The Landfill of Early Roman Jerusalem. The 2013‒2014 Excavations in Area D3 9781646022151

Citation preview

THE LANDFILL OF EARLY ROMAN JERUSALEM: THE 2013–2014 EXCAVATIONS

Ancient Jerusalem Publications (AJP) Series II Series Editor: Efrat Bocher Managing Editor: Myrna Pollak Volume Editor: Nitsan Ben Melech Copy Editor: Michal Sinowitz Graphic Design: Noa Evron and Alina Yoffe-Pikovsky Color Photographs of Modern City of David: Shai Halevi

Academic Committee:

Israel Finkelstein, Tel Aviv University, Chair Andrea Berlin, Boston University Yuval Gadot, Tel Aviv University Joe Uziel, Israel Antiquities Authority Zvi Greenhut, Israel Antiquities Authority Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina

In association with Tel Aviv University

THE LANDFILL OF EARLY ROMAN JERUSALEM: THE 2013–2014 EXCAVATIONS In Area D3 YUVAL GADOT

ANCIENT JERUSALEM PUBLICATIONS II

Contributions by

Yoantan Adler, Chen Antler, Nitsan Ben Melech, Yoav Farhi, Ian Freestone, Shan Huang, Ruth Jackson-Tal, Dafna Langgut, Omri Lernau, Hélène Machline, Ilana Peters , Ronny Reich, Helena Roth, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Lena Naama Sharabi , Abra Speciarich and Ehud Weiss EISENBRAUNS University Park, Pennsylvania ANCIENT JERUSALEM PUBLICATIONS Jerusalem TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY Tel Aviv ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY PUBLICATIONS Jerusalem

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Gadot, Yuval, editor. Title: The landfill of early Roman Jerusalem : the 2013–2014 excavations in area D3 / [edited by] Yuval Gadot ; contributions by Yoantan Adler [and 16 others]. Other titles: Ancient Jerusalem publications series ; 2. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns ; Jerusalem : Ancient Jerusalem Publications ; Tel Aviv : Tel Aviv University ; Jerusalem : Israel Antiquities Authority Publications, [2022] | Series: Ancient Jerusalem publications (AJP) series ; II | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “Presents the results of excavations at a landfill outside the walls of Jerusalem dating from the 1st century CE that functioned as the final resting spot of the discarded items of the city. The findings reveal city life shaped by halakhic rules of purity”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2022006301 | ISBN 9781646022151 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Excavations (Archaeology)—Jerusalem. | Fills (Earthwork)—Jerusalem. | Jerusalem—Antiquities. Classification: LCC DS109.15 .L35 2022 | DDC 933/.442—dc23/eng/20220225 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022006301 Copyright © 2022 Ancient Jerusalem Research Center All rights reserved Printed in China Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802-1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ANSI Z39.48–1992. ISBN 978-1-64602-215-1 © 2022 Ancient Jerusalem Research Center All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form without permission from the publisher.

This book and the research it presents could not have been done without the generous support of Nelson Shaller.

The Center for the Study of Ancient Jerusalem was established in coordination with the Jerusalem Region of the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Ir David Foundation (El’ad), which is dedicated to the excavation, preservation, examination and scientific publication of the discoveries in the City of David and the landscape of Ancient Jerusalem. The Ancient Jerusalem Publication Series was made possible through the generosity of the Ir David Foundation.

CONTENTS PREFACE Yuval Gadot

xi

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND STRATIGRAPHY CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION Yuval Gadot

3

CHAPTER 2

STRATIGRAPHY Yuval Gadot

15

PART II: THE FINDS CHAPTER 3

THE POTTERY Hélène Machline

37

CHAPTER 4

THE NUMISMATIC FINDS Yoav Farhi

69

CHAPTER 5

THE CHALK VESSELS Yonatan Adler

97

CHAPTER 6

THE GLASS FINDS Ruth E. Jackson-Tal

123

CHAPTER 7.1

THE METAL ARTIFACTS Chen Antler

143

CHAPTER 7.2

REPORT ON GLASSY SLAG FRAGMENTS Shan Huang and Ian Freestone

163

CHAPTER 8

THE PLASTER FRAGMENTS Lena Naama Sharabi

165

CHAPTER 9

THE STONE SCALE-WEIGHTS Ronny Reich

173

CHAPTER 10

MISCELLANEOUS FINDS Nitsan Ben Melech

179

PART III: FLORA AND FAUNA CHAPTER 11

FAUNAL REMAINS Abra Spiciarich and Lidar Sapir-Hen

195

CHAPTER 12

FISH REMAINS Omri Lernau

235

CHAPTER 13

ARCHAEOBOTANICAL ANALYSIS

243

SEEDS, GRAINS AND OTHER PLANT ORGANS Ilana Peters and Ehud Weiss

277

Helena Roth and Dafna Langgut CHAPTER 14

PART IV: SYNTHESIS AND SUMMARY CHAPTER 15

COMMITTING THE KIDRONʼS WESTERN SLOPES TO GARBAGE DISPOSAL: JEWISH URBANISM UNDER ROMAN HEGEMONY Yuval Gadot

287

INDEX OF LOCI

301

ix

ix

PREFACE On February 21, 2013, I began excavating the eastern slope of the City of David ridge, which is just above the Kidron Riverbed. In reality, the path to this moment was long and winding, and brimming with pitfalls. I had excavated at Ramat Raḥel from 2005 to 2012 and at Khirbet er-Ras from 2011 to 2013, and during all that time the archaeology of Jerusalem had attracted my attention; so for me the move from the city’s surroundings to its ancient center was only natural. However, it is one thing to have an idea and another to see it transpire. The idea that Tel Aviv University would initiate an excavation project in Jerusalem, in the City of David National Park, in the reality of 2011, demanded a combination of creativity and pragmatism. Negotiations between Oded Lipschits, the head of TAU’s Institute of Archaeology, on one side and the late Shuka Dorfman, Gideon Avni and Yuval Baruch of the Israel Antiquities Authority on the other, slowly but surely facilitated the paving of a road for this idea to materialize. Others, such as David Be’eri, Uriya Dasberg and Moshe Laor of the Elad Foundation, and Tsvika Tsuk, Eviatar Cohen and Assaf Avraham of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, had to give their blessings and agree on the roles they and their respective organizations would play in the future project. Through a number of coordinating meetings, we slowly established a mechanism that was agreed upon by all and allowed me and TAU to work directly in cooperation with the IAA, a state organization, and for them to cooperate with the legal owners of the land and operators of the national park. This process demanded that we all (myself included) be flexible and at some point swallow our pride. It therefore gives me great pleasure to thank everyone involved for their patience and their ability to envision the accomplishments of our joint project. Hélène Machline was chosen by the IAA to manage the field work with me. Both of us were unaware of the depth of the garbage layers awaiting us and we had to adapt our field methodology while excavating. Hélène had proto-historic field experience as she had focused on the Chalcolithic period in her studies. As a result, we were able to develop a rigorous and systematic methodology that allowed us to produce a quantitatively representative sample of the finds. This methodology demanded tight control over the workers and a very complex registration system. Hélène was able to master this operation and keep abreast of what was going on throughout the excavation. At the same time the methodology also demanded the development of an on-site wet sifting station which promised immediate feedback and accurate knowledge regarding the kind and quantity of finds waiting to be collected through sifting. For that we hired Orly Moshevich, who was experienced at this from previous excavations. Orly spent hours inspecting the dense mosquito nets to make sure nothing escaped either her and the other workers’ inquiring eyes. Together with the constant technical help of Gill Berkovits, we were able to develop the excavations and systematically take care of the many finds. At a certain point the excavation became too deep and too narrow to continue. We took a short break to reassess and prepare the ground for further excavations. The second season began in October 2013, following a few weeks of working with a backhoe to remove soil placed at the site with the building of the concrete terrace walls. We were able to widen the excavation area and to penetrate deeper. This time a larger team was assembled and it included Hélène Machline, who now took command of the office, Ilana Peters, who was the field registrar and Orly Moshevich, who continued to manage the wet and dry sifting. Following a severe snow storm on December 10, 2013, and as the height of the sections became hazardous, we again ceased operations. We resumed work in April, 2014, this time in the southern part of the area only. During this season Sara Tal (then Hirschfeld) joined us to run the work in the field.

xii

When the dig ended in December of 2014, it became clear that bringing all the materials to publication would be as much of challenge as digging and sifting through the layers had been. We decided to create a consortium of scholars who would each deal with a particular aspect of landfill and working in tandem with students starting out in their careers, only beginning to gain experience in research and publication. Abra Spiciarich, then a beginning Masters student, began writing her thesis on the faunal remains of the site under the guidance of Lidar Sapir-Hen, Oded Lipschits and myself as part of TAU’s International MA program. Dafna Langgut joined me in mentoring Helena Roth on the site’s charcoal remains. Ilana Peters began working on other archaeobotanical remains in Udi Weiss’s lab at Bar-Ilan University. Other, more experienced scholars included in the consortium were Hélène Machline, Yoav Farhi, Yonatan Adler, Ruth Jackson-Tal, Shan Huang and Ian Freestone, Hen Alter, Lena Naama Sharabi, Nitsan Ben Melech, Ronny Reich and Omri Lernau. Thanks to this policy we were able to publish some of the more unique finds in peer-reviewed journals, to make presentations at conferences and also to publish in semi-popular archaeological magazines. These early publications paved the road to the final report and I wish to thank each and every contributor to this joint collaboration. Standing between the scholars and finds were Natali Baum, Rony Hoofien and finally Nitsan Ben Melech. Shatil Emanuelov helped in adapting the field plans drawn by Vadim Assman and Ya>akov Shmiduv and prepare them for publication. Naama Cohen and Yulia Gottlieb drew the objects and Pavel Shrago and Sasha Flit photographed them. The last but certainly not simplest hurdle we faced was creating a final report out of the individual reports. This is where Ancient Jerusalem Publications and the Ancient Jerusalem Research Center came into play. The AJP has been a significant factor in the publication of this project. Without its backing and the support of its director, Yuval Baruch, the issuing of this report would not have been possible. Nitsan Ben Melech was responsible from the outset for gathering meterials and working with the authors on preparing their reports. She helped organize the many finds, coordinated the photographs and drawings of the objects chosen to be presented in the report and performed many other tasks that helped create the manuscript. I have worked previously with Myrna Pollak as manuscript coordinator and with Noa Evron as graphics and layout editor and knew that I was in good hands. Indeed, I knew the production of the book would be done not only to the highest professional standards but also with care and attention. Michal Sinowitz served as copyeditor and Alina YoffePikovsky prepared the plates and contributed to the general asthetic look of the book. My thanks to them all I reserve my final and very special thanks for Efrat Bocher, who stood at the helm of the AJP editorial team throughout the years of the book’s development. She guided me personally and tirelessly from the very outset of this project, and watched over the forest, the trees and each and every leaf of this entire book. Possibly the most important thing I take with me from this experience, and what I am most grateful for, is the enthusiasm and devotion of every person involved in the excavations, the processing of the finds and the publication of this report. For this I owe my profound gratitude. Yuval Gadot March 2022

xii

xiv

xiv

Part I: INTRODUCTION AND

STR ATIGR APHY

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION Yuval Gadot

In February, 2013, a long-term excavation project began in what was designated as Area D3, the City of David (Fig. 1.1). The British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon called it the Southeastern Hill in relation to other topographical features that made-up the ancient Jerusalem landscape (Kenyon 1974: X). Archaeological exploration in this part of Jerusalem had already begun in the second part of the 19th century CE and was conducted almost continuously from then on (Reich 2021: 21–77). The eastern slope’s sharp incline towards the Kidron Valley made the land almost impossible to build upon and had it not been for the richly flowing Gihon Spring, the area would probably have been of no special importance. Archaeological exploration conducted in the area for over a century has revealed remains dating from as early as the Chalcolithic period and up to recent centuries, proving that the eastern slopes were an essential part of the city at least until the late Iron Age. From then onward the area was utilized for burial, agricultural exploitation and garbage disposal: activities that are usually located at the fringe of a settlement. The eastern slope was purchased by Baron Abraham Edmond Benjamin James de Rothschild at the beginning of the 20th century in order to conduct archaeological excavations (Reich 2011: 70–77). Today this land forms part of what is known as The City of David National Park. In 1999, in order to stabilize the slope and prevent soil from washing down into the valley, it was modified by the construction of five concrete terrace walls. Olive trees were planted on each terrace (Fig. 1.2). Work conducted prior to the excavation included dismantling some of the concrete walls as well as removing some of the modern earth-fill behind the walls. Mechanical tools were used for these purposes (Fig. 1.3).

THE EXCAVATION AREA Area D3 is located along the eastern slopes of Jerusalem’s Southeastern Hill, which is just west of the Kidron Valley’s current riverbed (Fig. 1.1). The area is ca. 1000 sq m and was planned to be a section 40 m long and 25 m wide, oriented east to west into the occupational level of the site. To the east of the excavation is a modern paved street within the Kidron Valley. On the south, the area borders with Weill՚s excavation (Weill 1920, 1947; Reich 2004), on the west it borders with Shiloh՚s Areas B, D and E (Fig. 1.5; Ariel 2000; De Groot 2012) and on the north it borders with Reich and Shukron՚s Area J (Reich 2011: 177–187).

THE EXCAVATION The excavation was a collaborative project between the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University and the Israel Antiquities Authority, and was directed by me. The first season began on February 21, 2013 and continued until June 13 and then ran again between October 21 and December 10 of 2013 (License G- 4/2013; Figs. 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10). In 2014 the excavation

4 Y U VA L G A D O T Recent and ongoing excavations (see Table 2.1) 1 Byzantine Street - Area S2 Moran Hagbi, Joe Uziel 2 Givʿati Parking Lot Eli Shukron Doron Ben-Ami, Yana Tchekhanovets, Salome Dan-Goor Yiftah Shalev, Yuval Gadot, Efrat Bocher, Nitsan Shalom

Ophel

Old City Walls

CW RS

1. Byzantine Street

HG

2. Giv‘ati Parking Lot KK R

R

4

M

3. “Jeremiah’s Cistern” KK

XVIII

5 The Summit of City of David Eilat Mazar Dan Bahat

KK H KK

KK

P

XXIV

KK

CF

XXI-II

6. Area G

5. Summit

MD

KK

ES

Channel

A

C

W1 W3

Fortified Passage

DU

Warren’s shaft System

CW, PV, YS, RS

CF

Drainage

6 Area G Yigal Shiloh Joe Uziel

Stepped Stone Structure

HG

RS

The spring H

9. Area U

7. Spring Tower

PV

DU

C

ES C

Rock-Hewn Rooms

8

PV

Rock-Cut “Pool”

DU

Channel I

Valley

MS, RS

E3

RS F

RS K2

YS E1

HG

12. Area K

RS J

KK

KK N

YS

10

E2

13. Area D3

11. The Stepped Street

YS D2

BD RS

S

KK V

KK V

B

CS

D1

KK

KK

KK

K

K

V

YS B

RW YS YS K

W

K

K2

S

YS

RS

Siloam Church, Byzantine Period

A

AA

BD

H

RS A

KK

RS

14. The Meyuhas House RS

BD

D

15.4

RS A

CS

15.4

HG

RS

ES

A

KK O

RW

YS RS

7 The Spring House Eli Shukron and Ronny Reich Eli Shukron Nahshon Szanton, Joe Uziel 8 Bet Ha-Tira Zvi Greenhut 9 Area U Moran Hagbi, Joe Uziel, Ortal Chalaf 10 Karʻin House Zvi Greenhut 11 The Stepped Street - Area S Nahshon Szanton, Moran Hagbi, Ari Levi, Joe Uziel 12 Area K Eli Shukron and Ronny Reich Nahshon Szanton, Joe Uziel 13 Area D3 Yuval Gadot, Nitsan Ben-Melech, Helena Roth

RS YS

Kidron Valle

Tyropoeon

Channel II

YS

y

DU

Siloam Tunnel

3 Jeremiah’s Cistern Joe Uziel Salome Dan-Goor, Yana Tchekhanovets 4 Maʿalot ʿIr David Street 4 Rina Avner Tawfiq Deʿadle Zubair ʿAdawi

KK

KK

L

14 The Meyuhas House Eli Shukron and Ronny Reich Yaakov Billig 15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5

DA

Past excavations

A2

N

YS A1

Siloam pool Early Roman Period

15.3

ES

15.4 BD

15.1

BD

KK F

15.2 15.2

KK BD

F

KK

BD

X

15.2

The Siloam Pool Area Zvi Greenhut, Gabriel Mazor, Ron Lavi Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, Ron Lavi, Nahshon Szanton Alon de Groot Eli Shukron Eli Shukron and Ronny Reich

CW HG CS BD PV RW MD CF KK DU YS RS ES

Charles Warren Hermann Guthe Conrad Schick Frederick Jones Bliss and Archibald Dickie Montague B. Parker and Louis-Hugues Vincent Raymond Weill Robert A.S. Macalister and J. Garrow Duncan John Winter Crowfoot and Gerald M. Fitzgerald Kathleen M. Kenyon David Ussishkin Yigal Shiloh Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron Eli Shukron

Small-scale excavations and probes

0

50

100

Meters

MS E.W.G. Mastermann DA David Adan-Bayewitz AA David Amit and Yonatan Adler

Figure 1.1: Location of the excavation areas on the Southeastern Hill. Area D3 is in yellow, outlined in black.

INTRODUCTION 5

Figure 1.2: Construction of the concrete terrace walls in 1999 (photo by Yonatan Adler).

Figure 1.3: Removal of concrete terraces using mechanical tools (February 2013, photo by author).

6 Y U VA L G A D O T

Figure 1.4: Area D3 at start of excavations, looking southwest (photo by author).

progressed southward to an area that disturbed the earthen spill left after Weill՚s excavations (License G-19/2014). The team included H. Machline (area supervisor); I. Peters and S. Hirshberg (Tal) (assistant area supervisors); O. Moshevich (wet-sifting supervisor); H. Kishoni (registration); N. Nehama and R. Abu-Halaf (administration); A. Peretz (photography); V. Assman and Y. Shmidov (surveying and drafting) and S. >Adalah (metal detection) (Figs. 1.11, 1.12).

