usually has a globular body. It is found in both phases of the Late Persian–Early Hellenistic occupation level of Khirbet Qeiyafa and is common in the 5th–3rd centuries BCE (Sandhaus 2009: 213, Fig. 12.3:7–10; Sandhaus and Kreimerman 2015: 260, 263, Figs. 3:10, 5:8; Stern 2015: 569, Pl. 5.1.6:3–4). 6. Cooking pots with a high neck (Fig. 3.23:6); cooking pot with handle extending from simple rim to shoulder and high articulated neck. This type usually has a globular body. It is found in Level I of Beth-Zur and is common in the 3rd–2nd centuries BCE (Berlin 2015: 635–636, Pl. 6.1.8:8). 7. Perfume juglets with a plain rim (Fig. 3.24:1); juglet with narrow, slightly flaring neck and loop handle extending from simple rim. This type usually has a rounded cylindrical body and round base. It is found in Stratum I at Tel Megiddo and in Stratum II at Tel Abu Hawam and is dated to the 6th–5th centuries BCE (Stern 2015: 574, 5.1.19:1–2). 8. Perfume juglets with a thickened rim (Fig. 3.24:2); juglet with narrow neck and thickened slightly everted rim. This type usually has a piriform body and a flat base. It is found in the Late Persian–Early Hellenistic occupation level of Khirbet Qeiyafa and is dated to the 5th–4th centuries BCE (Sandhaus 2009: 217, 12.6:9–10; Stern 2015: 574, 5.1.19:3–5). 9. Storage jars with a thickened rim (Fig. 3.24:3–4); storage jar with short narrow neck and outward-rounded thickened rim. This type usually has an ovoid body and a rounded base. It is found in the earlier phase of the Late Persian–Early Hellenistic occupation level of Khirbet Qeiyafa and is dated to the 6th–4th centuries BCE (Sandhaus 2009: 213–215, Fig. 12.4:1–2; Sandhaus and Kreimerman 2015: 255, 263, Fig. 3:7; Stern 2015: 570, 5.1.8:3). 10. Storage jars with a folded rim (Fig. 3.24:5–8); storage jar with long vertical neck and folded rim. This type usually has a sack-shaped body and a rounded base. It is found in both phases of the Late Persian–Early Hellenistic occupation level of Khirbet Qeiyafa and is dated to the 4th–3rd centuries BCE (Sandhaus 2009: 215, Fig.

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

87

12.5:17–21; Sandhaus and Kreimerman 2015: 255, 263, Fig. 3:1, 5:3; Stern 2015: 570, 5.1.8:6). 11. Amphorae (Fig. 3.24:9); medium-sized amphora with wide vertical neck and handles attached from below slightly everted rim. This type usually has a globular body and a ring base. It is found in Tomb 2002 of Tel Michal, among other sites, and is dated to the 5th–4th centuries BCE (Stern 2015: 572, 5.1.15:4).

Fig. 3.23. Persian–Hellenistic pottery: bowls, kraters and cooking pots. No.

Vessel

Square/Reg. No.

1 2

Fine Ware saucer

Y1

Bowl with ledge rim

BBB3

3

Bowl with wedge-shaped decoration

BB4

4 5 6

Krater with ledge rim

PP8

Cooking pot with triangular rim

AA3

Cooking pot with high neck

SS2

Remarks Red slip Triangular wedge-shaped impressions

88

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.24. Persian–Hellenistic pottery: juglets and storage jars. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Vessel Perfume juglet with plain rim

Square/Reg. No. PP10

Perfume juglet with thickened rim

J2

Storage jar with thickened rim

C3

Storage jar with thickened rim

KK3

Storage jar with folded rim

FF1

Storage jar with folded rim

VV2

Storage jar with folded rim

QQ3

Storage jar with folded rim

O1

Amphora

XX13

Remarks

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

89

Hasmonean Pottery A considerable number of the sherds chronologically indicative of the Classical periods are typical of the Hasmonean period (30/178). These types include casseroles and storage jars. 1. Casseroles with a ledge rim (Fig. 3.25:1); casserole with handle extending from medium-sized everted concave rim. This type usually has a shallow, rounded body. It is found in Phase HS2 of the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces of Jericho, referred to as J-CS1, and in Strata 5–4 of the Jewish Quarter excavations in Jerusalem, referred to as CA1. This type is common in the late 2nd–1st centuries BCE (Bar-Nathan 2002: 73–74; Geva 2003: 135–136; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 98, 111–112; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 136, 138). 2. Storage jars with a short collar rim (Fig. 3.25:2–3); storage jar with medium-sized slightly concave square rim and short neck. This type usually has a bag-shaped or cylindrical body with a round base. It is common in Phase HS2 of the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces of Jericho, referred to as J-SJ4A2, and found in Strata 5–4 of the Jewish Quarter excavations in Jerusalem, referred to as SJ 3a. This type is common in the late 2nd–1st centuries BCE (Bar-Nathan 2002: 28–31; Geva 2003: 123–124; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 104; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 135–137). 3. Storage jars with a long collar rim (Fig. 3.25:4); storage jar with medium-sized triangular rim and short neck. This type usually has a cylindrical or ovoid body and a rounded base. It is found mainly in Phase HS2 of the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces of Jericho, referred to as J-SJ5, and in Strata 4–3 of the Jewish Quarter excavations in Jerusalem, referred to as SJ 3b. This type is common in the 1st century BCE (Bar-Nathan 2002: 31–32; Geva 2003: 124; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 104; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 137). 4. Storage jars with an everted rim (Fig. 3.25:5); storage jar with molded, everted rim. This type usually has a bag-shaped body. It is found in phases HS2–HR1 of the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces of Jericho, referred to as J-SJ6, and in Strata 4–3 of the Jewish Quarter excavations in Jerusalem, referred to as SJ 4. This type is common in the late 2nd–1st centuries BCE (Bar-Nathan 2002: 32; Geva 2003: 124; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 103; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 137).

90

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.25. Hasmonean pottery. No.

1 2 3 4 5

Vessel Casserole with ledge rim

Square/Reg. No. SS15

Storage jar with short collar rim

E5

Storage jar with short collar rim

HH3

Storage jar with long collar rim

L12

Storage jar with everted rim

FF4

Remarks Scar of handle on rim

Early Roman Pottery A small portion of the sherds chronologically indicative of the Classical periods are typical of the Early Roman period (11/178). The types indicative of this period include bowls, cooking pots and storage jars. 1. Bowls with an incurved rim (Fig. 3.26:1); small fijine bowl with sharply incurved rim. This type usually has a deep curved body and a flat, ring base. It is common in Phases HS1–HR2 of the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces of Jericho, referred to as J-BL3, and in Strata 4–3 of the Jewish Quarter excavations in Jerusalem, referred to as BL 1. This type is common during the 1st century BCE (Bar-Nathan 2002: 83–87; Geva 2003: 137–138; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 109; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 138). 2. Closed cooking pots with a triangular rim (Fig. 3.26:2); small closed cooking pot with triangular rim. This type usually has a vertical neck and a globular squat body. It is common in Phases HR1–HR3

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

91

of the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces of Jericho, referred to as J-CP2. It is also found in Stratum 4 and is the most common cooking pot in Stratum 3 of the Jewish Quarter Excavations, referred to as CP 8. This type is common from the end of the 1st century BCE through the 1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2002: 70–72; Bar-Nathan and Kamil-Gitler 2002 170–172; Geva 2003: 135; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 111). 3. Cooking jugs with a triangular rim (Fig. 3.26:3); cooking-ware jug with flaring neck and triangular rim. This type usually has a globular body. It is common in Phases HR1–HR3 of the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces of Jericho, referred to as type J-CJG1, and in Stratum 4–3 of the Jewish Quarter Excavations. This type is common from the late 1st century BCE to the early 1st century CE (Bar-Nathan 2002: 75–76; Bar-Nathan and Kamil-Gitler 2002: 177–178; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 112; Geva and Hershkovitz 2014: 145). 4. Storage jars with a long collar rim (Fig. 3.26:4–6); storage jar with everted rim (Fig. 3.26:4–5) or straight and slightly inward-sloping rim (Fig. 3.26:6) with a pronounced ridge at the base of the neck. This type usually has a bag-shaped body. It is common in Phases HR1–HR2 of the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces of Jericho, referred to as J-SJ7, and in Stratum 3 of the Jewish Quarter excavations in Jerusalem, referred to as SJ 3b. This type is common in the second half of the 1st century BCE (Bar-Nathan 2002: 33–34; Geva 2003: 124; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 104). The typology of the storage jars from the Hasmonean and Early Roman periods collected at Socoh is an outstanding representation of the evolution of storage jars in Judea from the end of the 2nd century BCE to the end of the 1st century BCE (discussed broadly in both Geva 2003 and Bar Nathan 2002). The types of storage jars found at Socoh are an exceptional reflection of the types of storage jars found at typically Jewish Judean sites of the Hasmonean and Herodian periods, including Jerusalem, Jericho, Tell el-Ful, Masada, Herodium, Cypros and Machaerus (Bar-Nathan 2002). Thus, it would appear that Socoh during the Hasmonean and Herodian periods was a typical Judean site with close relations with Jerusalem.

92

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.26. Early Roman pottery. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Bowl with incurved rim

Vessel

Square/Reg. No. CC12

Closed cooking pot with triangular rim

V3

Cooking jug with triangular rim

N2

Storage jar with long collar rim

BB5

Storage jar with long collar rim

SS11

Storage jar with long collar rim

OO7

Remarks

Late Roman–Early Byzantine Pottery A small portion of the sherds chronologically indicative of the Classical periods are typical of the Late Roman–Early Byzantine period (16/178). The types indicative of this period include bowls, basins, juglets and storage jars. 1. Rouletted bowls (Fig. 3.28:1–2); bowl with bulbous rolled rim including a ridge below the rim at the junction with the body. One sherd is decorated with dark red slip (Fig. 3.28:2). This type usually has thick carinated walls and a ring base. This is Magness’ Rouletted Bowl Form 1 (Magness 1993: 185–187). This type is dated to no later than the beginning of the 3rd century CE to the 5th century CE (Magness 2005: 104–108).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

93

2. Arched-rim basins (Fig. 3.28:3); basin with arched rim including a ridge on the upper surface at the junction with the body and yellowish slip. This type usually has straight or slightly rounded walls, a deep body and a rounded or flat base. This is Magness’ ArchedRim Basin Form 1 (Magness 1993: 204–205). This type is dated to no later than the beginning of the 3rd century CE to the 5th century CE (Magness 2005: 104–108). 3. Lamps with a decorated discus (Fig. 3.27); red-slipped lamp with decorated discus and shoulder. This Roman Imperial lamp, Broneer’s Type XXV, appears in the mid-1st century CE and continues into the beginning of the 3rd century CE (Broneer 1930: 83–87; Magness 2005: 101, 32:8–9; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 36–47). 4. Juglets with a stump base (Fig. 3.28:4); light pink fairly coarse juglet with stump base. This is Magness’ Juglet Form 6A, dated to the late 3rd–8th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 246). 5. Storage jars with an incurved rim (Fig. 3.28:5–6); storage jar with slightly incurved rim including thickening on the inner part of the rim and a straight neck. This type usually has a ridge or collar at the base of the neck, a bag-shaped body and a round base. This is Magness’ Storage Jar Form 4a (Magness 1993: 221, 223–225). This type is dated to the 3th–5th centuries CE (Fleitman and Mazar 2015: 217–219, Fig. I.5.1:47–52).

Fig. 3.27. Late Roman–Early Byzantine pottery: lamp with decorated discus (AA1).

94

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.28. Late Roman–Early Byzantine pottery. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Rouletted bowl

Vessel

Square/Reg. No. FF3

Rouletted bowl

JJ5

Red slip

Arched-rim basin

CC14

Yellowish slip

Juglet with stump base

P1

Storage jar with incurved rim

YY2

Storage jar with incurved rim

VV1

Remarks

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

95

Late Byzantine Pottery A considerable number of the sherds chronologically indicative of the Classical periods are typical of the Late Byzantine period (23/178). The types indicative of this period include bowls and storage jars. 1. Fine Byzantine Ware bowls (Fig. 3.32:1–2); small, rounded, thinwalled bowl with plain incurved rim. This type usually has a ring base. One sherd is decorated with a single incised wavy line (Fig. 3.32:1); this is Magness’ Fine Byzantine Ware Bowl Form 1A. Another sherd bears burnish on the exterior; this is Magness’ Fine Byzantine Ware Bowl Form 1B. A considerable number of bases of this type were collected as well. This type is dated to the mid-6th to early 8th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 193–195). 2. African Red Slip Ware bowls (Fig. 3.32:3); high-quality red-slipped bowl with plain rim. This type usually has flaring walls and a broad, slightly hollowed base. This is Hayes’ African Red Slip Form 64 (“flatbased dish”), dated to the 5th century CE (Hayes 1972: 93, 109–110). 3. Phocaean Red Slip Ware bowls (Fig. 3.32:4–5); red-slipped bowl with vertical thickened rim including pronounced overhang at bottom of rim and discoloring on outside of rim (black, gray). This type usually has a curved body and a low foot. It is Hayes’ Phocaean Red Slip Ware Form 3H, dated to the 6th century CE (Hayes 1972: 329–338). A decorated sherd of this type (Fig. 3.29) was collected as well. It bears a stamped decoration of a cross monogram with four circle motifs between the arms. The stamp decoration is Hayes’ Group III, Motif 68m, dated to ca. 500 CE (Hayes 1972: 364–365). 4. Arched-rim basins (Fig. 3.32:6); basin with arched rim including a ridge on the upper surface at the junction with the body. This type usually has straight or slightly rounded walls, a deep body and a rounded or flat base. This is Magness’ Arched-Rim Basin Form 1, dated to the late 3rd–6th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 204–205). 5. Small candlestick lamps (Figs. 3.30–3.31); small candlestick lamp with branch decoration and medium-sized fijilling hole encircled by a single raised ring. This type is oval in shape and usually has a low circular ring base. This is Magness’ Oil Lamp Form 2, dated to the second half of the 4th century to the mid-6th century CE (Magness 1993: 250–251).

96

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

6. Storage jars with an incurved rim (Fig. 3.32:7); storage jar with slightly incurved rim including thickening on the inner part of the rim and a ridge at the base of the fairly short neck. This type usually has a bag-shaped body with a round base. This is Magness’ Storage Jar Form 4B, dated to the 5th–6th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 221, 223–225). 7. Storage jars with a plain rim (Fig. 3.32:8); storage jar with plain rim and low neck narrowing slightly at the top. This type usually has a bag-shaped body with a round base. It is Magness’ Storage Jar Form 5A, dated to the late 6th to early 8th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 221, 226).

Fig. 3.29. Late Byzantine pottery: Late Roman C bowl with stamp decoration (CC1).

Fig. 3.30. Late Byzantine pottery: candlestick lamp with branch decoration (CC2).

Fig. 3.31. Late Byzantine pottery: candlestick lamp with branch decoration – partial (CC7).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

Fig. 3.32. Late Byzantine pottery. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vessel Fine Byzantine Ware bowl

Square/Reg. No. CC8

Incised wavy line

Remarks

Fine Byzantine Ware bowl

CCC12

Paled-burnish on exterior

African Red Slip Ware bowl

RR1

Red slip

Phocaean Red Slip Ware bowl

DD3

Red slip, black discoloration on outer part of rim

Phocaean Red Slip Ware bowl

CC10

Red slip, gray discoloration on outer part of rim

Arched-rim basin

BB8

Storage jar with incurved rim

AA9

Storage jar with plain rim

DD2

97

98

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Classical Periods Ceramic Distribution The ceramic distribution of these periods is presented in Fig. 3.33. Survey squares in which the Classical periods are the main periods represented are concentrated on the summit of the site in two main clusters. The percentage of sherds chronologically indicative of the Classical periods was extremely high (an average of 70%) in the western cluster, situated in the western part of the summit. This cluster includes Squares CC, DD, FF, HH, SS, RR, TT, UU and VV. The percentage of sherds chronologically indicative of the Classical periods was not as high (an average of 30%) in the eastern cluster, situated in the center of the summit. This cluster includes Squares Y, W, V, T and S. These fijinds correlate well with the presence of a massive Byzantine building on the summit of the site (see Figs. 1.21–1.22). It seems that the summit of the site was occupied during the later periods, destroying the earlier occupation levels. This is the area recommended for excavating remains of the various Classical periods, and is not recommended for efffective excavation of Iron Age remains at the site.

Fig. 3.33. Ceramic distribution of the Classical periods represented at the site.

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

99

3.6. Islamic Periods In total, 174 sherds collected from the site surface are chronologically indicative of the Islamic periods. This is ~19% of the chronologically indicative sherds collected in general (904 sherds) and ~22% of the chronologically indicative sherds collected from the site surface excluding the tomb areas (771 sherds). The majority of chronologically indicative sherds are typical of two periods: the Crusader–Mamluk and Ottoman periods. A few sherds are chronologically indicative of the Early Islamic period. Since the Islamic periods are not the focus of this survey, the pottery collected from the Islamic periods will be presented in broad terms. After presentation of the few Early Islamic sherds, the Crusader– Mamluk pottery will be presented, followed by the Ottoman pottery. The types chronologically indicative of each of these periods will be addressed. After this, the distribution of the pottery chronologically indicative of the Islamic periods will be presented.

Early Islamic Pottery Three sherds collected (two bowls and a jar) are chronologically indicative of the Early Islamic period. 1. Large bowls with a thick rounded rim (Fig. 3.34:1); large crude bowl with internally thickened rim. The ware is light red with some large lime inclusions and the fijinish is crude. This seems to correspond with Cytryn-Silverman’s EI- CO- OV Ware I, found in Early Islamic contexts at Ramla (Cytryn-Silverman 2010: 99, Pl. 9.14:3). This type relates to the Incurved-Rim Basins of Magness, with a suggested date of the 8th–10th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 210–211). 2. Fine Byzantine Ware bowls (Fig. 3.34:2); open rounded bowl with wide shelf rim. The ware is light brown and the surface is smooth with burnish on the shelf rim. This is Magness’ Fine Byzantine Ware form 2D, with a suggested date of the mid-7th century to the 9th/10th century CE (Magness 1993: 166–167, 193, 198, 201:3). 3. Bufff Ware jugs (Fig. 3.34:3); pale yellow-white jug with rounded everted rim. This is Cytryn-Silverman’s BW, found in Early Islamic contexts at Ramla (Cytryn-Silverman 2010: 104, Pl. 9.4).

100

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Crusader–Mamluk Pottery A large portion of the sherds chronologically indicative of the Islamic periods are typical of the Crusader–Mamluk period (70/174). The types indicative of the Crusader–Mamluk Period comprise mainly bowls. 1. Aegean Monochrome Ware bowls (Fig. 3.34:4); bowl with inturned rim ending with a point covered with a layer of white slip and a transparent yellow glaze on the interior extending over the rim. This is type I.5.3 of Avissar and Stern, dated to the end of the 12th to the early 13th century CE (Avissar and Stern 2005: 45, Fig. 17:3). 2. Slip Painted Ware bowls (Fig. 3.34:5); upper rim above carination of bowl covered with a monochrome glaze on the interior. This is type I.1.6.1 of Avissar and Stern, common in the 12th–15th centuries CE (Avissar and Stern 2005: 19, Fig. 7:2, Pl. VI:1–5). A large amount (67 sherds) of Hand-made Geometric Painted Ware and Hand-made Ware was collected (Figs. 3.35, 3.37–3.38). This ware has a long chronological range from the 13th to the 19th centuries CE (Avissar and Stern 2005: 88). The sherds collected are hand-made and bufff or orange slipped, and bear red painted decoration. Hand-made vessels with this form of decoration are common in the 13th–14th centuries CE (Smadar Gabrieli, personal communication). Many of the sherds collected were decorated body sherds (Figs. 3.37–3.38). The indicative sherds are of bowls and a jar. 1. Hand-made Geometric Painted Ware bowls (Fig. 3.35:1); hand-made, medium-sized bowl with thickened rim and red painted decoration on interior and exterior. This is type II.1.4.2 of Avissar and Stern, common in the 13th–14th centuries CE (Avissar and Stern 2005: 88, Fig. 38:10). 2. Hand-made Ware bowls (Fig. 3.35:2–3); hand-made, medium-sized to large rounded bowl with flattened or thickened rim. This is type II.1.4.1 of Avissar and Stern, common in the 13th–14th centuries CE (Avissar and Stern 2005: 88, Fig. 38:4). 3. Hand-made Ware jars (Fig. 3.35:4); small hand-made jar with straight neck, slightly everted simple rim and whitish slip on the outside and inside of the neck. This is type II.4.4 of Avissar and Stern, common in the 13th–14th centuries CE (Avissar and Stern 2005: 113).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

101

Fig. 3.34. Early Islamic and Crusader–Mamluk pottery. No.

Vessel Large bowl with thick rounded rim

Square/Reg. No. EEE3

Fine Byzantine Ware bowl

CC11

Buff Ware jug

AA15

4

Aegean Monochrome Ware bowl

EEE23

5

Slip Painted Ware bowl

EEE24

1 2 3

Remarks

Buff Ware White slip, transparent yellow glaze on interior and rim Monochrome glaze on interior

A considerable amount of decorated body sherds was collected, including glazed sherds (Fig. 3.39) and sherds with combed decoration (Fig. 3.40), both common in the Islamic periods (Avissar and Stern 2005). In addition, a handle of a closed vessel bears a unique decoration consisting of two vertical rows of circular reed-like impressions (Fig. 3.36). No parallels to this handle have been found at this point.

102

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.35. Crusader–Mamluk pottery: Hand-made Geometric Painted Ware and Handmade Ware. No.

1 2 3 4

Vessel Hand-made Geometric Painted Ware bowl

Square/Reg. No. L3

Hand-made Ware bowl

L2

Hand-made Ware bowl

L4

Hand-made Ware jar

M10

Remarks Red painted decoration on interior and exterior

Fig. 3.36. Islamic pottery: decorated handle (RR4).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

103

Fig. 3.37. Crusader–Mamluk pottery: Hand-made Geometric Painted Ware (1: EEE17, 2: CCC3, 3: DDD15, 4: EEE22, 5: DDD10, 6: DDD4, 7: DDD12, 8: DDD13, 9: EEE16, 10: DDD7, 11: EEE20, 12: EEE10, 13: DDD6, 14: DDD14, 15: DDD2, 16: DDD17, 17: DDD5, 18: DDD11).

104

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.38. Crusader–Mamluk pottery: Hand-made Geometric Painted Ware (1: DDD22, 2: DDD18, 3: DDD20, 4: EEE19, 5: DDD21, 6: DDD16, 7: EEE21, 8: EEE18, 9: EEE9, 10: EEE13, 11: EEE15, 12: EEE14, 13: EEE12, 14: EEE11, 15: DDD1, 16: DDD8, 17: DDD9, 18: DDD19).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

105

Fig. 3.39. Islamic pottery: glazed sherds (1: DDD35, 2: DDD36, 3: DDD37, 4: DDD38, 5: DDD38, 6: EEE25).

106

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.40. Islamic pottery: combed sherds (1: EEE6, 2: EEE7, 3: DDD29, 4: DDD30, 5: DDD31, 6: DDD32).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

107

Ottoman Pottery A considerable number of the sherds chronologically indicative of the Islamic periods are typical of the Ottoman period (27/174). The types indicative of this period include bowls, basins and storage jars. 1. Open bowls with a plain rim (Fig. 3.41:1); open conical bowl with simple rim. The ware is light red with a light gray core and many large white inclusions. This seems to correspond with CytrynSilverman’s LI- CO- OV Ware I, found in Late Islamic contexts at Ramla and dated to the 15th–16th centuries CE (Cytryn-Silverman 2010: 121, 139, Pl. 9.28:6). 2. Basins with a tapered rim (Fig. 3.41:2); large open basin with slightly incurved rim. The core is gray with small lime inclusions and the surface is reddish-brown. This may be related to Gray Gaza Ware, although no exact parallel was found. It may correspond to an Ottoman Coarse Ware bowl found in Cyprus (Gabrieli 2009: 69–71, Fig. 6.5: 4). 3. Storage jars with a straight neck (Fig. 3.41:3); jar with straight neck and thickened rounded rim. There is a slight ridge on the neck and a scar of a handle extending from the ridge and beneath it. The ware is brown with a gray core. This type is related to Gray Gaza Ware incurved rim jars. Similar vessels, also in brown ware, were found at Habonim-Kfar Lam in an assemblage of the late 18th–early 19th centuries CE (Avissar 2009: 9–11, Fig. 2.6:4–6). 4. Storage jars with a hollowed neck (Fig. 3.41:4); jar with hollowed neck and ridge beneath the rim. The ware is reddish-brown with a light cream-colored slip on the exterior and rim. Jars of this type have been found in contexts of the 19th century CE at Habonim– Kafr Lam and the Late Ottoman village of Ramat Hanadiv (Avissar 2009: 11–12, Fig. 2.8:9; Boas 2000: 548, Pl. I:11). 5. Storage jars with a short, everted neck (Fig. 3.41:5); jar with wide, short, everted neck and slightly thickened rim. The ware is light gray with small lime inclusions and a light cream-colored slip. This may correspond with Abu Khalaf’s “zir – water storage container,” characteristic of this period (Abu Khalaf 2009: 18, Fig. 3.3:7).

108

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.41. Ottoman pottery. No.

1 2 3 4 5

Vessel Open bowl with plain rim

Square/Reg. No. PP17

Basin with tapered rim

P2

Storage jar with straight neck

DDD28

Storage jar with hollowed neck

L5

Storage jar with short everted neck

PP16

Remarks

Scar of handle extending from below ridge

A large number (20 sherds) of Gray Gaza Ware (GGW) sherds were collected (Fig. 3.42). This ware consists of gray-fijired vessels originating from Gaza and common in the Ottoman period. GGW is commonly dated to the 19th–20th centuries CE, although some scholars believe that it appears as early as the 16th–17th centuries CE (Boas 2000: 547–548; Salem 2009: 26–27). The indicative types collected include bowls, jugs and jars. 1. Gray Gaza Ware bowls (Fig. 3.42:1–3); gray-fijired, open, carinated, shallow bowl with protruding ridge at point of carination. For most

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

109

Fig. 3.42. Ottoman pottery: Gray Gaza ware. No.

1 2 3 4

Vessel Gray Gaza Ware bowl

Square/Reg. No. CCC4

Gray Gaza Ware bowl

Q1

Gray Gaza Ware bowl

EEE1

Gray Gaza Ware jar

L6

Remarks

of the sherds the ware is fijired gray; one bears no slip (Fig. 3.42:1) and one bears a light brown slip on the exterior (Fig. 3.42:2). On one of the sherds the ware is light red with a light brown slip on the exterior (Fig. 3.42:3). Bowls of this type were found in the Late Ottoman village of Ramat Hanadiv and at other sites. This is one of the common shapes of GGW bowls (Boas 2000: 551, Pl. II:8, 9; Salem 2009: 35, Fig. 4.3:15–16). 2. Gray Gaza Ware jars (Fig. 3.42:4); gray-fijired jar with protruding ridge on exterior of neck. Jars of this type were found in the Late

110

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey Ottoman village of Ramat Hanadiv and at other sites. This is one of the common shapes of GGW jars (Boas 2000: 548, Pl. II:1; Salem 2009: Fig. 4.4:1).

A large number of sherds with combed decoration were collected (35 sherds). These sherds are indicative of the Islamic periods. Some of them bear white slip and combed decoration, more common in the Ottoman period (Fig. 3.43).

Fig. 3.43. Ottoman pottery: combed sherd (D6).

Fig. 3.44. Ottoman pottery: pipe sherd (A3).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

111

One sherd of an Ottoman clay pipe was collected (Fig. 3.44). It seems to be part of the shank end and is decorated with two rows of miniature squares. The ware is grayish and covered with a reddishbrown slip. Ottoman clay pipes are found in many Ottoman contexts. They range chronologically from the 17th to the 20th centuries CE. According to the material and slip, this pipe seems to be of a later type (Abu Khalaf 2009: 17; Dekkel 2008: 116). In addition to the Ottoman pottery, a modern glazed and decorated sherd was collected (Fig. 3.45).

Fig. 3.45. Modern glazed and decorated sherd (P3).

Islamic Periods Ceramic Distribution The ceramic distribution of the Islamic periods is presented in Fig. 3.46. There are very few collection squares in which the Islamic periods are the main periods represented (7/57). The survey squares in which the percentage of sherds chronologically indicative of the Islamic periods was extremely high (an average of 93%) are concentrated at the eastern edge of the site. This cluster includes Squares Q, M, CCC, DDD and

112

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.46. Ceramic distribution of the Islamic periods represented at the site.

EEE. In this area there are a number of well-preserved buildings of a village (Figs. 1.8–1.10 above). The percentage of sherds chronologically indicative of the Islamic periods was not as high (an average of 55%) in the two other survey squares (Y and U) situated on the summit of the site. The extremely low percentage of Iron Age sherds found at the eastern edge of the site suggests that the Iron Age occupation did not reach this far to the east. This information correlates well with the two khirbehs attested in the PEF map of 1880 (Figs. 1.29–1.30 above). This area is strongly recommended for excavating remains of the Crusader– Mamluk period and/or the Ottoman period at the site.

3.7. Two Tomb Assemblages The two tomb areas will be referred to as the “southern tombs” and the “northern tombs” (Fig. 3.47). The southern tombs are shaft tombs situated a few hundred meters south of the site. The pottery was collected from the robber piles in two adjacent squares (H and I), each

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

113

Fig. 3.47. Topographic plan of Socoh indicating the location of the two tomb areas.

measuring 10 × 10 m. Although these round burial shafts are typical of the Early Bronze IV/Intermediate Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age, the pottery collected is typical of the Iron Age. The northern tombs are burial caves situated on the western part of the northern slope of the site. The pottery was collected from robber piles in two conjoined squares (LL and PP), forming a collection area of 20 × 10 m. In both tomb areas the pottery collected was mainly Iron Age II. The pottery analysis indicates that the pottery collected from the southern tombs is earlier than that collected from the northern tombs, and therefore the pottery from the southern tombs will be presented fijirst. As stated above, these same tombs were looted and subsequently examined in 2004 by the Israel Antiquities Authority (see Chapter 4). The tombs referred to by our survey as the southern tombs relate to Cave 4 of the Israel Antiquities Authority documentation. The tombs referred to by our survey as the northern tombs relate to Cave 1 of the Israel Antiquities Authority documentation.

114

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

The Southern Tombs In total, 443 pottery sherds were collected from this area, of which 57 sherds were found to be chronologically indicative. They are divided as follows: 23 bowls, seven kraters, nine chalices and stands, eight lamps, one juglet, six jugs and two storage jars. Bowls (Figs. 3.48–3.50). All the bowls collected are small to mediumsized, with a diameter ranging from 12 to 24 cm. Some of the bowls are decorated with red slip and burnish. Most of the decorated bowls bear red slip on the inside of the vessel (Figs. 3.48:1, 4, 3.49:1, 4–8). One bowl bears red slip on both the inside and outside of the vessel (Fig. 3.48:9). On most of the burnished bowls the burnish is of the irregular style typical of the Iron Age IIA (Figs. 3.49: 1, 4–5, 3.50). On one of them the irregular burnish is organized geometrically (Fig. 3.49: 5); this variation is typical of the later part of the Iron Age IIA. On some, the burnish seems to be organized in parallel lines and may be the wheel burnish typical of the Iron Age IIB (Fig. 3.49:6–7). These bowls are of the Judean folded-rim type also typical of the Iron Age IIB. In some cases the distinction between wheel burnish and irregular burnish is difffijicult (Fig. 3.48:4); this may be indicative of an intermediate phase, Fig. 3.48. Pottery from the southern tombs: bowls. No.

1 2

3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10

Vessel Softly carinated bowl with shelf-like rim Softly carinated bowl with shelf-like rim Softly carinated bowl with shelf-like rim Softly carinated bowl with shelf-like rim Open platter with simple rim Softly carinated bowl with simple rim Softly carinated bowl with simple rim Softly carinated bowl with simple rim Softly carinated bowl with simple rim Softly carinated bowl with simple rim

Square/Reg. No. H1

Remarks

TSPA No.

Red slip 1e – Central Shephelah 1a – Central Shephelah

H2 H10 H12

TSPA Group

6 23

Red slip and hand burnish

H3 H6 H5 H4 H7 H8

Red slip inside and outside

1a? – Central Shephelah? 1d – Central Shephelah 2a – Southern coast 1d – Central Shephelah

19 21 18 20

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

115

Fig. 3.48. Pottery from the southern tombs: bowls.

dating these vessels to the late 9th–early 8th centuries BCE. Six types were collected. 1. Softly carinated bowls with a shelf-like rim (Fig. 3.48:1–4). One bowl bears red slip on the inside (Fig. 3.48:1). Another bowl is decorated with red slip and hand burnish (Fig. 3.48:4); it is hard to classify the burnish on this bowl as irregular or wheel burnish. 2. Open platters with a simple rim (Fig. 3.48:5). 3. Small, softly carinated deep bowls with a simple rim and a diameter

116

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.49. Pottery from the southern tombs: bowls. No.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

Vessel Rounded bowl with simple rim Rounded bowl with simple rim Rounded bowl with simple rim Rounded bowl with pinched rim Rounded bowl with pinched rim Bowl with Judean folded rim Bowl with Judean folded rim

Square/Reg. No. H15

Remarks Red slip and irregular burnish

H9 H26 H17 H16 H13 H14

TSPA Group 1b/2a? – Central Shephelah? 1d – Central Shephelah

Large

4 – Shephelah?

Red slip and irregular burnish Red slip and irregular geometric burnish Red slip and wheel burnish Red slip and wheel burnish

2a? – Southern coast? 8a – Central Shephelah

TSPA No. 5 22 15 3 2

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

117

of 11–15 cm (Fig. 3.48:6–10). One of these bowls bears red slip on the inside and outside of the vessel (Fig. 3.48:9). 4. Rounded bowls with a simple rim (Fig. 3.49:1–3); some are smallmedium in size, with a diameter of ~13 cm, and some are large, with a diameter of ~23 cm. One bowl is decorated with red slip and irregular burnish (Fig. 3.49:1). 5. Rounded shallow bowls with a vertical pinched rim (Fig. 3.49:4–5); these bowls are decorated with irregular burnish. On one of the bowls the irregular burnish is organized in a geometric design (Fig. 3.49:5). 6. Bowls with a Judean folded rim (Fig. 3.49:6–7). These are bowls with an outward-folded rim, known as a Judean folded rim. They are typical of the Iron Age IIB–C at Judean sites. These bowls are decorated with the wheel burnish that is also typical of the Iron Age IIB–C. Bowls of this type were found at Tel Batash, referred to as BL13 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 31, 39–40), at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as B13 (Tufnell 1953: 277–279), and at many other sites.

Fig. 3.50. Pottery from the southern tombs: irregular hand-burnished sherds (1: H15, 2: H16, 3: H17, 4: H18).

118

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Kraters (Fig. 3.51). The kraters collected are medium-sized, with a diameter ranging from 21.5 to 27.5 cm. Two of the sherds collected include a handle attached from the rim to the body (Fig. 3.51:4–5). The rest include the rim and up to two thirds of the vessel’s profijile. The kraters collected are not decorated. The kraters are all of one main type known as the hammer-head rim. These kraters have straight or slightly inverted walls that rise to a thickened hammer-shaped rim. This type is common in 10th-century BCE assemblages. It is the most common type of krater in Stratum IV at Tel Batash, referred to as KR14 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 60–63), and is common in several variations in the Iron Age IIA assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Kang 2012: 64–68). The kraters collected may be divided into three types. 1. Kraters with a rounded or flat-topped hammer-head rim (Fig. 3.51:1– 5). This type is referred to at Tel Batash as KR14b and at Khirbet Qeiyafa as KR1. Some of the hammer-head rims protrude more outward (Fig. 3.51:1–3) and some protrude more inward (Fig. 3.51:4–5). 2. Kraters with a flanged rim and straight walls (Fig. 3.51:6). This type is referred to at Tel Batash as KR14e and at Khirbet Qeiyafa as KR7. 3. Kraters with an inward-angled but protruding rim and inverted walls (Fig. 3.51:7). This type is referred to at Tel Batash as KR14c and at Khirbet Qeiyafa as KR6.

Fig. 3.51. Pottery from the southern tombs: kraters. No.

Vessel Krater with hammer-head rim

Square/Reg. No. H23

2 3

Krater with hammer-head rim

H24

Krater with hammer-head rim

I13

4

Krater with hammer-head rim

H22

5

Krater with hammer-head rim

H21

6

Krater with flanged rim Krater with inwardangled, protruding rim

I10

1

7

I14

Remarks

TSPA Group 1d – Central Shephelah

TSPA No. 16

1d – Central Shephelah

17

1d – Central Shephelah

7

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

Fig. 3.51. Pottery from the southern tombs: kraters.

119

120

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Chalices (Figs. 3.52:1–8, 3.53). A relatively large number of the sherds collected in this area are from chalices. The rims collected vary somewhat in type of rim and bowl shape. Three types may be identifijied. 1. Chalices with a round bowl and an arched, everted rim (Fig. 3.52:1). A similar chalice was found in the 9th-century BCE assemblage of the Giv‘ati Parking Lot excavations in Jerusalem (Ben-Ami 2013: Fig. 3.2:9). 2. Chalices with a slightly carinated bowl and a shelf-like everted rim (Fig. 3.52:2). A similar chalice was found in Level IV at Tel Lachish (Zimhoni 2004a: Fig. 25.36:6). This shape is typical of Strata IV–II at Tel Batash, referred to as CH4 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 55). It is also typical of the 10th-century BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa, referred to as CH8 (Kang 2012: 63). 3. Chalice with a rounded bowl and a simple rim (Fig. 3.52:3). The classifijication of this sherd is uncertain. It is a shallow, open, rounded bowl with a simple rim, but seems too shallow and open to be a bowl. It is rounded, and therefore not a platter, and does not have the pinched, everted rim of a lamp. Chalices with simple rims are fairly rare, but this may be the correct classifijication of this vessel. Chalices with rounded bowls and simple rims were found in a tomb Fig. 3.52. Pottery from the southern tombs: chalices and lamps. No.

1 2

3 4 5 6 7

8 9

Vessel Chalice with round bowl and arched rim Chalice with slightly carinated bowl and shelf-like rim Chalice with rounded bowl and simple rim Chalice with everted walls and simple base Chalice with everted walls and simple base Chalice with everted walls and simple base Chalice with outward-slanted walls and foot-like base Chalice with outward slanted walls and foot-like base Lamp with everted pinched rim and “saucer” base

Square/Reg. No.

Remarks

TSPA Group

TSPA No.

H25 H31

1d – Central Shephelah

25

1d? – Central Shephelah?

24

I7 H28 H27 H29 H32 H30 I5

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

121

Fig. 3.52. Pottery from the southern tombs: chalices and lamps.

dated to the mid-10th century BCE at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as Cha. Type 164 (Tufnell 1953: 280–281, Pl. 73:15). Five chalice bases were found. They may be divided into two types. It is not possible to associate rim types with base types, since no full profijiles were collected; the bases are therefore described as separate types.

122

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.53. Pottery from the southern tombs: chalice (H20).

1. Chalices with everted walls and a simple base (Fig. 3.52:4–6). Bases of this type were found in Level IV at Tel Lachish (Zimhoni 2004a: Fig. 25.34:10). 2. Chalices with slightly outward-slanted walls and an everted footlike base (Fig. 3.52:7–8). A base of this type was found in the 9thcentury BCE assemblage of the Giv‘ati Parking Lot excavations in Jerusalem (Ben-Ami 2013: Fig. 3.2:11). A similar but narrower base was found in Stratum II at Tel Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 63:9). Lamps (Fig. 3.52:9). Eight lamp sherds were collected, all of the same type: a lamp with an everted and pinched rim and a wide, rounded saucer-shaped base (Fig. 3.52:9). This type of lamp is typical of Iron Age IIA assemblages. In Stratum IV at Tel Batash it is the only type found, referred to as LP4 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 132–135). In the early 10th-century BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa too it is the only type of base present. The lamps at Qeiyafa vary somewhat in depth; the type referred to as LP3 is most similar to the lamps collected in this area (Kang 2012: 75). This type was also found in Level IV at Tel Lachish (Zimhoni 2004a: Fig. 25.33:15).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

123

Four lamp sherds were petrographically analyzed using TSPA (sample Nos. 11–14). Two of them belong to TSPA group 1d, with a suggested provenance in the central Shephelah. Two others belong to TSPA groups 3a and 3b, with a suggested provenance of Socoh. For further information, see Chapter 5. Black juglet (Fig. 3.54). Two sherds of a black juglet were collected in this area. Although these are body sherds, they are easily identifijiable as belonging to this type. Black juglets are typical of Iron Age II contexts, and chronological diffferences between the Iron Age IIA and IIB can be identifijied according to the placement of the handle and the shape of the base. Unfortunately, the two sherds collected do not provide enough information to make a distinction of this kind. Black juglets are found at numerous sites, mainly in funerary contexts; their form (narrow neck and small body) indicates they contained valuable liquids such as oil, medicine or drugs. It has been suggested that they contained substances used in funerary rituals (Cohen-Weinberger and Panitz-Cohen 2014: 403–405). The petrographic analysis carried out on these sherds suggests the central hills as the provenance of the juglet (sample number 1, TSPA group 8a).

Fig. 3.54. Pottery from the southern tombs: two sherds of a black juglet (H19).

Jugs (Fig. 3.55). Relatively large sherds of jugs were collected, providing profijiles of the rim to the shoulder and part of the body. In addition, some base sherds were collected and can be matched with the diffferent types. Two types of jugs were collected. 1. Wide-necked jugs (Fig. 3.55:1–5, 7[?]). These jugs have a wide neck, a straight (Fig. 3.55:1, 3), slightly everted (Fig. 3.55:2, 4) or inverted (Fig. 3.55:5) plain rim with a handle stretched from the rim to the

124

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

body. This is the most common type collected. Jugs of this type were found in Stratum IV at Tel Batash, referred to as JG30 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 109–110). Wide-necked jugs generally have a globular, potbellied body connected to a wide base. A number of base sherds collected belong to this type (Fig. 3.55:7). 2. Narrow-necked jugs (Fig. 3.55:6, 8[?]). This is a small, narrownecked jug with a slightly everted rim and a diameter of ~5 cm. Jugs of this type were found in Strata IV-II at Tel Batash, referred to as JG8a (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 111, 121), and in the 10thcentury BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa, referred to as JG8 (Kang 2012: 90). Narrow-necked jugs generally have a smaller base and

Fig. 3.55. Pottery from the southern tombs: jugs.

125

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology Fig. 3.55. Pottery from the southern tombs: jugs. No.

Vessel

Square/Reg. No.

Remarks

1

Wide-necked jug

H33

2

Wide-necked jug

H37

3

Wide-necked jug

H34

4

Wide-necked jug

I16

5 6

Wide-necked jug

I15

Narrow-necked jug

I11

7

Wide-necked jug?

H36

Wide ring base and globular body

8

Narrow-necked jug?

H35

Flat narrow base

TSPA Group 1a – Central Shephelah 8(b?) – Central hills

TSPA No. 10 9

Grayish material with white lime inclusions

1(a?) – Central Shephelah 1d – Central Shephelah

26 27

narrower body than wide-necked jugs. Some of the bases collected may belong to this type of vessel (Fig. 3.55:8).

Discussion (Southern Tombs) The pottery collected in the southern tombs area is chiefly Iron Age IIA. The types collected in this area range chronologically from the Iron Age I to the Iron Age IIC. Some of the types collected continue traditions of the Iron Age I and even earlier, but no types are typical solely of these periods. A small number of the types collected are typical of the Iron Age IIB–C, such as bowls with Judean folded rims decorated with wheel burnish (Fig. 3.49:6–7). Others are typical of the Iron Age IIA–B, such as chalices (Fig. 3.52:1–8), which vary in shape and are therefore typologically problematic. The majority of types collected are typical of the Iron Age IIA and are found in assemblages of the 10th and 9th centuries BCE at Judean sites in the Shephelah such as Khirbet Qeiyafa, Stratum IV at Tel Batash, and Levels V and IV at Tel Lachish. It is therefore suggested that these tombs were in use during the Iron Age IIA. This suggestion correlates with the ceramic analysis of the pottery collected from Cave 4 (presented in Chapter 4). The rounded shaft tombs from which the pottery was dug out by the looters are typical of the Early Bronze IV/Intermediate Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age. In addition, a small number of Middle Bronze Age sherds were collected from Cave 4 during the 2004 examination

126

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

(see Chapter 4). Therefore, these tombs were presumably quarried in the Middle Bronze Age and later cleaned and reused in the Iron Age. They may relate to an Early Bronze IV/Intermediate Bronze Age site revealed at the northern edge of Socoh (near Road 375) during a salvage excavation conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority in 2003 (Nagorsky 2007).

The Northern Tombs In total, 564 pottery sherds were collected from this area. Seventy-six of those found were chronologically indicative. They are divided as follows: 22 bowls, 14 platters, one krater, six chalices and stands, six lamps, seven cooking pots, two juglets, nine jugs, eight storage jars and one pithos. Bowls (Figs. 3.56–3.59). A variety of bowls were collected in this area. A large portion of the bowls are decorated with red slip and burnish (14/23); this includes mainly platters and bowls with Judean folded rims. On most (11/14) the burnish is organized in parallel lines, the wheel burnish that is typical of the Iron Age IIB–C (Fig. 3.56:2–5, 3.57:3–6). On some the burnish seems to be in the irregular pattern more typical of the Iron Age IIA (Fig. 3.56:1, 3.57:1–2). In many cases, however, the distinction between wheel burnish and irregular burnish is difffijicult (Fig. 3.59). This may be indicative of an intermediate phase, dating some of these vessels to the late 9th–early 8th centuries BCE. Two wheel-burnished sherds were petrographically analyzed using TSPA. One of them (Fig. 3.59:4; sample No. 55) belongs to TSPA group 1d, while the other (Fig. 3.59:5; sample No. 39) belongs to TSPA group 7a. Their suggested provenance is the central Shephelah. For further information, see Chapter 5. The bowls collected may be divided into eight types. The fijirst two types are more common, while the other types were collected in smaller numbers. 1. Platters (Fig. 3.56). A large number of platters were collected. These are very open and shallow bowls with straight, everted walls and a slightly thickened, cut rim. Their diameter ranges from 15 to 22.5 cm. No bases were preserved. Platters of this type were found in Levels IV–II at Tel Lachish (Zimhoni 2004a: Fig. 25.2.1; Zimhoni 2004b: Figs. 26.3:12, 26.54:2). They are referred to by Tufnell as B11 (Tufnell 1953:

127

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

275, Pl. 80:63). All of the platters are decorated with red slip on the inside and in one case (Fig. 3.56:10) also on the outside below the rim. A large portion of the platters bear burnish, in some cases the irregular burnish typical of the Iron Age IIA (Fig. 3.56:1) but in most cases the wheel burnish typical of the Iron Age IIB–C (Fig. 3.56:2–5). 2. Bowls with a Judean folded rim (Fig. 3.57). A large portion of the bowls are of the Judean folded-rim type. These are rounded bowls with an outward-folded rim typical of the Iron Age IIB–C in Judean sites. Their diameter ranges from 17.5 to 22.5 cm. Bowls of this type were found in Strata III–II at Tel Batash, referred to as BL13 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 31, 39–40). The majority of these bowls are decorated with red slip and burnish (Fig. 3.57:1–6), in some cases the irregular burnish typical of the Iron Age IIA (Fig. 3.57:1–2) but in most cases the wheel burnish typical of the Iron Age IIB–C (Fig. 3.57:3–6). One bowl is carinated and is undecorated (Fig. 3.57:7). 3. Small, deep, round bowls with a plain rim and a ring base (Fig. 3.58:1) or a disc base (Fig. 3.58:2). 4. Bowls with straight, everted walls and a slightly thickened rim (Fig. 3.58:3–4). 5. Slightly carinated shallow bowls with a thickened rim (Fig. 3.58:5). 6. Rounded bowls with an outward-slanted cut rim (Fig. 3.58:6). 7. Large bowls with a shelf-like rim (Fig. 3.58:7). 8. Mortaria (Fig. 3.58:8). The ring base of a mortarium was collected. Mortaria are typical of the late Iron Age and the Persian period, Fig. 3.56. Pottery from the northern tombs: platters. No.

1 2 3 4 5

Vessel Platter

Square/Reg. No. LL10

Remarks Red slip inside and irregular burnish

Platter

LL14

Red slip inside and wheel burnish

Platter

LL9

Red slip inside and wheel burnish

Platter

LL19

Red slip inside and wheel burnish

Platter

LL15

Red slip inside and wheel burnish

6

Platter

LL11

Red slip inside

7 8 9 10

Platter

LL13

Red slip inside

Platter

LL18

Red slip inside

Platter

LL12

Red slip inside

Platter

LL16

Red slip inside and outside below the rim

TSPA Group

TSPA No.

5 – Northern valleys?

31

3a – Central Shephelah

28

128

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.56. Pottery from the northern tombs: platters.

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

Fig. 3.57. Pottery from the northern tombs: bowls with Judean folded rim.

129

130

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.57. Pottery from the northern tombs: bowls with Judean folded rim. No.

1

2 3 4 5

6 7

Vessel Bowl with Judean folded rim Bowl with Judean folded rim Bowl with Judean folded rim Bowl with Judean folded rim Bowl with Judean folded rim Bowl with Judean folded rim Bowl with Judean folded rim

Square/Reg. No. LL2 LL4 LL3 LL1 LL6 LL7 LL8

Remarks Red slip and irregular burnish Red slip and irregular burnish Red slip and wheel burnish Red slip and wheel burnish Red slip and wheel burnish Red slip and wheel burnish

TSPA Group 7b – Shephelah/ Central hills

TSPA No. 44

3b – Socoh

30

1a? – Central Shephelah?

43

7th–4th centuries BCE. Mortaria with ring bases are more common in the Persian period. Mortaria were found in Strata I–II at Tel Batash, referred to as BL20 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 30, 32, 51), and in Level I at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as B14 (Tufnell 1953: 279). Mortaria with ring bases were found in Stratum IV at Tel Gezer in a context dated to the 5th–4th centuries BCE (Gitin 1990: Pl. 30.16). Chalices (Fig. 3.60:1–4). Five chalice sherds were found in this area. They difffer in rim and bowl shape. They may be divided into three types. 1. Chalices with a small, slightly carinated bowl and a shelf-like, outward-stretched rim (Fig. 3.60:1). This shape was found in Strata II–IV at Tel Batash, referred to as CH6 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 55–58). 2. Chalices with a rounded bowl and an everted, shelf-like rim (Fig. 3.60:2). A similar chalice was found in Level IV at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as Cha. type 154 (Tufnell 1953: 280–281, Pl. 83:154). 3. Chalices with a carinated bowl and an everted rim (Fig. 3.60:3–4). A similar chalice was found in Level III at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as Cha.159 (Tufnell 1953: 280–281, Pl. 83:159).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

131

Fig. 3.58. Pottery from the northern tombs: assorted bowls. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vessel Deep round bowl with plain rim Deep round bowl with plain rim Deep bowl with straight walls and thickened rim Deep bowl with straight walls and thickened rim Slightly carinated bowl with thickened rim Rounded bowl with cut rim Large bowl with shelf-like rim Mortarium

Square/Reg. No. LL50

Remarks

TSPA Group 6 – Shephelah/ Central hills

TSPA No. 45

LL51

1c – Central Shephelah

46

LL17

7a – Central-eastern Shephelah

54

1a – Central Shephelah

29

8a – Central hills

56

LL52 LL53 PP33 PP11 LL54

132

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.59. Pottery from the northern tombs: wheel burnished sherds (1: LL15, 2: LL14, 3: LL31, 4: LL9, 5: LL30, 6: LL32, 7: LL33, 8: LL6).

Stand (Fig. 3.60:5). One stand was collected. This is a stand with everted walls and an outward-folded base. Similar stands were found in Levels II–III at Tel Lachish (Zimhoni 2004b: Figs. 26.21:11, 26.23:6; Tufnell 1953: 304) and in Stratum II at Tel Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 137). Since these stands are fairly rare, it is difffijicult to derive chronological indications within the Iron Age II from them, but they seem to appear in contexts of the 8th–7th centuries BCE. Lamps (Figs. 3.61–3.62). Six sherds of lamps were collected in this area. Most of them are everted, pinched rim sherds with soot marks (Fig. 3.61). One lamp provides a full profijile of the vessel (Fig. 3.62); this lamp has an everted, pinched rim and a very high disc base typical of the Iron Age IIC. At Tel Batash, lamps of this type were found solely in Stratum II and are the most common lamp in this stratum, referred to

133

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

Fig. 3.60. Pottery from the northern tombs: chalices and stands. No.

1 2 3 4 5

Vessel Chalice with slightly carinated bowl and outward-stretched rim Chalice with rounded bowl and everted shelf-like rim Chalice with carinated bowl and everted rim Chalice with carinated bowl and everted rim Stand

Square/Reg. No.

Remarks

TSPA Group

TSPA No.

LL35

4? – Shephelah?

48

LL36

3a – Socoh

47

LL37

8b? – Central hills

60

LL38 PP20

134

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.61. Pottery from the northern tombs: lamp rims with soot (1: LL22, 2: LL23, 3: LL24, 4: LL25, 5: LL26).

Fig. 3.62. Pottery from the northern tombs: lamp with thick base (LL21).

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

135

as LP3 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 133–134). Lamps of this type are typical of Level II at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as L10 (Tufnell 1953: 282–286, Pl. 83:153; Zimhoni 2004b: Figs. 26.54:17, 26.55:18–19). Lamps with a high disc base are typical of the Iron Age IIC and are used as a parameter for diffferentiating between Iron Age IIB and Iron Age IIC assemblages in Judah (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 133; Lily Singer-Avitz, personal communication). Three lamp sherds were petrographically analyzed using TSPA. The lamp sherd that provides a full profijile (Fig. 3.62; sample No. 37) belongs to TSPA group 3a and it is suggested that it was made locally at Socoh. One rim sherd (Fig. 3.61:1; sample No. 32) belongs to TSPA group 3c and its suggested provenance is clay sources in the central hills. The second rim sherd (Fig. 3.61:2; sample No. 34) belongs to TSPA group 1a and its suggested provenance is the central Shephelah. For further information, see Chapter 5. Cooking Pots (Fig. 3.63). Seven cooking pot sherds were collected in this area. They may be divided into fijive groups. 1. Shallow cooking pots with a stepped rim (Fig. 3.63:1). Cooking pots of this type appear in the late 9th century BCE and are typical of 8th-century BCE contexts. This type is common in Stratum III at Tel Batash, referred to as CP7 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 82–84) and in Level III at Tel Lachish, referred to by Tufnell as CP type 442 (Tufnell 1953: 309–310, Pl. 93:442). 2. Deep, closed, narrow-necked cooking pots (Fig. 3.63:2–4). These rim and handle sherds belong to the closed, narrow-necked, globular cooking pots that are typical of the Iron Age IIB–C. They do not provide a large enough profijile to determine whether they are the multi-grooved rim type of the Iron Age IIB, referred to at Tel Batash as CP8, or the single-grooved rim typical type of the Iron Age IIC, referred to at Tel Batash as CP9 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 81–86). 3. Deep, closed, globular cooking pots with a narrow, single-ridged neck (Fig. 3.63:5). One sherd bears a scar of a handle extending from the rim of the vessel. This type is common in 7th-century BCE

136

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.63. Pottery from the northern tombs: cooking pots. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Vessel Shallow cooking pot with stepped rim Closed, narrow-necked cooking pot Closed, narrow-necked cooking pot Closed, narrow-necked cooking pot Closed, globular cooking pot with single-ridged neck Closed, globular cooking pot with multi-ridged neck Cooking krater?