HISTORY OF RESEARCH AT THE SOUTHEASTERN HILL The Southeastern Hill, Jerusalem’s ancient core, has attracted the attention of scholars for over 100 years. Each of the site՚s many excavations challenged past premises and added new information to the discussion of the city՚s political, social and economic history. Over the years, as the research questions were molded, the aim and nature of the excavations, as well as the field methods, were modified and updated. Remains exposed during past excavations in this part of the hill date to the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Iron II, Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. Most of the finds indicate that this sector of the city was domestic in nature (Ariel and De Groot 2000). However, two distinct architectural features can be identified as public: The first is Channel II, which leads water from the Gihon Spring southwards. The rock-cut channel, the underground of which was partly surveyed and partly excavated, is known to pass through the area designated for the current excavation (Ariel and Lender 2000: 1–32; Reich and Shukron 2002). According to Reich and Shukron, the northern part of the channel was cut during the Middle Bronze Age and the southern part was later added during the Iron Age. The seam between the two parts, documented by Reich and Shukron (2002: Fig. 2), was planned to be exposed during the excavation, but for safety reasons this goal was not achieved.

E1

W163

W430

W206

INTRODUCTION 7

D2

W152

W151

W163

W168

D1

W15

W75

W179

7

W52

0

B 25 m

Figure 1.5: Plan of Area D3 in relation to Shiloh’s areas of excavations and main discoveries in Area D3 (plan by Vadim Assman).

8 Y U VA L G A D O T

Figure 1.6: Area D3 at start of excavations, looking southeast (photo by author).

Figure 1.7: View to southeast of northern section as excavation progressed in Area D3, March 24, 2013 (photo by Assaf Peretz).

INTRODUCTION 9

The second feature is Wall 501, which was exposed in Area J of Reich and Shukron’s excavations (Reich and Shukron 2008, 2021: 191; Reich 2011: 177–181). The wall was dated to the Iron IIB (built at the end of the 8th century BCE) and understood to be a lower city wall, corresponding both in time and function to city Wall 219, which was revealed by Shiloh (Reich and Shukron 2003, 2008) ca. 30 m farther uphill. Finds from the Late Hellenistic/Early Roman periods are principally terrace walls and columbarium towers, indicating that by these periods the eastern slope was used mainly for agricultural activities and therefore was most likely outside the built environment (Ariel and Lender 2000: 18–21; De Groot 2012: 177, 179). The 2013 excavation was devoted mainly to understanding the thick layers of spilled soil. These layers are extremely rich in material culture remains and are dated to the Early Roman period (Stratum 5 according to Shiloh 1990: 6–7; De Groot 2012: 183–184). The nature of these layers is disputed in modern scholarship. The immense layers of landfill were observed by all those who excavated along the eastern slope of the City of David. The phenomenon was recorded in the plans of early 19th century explorers such as Schick and Weill (Schick 1886: Fig. facing page 198; Weill 2004: 92–93; see also Kenyon 1974: 132, 170–171, Pls. 44, 45, 64, 71). They were quick to recognize the fact that the landfill layers date to the Roman period. Shiloh, who was the first archaeologist to excavate these layers, claimed that although the layers’ contents dated to the Early Roman period, their formation should be dated a few decades later, to the era following the city’s destruction in 70 CE (Shiloh 1990: 6–7). According to this interpretation, Roman soldiers cleared the con­tents of the destroyed and deserted Jewish houses onto the slope as they prepared the ground for rebuilding the city (De Groot 2012: 183–184).

Figure 1.8: View of east of Area D3 in June 2013 (photo by Assaf Peretz).

1 0 Y U VA L G A D O T

Figure 1.9: Area D3 at renewal of excavations in October 2013 (photo by author).

Figure 1.10: Area D3 at the end of the excavations in December 2013 (photo by Assaf Peretz).

I N T R O D U C T I O N 11

The first to interpret the layers as a landfill—that is, as an intentional garbage dump—were Reich and Shukron, in their excavations of the Gihon Spring and again later in their cooperative activities with Bar-Oz and Bouchnick during an in-depth study of the landfill content, especially animal bones (Reich and Shukron 2003; Bar-Oz et al. 2007; Bouchnick, Bar-Oz and Reich 2021). Their study led them to not only identify the layers as garbage, but to go a step further and associate the garbage with cultic activities performed on the Temple Mount and in association with pilgrimage to the Temple. Thus, this garbage provides a window into worship at the Temple in Jerusalem.

Figure 1.11: The excavation team, June 2013.

Figure 1.12: The excavation team, December 2013.

1 2 Y U VA L G A D O T

Figure 1.13: Adiel Kollman, who worked with us on the dig and was murdered in 2018 in the Old City of Jerusalem (photo by Simeon Bukstein).

ON THE PRESENT REPORT This final report is devoted to the publication of the excavations and to the analysis of the many artifacts found within these layers. Based on the study of the finds, a reanalysis of the nature of the debris layers as the city’s landfill will be presented, as well as an evaluation of the landfill’s social and historical context.

REFERENCES Ariel, D.T. 2000. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem. Ariel, D.T. and De Groot, A. 2000. The Iron Age Extramural Occupation at the City of David and Additional Observations on the Siloam Tunnel. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 155–169. Ariel, D.T. and Lender, Y. 2000. Area B: Stratigraphical Report. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 1–32. Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnick, R., Weiss, E., Weissbrod, L., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. and Reich, R. 2007. "Holy Garbage": A Quantitative Study of the City-Dump of Early Roman Jerusalem. Levant 39: 1–12. Bouchnick, R., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2021. Area L: The Faunal Remains. In: Reich, R. and Shukron, E. Excavations in the City of David (1995–2010): Areas A, J, F, H, D and L Final Report (AJP Series I). University Park and Jerusalem: 490–496.

INTRODUCTION 13

De Groot, A. 2012. Discussion and Conclusions. In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIA: Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Qedem 53). Jerusalem: 141–184. Kenyon, K.M. 1974. Digging Up Jerusalem. London. Reich, R. 2004. Reassessment of R. Weill’s Excavations and Notes on Vincent 1912. In: Shanks, H., ed. The City of David: Revisiting Early Excavations: English Translations of Reports by Raymond Weill and L.H. Vincent. Washington, D.C.: 123–152. Reich, R. 2011. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Jerusalem. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2002. Channel II in the City of David, Jerusalem: Some of Its Technical Features and Their Chronology. In: Ohlig, C., Peleg, Y. and Tsuk, T., eds. Cura Aquarum in Israel, Proceeding of the 11th International Conference on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, Israel 7–12 May 2001. Siegburg: 1–6. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 119: 12–18. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2008. The Date of City Wall 501 in Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 35: 114–122. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2021. Area J: Architecture. In: Reich, R. and Shukron, E. Excavations in the City of David (1995–2010): Areas A, J, F, H, D and L Final Report (AJP Series I). University Park and Jerusalem: 173–213. Schick, C. 1886. Second Aqueduct to the Pool of Siloam. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 18: 197–200. Shiloh, Y. 1990. Stratigraphical Introduction to Parts I and II. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem: 1–12. Weill, R. 1920. La cité de David. Compte rendu des fouilles exécutées à Jérusalem, sur la site de la ville primitive. Campagne de 1923–1924. Paris. Weill, R. 1947. La cité de David. Compte rendu des fouilles exécutées à Jérusalem, sur la site de la ville primitive. Campagne de 1923–1924. Paris. Weill, R. 2004. The City of David: Report on the Excavations Undertaken at Jerusalem, On the Site of the Ancient City, Campaign of 1913–1914. In: Shanks, H., ed. The City of David: Revisiting Early Excavations. Washington, D.C.

CHAPTER 2

STRATIGRAPHY Yuval Gadot

Following the preparation work and removal of the concrete terraces (see Chapter 1), two adjoining sections were marked for excavation (Figs. 2.1 and 2.2):1 • Section M‒N/10‒11 (the northern of the two sections) is 12 m long (east–west) and 9 m wide (north–south; Figs. 2.3 and 2.4). • Section M‒N/14 (the southern of the two sections) is 7 m long (east–west) and 4 m wide (north– south; Fig. 2.5). Prior to the excavation, there was a difference of 9 m between the elevation at the head of both sections (648.21 masl) and that of the elevation at the bottom (639.19 masl). For safety reasons we had to moderate the slope by excavating in steps, a consideration that affected the manner in which the excavation progressed. By adding a square downhill and half squares to the sides, we were able to penetrate deeper into the main squares. Table 2.1 provides details of the period during which each of the squares was excavated. Two stratigraphical phases, D3‒1 and D3‒2, were recognized; both were composed of earthen layers and had no architecture (Table 2.2). The sole feature that belonged to Phase D3‒1 and the main feature exposed in both sections was the landfill which was composed of numerous sublayers rich with material culture that had been thrown from the top of the hill westward down in the direction of the Kidron Valley to the east (Figs. 2.4 and 2.5 and see further below). Digging in steps forced us to move the excavation area constantly eastward. The angle of the sloping layers, however, meant that by moving eastward (downslope) we exposed the continuation of the same layers that we had just exposed to the west. All of that indicated that our ability to penetrate through the landfill into earlier levels was limited. An earlier soil layer was found buried below the landfill in three limited locations (see details further below, Fig. 2.6). This layer belonged to Phase D3‒2. The limited exposure of this layer hindered any understanding of its nature. Farther west, the deepest point reached in Section M‒N/10‒11 was at 637.18 masl (Locus 1128). In section M‒N/14, we reached level 637.78 masl (Loci 1106 and 1112). In both cases we were still within the sub-layers that make up the landfill. It is clear that the landfill layers continued downslope below the modern road and into the buried channel of the Kidron Valley. In a section made by Shiloh in his Area B1, located to the south of Area D3, the landfill was documented as reaching level 634.00 masl and continuing to slope eastward outside of the excavated area (Ariel and Lender 2000: Photo 36 and Plan 11). 1 

   This chapter is a complete and updated version of an article published previously in Gadot, Y., 2014: Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Jerusalem’s Southeastern Hill, Area D3. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2(3): 279–292. In case of discrepancy between this chapter and the published article, the version presented here is the correct one.

1 6 Y U VA L G A D O T N

4

M 644.01

644.04

642.48

641.08

642.66

641.32

L1013 L1016

10

638.37

644.52 L1065

L1064

L1037

10

641.93

638.91

641.59

L1063

643.72

L1013 642.67

644.93

L1012

11

11

L1015 L1035

641.32

1

642.23

644.06

1

4

L1036

645.13

642.98

12

12

13

2 3

643.05 645.80

3

13

644.24

643.53

L1023

641.97

641.14

L1022

14

642.99

L1066

L1044

641.04

641.65

14

642.74

12 N 0

644.24

M 5 m

Figure 2.1: Plan of excavated squares at the end of the first season of excavations (June 2013), marking main loci and elevations reached (plan by Vadim Assman).

S T R AT I G R A P H Y 1 7

N

M

L

L1108

10

10

638.49

L1107

L1103

L1128

643.05

637.17

11

11

L1102 638.52

12

L1109 643.77

12

L1111

L1124

641.31

643.32

L1132

13

645.02

13

L1131

L1127

643.13

14

L1158

637.78

642.00

L1110

L1101

L1144

14

L1112

638.38

L1140 639.76

637.75

L1125 638.55

638.66

15

645.02

L1181

L1133

L1166

16

639.15

643.05

I

el I

ann

Ch 16

L1106

L1173

643.77

15

638.17

N

M

0

L

10 m

Figure 2.2: Plan of excavated squares at the end of the second season of excavations (December 2013), marking main loci and elevations reached. The rounded structure and the wide wall seen on the plan to the south are two of the main features that were excavated by R. Weill and are still seen above ground today (plan by Vadim Assman).

1 8 Y U VA L G A D O T

Table 2.1: Duration of Excavation of Squares Square

Duration of excavation

Loci numbers

M‒N/10‒11

February–July 2013

1000–1072

M‒N/14

February–July 2013

L/13, L/14, L/15, M/10, M/11, M/12, M/13, M/14, N/10, N/11, N/12, N/13, N/14, N/15

October–December 2013

1100–1132

M11

July–August 2014

1200–1251

M/16, N/14, N/15, N/16, O/16, O/17, P16, P17

July 2014–December 2014

1133–1193

Table 2.2: Stratigraphical Phases in Area D3 Phase

Nature

Shiloh’s Areas B, D and E (Ariel 2000; De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012)

D3-1

Landfill

Stratum 5

D3‒2

Earth fill

Stratum 6

Figure 2.3: Section M‒N/10‒11 as it developed, June 2013, view to the southwest (photo by Assaf Peretz).

S T R AT I G R A P H Y 1 9

Figure 2.4: Section M‒N/10‒11 at the end of the excavation, December 2013, view to the southwest (photo by Assaf Peretz).

L1055 L1056 L1057 L1058 L1059 L1060

Figure 2.5: Section M‒N/14, June 2013, view to the west (photo by Assaf Peretz).

2 0 Y U VA L G A D O T

L1022

L1044 L1066

Figure 2.6: Locus 1044 of Phase D3‒2 below the many layers of the landfill, view to the south (photo by author).

Items that can be associated with the landfill were found while excavating in Squares M‒P/16, located farther to the south and bordering Area B1, excavated by Weill and then by Shiloh. It seems, however, that this area was damaged while Weill and Shiloh concentrated their earthen fill into this part of the site. We therefore did not study the layers and only collected representative samples of pottery and bones.

EXCAVATION STRATEGY Due to the nature of the spilled earthen layers, we found it particularly challenging to excavate this exposed feature, which required designing a unique excavation methodology. The soil layers sloped sharply from west to east and contained an extraordinary amount of material culture finds: hundreds of thousands of sherds, animal bones, coins, seeds, charcoal, stone objects and more (Figs. 2.7 and 2.8a and b). During the excavation, we had to overcome two major challenges. First, the volume of finds made it impossible to handpick while excavating. Second, the sharp diagonal lines of the slope made it hard to follow and peel each sub-layer individually. Indeed, the sub-layers were revealed and made apparent only when viewed in the sections. The sampling strategy we developed overcame these two challenges. Stage 1: Horizontal excavation in 4 × 4 m excavation squares (Fig. 2.9). Material culture objects were collected by hand and every 30th earth bucket was wet and dry sifted. We also used a metal detector on a daily basis. This strategy was used mainly to dig Locus 1022 in Section M‒N/14 and Locus 1035 in Section M‒N/11. Stage 2: The sections of the square were sketched and photographed (Figs. 2.10, 2.11 and 2.12), and the sub-layers were marked with string to serve as guidelines for the subsequent stage of excavation. Stage 3: Careful diagonal excavations of each sub-layer (Fig 2.13). By enlarging the originally excavated square by 0.5 m we were able to excavate a segment of the documented sections. The finds recovered from each sub-layer were registered separately.

S T R AT I G R A P H Y 2 1

Stage 4: Twenty buckets from each sub-layer were subjected to wet sifting (0.5 mm mesh) and the remainder of soil buckets were dry-sifted (1 cm mesh) (Figs. 2.14 and 2.15). In some cases, we attempted to sift by floatation on site to acquire a better sample of the organic matter (Fig. 2.16). Eventually a representative sample of the buckets was taken to be floated at the Bar-Ilan Laboratory headed by Prof. Ehud Weiss (see Chapter 14). Application of this sampling method was carried out in four locations: 1. The northern section of Squares M‒N/14 (excavated as Locus 1022 in Stage 1; Table 2.3). 2. The southern section of Squares M‒N/11 (excavated as Locus 1035 in Stage 1; Table 2.4). 3. 1 m of the southern section in Square N/11 (Fig. 2.17). 4. 1 m of the southern section in Square M/11.

The Landfill Phase D3‒1 The nature of the landfill can be observed mainly through the sections made into it. Eleven sublayers were identified in the northern section of Square M‒N/14 (Table 2.3; Figs. 2.11, 2.18 and 2.19) and 11 sub-layers were exposed in the southern section of square M‒N/10‒11 (Table 2.4; Fig. 2.10 and 2.20). There were probably additional sub-layers that had been washed down-hill over the years or were excavated by previous expeditions and damaged during the construction of the cement terraces and the planting of the olive grove.

Figure 2.7: Close-up view of the numerous layers that make up the landifill. Note the pottery sherds that compose the layers (photo by Benjamin Zitsman).

2 2 Y U VA L G A D O T

Table 2.3: Garbage Sub-layers in Section M‒N/14 (Figs. 2.11 and 2.18) Layer

Character

Absolute level (masl)

Description

1050

Material culture layer

Head West: 645.80 Head East: 645.10 15 cm thick

Preserved at upper part of northern section. Continues in lower eastern part of section to an elevation 642.00 masl. Does not appear in western section (Fig. 2.5) as was probably above topsoil shaped during modern times

1051

Rich soil layer

Head West: 645.80 Head East: 644.95 25 cm thick

Preserved at top of northern section. Variable thickness. Continues in lower eastern part of section but here is much thinner. Was not preserved in western section (Fig. 2.5) as it was above initial elevation of excavation

1052

Material culture layer

Head West: 645.80 Head East: 644.50 10 cm thick

Preserved at top of northern section. Continues after break in section՚s lower eastern part

1053

Rich soil layer

Head West: 645.80 Head East: 644.40 20 cm thick

Preserved only at top of northern section. Continues after break in sectionʼs lower eastern part

1054

Material culture layer

Head West: 645.80 Head East: 644.20 30 cm thick

Preserved throughout northern section (see also Fig. 2.18). It is uppermost sub-layer in western section (Fig. 2.5)

1055

Rich soil layer

Head West: 645.70 Head East: 643.95 10 to 30 cm thick

Preserved throughout northern section. Less orderly and clear in this section. It is western sectionʼs second sub-layer (Fig. 2.5)

1056

Material culture layer

Head West: 645.40 Head East: 643.70 20 to 50 cm thick

Preserved throughout northern section. Less orderly and clear in this section. Third sub-layer of western section (Fig. 2.5)

1057

Rich soil layer

Head West: 644.90 Head East: 643.50 40 cm thick

Layer turning narrower as it continues east until it completely disappears in northern section

1058

Material culture layer

Head West: 644.60 Head East: 643.40 50 cm thick

Preserved throughout northern section. Western sectionʼs fifth sub-layer (Fig. 2.5). The sub-layer thickens as it reaches the northern part

1059

Rich soil layer

Head West: 644.20 Head East: 642.75 Up to 75 cm thick

Thick soil layer with lenses of concentrated pottery sherds

1060

Material culture layer

Head West: 643.75 Head East: 643.10 20 cm thick

Irregular layer exposed as lenses containing numerous pottery sherds

Table 2.4: Garbage Sub-layers in Section M‒N/10‒11 (Fig. 2.10) Layer

Character

Absolute level (masl)

Description

1046

Material culture layer

Head West: unclear Head East: 642.90 Over 1m thick

Possible to follow contour of entire sub-layer. May have been disturbed during construction of terraces

1048

Rich soil layer

Head West: 642.5 Head East: 641.80 Unclear thickness

Preserved only in eastern part (section՚s lower part)

1047

Material culture layer

Head West: 644.80 Head East: 641.10 40 cm thick

Difficult to see. Fully preserved in eastern part (sectionʼs lower part)

S T R AT I G R A P H Y 2 3 Layer

Character

Absolute level (masl)

Description

1061

Rich soil layer

Head West: 644.80 Head East: 641.00 40 cm thick

1062

Material culture layer

Head West: 644.70 Head East: 641.0 40 cm thick

Layer thickens significantly towards east

1063

Rich soil layer

Head West: 643.50 Head East: 641.75 20 cm thick

Damaged on top by a pit. Only a small portion of sub-layer is documented

1068

Material culture layer

Head West: 643.90 Head East: 641.75 10 cm thick

1069

Rich soil layer

Head West: 643.00 Head East: 641.75 20 cm thick

Documented only in sectionʼs lower part

1070

Material culture layer

Head West: 642.80 Head East: 641.75 25 cm thick

Documented only in section՚s lower part

1071

Rich soil layer

Head West: 642.50 Head East: 641.75 20 cm thick

Documented only in sectionʼs lower part

1072

Material culture layer

Head West: 642.30 Head East: 641.75 30 cm thick

Documented only in sectionʼs lower part

According to the sections presented in Figures 2.10 and 2.11, the layers drop, as one would expect, at an angle of 35 degrees from west to east. This angle serves as an indication of the topography buried beneath them. We also noted a more moderate slope of the layers from south to north at an angle of 20 degrees, which is less expected (Fig. 2.21). It might indicate a small natural ravine cutting through the rock and channeling water from west to east. The section also shows quite clearly that the landfill is made of two kinds of layers: some are packed with material culture items (hereafter: material culture layer), while others seem to be richer in soil and the material culture items are less prominent (hereafter: rich soil layer). The layers appear to alternate, as richer layers of material culture are always covered by a soil-rich layer (Fig. 2.22).

Phase D3‒2 The exposure of the earth fill of Phase D3‒2 is very limited; it was exposed at three points in the excavation and always under massive amounts of garbage: 1. Loci 1066 and 1044 were found at the lowermost spot excavated in Squares M‒N/14 (Fig. 2.6). These layers also seem to slope from west to east and disappear under the inclining layers of the landfill. We were unable to penetrate them deeply in order to understand their true nature. 2. Loci 1156, 1163 and 1165 were exposed in Squares O/16 and P/16. Here they were defined as an earthen fill. This fill seems to have been placed over the natural bedrock and in relation to Wall 1182: A north to south oriented wall that seems to have been built as a terrace to support the earthen fill (Fig. 2.23). Only a short segment of the wall was uncovered and so it was found

2 4 Y U VA L G A D O T

in isolation without regard to any other architectural feature. Our assumption is that this wall belongs to a system of terrace walls exposed by Shiloh further up slope (Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 62–70; De Groot 2012: 179). 3. Locus 1064 in Square M/10: This locus was noted only at the bottom of the section and was excavated for only a short time; our ability to understand its extent and nature were therefore limited.

a.

b.

Figure 2.8: (a) Typical content of a bucket as it is collected and (b) after the bucket is sorted and the contents left to dry (photos by author).

S T R AT I G R A P H Y 2 5

L1010 L1026

L1010 L1013

L1011 L1014

L1024

L1020

L1018

Figure 2.9: Square N–M/10 as it was dug horizontally without attempting to follow the sub-layers, view to the north (photo by Assaf Peretz). 647

00

646

00

645

00

L1062 644

00

643

00

L1063 L1046

L1069 L1071

642

00

L1068

L1070

L1072

L1048 L1061 641

00

640

00

Figure 2.10: Documentation of 10 out of the 11 Sub-layers that comprise the fill as they were recognized in the southern part of Section M-N/10 (Locus 1047 is unobservable; Section 1-1; plan by Vadim Assman).

2 6 Y U VA L G A D O T 646

00

L1054 L1050 L1052 L1051 L1055 645

00

L1049

L1056 L1057 L1058

644

00

643

00

642

00

641

00

L1053

L1059

L1060

Figure 2.11: Documentation of the 11 sub-layers that comprise the landfill as they were recognized in the southern section of squares M‒N/14 (Section 3–3; plan by Vadim Assman).

Figure 2.12: Guiding ropes being placed on the section prior to excavation in order to guide the excavators (photo by author).

S T R AT I G R A P H Y 2 7

Figure 2.13: Diagonal excavations of the northern section of Square M‒N/14 (photo by author).

Figure 2.14: Dry sifting on site. This sifting procedure was found to be the most promising when attempting to collect charcoal (photo by author).

2 8 Y U VA L G A D O T

Figure 2.15: Orly Moshevich hand-picking finds from buckets that were wet sifted. This procedure was found to be the most efficient for the systematic collection of animal bones as well as pottery and other man-made artifacts (photo by author).

Figure 2.16: Attempt to sift by floatation. In order to get better results we sent earth buckets to the floatation machine at the Archaeobotanical Laboratory of Bar-Ilan University (photo by author).

S T R AT I G R A P H Y 2 9

L1114

L1118

L1115 L1116 L1117 L1119

L1120 L1121 L1122 L1123

Figure 2.17: Close-up view of sub-layers noted in southern section of Square M/11 (photo by author).

L1052

L1050 L1051

L1053 L1054 L1055 L1056 L1057 L1058 L1059 L1060 L1044

Figure 2.18: Close-up view of the sub-layers recognized in northern section. Note the earthen layers that are easily recognized between every two layers that are packed with finds (photo by Assaf Peretz).

3 0 Y U VA L G A D O T

L1054

L1022

L1044

L1066

Figure 2.19: A wider view of the layers making up the landfill in the northern section of square M–N/14 (photo by Assaf Peretz).

Figure 2.20: Close-up view of the sub-layers recognized in the northern section (photo by Assaf Peretz).

S T R AT I G R A P H Y 3 1 646

00

645

00

644

00

643

00

642

00

641

00

640

00

639

00

Figure 2.21: Documentation of the sub-layers in the western section of Section M‒N/14. Note the south-to-north slope (plan by Vadim Assman).

Figure 2.22: Section M‒N/14 at the end of excavation. Note the very clear earthen layers separating the layers packed with finds (December 2013; photo by Assaf Peretz).

3 2 Y U VA L G A D O T

Wall 157 (Shiloh)

W1182

L1165

Figure 2.23: Wall 1182 and Locus 1165, view to the south (photo by Assaf Peretz).

Analysis of the sherds and coins from these loci points to a date within the later years of the 1st century BCE, possibly up to the year 10 CE. This date fits well with the date of Shiloh’s Stratum 6 (De Groot 2012: 183; see Chapters 3 and 4 for the sherds and coins).

REFERENCES Ariel, D.T. 2000. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem. Ariel, D.T., Hirschfeld, H. and Savir, N. 2000. Area D1: Stratigraphic Report. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 33–72. Ariel, D.T. and Lender, Y. 2000. Area B: Stratigraphic Report. In: Ariel, D.T., ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 1–32. De Groot, A. 2012. Discussion and Conclusions. In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIA: Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Qedem 53). Jerusalem: 141–184. De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. 2012. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIA: Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Qedem 53). Jerusalem.

Part II: THE FINDS

CHAPTER 3

THE POTTERY Hélène Machline

This chapter presents the pottery sherds found in Area D3.1 The analysis helps frame the period in which the landfill was operational and facilitates understanding of how it was formed. Furthermore, the assemblage reflects pottery usage, trade relations and social status and the values of the people living in Jerusalem at a most dramatic moment in its history—the 1st century CE. In what follows we explain how the pottery was collected, along with an illustration of the dramatic effect the different sifting procedures had on the quantitative composition of vessel types within the assemblage. Based on typological analysis and by juxtaposition with additional, well-dated assemblages from other sectors of the city, we attempt to determine the time span the landfill was operative. We then analyze the vessels’ functional roles and the relative frequencies of the different functional groups. We seek to understand the nature of the assemblage and, if possible, its origin. Finally, by recording the state of the ceramic fragments, we illustrate how pottery sherds aid in illuminating landfill formation processes.

METHODOLOGY Following the excavations, 22 loci were chosen for further analysis. Most of them are from excavated and intensively sifted layers (Stages 3 and 4, Loci 1050–1060 and Loci 1046–1048, 1061–1072; Figs. 2.10, 2.11, 2.18). Also included are Loci 1022 and 1035, which were excavated in Stage 1. These loci hold homogenous pottery from the landfill, but not from distinct layers. Locus 1044 represents a fill buried under the earliest layer of the landfill (see Fig. 2.1). Eleven thousand five hundred and thirty-one sherds from the above-mentioned loci were classified according to their morphological and functional attributes. Quantification was conducted by counting only diagnostic sherds: bowl rims; cooking pots; jugs and storage jars; juglet necks, flasks and unguentaria; oil lamp nozzles. Estimation of minimum number of complete vessels was conducted using the Mazar and Panitz-Cohen method (2001: 12–13). This includes estimation of rim circumference and calculation of relative size of rim fragment in units of 1/8 of the complete circumference. Where the entire circumference was preserved, the number 8 was registered. A small sherd (less than 1/8 of the diameter) was registered as 1. Thus, all the sherds were measured on a circumference key sheet and given numbers between 1 and 8. This procedure was conducted for the loci excavated in Stages 3 and 4, where a reliable sample of pottery types was achieved. 1

This Chapter is a complete and updated version of an article published previously in Machline, H. and Gadot, Y., 2018: Wading Through Jerusalem’s Garbage: Chronology, Function, and Formation Process of the Pottery Assemblage of the City’s Early Roman Landfill. Journal of Hellenistic Pottery and Material Culture 2: 102–139. In case of discrepancy between this chapter and the published article, the version presented here is the correct one.

38 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY The pottery of Jerusalem from this period is well known from previously excavated sectors of the city. Parallels have been drawn from Jerusalem’s well-stratified, Early Roman dwelling quarters in the vicinity, mainly in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva 2003, 2010; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006), the Armenian Garden excavations (Tushingham 1985), the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavations (Tchekhanovets 2013) and at the Jerusalem International Convention Center workshops site (henceforth JICC, Berlin 2005; Hershkovitz 2005). When needed, parallels from sites farther afield, such as Jericho and Masada, are also included (BarNathan 2002, 2006). Some cooking pot types have parallels only in the Galilee at Kfar Hanania, and on the Coastal Plain at Caesarea Maritima (Johnson 2008: 75). The majority of the vessels are made of plain fabric. The paste is fired light brown, gray or pinkishbrown or orange-brown with a few white grits. In general, the clay is similar in appearance to clay made from the Moza Formation. The clay of most of the cooking ware vessels is similar to that of the cooking vessels from the kilns at the JICC site (Berlin 2005). The clay is warm red-brown, and the fabric is smooth, with a moderate amount of small and medium rounded and sub-angular white grits. The items found include ceramic types from a wide range of domestic activities: food preparation, eating, elimination and storage. It is generally accepted that the repertoire of pottery vessels dating to the Early Roman period is primarily composed of types that do not change from the mid- to late 1st century BCE to 70 CE. Berlin’s study of the pottery from the JICC site shows four main chronological ceramic phases and places special emphasis on recognizing the few yet important typological types that can be attributed to one of the four phases as defined by Berlin (see Table 3.1; Berlin 2005). In order to determine the time span during which the landfill was operational, and, if possible, to determine the chronology of each layer independently, we tried to fit our ceramic typology into Berlin’s phases. In most cases, we could only determine if a certain type belongs to Phases 1–2 or 3–4. In addition, the assemblage includes pottery types that are earlier than her Phase 1. We therefore defined four local chronological phases, which we label here as Ceramic Horizon 1 (the earliest) to Ceramic Horizon 4 (the latest) (see Table 3.2). Following is a description of the pottery types that comprise the assemblage. We focus on seven main functional vessel groups: tableware (bowls, cups, kraters); pouring vessels (jugs, flasks); small Table 3.1: The Four Local Ceramic Horizons and Their Relative and Absolute Chronology Compared to the Chrono-stratigraphy of the JICC Site and the Jewish Quarter Excavations* Phase

Ceramic horizons

Date

Parallels

D3-2

Horizon 1

Late 2nd century BCE to early 1st century BCE

Stratum 6 in Area A of the Jewish Quarter excavations

D3-1

Horizon 2

Mid-1st century BCE to late 1st century BCE

Phase 1–2 at the JICC site and Stratum 5–4 in Area A of the Jewish Quarter excavations

D3-1

Horizon 3

Early 1st century CE to mid1st century CE

Phase 3 at the JICC site and Stratum 3 in Area E of the Jewish Quarter excavations

D3-1

Horizon 4

Mid-1st century CE to 70 CE

Phase 4 at the JICC site and Stratum 2 of Area B in the Jewish Quarter excavations

* See Berlin 2005 for the ceramic phases at the JICC site; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003; Geva 2010 in the Jewish Quarter excavations.

Type/Locus BL6 JG1 UN1 SJ1 CP1 LP2 BL4 KR FK CJG1 CS1 LP1

Horizon

2

1

1–2

1–2

1–2

2

3–4

4

3–4

3–4

3–4

3–4

7

2

16

2

19

1

4

9

8

10

3

12

3

1

2

3

7

4

2

4

5

1

3

1

2 1

3

1

10

2

3

3

5

2

15

2

2

3

2

1

2

1

2

1

10

3

2

1

1

15

10

4

7

15

7

6 6

2

4

2

3

6

2

4

2

2

4

2

7

1

1044 1

S 1060

8

6

3

21

24

4

5

5

4

21

31

5

6

2

S 1059

5

N 1072

1

S 1058

1

N 1071 2

S 1057 2

N 1070 2

S 1056

1

N 1068

2

S 1055

1

N 1063

2

S 1054

1

N 1062

1

S 1053

3

N 1061

1

S 1052

1

N 1048

1

S 1051

3

N 1047

2

S 1050

3

N 1046

S

Table 3.2: Presence of Chronological Diagnostic Pottery Types in the Diagonally Dug Loci

T H E P O T T E RY 39

40 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

containers/small bottles (juglets, unguentaria); cooking ware (cooking pots, casseroles, cooking jugs); large storage vessels (storage jars); oil lamps (mold-made lamps, wheel-made lamps, knifepared lamps) and utensils (ladles and stands). We first describe the types that, based on Berlin’s chrono-typology, are chronological markers that allow a fine-tuned chronology. We follow this with a short description of the remainder of the repertoire.

Chronologically Significant Pottery Types Markers for Ceramic Horizons 1‒2 (Mid-2nd/Late-1st Century BCE) Type BL1 Bowl (Fig. 3.1: 1), Ceramic Horizon 1‒2

This bowl has a shallow, rounded body and a simple rim with a circular and flat base. It is known from strata of the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE in the Jewish Quarter excavations but is missing from assemblages that date to the 1st century CE (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: 188, Pls. 6.1: 16;

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

22

18

19

23

21

24 0

Figure 3.1: Bowls and Krater.

20

5

10

T H E P O T T E RY 41

Figure 3.1: Bowls and Krater Fig.

Vessel

Type

Basket

Locus

Period

1

Simple shallow bowl

BL1

14588/2

1022

2nd to 1st century BCE

2

Bowl with incurved rim

BL2

14590/3

1035

2nd century BCE–70 CE

3

Bowl with incurved rim

BL2

13869/1

1045

2nd century BCE–70 CE

4

Bowl with incurved rim

BL2

14068/1

1045

2nd century BCE–70 CE

5

Bowl with out-turned rim

BL3

13875/1

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

6

Bowl with out-turned rim

BL3

14590/1

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

7

Bowl with out-turned rim

BL3

14765/3

1057

1st century CE–70 CE

8

Bowl with out-turned rim

BL3

14609/1

1047

1st century CE–70 CE

9

Bowl with out-turned rim

BL3

14590/2

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

10

Bowl with out-turned rim

BL3

14424/2

1046

1st century CE–70 CE

11

Judean painted bowl

BL4

14424/1

1046

1st century CE–70 CE

12

Judean painted bowl

BL4

14612/2

1046

1st century CE–70 CE

13

Judean painted bowl

BL4

20053/1

1204

1st century CE–70 CE

14

Judean painted bowl

BL4

20034/1

1202

1st century CE–70 CE

15

Bowl with ledge rim

BL5

14612/1

1045

1st century CE–70 CE

16

Bowl with ledge rim

BL5

14306/3

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

17

Bowl with ledge rim

BL5

14590/4

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

18

Red-Slipped Ware

BL6

14307/1

1022

1st century BCE

19

Red-Slipped Ware

BL6

14287/1

1022

1st century BCE

20

Red-Slipped Ware

BL6

14337/1

1047

1st century BCE

21

Red-Slipped Ware

BL6

14306/4

1035

1st century BCE

22

Base of Eastern Sigillata A cup

BL7

13621/4

1035

Import from Augustan times onwards

23

Italian Terra Sigillata plate

BL7

20032/1

1201

Import most common in mid-1st century CE contexts

24

Krater

KR

14081/2

1035

Mid-1st century CE–70 CE

42 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

6.3: 1–2; 6.10: 33). It is difficult to differentiate this type of bowl from Types BL2 and BL3 when the entire profile does not exist. We therefore refrained from quantifying its presence in the different layers. Type BL6 Bowl (Fig. 3.1: 10, 18–21), Ceramic Horizon 2 This type of small, deep bowl or cup has straight or nearly straight walls and a slightly everted rim. The paste is fired light brown and is usually red-slipped internally and externally. Some vessels have rouletted decoration while others are incised. The fragment in Fig. 3.1: 21 has a band of gray slip on the exterior from the rim to the external ridge. The texture of the vessel is very smooth. The fabric was termed “Palestinian red slipped ware” and “red-slipped ware” in the Upper City repertoire (Hayes 1985a: 183; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: 210–211) or “local red-slipped tableware” at the Hasmonean palace complex at Jericho, where it is dated to 85/75–31 BCE and is missing from the Herodian Palaces (Bar-Nathan 2002: 119–121). Fragments of this type are rare in the assemblage and, as can be seen in Table 3.2, they were mostly found in the lower loci of the landfill. In some cases, examples were found with no external slipping but were similar in form, such as Fig. 3.1: 10. Type JG1 Jug (Fig. 3.2: 1), Ceramic Horizon 1 This jug has a straight, narrow neck with everted rim and a spherical body. In the Jewish Quarter excavations, this sub-type is found from the 2nd century BCE until the beginning of the 1st century BCE (Geva 2003: 127, Type JG 1; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.5: 12). Jugs of this type are rare and were found only in Locus 1044, which predates the creation of the landfill (Table 3.2). Type UN1 Unguentarium (Fig. 3.3: 10–11), Ceramic Horizons 1‒2 The fusiform unguentarium is the tall version characterized by a long and very thin foot and neck, and a small fusiform body. It has a sharpened-everted rim and is, in general, the latest Hellenistic form of unguentaria. The fusiform unguentarium was particularly popular in Jerusalem’s Hellenistic assemblages (Geva 2003: 130). In the Jewish Quarter excavations, this sub-type appeared in the 1st and 2nd centuries BCE but became more common in the 1st century BCE (Geva 2003: 131–132, Pl. 5.2: 48–49; 5.7: 29, Type FU 2–FU 3; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.2: 7–14; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.4: 1–4; 4.7: 3–4; 4.9: 4; 4.10: 8; 4.12: 2). Additional parallels are known from the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavations (Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.4: 6–10; 5.8: 13–16; 5.13: 17– 20; 5.18: 19–22) and from Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002, Type J UN1). Only an extremely small number of unguentaria of this type have been found (Table 3.2), hence they seem to represent a type that had already fallen out of use when the landfill became operational. Type SJ1 Storage Jar (Fig. 3.4: 1–7), Ceramic Horizons 1–2 This jar type has a square-sectioned or rounded-thickened, everted rim. It can be divided into three sub-types: the first has a square-shaped rim and either a long or short neck (Fig. 3.4: 1–5). Although mostly typical of the 2nd century BCE, this jar still appears in assemblages of the 1st century BCE. It remained in use during the first part of the 1st century CE. Parallels in Jerusalem were found at the JICC site in a 1st century BCE context (Berlin 2005: 30). It was also found in the excavations at the Giv>ati Parking Lot (Sandhaus 2013: Fig. 4.2: 2, Type SJ1b; Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.11: 12; 5.16: 2–6), in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva 2003: 122, Pls. 5.1: 7; 5.2: 19, 27– 29; 5.4: 5, Type SJ 1; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.1: 3, 18, 21, 22, 24; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.3: 1, 2, 4, 9) and the Armenian Garden excavations (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 18: 2–4, 12–13, 15–17). The second sub-type has a low, out-curving neck and a rounded and out-folded, thickened rim (Fig. 3.4: 6). This is a characteristic feature of the late 2nd century BCE, and the form remained in