Square/ Reg. No.

Remarks

TSPA Group

TSPA No.

PP19 LL43

3c/8b – Shephelah/ Central hills

52

LL42

1a – Central Shephelah

51

LL41

1c – Central Shephelah

41

1c – Central Shephelah

40

1a – Central Shephelah

58

LL40

scar of handle

LL39 LL20

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

137

Judean assemblages, such as Stratum II at Tel Batash, referred to as CP9 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 82, 85). 4. Deep, closed, globular cooking pots with a narrow, multi-ridged neck (Fig. 3.63:6). This type is common in 8th-century BCE Judean assemblages. It appears in Stratum III at Tel Batash, referred to as CP8 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 82, 84–85). 5. Cooking krater? (Fig. 3.63:7). A unique large sherd made of “cookingpot material” was collected. It provides a nearly full profijile. This is a large open vessel with a diameter of 29 cm. Its body is carinated and it has an everted shelf-like rim with a grooved lip. This large and coarse vessel may resemble the closed and much smaller cooking pot common in Iron Age IIC contexts, referred to at Tel Batash as CP11 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 81–82; 87). Although this vessel is associated here with the cooking pots because of its distinctive “cooking pot material” and because of the fact that no similar krater is known, it still may be a krater or a very large, unique type of chalice. Decorated Juglets (Figs. 3.64–3.65). Two decorated sherds of juglets were collected. They are both made of reddish-pink material and are hand burnished; on one the burnish is vertical (Fig. 3.64), while on the other it is horizontal (Fig. 3.65). Hand-burnished juglets are known in the Iron Age II, but no further chronological precision may be achieved by means of this decoration (Zimhoni 1997: 112). These two sherds were petrographically analyzed using TSPA. It is suggested that the vertically burnished juglet (TSPA sample No. 35, TSPA group 3a) was made locally at Socoh, while the suggested provenance of the horizontally burnished juglet (sample No. 36, TSPA group 1a) is the central Shephelah. For further information, see Chapter 5.

138

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 3.64. Pottery from the northern tombs: vertically burnished juglet (LL28).

Fig. 3.65. Pottery from the northern tombs: horizontally burnished juglet (LL29).

Jugs (Fig. 3.66:1–4). Nine sherds of jugs were collected in this area. Most of them are rim sherds, some including handles extending from the rim. In addition some bases were collected. The rim and handles collected represent a single type. 1. Narrow-necked jugs (Fig. 3.66:1–4). These are small, narrow-necked jugs with a handle extending from a slightly everted rim and a diameter of ~6.5 cm. Jugs of this type were found in Strata II–IV at Tel Batash, referred to as JG8a (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 111, 121). 2. Wide-necked jugs (Fig. 3.66:5–6). Wide-necked jugs of the Iron Age generally have a globular, potbellied body connected to a wide, flat base. Two of the bases collected are of this type (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 109, 111). Pithoi (Fig. 3.66:7). One pithos rim was collected. This vessel has thick walls, a simple, everted rim and a diameter of ~20 cm.

139

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

Fig. 3.66. Pottery from the northern tombs: jugs and pithoi. No.

Vessel

Square/Reg. No.

Remarks

TSPA Group

TSPA No.

1

Narrow-necked jug

LL49

1? – Central Shephelah?

53

2

Narrow-necked jug

LL48

3a – Socoh

50

3

Narrow-necked jug

LL44

6 – Shephelah/ Central hills

49

4

Narrow-necked jug

LL45

5

Wide-necked jug

LL46

3d – Central hills?

33

6

Wide-necked jug

LL47

7

Pithos

LL55

8a – Central hills

57

140

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Discussion (Northern Tombs) The pottery collected from the northern tombs (Squares LL and PP) dates chiefly from the Iron Age IIB–C. The types collected in this area range chronologically from the Iron Age IIA to the Persian period. Some of the types collected, such as bowls decorated with red slip and irregular burnish (Figs. 3.56:1, 3.57:1–2), are typical of the Iron Age IIA. Others, such as bowls with Judean folded rims (Fig. 3.57), wheel-burnished platters and bowls (Figs. 3.56:2–5, 3.57:3–6, 3.59) and stand (Fig. 3.60:5), are typical of the Iron Age IIB–C. Some types, such as multi-ridged, narrow-necked cooking pots (Fig. 3.63:6), are characteristic specifijically of the Iron Age IIB. Other types, such as lamps with a high disc base (Fig. 3.62), are typical of the Iron Age IIC. Others such as single-ridged, narrow-necked cooking pots (Fig. 3.63:5) and mortaria (Fig. 3.58:8) continue well into the Persian period. The majority of types collected are typical of the Iron Age IIB–C and are found in assemblages of the 8th and 7th centuries BCE at Judean cities in the Shephelah, such as Strata II–III at Tel Batash and Levels II–III at Tel Lachish. It is therefore suggested that these tombs were in use during the Iron Age IIB–C. This suggestion correlates with the ceramic analysis of the pottery collected from Cave 1, essentially one of these tombs, presented in Chapter 4.

3.8. General Distribution Analysis The distribution of the diffferent periods is an important aspect of this study (Fig. 3.67). The Iron Age is the main period represented in most of the survey squares; namely, the majority of sherds collected are chronologically indicative of the Iron Age. Furthermore, the occupation in the Classical periods was concentrated on the top of the site, where the remains of a massive building are visible (Figs. 1.21–1.22). This occupation covered or destroyed the Iron Age settlement below it. Bedrock is exposed on large parts of the site surface, and there is little accumulation on the top of the site (Figs. 1.15–1.16). The pottery collected from the squares at the eastern edge of the site is mainly Crusader–Mamluk. These squares include well-preserved buildings of a village (Figs. 1.8–1.10). The extremely low percentage of Iron Age sherds found in this area suggests that the Iron Age occupation did not reach

Ceramic Typology, Distribution and Chronology

141

Fig. 3.67. Ceramic distribution of the various periods represented at the site.

this far to the east, but it remains possible that the Crusader–Mamluk village covers an Iron Age occupation level below it. The tomb areas represent a diffferent type of activity, albeit closely related to the site’s occupation. The southern tombs are separated from the site to the south; they were in use during the Iron Age IIA and were presumably originally quarried during the Early Bronze IV/ Intermediate Bronze Age or the Middle Bronze Age. The northern tombs are within the estimated area of the site on the northwestern slope; they were in use during the Iron Age IIB–C.

Chapter 4

Looted Burial Caves Alon De Groot, Alla Nagorsky and Rafael Lewis

In the wake of the identifijication of illicit looting of burial caves at Socoh, four burial caves were documented and sherds were collected in February, 2004 by A. Nagorsky and R. Lewis. The work was done together with the Judean District archaeology inspectors with the assistance of surveyors W. Essman and S. Pirsky. The project was carried out under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority (License No. A-4199).

4.1. Description of the Looted Burial Caves Four caves hewn in the soft white chalkstone were documented (Fig. 4.1). Three of them (Caves 1–3) are located on the northwestern slope of the site overlooking Route 375, which runs along the foot of the site. Previous surveys have documented several burial caves dating to the Second Temple and the Roman–Byzantine periods. However, until this fijieldwork was conducted, the existence of Iron Age burial caves in this part of the site was unknown. The fourth cave (Cave 4) difffers from the other three in its location south of the site (Fig. 4.1), where a previous survey had identifijied a concentration of numerous caves that apparently served for burial during the Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age. The documentation included survey of the caves and collection of pottery sherds that had been discarded by the looters near their openings. Although the lack of systematic excavation in the caves dictates caution, it can be concluded that the pottery points to a date 143

144

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 4.1. Topographical plan of Socoh indicating the documented burial caves as well as the survey squares.

at the end of the Iron Age II for Caves 1 and 2. Cave 3 cannot at this point be dated, since it had been disturbed in antiquity and contained a mix of pottery from diffferent periods. Cave 4 was used for burial in the Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age IIA. Cave 1 (Fig. 4.2). A burial cave composed of one ovoid burial chamber and a small antechamber indicated by its extant hewn western wall, which stood to 0.54 m. The upper part of the entrance was partially damaged (Fig. 4.3), so that its present form is arched. The entrance is 0.80 m high, 0.50 m wide and 0.43 m deep and has a carved frame (0.90 m high, 1.0 m wide; carving 0.07 m deep). The entrance leads into an irregular space (maximum length 8.0 m, width 5.5 m). Chisel marks are visible on the walls (Fig. 4.4). A rounded wall composed of well-fijitted fijieldstones was built on a rock step along the southern and western walls of the internal space. This wall was apparently preserved to its original height (three courses) and was meant to buttress the crum-

Looted Burial Caves

145

Fig. 4.2. Plan and section of Cave 1.

bling rock. A round opening (1.1 m in diameter) that had been opened in the ceiling of the central space was found blocked with soil and tree roots. Two foci of plunder were identifijied inside the cave, one near the entrance and the other adjoining the northwestern wall (marked on the plan with a dotted line).

146

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 4.3. Entrance to Cave 1, looking south.

Fig. 4.4. Interior of Cave 1, looking north.

Looted Burial Caves

Fig. 4.5. Plan and section of Cave 2.

147

148

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 4.6. Entrance to Cave 2, looking southwest.

Cave 2 (Fig. 4.5). A small cave composed of one rectangular burial chamber. The wide entrance (1.30 m) was hewn into a vertical rock scarp that had been slightly smoothed (Fig. 4.6). Walls composed of fijieldstones were built along a short corridor (length 0.40 m, width 1.10 m) that led into the cave, apparently to support the crumbling rock. The burial chamber is shaped like an irregular rectangle. The western, northern and eastern walls were carefully hewn, while the southern wall was coarse. The floor in the front of the chamber was levelled, while in the back of the cave, along the southern wall, a pit 0.40 m deep had been hewn into the floor. This pit, like the uneven southern wall, was apparently created during an attempt to expand the cave in antiquity. The cave had been almost entirely emptied during its looting. Cave 3 (Fig. 4.7). A burial cave with a courtyard, antechamber and at least three burial chambers. The rock-hewn courtyard (5.80 × 5.20 m), facing north-northeast, led to the cave’s entrance. The entrance near the cave’s facade is damaged along 4.30 m, although remnants of the original entrance were preserved in the southwestern corner of the

Looted Burial Caves

Fig. 4.7. Plan and section of Cave 3.

149

150

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 4.8. Entrance to Cave 3.

facade (Fig. 4.8). Separate entrances were set into the southern wall of the antechamber, leading to two of the hewn burial chambers on a lower level. The antechamber was fijilled with chalky chips, apparently from the collapse of the cave’s ceiling, as well as brownish yellow earth and pottery sherds that were washed in from the courtyard. This fijill reached as high as 0.25 m from the cave’s ceiling in the northern part and almost reached the cave’s ceiling in the southern part. Traces of hewing by a single-edged chisel are visible in the cave’s walls. In the southeastern part of the antechamber, the level of the rock descends; in this corner a narrow hewn corridor leads to a small rectangular burial chamber (Chamber I; 2.3 × 2.4 m). A shelf/bench (1.55 × 0.8 m) was hewn into the eastern wall and an opening in the western wall leads to another chamber (Chamber II). The illicit excavation that had taken place along the southern wall of the antechamber revealed a square opening that led to Chamber III. This opening, 1.0 m wide, was adorned with a double-stepped lintel and doorpost (Fig. 4.9). Above and to the west of the entrance, an ovoid niche was carved into the rock. Chamber III is rectangular, with

Looted Burial Caves

151

Fig. 4.9. Entrance to Chamber III of Cave 3.

rounded corners (3.0 × 2.5 m). Its ceiling looks natural, but the walls were carved with a single-edged chisel. In the middle of the chamber is a hewn pit (1.0 × 1.44 m) surrounded on the west, south and east by benches hewn to a width of 0.65–0.75 m, with an average length of 2.3 m and width of 0.65 m. Cave 4 (Fig. 4.10). A burial cave composed of two ovoid chambers and shaft entrances that are joined by a wide hewn passageway. It seems likely that originally there had been several caves, each fijitted with its own shaft entrance. Over time, the caves were inadvertently or intentionally joined until one cave was formed that contained at least three interconnected spaces: A–B, connected by a wide passage, and A–C and B–C, connected by narrow shafts that were found blocked with soil and rocks. The entrance to Chambers A and B was by way of shafts that were visible in the rock surface (Figs. 4.11–4.12). The original entrance to Chamber C is apparently still buried underground and was not identifijied. At some later stage, following the join of the three chambers, the entrance to the cave changed. A rectangular opening

152

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 4.10. Plan and section of Cave 4.

(0.90 high, 0.54 m wide), bordered by a carved frame, was hewn into the western wall that connected Chambers A and B. Chamber A is amorphic in shape; an opening to a shaft in its southeastern wall apparently led to Chamber C. The shape of Chamber B is elliptic; an opening to a shaft in its eastern wall may also have led to Chamber C. Pottery sherds collected from the dump left by the looters at the entrance to the cave show that it had been in use during the Middle Bronze Age and the Iron Age IIA. Although the various caves were not excavated and their plans are not fully understood at this point, it may be suggested that Caves 1, 2 and 3 are typical Iron Age II hewn burial caves. The plan of this type of burial caves is well known and has been widely discussed (Borowski 2013; Yezerski 2013). In Cave 4 there is no clear indication of the hewing that is typical of late Iron Age burial caves, and the Middle Bronze Age pottery collected from this cave implies that it may have been hewn in an earlier period.

Looted Burial Caves

Fig. 4.11. Shaft leading to Chamber A of Cave 4.

Fig. 4.12. Shaft leading to Chamber B of Cave 4.

153

154

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

The Pottery Collected from the Burial Caves The pottery collected from the looted burial caves is presented according to each cave assemblage. The ceramic plates (Figs. 4.13–4.21) include examples of the types that appeared in each cave assemblage. The ratio of the types in the assemblages will not be addressed, since these are looted assemblages. A number of periods are represented in the cave assemblages: 1. A few sherds collected from Cave 4 date from the Middle Bronze Age II. 2. The majority of the pottery collected from Cave 4 dates from the Iron Age IIA. 3. Most of the pottery collected from Cave 2 and 3, as well as a small part of the pottery collected from Cave 4, dates from the Iron Age IIB–C. 4. A few sherds collected from Cave 2 and 3 may be dated to the Persian period. Thirty-nine vessels were taken for petrographic analysis by David BenShlomo: 14 from Cave 1, eight from Cave 2 and 17 from Cave 4 (Chapter 5). The petrographic results are summarized in this chapter in the descriptions of the pottery fijigures. The cave assemblages are presented in chronological order in the following sections.

4.2. The Pottery Collected from Cave 4 Middle Bronze Age Pottery 1. Bowl (Fig. 4.13:1). 2. Juglet base (Fig. 4.13:2). These two sherds are red slipped, perhaps indicating their dating to the Middle Bronze Age IIA.

Looted Burial Caves

Fig. 4.13. Pottery collected from Cave 4: bowls and juglet.

155

156

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 4.13. Pottery collected from Cave 4: bowls and juglet. No.

1

Cave 4

Reg. No. Type 20 Bowl

Description Red slip, burnish

2

4

35

Juglet

Red slip, burnish

3

4

14

Bowl

Brown, white and gray grits

4 5

4

9

Bowl

Brown, white and gray grits

4

12

Bowl

Brown, white and gray grits

6

4

16

Bowl

Light brown, white and gray grits

7

4

15

Bowl

Brown, gray core, white grits

8

4

11

Bowl

9

4

23

Bowl

10

4

24

Bowl

11

4

17

Bowl

Light brown, white and gray grits Red, gray core, white and gray grits, traces of burnish inside and on rim Brown, gray core, white grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim Brown, gray core, white grits, red slip inside and on rim

TSPA Group

TSPA No.

1a – Central Shephelah

96

1a – Central Shephelah

91

3a – Socoh

90

Iron Age IIA Pottery Bowls (Fig. 4.13:3–9) 1. Rounded bowls (Fig. 4.13:3–5). This type includes a number of subtypes. The fijirst is a rounded bowl with a slightly inclined rim (Fig. 4.13:3); bowls of this subtype were found in Tel Arad Stratum IX (Singer-Avitz 2002: Fig. 6:6) and in the City of David Strata 14–15 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 5.20:3). The second is a rounded bowl with a groove beneath a vertical rim (Fig. 4.13:5) that continues into the 8th century BCE and was found in Tel Batash Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 13:9). 2. Carinated bowls with a simple or slightly thickened rim (Fig. 4.13:6– 8). This type includes a number of subtypes. The fijirst is a deep carinated bowl with high walls (Fig. 4.13:6); bowls of this subtype were found in the City of David Strata 14–15, referred to as B2a (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 200). A slightly shallower carinated bowl (Fig. 4.13:7) was found in the City of David Strata 14–15 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 5.8:3). A carinated bowl with a spade-shaped rim (Fig. 4.13:8) is present in the 10th-

157

Looted Burial Caves

century BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Kang and Garfijinkel 2009: Fig. 6.3:19). 3. Large open bowl with traces of burnish on the interior and a horizontal loop handle (Fig. 4.13:9). A similar bowl with a slightly diffferent rim was found in the City of David Stratum 15 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 13:6).

Kraters (Fig. 4.14) 1. Cooking kraters (Fig. 4.14:1–7). These kraters are made from clay similar to that used in cooking pots. The kraters are straight walled, wide at the bottom and narrow at the top. The rim appears in a range of shapes. The rims of the subtypes in Cave 4 are thickened on the inside (Fig. 4.14:1), everted (Fig. 4.14:2) or peg-shaped (Fig. 4.14:3–6). Some of the kraters have handles (Fig. 4.14:2, 7). Kraters of this type were found in Tel Lachish Stratum IV (Zimhoni 2004a: Figs. 25.17:25, 25.27:8, 25.20:4) and Stratum V (Aharoni 1975: Pl. 41:9), as well as in Tel Arad Stratum XII (Singer-Avitz 2002: Fig. 2:2), Tel Batash Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 10:14) and the City of David Strata 14–15 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: Fig. 15:13; De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 5.20:4). 2. Red-slipped and burnished kraters with a folded rim and straight walls (Fig. 4.14:8). This is the earliest type of the folded-rim kraters that become dominant in the 8th century BCE. For example, a simiFig. 4.14. Pottery collected from Cave 4: kraters. No.

Cave 4

Reg. No. Type 13 Krater

Description Light brown, white and gray grits

4

8

Krater

Brown, white and gray grits

4

5

Krater

Light brown, white and gray grits

4

6

Krater

Brown, gray core, white and gray grits

4

7

Krater

Brown, white and gray core

6

4

2

Krater

Brown, gray core, white and gray grits

7

4

1

Krater

8

4

3

Krater

1 2 3 4 5

Light brown, white and grey grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim Brown, white and grey grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim, red slip inside and on rim

TSPA Group

1a – Central Shephelah 1e – Central Shephelah 2b – Southern coast

TSPA No.

93 94 95

Fig. 4.14. Pottery collected from Cave 4: kraters.

Looted Burial Caves

Fig. 4.15. Pottery collected from Cave 4: closed vessels.

159

160

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 4.15. Pottery collected from Cave 4: closed vessels. No.

Cave

Reg. No.

Type

Description

1

4

19

Cooking pot

2 3

4

30

Juglet

Light brown, burnish

4

31

Jug

Brown, white grits

4

4

10

Jug

Brown, grey core, white grits

5

4

29

Storage jar

6

4

22

Storage jar

7

4

33

Storage jar

Light brown, white grits Reddish-brown, gray core, white grits Reddish-brown, gray core, white and grey grits

Reddish-brown, white grits

TSPA Group 7a – Central-eastern Shephelah 8a – Central hills

97

1a – Central Shephelah

99

1a? – Central Shephelah? 1a – Central Shephelah

TSPA No.

98

100 101

lar burnished (but not slipped) krater was found in the City of David Strata 14–15 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 5.20:6).

Jugs (Fig. 4.15:4) One cooking jug was found (Fig. 4.15:4), a wide-necked jug made of cooking pot ware with a rim thickened on the inside. This vessel is typical of the Iron Age IIA–B; it was found in the City of David Strata 15–12, referred to as J6 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 80, Figs. 5.4:3, 4.5:1). Storage Jars (Fig. 4.15:5) One storage jar with a straight simple rim (Fig. 4.15:5) was found. This type was found in the City of David Strata 14–15 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012: Fig. 5.4:9). Chalices (Fig. 4.16:1) One chalice base was found (Fig. 4.16:1). This shape is typical of the Iron Age IIA and appears throughout the Iron Age IIB–C. Lamps (Fig. 4.16:2) One saucer-base lamp (Fig. 4.16:2) was found. This type of lamp was found in the City of David Stratum 14 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 5.11:18) and is present in the 10th-century BCE assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Kang and Garfijinkel 2009: Fig. 6.8:12).

161

Looted Burial Caves

Iron Age IIB–C Pottery Bowls (Fig. 4.13:10–11) 1. Burnished platter with a cut rim and a disc base (Fig. 4.13:10). This type of platter was found in En-Gedi Stratum V (Yezerski 2007: Pl. 3:1). 2. Red-slipped carinated bowl with a thickened rim (Fig. 4.13:11). Bowls of this type were found in the City of David Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 4.20:13). Cooking Pots (Fig. 4.15:1) This category includes a closed globular cooking pot with a singleridged neck (Fig. 4.15:1). This cooking pot is typical of the Iron Age IIC; it was found in the City of David Stratum 10, referred to as CCP3b (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 71). Juglets (Fig. 4.15:2) This category includes a dipper juglet with a slightly everted simple rim (Fig. 4.15:2). The fragmentary preservation of this sherd permits us to say only that it is a dipper juglet typical of the Iron Age IIB–C. For further discussion of this type at the City of David , see De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 71. Jugs (Fig. 4.15:3) This category includes a jug with a thickened rim (Fig. 4.15:3). This jug Fig. 4.16. Pottery collected from Cave 4: chalice, lamps and installation. No.

1

Cave 4

Reg. No. Type 25 Chalice

2

4

36

Lamp

3

4

48

Lamp

4

4

41

Lamp

5

4

37

Lamp

6

4

40

Installation

7

4

39

Installation

Description Brown, white grits Reddish-brown, brownishgray core, white grits Reddish-brown, gray core, white grits Reddish-brown, gray core, white grits

TSPA Group 1a – Central Shephelah

102

3a – Socoh

103

7b? – Shephelah/ Central hills 1(c?) – Central Brown, black core, hand-made Shephelah Brown, black core, hand-made

Brown, white and gray grits

TSPA No.

104 105

162

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 4.16. Pottery collected from Cave 4: chalice, lamps and installation.

Looted Burial Caves

163

is typical of the 8th century BCE in Jerusalem; it was found in Jerusalem Cave II (Eshel 1995: Fig. 6:1–3).

Lamps (Fig. 4.16:3–5) 1. Lamps with a thickened base or a kind of disc base (Fig. 4.16:3–4). These lamps are typical of the 8th century BCE in Judah; they are found in the City of David Stratum 12, referred to as L2 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 92). 2. Lamp with a high base (Fig. 4.16:5). The base of this lamp is very thick, forming a kind of step. This lamp appears in the late 8th century BCE and becomes the only type in the 7th century BCE in Judah. It was found in the City of David Strata 12a–10, referred to as L3 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 92–93).

4.3. The Pottery Collected from Cave 1 Iron Age IIB–C Pottery Bowls (Fig. 4.17:1–10) 1. Wheel-burnished platters (Fig. 4.17:1–2). This type includes two subtypes. A platter with a cut rim (Fig. 4.17:1) appears in the Iron Age IIB–C in Judah; it was found in the City of David Strata 12–10, referred to as B6b (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 60–61). A platter with a cut rim turning sharply downward (Fig. 4.17:2) is typical of the Iron Age IIC in Judah; it was found in Tel Batash Strata III–II, referred to as BL 14 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 48–49), and in the City of David Stratum 10, referred to as B6d (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 61). 2. Shallow bowl with a thickened rim (Fig. 4.17:3). 3. Burnished bowl with an everted rim (Fig. 4.17:4–7). This type includes two subtypes. The early subtype includes softly carinated burnished bowls with a rounded, everted rim (Fig. 4.17:4–5), in some cases with red slip inside and on the rim. This subtype is typical of the Iron Age IIB–C; it was found in the City of David Stratum 12, referred to as B4b (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 60). The later subtype includes shallow carinated thickly burnished bowls

164

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

with a shelf-like rim (Fig. 4.17:6–7). This subtype difffers from the earlier one in its excellent technical quality, expressed in very thin walls and thick, dense burnish. This subtype is typical of the Iron Age IIC; it was found in the City of David Stratum 10, referred to as B4c (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 60). 4. Bowl with a folded rim (Fig. 4.17:8–9). Two subtypes appear in Cave 1. The fijirst is a rounded bowl with an outward-folded rim (Fig. 4.17:8). This subtype is the dominant bowl type during the Iron Age IIB–C in Judah; it was found in the City of David Stratum 12–10, referred to as B8b1 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 64). The second subtype is a rounded bowl with a rim folded against the outer wall (Fig. 4.17:9). This subtype appears only in the Iron Age IIC in Judah;

Fig. 4.17. Pottery collected from Cave 1: open vessels. No.

Cave

Reg. No.

Type

1

1

4

Bowl

2

1

3

Bowl

3

1

8

Bowl

4

1

10

Bowl

5

1

9

Bowl

6

1

13

Bowl

7

1

12

Bowl

8

1

2

Bowl

9

1

6

Bowl

10

1

14

Mortarium

11

1

15

Cooking pot

Description Brown, many white grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim Brown, many white grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim Brown, gray and white grits Brown, gray core, white and gray grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim Brown, gray core, white and gray grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim Brown, gray core, many white and gray grits, traces of burnish Light brown, gray and white grits, red slip inside and on rim Brown, white core, white and gray core, wheel burnish inside and on rim Reddish-brown, many white grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim Brown, gray core, gray and white grits Brown, gray core, white and black grits

TSPA Group

TSPA No.

1a – Central Shephelah

68

3a – Socoh

69

9 – Coastal (Cyprus?)

70

1e – Central Shephelah

71

Fig. 4.17. Pottery collected from Cave 1: open vessels.

166

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

it was found in the City of David Stratum 10, referred to as B8c (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 64–65). 5. Mortarium (Fig. 4.17:10). This bowl belongs to the early type of mortarium, which appears in the Iron Age IIC; it was found in Tel Arad Stratum VI (Singer-Avitz 2002: Fig. 48:4) and in En-Gedi Stratum V (Yezerski 2007: Pl. 3:26).

Kraters (Fig. 4.17:11) This category includes a large, open carinated vessel (Fig. 4.17:11), probably a cooking krater. Although in shape and ware this vessel resembles the typical late Iron Age IIC cooking pot, the vessel is burnished on the inside and therefore should be defijined as a krater. A fragment collected nearby during the 2010 survey (Fig. 3.63:7) most probably belongs to the same vessel. Cooking Pots (Fig. 4.18:1–2) 1. Small, closed cooking pot with red slip on the outside (Fig. 4.18:1). This type appears in the Iron Age IIB and is understood as a smaller imitation of the ordinary cooking pots. Some of these vessels, as in this case, are decorated with red slip. This type was found in the City of David Stratum 12 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 4.56:3). 2. Closed, globular cooking pot with a multi-ridged neck (Fig. 4.18:2). This type is the most common cooking pot in Judah during the Iron Age IIB. The vessel found in Cave 1 bears ridges with a rounded profijile and therefore should be dated to the earlier part of the Iron Age IIB. This type was found in the City of David Stratum 12B, referred to as CCP2 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 68–70). Juglets (Fig. 4.18:3–5) 1. Black juglet (Fig. 4.18:3). This juglet is typical of funerary assemblages of the Iron Age IIB in Judah. The poor preservation of this sherd does not allow a more precise dating of the vessel. Although in the material from Socoh published here there are only two additional fragments of black juglets, collected near Cave 4 (Fig. 3.54),

Fig. 4.18. Pottery collected from Cave 1: closed vessels and lamps.