T H E P O T T E RY 43

3

1

4

5

8

9

10

12

13

2

6

7

11

0

5

10

Figure 3.2: Jugs and Flasks Fig.

Vessel

Type

Basket

Locus

Period

1

Early narrow neck jug

JG1

14306/1

1035

2nd to 1st century BCE

2

Later narrow neck jug

JG2

13903/2

1035

1st century BCE–70 CE

3

Later narrow neck jug

JG2

13621/8

1035

1st century BCE–70 CE

4

Later narrow neck jug

JG2

14400/2

1046

1st century BCE–70 CE

5

Ridged neck jug

JG3

13646/1

1022

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

6

Ridged neck jug

JG3

13412/3

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

7

Ridged neck jug

JG3

13654/3

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

8

Ridged neck jug

JG3

13502/6

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

9

Ridged neck jug

JG3

13959/1

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

10

Ridged neck jug

JG3

14394/1

1046

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

11

Gray ware jug

JG4

13497/1

1022

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

12

Flask

FK

13621/1

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

13

Flask

FK

13903/1

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

44 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

16

22

21

0

5

10

Figure 3.3: Juglets and unguentaria.

use during the 1st century BCE (Sandhaus 2013: Figs. 4.2: 6; 4.9: 15). The third sub-type has a simple everted rim and a high neck (Fig. 3.4: 7). Examples from the 1st century BCE were found in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva 2003: 124, Type SJ 4; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.1: 6, 32). As can be seen in Table 3.2, this type of storage jar was common only in layers that predate the creation of the landfill. The few items that were found in lower layers of the landfill were probably residual. Type SJ2 Storage Jar (Fig. 3.4: 8–9), Ceramic Horizons 2–3 This jar type is characterized by a collared rim and a high neck. Changes in the form of the collared rim have chronological significance. The earlier types have a shorter, everted collar, which over time became thicker (Gitin 1990: 239, Type 161) and longer (Bar-Nathan 2002: 28– 31). At the JICC site, they were found in contexts dating to the 1st century BCE. The jars with long and slightly concave collar rims (Fig. 3.4: 8) date mainly to the 1st century BCE (Geva 2003: 124, Pl. 5.9: 8, Type SJ 3b; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.1: 25, 28; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.3: 13–14; 4.9: 3; 4.10: 3; Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.2: 6; 5.12: 4–8).

T H E P O T T E RY 45

Figure 3.3: Juglets and Unguentaria Fig.

Vessel

Type

Basket

Locus

Period

1

Juglet

JT1

13875/2

1035

2nd to 1st centuries BCE

2

Juglet

JT2

13621/5

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

3

Juglet

JT2

13412/1

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

4

Juglet

JT3

13957/1

1022

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

5

Juglet

JT4

14145/1

1022

?

6

Gray/black juglet

JT5

13822/1

1022

Import

7

Spouted juglet

JT6

13828/1

1045

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

8

Spouted juglet

JT6

14588/1

1022

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

9

Spouted juglet

JT&

14307/2

1022

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

10

Unguentarium (foot)

UN1

14538/1

1067

2nd to 1st century BCE

11

Unguentarium (rim)

UN1

14559/1

1067

2nd to 1st century BCE

12

Unguentarium

UN2

13739/1

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

13

Unguentarium

UN2

13628/1

1022

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

14

Unguentarium

UN2

13848/1

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

15

Unguentarium

UN2

13875/3

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

16

Unguentarium

UN2

14068/2

1022

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

17

Gray/black unguentarium

UN3

13412/4

1035

Import

18

Unguentarium

UN4

13943/1

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

19

Unguentarium

UN4

14542

1067

1st century CE–70 CE

20

Unguentarium

UN4

13621/9

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

21

Unguentarium

UN4

13502/1

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

22

Unguentarium

UN4

13654/1

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

Some jars have high, upright convex necks with short squared collar rims (Fig. 3.4: 9). Parallels found in the Jewish Quarter excavations date from the first half of the 1st century BCE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.9: 2; 4.10: 1; Geva 2003: 123–124, Type SJ 3a; Geva and RosenthalHeginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.1: 24–26). Fragments of SJ2 storage jars that do not have a complete rim and neck profile are similar to SJ3 storage jars and were therefore not counted separately. Type CP1 Cooking Pot (Fig. 3.5: 1), Ceramic Horizons 1–2 Cooking pots of this type have a straight, relatively high everted neck and a globular body. They are thin-walled, and their handles extend from rim to shoulder. Their rim is rounded or pointed. Chronologically, this type is represented in the first phases of the workshop at the JICC site, dated to the 1st century BCE. Production of this sub-type terminated in the 1st century CE (Berlin 2005: Fig. 3). This cooking pot was found only in Area A of the Upper City, in Stratum 6 (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.2: 20–24).

46 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 0

Figure 3.4: Storage jars.

5

23 10

T H E P O T T E RY 47

Figure 3.4: Storage Jars Fig.

Vessel

Type

Basket

Locus

Period

1

Thickened storage jar

SJ1

14143

1035

2nd to 1st century BCE

2

Thickened storage jar

SJ1

14765/1

1035

2nd to 1st century BCE

3

Thickened storage jar

SJ1

14765/2

1035

2nd to 1st century BCE

4

Thickened storage jar

SJ1

14759/2

1062

2nd to 1st century BCE

5

Thickened storage jar

SJ1

14607/2

1022

2nd to 1st century BCE

6

Thickened storage jar

SJ1

14570/2

1054

2nd to 1st century BCE

7

Thickened storage jar

SJ1

14588/3

1022

2nd to early 1st century BCE

8

Collared storage jar

SJ2

14759/1

1050

1st century BCE to early 1st century CE

9

Collared storage jar

SJ2

14584/1

1022

2nd to early 1st century BCE

10

Ridged storage jar

SJ3

13959/3

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

11

Ridged storage jar

SJ3

13875/5

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

12

Ridged storage jar

SJ3

13875/6

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

13

Ridged storage jar

SJ3

14433/1

1050

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

14

Ridged storage jar

SJ3

13443/1

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

15

Ridged storage jar

SJ3

14400/1

1046

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

16

Ridged storage jar

SJ3

13654/5

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

17

Ridged storage jar

SJ3

13654/4

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

18

Ridged storage jar

SJ3

13875/4

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

19

Ridged storage jar

SJ3

13491/1

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

20

Ridged storage jar

SJ3

14306/2

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

21

Ridged storage Jar

SJ3

14392/1

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

22

Ridged storage Jar

SJ3

13621/6

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

23

Ridged storage Jar

SJ3

14398/1

1047

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

48 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 0

5

10

Figure 3.5: Cooking Vessels Fig.

Vessel

Type

Basket

Locus

Period

1

High neck cooking pot

CP1

14155/1

1035

2nd to 1st century BCE

2

Triangular rim cooking pot

CP2

13681/1

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

3

Triangular rim cooking pot

CP2

14559/2

1067

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

4

Triangular rim cooking pot

CP2

14570/1

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

5

Small cooking pot

CP3

13435/1

1022

Mid-1st century CE–70 CE

6

Grooved rim cooking pot

CP4

13502/1

1035

Mid-1st century BCE–2nd century CE

7

Grooved rim cooking pot

CP4

13567/1

1022

Mid-1st century BCE–2nd century CE

8

Casserole

CS1

13621/2

1035

Early 1st century CE–70 CE

9

Casserole

CS1

13397/1

1035

Early 1st century CE–70 CE

10

Casserole/pan

CS2

13843/1

1022

Mid-1st century CE–70 CE

11

Cooking jug

CJG1

13502/2

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

12

Cooking jug

CJG1

13621/3

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

T H E P O T T E RY 49

Only a few CP1 fragments of vessels of this type were counted. Some were recovered in Locus 1044, a pre-landfill layer; the others were recovered in the lowest layers of the landfill (Table 3.2). Type LP2 Lamp (Fig. 3.6: 13), Ceramic Horizon 2 This lamp type is the Judean radial mold-made, with an incised-lines motif. Finds at Jericho indicate that it was introduced at the end of the Hasmonean period, during the second half of the 1st century BCE (Bar-Nathan 2002: Type JLP4). A locally produced lamp of this type is known from Jerusalem’s Upper City (Avigad 1983: 88; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: 219, Pls. 6.8: 4; 6.9: 43; 6.10: 21; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.6: 2–4, 6–8; 4.8: 15–18). Only two fragments of this type of oil lamp were found in the entire counted assemblage (not only the diagonally excavated layers), and only one of them was found in the lower-most layer of the landfill. Either this type of oil lamp was not produced when the landfill was operational or it was not popular with the people producing the waste studied here.

Markers for Ceramic Horizons 3–4 (Early 1st Century CE to 70 CE) Type BL3 Bowl (Fig. 3.1: 5–9), Ceramic Horizons 3–4 This type of bowl has an out-turned and slightly thickened rim and a thin wall with a carination close to the rim. It appeared at the beginning of the 1st century CE up to 70 CE at the JICC site (Berlin 2005: Fig. 17: 7–9). At Jerusalem’s dwelling sites, it appeared during the mid- to late 1st century BCE and became common during the 1st century CE, lasting until 70 CE. Parallels were found in all the main Early Roman excavation sites in Jerusalem: the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: 188, Pls. 6.3: 14; 6.6: 22–23, 30–31; 6.9: 28; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.13: 12), the Armenian Garden excavations (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 20: 28) and the Giv>ati Parking Lot (Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.1: 3; 5.5: 10; 5.15: 5). It is very difficult to differentiate this type of bowl from Types BL1 and BL2 when the whole profile does not exist. We therefore refrained from quantifying its presence in the different layers. Type BL4 Bowl (Fig. 3.1: 11–14), Ceramic Horizons 3–4 This type of bowl has simple or everted rims and its body is slightly curved, with a round base and very thin walls. The fine fabric, different from the fabric used for other contemporary vessels, is fired pinkish-brown, forming a very light and hard ware. The bowls have a red or brown band painted on the external and the internal rim. The interior is decorated with reddish-brown paint. The interior has both stylized floral patterns and chains of adjoining oval shapes. While Avigad named this bowl type “Jerusalemite painted bowl,” the recent publication of pottery from Jericho convinced scholars to name these bowls “Judean Painted Bowls” (RosenthalHeginbottom 2019: 36); they are part of a group of painted vessels common in the ceramic repertoire of the second half of the 1st century CE in Jerusalem and Judea (Avigad 1983: 117, 185– 186; Hershkovitz 2003; Bar-Nathan 2006: 268–278). Neutron Activation Analysis has shown that at least until the Revolt these bowls were manufactured in Jerusalem (Perlman, Gunneweg and Yellin 1986: 78). Parallels are found in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pls. 6.9: 29–30; 6.10: 34–35; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.13: 15); at the Giv>ati Parking Lot (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2011: Fig. 7: 6, 8; Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.1: 6–8; 5.5: 16–23; 5.10: 6–7; 5.15: 8–9); the Citadel (Amiran and Eitan 1970: Pl. 6: C); to the south and west of the Temple Mount and in the Armenian Garden excavations (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 20: 36). Outside of Jerusalem, the bowls were recorded in the Judean Desert at Herodium (Bar-Nathan 1981: 62–

50 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 0

16

5

15

4

17 0

Figure 3.6: Oil lamps and utensils.

2

14

18 10

T H E P O T T E RY 51

Figure 3.6: Oil Lamps and Utensils Fig.

Vessel

Type

Basket

Locus

Period

1

Wheel-made lamp

LP1

14223/1

1046

1st century CE–70 CE

2

Wheel-made lamp

LP1

13412/2

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

3

Wheel-made lamp

LP1

13903/3

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

4

Wheel-made lamp

LP1

13503/1

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

5

Wheel-made lamp

LP1

13397/3

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

6

Wheel-made lamp

LP1

13959/2

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

7

Wheel-made lamp

LP1

13654/2

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

8

Wheel-made lamp

LP1

13871/1

1045

1st century CE–70 CE

9

Wheel-made lamp

LP1

14224/1

1046

1st century CE–70 CE

10

Gray ware wheel-made lamp

LP1

13502/5

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

11

Gray ware wheel-made lamp

LP1

13502/7

1035

1st century CE–70 CE

12

Wheel-made lamp

LP1

14308/1

1045

1st century CE–70 CE

13

Judean lamp

LP2

13818/1

1045

Mid-1st century BCE–late 1st century BCE

14

Knidian-type lamp

LP3

15777/2

1103

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–mid1st century  CE

15

Roman-type lamp

LP4

16567/1

1116

Regional early 1st century CE–mid1st century CE

16

Ladle

LD

13447/1

1022

Late 1st century BCE–70 CE

17

Ring stand

ST

13502/3

1035

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

18

Ring stand

ST

14081/1

1046

Mid- to late 1st century BCE–70 CE

63, ill. 91, Pl. 7: 1–8) and Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 20: 335; for additional parallels outside of Jerusalem, see De Vaux 1959: Fig. 2: 7; Perlman, Gunneweg and Yellin 1986: 82, Fig. 1). As can be seen in Table 3.2, bowls of this type occurred in all the layers of the landfill. They were not present at all in Locus 1044, a pre-landfill fill layer. Their number seems to diminish in the upper layers of the landfill. Type BL5 Bowl (Fig. 3.1: 15–17), Ceramic Horizons  3–4 This bowl type has straight walls and a small ledge rim. Referred to as a cup in many publications, it was sighted in Jerusalem from the mid- to late 1st century BCE to 70 CE. Parallels were found in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.4: 17; 4.12: 12). This type cannot be distinguished from other typological shapes based on small fragments, and thus these bowls were not counted individually. Type KR Krater (Fig. 3.1: 24), Ceramic Horizon 3–4 This type of krater has a triangular rim and an out-curved mouth. It is usually red-slipped. Parallels were found in the Jewish Quarter excavations only in the 1st century CE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006:

52 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

Pl. 4.4: 16). Similar kraters, also dated to the 1st century CE, came to light in Jericho and its cemetery (Pritchard 1958: Pl. 58: 8–9, 15; Killebrew 1999: Fig. III: 57). Only a small number of kraters of this type were retrieved from the diagonally excavated layers. It should be pointed out that although dated to the 1st century CE, they do appear in the lowest layer of the landfill (see Table 3.2). Type UN4 Unguentarium (Fig. 3.3: 18–22), Ceramic Horizons 3–4 This type of unguentarium has a small rounded or carinated body and a high cylindrical neck. Common in the 1st century CE in Jerusalem’s Upper and Lower City (Geva 2010: Pl. 4.4: 13–14; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.18: 2–3) and at Jericho and Masada (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 26: 459–461, Type J-UN3; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 34: 20–31, Type M-UN4), Bar-Nathan termed it “Judean kohl bottle” and, based on its size, suggested its use as receptacle for cosmetics or medicinal products. At Masada, three kohl sticks were found close to an unguentarium in a Zealot context (BarNathan 2006: 205–206). Type FK Flask (Fig. 3.2: 12–13), Ceramic Horizons 3–4 This flask, made from plain fabric, has a tall, straight neck with two flat and twisted handles vertically attached to the neck and to the body. The complete forms found in Jerusalem show an asymmetrical and globular body (Geva 2003: 128–129, Type FK). At the JICC site, this type belonged to the 1st century CE (Berlin 2005: Fig. 16.1: 2. 4). Other parallels were found there (Hershkovitz 1987: Fig. 1: 7–8) as well as in the excavations at the Jewish Quarter (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: 183, Pls. 6.1: 44–46; 6.5: 16–19; 6.9: 9–10; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.4: 15; 4.7: 20–21; 4.9: 11; 4.10: 13; 4.11: 11–12), at the Giv>ati Parking Lot (Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.3: 5; 5.7: 12–15; 5.13: 3–6; 5.18: 1–6) and in the Armenian Garden excavations (Tushingham 1985: Figs. 20: 17; 21: 22–26; for additional parallels, see Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 10: 120–122 and ill. 52; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 22: 70–73, Type M-FL1). Flasks of this type are common in almost all the layers of the landfill (Table 3.2). Their presence in Locus 1044 is puzzling as it is the only late type that appears in this fill layer, which is understood to predate the landfill. Type CP3 Cooking Pot (Fig. 3.5: 5), Ceramic Horizon 4 This type of small cooking pot with a globular body and a short neck has a rim diameter that ranges from 7–9 cm. Its walls are thin. According to estimates made by Berlin, its capacity is one third of that of the cooking pot with triangular rim (CP2, Berlin 2005: 42). The production of this type of cooking pot at the JICC site began only in the mid-1st century CE (Convention Center Phase 4; Berlin 2005: 42, Fig. 9: 1–8). It is absent from Area A in the Jewish Quarter excavations, but it is well represented in Judea in the 1st century CE at sites like Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 26: 484–485, Type JCP2d), Herodium (Bar-Nathan 1981: 54, Pl. 5: 7–8) and Qumran (De Vaux 1953: Fig. 3: 7; Yellin, Broshi and Eshel 2001: Fig. 3.9). Only a few CP3 cooking pot fragments have been observed in the landfill assemblage, none of them in the diagonally excavated layers. This could be the result of the size of the sherds but could also be significant chronologically, as it might suggest that the landfill fell out of use at the time these cooking pots were mass produced. Type CJG1 Cooking Jug (Fig. 3.5: 11–12), Ceramic Horizons 3–4 This cooking jug has a high neck, globular body and one strap handle extending from the rim to the shoulder. The rim is sometimes grooved or triangular. Production of this jug began in the late 1st century BCE and increased during the 1st century CE until 70 CE (Berlin 2005: 39, Fig. 6). A substantial number of 1st century CE parallels are recorded in Jerusalem in the excavations at