168

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 4.18. Pottery collected from Cave 1: closed vessels and lamps. No.

Cave

Reg. No.

Type

Description Reddish-brown, gray core, white grits, red slip

1

1

28

Cooking pot

2

1

16

Cooking pot

Reddish-brown, white grits

3 4

1

23

Black juglet

Black, black and white grits

1

22

Juglet

5

1

21

Juglet

6

1

18

Jug

7

1

20

Decanter

8

1

19

Decanter

9

1

17

Storage jar

10

1

29

Lamp

11

1

24

Lamp

Orange-brown Brown, gray and white grits, vertical burnish Buff, brown, gray and white grits Brown, white grits, burnish outside and on rim Brown, gray core, white grits, burnish outside and on rim Light brown, gray and white grits Light brown, white and gray grits Reddish-brown, white and gray grits

12

1

30

Lamp

Brown, white and gray grits

13

1

25

Lamp

Brown, white and gray grits

TSPA Group 6 – Shephelah 7a – Central-eastern Shephelah 8a – Central hills

TSPA No. 72 73 74

8a – Central hills

75

3a/1a? – Central Shephelah

76

3a – Socoh

77

4? – Shephelah?

78

3(c?) – Shephelah?

79

3?/7a? – Central Shephelah 3a – Socoh

80 81

it is likely that originally there were many more juglets that were looted from the caves. 2. Dipper juglet (Fig. 4.18:4–5). Both the upper part of this type (Fig. 4.18:4) and its lower part (Fig. 4.18:5) were found in Cave 1. The squared body of the juglet is typical of the Iron Age IIC; it was found in the City of David Stratum 10, referred to as Jt1c (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 72).

Jugs (Fig. 4.18:6) This category includes a jug with a bow rim (Fig. 4.18:6). This jug is typical of the Iron Age IIB; it was found in the City of David Stratum 12, referred to as J1 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 76). Decanters (Fig. 4.18:7–8) The decanters collected from Cave 1 are apparently cylindrical decanters typical of the Iron Age IIC. The rims of the two sherds difffer slightly:

Looted Burial Caves

169

one is upright (Fig. 4.18:7), while the other is everted (Fig. 4.18:8). This type was found in the City of David Stratum 10 (De Groot and BernickGreenberg 2012: 75–76).

Storage Jars (Fig. 4.18:9) This category includes a storage jar with a rounded, thickened rim (Fig. 4.18:9). This vessel is made from orange ware. Parallels were found in Tel ‘Ira Stratum VI (Freud 1999: Fig. 6.62:19) and Tel Arad Stratum VI (Singer-Avitz 2002: Fig. 46:9). Lamps (Fig. 4.18:10–13) 1. Lamp with a thickened base or a kind of disc base (Fig. 4.18:10–11; see also Fig. 4.16:3–4 above). 2. Lamp with a high base (Fig. 4.18:12–13; see also Fig. 4.16:5 above).

4.4. The Pottery Collected from Cave 2 Iron Age IIB–C Pottery Bowls (Fig. 4.19) 1. Platters (Fig. 4.19:1–3). This type includes three subtypes. The fijirst is a platter with a cut rim, decorated with red slip but unburnished (Fig. 4.19:1). This vessel is typical of the Iron Age IIB–C; it was found in Tel Arad Stratum VI (Singer-Avitz 2002: Pl. 48:1) and in Tel ‘Ira Stratum VII (Freud 1999: Fig. 6.59:1). The second subtype is a thin-walled undecorated platter (Fig. 4.19:2), while the third is a burnished platter with a cut rim turning sharply downward (Fig. 4.19:3; see also Fig. 4.17:2 above). 2. Red-slipped shallow bowl with a thickened rim (Fig. 4.19:4). This vessel is typical of the Iron Age IIB; it was found in the City of David Stratum 12, referred to as B4a (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 58–60). 3. Softly carinated wheel-burnished bowl with a rounded, everted rim (Fig. 4.19:6–7; see also Fig. 4.17:4–5 above). 4. Bowl with a folded rim (Fig. 4.19:8–13). Two subtypes appear in Cave 2. The fijirst subtype is a rounded bowl with an outward folded

Fig. 4.19. Pottery collected from Cave 2: bowls.

171

Looted Burial Caves Fig. 4.19. Pottery collected from Cave 2: bowls. No.

Cave

Reg. No.

Type

1

2

14

Bowl

2

2

15

Bowl

3

2

18

Bowl

4

2

7

Bowl

5

2

1

Bowl

6

2

6

Bowl

7

2

4

Bowl

8

2

3

Bowl

9

2

11

Bowl

10

2

12

Bowl

11

2

8

Bowl

12

2

10

Bowl

13

2

9

Bowl

Description Brown, white grits, red slip inside? Grayish brown, white grits Reddish-brown, white and gray grits, burnish inside and on rim Brown, white grits, red slip inside and on rim Brown, white grits Reddish-brown, white and gray grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim Brown, white grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim Brown, many white grits Brown, gray core, white grits, burnish inside and on rim Brown, gray core, white grits, burnish inside and on rim Brown, gray core, white grits, burnish inside and on rim Reddish-brown, white grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim, red slip inside and on rim Reddish-brown, white grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim

TSPA Group

TSPA No.

3a? – Socoh?

82

1a/3a – Central Shephelah

84

7a – Central-eastern Shephelah

83

rim (Fig. 4.19:8–11; see also Fig. 4.17:8 above). The second subtype is a rounded bowl with a rim folded against the outer wall (Fig. 4.19:12–13; see also Fig, 4.17:9 above).

Cooking Pots (Fig. 4.20:1–3) 1. Closed, globular cooking pot with a multi-ridged neck (Fig. 4.20:1; see also Fig. 4.18:2 above). 2. Closed, globular cooking pot with a single-ridged neck (Fig. 4.20:2; see also Fig. 4.15:1 above). 3. Small, closed cooking pot (Fig. 4.20:3). This type appears in the Iron Age IIB–C and is understood as a smaller imitation of the ordinary cooking pots. This vessel imitates the closed, globular cooking pot of the type presented in Fig. 4.20:2.

Fig. 4.20. Pottery collected from Cave 2: closed vessels, stand and lamp.

173

Looted Burial Caves Fig. 4.20. Pottery collected from Cave 2: closed vessels, stand and lamp. No.

Cave

Reg. No.

Type

Description Reddish-brown, white and gray grits Reddish-brown, white grits

1

2

23

Cooking pot

2

2

21

Cooking pot

3 4 5

2

22

Cooking pot

Brown, white grits

2

17

Juglet

Brown, well-levigated

2

18

Juglet

6

2

19

Juglet

7

2

26

Decanter

8

2

27

Decanter

9

2

20

Stand

10

2

16

Lamp

Brown, white grits, burnish Dark-brown, white grits, white slip Gray, reddish-brown core, white grits Buff-brown, white grits, burnish Orange, white grits Reddish-brown, many white and gray grits

TSPA Group

TSPA No.

2a – Southern coast?

85

8a – Central hills

87

1a – Central Shephelah

88

3a – Socoh

89

Juglets (Fig. 4.20:4–6) 1. Black on Red Ware juglet with a “mushroom” rim (Fig. 4.20:4). The extremely fijine ware and pink color of this sherd indicate that it belongs to the Cypro-Phoenician Black on Red Ware. The sherd is covered with a layer of patina, making observation of possible decoration impossible. 2. Dipper juglet (Fig. 4.20:5–6). The upper part of this type (Fig. 4.20:5), as well as its lower part (Fig. 4.20:6), were found in Cave 2. The fragmentary condition of the sherds found in this cave does not allow a more precise identifijication of the type. Decanters (Fig. 4.20:7–8) 1. Decanter with an everted rim (Fig. 4.20:7). Although the fragmentary condition of this sherd does not allow precise identifijication, this vessel seems to belong to the more globular decanters typical of the Iron Age IIB. 2. Cylindrical decanter with an upright rim (Fig. 4.20:8; see also Fig. 4.18:7 above).

174

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Stands (Fig. 4.20:9) One fragment appears to have belonged to a stand (Fig. 4.20:9). The rough surface treatment on the interior of this vessel indicates that it is a stand base. This vessel may be a stand typical of the Persian period. For parallels, see the City of David Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: Fig. 3.7:15). Lamps (Fig. 4.20:10) This category includes a lamp with a high base (Fig. 4.20:10; see also Fig. 4.16:5 above).

4.5. The Pottery Collected from Cave 3 Iron Age IIB–C Pottery Bowls (Fig. 4.21:1–8) 1. Platter with a cut rim (Fig. 4.21:1–2; see also Fig. 4.17:1 above). One sherd is red-slipped and wheel-burnished (Fig. 4.21:1), while another is larger and wheel-burnished (Fig. 4.21:2). 2. Red-slipped shallow bowl with a thickened rim (Fig. 4.21:3; see also Fig. 4.19:4 above) 3. “Rice bowl”/Cup (Fig. 4.21:4). This is a deep, rounded bowl with thin walls and a sharp rim, highly fijired (metallic). This vessel is typical of the Iron Age IIC; it was found in the City of David, referred to as B7b (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 62). 4. Softly carinated bowl with an everted rim (Fig. 4.21:5; see also Fig. 4.17:4–5 above). 5. Bowl with a folded rim (Fig. 4.21:6–8). Two subtypes appear in Cave 3. The fijirst is a rounded bowl with an outward-folded rim (Fig. 4.21:6; see also Fig. 4.17:8 above), and the second is a rounded bowl with a rim folded against the outer wall (Fig. 4.21:7–8; see also Fig. 4.17:9 above). Fig. 7.21:8 may be dated to the Persian period due to its lack of burnish; in this case it should be associated with Bowl Type III, found in the City of David Stratum 9 (Zuckerman 2012: 32).

Looted Burial Caves

Fig. 4.21. Pottery collected from Cave 3.

175

176

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 4.21. Pottery collected from Cave 3. No.

Cave 3

Reg. No. Type 8 Bowl

Description Brown, white grits, wheel burnish inside, red slip inside and on rim

3

1

Bowl

3

3

2

Bowl

4 5 6 7 8 9

3

7

Bowl

Brown, gray core, white and gray grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim Brown, gray core, white and gray grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim, red slip inside and on rim Brown, black core, white grits

3

10

Bowl

Brown, gray core, white and gray grits

3

4

Bowl

Brown, white and gray grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim

3

6

Bowl

Brown, white and gray grits, wheel burnish inside and on rim

3

12

Bowl

Buff, white and gray grits

3

11

Cooking pot

Brown, black core, white grits

1 2

Cooking Pots (Fig. 4.21:9) This category includes an open cooking pot with an everted, grooved rim (Fig. 4.21:9), also known as the En-Gedi cooking pot. This is the most common type of cooking pot during the Iron Age IIC; it was found in the City of David Stratum 10, referred to as CP8 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 68).

4.6. Discussion The pottery presented in this chapter is organized according to cave assemblages. It should be noted that these are not sealed assemblages, but rather pottery discarded by looters at the entrances to these caves. The whole vessels were presumably taken by the looters along with other artifacts typically found in excavated Iron Age burial caves in the Judean Shephelah. The remaining material published in this chapter reflects the chronology and ceramic profijile of Socoh during the relevant periods. The Cave 4 assemblage includes pottery predating the Iron Age. This includes a bowl and the bottom of a juglet dated to the Middle Bronze Age II. The majority of the ceramic assemblage collected from Cave 4 should be dated to the Iron Age IIA, the 10th century BCE. Unfortunately, this assemblage does not contribute to the current debate regarding the absolute chronology of this period. A number of vessels collected from Cave 4 are dated to the Iron Age IIB–C, the 8th–7th centuries BCE.

Looted Burial Caves

177

The assemblages collected from Caves 1, 2 and 3 are dated to the Iron Age IIB–C, the 8th–7th centuries BCE. The majority of the vessels in these assemblages are typical of the 7th century BCE. Some of the vessels collected from these caves are typical of the 8th century BCE, and others have a life span from the 8th to the 7th centuries BCE. The vessels typical of the 7th century are clearly characteristic of late Iron Age strata in Judean sites dated to the Babylonian destruction of 586 BCE (City of David Stratum 10, En-Gedi Stratum V, Ramat Raḥel Stratum Va and Tel Lachish Stratum II), as well as Late Iron Age strata in sites located in Philistia and dated to either the destruction of 609 BCE or the destruction of 604 BCE (Meṣad Ḥashavyahu, Yavne-Yam, Tel Batash Stratum II, Ekron and Ashkelon). The pottery collected from these caves indicates the existence of a vast cemetery during the later part of the Iron Age. This correlates with the conclusions of the site surface survey (Chapter 3) that found evidence of an Iron Age IIB–C occupation at Socoh. Although there is no direct evidence derived from excavation of a destruction at Socoh in the late 8th century BCE, such a destruction may be assumed on the basis of evidence from all the excavated sites in the Judean Shephelah. The settlement pattern of the Judean Shephelah shows a decline in the 7th century BCE as compared to the 8th century BCE, which is widely discussed in current research (Dagan 2004: 2681–2684; Faust 2013). The evidence presented here is insufffijicient to contribute to the debate regarding a possible settlement gap between the Assyrian destruction of 701 BCE and the resettlement of the Judean Shephelah (Ussishkin 2004: 90–91). Nonetheless, the 7th-century BCE occupation of Socoh attests to the existence of a site in the Judean Shephelah during this period and is therefore signifijicant in this regard.

Chapter 5

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics David Ben-Shlomo

5.1. Introduction This chapter presents the results of thin section petrography analysis (TSPA) of 106 pottery vessels from Socoh. These include: 1. Twenty-seven samples from two adjacent survey squares (H and I), which contained large amounts of pottery from looted tombs dated to the Iron Age IIA. 2. Thirty-three samples from two adjacent survey squares (LL and PP), which contained large amounts of pottery from looted tombs dated to the Iron Age IIB–C. 3. Seven samples of lmlk-type storage jars from various survey squares. 4. Fourteen samples from the looted burial Cave 1, dated to the Iron Age IIB–C. 5. Eight samples from the looted burial Cave 2, dated to the Iron Age IIB–C. 6. Seventeen samples from the looted burial Cave 4, dated to the Iron Age IIA. Various pottery forms were sampled. These include 29 bowls (four of them of the Judean folded-rim type), nine kraters, six chalices, seven cooking pots, ten jars, 18 jugs (two of them decanters), seven juglets (two of them “black juglets”), two mortaria, 15 lamps and several other types. The main aim of the analysis was to identify the local production at the site in comparison to Khirbet Qeiyafa, and to compare pottery sources and technological and trade patterns between the Iron Age IIA 179

180

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

and Iron Age IIB assemblages. In addition, several more unusual and important types, including lmlk-type jars, black juglets and a strainer spouted jug, were examined.

5.2. Methodology of Petrographic Analysis Samples were obtained by standard thin sectioning of the pottery sherds (see Ben-Shlomo 2009). First a slice, several mm thick is cut from the sherd. One side is flattened and afffijixed with transparent epoxy to a microscope slide. After hardening and drying, the other side is thinned to a thickness of 0.03 mm (30 microns) in which most of the minerals are transparent. The slides are examined through a petrographic polarizing microscope (Nikon and Zeiss models were used for photography in this study, at magnifijications of X25–X400). The fabric description of the slides includes general characteristics of the matrix (when identifijied as calcareous, ferruginous and so on), optical activity, inclusion spacing, percentage of voids and general description of the silt component of the matrix (grain size is defijined as follows, using the Udden-Wentworth scale [Adams et al. 1984]: sand: 2000–62 microns; silt: 62–4 microns; clay: under 4 microns). A defijinition of the type of local soil is given when applicable (according to descriptions in Goren et al. 2004; Goren and Halperin 2004; and soil maps found in Dan et al. 1975). Inclusions are listed according to minerals; the description includes percentage (of the slide area, according to percentage charts; see Bullok et al. 1985), sorting, size ranges and texture shape, and various special features (such as cracks in crystals). Components under 1% of the total slide area are termed “several” or “rare” according to their relative frequency. Other notes, such as orientation of inclusions, shape of voids (Bullok et al. 1985: 43–47) and evidence of decomposed or organic material, are also indicated.1 1. A major diffference from Whitbread’s system (1995) is that all percentages given are of the total area of the slide. Although in this system it is difffijicult to accurately express relative abundances of rarer inclusion types, it has other advantages. This description is more faithful to the appearance of the slide, and in the detailed description it is important to give as much raw data as possible without interpretation. Relative percentages can usually be calculated from these numbers if needed, and are easier to obtain using percentage estimation charts. The b-fabric

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics

181

The samples are eventually grouped in petrographic groups, usually with the soil type as the fijirst criterion and dominant inclusions as the second criterion (creating subgroups such as 1a, 1b etc). In general, the group numbering is arbitrary; however, in this case an attempt was made to follow the petrographic group numbers established for the nearby Iron Age IIA site of Khirbet Qeiyafa (see Ben-Shlomo 2009; Ben-Shlomo forthcoming a, b).

5.3. Geological and Pedological Setting The site of Socoh is located in the central Shephelah region and lies in the Elah Valley, 3.5 km east of its mouth and about 500 m south of the Elah watercourse The site of Khirbet Qeiyafa lies 2 km to the west (Fig. 5.1).

Fig. 5.1. Map of the region of Socoh with sites and geological formations mentioned in the text (after Sneh 2009).

The site itself is located on the Adulam formation (Lower-Middle type system was not employed in this study; however, more emphasis was given to the description of the shape (roundness and sphericity of grains), as this proved to be more crucial in the description of the petrographic groups (generally following Bullok et al. 1985: 20–38).

182

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Eocene with chalk and chert; Sneh 2009), which also lies to its west and north, after a 0.5–1 km strip of fluvial soil created by the Elah watercourse. To the east and south lies the Taqiye formation of the Paleocene, with marl, clay, limestone and chalk (Buchbinder 1969; Sneh et al. 1998). The Taqiye formation was often used for pottery making. About 8 km to the northeast are the closest outcrops of the dolomitic Motza formation; however, the Bina formation, which also contains dolomite of the Turonian era, is already exposed 4.5 km east of the site. Terra rossa and rendzina soils were formed in these geological formations in these regions respectively. The Elah watercourse can also supply clay for pottery making where there are grumusol type soils (Fig. 5.1; Dan et al. 1975, 2002), and along the river, a few kilometers to the west (and somewhat farther to the southeast), there are “dark brown” soils. Basically, the geological and pedological (soil) setting of Socoh is similar to that of Khirbet Qeiyafa 2 km away (Ben-Shlomo 2009: 162, Fig. 8.1). Generally, the site has reasonable access (less than 10 km) to several potential clay sources, which are geologically somewhat diffferent in character (see Fig. 5.1). The site’s catchment area for clay sources thus includes the following: 1. Grumusol fluvial soil from the Elah watercourse. 2. Rendzina type soil from the vicinity of the tell (the Adulam formation). 3. The Taqiye formation, exposed near the tell. 4. Terra rossa soil (the closest is the Bina formation) to the east. 5. Possibly the Motza formation (although larger outcrops are farther away). The “brown soils” used at this region are somewhat similar to the soil used for potter’s clay at Tell eṣ-Ṣafiji (Weider and Gvirtzman 1999; BenShlomo 2009; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2009). Since Tell eṣ-Ṣafiji is located about 15 km downstream, certain natural inclusions in the clay of the Socoh area, such as chert and various calcareous inclusions, would be more weathered and less frequent in clay collected in the Tell eṣ-Ṣafiji area. This clay type also appears in the Ashdod area on the coast, although there it lacks calcareous inclusions (Ben-Shlomo 2006: 165–168).

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics

183

5.4. Petrographic Results Altogether nine petrographic groups were defijined (see Tables 5.1, 5.2), which were sometimes divided into subgroups (16 subgroups in total). Nevertheless, of the 106 samples, 76 belong to the two major groups (Groups 1 and 3, together 72%), and thus the sample is petrographically not extremely variable. The groups are described and discussed below and in Table 5.1. Group 1. Petrographic Group 1 (Fig. 5.2a–f) is by far the largest group, with up to 54 samples in total. It is widely represented in all contexts collected, except for Cave 1 (with only one example). Group 1 is characterized by a dark to opaque matrix under crossed polarized light, brown to reddish-brown under regular polarized light. The particles are usually single-spaced and voids are 10–15% of the slide area. Nonplastics include silty, angular to sub-angular quartz dust grains (usually 20–30% of slide area, poorly to moderately sorted; denoted Group 1a in Fig. 5.2a–b). Limestone, chalk, nari and calcareous concentrations, sand to coarse silt sized, are also very common and may comprise up to 5–10% of the slide area (but often substantially less); other inclusions are opaque minerals, microfossils, and occasional silty mica and feldspar and rare dolomite particles. This clay is probably derived from dark brown soil, possibly with some mixture of grumusol type soil (Ben-Shlomo 2009: 162–163, Group 1a). This clay should be considered local to the site of Socoh (although in principle it may come from other regional sites in the central Shephelah) and was probably collected from the nearby Elah river bed. Group 1 was subdivided into fijive subgroups (1a–1e), although the diffferences between the subgroups may not be signifijicant and may derive from diffferences in the clay treatment by the potter or from natural variability of the same clay source. Group 1a has the common appearance (see above) and has 19–30 members (Fig. 5.2a–b). The coarse: fijine: voids 20μm ratio (c:f:v) is 30:55:15–45:45:10. Subgroup 1b (Fig. 5.2c, two members) has more sand-sized, rounded quartz. Subgroup 1c (Fig. 5.2d, up to fijive members) has a relatively low quartz component of 10%, and higher calcareous component of up to 15%. Subgroup 1d (Fig. 5.2e, 13 members) has both a high quartz compo-

184

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

nent (15–30%) and a higher calcareous inclusions component of 15–25%, including more sand-sized particles. The c:f:v 20μm ratio is 50:35:15–60:30:10. Subgroup 1e (Fig. 5.2f, four members) is characterized by a large proportion of angular-rhomboid calcareous inclusions (including chalk, limestone and calcite, 15–25%), which due to the regularity of the particles’ shape and size were probably deliberately added by the potter. This is a “cooking pot” fabric (see, e.g., Shoval et al. 1993: 271–272; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2009: 2270, Fig. 10: top), and the four members of the subgroup are either cooking pots or kraters made with cooking pot material. Group 2. Petrographic Group 2 (Fig. 5.2g, up to four members) is characterized by dark, silty, calcareous matrix under crossed polarized light, reddish to reddish-brown under regular polarized light. The main nonplastics are 25–35% quartz with a bimodal texture, including a silty angular and a rounded sand-sized component. Calcareous inclusions are 1–3% (limestone and calcareous concentration), while opaque minerals and clay pellets are quite high, up to 5% of slide area. Other inclusions are feldspar, microfossils and rare mica and hornblende. The c:f:v20μm is 40:50:10. This fabric represents clay derived from loess type soils or soils mixed between brown and loess type soils (see, e.g., BenShlomo 2009: 163, Group 2A). The geographic source would probably be southwest of Socoh in the southern coastal plain of Israel, and at least 25 km away from the site. Subgroup 2a (Fig. 5.2g) is the general appearance, while Subgroup 2b (with one example, Krater Socoh 95) has no calcareous inclusions and probably has a coastal origin. Group 3. Petrographic Group 3 (Fig. 5.3a–d, 22 members in total). The common appearance is Group 3a (13–16 members, the second largest group at Socoh), characterized by a calcareous, silty, dark to brown matrix under crossed polarized light and reddish under polarized light; voids are usually 10–15% of slide area. Generally, it seems that this fabric was fijired to a lower temperature than Groups 1 and 2. The main inclusions are microfossils, mostly rounded or cellular, often seen as reddish (ferruginized), and chalk fragments, reaching 10–25% of the slide area with sizes up to 0.3 mm, and in addition coarse silt and sandy chalk, limestone, calcite and calcareous concentrations (usually

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics

185

Fig. 5.2. Photos of thin sections, Groups 1a–e, 2a (polarizers, horizontal dimension in mm): a. Socoh 51, Group 1a (pl, 1.7 mm); b. Socoh 106, Group 1a (xpl, 6.8 mm); c. Socoh 4, Group 1b (xpl, 4 mm); d. Socoh 46, Group 1c (pl, 1.7 mm); e. Socoh 27, Group 1d (pl, 1.7 mm); f. Socoh 94, Group 1e (pl, 1.7 mm); g. Socoh 18, Group 2a (xpl, 6.8 mm).

186

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

5–15%). The silty, quartz dust component is highly variable in the slide, 5–20% in quantity, while additional common inclusions are opaque minerals, clay pellets (terra rossa balls), chert and more rarely dolomite. This generic group represents clays derived from rendzina soils. which are common in both the Shephelah and the central hills (see also Ben-Shlomo 2009: 163, Group 3; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2009: Group 3; Ben-Shlomo forthcoming a, b). More specifijically, the clay is probably derived from the local Adulam and/or Taqiye formation; note also that Group 3a has a high component of opaque and ferruginized minerals (in comparison to the corresponding petrographic group at the nearby Khirbet Qeiyafa), indicating a substantial component of iron oxides in the soil. More likely, there is a Taqiye formation component in this clay, since this formation naturally includes clay and the tell lies practically on this formation (Fig. 5.1). Group 3 is divided into four subgroups. Subgroup 3a is the common appearance of this clay (Fig. 5.3a, 13–16 members), with a c:f:v 20μm ratio of 40:50:10–55:30:15. Subgroup 3b (Fig. 5.3b, two members) is characterized by a higher component of quartz (25%). including subrounded to rounded sand. Subgroup 3c (Fig. 5.3c, 1–3 members) has a higher silty dolomite component (up to 1%), and may have a more eastern origin toward the Judean hills. Subgroup 3d (Fig. 5.3d, one example, jug Socoh 33) has more coarse angular crushed limestone, chalk, calcite (up to 0.6 mm in size) and dolomite. Group 4. Petrographic Group 4 (Fig. 5.3e, 1–3 members), comprising two lamps and an unusual bowl, is characterized by silty to fijine, dark matrix under crossed polarized and reddish-brown under regular polarized light, with 5–10% voids. This is a rather compact, calcareous marl-derived clay. The main inclusions are calcareous concentrations, microfossils, silty quartz dust and dolomite. Generally this fabric has a low quantity of coarse inclusions (the c:f:v 20μm ratio is 20–40:50–70:10). It is difffijicult to establish the provenance of this fabric. It may derive from a treatment of rendzina or calcareous soils in the central hills region (due to the high dolomite), but other sources in Israel, such as the central hills, Lower Galilee, etc., are also possible. Group 5. Only one example belongs to Group 5 (Bowl Socoh 31, Fig.