T H E P O T T E RY 53

the Giv>ati Parking Lot (Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.1: 18; 5.6: 9–10; 5.11: 8), in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pls. 6.9: 19; 6.10: 13) and the Armenian Garden excavations (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 25: 8). Cooking jugs of this type are common in all the layers of the landfill, and a few items already appear in Locus 1044, the fill below the landfill (Table 3.2). Type CS1 Casserole (Fig. 3.5: 8–9), Ceramic Horizon 3 This type of casserole has a wide mouth, marked by a sharp carination between the shoulder and body. The shoulder is almost flat and the rim is vertical. The vessel is absent from the Late Hellenistic stratum of Areas W and X2 of the Jewish Quarter excavations. At the JICC site it was produced starting in the 1st century CE (Berlin 2005: Fig. 7). Parallels in Jerusalem were found only in Area A, Stratum 5 of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.5: 44) and in the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavations (Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.1: 16; 5.6: 8; 5.11: 2–6). Fragments of this type appear in large numbers, mostly in the upper layers of the landfill, and they are most frequent in the upper layer of the northern section excavated (Table 3.2: Loci 1047 and 1046). They are absent from Locus 1044. Type CS2 Casserole (Fig. 3.5: 10), Ceramic Horizon 4 This casserole, sometime termed “pan,” has a ledge rim. It is rare in Jerusalem, with parallels found at the JICC site, appearing only between the mid-1st century  CE to 70 CE (Berlin 2005: 50–51, Fig. 19: 5). One example was found in the Armenian Garden excavations (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 22: 24). Not a single example of this casserole came to light in the diagonally excavated layers and very few examples at other loci. It seems that the landfill was not active when this type of casserole became common. Type LP1 Lamp (Fig. 3.6: 1–12), Ceramic Horizons 3–4 This lamp type is wheel-made and knife-pared. In most cases it has one nozzle and sometimes two (Fig. 3.6: 4). The examples shown in Fig. 3.6: 8–9 are very small lamps of this type, while in general the reservoir is standard in size and only the size of the nozzle varies (e.g., Fig. 3.6: 2). Some of the oil lamps are decorated by one, two or three incised lines on the nozzle or by rouletted dots and one or two concentric circles. The wheel-made and knife-pared lamp’s first appearance could be dated to the end of the 1st century BCE (Adan-Bayewitz et al. 2008: 39). The absence of this type of lamp in the repertoire of Area E in the Jewish Quarter excavations, which is a stratum well dated until about 20–10 BCE, indicates that it first appeared at the very end of the 1st century BCE or at the very beginning of the 1st century CE and became popular in the 1st century CE (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 115). At Jericho’s Herodian palaces, such oil lamps appeared first in a context dating to 15 BCE–6 CE (Bar-Nathan 2002: 112–113). Dark-gray fabric lamps (Fig. 3.6: 10–11) show a variant that is covered with a shiny black slip. The nozzle is decorated with a bow-shaped rouletted pattern between a rouletted line and stamped circles. Parallels were found in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.12: 17). Neutron Activation Analysis of similar lamps from the Jewish Quarter excavations shows that these black lamps were produced in the Jerusalem area (Yellin 1994: 109, Table 2(b): MSDL 13–15).

54 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

Lamps of this type were found in almost all the layers of the landfill and in Locus 1044, below the landfill (Table 3.2). They appear in significantly higher numbers in the upper layers of Section M‒N/10‒11. Type LP4 Lamp (Fig. 3.6: 15), Ceramic Horizon 3 The fragment belongs to the early Imperial volute lamps with decorated discus that rest on a flattened disc base. The discus motif can no longer be identified. The very fine fabric is light brown, almost white, without any visible grits. Fabric and flat base suggest the lamp’s provenance from a Levantine workshop, producing Roman-type lamps of Broneer Types XXII–XXIII from late 1st century BCE and 1st century CE (Broneer 1930; Sussman 2012: 10). Only sporadic oil lamps of this type came to light in the Upper City, probably because they were not superior to the locally produced wheel-made and mold-made lamps, and the figurative subjects were unacceptable to Jews (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2014b: 381–382). Too few fragments of this type were found to make its frequency chronologically significant.

Other Pottery Types Tableware Type BL2 Bowl (Fig. 3.1: 2–4), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 This type is a small, deep and slightly carinated bowl with in-turned rim and thin walls, made of plain fabric. It was common at the JICC site from the early 1st century CE to 70 CE (Berlin 2005: 49). In the Upper City such bowls were common during the 2nd and 1st century BCE, and they were found in abundance at the beginning of the 1st century CE, until 70 CE (Geva and RosenthalHeginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.9: 26; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.5: 7–9; 4.8: 2; 4.9: 14–15; 4.10: 12). Type BL7 Bowl (Fig. 3.1: 22. 23), Ceramic Horizons 1, 2, 3 For coherence and quantitative analysis (see below), we grouped all imported bowls and cups under Type BL7. The vessels are described individually: The fragment in Fig. 3.1: 22 can be attributed to an Eastern Sigillata A cup (ESA) with ring foot, probably Atlante Form 50, now classified in the group of kalathos cups and dated from Augustan times to the end of the 1st century CE (Hayes 1985b; 2008: 29 and Fig. 6: 161). Under Herod the Great, imports increased and continued until 70 CE (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2014b: 387–389). Recent research suggests that the workshops were located in the Gulf of Iskenderun (Lund, Malfitana and Problome 2006). The fragment in Fig. 3.1: 23 belongs to an Italian Sigillata plate (ITS) and is a small version of Conspectus Form 20 with smooth or finely molded vertical rim. It evolved from Form 18 with concave vertical rim and bipartite internal moldings, though without the foot, the assignment is not definite. Form 18 was introduced by the last decade of the 1st century CE and continued into the reign of Tiberius. The fragment probably belongs to Form 20.3 or 20.4; the latter is the most common plate in contexts of the mid-1st century CE around the Mediterranean (Ettlinger et al. 1990: 82, 86). Occasional imports of ITS reached Jerusalem during the reign of Herod the Great, possibly his last decade of rule (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2014b: 390–391). By 15/10 BCE, imports from Italy reached Eastern Mediterranean markets; there was a boom during the years 10–50 CE, yet as a whole the trade volume with the East was minimal with the exception of Beirut, founded as a Roman colony about 14 BCE, where a fair number of ITS vessels was retrieved in a cistern deposit (Reynolds 2004: 123, 125).

T H E P O T T E RY 55

Pouring Vessels Type JG2 Jug (Fig. 3.2: 2–4), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 This jug type has a narrow neck, an everted triangular rim and an inner ledge. The handle extends from the rim to the shoulder, and the body shape is piriform. The jug became the leading type in Jerusalem in the 1st centuries BCE and CE. It was found in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pls.  6.1: 9, 38–39; 6.9: 8) and the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavations (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2011: Fig. 8.2: 4; for additional parallels, see De Vaux 1956: Fig. 1: 5; Gitin 1990: Pl. 41: 20–21; Loffreda 1996: Group 19, Fig. 20: 1–5; Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 8: 52–58). Type JG3 Jug (Fig. 3.2: 5–10), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 This jug type is known by the term “cup-shaped rim” (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 105). It has a large ridge in the middle of its neck, and its handle extends from the ridge to the shoulder. Complete forms found in Jerusalem show a globular to piriform body. It is made of plain fabric. The type appears from the middle of the 1st century BCE to 70 CE. It was found in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.4: 7; 4.7: 7; 4.9: 6; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.1: 42) and the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavations (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2011: Fig. 8: 5–6, 7; for additional parallels, see Bar-Nathan 2002: 42–43; Pl. 9: 70–71, Type J-JG4B; Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 19: 24–31, Type M-JG9). Type JG4 Jug (Fig. 3.2: 11), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4(?) This jug type is made of a fine unidentified gray ware and is black-slipped; the paste is fired light brown with no visible grits. A similar jug, but with a filter, was found in the Jewish Quarter excavations in a layer dating to the end of the 1st century BCE and the beginning of the 1st century CE (RosenthalHeginbottom 2014a: Pl. 4.5: 9). Apart from that, no parallels were found in Jerusalem and environs. The jug might have been imported from an Eastern Mediterranean workshop, possibly located at Ephesos, Knidos or Cyprus (R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, personal communication).

Small Containers Type JT1 Juglet (Fig. 3.3: 1), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 This juglet is characterized by an everted and thickened rim, a short neck and a strap handle extending from the rim to the shoulder. Parallels were found in the Upper City (Geva 2003: 129, Type JT 1; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.4: 10; 4.13: 7), where the type appeared during the 1st century BCE. During the 1st century CE, it became more popular in the Giv>ati Parking Lot assemblage (Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.13: 14). Type JT2 Juglet (Fig. 3.3: 2–3), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 This juglet type has a cupped rim with a squarish (Fig. 3.3: 2) or rounded section (Fig. 3.3: 3). Made of plain fabric, it has a single strap handle attached from rim to shoulder. The type appears in the midto late 1st century BCE and becomes the most popular type in Jerusalem during the 1st century CE (Geva 2003: 129–130, Type JT 2). Parallels were found at the JICC site (Berlin 2005: Fig. 15: 1–8) as well as in the excavations at the Giv>ati Parking Lot (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2011: Fig. 8: 8), in the Armenian Garden excavations (Tushingham 1985: Figs. 21: 27–30; 23: 16–17) and in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pls. 6.2: 3–4; 6.9: 12; for additional parallels, see Kelso and Baramki 1955: Pl. 24: A137; Bar-Nathan 1981: Pl. 4: 24; Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 10: 85–87, Type J-JT1A1).

56 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

Type JT3 Juglet (Fig. 3.3: 4), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 This juglet has a long, straight neck and a flaring rim. A single strap handle extends from the rim to the shoulder. The type is well known in the Upper and Lower City (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.13: 7; Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.4: 4; 5.8: 10) and at Jericho, in contexts dating from the 1st centuries BCE and CE (Bar-Nathan 2002: 157–158, Sub-type J-JG3B1, defined as jug). Type JT4 Juglet (Fig. 3.3: 5) This juglet has a large cup-shaped rim with a short, narrow neck and a strap handle that extends from below the rim to the shoulder. The paste is fired pinkish-brown. No exact parallel has been found. Type JT5 Juglet (Fig. 3.3: 6), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 This gray-black juglet has a cup-shaped rim with a squarish section, a narrow neck and a handle that extends from below the rim to the shoulder. It is made of very fine gray fabric. No close parallel has been found, but it looks very similar to the “gray jug” found at the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavations (Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.3: 10; 5.7: 18). Most probably, it was imported from a workshop located at Ephesos, Knidos or Cyprus, like the jug illustrated in Fig. 3.2: 11. Type JT6 Juglet (Fig. 3.3: 7–9), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 Several small spouts belonging to a juglet of this type were found in the assemblage. Parallels are known mainly from the excavations in the Jewish Quarter (Geva and RosenthalHeginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.5: 37; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pl. 4.7: 9) at Jericho (BarNathan 2002: Pl. 10: 90–91, Type J-JT2) and at Masada (termed “lamp filler”: Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 33: 15, Sub-type M-JT2) Type UN2 Unguentarium (Fig. 3.3: 12–16), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 The piriform unguentarium has a thin wall, a high narrow body, a cylindrical, upright neck, an everted flaring rim and flat base. It appeared in the mid-1st century BCE and was used together with the fusiform unguentarium which gradually replaced it in the 1st century CE (Anderson-Stojanović 1987: 110). This observation is supported by the finds in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: 108, Pls. 4.7: 13, 15; 4.10: 10; 4.11: 9–10; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.5: 25–27) and at Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: 165–167, Type J-UN2A). Type UN3 Unguentarium (Fig. 3.3: 17) This unguentarium is made of a fine gray-black fabric with no visible grits. The imported vessel could have originated in Asia Minor, possibly from Ephesos, as gray platters and Ephesos-type lamps were imported into the Upper City (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2014b: 384).

Storage Vessels Typological differences, the result of chronological developments, enable the division of the jars into three main types (SJ1, SJ2, SJ3) and a number of sub-types. The typological division is based on rim variations. The rim of the earlier type is simple; it is thick but lengthens over time. The earlier jars have a collared neck, to which a ridge at the base of the neck was later added. Type SJ3 Storage Jar (Fig. 3.4: 10–23), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 This type has a ridge at the base of the neck and is the latest in the typological series of the Second Temple period. It is very common in the 1st century CE, found in the 70 CE destruction layers

T H E P O T T E RY 57

of the Jewish Quarter excavations, and continued into the 2nd century CE (Geva and RosenthalHeginbottom 2003: 177). The first sub-type has a simple straight rim and a long, convex (Fig. 3.4: 10– 13) or concave (Fig. 3.4: 14) neck with a small ridge at its base. Parallels from the last third of the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE were found in all of Jerusalem’s excavated locations of that period such as the JICC site (Berlin 2005: 30, Fig. 1: 9; Hershkovitz 2005: Fig. 1: 1–2); the Giv>ati Parking Lot (Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.2: 10; 5.16: 20, Type SJ3b); the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pls. 6.9: 1–2; 6.10: 4–5) and the Armenian Garden excavations (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 23: 32). A second sub-type has a vertical neck, sometimes out-curving, beveled rim and a ridge at the base of the neck (Fig. 3.4: 15–18). Parallels were found in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.5: 4–6). A third sub-type is a storage jar with a vertical neck, triangular rim and ledge rim, with a ridge at the base of the neck (Fig. 3.4: 19–22). This sub-type is dated to the 1st century CE in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and RosenthalHeginbottom 2003: Pl. 6.9: 6; Geva 2010: Pl. 4.1: 1) and at the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavations (Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.3: 1; 5.7: 7; 5.12: 15, Type SJ4a). A fourth sub-type also has a vertical neck and a triangular, ledge rim on the outside and inside. It has a ridge at the base of the neck (Fig. 3.4: 23). At the JICC site, it occurs in the 1st century CE (Berlin 2005: 47, Fig. 14). Additional parallels were found in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pls. 6.5: 7–9; 6.9: 5; 6.10: 7).

Cooking Ware The cooking vessels are all thin-walled and well fired, made of reddish-brown to dark brown ware. Black soot covers the lower part of most of the cooking pots found. The vast majority of the cooking vessels are similar to the cooking vessels produced in a single workshop at the JICC site (Berlin 2005: 30). The source of a few of the types, however, is from workshops outside of Jerusalem. Type CP2 Cooking Pot (Fig. 3.5: 2–4), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 The CP2 type cooking pot has a triangular rim and a short neck. It is a closed pot with a globular body and a rounded bottom. It generally has a gentle wheel ridging on the shoulder, although at times the ridging is over the entire body. The handles extend from the rim to the shoulder. The neck is everted. Production of this type in the workshop at the JICC site began at the end of the 1st century BCE. During the 1st century CE, production of the high neck cooking pot ceased and production of the triangular rim cooking pots continued until 70 CE (Berlin 2005: 36–38, Fig. 4). The triangular rim cooking pot is the most popular vessel among the cookware and it is very common in the Upper and Lower City (Tushingham 1985: Figs. 19: 36; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003: Pls. 6.2: 25; 6.5: 40; 6.9: 17–18; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006: Pls. 4.5: 19–20; 4.8: 9; 4.9: 18; Tchekhanovets 2013: Figs. 5.1: 12; 5.6: 4; 5.10: 14–16; 5.15: 12–13). Type CP4 Cooking Pot (Fig. 3.5: 6–7), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 These cooking pots have an inner groove on the rim and are morphologically similar to Kefar Hananya Cooking Pot 4A. The neck may be concave or straight on the interior. Its red clay fabric has many small black grits and minute to small white grits. It differs from other Jerusalem cooking pots. Two flattened coil handles are attached to the rim and extend to the shoulder. This type is dated between the mid-1st century BCE and the mid-2nd century CE. It is common at Kefar Hananya (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 125–126) and at Caesarea Maritima (Johnson 2008: 68, cat. no. 776). Its form is not known in the Jerusalem cooking pot typology of the Early Roman period.

58 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

Oil Lamps Type LP3 Lamp (Fig. 3.6: 14), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 A nozzle fragment of a mold-made Late Hellenistic lamp type was found. It is short and splayed at the ends, unslipped, and decorated with a fan-palmette pattern. Parallels with a different relief patterns were found in Jerusalem in a context dating to the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2014a: Pl. 4.2: 3; Howland 1958: Type 40A; Bailey 1975: 127–128). Rosenthal-Heginbottom suggested that this type of oil lamp is a regional imitation of the Knidian type (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2014a: 179).