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics

187

5.3f); it has a dark, packed, foraminiferous matrix. Non-plastics are microfossils, chalk (up to 0.35 mm) and 5% silty quartz, as well as pellets, opaque mineral and feldspar. This clay may fijit a northern valley source such as the Jezreel Valley or Megiddo (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo 2013). Group 6. Petrographic Group 6 (Fig. 5.3g, 2–3 members) is characterized by a brown to reddish matrix, with 15% voids. The main non-plastics are quartz dust (at 15%), limestone and calcareous concentration at 10% (up to 0.4 mm in size), clay pellets (up to 5%), opaque minerals, microfossils, chalk and, more rarely, chert, shell, dolomite and mica. This fabric probably represents clay derived from terra rossa and is particularly distinguished by clay pellets surrounded by voids (Fig. 5.3g: PL). This phenomenon may result from the clay pellets shrinking diffferently from the matrix body during fijiring. This clay may fijit a source derived from the Turonian Bina formation, east of the site. Group 7. Petrographic Group 7 (Fig. 5.4a–b) is characterized by a dark to opaque matrix under cross polarized light and reddish under regular polarized light, single-spaced particles and usually 15% voids (the c:f:v 20μm ratio is 40–45:40–45:15). The main non-plastics are well-sorted silty angular dust quartz (15–30% of slide area), usually up to 0.15 mm in size, poorly sorted limestone fragments up to 1 mm in size (usually 1–10%), as well as opaque minerals, clay pellets and rare dolomite and feldspar. This fabric probably represents clay derived from Shephelah terra rossa soils, e.g. from the Bina formation about 4.5 east of the site (see above, Group 6). The group was divided into two subgroups. Group 7a (Fig. 5.4a, 3–6 members) is the common appearance (see above). Group 7b (Fig. 5.4b, 2–3 members), with a c:f:v 20μm ratio of 35–45:40–50:15), has more rhombic silt-sized dolomite (Fig. 5.4b: DL; up to 0.1 mm); thus this subgroup may have a source closer to the Judean hills (some 5 km to the east). Group 8. Petrographic Group 8 (Fig. 5.4c–d) is characterized by a dark reddish, closely spaced, silty matrix; the fabric is usually packed with dolomite particles, rhombic in shape, coarse silt to sand sized (up to 0.5 mm in size), comprising up to 65% of the slide area. Worn dolomite,

188

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 5.3. Photos of thin sections, Groups 3, 4, 5, 6 (polarizers, horizontal dimension in mm): a. Socoh 28, Group 3a (pl, 1.7 mm); b. Socoh 30, Group 3b (xpl, 6.8mm); c. Socoh 79, Group 3c (xpl, 6.8 mm); d. Socoh 33, Group 3d (pl, 6.8 mm); e. Socoh 15, Group 4 (xpl, 6.8 mm); f. Socoh 31, Group 5 (xpl, 6.8 mm); g. Socoh 72, group 6 (xpl, 6.8 mm). FR= microfossil; DL= dolomite; PL= clay pellet.

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics

189

Fig. 5.4. Photos of thin sections, Groups 7, 8, 9 (polarizers, horizontal dimension in mm): a. Socoh 97, Group 7a (xpl, 1.7 mm); b. Socoh 44, Group 7b (xpl, 6.8 mm); c. Socoh 56, Group 8a (pl, 6.8 mm); d. Socoh 9, Group 8b (xpl, 1.7 mm); e. Socoh 70, Group 9 (xpl, 6.8 mm). DL= dolomite.

sub-angular to sub-rounded, also appears. Other inclusions (opaque minerals and calcareous concentrations) are infrequent. The c:f:v 20μm ratio is quite variable at 70:25:5–45:30:25. The common appearance is Group 8a (Fig. 5.4c, seven members, see above). Subgroup 8b (Fig. 5.4d,

190

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

1–2 members) is characterized by less dolomite (20–30% worn) and more quartz and microfossils. This is possibly a mixture of clays. This fabric represents a clay derived from the Motza formation, with added or natural dolomite sand (see, e.g., Glass et al. 1993: 272–276; Goren 1996: 51–52; Killebrew 1998: 216; Goren and Halperin 2004: 2556–2557 and discussion therein). As noted above, the closest outcrops of the Motza formation are about 10 km from Socoh. However, this group should be defijined as imports to the site, since this type is not commonly used in the Shephelah. Thus, the likely source of this group is within the Judean hills, possibly from the region of west Jerusalem or Motza (or farther south), and 20 km or more away from the site. Group 9. One sample, a mortarium (Socoh 70), belongs to this group (Fig. 5.4e). The matrix is opaque under crossed polarized light. Nonplastics include sand-sized well-sorted quartz and some calcareous fijine sand, as well as opaque minerals and sand-sized feldspar. This fabric is derived from a coastal clay. The geographic provenance may be the central coastal plain, but could also be coastal Cyprus (on Iron Age mortaria from Cyprus, see Zukerman and Ben-Shlomo 2011). This is the only sample in the assemblage analyzed from Socoh that could possibly be imported from outside of southern Israel.

Results according to periods, contexts and types Periods. The pottery from Squares H and I and Cave 4 probably dates from the Iron Age IIA, while the pottery from Squares LL and PP and Caves 1 and 2, as well as seven lmlk-type jar handles, likely dates from the Iron Age IIB–C. Of the 27 Iron Age IIA vessels, 20 belong to Group 1 (74%) and only two to Group 3 (see Fig. 5.5). Four examples (belonging to Groups 2 and 8) were made away from the site, while no samples belong to Group 7 (see below). The picture arising from the Iron Age IIB samples is somewhat diffferent. Of the 79 samples, 34 belong to Group 1 (only 43%), 20 to Group 3 (25%), nine to Group 7, fijive to Group 2, eight to Group 8 and eight to other groups (4–6, 9). The major diffference between the periods is the extensive use of rendzina/Taqiye type clays in the Iron

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics

191

Age IIB and the introduction of the terra rossa Group 7, which was not represented at all in the Iron Age IIA samples. The percentage of possibly imported vessels (Groups 2, 4–6, 8 and 9) is somewhat higher in the Iron Age IIB (27% vs. 19% in the Iron Age IIA). It should be noted, however, that the samples are small and are also possibly biased toward specifijic types (such as lmlk-type jars, jugs and juglets, etc.) and may not be representative of the entire pottery assemblage of the Iron Age Socoh tombs. Contexts. If the diffferent contexts or squares are examined, it should be noted that the samples from Caves 1 and 2 have a relatively low proportion of Group 1 examples (Fig. 5.5). Moreover, in general the eight samples from Cave 1 are very diversifijied in their clay composition. However, it should be noted that the types selected from Caves 1 and 2 were more varied (jugs, juglets, lamps and mortaria rather than bowls), which probably caused this efffect.

Fig. 5.5. Samples according to contexts and groups.

Types (Fig. 5.6). Of the 26 bowls, 13 belong to Group 1, two each to Groups 2, 3 and 7, and one to Group 8. Of the three Judean folded-rim bowls, two belong to Group 7b, possibly made in the Judean hills. Of the nine kraters, eight belong to Group 1 and one to Group 2. Of the four kraters resembling cooking pots, two or three belong to Subgroup

192

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

1e, which is a typical cooking ware fabric. Krater Socoh 95, which is in fact a folded-rim, red-slipped krater, was imported from the southern coast (Group 2b). Of the six chalices analyzed, four belong to Group 1 and one each to Group 3 and 4. Of the seven cooking pots, three belong to Group 1, three to Group 7a and one possibly to Group 2a (possibly with sandy quartz added as temper). It seems that most cooking pots were not made of the traditional calcareous-tempered cooking ware; this accords with similar results from other contemporary Iron Age IIB sites such as Jerusalem, Tell eṣ-Ṣafiji and Tell Jemmeh (Ben-Shlomo 2012: 412; Ben-Shlomo 2014: 788).

Fig. 5.6. Samples according to types and groups.

Ten storage jars were analyzed. Of these, seven are lmlk-type jars and one a holemouth storage jar. Nine vessels belonged to Group 1, mostly to Subgroup 1a with a relatively high component of calcareous inclusions, and one to Group 7a. Thus all jars were locally made in the central Shephelah, including the lmlk-type jars, which are rather homogeneous. Yet these are not standardized enough to prove the existence of a local production center (possibly a regional center?) at the site of Socoh. Of the 18 jugs, seven belong to Group 1, six to Group 3 and two to Group 6. Three belong to Group 8 from the central hills. Thus, although the jugs are quite diverse in their composition, the majority are local

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics

193

to the central Shephelah. Of the seven juglets analyzed, three belong to Group 1, one to Group 3 and three to the Motza Group 8. Of these, two are black juglets. It is known that black juglets from the 9th century BCE onward were usually made of Motza type clay with dolomitic sand (see, e.g., Cohen-Weinberger and Panitz-Cohen 2014: 410). A relatively large number of lamps, 15 in number, was sampled. Of these, four belong to Group 1, nine to Group 3 and one each to Groups 4 and 7. This is the only pottery class from Socoh of which the majority is made of the calcareous Petrographic Group 3; possibly the lamps were not fijired to a high temperature and did not need to have surface strength, and thus the calcareous clay sufffijiced. Otherwise, some of the various forms were local, such as a coarse basin (Socoh 105), which possibly belongs to Group 1c (the fijiner variant of the clay), as well as an irregularly burnished sherd (Socoh 4) and a strainer-spouted jug (Socoh 106). Interestingly, the latter, while a typical Philistine form, was made locally (Group 1a, Fig. 5.2b). Of the two mortaria, one (Socoh 70) was possibly imported from coastal Cyprus, while the other (Socoh 56) was possibly made of Motza clay(Group 8a) in the central hills (as was a pithos fragment, Socoh 57).

5.5. Discussion and Conclusions The petrographic analysis of the Iron Age II assemblage from Socoh, although it does nor derive from stratifijied archaeological excavation, has yielded several interesting results. Generally, the composition of the pottery is quite similar to that at the previously studied Iron Age IIA site of Khirbet Qeiyafa. The two sites lie on opposite banks of the Elah river, about 2 km apart. However, at Socoh it seems that there is more extensive usage of the clay from the site itself, particularly during the Iron Age IIB (Group 3, Taqiye or rendzina type soil), in comparison to Khirbet Qeiyafa, where almost all of the pottery was made from clays that were probably collected from the river bed (here Group 1). The vessels that were not produced in the vicinity of the site comprise only about 15%, and most of these are from nearby regions (the Judean hills or the coastal plain). Notably, there are more imports from the central hill country (here Group 8) than at Iron Age IIA Khirbet Qei-

194

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

yafa. Nevertheless, as was pointed out above, some soils in the eastern and central Shephelah may look quite similar to soils in the Judean hills or the region of Jerusalem (these are derived from Turonian terra rossa soils, here Groups 6 and 7), and thus the “petrographic border” between these two regions is not clear. The lmlk-type jars were also locally made, as were other, more “foreign” types, such as a strainer-spouted jug. In general, few vessels came from the southern coast or from Philistia, possibly indicating that Socoh had stronger contacts with the Judean hill country to the east than with Philistia. It will be interesting to compare in the future the composition and production of pottery from the Iron Age II settlement contexts at Socoh with the tombs in the area. Table 5.1. Summary of the diffferent petrographic groups at Socoh. Matrix (XPL, PL)

Main Inclusions

Related Soil Type or Formation

Suggested Origin

Dark, brown

Quartz silt, calcareous

“Brown”

Central Shephelah

Dark, brown

Quartz silt & sand, calcareous

“Brown”

Central Shephelah

1c

Dark, brown

Low quartz, highly calcareous

“Brown”

Central Shephelah

1d

Dark, brown

Quartz silt, highly calcareous

“Brown”

Central Shephelah

1e

Dark, brown

Quartz silt, calcareous

“Brown”

Central Shephelah

2a

Dark, reddish

Bimodal quartz, calcareous

Loess/brown

Southern coastal plain

2b

Dark, reddish

Bimodal quartz, non-calcareous

Loess/brown

Southern coastal plain

3a

Calcareous, brown, reddish

Microfossils, chalk, quartz silt

Taqiye/rendzina

Socoh

3b

Calcareous, brown, reddish

Microfossils, chalk, high quartz

Taqiye/rendzina

Socoh

3c

Calcareous, brown, reddish

Microfossils, chalk, quartz silt, dolomite

Rendzina

Shephelah/central hills

3d

Calcareous, brown, reddish

Angular crushed limestone, quartz silt, dolomite

Rendzina

Shephelah/central hills

4

Brown, reddish, silty

Microfossils, chalk, quartz silt, dolomite

Rendzina

Non-distinctive

5

Dark, packed

Microfossils

Marl?

Northern valleys

6

Reddish

Pellets (surrounded by voids), calcareous, quartz silt

Terra rossa (Bina)

Eastern Shephelah

7a

Opaque, reddish

Well sorted silty quartz, limestone

Terra rossa (Bina)

Eastern Shephelah

Group 1a 1b

195

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics Group

Related Soil Type or Formation

Suggested Origin

Terra rossa (Bina)

Eastern Shephelah/ central hills

Dolomite-sand & silt

Motza

Central hills

Less dolomite

Motza

Central hills

Quartz sand, calcareous sand

Alluvial (coastal)

Cyprus?

Matrix (XPL, PL)

Main Inclusions

7b

Opaque, reddish

Well-sorted silty quartz, limestone, dolomite

8a

Brown, silty, packed

8b

Brown, silty Opaque

9

Table 5.2. List of samples analyzed with their petrographic grouping and suggested provenance. Context

Square/ Reg. No.

Vessel

Socoh 1

Survey

H19

Black juglet

Socoh 2

Survey

H16

Bowl

Socoh 3

Survey

H17

Socoh 4

Survey

Socoh 5

Sample

Description

Period

Plate TS Group

Suggested Provenance

Iron IIA

8a

Central hills

Inverted rim

Iron IIA

1a

Central Shephelah

Bowl

Inverted rim, RSB

Iron IIA

2a?

Southern coast

H18

Sherd

Irregular burnish

Iron IIA

1b

Central Shephelah

Survey

H15

Bowl

RSB, i/o

Iron IIA

1b/2a?

Central Shephelah?

Socoh 6

Survey

H2

Krater/ cooking pot

Iron IIA

1e

Central Shephelah

Socoh 7

Survey

H22

Krater/ cooking pot

Iron IIA

1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 8

Survey

H20

Chalice

Iron IIA

1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 9

Survey

H37

Juglet

Iron IIA

8(b?)

Central hills

Socoh 10

Survey

H33

Jug

Iron IIA

1(a?)

Central Shephelah

Socoh 11

Survey

H41

Lamp

Iron IIA

1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 12

Survey

H39

Lamp

Iron IIA

1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 13

Survey

H38

Lamp

Iron IIA

3a

Socoh

Socoh 14

Survey

H40

Lamp

Iron IIA

3b

Socoh

Socoh 15

Survey

H26

Bowl (unusual)

Iron IIA

4

Shephelah?

Socoh 16

Survey

H23

Krater

Iron IIA

1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 17

Survey

H24

Krater

Iron IIA

1d

Central Shephelah

Light clay

Socoh 18

Survey

H7

Bowl

Iron IIA

2a

Southern coast

Socoh 19

Survey

H5

Carinated bowl

Rs

Iron IIA

1a?

Central Shephelah?

Socoh 20

Survey

H8

Carinated bowl

Iron IIA

1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 21

Survey

H4

Bowl

Iron IIA

1d

Central Shephelah

196

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Sample

Context

Square/ Reg. No.

Vessel

Socoh 22

Survey

H9

Bowl

Iron IIA

1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 23

Survey

H10

Chalice

Iron IIA

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 24

Survey

H32

Chalice

Iron IIA

1d?

Central Shephelah?

Socoh 25

Survey

H31

Chalice

Iron IIA

1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 26

Survey

H36

Jug

Iron IIA

1(a?)

Central Shephelah

Socoh 27

Survey

H35

Jug

Iron IIA

1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 28

Survey

LL16

Open bowl

Iron IIB–C

3a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 29

Survey

LL53

Bowl

Iron IIB–C

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 30

Survey

LL6

Bowl

JFR, RSB, i

Iron IIB–C

3b

Socoh

Socoh 31

Survey

LL15

Open bowl

RSB, i

Iron IIB–C

5

North valleys?

Iron IIB–C

3c

Central hills?

RS

Iron IIB–C

3d

Central hills?

Iron IIB–C

1a

Central Shephelah

Description

RS, i

Period

Plate TS Group

Suggested Provenance

Socoh 32

Survey

LL22

Lamp

Socoh 33

Survey

LL46

Jug base

Socoh 34

Survey

LL23

Lamp

Socoh 35

Survey

LL28

Jug

Vertical burnish

Iron IIB–C

3a

Socoh

Socoh 36

Survey

LL29

Jug

RSB

Iron IIB–C

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 37

Survey

LL21

Lamp

Thick base

Iron IIB–C

3a

Socoh

Iron IIB–C

1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 38

Survey

LL27

Jar

lmlk

Socoh 39

Survey

LL30

Bowl

Iron IIB–C

7a?

Central Shephelah?

Socoh 40

Survey

LL40

Cooking pot

Iron IIB–C

1c

Central Shephelah

Socoh 41

Survey

LL41

Cooking pot

Iron IIB–C

1c

Central Shephelah

Socoh 42

Survey

LL5

Bowl

Iron IIB–C

7b

Shephelah/ central hills

Socoh 43

Survey

LL8

Carinated bowl

Iron IIB–C

1a?

Central Shephelah?

Socoh 44

Survey

LL2

Bowl

JFR

Iron IIB–C

7b

Shephelah/ central hills

Socoh 45

Survey

LL50

Bowl/lamp

Complete, soot

Iron IIB–C

6

Shephelah/ central hills

Socoh 46

Survey

LL51

Bowl

Complete, soot

Iron IIB–C

1c

Central Shephelah

Socoh 47

Survey

LL36

Chalice?

Iron IIB–C

3a

Socoh

Socoh 48

Survey

LL35

Chalice/lamp?

Iron IIB–C

4?

Shephelah?

Socoh 49

Survey

LL44

Jug

Iron IIB–C

6

Shephelah/ central hills

JFR, RSB

197

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics Sample

Context

Square/ Reg. No.

Vessel

Socoh 50

Survey

LL48

Jug

Description

Period

Plate TS Group

Iron IIB–C

Suggested Provenance

3a

Socoh

Socoh 51

Survey

LL42

Juglet

Iron IIB–C

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 52

Survey

LL43

Juglet

Iron IIB–C

3c/8b

Shephelah/ central hills

Socoh 53

Survey

LL49

Juglet

Iron IIB–C

1?

Central Shephelah?

Socoh 54

Survey

LL17

Open bowl

RSB, i

Iron IIB–C

7a

Central-eastern Shephelah

Socoh 55

Survey

LL9

Open bowl

RS, i

Iron IIB–C

1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 56

Survey

LL54

Mortarium?

Iron IIB–C

8a

Central hills

Socoh 57

Survey

LL55

Pithos?

Pink clay

Iron IIB–C

8a

Central hills

Socoh 58

Survey

LL20

Krater

RSB

Iron IIB–C

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 59

Survey

LL56

Holemouth

Iron IIB–C

1(a?)

Central Shephelah

Socoh 60

Survey

LL37

Carinated bowl

Iron IIB–C

8b?

Central hills

Socoh 61

Survey

BB3

Jar

lmlk

Iron II

1a/7a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 62

Survey

D2

Jar

lmlk

Iron II

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 63

Survey

B1

Jar

lmlk, dark clay

Iron II

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 64

Survey

D3

Jar

lmlk

Iron II

1a?

Central Shephelah?

Socoh 65

Survey

BB2

Jar

lmlk

Iron II

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 66

Survey

JJ1

Jar

lmlk

Iron II

7a/1d

Central Shephelah

Socoh 67

Survey

KK2

Jar

lmlk

Iron II

1c/7b?

Shephelah/ central hills

Socoh 68

Cave 1

1/4

Open bowl

RSB

Iron IIB–C

1:2

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 69

Cave 1

1/8

Open bowl

RSB

Iron IIB–C

1:5

3a

Socoh

Socoh 70

Cave 1

1/14

Mortarium

Iron IIB–C

1:10

9

Coastal (Cyprus?)

Socoh 71

Cave 1

1/15

Cooking pot

Iron IIB–C

1:11

1e

Central Shephelah

Socoh 72

Cave 1

1/28

Jug

Iron IIB–C

1:12

6

Shephelah

RS

Socoh 73

Cave 1

1/16

Cooking pot

Iron IIB–C

1:13

7a

Central-eastern Shephelah

Socoh 74

Cave 1

1/23

Black juglet

Iron IIB–C

1:14

8a

Central hills

Socoh 75

Cave 1

1/18

Jug

Iron IIB–C

1:17

8a

Central hills

Socoh 76

Cave 1

1/20

Jug

Decanter

Iron IIB–C

1:18

3a/1a?

Central Shephelah

Socoh 77

Cave 1

1/19

Jug

Decanter

Iron IIB–C

1:19

3a

Socoh

198

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Sample

Context

Square/ Reg. No.

Socoh 78

Cave 1

1/29

Lamp

Iron IIB–C

1:21

4?

Shephelah?

Socoh 79

Cave 1

1/24

Lamp

Iron IIB–C

1:22

3(c?)

Shephelah

Socoh 80

Cave 1

1/30

Lamp

Iron IIB–C

1:23

3?/7a?

Central Shephelah?

Socoh 81

Cave 1

1/25

Lamp

Thick base

Iron IIB–C

1:24

3a

Socoh

Socoh 82

Cave 2

2/7

Bowl

RSB

Iron IIB–C

2:7

3a?

Socoh?

Socoh 83

Cave 2

2/9

Open bowl

Iron IIB–C

2:10

7a

Central-eastern Shephelah

Socoh 84

Cave 2

2/11

Bowl

Iron IIB–C

2:11

1a/3a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 85

Cave 2

2/23

Cooking pot

Iron IIB–C

2:16

2a?

Southern coast?

Socoh 86

Cave 2

2/2

Jug?

RSB

Iron IIB–C

2:20

3a

Socoh

Socoh 87

Cave 2

2/26

Jug

Decanter

Iron IIB–C

2:21

8a

Central hills

Socoh 88

Cave 2

2/27

Jug

Decanter

Iron IIB–C

2:22

1a

Central Shephelah

Vessel

Description

JFR

Period

Plate TS Group

Suggested Provenance

Socoh 89

Cave 2

2/16

Lamp

Iron IIB–C

2:24

3a

Socoh

Socoh 90

Cave 4

4/24

Open bowl

Iron IIA

4:3

3a

Socoh

Socoh 91

Cave 4

4/16

Carinated bowl

Iron IIA

4:7

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 92

Cave 4

4/21

Krater/ cooking pot

Iron IIA

4:12

1e

Central Shephelah

Socoh 93

Cave 4

4/2

Krater

JFR

Iron IIA

4:18

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 94

Cave 4

4/1

Krater

JFR

Iron IIA

4:19

1e

Central Shephelah

Socoh 95

Cave 4

4/3

Krater

JFR, RSB

Iron IIA

4:20

2b

Southern coast

Socoh 96

Cave 4

4/35

Juglet

RSB

Iron IIA

4:2

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 97

Cave 4

4/19

Cooking pot

Iron IIA

4:21

7a

Central-eastern Shephelah

Socoh 98

Cave 4

4/30

Jug

Iron IIA

4:22

8a

Central hills

Socoh 99

Cave 4

4/10

Jug

Iron IIA

4:24

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 100

Cave 4

4/22

Jug?

Iron IIA

4:26

1a?

Central Shephelah?

Socoh 101

Cave 4

4/33

Jar base

Iron IIA

4:27

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 102

Cave 4

4/36

Lamp

Iron IIA

4:29

1a

Central Shephelah

Socoh 103

Cave 4

4/48

Lamp

Iron IIA

4:30

3a

Socoh

Socoh 104

Cave 4

4/37

Lamp

Thick base

Iron IIA

4:32

7b?

Shephelah/ central hills

Socoh 105

Cave 4

4/40

Basin

Hand-made

Iron IIA

4:33

1(c?)

Central Shephelah

Socoh 106

Cave 4

4/27

Strainer jug

Iron IIA

4:35

1a

Central Shephelah

RS = red slip, RSB = red slip and burnish, JFR= Judean folded rim, i = inside, o = outside

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics

199

Appendix 1: Description of Thin Sections Sample

Soil

Matrix

Motza

Dark, brown, ss, 5% voids, silty

Socoh 2

Brown

Brown, ss, 5% voids

Socoh 3

Loess?

Brown, reddishbrown, ds, 10% voids, silty

Socoh 4

Brown

Brown, ss, 10% voids

Socoh 5

Brown/ loess?

Dark, brown, ss-ds, 10% voids, silty

QZ: 25% bimodal: 20-100 sa-a 100-450 a-sr; LS/CC: 5% 40-250 sa-r; Several: OP 30-80 sr-r, FR 30-70 r, feldspar 30-50 sa

Socoh 6

Brown

OP, dark, ds, 25% voids

QZ: 20% poorly sorted 30-450 a-sa; LS: 20% 50-750 sr-a; Several: chert 1200-450 a, CC/chalk 50-350 sr-r, OP 30-60 sr-r

Socoh 7

Brown

Brown, ds, 15% voids

Socoh 8

Brown

Dark, brown, ds-os, 20% voids

Socoh 9

Motza?

Brown, reddishbrown, cs, 10% voids, silty

Socoh 10

Brown?

Socoh 11

Socoh 1

Inclusions

Notes

Group

Dolomite: 30% 50-450 rhomb-sa; CC: 5% 50-350 sa-sr

8a

QZ: 25% moderately sorted 30-220 sa-a; LS: 5% 30-250 r-a, some ferrug; OP: 1% 30-120 sr-r; Several: feldspar 30-80 a, mica 30-50 sa

1a

QZ: 30% moderately sorted 30-350 a-sr; OP/pellets: 5% 50-550 sa-r; LS/CC: 3% 40-280 sa-sr; Several: feldspar 30-100 sa-a, mica 40-120 elong

2a?

QZ: 35% poorly sorted 30-450 a-r; LS: 10% 40-280 a-sr; Several: OP 30-120 sr-r, shell 100-350 elong, chalk 80-250 sa-sr, feldspar 40-100 sa-a

1b

crushed calcite

QZ: 25% well sorted30-120 sa-a; CC/chalk: 20% 100-1100 sa-r; Several: LS 50-500 sa-sr, OP 30-60 sr-r, feldspar 20-50 sa

1b/2a?

1e 1d/1e

QZ: 15% well sorted 20-120 sa-a; Chalk/CC: 10% 80-1000 r-sa, ; LS/nari: 10% 50-750 sr-a; Several: FR 40-100 r, OP 30-60 sr-r; Rare: mica 20-50 sa

1d

Dolomite/calcite: 20% 40-250 sa-rhomb; FR: 10% 30-300 sr-r; LS: 5% 40-260 sa-sr; QZ: 5% 30-150 a; Several: OP 30-80 sr-r, chert 100-500 sa-sr

8b?

Dark-OP, brown, ss-ds, 20% voids

QZ: 25% moderately sorted, 30-100 a-sr few 200-500 r; LS/CC: 7% 40-450 sa-r; OP/pellets: 3% 50-400 sr-r; Several: mica 20-50 sa-sr

1a?

Brown/ terra rossa

OP, dark, ds, 20% voids

QZ: 30% moderately sorted 20-90 sa-a few 150-600 r; LS/nari : 15% well sorted 250-1100 sa-r; Several: OP 30-80 sr-r, feldspar 20-50 sa-a

1d

Socoh 12

Brown/ terra rossa

OP, dark, ds, 25% voids

QZ: 30% moderately sorted 30-150 sa-a; LS/ nari: 20% 80-550 sa-r; Several: chalk 50-450 srsa, Op 30-60 sr-r, dolomite 30-70 rhomb-sa

1d

Socoh 13

RendzinaTaqiye

Dark, reddish, ss-cs, 10% voids, silty

FR/chalk: 20% 30-450 r-sa some ferrug; QZ: 20% 30-120 sr-a; LS: 10% 30-200 a-sr; Several: Op 30-100 sr-r

3a

Socoh 14

RendzinaTaqiye

Dark, brown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 25% bimodal:? 20-100 sa-a few 200-600 r; Chalk: 10% 50-700 sa-sr; CC/LS: 10% 40-450 sa-sr; Several: FR 30-120 r, OP 30-80 sr-r; Rare: feldspar 20-50 a

3b

Socoh 15

Marl?