Utensils Type LD Ladle (Fig. 3.6: 16), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3 The small cup-shaped standing vessel with a long vertical handle made of plain fabric, and of a standard size is termed simpulum, a ladle, clay spoon or cup with twisted handle in reports of contemporary sites. It is dated to Jerusalem during the end of the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE (Geva 2010: 128, Pl. 4.6: 10–11; Tchekhanovets 2013: Fig. 5.14: 3). In ancient Rome, the simpulum was used at the banquets of wealthy families (Hilgers 1969: 57, 279–280), and talmudic sources refer to serving utensils or measuring-cups (Tosefta Kelim, Bava Batra 7,8). Type ST Stands (Fig. 3.6: 17–18), Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4 The ring stands are approximatively 4 to 6 cm tall and have a diameter of 10 cm. They are made of a fabric similar to that of the cooking vessels found in Jerusalem. According to Berlin, who reported finding 207 fragments of this type at the JICC site, this stand is connected to the manufacturing process of pottery, probably functioning as drying supports for vessels after manufacture but before firing (Berlin 2005: 45, Fig. 11: 1–25; for earlier finds see Hershkovitz 2005: Fig. 3: 9–11). Chronologically it appears in all ceramic phases, from the middle of the 1st century BCE to 70 CE. It was noted at the Giv>at Hamivtar workshop as well (Abu Raya 1997: 100). In domestic assemblages, ring stands occur in limited quantity (Geva 2010: 128, with references).

CHRONOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS As stated above, the ceramic repertoire primarily dates to the Early Roman period and is very like the material found at other contemporary excavated sites. In our overview of the chronology of the landfill, before we related to each layer individually, we noted the overwhelming uniformity of the assemblage (Table 3.3). We did not find even one ceramic type of post-70 CE date during the entire excavation. Less than 1% of the entire cataloged ceramic material belonged to the repertoire of the late 2nd century BCE–early 1st century BCE (our Ceramic Horizon 1), while 93% of the ceramics belonged to types that appeared at the end of the 1st century BCE and continued to appear until 70 CE (Ceramic Horizons 2 and 3). The remaining 6% of the ceramics belonged to the latest types, which appeared only during the 1st century CE (Ceramic Horizon 4). Pottery collected from an earth fill layer that is below the landfill and considered to pre-date the landfill (Locus 1044), contains a large proportion of early types that date to the Late Hellenistic period. Among all the jugs from Locus 1044, 50% are from that period. Thirty-two percent of all the storage jars from Locus 1044 are also Late Hellenistic. In contrast, in Loci 1050–1060 (the layers of Section M‒N/14, located physically above Locus 1044), less than 1% of the cooking pots and storage jars are from this period (Table 3.4). At the same time the finds from Locus 1044 also

T H E P O T T E RY 59

include a significant number of later-dating pottery types such as the flasks (FK) and oil lamps of Type LP1 (Table 3.2). Their presence indicates a late date for the soil layer under the landfill and therefore places the initiation of the landfill in the 1st century CE. This conclusion is supported by two further observations: 1. An examination of Table 3.2 shows that pottery types belonging to Ceramic Horizons 3 and 4 are present in all the layers of the landfill, even the lowest ones. 2. Pottery fragments of earlier types are present in very sporadic numbers in all the loci excavated diagonally; in some cases, in numbers that suggest these fragments are residual and that the manufacturing of vessels had already ceased (for example UN1, SJ1, CP1 and LP2). The amount of pottery from these types never exceeded 1.7% of the entire pottery assemblage found in each locus. On the other hand, pottery that serves as a chronological marker for Ceramic Horizons 3–4 is present in higher quantity and represents from 3% up to 25.64% of the material found in each locus. A further chronological observation may help in determining when the landfill fell out of use. It seems that pottery types that were defined by Berlin as indicative of the years before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (our ceramic horizon 4) become rare once again. This observation is true for the kraters, the Type CP3 cooking pots and the CS2 casserole . Finally, when comparing the pottery types found in sections M‒N/14 and M‒N/10‒11 it seems that a slight chronological difference exists between the two. Pottery types that are indicative of the earlier period are present in slightly higher numbers in Section M‒N/14 (see for example Bl6 and CP1). On the other hand, in Section M‒N/10‒11 the higher layers contain many more items of types indicative of the later phase, for example CS1 and LP1. Determining the chronology of the landfill based on the contribution of the pottery, it is safe to assert that the landfill in Area D3 was mainly active during the 1st century CE and that it fell out of use before the city was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. This conclusion is further supported by Table 3.3: Maximum Numbers of the Total Diagnostic Sherds Counted and Attributed to the Ceramic Horizons Periods

Number

%

Pottery fragments from Ceramic Horizons 2, 3, 4: mid-1st century BCE–70 CE

10707

92.85

Pottery from Ceramic Horizons 3–4: belonging only to the early 1st century CE–70 CE

720

6.24

Pottery from Ceramic Horizons 1–2: late 2nd century BCE to late 1st century BCE

104

0.90

Total

31

100

Table 3.4: Proportions of Early Types (Ceramic Horizons 1–2) Among the Cooking Pots, Storage Jars and Jugs Hellenistic types of ceramic

Cooking pots

Storage jars

Jugs

All loci

0.65%

2.35%

1.81%

Loci 1050–1060

0.27%

0.90%

0%

Locus 1044

0.89%

32.2%

50%

60 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

the study of the coins presented in Chapter 4. Most of the coins date to the time of Agrippa II (regnal years 53–66 CE) and the Roman procurators. Coins dating to the Great War (66–70 CE) were not found, and the latest dated coin is of the year 54 CE.

Functional Analysis The deposits include ceramic types of a multitude of domestic activities, ranging from meal preparation and consumption to storage and lighting.

A METHODOLOGICAL NOTE ON THE EFFECT OF SIFTING WITH THIN NET ON THE ASSEMBLAGE COMPOSITION Before we could estimate the relative frequency of the different functional types, we had to evaluate the various sifting procedures and their effect on pottery retrieval. To do that, we compared two different assemblages: 1. We wet sifted soil buckets with a 0.5 mm net and then picked. 2. We dry sifted soil buckets with a 1 or 2 mm net. Diggers also picked ceramics during the excavation. Both methods were used on the same locus/layer. The results show that the two techniques led to extremely different ratio patterns for the vessel types collected (Table 3.5). In one locus (1022), we noticed that while using a 1 or 2 mm net for dry sifting, bowl rims constituted 1.69% of the entire assemblage. The use of 0.5 mm nets during wet sifting brought the bowl ratio to just over 50%. Clearly, the accuracy of vessel frequencies is imperative for the conduct of functional analysis of assemblages and the results here illustrate the importance of high resolution sifting procedures in relevant cases. We also noted the predominance of cooking pots and juglets in the units sifted with 1 or 2 mm nets, without picking after digging. Most of the sherds of cooking pots and juglets are broken with a handle; by instinct, the diggers picked these fragments because they are large and easy to see, and possibly threw away the small fragments of ceramics barely visible in the brown earth. Similar results were obtained when we compared vessel frequencies in the loci excavated diagonally, which were mostly wet-sifted but occasionally were also dry sifted (Fig. 3.7). When the earth is wet sifted, the bowls become the most frequent vessel, occupying almost 40% of the whole assemblage. When dry sifting with a 1 or 2mm net, bowls in the same layer occupy only 14% of the composition of the ceramic assemblage. The results presented in Table 3.6 concentrate on the functional analysis of the pottery retrieved using wet sifting with a 0.5 mm mesh only. They show that serving dishes, mainly bowls, are the most frequent vessels (38%), followed by cooking ware (32%), large storage jars (15%) and smaller containers (14%). Overall, this assemblage seems to represent a mixed household assemblage. To date there is no contemporary household that has been excavated and published using similar methods that allows a valid comparison.2 We were, however, able to compare the results from Area D3 to other contemporary assemblages collected in other excavations (Table 3.6). Bar-Oz et al. (2007) presented a counting of pottery functional types from a study of the landfill content from a section located north of Area D3. In 2

The pottery assemblage from the Burnt House in Area B in the Upper City of Jerusalem (Geva 2010) does not represent a systematically collected assemblage and a quantification study cannot be conducted.

T H E P O T T E RY 61

Table 3.5: Comparison of the Two Digging/Sifting Methods on Locus 1022 Locus 1022

Bowls

Cooking vessels

Storage jars

Juglets

Lamps

Flasks

Jugs

Total *

0.5 mm sifting and picking: 12 baskets

N 370 50.89 %

N 214 29.43%

N 100 13.75 %

N 32 4.40 %

N8 1.10%

N2 0.27%

N1 0.13%

N 727 100%

1 or 2 mm sifting and just picked by hand: 25 baskets

N 13 1. 69 %

N 408

N198 25.74%

N 55 7.15%

N 38 4.94%

N 56 7.28%

N1 0.13%

N 769 100%

53.05 %

*: Maximum number and %

Table 3.6: Comparison with Other Dump Areas Near Area D3 (Minimum Numbers 1/8 of Vessel Type, Ceramic Sub-types from Other Areas of Excavation) Pottery type

Northern and southern cuts D3 units dug in diagonal, sifted with a 0.5 mm net in D3

Locus 205 (Channel dump)*

N

%

N

Bowls, cups, large bowls

155.65

38.01

Unguentarium

4.62

Flasks

Stepped Street*

City Dump (lower part, Location A)**

%

N

%

N

%

21.9

6.3

3.8

1.7

22.75

6.32

1.11

46

13.3

5.3

2.3

34.5

9.60

14.82

3.66

27

7.8

9

4

12.5

3.47

Lamps

18.125

4.48

61

17.7

22.3

9.9

52

14.47

Jugs and juglets

50.8

12.55

66.6

19.3

32.5

14.5

49.25

13.70

Storage jars

60.86

15.04

82.9

24

130.9

58.2

54.875

15.27

Cooking vessel

101.5

25.08

39.6

11

21.1

9.4

113

31.44

14

3.87

359.25

100

Ladle Total

406.375

100

345

100

224.8

100

*Reich–Shukron 2010; ** Reich and Shukron 2003

that study, the scholars noted the high percentage of cooking vessels and deduced that the vessels were used by Jewish pilgrims tenting outside the city (ibid.). Comparison of the two assemblages shows that there is a higher quantity of bowls in Area D3. Providing that this difference is not the result of methodological issues and that both excavations used the same procedure, this significant difference results from a variance in the origin of the garbage. The differences in the composition of the garbage were also noted in the study of the faunal remains and chalk stone vessels (see Chapters 5 and 11). Future studies of primary locations such as destruction assemblages will hopefully enable understanding of the meaning behind the differences noted between the two assemblages.

62 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

Figure 3.7: Changes in pottery type frequencies caused by using different sifting procedures.

SITE FORMATION AND CERAMIC INDEX OF BREAKAGE Were humans responsible for the pottery sherds and other broken artifacts piling up in a myriad of superimposed layers to form the landfill or was it simply an act of nature? In order to understand how the landfill was formed and to reconstruct its activity we have examined and indexed the ceramic sherd breakage. Several archaeological investigations have exploited sherd size distribution as a trace of trampling by people, animals and machines. They proved that trampling reduces artifact size in predictable ways (Kirkby and Kirkby 1976: 236–238) and sorts artifacts by size (Behrensmeyer and Boaz 1980: 80; DeBoer and Lathrap 1979: 133; Gifford 1978: 82; Gifford 1980: 101; Schiffer and House 1977). Following Schiffer’s experiment, we measured the longest length of 396 ceramic fragments (Schiffer 1983). The samples were picked from different points of the diagonal layers, from the top of the slope at the western extremity, to the lowest eastern point of the slope, in two trenches, and from several layers (Fig. 3.8). The ceramic fragments discussed here present many traces of uses. The handles of some of the cooking pots and storage jars are deeply worn. Soot marks are noticed on most of the cooking pot bases and nozzles of the oil lamps have soot marks. There are traces of repair (small holes perforated next to the lips) on a few bowls, storage jars and cooking pots. There are almost no complete or even semi-complete vessels in the assemblage; the only complete vessels are unguentaria. In addition, the sherds comprise a mixture of countless numbers of vessels, and restoration is impossible. Primary deposits should include fragmented vessels with a length much higher than the mean of those usually found on the floors at abandoned sites (Ilan 1999: 115–117). Obviously, the landfill vessels were not found in their primary dump, i.e., the place in which they were discarded at the end of their life cycle (Schiffer 1983, 679).

T H E P O T T E RY 63

Figure 3.8: Sampling of pottery from the section for indexing breakage percentage (photograph by author).

On the other hand, the results show that the entire assemblage is not broken into little pieces, and the longest side of the majority of the ceramic fragments is larger than 5 cm. In most cases, the broken sides of the sherds are acute, which makes it difficult to believe that the material rolled with water or wind. We also noted that in the lowest parts of the layers the length of the sherds was larger, and the size varied from 2–12.5 cm, with an average of approximatively 5 cm. These quantified observations lead us to suggest that this accumulation of sherds was not often trampled upon and that the sherds were brought to the landfill very quickly following their breakage. There is no reason to suggest, for example, that the garbage layers found on contemporary street pavements, as documented by Reich and Shukron, was the source of the garbage that made up the landfill (Reich and Shukron 2003). Rather, the garbage was brought directly to the landfill. The sherds show no signs of weathering from exposure to wind or water, and so it is most likely that once they were discarded, they were quickly buried under other soil layers. A similar conclusion was reached in a study of the faunal remains from the landfill (see Chapter 11). We can therefore exclude the possibility that the layers were formed by natural forces and strengthen the assessment that they are the result of human activity.

CONCLUSIONS The ceramic sherds represent the majority of the composition of the garbage deposit. They are also found together with large quantities of animal bones. Studies of the faunal remains showed that they represent a typical household assemblage, similar to the ceramic conclusion reached here (ibid.). It seems evident that at the end of their life cycle, the pottery fragments were discarded here by people, before they were trampled or moved by water or wind, and

64 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

during a specific period between the beginning of the 1st century CE and up to the decade that preceded the Great War. The abundance of stone receptacles found together with ceramic vessels points to the possibility that the vessels come from a quarter inhabited by a Jewish population (see Chapter 5). It is interesting to note the marginal presence of imported vessels: open and closed vessels and lamps from western Asia Minor, the Gulf of Iskenderun, the Levant and Italy. In terms of the maximum number of vessels counted in Area D3, 0.15% was imported. However, in terms of the minimum number of vessels counted, the proportion changed: in Sections M‒N/10‒11 and M‒N/14, we found 0.52% imported vessels, essentially Sigillata wares. It does not, however, fit the profile documented for the habitation levels of the Upper City, where Sigillata wares and other imported tableware can be associated with the growth of the Jewish urban elite (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2014b: 397).3 To summarize, the ceramics deposited in the landfill represent the material culture of Jerusalem and Judea until the destruction in 70 CE. The repertoire is essentially a Late Hellenistic indigenous form, and the paucity of imported pottery is striking. In comparison, a substantial amount of tableware was retrieved in the habitation levels of the Upper City, where Eastern Sigillata A and D, Ephesian gray-ware platters and lamps, Italian Sigillata, and Pompeian Red Ware dishes, as well as a small number of Roman-type volute lamps emerged (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2014b). Therefore, the landfill assemblage most likely points to a different social stratum, namely a conservative traditional population different from the Upper City’s urban Jewish elite, who were more open to the lifestyle of the Greco-Roman koine.

REFERENCES Abu Raya, R. 1997. Jerusalem, Giv>at Hamivtar. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 16: 100. Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1993. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade. Ramat Gan. Adan-Bayewitz, D., Asaro. F., Wieder, M. and Giauque, R.D. 2008. Preferential Distribution of Lamps from the Jerusalem Area in the Late Second Temple Period (Late First Century B.C.E.–70 C.E.). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 350: 37–85. Amiran, R. and Eitan, A. 1970. Excavations in the Courtyard of the Citadel, Jerusalem, 1968‒1969 (Preliminary Report). Gray Ware Jug. Israel Exploration Journal 20: 9–17. Anderson-Stojanović, V.R. 1987. The Chronology and Function of Ceramic Unguentaria. American Journal of Archaeology 91: 105–122. Ariel, D.T. 2000. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem. Avigad, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Bailey, D.M. 1975. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum I: Greek, Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery Lamps. London. Bar-Nathan, R. 1981. Pottery and Stone Vessels of the Herodian Period. In: Netzer, E., ed. Greater Herodium (Qedem 13). Jerusalem: 54–70. Bar-Nathan, R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. III: The Pottery. Jerusalem. Bar-Nathan, R. 2006. Masada VII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports: The Pottery of Masada. Jerusalem. Bar-Oz, G., Buchnick, R., Weiss, E., Weissbrod, L., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. and Reich, R. 2007. “Holy Garbage”: A Quantitative Study of the City-Dump of Early Roman Jerusalem. Levant 39: 1–12. 3

To date, no conclusive evidence is available for Judea, as the imports to Jericho and Masada have not yet been published.

T H E P O T T E RY 65

Behrensmeyer, A.K. and Boaz Dechant, D.E. 1980. The Recent Bones of Amboseli National Park, Kenya, in Relation to East African Paleoecology. In: Behrensmeyer, A.K. and Hill, A.P., eds. Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology. Chicago: 72–92. Ben-Ami, D. and Tchekhanovets, Y. 2011. The Lower City of Jerusalem on the Eve of Its Destruction, 70 C.E. A View from Hanyon Givati. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 364: 61–85. Berlin, A.M. 2005. Pottery and Pottery Production in the Second Temple Period. In: Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H., eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex. The Pottery and Other Small Finds (JRA Supplement Studies 60). Portsmouth: 29–60. Broneer, O. 1930. Terracotta Lamps, Corinth VI, Part II. Cambridge. DeBoer, W.R. and Lathrap, D.W. 1979. The Making and Breaking of Shipibo-Conibo Ceramics. In: Kramer, C., ed. Ethnoarchaeology. Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology. New York: 102–138. De Vaux, R. 1953. Fouilles de Khirbet Qumran. Rapport Préliminaire. Revue Biblique 60: 83–10. De Vaux, R. 1956. Fouilles de Khirbet Qumran. Rapport Préliminaire sur les 3e, 4e et 5e Campagnes. Revue Biblique 63: 533–577. De Vaux, R. 1959. Fouilles de Feshha. Rapport Préliminaire, Revue Biblique 66: 225–255. Ettlinger, E., Hedinger, B., Hoffmann, B., Kenrick, P.M., Pucci, G., Roth-Rubi, K., Schneider, G., Schnurbein von, S., Wells, C.M. and Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, S. 1990. Conspectus formarum terrae sigillatae italico modo confectae. Bonn. Gadot, Y. 2014. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Jerusalem's Southeastern Hill, Area D3. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 3(2): 279–292. Gadot, Y. and Adler, Y. 2016. A Quantitative Analysis of Jewish Chalk Vessel Frequencies in Early Roman Jerusalem: A View from the City’s Garbage Dump. Israel Exploration Journal 66: 202–219. Geva, H. 2003. Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 113–175. Geva, H. 2010. Early Roman Pottery. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 118–153. Geva, H. and Hershkovitz, M. 2006. Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 94–143. Geva, H. and Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2003. Local Pottery from Area A. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 176–191. Gifford, D.P. 1978. Ethnoarchaeological Observations of Natural Processes Affecting Cultural Materials. In: Gould, R.A., ed. Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology. Albuquerque: 77–101. Gifford, D.P., 1980. Ethnoarchaeological Contributions to the Taphonomy of Human Sites. In: Behrensmeyer, A.K. and Hill, A.P., eds. Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology. Chicago: 3–106. Gitin, S. 1990. Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer. Jerusalem. Hayes, J.W. 1985a. Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivatives in the Jerusalem Corpus. In: Tushingham, A.D., ed. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. I. Toronto: 181–196. Hayes, J.W. 1985b. Atlante delle forme ceramice. Il ceramice fina romana nel bacino mediterraneo: tardo ellenismo e primo impero (Encyclopedia dell’arte antica classica e orientale, Suppl. II). Rome: 9–48 Sigillata Orientale A. Hayes, J.W. 2008. Roman Pottery: Fine-Ware Imports. The Athenian Agora XXXII. Princeton. Hershkovitz, M. 1987. The Pottery of the First and Second Centuries CE from Giv>at Ram. Eretz Israel 19: 314–325 (Hebrew). Hershkovitz, M. 2003. Jerusalemite Painted Pottery from the Late Second Temple Period. In: RosenthalHeginbottom, R., ed. The Nabateans in the Negev, Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum, University of Haifa, Catalog No. 22. Haifa: 45–50 (Hebrew); 31*–34* English).

66 HÉLÈNE MACHLINE

Hershkovitz, M. 2005. The Pottery of the Late 1st and 2nd c. A.D. from the 1949 Excavations. In: Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H., eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex; The Pottery and Other Small Finds (JRA Supplement Studies 60). Portsmouth: 283–296. Hilgers, W. 1969. Lateinische Gefäßnamen: Bezeichnungen, Funktion und Form römischer Gefäße nach antiken Schriftquellen. Düsseldorf. Howland, R.H.1958. Greek Lamps and Their Survivals. The Athenian Agora IV. Princeton. Ilan, D. 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspective (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. Johnson, B.L. 2008. The Pottery. In: Patrich, J., ed. Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima. Areas CC, KK and NN. Final Report. Jerusalem: 13–206. Kahane, P. 1953. Pottery Types from Jewish Ossuary Tombs around Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 3: 48–54. Kelso, J.L. and Baramki, D.C. 1955. Excavations at New Testament Jericho and Khirbet en-Nitla. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 29: 1–60. Killebrew, A.E. 1999. The Pottery. In: Hachlili, R. and Killebrew, A.,  Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period (IAA Reports 7). Jerusalem: 113–133. Kirkby, A. and Kirkby, M.J. 1976. Geomorphic Processes and the Surface Survey of Archaeological Sites in Semi-arid Areas. In: Davidson, D.A. and Shackley, M.L., eds. Geoarchaeology: Earth Science and the Past. London: 229–253. Levine, L. I. 2002. Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E.–70 C.E.). Philadelphia. Loffreda, S. 1996. La ceramica di Macheronte e dell’Herodion (90 a.C.–135 d.C.). Jerusalem. Lund, J., Malfitana, D. and Problome, J. 2006. Rhosica vasa mandavi (Cic., Att. 6.1.13) Towards the Identification of a Major Ceramic Tableware Industry of the Eastern Mediterranean: Eastern Sigillata A. Archeologia Classica 57: 491–507. Machline, H. and Gadot, Y. 2018. Wading Through Jerusalem’s Garbage: Chronology, Function, and Formation Process of the Pottery Assemblage of the City’s Early Roman Landfill. Journal of Hellenistic Pottery and Material Culture 2: 102–139. Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE (Qedem 42). Jerusalem. Mazar, B. 1969. The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Preliminary Report of the First Season, 1968. Jerusalem. Perlman, I., Gunneweg, J. and Yellin, J. 1986. Pseudo-Nabataean Ware and Pottery of Jerusalem. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 262: 77–82. Pritchard, J.B. 1958. The Excavation at Herodian Jericho. 1951 (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 32/33). New Haven. Rathje, W.L. and Murphy, C. 2001. Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. Tucson. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 119: 12–18. Reynolds, P. 2004. Italian Fine Wares in First Century AD Berytus: The Assemblage from the Cistern Deposit BEY 006 12300/12237. In: Poblome, J., Talloen, P., Brulet, R. and Waelkens, M., eds. Early Italian Sigillata: The Chronological Framework and Trade-patterns. Proceedings of the First International ROCT-Congress Leuven, May 7 and 8, 1999 (Bulletin Antieke Beschaving. Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology Supplement 10). Leuven: 117–131. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2003. Hellenistic and Early Roman Fine Ware and Lamps from Area A. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 192–223. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2006. Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Lamps and Fine Ware. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 144–167.

T H E P O T T E RY 67

Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2014a. Lamps, Table and Kitchenware from Areas J and N. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 176–199. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2014b. Imported Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery—An Overview of the Finds from the Jewish Quarter Excavations. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 377–413. Rosenthat-Heginbottom, R. 2019. Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations, Volume II: The Pottery from the Eastern Cardo. (IAA Reports 64). Jerusalem. Sandhaus, D. 2013. The Hellenistic Pottery. In: Ben-Ami., D. ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot), Vol. 1 (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 83–108. Schiffer, M.B. 1983. Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48: 675–706 Schiffer, M. B. and House, J. H. 1977. An Approach to Assessing Scientific Significance. In: Schiffer, M.B. and Gumerman, G.J., eds. Conservation Archaeology. A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies. New York: 249–257. Shaw, I. 2012. The Archaeology of Refuse Disposal in New Kingdom Egypt. Patterns of Production and Consumption at el-Amarna. Talanta 44: 315–333. Spiciarich, A., Gadot, Y. and Sapir-Hen, L. 2017. The Faunal Evidence from Early Roman Jerusalem: The People behind the Garbage. Tel Aviv 44: 98–117. Sussman, V. 2012. Roman Period Oil Lamps in the Holy Land. Collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority (BAR International Series 2447). Oxford. Tchekhanovets, Y. 2013. The Early Roman Pottery. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley: Jerusalem (Giv>ati Parking Lot), Vol. 1 (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 109–150. Tushingham, A.D. 1985. Excavations in the Armenian Garden on the Western Hill. In: Tushingham, A.D., ed. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. I. Toronto: 1–177. Yellin, J.  1994. Origin of the Lamps from Masada. In: Aviram, J., Foerster, G., and Netzer, E., eds. Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem: 107–124. Yellin, J., Broshi, M. and Eshel, H. 2001. Pottery of Qumran and Ein Ghuweir. The First Chemical Exploration of Provenience. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 321: 65–78.

CHAPTER 4

THE NUMISMATIC FINDS Yoav Farhi

Approximately 900 bronze coins, all individual finds, were discovered during the 2013 excavation season of Area D3. We focused our attention on coins in loci excavated in Stage 3 of the excavation strategy, since it was there that we could clearly pin-point the coins’ precise location within the 12 sub-layers of the landfill (see Chapter 2). To these coins we added a number found in loci we were certain were “clean” even if we could not state their exact sublayers. The outcome of this was an assemblage of 200 coins that are listed in the catalog below (Table 4.1 and Figs. 4.1–4.3).1 All the coins are of common types, well known from other excavations in Jerusalem. The coin assemblage from the excavations directed by Shiloh (Ariel 1990: 99–118) is geographically the closest one to Area D3, and proportionally similar to that of the finds published here, and thus may serve as a general comparison. A flan mold fragment was also found and discussed below, after the coins (Fig. 4.2). Similar assemblages are known from other excavations in the City of David and adjacent regions (see, for example, Ariel 2013; Farhi forthcoming). However, these derive from excavations of previously populated areas and thus differ in nature from the finds from Area D3. Smaller coin assemblages, from excavations in other parts of the city’s landfill in the City of David, yet only noted and not fully published, are known as well (Reich and Shukron 2003: 16–17; Bar-Oz et al. 2007: 8).

THE COINS The cleaned coins from Area D3 date mainly to the 1st century BCE–mid-1st century CE, with few exceptions. The earliest coin found is of a very common small type, bearing the head of young Antiochus III as Apollo on the obverse and Apollo standing with a bow and arrow on the reverse (Table 4.1, No. 1). Another possibly Seleucid coin is No. 2, however the coin is worn and this identification is uncertain, although highly possible. These are the only coins that clearly predate the Hasmonean period.2 Except for a few unidentified Hasmonean coins of the common legend in wreath/cornucopia type (Table 4.1, Nos. 5–9), and a few unstruck flans (Table 4.1, Nos. 41–43), all the identified Hasmonean coins are dated to Alexander Jannaeus’ reign (Table 4.1, Nos. 3–4, 10–40). The majority of these Hasmonean coins are of the anchor/star type (TJC Group L). Many of them are of the small denomination of this type (Table 4.1, Nos. 17–40) which was possibly used as a half-prutah from the later days of Alexander Jannaeus and under his successors. Finding coins of this specific type at many Jewish sites in contexts that postdate the Hasmonaean period, suggests that they circulated for a long time and were in use until the 1

2

The coins were preserved by O. Cohen and photographed by Sasha Flit. The flan mold was photographed and drawn by A. Yoffe-Pikovsky. I wish to thank them all. Coins bearing an asterisk are illustrated in Fig.4.1:1 at a scale of 1:1. Another coin, illegible and possibly dated to the 2nd century BCE, is No. 198.

7 0 Y O AV F A R H I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

0

Figure 4.1: Coins from Area D3.

1

2

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.) Metal

Wt. (g)

1013 10246

Æ

1.25

9–10

Diam. (mm)

1022 14545

Æ

1.31

1022 14117

4

Æ

Æ

2.10

1.62

5

1035 13755

Æ

2.35

Unidentified Hasmonean Ruler

1022 14000

3

HASMONEAN Alexander Jannaeus (104/3–76 BCE)

2

14– 15.5

14–15

11.5– 14

13–14

Unidentified Seleucid Ruler or Early Roman

1

SELEUCIDS Antiochus III (223–187 BCE)

No.

Table 4.1: Coins from Area D3

12

12

-

12

Axis

Paleo-Hebrew legend in wreath; name of ruler uncertain

/‫חבריה‬/‫כהנגדל‬/‫ינתנה‬ ‫]ימ‬---[ Same

Paleo-Hebrew legend in wreath: /‫הנהגדל‬/‫נתנהכ‬/‫יהו‬ ‫חברהי‬

Head r., illegible letter/s behind head (?). Dotted border

Head of Apollo r.

Obverse

Two conjoined cornucopias with pomegranate between horns

Same

Two conjoined cornucopias with pomegranate between horns

Illegible

[BΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ/ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ] Apollo stg. l., holding arrow in extended r. hand and resting l. on bow

Reverse

125–ca. 85 BCE

Same

104/3–ca. 85 BCE

2nd–1st centuries BCE

210–187 BCE

Date of coin

Jerusalem

Same

Jerusalem

‘AkkoPtolemais (?)

Mint

TJC: 215–216, Group S

Cf. TJC: 211–213, Group P

SC 1: 402–403, Nos. 1055, 1058–1059

References

Bevelled. Worn

Notes

4.1: 4

4.1: 3

4.1: 2

4.1: 1

Fig.

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 7 1

1067 14549

1210 20208

1022 14371

7

8

9

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

1.55

1.50

1.99

2.21

Wt. (g)

1013 10244

1013 14638

1035 14174

1051 18032

1044 13749

10

11

12

13

14

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

1.26

1.40

2.27

1.54

1.34

Alexander Jannaeus (104/3–76 BCE)

1022 14002

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

6

No.

13–15

14

15–16

15

14–15

14– 14.5

15–16

13.5

13–15

Diam. (mm)

-

-

-

-

Axis

‫[מלכא אלכסנדרוס‬ ]‫שנת כה‬ Eight-pointed star surrounded by circle of dots; around, Aramaic legend

Unstruck

Same

Same type

]‫[יהונתן המלך‬ Eight-pointed star in diadem: between rays, Paleo-Hebrew legend

Same?

Same?

Same

Same

Obverse

[BΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΧ]ΑΝΔΡΟΥ Anchor in plain circle. Flanking the anchor, date: L-KE

Anchor

Same

Same type

[ΑΛΕΧΑΝΔΡΟΥ BΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ] Anchor surrounded by Greek legend

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Year 25 = 79/8 BCE

Same

Same

Same

ca. 85–80 BCE

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Cf. TJC: 210, Group L, Nos. 1–3

Same?

Same

Same

Cf. TJC: 209–210, Group K

References

Worn

Half coin. Chisel marks on obverse

Notes

4.1: 8

4.1: 7

4.1: 6

4.1: 5

Fig.

7 2 Y O AV F A R H I

1035 14413

1013 10264

1056 14754

1022 13750

1022 13722

1022 13477

1022 13581

1035 13754

1022 14125

1005 14503

1044 14064

1035 13712

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

15

No.

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

0.98

0.90

0.70

0.47

0.92

0.93

1.06

0.98

0.75

1.21

0.77

1.13

Wt. (g)

12–14

10–14

12–15

12

13.5

12–14

11.5– 14.5

11–13

11–13

13

12–13

12–13

Diam. (mm)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Axis

Same

Same, but sixpointed star

Same

Same, but six or eight pointed star

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same type

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same, no date

Same

Same type

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

ca. 79/8–76 BCE or later

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

ca. 79/8–76 BCE

Same

Same

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

TJC: 210, Group L, No. 8

Same

TJC: 210, Group L, Nos.7–9

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

TJC: 210, Group L, Nos. 4–7

Same

Same

References

Notes

4.1: 10

4.1: 9

Fig.

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 7 3

1035 14171

1022 ?

1022 14001

1013 10243

1067 14551

1061 14729

1035 13891

1056 15880

1022 13897

1050 18039

1005 14500

1005 14744

1005 14634

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

27

No.

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

0.47

0.61

0.63

0.34

0.81

0.59

0.72

0.35

0.87

0.88

0.91

0.38

0.64

Wt. (g)

9–15

10–13

10–11

9–10.5

10– 14.5

11–16

10–13

10

11–12

11–12

11– 15.5

8–13

10.5– 12

Diam. (mm)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Axis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

TJC: 210, Group L, Nos. 8–14

Same

Same

Same

Same

References

Notes

4.1: 16

4.1: 15

4.1: 14

4.1: 13

4.1: 12

4.1: 11

Fig.

7 4 Y O AV F A R H I

1044 14645

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.) Æ

Metal 0.44

Wt. (g) 8–10

Diam. (mm) -

Axis

1035 13780

1005 14338

42

43

Æ

Æ

Æ

2.23

1.34

0.54

12–33 The flan itself is 12 mm

11–14

12–14

Same Unstruck

-

Unstruck? (central dot on the obverse)

-

-

Same

Obverse

Unstruck

Same

Unstruck?

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

1st century BCE

Same

Date of coin Same

Mint

Cf. Ariel 1990: 104–105, No. 133; Schauer 2010: 103, Fig. 3a

Same

Cf. Ariel 1990: 104–105, No. 134

Same

References

Mint refusal, which includes unstruck flans attached to part of the tree

Same

Bevelled Worn

Notes

1022 13387

1022 13894

1013 14211

1022 14467

1022 14067

1005 14630

44

45

46

47

48

49

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

0.48

1.11

0.82

0.76

0.87

1.31

13

13.5

12–13

11–14

11

12–13

-

-

-

-

-

-

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Illegible

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Illegible

Broken

The following coins are in a poor state of preservation and should be related to the Hasmonean or Herodian periods (1st century BCE)

1035 14184

41

Hasmonean or Herodian Flans (1st century BCE)

40

No.

4.1: 20

4.1: 19

4.1: 18

4.1: 17

Fig.

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 7 5

1022 14529

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.) Æ

Metal

1044 13998

1035 14460

1035 13524

1022 13999

1022 14465

1022 13667

52

53

54

55

56

57

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

0.70

0.61

1.46

1.29

1.33

2.01

2.14

0.42

Wt. (g)

58

1022 13549

Æ

1.75

Herod Archelaus (4 BCE–6 CE)

1133 18069

51

HERODIANS Herod the Great (37–4 BCE)

50

No.

14– 16.5

12–14

11–12

13.5– 14.5

13–14

13–16

14–16

14–17

12

Diam. (mm)

10

-

12

-

12

6

4

5

-

Axis

[ΗΡW]ΔΟΥ Vine branch with bunch of grapes and small leaf

Obliterated legend in two concentric lines

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same type

Β[ΑCIΛ ΗΡW] Anchor

Same

Obverse

[ΕΘΝΡΧΟΥ] Crested helmet with two cheek pieces; below, small caduceus and legend

Anchor, surrounded by a circle

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same type

Two conjoined cornucopias with caduceus between horns; above, five pellets

Same

Reverse

4 BCE–6 CE

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

37–4 BCE

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Cf. TJC: 226, No. 73

TJC: 223, No. 63

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

TJC: 222–223, No. 59

References Broken

Notes

4.2: 3

4.2: 2

4.2: 1

4.1: 21

Fig.

7 6 Y O AV F A R H I

1013 14512

1035 13523

60

61

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

1.13

1.56

1.22

Wt. (g)

1035 13584

1056 14718

1005 14502

1022 13532

1022 13386

1051 14719

1059 16182

1201 20031

1022 13535

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

1.87

1.34

1.15

1.82

1.78

2.20

1.64

0.98

1.65

ROMAN GOVERNORS OF JUDEA Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE)

1065 14755

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

59

No.