Dark, brown, ss, 10% voids, silty

CC/LS: 25% well sorted 80-450 sa-sr; QZ: 20% poorly sorted 30-300 a-sr; Dolomite/calcite: 5% 40-250 sa-rhomb; Several: chalk 50-250 sa-sr, FR 30-90 r, OP 30-60 sr

4

Socoh 16

Brown

Dark-OP, brown, ss-ds, 15% voids

QZ: 20% well sorted 30-100 sa-a few 100-500 r; LS/nari: 20% 50-650 sa-r; Chalk: 5% 50-600 sr-sa; Shell: 1% 200700 elong; Several: chert 80-200 sa, OP 20-70 sr-r

1d

Socoh 17

Brown

Dark, brown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 20% well sorted 20-90 a; LS/nari: 25% 50-650 sa-r; Several: chalk 60-350 sa-sr, FR 40-100 r, Op 20-60 sr-r

1d

Socoh 18

Loess/ brown

Dark, reddishbrown, ss, 15% voids, silty

QZ: 30% bimodal 20-80 a 100-380 a-r; LS/CC: 5% 40-280 sa-sr; OP: 3% 40-200 sa-r; Several: feldspar 30-80 sa-a

2a

Socoh 19

Brown

Dark-OP, brown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 30-330 a-sr; LS/CC: 7% 60850 a-sr; Several: OP 30-90 sr-r, mica 30-60 sa-sr

1a?

laminated voids

200 Sample

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey Soil

Matrix

Socoh 20

Brown

OP, dark, ds, 15% voids

Socoh 21

Brown

Brown, ss, 10% voids

Socoh 22

Brown

Socoh 23

Inclusions

Notes

Group

QZ: 20% 30-100 a few 100-450 r; LS/CC: 15% 50-800 r-a; Several: nari 100-500 sr-r, chalk 50-450 sa-sr, mica 20-60 sa-sr

1d

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 30-120 a few 200-550 r; LS: 20% poorly sorted 50-900 sa-r; Several: OP 30-100 srr, chalk 80-450 sa-sr, nari 80-600 sr-r, ica 30-70 sa-sr

1d

Dark-OP, brown, ss-cs, 10% voids

QZ: 25% moderately sorted 30-130 a some zoned; LS/CC: 20% poorly sortd 50-650 sa-r; Several: chert 50-500 sa-sr, chalk 100-300 sr-r, OP 30-100 sr-r, pellets 50-250 r, FR 4-=70 r

1d

Brown

OP, brown, ss, 10% voids

QZ: 25% poorly sorted 30-420 a-sr some zoned; LS/nari: 5% 40-550 sa-sr; Several: OP 20-80 sr-r, CC 50-300 sa-sr

1a

Socoh 24

Brown/ loess?

Brown, reddishbrown, ds, 10% voids, silty

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 30-120 a-sr; LS/nari: 15% poorly sorted 50-1100 sa-r; Several: chalk 80-450 sasr, OP 40-400 sa-sr; Rare; feldspar 40-80 sa-a

1d?

Socoh 25

Brown

OP, brown, ss, 20% voids

QZ: 15% poorly sorted 20-350 a-r; LS/CC: 25% poorly sorted 50-650 a-r, some r ooliths?; Several: nari 50600 sa-sr, OP 30-100 sr-r; Rare; feldspar 30-60 a

1d

Socoh 26

Brown/ terra rossa?

Dark, reddishbrown, ss, 20% voids

QZ: 30% moderately sorted 30-150 a-sr; CC: 3% 40-500 sr-r; Several: OP 30-280 sr-r, pellets 50-300 r, mica 30-60 sa-sr

Socoh 27

Brown

OP, brown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 25% poorly sorted 30-400 a-r; LS: 15% 50-650 sr-a; CC: 5% 40-450 sa-r; Several: OP 30-120 sr-r

1d

Socoh 28

RendzinaTaqiye

Slightly active, reddishbrown, ss, 10% voids, silty

FR: 25% 30-140 r-cell some ferrug; LS: 5% 40280 sa-sr; QZ: 10% 20-90 a; Several: chalk 80-800 sa-r, OP 30-350 sa-r, calcite 60-300 sa-a

3a

Socoh 29

Brown

Brown, ss-cs, 10% voids

QZ: 30% poorly sorted 20-250 a-sr, few 300-600 r; LS/CC: 10% poorly sorted 40-700 a-r; Several: OP 30-100 sr-r, chalk 50-500 sr-r

1a

Socoh 30

RendzinaTaqiye

Brown, reddish, ss-cs, 15% voids

QZ: 25% well sorted 20-90 a-sa; LS/CC: 10% 40-650 sa-r; FR: 10% 30-120 r some ferrug; Chalk: 5% 40-550 sa-r; Several: OP 30-120 sr-r, pellets (TR) 80-350 r, mica 30-80 sr, chert 50-200 sa

3b

Socoh 31

Marl/ rendzina

Dark, brown, cs, 15% voids

FR: 25% 30-250 r-cell; Chalk: 10% 40-350 sr-r; LS/ CC: 10% 30-400 sa-r; QZ: 5% 30-150 a; Several: OP 30150 sr-r, pellets 60-280 r, feldspar 30-80 sa-sr

5

Socoh 32

RendzinaTaqiye?

Brown, reddish, ds-os, 15% voids, silty-fijine

LS/CC: 15% 40-450 a-r; QZ: 12% 30-90 a-sa; FR: 5% 30-80 sr-r; Several: OP: 30-220 sr-r, pellets 80-300 r, dolomite 40-180 a-rhomb, mica 30-70 sa-sr

3c

Socoh 33

RendzinaTaqiye

Dark, reddishbrown, cs, 15% voids, silty

FR/Chalk: 30% 30-550 r-cell-a; LS/CC: 10% 40-420 sr-a; Dolomite/calcite: 5% 30-350 a-rhomb; QZ: 10% 20-350 a-r; Several: OP 30-180 sr-r, pellets 80-300 r

3d

Socoh 34

Brown

Brown, ds, 10% voids

QZ: 10% poorly sorted 30-260 a-sr; LS/CC: 15% 50-700 a-r; Several:OP 30-300 sa-r, Chalk 300-750 sr-sa

1a-d

Socoh 35

RendzinaTaqiye

Reddishbrown, ds, 5% voids, silty

FR/Chalk: 15% 30-400 r-cell; QZ: 5% 30-100 sa-a; Several: OP 30-120 sr-r, pellets 80-450 sr-r

3a

Socoh 36

Brown

Dark, brown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 20% moderaly sorted 20-140 sa-a; LS/CC: 5% 40400 sr-sa; Chalk/FR: 5% 40-650 sr-r; Several: nari 80-450 sa-sr, OP 30-200 sa-r, pellets 80-300 r

1a

Socoh 37

RendzinaTaqiye

Brown, reddish, ss-cs, 15% voids, silty

FR: 15% 30-180 r-cell; Chalk: 5% 40-450 sa-sr; LS/CC: 10% 40-650 a-r; QZ: 15% 20-150 a-sr; Several: OP 30150 sr-r, pellets (TR) 80-280 r, chert 80-320 sa-a

3a

Socoh 38

Brown

OP, brown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 20-240 a-sa; LS/CC: 15% poorly sorted 50-900 sr-a some ferrug; Several: nari 80-700 sa-sr ferrug, OP 30-200 sr-r

1d

Socoh 39

Terra rossa?

Dark-OP, reddish, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 15% well sorted 20-90 a; LS/CC: 15% moderately sorted 40-250 sr-sa; Pellets: 1% 60-380 r; Several: OP 30-100 sa-r, nari 50-400 sa-sr, chalk 180-450 sa-sr

7a?

1a(?)

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics Sample

Notes

201

Soil

Matrix

Inclusions

Socoh 40

Brown?

Dark, reddishbrown, ss, 10% voids

QZ: 10% 20-100 sa-a; LS/CC: 15% 40-500 a-r; OP: 1% 30-260 sa-r; Several: pellets 80-250 r

1c

Socoh 41

Brown

Brown, ss-ds, 10% voids

QZ: 10% poorly sorted 30-280 a-sr; CC/LS: 15% 40-420 a-sr; OP: 3% 30-350 sa-r; everal: pellets 80-300 r

1c

Socoh 42

Terra rossa?

Dark-OP, reddish, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 25% well sorted 30-160 a-sa some zoned; CC: 5% 30-300 sa-r; OP: 3% 30-250 sa-r; Several: pellets 80-400 r, dolomite 20-80 a, FR 30-80 r

7b

Socoh 43

Brown?

Dark-OP, ds, 10% voids

QZ: 10% 30-120 a; LS/CC: 10% 50-350 sa-sr; Several: OP 30-100 sr-r

small slide

1a?

Socoh 44

Terra rossa?

Dark, brown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 25% well sorted 20-130 a; LS/CC: 20% poorly sorted 40-550 a-r; Several: Pellets 80-400 r, OP 30-80 sr-r, dolomite 40-80 sa-a

7b 6 1c

Socoh 45

Terra rossa?

OP, brown, sscs, 15% voids

QZ: 15% moderately sorted 30-200 a-sr; LS/CC: 10% 40-400 sa-r; Pellets : 5% 60-380 r (TR); Several: Mica 40-90 sa-sr, OP 30-200 sr-r, chert 40-180 sa-a

Socoh 46

Brown?

Dark, brown, ds, 5% voids

QZ: 10% 30-250 a-r; CC/LS: 10% 40-350 sa-r; Several: Pellets 60-400 r, OP 30-200 sr-r, feldspar 30-80 sa

Socoh 47

RendzinaTaqiye

Socoh 48

Group

Brown, reddish, FR: 15% 30-120 r-cell some ferrug; LS: 20% poorly sorted ss, 10% 40-650 a-r; QZ: 10% moderately sorted 30-100 a; Several: voids, silty chert 50-200 sa-a, OP 30-200 sr-r, pellts 80-300 r

3a

Marl?

Dark, reddishbrown, cs, 10% voids, silty

4?

Socoh 49

Terra rossa?

QZ: 15% moderately sorted 30100 a-sa; LS/CC: 10% Brown, reddish, 40-450 a-sr; Chalk/FR: 5% 40-400 sr-r; Pellets: 60-400 ss, 15% voids r; Several: OP 30-150 sr-r, shell 40-150 elong

Socoh 50

RendzinaTaqiye

Dark, reddish, cs, 10% voids, silty

FR/chalk: 20% 30-280 r-cell some ferrug; QZ: 10% 20-80 a-sa; LS: 10% 40-350 sa-r; Several: OP 30-150 sr-r, calcite 40-150 sa-sr, pellets 80-280 r

3a

Socoh 51

Brown/ terra rossa

Brown, reddish-brown, ss, 10% voids

QZ: 30% well sorted 30-120 a; LS/CC: 5% 40-320 sr-a; Several: OP 30-80 sr-r, mica 20-60 sa-sr, feldspar 20-60 sa-a

1a

Socoh 52

Rendzina?

OP, dark, ss, 20% voids

QZ: 25% well sorted 20-120 a-sa; LS: 5% 40-400 sr-a; FR: 5% 30180 r-cell; Dolomite/CC: 1% 40-350 rhomb-a; Several: chalk 40240 sa-sr, Op 30-80 sr-r, dolostone 200-600 sa-sr, mica 30-60 sa-sr

Socoh 53

Brown?

Dark, brown, ds, 10% voids, silty

QZ: 15% poorly sorted 20-250 a-sr; CC/LS: 20% poorly sorted 40-550 a-r; OP: 3% 30-250 sa-r; Several: Pellets 60-450 r (TR)

1??

Socoh 54

Terra rossa?

Dark, reddish, ss, 20% voids

QZ: 30% well sorted 30-180 a; CC: 5% 40-350 sa-r; LS: 5% 40-250 sr-a; Several: OP/pellets 40-400 sa-r, mica 20-60 sa-sr

7a

FR: 10% 30-250 sr-r some ferrug; QZ: 10% 30-120 a; CC/dolomite: 15% 40-320 a-sa-rhomb some ferrug; Several: OP 30-200 sr-r, pellets 60-350 r

Dark, brown, ss, QZ: 20% well sorted 20-160 a-sr; LS/nari: 20% poorly sorted 10% voids, silty 40-900 r-a; Several: chalk 200-700 sa-sr, FR 30-80 r, Op 30-80 sr-r

6

3c/8b

Socoh 55

Brown

Socoh 56

Motza

Dark, brown, ss-cs, 10% voids, silty

Dolomite: 40% 50-550 rhomb-sa; CC/LS: 10% 40-600 sa-sr; Several: OP 30-120 sr-r

8a

Socoh 57

Motza

Brown, reddish, ss-cs, 20% voids, silty

Dolomite: 45% some worn 50-750 rhomb-sr; Several: CC 40-350 sa-sr, Op 20-80 sr-r

8a

Socoh 58

Brown

OP, brown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 25% moderately sorted 30-350 a-r some zoned; LS/ CC: 10% poorly sorted 50-1000 sa-r; Chalk: 2% 300-800 sa-r; Several: nari 200-600 sr-r, OP 30-70 sr-r, feldspar 30-100 sa-r

1a

Socoh 59

Brown?

Dark-OP, brown, ss-ds, 10% voids

QZ: 15% poorly sorted 30-300 a-sr; LS/CC: 10% 40-480 sa-r; Several: OP 30-80 sr, mica 30-80 sa-sr

1a?

Socoh 60

Motza??

Dark, brown, ss, 10% voids, silty

QZ: 20% poorly sorted 20-220 a-sr; LS/(worn dolomite?): 30% 40-300 sr-sa; CC: 5% 40-450 a-r; OP: 1% 30-300 sa-r; Several: chert 60-200 sa-sr

small slide

1d

8b?

202 Sample

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey Soil

Matrix

Inclusions

Socoh 61

Brown/ terra rossa

OP, reddishbrown, ss, 10% voids

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 30-320 a-sr; nari/ CC: 10% 40-750 sa-sr; Several: LS 40-250 sa-sr, OP 30-150 sr-r; Rare: feldspar 40-100 sa-sr

Notes

Group

Socoh 62

Brown

OP, brown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 25% well sorted 20-80 a few 100-250 sa-r; LS/ CC: 10% poorly sorted 40-700 a-r; Several: nari 300800 sa-sr, chalk 500-600 sa-r, OP 30-200 sa-r

1a

Socoh 63

Brown

OP, brown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 20% well sorted 20-100 sa-a; LS/CC: 15% 40-680 a-r several ferrug; Several: OP 30-150 sa-r, pellets 80-300 r, chert 180-400 sa-r, nari 100-400 sa-sr

1a-d

Socoh 64

Brown?

Dark, reddishbrown, ss, 10% voids

QZ: 20% poorly sorted 20-320 a-sr; LS/CC/ nari: 10% 40-650 sa-r; Several: OP 30-80 sr-r

1a?

Socoh 65

Brown

OP, dark, ds, 20% voids

QZ: 25% poorly sorted 30-450 a-r; LS/nari: 15% 40-800 sa-r; Several: OP 30-80 sr-r, pellets 80-300 sr-r, feldspar 30-80 sa-sr

1a-d

Socoh 66

Brown/ terra rossa?

Op, reddishbrown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 15% well sorted 20-90 a, few 300-500 r; LS/CC: 20% 60-1100 a-sr some ferrug; Several: Pellets (TR) 80-450 r, OP 30-90 sr-r, chalk 200-500 sa-sr

7a/1d

Socoh 67

Brown/ terra rossa?

OP, brown, ss, 10% voids

QZ: 10% poorly sorted 20-320 a-sr; CC/LS: 20% poorly sorted 40-900 a-r; Several: chalk 200-700 sa-sr, dolomite 50-350 rhomb-a, shell 250-550 elong, OP 30-100 sr-r

1c/7b?

Socoh 68

Brown

Brown, ss, 15% voids, silty

QZ: 30% poorly sorted 30-500 a-sr; LS/CC: 12% 50750 sa-r; OP: 2% 40-400 sa-r; Several: chalk 50-180 sa-sr, shell 60-120 elong; Rare; mica 30-60 sa-sr

1a

Socoh 69

RendzinaTaqiye

Brown, reddishbrown, ss, 15% voids, silty

FR: 20% 40-300 r-cell some ferrug; Chalk: 10% 50-800 sr-r; QZ: 15% 20-80 a; LS: 5% 30-120 sa-r; OP: 3% 40-450 sa-r; Pellets: 1% 50-550 sr-r; Several: feldspar 30-80 sa-a, shell 30-80 elong.

3a

Socoh 70

Alluvial

OP, darrk, ds, 25% voids

QZ: 25% well sorted 100-280 a-sr few 20-80 sa-a; CC: 15% well sorted 70-250 sa-r; Several: OP 30-150 sa-r, feldspar 50-160 sa-a

laminated voids

9

Socoh 71

Brown

Dark, brown, ss-cs, 10% voids

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 20-140 a-sr; LS: 15% poorly sorted 50-1200 sr-a; Pellets: 1% 60-550 r; Several: nari 80-400 r-sa, CC 400-800 sa-sr; Rare: feldspar 30-40 sa

crushed calcite

1e

Socoh 72

Terra rossa?

Dark, reddish, ss-ds, 10% voids

QZ: 10% well sorted 20-80 sa-a; LS/nari: 25% 40-850 a-r; Pellets(TR): 4% 100-800 r surr voids; Several: chalk 50-250 sa-sr, OP 30-180 sr-r, calcite 40-140 sa-a, dolomite 50-180 rhomb-a

6

Socoh 73

Terra rossa?

Dark, reddish, cs, 15% voids

QZ: 35% moderately sorted 20-150 a-sa; LS/CC: 2% 40-180 sa-sr; Several: OP 30-150 sr-r, pellets 50-300 r, mica 30-80 sa-sr

7a

Socoh 74

Motza

Dark, brown, ds, 5% voids, silty

Dolomite: 30% 40-450 rhomb-sa; Several: calcite 600-900 sr, OP 30-100 sr-r, LS 40-120 sa-sr

8a

Socoh 75

Motza

Brown, redgray, cs, 25% voids, silty

Dolomite: 45% some worn 50-480 rhomb-sr; Several: CC 60-550 sa-r, OP 30-80 sr-sa, QZ 20-80 a

8a(c)

Socoh 76

Rendzina/ brown

Dark-OP, brown, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 25% moderately sorted 30-250 a-r; LS:2% 40-400 sa-r; Chalk: 5% 100-850 sr-r; FR: 8% 30-120 r; Several: OP 30-160 sr-r, pellts 100-300 r, shell 60-140 elong.

3a/1a?

Socoh 77

RendzinaTaqiye

Dark, reddishbrown, ss, 10% voids, silty

FR: 15% 30-180 r-cell some ferrug; QZ: 15% moderately sorted 20-130 a-sr; Chalk: 2% 100-650 sa-r; LS/calcite: 5% 50-550 sa-sr; Several: OP 30-100 sa-r, CC 50-300 sa-sr, mica 30-80 sa-sr

3a

Socoh 78

Marl?

Brown, reddish-brown, os, 5% voids, silty-fijine

QZ: 5% 20-70 a-sr; LS/CC: 7% 40-340 sa-sr; Several: FR 30-100 r, nari 50-250 sa-sr, OP 30-120 sa-r, dolomite 50-130 a

4?

Socoh 79

RendzinaTaqiye?

Dark-OP, dark, ds, 15% voids

LS/CC: 10% 40-300 sa-sr; FR: 10% 30-180 r; QZ: 5% 20-120 a; Dolomite: 1% 30-100 a; Several: Op 30-100 sr-r, pellets 80280 r

3c?

1a/7a

small slide

Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Ceramics Sample

Soil

Matrix

Inclusions

Notes

203 Group

Socoh 80

Rendzina/ terra rossa

OP, reddish, ss-cs, 5% voids

QZ: 25% moderately sorted 30-160 a; FR/Chalk: 10% 30-300 r-cell some ferrug.; OP: 1% 40-160 sa-r; Shell: 1% 40-400 elong; Several: LS 40-150 sa-sr, feldspar 30-100 sa

Socoh 81

RendzinaTaqiye

Brown, reddish, ss, 10% voids, silty

FR: 10% 40-250 r-cell; QZ: 15% poorly sorted 30-200 a-sr; LS: 10% 40-260 sa-sr some ferrug.; Several: chalk 50-450 sa-r, OP 30-150 sa-r, mica 20-60 sa-sr

3a

Socoh 82

RendzinaTaqiye?

Brown, ds, 10% voids, silty

LS/CC: 15% 50-600 sa-r; FR: 5% 30-150 r; QZ: 7% 20-200 sa-a some zoned; Pellets: 1% 100-500 r; Several: chalk 100-900 sr-r, OP 40-220 sa-r, chert 50-180 sa-a; Rare; dolomite 20-70 a

3a?

Socoh 83

Terra rossa?

Dark, reddish, ss, 10% voids

QZ: 25% well sorted 30-160 a; Several: LS 60-400 sa-sr, OP 40-200 sr-r, pellets 100-400 r; Rare: feldspar 30-60 sa

7a

Socoh 84

Brown/ rendzina

Dark, brown, ss, 10% voids, silty

Socoh 85

Loess?

Dark-OP, reddish, ss, 10% voids

Socoh 86

RendzinaTaqiye

Brown, reddish, ss-cs, 15% voids, silty

Socoh 87

Motza

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 20-250 a-sa; LS/CC: 10% 40-350 sa-r; FR: 1% 30-120 r; Several: OP 30-200 sr-r, chalk 60-500 sa-sr; Rare: dolomite 30-70 a QZ: 25% bimodal 20-80 a 100-700 r; LS/ CC: 1% 50-300 sa-sr; OP: 1% 40-200 sa-r; Several: feldspar 20-80 sa-a

small slide

3?/7a?

1a/3a

2a?

FR: 30% 30-300 r-cell some ferrug; QZ: 15% 20-120 a; Chalk: 5% 200-1300 sr; OP: 1% 30-200 sa-r; Several? LS/CC 40-180 sa-sr

3a

Dark, brown, ss, 15% voids

Dolomite: 25% some worn 50-380 rhomb-sr; Several: OP 30-100 sr-r, pellets 100-350 r, QZ 20-80 a

8a 1a

Socoh 88

Brown

OP, dark, ss-ds, 20% voids

QZ: 20% well sorted 20-140 a-sa; LS/CC: 5% 50-550 sa-r; Several: OP 40-400 sa-r, pellets 150-550 r, mica 30-100 sa-sr

Socoh 89

RendzinaTaqiye

Brown, reddish, ds, 15% voids, silty-fijine

FR: 10% 30-120 r some ferrug; QZ: 10% well sorted 20-80 a; OP: 5% 40-400 sa-sr; LS: 3% 30-180 sa-sr; Several: pellets 100-500 r

3a

Socoh 90

RendzinaTaqiye

Dark, reddishbrown, ss, 15% voids, silty

QZ: 25% moderately sorted 30-180 a-sa some zoned; FR: 10% 30-200 r-cell; Chalk: 5% 200-900 sa-r; OP: 1% 40250 sa-r; Several: pellets 100-400 r, LS 40-180 sa-sr

3a

Socoh 91

Brown

Dark, reddishbrown, ss, 10% voids

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 30-150 a some zoned; LS/ CC: 15% poorly sorted 50-1200 r-a; Several: chalk 50-300 sa-sr, OP 30-150 sa-r, mica 30-100 sa-sr

1a

Socoh 92

Brown

Dark, reddishbrown, ss, 20% voids

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 30-150 a; LS/ nari: 20% bimodal 40-200 sa-sr, 3001800 a-sa; Several: OP 30-160 sr-r, CC 60-500 sa-sr, chalk 100-600 sa-r; Rare: mica 30-70 sr-sa, dolomite 30-50 a

1e

Socoh 93

Brown

Dark, reddishbrown, ss, 10% voids

QZ: 15% moderately sorted 30-220 a-sa; LS/CC: 15% poorly sorted 40-1000 r-a; Several: Op 30-150 sr-r, chalk 60-450 sa-sr, feldspar 30-80 sa-a

Socoh 94

Brown

OP, dark brown, ss-ds, 15% voids

QZ: 10% poorly sorted 20-300 a-sr some cracked; LS/CC: 25% bimodal 50-200 sa-sr 300-900 sr-a; Several: OP 30-100 sr-r, chalk 100-40 sa-sr, dolomite 40-90 a

Socoh 95

Brown/ loess

OP, reddishbrown, ss, 10% voids

QZ: 35% bimodal 20-80 a100-650 r-sr some cracked, zoned; OP: 1% 30-200 sr-r; Several: mica 20-80 sa-sr, LS/ CC 40-150 sa-sr; Rare: hornblende 50-100 sa-a

2b

Socoh 96

Brown

Dark, brown, ss, 10% voids, silty

QZ: 25% poorly sorted/bimodal 30-320 a-sr; LS/CC: 8% poorly sorted 40-1000 sa-r; Several: Op 30-180 sa-r

1a

Socoh 97

Terra rossa?

Dark, reddish, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 35% well sorted 20-150 a-sa; Several: LS 40-150 sa-sr, OP 30-140 sa-r, feldspar 30-90 sa-a

Socoh 98

Motza

Dark, dark brown, ss-cs, 5% voids

Dolomite: 65% many worn 40-500 rhomb-sr; Several: dolostone 200-600 sa-sr, chalk 100-350 sa-sr, LS 40-180 sa-sr

decomposed calcite

crushed calcite

1a/1d

crushed calcite

1e

7a/7c 8a

204 Sample

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey Soil

Matrix

Socoh 99

Brown

Dark-OP, brown, ss, 10% voids

Inclusions

Notes

Socoh 100

Brown?

Dark-OP, reddish-brown, ss, 5% voids

QZ: 15% moderately sorted 30-120 a-sa; LS/CC: 5% 50-600 sa-r; several: OP 50-250 sa-r, pellets 100-450 r

small slide

1a?

Socoh 101

Brown

OP, brown, ss, 10% voids

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 30-200 a-sr, some zoned, cracked; LS/CC: 10% 40-450 sa-sr; Several: OP 30-100 sr-r, FR 30-80 r, pellets 150-500 r, feldspar 40-80 a-sa

HF

1a

Socoh 102

Brown

OP, dark, ds-os, 20% voids

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 20-140 a-sa few 200-600 r; LS/CC: 3% 40-180 sa-sr; Several: OP 30-100 sr-r, mica 30-100 sa-sr

decomposed calcite

1a

Socoh 103

RendzinaTaqiye

Dark, brown, ss, 10% voids, silty

FR: 20% 30-250 r-cell some ferrug; QZ: 10% 20-150 a-sr; CC: 5% 40-650 sa-r; Several: OP 30-120 sa-r, LS 40-150 sa-sr

3a

Socoh 104

Terra rossa?

OP, reddish, ssds, 15% voids

QZ: 20% well sorted 20-120 sa-a; OP: 2% 30-140 sa-r; Several: LS 40-180 sa-sr, dolomite 40-100 a

7b?

Socoh 105

Brown?

Brown, os, 10% voids

QZ: 5% 20-100 sa-a; CC/nari: 20% 50-900 sa-sr; LS: 2% 40-400 sa-sr; Pellets: 3% 100-700 r; Several: OP 30-120 sr-r

1c?

Socoh 106

Brown

OP, dark, ss, 15% voids

QZ: 20% moderately sorted 30-220 sa-a; LS/CC: 10% poorly sorted 40-850 a-r; Several: OP 30-160 sa-r, mica 20-80 sa-sr

1a-d

QZ: 20% well sorted 20-100 a-sa few 200-400 sr-r zoned; LS/CC: 10% poorly sorted 50-1100 r-a; Several: chalk 100-500 sa-sr, OP 30-140 sr-r, FR 30-60 r

HF

Group 1a–1d

Abbreviations for Appendix 1

Matrix: type, optical activity, color (if relevant), density of particles (spacing: os=open spaced, ds=double spaced, ss=single spaced, cs=closely spaced), frequency of voids as percentage of the slide, relative silt component within the matrix (highly, moderately, poorly).

Inclusions: 1. Mineralogy: QS=quartz, LS=limestone, CC=calcareous concentrations, FR=foraminifers, OP=opaque (ferrous) minerals. 2. Relative frequency of mineral population as percentage of slide area or relative occurrence (several=occasional occurrence but less than 1% of the slide, rare=few/singular occurrences). 3. Texture: sorting (well/moderately/poorly), bimodal (two separate size ranges). 4. Sizes, all in microns (10-6 m or 1⁄1000 mm) [note grain size in microns: 2000–1000=very coarse sand, 1000–500=coarse sand, 500–250=medium sand, 250–125=fijine sand, 125–62=very fijine sand, 62–31=coarse silt, 31–16=medium silt, 16 and under=fijine silt]. 5. Shape (see Adams et al. 1984: Fig. A), r=rounded, sr=sub-rounded, a=angular, sa=sub-angular.

Chapter 6

Pyrotechnical Production Activity: Slag Distribution and Analysis Yosef Garfijinkel and Shifra Weiss

6.1. Introduction A unique group of artifacts that is indicative of intensive pyrotechnical production activity was collected during the survey. This group includes a large number of slag fragments as well as three unique pottery sherds. Socoh is exceptional in the very large amount of slag distributed on the site surface. We therefore found it appropriate to dedicate a chapter to these remains, in which the form, chemical composition and spatial distribution of the slag will be discussed.

6.2. Description of the Slag The slag fragments are solid masses visually characterized by the following properties (Figs. 6.1–6.4): 1. Blackish-gray color. 2. Sparkling surface: the original surfaces of the items have glass-like properties. 3. Spongy interior (porosity): the broken pieces show gas holes. 4. Flowing texture: on the surface and interior of the fragments there are traces of liquid or viscose material that had cooled and hardened.

205

206

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 6.1. Slag fragment found in Square D.

Fig. 6.2. Slag fragment found in Square D.

Pyrotechnical Production Activity

207

Fig. 6.3. Slag fragment found in Square E.

Fig. 6.4. Slag fragment found in Square O.

Fifty-one slag fragments were collected from the survey squares, and additional slag fragments were noticed in other parts of the site. The total weight of the slag fragments collected in this survey was 11.4

208

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

kg. They vary in size and may be roughly divided into three groups: small (~5 × 2.5 cm), medium (~10 × 15 cm) and large (~40 × 30 cm). A large number of the slag fragments have limestone inclusions, including one example (Fig. 6.4) as large as 2 cm. A number of slag fragments were visually examined by Dr. Adi Eliyahu-Behar at the laboratory of the Tell eṣ-Ṣafiji expedition at BarIlan University. Her fijirst impression was that the slag was in fact fused earthen material, caused by the interaction of fuels and ash at high temperatures, possibly in a lime/pottery kiln. Analysis of a small number of samples using Fourier Transform Infra-Red spectroscopy confijirmed that the material was in fact exposed to high temperatures, forming “glassy” phases. Accordingly, the slag may be waste from pottery kilns or from lime kilns.

Fig. 6.5. Three pottery sherds found in Square O (1–2: porous on one side, 3: vitrifijied on one side).

Pyrotechnical Production Activity

209

In addition, three pottery sherds were collected from a single square. Two of them are porous on one side (Fig. 6.5:1–2) and the other is vitrifijied on one side (Fig. 6.5:3) and the. The purpose of these sherds and their relation to the slag has not been determined.

6.3. Distribution of the Slag The distribution of the slag fragments is presented in Fig. 6.6. Of the 51 fragments, 50 were collected from squares at the southeastern foot of the site (Squares A–E, G, L, O, P, Q and R). The remaining fragment was collected from Square JJ at the northwestern edge of the site. Hence, the absolute majority of the fragments were found in the southeastern part of the site; the three unique pottery sherds were collected from this area as well (Square O). Table 6.1 presents the number of slag fragments found in each square and their size category. The majority of slag fragments belong to the small category, a fact that may be evidence of erosion of the material.

Fig. 6.6. Distribution of slag collected from the site surface.

210

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey Table 6.1. Distribution of slag fragments in the various squares and their size category.

Square A

Small (~5 × 2.5 cm)

Medium (~10 × 15 cm)

5

1

6

2

2

B

Large (~40 × 30 cm)

Total

C

2

D

4

E

3

G

1

1

L

1

1

O

11

P

2

2

Q

2

2

R

6

6

JJ Total

2 3

1

8

4

7

2

13

1 37

9

1 5

51

6.4. Discussion The spatial distribution of the slag points to pyrotechnical production activity in the southeastern part of the site. Unfortunately, we did not discover during the survey a kiln that might have assisted in understanding the source of the slag. Preliminary analysis of the slag could not reveal during which production activity (pottery or lime) the slag had formed. Although we suspect that large lime inclusions in some of the slag fragments might suggest that their origin was in a lime kiln, further analysis is required in order to determine their origin. Lime kilns are widespread in the Shephelah area; 304 such kilns were documented in various surveys of the Judean Shephelah (Dagan 2006: 20). The kilns are usually found near settlement remains that provide a supply of building stones for burning. Most of the lime kilns found in these surveys were near Byzantine ruins and were used from the Early Islamic period onward. The kilns are found on slopes or in

Pyrotechnical Production Activity

211

channels facing north, in locations exposed to wind during most hours of the day (Avitsur 1976: 128; Dagan 1992a: 21; Spanier and Sasson 2001: 12–15). Dagan notes: “Usually a heap of gray debris is found around the kilns” (Dagan 2006: 24*), a description that fijits well with the slag material presented above. In contrast, no pottery kiln is described in Dagan’s survey. We are aware of only one pottery kiln discovered on a tell, at Tell el-Far‘ah (N) (De Vaux 1955: 557–563). Based on this data, it is more reasonable that the slag at Socoh originated from a lime kiln rather than a pottery kiln. At Socoh, the slag was collected at the bottom of the slope and the majority of the fragments belong to the small category, suggesting evidence of erosion. As gravitation and erosion may have been at work, it is probable that the kilns were situated in a higher location at mid-slope, in the vicinity of Squares S, F and K (Fig. 6.6). If indeed these were lime kilns, in this location they would be close to the ruins of the Iron Age and Byzantine stone walls that could be used as raw material for lime production. The distribution of the slag in the vicinity of Khirbet Shuweikeh may suggest that the pyrotechnical activity should be dated to the Crusader–Mamluk period. Radiometric dating of a lime kiln in Area A at nearby Khirbet Qeiyafa gave a date of ca. 500 BP. The medieval occupants may have established lime kilns near the ruins of earlier occupations, dismantling the ruins and using them as raw material to produce plaster for building their new village. That said, further analysis is required in order to determine the type of pyrotechnical activity from which the slag derives.

Chapter 7

Royal Jar Handles with lmlk and Private Seal Impressions Michael G. Hasel and Yosef Garfijinkel

Beginning with the fijirst systematic archaeological excavations in Judah conducted by Bliss and Macalister in 1899, a large number of jar handles with royal impressions and private seal impressions were found (Bliss and Macalister 1902). Later, both types of stamped jar handles were discovered at Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932: 92, Pl. 40:4–5; Albright 1943: 73–75, Pl. 29: 8–10), Beth Shemesh (Grant and Wright 1939: 80, Fig. 10a) and Lachish (Diringer 1941; Tufnell 1953). During Aharoni’s excavations at Ramat Raḥel, both types of impressions, a royal impression with a two-winged symbol and a private impression reading lnr’ shbn’, were found for the fijirst time on the same handle (Aharoni 1962: 16–17, Fig. 14:2). Following the Tel Aviv University excavations at Lachish, the restoration of complete storage jars indicated that these royal jars typically had four handles. Some jars were stamped with royal impressions on one or two handles, while others had a private impression on a handle of the same jar (Ussishkin 1977: 5, 2004). Neutron Activation Analysis conducted on various types of handles, both royal and private, at Lachish demonstrated that they were produced in the same pottery workshop (Mommsen, Perlman and Yellin 1984). Today it is well known that these royal jars were part of a centralized administrative system developed in Judah during the 8th century BCE (Garfijinkel 1985; Vaughn 1999a). Those incised with lmlk (“[belonging] to the king”) are further defijined by the names of four cities: Hebron, Ziph, Memshet and Socoh. In the last decade, further 213

214

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

studies have shown that royal jars without seal impressions already existed in the 9th century BCE, and these have been called pre-lmlk (Shai and Maeir 2003; Gitin 2006). The analysis of the private seal impressions indicates that they tend to concentrate in the main central places of the kingdom, like Jerusalem, Beth Shemesh and Lachish (Garfijinkel 1984). The geographical distribution may suggest the seals were those of offfijicials in the Kingdom of Judah (Garfijinkel 1985, with qualifijications by Vaughn 1999a: 158–165). About 105 readable impressions were cataloged by Garfijinkel in 1985, and since then Vaughn raised the total to 236 as of 1996 (Vaughn 1999a: 198), followed by Lipschitz, Sergi and Koch (2010). Several were found in excavations and surveys, and a large number were added from unprovenanced locations (Lemaire 1981; Barkay 1985, 1992; Barkay and Vaughn 1996a, 1996b). According to Vaughn (1999a: 192), more than 13 royal (lmlk) jar handles had been found at Socoh. An additional unpublished private seal impression from Aharoni’s 1966 survey is now located at Tel Aviv University (Vaughn 1999a: 200). During the 2010 Socoh Survey, a large number of royal (lmlk) Judean jar handles were found on the surface of the site, some without any impressions, one with a royal impression and one with a private seal impression (Fig. 7.1). The handles will each be described here by their characteristics in comparison with the larger corpus of known impressions. In addition, although fijive rosette impressed handles were collected over the years from Socoh (Koch and Lipschits 2013), no additional rosette stamped handles were found during this survey.

7.1. The Zaphan/Abima’az Seal Impression The upper part of a handle with a private seal impression was found on the surface near a series of tombs in Square KK on the northwestern slope of the site overlooking the Elah Valley (3507002.049000; elevation 328.82). Some architecture can be seen on the surface here (houses?). The area was burned, with 100% visibility. Description. The handle is of the lmlk type, of grayish-brown ware with gray core and white grits. The handle has two ridges and shows signs

Royal Jar Handles with Seal Impressions

215

Fig. 7.1. Plan of the locations where the handles were found.

of wet smoothing. The impression is well situated on the upper part of the handle, almost squarely in the center of the handle, just slightly to the right. The seal is oval in shape, 12.5 × 9.5 mm, partially skewed to the right. As is typical, the inscription is to be read when looking down from above the jar (Figs. 2.10, 7.2). Inscription. The seal impression has a single line border, a double-line fijield divider, two inscribed registers and a word divider. It contains no iconography, as is typical of seals used on royal jars and later in Judah (Avigad and Sass 1997). There are fijive letters on the upper register of the seal and four letters on the lower register. On the upper register the two names are separated by a short vertical stroke that serves as a word divider. What is noteworthy paleographically are the extreme cursive forms of the ṣade (Avigad and Barkay 2000: 249). The preservation is poor and some of the letters cannot be read very well. This may be the result of two factors: (1) the original seal was not well impressed, and

216

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 7.2. Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Socoh (drawing by Ada Yardeni).

(2) the handle was found on the surface of the mound and may have been exposed for several years. Based on the visible letters and the known parallels from other sites, the inscription can be read as “Belonging to Ṣaphan [son of] ’Abima‘aṣ.” The personal name Ṣaphan is a contraction of the theophoric name Ṣephanyahu, found in the Hebrew Bible (2 Kgs. 25:18; 1 Chr. 6:36; Jer. 21:1) and transcribed in English as Zephaniah. It also appears on several other seals (Avigad and Sass 1997: 528). The name “Ṣaphan ‘Azaryahu” is found on nine seal impressions from Lachish and Gibeon (Avigad and Sass 1997: 256–257, Nos. 696–699) and six or seven impressions are of “Hoshea (son of) Ṣaphan” (Avigad and Sass 1997: 667).

Royal Jar Handles with Seal Impressions

217

This is the sixth impression of this type found. The other impressions occur five times on four jars found at four different sites: 1. Tell Zakariya-Azekah (Fig. 7.3): Bliss 1900:14–15, 18; Bliss and Macalister 1902: 121, No. 29, Pl. 56:29; D3; PEF, London Collection 598183, F. No. 230. Fig. 7.3. Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Tell Zakariya-Azekah (Bliss 1900:14–15, 18; Bliss and Macalister 1902: 121, No. 29, Pl 56: 29, D3; PEF, London Collection 598183, F. No. 230).

2. Tell eṣ-Ṣafi (two on same jar handle, collected from the site surface): Roth 1958; Avigad and Sass 1997: 256; Vaughn 1999a: 211. No photograph of the handle has ever been published, and its current location is unknown. 3. Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (Figs. 7.4–7.5): Avigad 1983: 44, Fig. 25; Wohl Museum, F. No. 6497; Avigad and Barkay 2000: 249, No. 52, 265, No. 52. 4. Tel Batash (Figs. 7.6–7.7): Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 194, Photo 121; Kelm and Mazar 1995: 133, Fig. 7.14. Comparisons with the other known impressions confirm that all six impressions were made with the same seal. At Tell Zakariya-Azekah and Tel Batash the handles were found in the same contexts as other royal (lmlk) Judean jar handles (Avigad and Barkay 2000: 249).

7.2. The Two-Winged lmlk Seal Impression The upper part of a handle with a lmlk seal impression was discovered by the survey team on the surface outside a designated square (Figs. 2.9, 7.8). It was found on the southeastern slope of Socoh (3506687.568000; elevation 332.05). Some architecture can be seen on the surface here. The area around the find spot was not burned, with 75% visibility. Description. The handle is of the lmlk type, of grayish-brown ware with gray core and white grits. It is broken in the middle, so that the upper

218

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Fig. 7.4. Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Jerusalem (photograph by Meidad Suchowolski, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

Fig. 7.5. Close-up of Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Jerusalem (photograph by Meidad Suchowolski, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

Royal Jar Handles with Seal Impressions

Fig. 7.6. Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Tel Batash (photograph by Meidad Suchowolski, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

Fig. 7.7. Close-up of Zaphan Abima‘az seal impression from Tel Batash (photograph by Meidad Suchowolski, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

219

220

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

half of the handle is missing. The handle has no ridges on the preserved part and shows signs of wet smoothing. The seal impression is oval in shape, 20 mm wide and perfectly centered in the middle part of the handle. The impression is situated sideways, as is typical for twowinged icons, and is to be read when looking at the jar from the side. Because the handle is broken in the middle, only the right-hand half of the seal impression has been preserved. It is broken at the center left of the body, so that only the right wing is visible and the left wing is completely missing. The seal appears to have been deeply impressed, so that the right wing is well preserved. There is some wear on the body, head and tail, probably as the result of prolonged exposure on the surface of the site. Inscription. The upper and lower right registers are the only elements preserved on the seal. There is no inscription visible on either the upper or the lower register. There are two possibilities: (1) that both registers were blank, as occurs with two-winged seals; or (2) that the inscription was not properly impressed or preserved. In addition to the impressed royal (lmlk) Judean jar handles, many other lmlk-type jar handles without seal impressions were found during the 2010 Socoh Survey. This indicates the importance of Socoh during the 8th century BCE.

Fig. 7.8. The two-winged lmlk seal impression from Socoh (drawing by Ada Yardeni).

Chapter 8

Discussion and Conclusions Michael G. Hasel, Yosef Garfijinkel and Shifra Weiss

This volume summarizes, for the fijirst time, all the relevant data known to us from the sites of Khirbet Shuweikeh and Khirbet ‘Abbâd, biblical Socoh. This includes various discussions of the biblical name, the identifijication of the site, the history of research, the 2010 Socoh Survey that we conducted, a few Iron Age burial caves, and the petrographic analysis of Iron Age pottery. From the earliest exploration in the Holy Land, the site of Socoh caught the attention of the leading scholars of the time, including Robinson and Smith, Guérin, Bliss, Albright, Dalman, Alt, Abel, Aharoni, Amiran, Kallai, and Dagan. Based on the traditional Arabic name of Khirbet Shuweikeh the site was identifijied with biblical Socoh. The use of pottery from the site surface in order to identify periods of occupation was fijirst practiced at Socoh when Bliss argued that it could not be biblical Socoh due to the lack of Iron Age pottery on the site. Using the same methodology, Albright subsequently identifijied Iron Age pottery at the site and confijirmed the original identifijication. The site of Socoh has never been a subject of intensive excavation. This is probably due to the fact that the site sufffers from a number of difffijiculties. The bedrock is exposed over large portions of the site. The slopes of the site are very steep and the top is narrow without extensive area for excavation. Finally, the massive Roman–Byzantine structures on the northwestern summit discouraged exploration of the earlier Iron Age city. However, the Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project drew attention to such hill country sites, which are not classical tells, 221

222

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

but ruined areas that could more easily be accessed and excavated over large areas. After seven seasons of excavation at Khirbet Qeiyafa nearly 25% of the ancient Iron Age city was excavated providing outstanding insights of the entire city plan and how it was organized. Khirbet Qeiyafa has become the type site for the Iron Age IIA period in Judah. The idea was to expand the work at Qeiyafa and take a regional approach applying the same methodology of excavating the khirbet of Socoh. In order to explore this possibility further, the 2010 Socoh Survey was carried out. It indicated the potential of the site for various periods in the historical development of the region, especially for the Iron Age and later Islamic periods. The limitations of survey work are recognized, particularly after excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, which discovered the main Iron Age IIA occupation, a period that was never found in any of the previous surveys of the site. Nevertheless, it remains an important research tool that has become standard in the fijield before starting a major excavation project. The goal of our survey was to locate specifijic areas for future excavation. The survey indicated that the site was occupied in the Late Chalcolithic and Middle Bronze Age. The evidence for these periods is quite limited in the number of sherds and their distribution on the site. This same phenomenon occurred at Khirbet Qeiyafa on the other side of the Elah Valley, where evidence of the same two periods were found under the Iron Age city. For unknown reasons the Early Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I were not well represented in this part of the Elah Valley. This may be the reason why Socoh and Khirbet Qeiyafa did not develop over time into a tell site as was the case at Azekah and Lachish. The Southern Tombs may be dated to the Middle Bronze Age. Although the vast majority of the pottery collected in the area is dated to the Iron Age, two Middle Bronze Age sherds were collected from one of the tombs and the architecture of the tombs do not fijit. These are round shaped shaft tombs, which are typical of the Early Bronze IV/Intermediate Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age. It may be that they were cleared and reused in the Iron Age. The Southern Tomb activity may relate to the Early Bronze Age IV/Intermediate Bronze Age settlement found at the northern foot of the site (Nagorsky 2007).

Discussion and Conclusions

223

Another puzzling artifact reported from Socoh, is a clay plaque fijigure typical of the Late Bronze Age (Ganor 2011). However, Late Bronze sherds were not found during our survey. It is possible that the Late Bronze occupation phase was a small settlement that is deeply buried under the later occupation phases. Alternatively, maybe this type of fijigurine already started being produced in the Middle Bronze Age. From the survey of the site and burial caves in the area, the main conclusion regarding the Iron Age indicates that Socoh was occupied on a large scale throughout the Iron Age II. The earliest phase of the Iron Age at the site is indicated by common Iron Age IIA types, including irregularly hand-burnished bowls, hammer-head rim kraters, saucer base lamps, open cooking pots with pushed-out rims and fijinger impressed storage jar handles. The Iron Age IIA settlement was situated along the western side of the site, beneath the acropolis, on the upper third of the slope. The areas recommended for excavation of this period are indicated on the Iron Age IIA distribution map (Fig. 3.19). It should be noted that the majority of pottery types collected from the Southern Tombs are typical of the Iron Age IIA suggesting that this is the cemetery in this period (Fig. 3.47). In the Iron Age IIB, which is the main period represented at Socoh, types include bowls with Judean folded rims, bowls decorated with red slip and wheel burnish, closed, globular cooking pots with multi ridged necks, stepped-rim cooking pots and lmlk-type storage jars. The Iron Age IIB settlement areas were found along the northern slope, southern slope, northwest edge and eastern side of the site (Fig. 3.20). This is the majority of the site with the exception of the summit where the later periods may have destroyed the earlier occupation (Figs. 1.21–1.22). The recommended areas to excavate this period are numerous as indicated on the Iron Age IIB distribution map (Fig. 3.20). The majority of types collected in the Northern Tombs are typical of the Iron Age IIB–C and are found in assemblages of the 8th and 7th centuries at Judean cites in the Shephelah. It is therefore suggested that these tombs were in use during the Iron Age IIB–C. The Iron Age IIC is not as extensively represented in the survey results, indicated by common types, including bowls with smoothed Judean folded rims, lamps with high disc bases, closed cooking pots

224

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

with everted, grooved rims and closed cooking pots with single ridged necks. The Iron Age IIC ceramics were mainly found along the upper slopes to the east and west of the summit. The recommended areas to excavate in this period are more limited as indicated on the Iron Age IIC distribution map (Fig. 3.21). The Classical periods are limited to the western summit and northern edge of the site (Fig. 3.33). The pottery found ranges from the Persian–Hellenistic, Hasmonean, Early Roman, and Late Roman periods. Since they are of limited distribution, they probably represent a small village in these periods. A very large building is visible on the western summit of the site. This monumental structure was public and not private. After the site was burned, this building was further revealed (Figs. 1.21–1.22). The architecture is typical of Byzantine monasteries. Byzantine pottery among other later periods was collected in this area. At the northwestern foot of the site excavations in 1980 revealed a Byzantine church and monastery (Gudovitch 1982, 1996; Tzaferis 1996). The nature and character of Byzantine activities in the area may be worth investigating in future excavations. The most impressive architecture visible today on the surface is the remains of the Crusader-Mamluk village in the eastern edge of the site at Khirbet Shuweikeh. Houses preserved up to a height of two stories, courtyards, and a well are still visible without any excavation. Large quantities of typically painted pottery was found in this area. Finally, the large amount of slag should be mentioned. The slag fragments varied from large blocks of over 40 cm to small fragments of 1–2 cm. They indicate extensive pyrotechnology carried out at Socoh. In some cases large chalk inclusions are visible inside the slag fragments. The exact date of the slag is not clear. The location in the eastern part of the site near the Crusader-Mamluk village may indicate that they date to this period. The new data gathered from the 2010 Survey at Socoh indicates that the site had a rich and varied history. The periods that are represented suggest it could be contemporaneous with the Iron Age IIA city of Khirbet Qeiyafa-Sha‘araim located across the Elah Valley and could, therefore, correspond with the stories of the biblical narrative

Discussion and Conclusions

225

(1 Sam. 17). It also became a more strategic city in subsequent periods of the 9th–8th centuries BCE when the territory of Judah expanded and other sites, like Khirbet Qeiyafa, were destroyed and went out of use. In the 7th century BCE Socoh was apparently one of the cities in the Judean Shephelah that recovered from the Assyrian destruction. Future excavations will undoubtedly provide more information about this signifijicant city located on the border between Philistia and Judah during the biblical period and through subsequent centuries.

Bibliography Abel, F.-M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II. Paris: Gabalda. Abu Khalaf, M. 2009. Chapter 3: The Ottoman Pottery of Palestine. Pp. 15–22 in Reflections of Empire: Archaeology and Ethnographic Studies on the Pottery of the Ottoman Levant, ed. B. J. Walker. AASOR 64. Boston: American School of Oriental Research. Adams, D.L. 2009. Chapter 4: Between Socoh and Azekah: The Role of the Elah Valley in Biblical History and the Identifijication of Khirbet Qeiyafa. Pp. 47–66 in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008, eds. Y. Garfijinkel and S. Ganor. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Adams, A. E., MacKenzie, W. S. and Guilford, C. 1984. Atlas of Sedimentary Rocks under the Microscope. Hong Kong: Longman Scientifijic and Technical. Aharoni, Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel, Seasons 1959–1960. Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici. Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Trans. A. F. Rainey from Hebrew. Second revised and enlarged edition. Philadelphia: Westminster. Aharoni, Y. 1975. Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Tel Aviv: Gateway Publishers. Aharoni, Y. and Amiran, R. 1955. A Tour of the City-Mounds of the Shephelah. Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 19: 222–225 (Hebrew). Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Albright, W. F. 1923. Some Archaeological and Topographical Results of a Trip Through Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 11: 3–14. Albright, W. F. 1924. Researches of the School in Western Judaea. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 15: 2–11. Albright, W. F. 1925. Topographical Researches in Judaea. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 18: 6–11. Albright, W. F. 1932. The Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns. AASOR 12. New Haven: ASOR. Albright, W. F. 1933. The Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim IA: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth Campaign. Pp. 55–127 in AASOR 13. New Haven: ASOR. Albright, W. F. 1938. The Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim 2: The Bronze Age. AASOR 17. New Haven: ASOR. Albright, W. F. 1942. A Case of Lege-majeste in pre-Israelite Lachish with some Remarks

227

228

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

on the Israelite Conquest. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 87: 32–38. Albright, W.F. 1943. The Excavation of Tel Beit Mirsim III: The Iron Age. AASOR 21-22. New Haven: ASOR. Albright, W. F. 1960. The Archaeology of Palestine. Baltimore: Penguin. Albright, W. F. and Kelso, J. L. 1943. The Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim 3: The Iron Age. AASOR 21–22. New Haven: ASOR. Allen, J. P. 2003. The Craft of the Scribe (3.2) (Papyrus Anastasi I). Pp. 19–22 in The Context of Scripture, Vol. 3: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, eds. W.H. Hallo and K.L. Younger, Jr. Leiden: Brill. Alt, A. 1928. Das Institut im Jahr 1927. Palästinajahrbuch 24: 5–74. Alt, A. 1953. Festungen und Levitenorte im Lande Juda. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Vol. 2. Munich: Beck. Amiran, R. 1963. The Ancient Pottery of Eretz Yisrael. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew). Avigad, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Shikmona and the Israel Exploration Society. Avigad, N. 1990. Two Hebrew “Fiscal” Bullae. Israel Exploration Journal 40: 262–266. Avigad, N. and Barkay, G. 2000. The lmlk and Related Seal Impressions. Pp. 243–266 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. I: Architecture and Stratigraphy: Area A, W, and X-2, Final Report. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Avigad, N. and Sass, B. 1997. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Israel Exploration Society, and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Avissar, M. 2006. Chapter Nineteen: Early Islamic through Mamluk Pottery. Pp. 433– 446 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Avissar, M. 2009. Chapter 2: Ottoman Pottery Assemblages from Excavations in Israel. Pp. 7–14 in Reflections of Empire: Archaeology and Ethnographic Studies on the Pottery of the Ottoman Levant, ed. B. J. Walker. AASOR 64. Boston: American School of Oriental Research. Avissar, M. and Stern, E.J. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel. IAA Reports 26. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Avitsur, S. 1976. Man and his Work: Historical Atlas of Tools and Workshops in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah, M. and Kloner, A. 1993. Mareshah (Marisa). New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 3: 948–957. Avi-Yonah, M. and Yeivin, S. 1955. The Antiquities of Israel. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad (Hebrew). Ayalon, E. 1985. Trial Excavations of Two Iron Age Strata at Tell ‘Eton. Tel Aviv 12: 54–62. Baly, D. 1974. The Geography of the Bible: A Study in Historical Geography. New York: Harper and Row. Barkay, G. 1985. Northern and Western Jerusalem in the End of the Iron Age. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University.

Bibliography

229

Barkay, G. 1992. A Group of Stamped Handles from Judah. Eretz-Israel 23: 113–128. Barkay, G. 2011. A Fiscal Bulla from the Slope of the Temple Mount – Evidence for the Taxation System of the Judean Kingdom. New Studies on Jerusalem 17: 151–178 (Hebrew). Barkay, G. and Vaughn, A. G. 1995. An Offfijicial Seal Impression from Lachish Reconsidered. Tel Aviv 22: 94–97. Barkay, G. and Vaughn, A. G. 1996a. LMLK and Offfijicial Seal Impressions from Tel Lachish. Tel Aviv 23: 61–74. Barkay, G. and Vaughn, A. G. 1996b. New Readings of Hezekian Offfijicial Seal Impressions. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304: 29–54. Barkay, G. and Vaughn, A. G. 2004. The Royal and Offfijicial Seal Impressions from Lachish. Pp. 2148–2173 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marc Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series. Bar-Nathan, R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. III: The Pottery. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Bar-Nathan, R. and Kamil-Gitler, R. 2002. Chapter Five: Typology of the Herodian 3 Pottery. Pp. 145–192 in R. Bar-Nathan, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. III: The Pottery. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Baum, H. M. and Wright, F. B. 1903. Records of the Past: Records of the Past Exploration Society, Vol. 2. Washington, D. C.: Record of the Past Exploration Society. Ben-Ami, D. 2013. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv‘ati Parking Lot), Vol 1. IAA Reports 52. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2006. Decorated Philistine Pottery: An Archaeological and Archaeometric Study. BAR International Series 1541. Oxford: Archaeopress. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2009. Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Pottery. Pp. 161–173 in Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2012. Archaeometric Analysis of Pottery. Pp. 383–426 in A. M. Maeir, Excavations at Tell es-Safiji/Gath, Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2013. Petrographic Analysis of Late Bronze III, Late Iron I and Iron IIA Pottery. Pp. 1247–1254 in Megiddo V. The 2004–2008 Seasons (Vol. III), eds. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and E. H. Cline. Institute of Archaeology Monographs 31. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marc Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2014. Petrographic Analysis of Pottery: Chalcolithic to Persian Period. Pp. 776–794 in D. Ben-Shlomo and G. Van Beek, The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel 1970–1990. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, No. 50. Washington DC: SISP. Ben-Shlomo, D. Forthcoming a. Petrographic Analysis of 7th Century BCE Pottery from Khirbet Qeiyafa (Area W). In Y. Garfijinkel et al., Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 3: Excavation Report 2009–2013, Areas A, F, and W. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Ben-Shlomo, D. Forthcoming b. Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Pottery from Khirbet Qeiyafa.

230

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Ben-Shlomo, D., Uziel, J. and Maeir, A. M. 2009. Pottery Production at Tell es-Safiji/Gath: A Longue Durée Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Science 36/10: 2258–2273. Berlin, A. M. 2015. Chapter 6.1: Hellenistic Period. Pp. 629–672 in The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors, Vol. 2: From the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, ed. S. Gitin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Biger, G. and Grossman, D. 1990. Village and Town Populations in Palestine During the 1930s–1940s and their Relevance to Ethnoarchaeology. Pp. 19–30 in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Pre-Congress Symposium Supplement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Bliss, F. J. 1899a. First Report on the Excavations at Tell Zakariya. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 31: 10–25. Bliss, F. J. 1899b. Second Report on the Excavations at Tell Zakariya. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 31: 89–111. Bliss, F. J. 1899c. Third Report on the Excavations at Tell Zakariya. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 31: 170–187. Bliss, F. J. 1900. Fourth Report on the Excavations at Tell Zakariya. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 32: 7–16. Bliss, F. J. 1907. The Development of Palestine Exploration, New York: Scribner and Sons. Bliss, F. J. and Macalister, R. A. S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine During the Years 1898– 1900. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Bloch-Smith, E. and Alpert-Nakhai, B. 1999. Iron Age I Palestine. Near Eastern Archaeologist 62/2: 62–92. Boas, A. 2000. Chapter 20: Pottery and Small Finds from the Late Ottoman Village and the Early Zionist Settlement. Pp. 547–580 in Ramat Hanadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons, ed. Y. Hirschfeld. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Borée, W. 1930. Die alten Ortsnamen Palästinas. Leipzig: Edward Pfeifffer. Borowski, O. 2013. Lahav III: The Iron Age II Cemetery at Tell Halif (Site 72). Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Broneer, O. 1930. Corinth: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. IV Part 2: Terracotta Lamps. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Broshi, M. 1993. Tell Judeidah. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 3: 837–838. Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1984. The Settlements and Population of Palestine During the Early Bronze Age II–III. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253: 41–53. Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1986. Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements and Population. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 261: 73–90. Buchbinder, B. 1969. Geological Map of Hashephela Region, Israel. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel. Bullok, P., Federofffff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G. and Tursina, T. 1985. Handbook for Soil Thin Section Description. Wolverhampton: Waine Research Publications. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 1993. Beth-Shemesh. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1: 249–253.

Bibliography

231

Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2001. The Iron Age Fortifijication at Tel Beth Shemesh: A 1990–2000 Perspective. Israel Exploration Journal 51: 121–147. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2003. Tel Beth Shemesh, 2001–2003. Israel Exploration Journal 53: 233–237. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2006. Beth-Shemesh. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Supplementary Volume, 1644–1648. Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1899. Note on the Inscribed Jar Handle and Weight Found at Tell Zakariya. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 31: 204–209. Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2014. The Black Juglets. Pp. 403–414 in Y. Garfijinkel, S. Ganor and M. G. Hasel, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 2: Excavation Report 2009–2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture, ed. M. G. Klingbeil. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Conder, C. R. and Kitchener, H.H. 1880. Map of Western Palestine. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Conder, C. R. and Kitchener, H. H. 1883. The Survey of Western Palestine, Vol. III: Judaea. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Cytryn-Silverman, K. 2010. Chapter 9: The Ceramic Evidence. Pp. 97–212 in Ramla Excavations North of the White Mosque, ed. O. Gutfeld. Qedem 51. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Cytryn-Silverman, K. 2013. Chapter 7: The Islamic Pottery. Pp. 167–204 in Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv‘ati Parking Lot), Vol. I, ed. D. Ben-Ami. IAA Reports 52. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dagan, Y. 1992a. Map of Lakhish (98). Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dagan, Y. 1992b. The Shephelah During the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University. Dagan, Y. 1996. The Cities of the Judean Shephelah and Their Division into Districts Based on Joshua 16. Eretz-Israel 25:136–146 (Hebrew). Dagan, Y. 2000. The Settlement in the Judean Shephelah in the 2nd and 1st Millennium B. C.: A Test-Case of Settlement Processes in a Geographic Region. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University. Dagan, Y. 2004. Results of the Survey: Settlement Patterns in the Lachish Region. Pp. 2672–2690 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Tel Lachish (1973–1994), ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series. Dagan, Y. 2006. Map of Amazya (109), Vols. 1–2. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dagan, Y. 2009. Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Judean Shephelah: Some Considerations. Tel Aviv 36: 68–81. Dalman, G. 1909. Notes on the Old Hebrew Calendar-Inscription from Gezer. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 41: 118–119. Dan, J., Raz, Z., Ya’alon, D.H. and Koyumdjisky, H. 1975. Soil Map of Israel. Jerusalem: Ministry of Agriculture. Dan, J., Ya’alon, D. H. and Fine, P. 2002. The Origin and Distribution of Soils and Landscapes in the Pleshet Plains. Pp. 289–318 in Ashkelon, Bride of the South. Studies

232

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

in the History of Ashkelon from the Middle Age to the End of the Twentieth Century, eds. Z. Safrai and N. Sagiv. Tel Aviv: Eretz (Hebrew). De Groot, A. and Ariel, D. T. 2000. Ceramic Report. Pp. 91–154 in City of David Excavations Final Report V, ed. D. T. Ariel. Qedem 40. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh: Area E: The Finds, Vol. VIIB. Qedem 54. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Dekel, A. 2008. Chapter 4: The Ottoman Clay Pipes. Pp. 113–164 in Paneas, Vol. II: Small Finds and Other Studies, eds. V. Tzaferis and S. Israeli. IAA Reports 38. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. De Vaux, R. 1955. Les fouilles de Tell el-Far‘ah, près Naplouse: cinquième campagne. Revue Biblique 62: 541–589. Dever, W. G. 1993a. Gezer. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 2: 496–506. Dever, W. G. 1993b. Further Evidence on the Date of the Outer Wall at Gezer. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 289: 33–54. Diringer, D. 1934. Le iscrizioni antico-ebraiche palestinesi. Firenze: Le Monnier. Diringer, D. 1941. On Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions from Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish–I, II). Palestine Exploration Quarterly 73: 38–56, 89–108. Dorsey, D. 1991. The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Elitzur, Y. 2004. Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History. Jerusalem/Winona Lake, IN: Magnes/Eisenbrauns. Eshel. I. 1995. Two Pottery Groups from Kenyon’s Excavations on the Eastern Slope of Ancient Jerusalem. Pp. 1–158 in Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. IV: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-east Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere, eds. I. Eshel and K. Prag. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Faust, A. 2013. The Shephelah in the Iron Age: A New Look on the Settlement of Judah. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 145: 203–219. Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Fischer-Elfert, H.-W. 1986. Die satirische Streitschrift des Papyrus Anastasi I: Übersetzung und Kommentar. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 44. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fleitman, Y. and Mazar, E. 2015. Chapter Five: The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from the 2012–2013 Excavation Seasons: Areas Upper A, B and C. Pp. 211–292 in The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount 2009–2013 Final Reports Volume I, ed. E. Mazar. Jerusalem: Shalom Academic Research and Publication. Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P. (trans.). 2003. The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea. Jerusalem: Carta. Freud, L. 1999. Chapter 6.2: Pottery, Iron Age. Pp. 189–290 in Tel ʿIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, ed. I. Bet-Arieh. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Bibliography

233

Fritz, V. 1981. The “List of Rehoboam’s Fortresses” in 2 Chr. 11:5–12: A Document from the Time of Josiah. Eretz-Israel 15: 46*–53*. Gabrieli, R. S. 2009. Chapter 6: Stability and Change in Ottoman Coarse Ware in Cyprus. Pp. 67–77 in Reflections of Empire: Archaeology and Ethnographic Studies on the Pottery of the Ottoman Levant, ed. B.J. Walker. AASOR 64. Boston: American School of Oriental Research. Galil, G. 1985. The Administrative Division of the Shephelah. Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 9: 55–71 (Hebrew). Galil, G. 1992. Judah and Assyria in the Sargonid Period. Zion 57: 111–133 (Hebrew). Ganor, S. 2011. Horevat Sokho. Excavations and Surveys in Israel/Hadashot Arkheologiyot 123. Garfijinkel, Y. 1984. The Distribution of the “Identical Seal Impressions” and the Settlement Pattern in Judah on the Eve of Sennacherib’s Campaign. Cathedra 32: 35–53 (Hebrew). Garfijinkel, Y. 1985. The Hierarchic Pattern in the Private Seal-Impressions on the “LMLK” Jar Handles. Eretz-Israel 18 (1985): 108–115 (Hebrew). Garfijinkel, Y. 1988. 2 Chr. 11:5–10 Fortifijied Cities List and the lmlk Stamps: A Reply to Nadav Na’aman. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 271: 69–73. Garfijinkel, Y. and Ganor, S. 2009. Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Garfijinkel, Y., Ganor, S., and Hasel, M. 2010. The Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa to Our Understanding of the Iron Age Period. Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 28: 39–54. Garfijinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. 2012. The Iron Age City of Khirbet Qeiyafa after Four Seasons of Excavations. Pp. 149–74 in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, eds. G. Galil, A. Gilboa, A. M. Maeir and D. Kahn. Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Garfijinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. G. 2014. Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 2: Excavation Report 2009–2013, Areas B, C, D, and E, ed. M. G. Klingbeil. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Garfijinkel, Y., Hasel, M. G., and Klingbeil, M. G. 2013. An Ending and a Beginning: Why We are Leaving Qeiyafa and Going to Lachish. Biblical Archaeology Review 39/6: 44–51. Geva, H. 2003. Chapter Five: Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2. Pp. 113–176 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Geva, H. and Hershkovitz, M. 2006. Chapter Four: Local Pottery of the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. Pp. 94–143 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Geva, H. and Hershkovitz, M. 2014. Chapter Three: Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods from Areas J and N. Pp. 134–175 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

234

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Gitin, S. 1990. Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. Gitin, S. 2006. The lmlk Jar-Form Redefijined: A New Class of Iron Age II Oval-Shaped Storage Jar. Pp. 505–524 in I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, eds. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Glass, J., Goren, Y., Bunimovitz, S. and Finkelstein, I. 1993. Petrographic Analysis of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I Pottery Assemblages. Pp. 271–286 in Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site, eds. I. Finkelstein, S. Bunimovitz and Z. Lederman. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Goren, Y. 1996. The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 303: 33–72. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. 2004. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Goren, Y. and Halperin, N. 2004. Selected Petrographic Analyses. Pp. 2553–2586 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Vol. 5, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Grant, E. and Wright, G. E. 1938. Ain Shems Excavations: Part IV (Pottery). Haverford: Haverford College. Greenberg, R. 1987. New Light on the Early Iron Age at Tell Beit-Mirsim. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 265: 55–80. Grena, G. M. 2004. LMLK – A Mystery Belonging to the King. Redondo Beach: 4000 Years of Writing History. Gudovitch, S. 1982. Tel Socho. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 78–79: 82–83 (Hebrew). Gudovitch, S. 1996. A Byzantine Building at the Foot of Horbat Sokho. ‘Atiqot 28: *17–*23. Guérin, V. 1868. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Paris: L’Imprimerie Impériale. Hasel, M. G. 1994. Israel in the Merneptah Stela. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296: 45–61. Hasel, M. G. 1998. Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern Levant, 1300–1185 B. C. Probleme der Ägyptologie 11. Leiden/New York: Brill. Hasel, M.G. 2003. Merenptah’s Inscriptions and Reliefs and the Origin of Israel. Pp. 19–44 in The Near East in the Southwest: Essays in Honor of William G. Dever, ed. B.A. Nakhai. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 58. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Hasel, M.G. 2004. The Structure of the Final Hymnic-Poetic Unit on the Merenptah Stela. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 116 (2004) 75–81. Hasel, M. G. 2008. Merenptah’s Reference to Israel: Critical Issues for the Origin of Israel. Pp. 47–59 in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, eds. R. S. Hess, G. A. Klingbeil and P. J. Ray, Jr. Bulletin for Biblical Research, Supplement 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Bibliography

235

Hasel, M. G. 2009. Soco, Socoh. Pg. 312 in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 5, ed. K.D. Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abingdon. Hayes, J. W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London: The British School at Rome. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd revised ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Herr, M. D. 2007. Antigonus of Sokho. Pg. 198 in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 2, eds. M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan. Herzog, Z. 1978. Israelite City Planning. Expedition 20/4: 38–43. Holladay, J. L. 1990. Red Slip, Burnish, and the Solomonic Gateway at Gezer. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278: 23–70. Horowitz, G. 1980. Town Planning of Hellenistic Marisa: A Reappraisal of the Excavations after Eighty Years. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 112: 100–103. Izre’el, S. 1978. The Gezer Letters of the el-Amarna Archive: Linguistic Analysis. Israel Oriental Studies 8 (1978): 13-90. Japhet, S. 1993. I & II Chronicles. Old Testament Library, London: SCM. Junge, E. 1937. Die Wiederaufbau des Heerwesens des Reiches Juda under Josia. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Kallai, Z. 1960. The Northern Boundaries of Judah. Jerusalem: Magnes. Kallai, Z. 1982. Socho. Encyclopaedia Miqra’it 8: 275, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew). Kallai Z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible. Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes/Brill. Kang, H.G. 2012. Pottery Assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa and Its Implications for Understanding the Early 10th Century BCE in Judah. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Kang, H.G. and Garfijinkel, Y. 2009. Chapter 6: The Iron Age IIA Pottery. Pp. 119–149 in Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Karmon, Y. 1971. Israel: A Regional Geography. London: Wiley and Sons. Kelm, G. and Mazar, A. 1995. Timnah: A Biblical City in the Sorek Valley. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Killebrew, A .K. 1998. Ceramic Typology and Technology of Late Bronze II and Iron I Assemblages from Tel Miqne Ekron: The Transition from Canaanite to Philistine Culture. Pp. 379–405 in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Kletter, R. 2002. Temptation to Identify: Jerusalem, mmst, and the lmlk Jar Stamps. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 118: 136–149. Koch, I. and Lipschits, O. 2013. The Rosette Stamped Jar Handle System and the Kingdom of Judah at the End of the First Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 129: 55–78. Lance, H. D. 1992a. Socoh (Person). Pg. 99 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 6, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday. Lance, H. D. 1992b. Socoh (Place). Pg. 99 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 6, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

236

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Lemaire, A. 1981. Classifijication des estampilles royales judéennes. Eretz-Israel 15: 54*–60*. Lipschitz, O. and Amit, D. 2011. Eighteen Unpublished Stamped Jar Handles. New Studies on Jerusalem 17:179–197 (Hebrew). Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2013. Tel Azekah 113 Years After: Preliminary Evaluation of the Renewed Excavations at the Site. Near Eastern Archaeology 75: 176–206. Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. 2010. Royal Judahite Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions. Tel Aviv 37: 3–32. Macalister, R. A. S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer, Vols. 1–3. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Maeir, A. 2008. Tel Zafijit. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Supplementary Volume, 2079–2081. Maeir, A. 2010. “And Brought in the Offferings and the Tithes and the Dedicated Things Faithfully” (2 Chron. 31:12): On the Meaning and Function of the Late Iron Age Judahite “Incised Handle Cooking Pots.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 130: 43–62. Maeir, A. M. (ed.). 2012. Tell es-Safiji/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. 2 vols. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Magness, J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology: circa 200–800 CE. Schefffijield: JSOT Press. Magness, J. 2005. The Roman Legionary Pottery. Pp. 69–194 in Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’uma): The Pottery and Other Small Finds, eds. B. Arubas and H. Goldfus. Portsmouth, Rhode Island: Journal of Roman Archaeology 60. Mazar, A. 1982. Iron Age Fortresses in the Judaean Hills. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 114: 87–109. Mazar, A. 1985. Excavations at Tell Qasile Part Two: The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (10000–586 B. C. E.). New York: Doubleday. Mazar, A. 1992. The Iron Age I. Pp. 258–301 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor. New Haven: Yale University. Mazar, A. 1997. Timnah (Tel Batash) I. Qedem 37. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) II. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Miller, J. M. 1983. Site Identifijication: A Problem Area in Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 99: 119–129. Mommsen, H., Perlman, I. and Yellin, J. 1984. The Provenience of the lmlk Jars. Israel Exploration Journal 34: 89–113. Na’aman, N. 1974. Sennacherib’s “Letter to God” on his Campaign to Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools or Oriental Research 214: 25–39. Na’aman, N. 1979. Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the lmlk Stamps. Vetus Testamentum 29: 61–86.

Bibliography

237

Na’aman, N. 1986. Hezekiah’s Fortifijied Cities and the LMLK Stamps. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 261: 5–21. Na’aman, N. 1988. The Date of 2 Chronicles 11:5–10: A Reply to Y. Garfijinkel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 271: 74–77 Na’aman, N. 2011. The Shephelah According to the Amarna Letters. Pp. 281–300 in The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, eds. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Nagorsky, A. 2007. Khirbat el Mas‘ud. Excavations and Surveys in Israel/Hadashot Arkheologiyot 119. Panitz-Cohen, N. and Mazar, A. 2006. Timnah (Tel Batash) III: The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE. Qedem 45. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Portugali, Y. 1982. A Field Methodology for Regional Archaeology (The Jezreel Valley Survey, 1981). Tel Aviv 9: 170–188. Rainey, A. F. 1980. The Administrative Position of the Shephelah. Tel Aviv 7: 194–202. Rainey, A. F. 1982a. Historical Geography: The Link Between Historical and Archaeological Interpretation. Biblical Archaeologist 45: 217–223. Rainey, A. F. 1982b. Wine from the Royal Vineyards. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 245: 57–62. Rainey, A. F. 1983. The Biblical Shephelah of Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 251: 1–22. Rainey, A. F. 1984. A Handbook of Historical Geography. Jerusalem: American Institute of Holy Land Studies. Rainey, A. F. 1988. Historical Geography. Pp. 353–368 in Benchmarks in Time and Culture: An Introduction to Palestinian Archaeology, eds. J. F. Drinkard, G. L. Mattingly and J. M. Miller. Atlanta: Scholars. Robinson, E. and Smith, E. 1841. Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838, Vol. 2. London: John Murray. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2015. Chapter 6.2: Hellenistic Period Imported Pottery. Pp. 673–708 in The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors, Vol. 2: From the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, ed. S. Gitin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Rosenthal, R. and Sivan, R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection. Qedem 8. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Ross, J.F. 1966. Gezer in the Tell el-Amarna Letters. Biblical Archaeologist 30: 62–70. Roth, Y. 1958. A Hebrew Stamp on a Jar Handle from Kefar Menahem. Pp. 64–66 in From Yesterday and Today. Merhavya: Sifriat Poalim (Hebrew). Salem, H. 2009. Chapter 4: An Ethno-Archaeological Approach to Ottoman Pottery: The Case of “Gaza Gray Ware.” Pp. 23–36 in Reflections of Empire: Archaeology and Ethnographic Studies on the Pottery of the Ottoman Levant, ed. B.J. Walker. AASOR 64. Boston: American School of Oriental Research. Sandhaus, D. 2009. Late Persian – Early Hellenistic Pottery. Pp. 209–224 in Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008, eds. Y. Garfijinkel and S. Ganor. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Sandhaus, D. and Kreimerman, I. 2015. The Late 4th/3rd Century BCE Transition in the Judean Hinterland in Light of the Pottery of Khirbet Qeiyafa. Tel Aviv 42: 251–271.

238

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Sayce, A. H. 1899. Note on the Objects Discovered by Dr. Bliss at Tell Zakariya. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 31: 210–212. Seger, J. D. 1993. Gezer: A Twice Told Tell, 1902–1909 and 1964–1974. Pp. 559–574 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990, eds. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Selman, M.J. 1994. 1 Chronicles: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity. Shai, I. and Maeir, A. M. 2003. Pre-lmlk Jars: A New Class of Iron Age IIA Storage Jars. Tel Aviv 30: 108–123. Shai, I. and Uziel, J. 2014. Addressing Survey Methodology in the Southern Levant: Applying Diffferent Methods for the Survey of Tel Burna, Israel. Israel Exploration Journal 64: 172–190. Shai, I., Cassuto, D., Dagan, A. and Uziel. J. 2012. The Fortifijications at Tel Burna: Date, Function and Meaning. Israel Exploration Journal 62: 141–157. Shai, I., Dagan, A., Riehl, S., Orendi, A., Uziel, J. and Suriano, M. 2014. A Private Stamped Seal Handle from Tell Bornāt/Tēl Burnā, Israel. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 130: 121–137. Sharon, I. 1994. Demographic Aspects of the Problem of the Israelite Settlement. Pp. 119–134 in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson, ed. L. M. Hopfe. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Shiloh, Y. 1970. The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City. Israel Exploration Journal 20: 180–190. Shiloh, Y. 1978. Elements in the Development of Town Planning in the Israelite City. Israel Exploration Journal 28: 36–51. Shiloh, Y. 1987. The Casemate Wall, the Four Room House, and Early Planning in the Israelite City. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 268: 3–15. Shoval, S., Gaft, M., Beck, P. and Kirsh, Y. 1993. Thermal Behaviour of Limestone and Monocrystalline Calcite Tempers during Firing and Their Use in Ancient Vessels. Journal of Thermal Analysis, 40: 263–273. Singer-Avitz, L. 2002. Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. Tel Aviv 29: 110–214. Smith, G.A. 1931. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. Twenty-fijifth addition, reprinted in 1966. New York: Harper and Row. Sneh, A. 2009. Beth Shemesh Sheet 1–11. 1:50,000 Geological Maps. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel. Sneh, A., Bartov, Y. and Rosensaft, M. 1998. Geological Map of Israel. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel. Spanier, Y. and Sasson, A. 2001. Lime Kilns in Eretz Israel. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Stager, L. E. 1985. The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260: 1–35. Stern, E. 1992. Azekah. Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 1: 537–539. Stern, E. 1993. Azekah. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1: 123–124.

Bibliography

239

Stern, E. 2007. En-Gedi Excavations, Vol. I: Final Report (1961–1965). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Stern, E. 2015. Chapter 5.1: Persian Period. Pp. 565–618 in The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors, Vol. 2: From the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, ed. S. Gitin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Tappy, R. E. 2000. The 1998 Preliminary Survey of Khirbet Zeitah el-Kharab (Tel Zayit) in the Shephelah of Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 319: 7–36. Tappy, R. E. 2008. Tel Zayit.New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Supplementary Volume, 2082–2083. Tappy, R. E., Lundberg, M. J., McCarter, P. K. and Zuckerman, B. 2006. An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century BCE from the Judean Shephelah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 344: 5–46. Tufnell, O., Inge, C.H. and Harding, L. 1940. Lachish II: The Fosse Temple. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Tufnell, O. 1953. Lachish III: The Iron Age. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Tufnell, O., et al. 1958. Lachish IV: The Bronze Age. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Tzaferis, V. 1982. Iron II Tombs at Tel ‘Eitun. ‘Atiqot 8: 7–10 (Hebrew). Tzaferis, V. 1996. Two Greek Inscriptions from a Byzantine Structure at Horbat Sokho. ‘Atiqot 28: *25–*27. Ussishkin, D. 1974. Tombs from the Israelite Period at Tel ‘Eton. Tel Aviv 1: 109–127. Ussishkin, D. 1976. Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 223: 1–14. Ussishkin, D. 1977. The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars. Tel Aviv 4: 28–60. Ussishkin, D. 2004. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Vols. I–IV. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marc Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series. Uziel, J. and Maeir, A. M. 2005. Scratching the Surface at Gath: Implications of the Tell eṣ-Ṣafiji-Gath Surface Survey. Tel Aviv 32: 50–75. Uziel, J. and Shai, I. 2010. The Settlement History at Tel Burna: Results of the Surface Survey. Tel Aviv 37: 227–245. Van Beek, G. 1993. The Reexcavation of Sites: Tell Jemmeh. Pp. 575–580 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990, eds. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Vaughn, A. G. 1999a. Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah. Atlanta: Scholars. Vaughn, A. G. 1999b. Paleographic Dating of the Judaean Seals and Its Signifijicance for Biblical Research. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313: 43–64. Weider, M. and Gvirtzman, G. 1999. Micromorphological Indications on the Nature of the Late Quaternary Paleosols in the Southern Coastal Plain of Israel. Catena 35: 219–237. Weinstein, J.M. 1981. The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241: 1–28.

240

Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey

Welten, P. 1969. Die Königs-Stempel: Ein Beitrag zur Militärpolitik Judas unter Hiskia und Josia. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Whitbread, I. K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study. Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4. Exeter: The British School at Athens. Williamson, H.G.M. 1982. 1 and 2 Chronicles. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Yadin, Y. 1961. The Fourfold Division of Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163: 6–12. Yezerski, I. 2007. Pottery of Stratum V. Pp. 86–129 in En-Gedi Excavations I: Final Report (1961–1965), ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Yezerski, I. 2013. Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age II–III Judahite Rock-cut Tombs. Israel Exploration Journal 63: 50–77. Younker, R. W. 1991. A Preliminary Report of the 1990 Season at Tel Gezer: Excavations of the “Outer Wall” and the “Solomonic” Gateway. Andrews University Seminary Studies 29: 19–60. Zimhoni, O. 1997. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Zimhoni, O. 2004a. The Pottery of Levels V and IV and Its Archaeological and Chronological Implications. Pp. 1643–1788 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) Vol. IV, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marc Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series. Zimhoni, O. 2004b. The Pottery of Levels III and II. Pp. 1789–1899 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) Vol. IV, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marc Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series. Zorn, J. R. 1994. Estimating the Population Size of Ancient Settlements: Methods, Problems, Solutions, and a Case Study. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 295: 31–48. Zuckerman, S. 2012. Chapter 3: The Pottery of Stratum 9 (The Persian Period). Pp. 31–51 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh: Area E: The Finds, Vol. VIIB, eds. A. De Groot and H. Bernick-Greenberg. Qedem 54. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Zukerman, A. and Ben-Shlomo, D. 2011. Mortaria as a Foreign Element in the Material Culture of the Southern Levant during the 8th–7th Centuries BCE. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 143: 87–105.