15–17

15–16

14.5– 16

16

16–17

16–17

14–15

14–16

15–17

14–16

15–17

14–15

Diam. (mm)

12

12

12

11

11

12

12

10

12

6

6

6

Axis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same type

Same

Same type

KAICA-POC Ear of grain

Same

Same

Same type

Obverse

Palm tree. Date illegible

Same, but date L-Λ[---]

Same

Same

Same

Same type

Same, but date: L-ΛΘ

Same type

Palm tree; in fields, date: L-Λς

Same

Same

Same type

Reverse

5/6–10/11 CE

Year 36 or 39 = 5/6 or 8/9 CE

Same

Same

Same

Same

Year 39 = 8/9 CE

Same

Year 36 = 5/6 CE

Same

Same

Same

Date of coin

Jerusalem

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Jerusalem

Same

Jerusalem

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Cf. TJC: 256, Nos. 311–315

TJC: 256, Nos. 311–313

Same

Same

Same

Same

TJC: 256, No. 313

Same

TJC: 256, No. 311

Same

Same

Same

References

Same

Coponius or Ambibulus

Ambibulus?

Coponius

Notes

4.2: 5

4.2: 4

Fig.

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 7 7

1013 14751

1056 14643

1022 13661

1005 14743

1056 14741

1022 13896

1022 13478

1022 13531

1022 13576

1035 13993

1059 16008

1035 14461

1013 10266

1013 10268

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

71

No.

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

0.50

0.97

1.04

1.20

1.09

1.90

1.60

1.47

1.58

1.44

2.03

1.90

1.09

2.12

Wt. (g)

14

13

17

15–16

15–16

16

15–16

15–16

16–17

14–15

16

14–16

14–15

16–17

Diam. (mm)

11

11

12

12

12

12

12

7

12

12

11

12

11

12

Axis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

References

1/3 of a coin

Half coin

Half coin

Notes

Fig.

7 8 Y O AV F A R H I

1065 14518

1044 14514

1035 13781

86

87

88

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

1013 14511

1022 13206

1071 14802

1022 13895

1057 14773

1060 16237

1035 14169

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Under Tiberius (14–37 CE)

1035 14175

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

85

No.

1.92

1.68

1.92

1.89

2.01

2.15

2.20

1.21

1.68

1.40

1.33

Wt. (g)

15.5– 16.5

15.5– 16.5

15–16

14.5– 15.5

14–15

15–16

14–15

15–17

15–16

16

16

Diam. (mm)

11

6

12

-

12

-

12

11

11

12

12

Axis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same type

TIB/KAI/C[AP] Legend in wreath

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same

Same type, but illegible date

Same, but date: L-I[A]

Same

Same

Same type

Palm branch; in fields: [IOY]-ΛΙΑ / L-C

Same, but date: L-MA

Same

Same, but date: L-M or MA

Same, but date: L-M

Reverse

Same

17–19 or 24/5 CE

Year 11 =24/5 CE

Same

Same

Same

Year 5 = 18/9 CE

Year 41 = 10/11 CE

Same

Year 40 or 41 = 9/10 or 10/11 CE

Year 40 = 9/10 CE

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Jerusalem

Same

Same

Cf. TJC: 257–258, Nos. 327–329

TJC: 258, No. 329.

Same

Same

Same

Cf. TJC: 257, No. 328

TJC: 256, No. 315

Same

TJC: 256, Nos. 314–315

Same

Same

TJC: 256, No. 314

References

Same

Mint

Burnt and corroded

Valerius Gratus

Ambibulus

Same

4.2: 10

4.2: 9

4.2: 8

4.2: 7

4.2: 6

Ambibulus? Same

Fig.

Notes

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 7 9

1022 14120

1058 18134

1022 14107

1022 14207

1022 14199

1035 13986

1022 13384

1054 15505

1060 16253

1056 15868

1035 14458

1035 14172

1056 14785

1022 14118

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

96

No.

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

1.61

2.08

2.02

1.92

1.64

1.80

1.86

1.56

1.47

1.97

2.41

1.96

2.20

1.89

Wt. (g)

14.5– 15.5

15

16–18

15

15– 15.5

15–16

15–16

14– 15.5

14–16

16–18

16–17

15–17

16–17

16

Diam. (mm)

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6

-

-

12

12

Axis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

References

Notes

Fig.

8 0 Y O AV F A R H I

1022 13687

1022 14647

1022 13726

1013 14212

1013 14750

1022 14220

1022 14379

1022 14515

1022 13533

1022 13813

1035 13426

1022 13245

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

110

No.

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

2.17

1.10

1.71

1.42

1.82

1.42

1.97

1.82

1.62

1.42

1.39

1.74

Wt. (g)

16

14–15

15–16

15–16

15.5– 17

14–15

15–16

15–16

15

17

16

15–16

Diam. (mm)

12

12

12

12

12

1

12

5

11

-

-

-

Axis

Same type but date is unclear

Same type, but legend is retrograde and date is unclear

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

TIBERIOY KAICAPOC LIς Simpulum

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Year 16 = 29/30 CE Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same type

IOYΛΙΑ KAI[CAPOC] Three ears of grain tied together

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

TJC: 258, No. 331

Same

Same

Same

References

Crude type

Chisel mark on obverse

Pontius Pilatus

Burnt and broken

Broken

Notes

4.2: 14

4.2: 13

4.2: 12

4.2: 11

Fig.

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 8 1

1035 13752

1052 15557

1035 13585

1054 18005

1133 18104

1022 13664

1022 13898

1068 14790

1070 14799

1035 13989

1005 14636

1022 14004

1022 14221

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

122

No.

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

1.67

1.39

2.12

0.95

1.61

1.53

2.13

1.62

2.50

1.79

1.89

1.54

2.35

Wt. (g)

15–16

15

16

15

15

15

16–17

15–16

16–17

15–16

15.5– 17

15– 15.5

15–18

Diam. (mm)

11

11

-

-

5

1

11

10

11

11

5

-

9

Axis

Same type

TIBEPI[OY KAICAPOC] Lituus

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same type

Date in wreath: LIZ

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Year 17 = 30/1 CE

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

TJC: 258, No. 333

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

References

Crude

Pontius Pilatus

Corroded

Notes

4.2: 16

4.2: 15

Fig.

8 2 Y O AV F A R H I

1013 14728

1050 18027

1056 14757

1013 14639

1052 14727

1022 13385

1035 13753

1005 14554

1022 14219

1071 14801

1035 13781

1035 14459

1022 14471

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

135

No.

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

0.95

1.33

1.95

1.96

1.94

1.91

1.63

1.75

1.62

2.10

2.09

1.87

1.84

Wt. (g)

13–14

15

15–16

15–17

15

15

15

15–16

14–15

15–16

15.5

15–16

15–16

Diam. (mm)

-

-

-

12

6

12

9

11

6

12

12

5

11

Axis

Same

Same

Same type

Same type

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same

Same

Same type, but illegible date

Same type

Same, but date: LΙΗ

Same

Same. Retrograde Z

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

Year 17 or 18 = 30/1 or 31/2 CE

Same

Υear 18 = 31/2 CE

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

TJC: 258, Nos. 333–334

Same

TJC: 258, No. 334

Same

TJC: 258, No. 333b

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

References

Pontius Pilatus

Pontius Pilatus

Notes

4.2: 18

4.2: 17

Fig.

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 8 3

1022 14056

1035 13471

1022 13479

1022 13389

1022 14180

1049 18008

149

150

151

152

153

154

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

1013 14749

1022 14380

1013 14168

1035 13480

1035 13424

155

156

157

158

159

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

HERODIANS Agrippa I (36/7–44 CE)

1005 14745

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

148

No.

2.41

2.35

2.45

2.41

2.28

1.42

2.00

2.18

2.01

0.79

1.58

1.40

Wt. (g)

17

16–17

18–19

16.5– 18

17

15–17

14.5– 15.5

15

15–16

12.5– 13

15–16

15.5

Diam. (mm)

12

12

12

11

12

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Axis

Same

Same

Same

Same type

ΒΑCΙΛΕWC ΑΓΡΙΠΑ Canopy

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same type

Three ears of grain; in fields: L–ς

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Year 6 = 41/2 CE

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Jerusalem

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

TJC: 231, No. 120

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

References

Chisel mark on reverse

Double struck

Notes

4.3: 4

4.3: 3

4.3: 2

4.3: 1

4.2: 19

Fig.

8 4 Y O AV F A R H I

1005 14746

1013 10240

1035 13987

1013 14646

1013 10277

1013 14170

1013 14119

1005 10324

1005 14501

1005 14747

1005 14748

1013 14123

1013 10241

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

160

No.

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

2.43

2.39

2.44

2.61

2.82

2.86

2.52

2.92

2.01

2.24

2.95

2.38

2.09

Wt. (g)

16–17

17–18

15–17

16–17

16–17

15–17

16–18

16–18

16

17–18

17–18

15–16

15–16

Diam. (mm)

12

12

12

11

12

-

12

12

11

11

12

11

11

Axis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date of coin

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

References

Partly clean

Partly clean

Chisel mark on obverse. Partly clean

Notes

4.3: 6

4.3: 5

Fig.

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 8 5

1035 14176

1035 13522

1035 13892

1035 13992

1035 13425

1035 13991

1035 13990

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Metal

2.60

2.04

2.56

2.22

2.70

2.55

2.59

1.62

Wt. (g)

1013 10204

Æ

182

1035 13606

Æ

Under Nero (54–68 CE)

181

1.88

2.21

ROMAN GOVERNORS OF JUDEA Under Claudius (41–54 CE)

1035 13605

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.)

173

No.

16

15–17

17–18

16.5– 17.5

16.5– 18.5

15.5– 17

18

17–19

17

15–16

Diam. (mm)

5

3

12

12

11

12

11

11

11

12

Axis

NEP/WNO/C In wreath

[NEPW ΚΛΑY K]AICA[P] Two oblong shields and two spears, crossed

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

LЄ KAI[C-A]POC Palm branch

Palm tree; above: BPIT; below: L-ΙΔ / K-AI

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Year 5 = 58/9 CE

Year 14 = 54 CE

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date of coin

Jerusalem

Jerusalem

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

TJC: 260, No. 345

TJC: 259, No. 341

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

References

Festus?

Antonius Felix. Crude

Notes

4.3: 8

4.3: 7

Fig.

8 6 Y O AV F A R H I

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.) Metal

Wt. (g)

Diam. (mm) Axis

Obverse

Reverse

Date of coin Mint

References

Notes

1022 14198

1035 13525

1050 18022

1049 18008

1206 20076

1049 18006

1049 18019

1022 14115

1005 14633

1005 14631

1022 13172

1022 14135

1005 14637

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

3.08

2.07

1.60

1.46

2.70

2.22

1.50

1.40

1.47

1.55

1.20

2.01

1.99

16

15–16

16–17

14

17

16

14–15

15

15–16

14–16

13–15

15–16

15–16

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

The following coins are in a poor state of preservation and should be related to the period under the Roman Governors of Judea and/or Agrippa I (5/6–58/9 CE)

No.

Fig.

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 8 7

1251 20000

Exc. Ref. (locus; reg. no.) Æ

Metal 2.23

Wt. (g) 16

Diam. (mm) -

Axis Illegible

Obverse

1005 14632

1005 13994

1035 ?

1013 10205

198

199

200

Unidentified

197

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

1.32

0.47

2.86

2.68

18–20

10–11

17–18

20–24

-

-

-

-

Illegible

Head r.?

Illegible

Linear hexagram with pellet in the external angles. In center, illegible Arabic legend

Mamluk Al-Nāṣir Shihāb Al-Dīn Aḥmad (742–743 H. = 1342 CE)

196

No.

Illegible

Illegible

Illegible

Linear hexagram with pellet in the external angles. In center, illegible Arabic legend

Illegible

Reverse

Late Roman?

2nd century BCE – 1st century CE

1342 CE?

Date of coin

Damascus

Mint

Cf. Balog 1964, pl. XI, No. 272

References

Pierced. Possibly not a coin

Corroded. Concave flan

Bevelled. Worn. Partly cut

Double struck. Identification uncertain

Uncleaned

Notes

4.3: 10

4.3: 9

Fig.

8 8 Y O AV F A R H I

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 8 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 0

Figure 4.2: Coins from Area D3.

1

2

9 0 Y O AV F A R H I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

8

0

1

2

10

Figure 4.3: Coins from Area D3.

end of the Second Temple period.3 These Hasmonean coins, especially the type of two conjoined cornucopias/legend in wreath and the small anchor/star type, are the most common of all Jewish coins and have been discussed at length by many scholars.4 Nos. 41–42, Fig. 4.1: 18–19, are unstruck flans. Based on their shape and size it seems that they are most probably Hasmonean or Herodian coins, dated to the 1st century BCE. As was mentioned by Ariel (1990: 115),5 who discusses two-coin flans from the City of David, the appearances of the flans are of interest as additional evidence that flans often entered circulation and were valued as coins. No. 43, Fig. 4.1: 20, is a mint refusal, which includes two unstruck flans attached to part of the tree. One flan was found still connected to the tree, from which we learn that the diameter of the mold’s sockets was 12 mm. One side of the flan is still attached to part of a thin casting channel, while the other side includes part of the casting channel as well, but here it is covered with bronze and seems much broader.6 Another 3 4

5 6

See, for example, Meshorer 2006: 19; Syon 2014: 115; Farhi 2016: 73; Farhi and Larsen 2021. See, for example, Shachar 2004; Hendin and Shachar 2008; Hendin 2010; Farhi 2016: 73–74; Farhi and Larsen 2021. For further discussion regarding flans and ancient coin technology, see Ariel 2012. For evidence of flan production and coin minting in Judea in the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, see Schauer 2010; Ariel 2012.

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 9 1

incomplete flan, on the same tree, is located after the broad casting channel. It has a lunate shape, and this might be the result of using some kind of round-head chisel, in order to separate flans from the tree. It is possible that this object also circulated as coins. However, it was easier to separate the flans and then use them, and the fact that this was not done by the people who hold them suggests that they were indeed mint refusals that possibly did not for some reason enter circulation. The Herodian dynasty is represented in our excavation by 37 coins. Seven of them (Table 4.1, Nos. 51–57) are of Herod the Great; four (Table 4.1, Nos. 58–61) are of his son, Archelaus; and 26 (Table 4.1, Nos. 155–180) are in the name of Herod’s grandson, Agrippa I. All are common types. Coins representing the period of the Roman governors (prefects/procurators) over Judea are the latest to be retrieved from loci within the dump (and not from surface ones). These coins were struck under Augustus (Table 4.1, Nos. 62–88), Tiberius (Table 4.1, Nos. 89–154), Claudius (Table 4.1, No. 181) and Nero (Table 4.1, No. 182). Fourteen illegible coins (Table 4.1, Nos. 183–196) are possibly of this group as well, without further division due to their poor state of preservation (most seem burnt). One Mamluk coin from the topsoil of the dump (Table 4.1, No. 197) is the latest identified coin in this assemblage. Mamluk coins are rare on the southeastern slope of the City of David and none appears in Shiloh’s excavation.7 Mamluk coins are more common in the upper part of the City of David (Farhi forthcoming). The absence of these coins in Area D3 supports the suggestion that this area of the city was probably not populated during this period (Ariel 1990: 112). A few comments should be made here regarding some of the loci (Table 4.2). Locus 1044 was identified, by the analysis of the pottery collected, as a fill that predates the garbage layers, but it was not clear how early it is. The latest coin in this layer (Table 4.1, No. 87) is dated to ca. 10 CE, while two coins from Locus 1060—the layer above it—are dated 17–25 CE (Table 4.1, Nos. 94, 104). These finds suggest that a decade or so separated the two layers. The latest Second Temple period coins found in the garbage fills are one coin minted under Claudius in 54 CE (Table 4.1, No. 181), and one coin minted under Nero in 58/9 CE (Table 4.1, No. 182). Both derive from loci which include mixed layers of garbage. The total absence of coins struck during the First Jewish Revolt confirms that no garbage was added to the landfill in the southeastern side of the city after 66/7 CE. The finds from Area D3 are similar to the finds from Shiloh’s excavations in his Areas D and E (Ariel 1990: 105–109; Reich and Shukron 2003: 16), as well as to those from Reich and Shukron’s excavations in their Areas A, C and J (ibid.), and differ from the city dumps in Area L, where coins of the First Jewish Revolt, dated to 68/69 CE, were the latest in the assemblage (ibid.: 16–17; Bar-Oz et al. 2007: 2, 8–9). Reich and Shukron (2003: 17) argued that the process of garbage removal from the city continued until the outbreak of the First Revolt in 66 CE. However, although it seems clear that no garbage reached the dumps in Area D3 during the years of the Revolt, it is impossible to determine if the people of Jerusalem did indeed halt deposit of their garbage there in 66 CE or earlier. We do know that no coins were struck in Judea between 58/59 and 66/67 CE. Coins dated to 58/59 were thus the 7

A few Mamluk coins are mentioned by Gordon (1925: 186–187), originating from the “Ophel and Siloam” with no exact location of their find spot.

9 2 Y O AV F A R H I

latest found in the garbage layers in Area D3 (Table 4.1, No. 182), and are the latest that could have been found prior to the Revolt.

A FLAN MOLD (FIG.4.4) One fragment of a chalk flan mold was found in the excavations (Area D3, Locus 1127, Basket 17149). It is a bottom fragment of a rectangular block. The mold is 4.0 cm thick with a maximum preserved length of 7.5 cm and a maximum preserved width of 10.7 cm. This flan mold is of a common type known as “closed stone flan mold,” used to produce connected beveled flans, which were very popular in Jerusalem from the Hasmonean period to the end of the Second Temple period. The fragment we found is made of fine-grained chalk, now damaged by time and worn. The surface of the face is smooth and has drilled depressions, while the surface of the back is also smooth, with visible chisel marks. There are signs of fire on all sides, possibly caused after the mold was already out of use, either before or after it arrived at the garbage dump. Three channels and a small part of a fourth are preserved on the face, with possibly three depressions in the longest channel. Since this is a fragment from the bottom of the mold, there were no signs characteristic of funnels that directed the molten metal into the channels. A 2.5 cm strip appears between the lowest drilled line of depressions and the bottom edge. The depressions are uniform in size (14 mm) and the drillings were done so closely to each other that the perimeters of the depressions met and seem connected, with no space left for the channels between the depressions. In this case no channels were required between the depressions, and the points of connection seem to have been widened in order to allow for a better flow of the metal between the depressions. It is also possible that due to extensive use of the mold the molten metal caused the widening of the connections located between the depressions. This is not so common since

0

Figure 4.4: Flan mold (made by Alina Yoffe-Pikovsky).

4 cm

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 9 3

Table 4.2: Coins Found in Sub-layers that Comprised Section M–N/14* Locus no.

Locus description

Catalog no.

Coin date

1050

Material culture layer: uppermost layer

36

ca. 79/8–76 BCE or later

136

30/1 CE

185

5/6–58/9 CE

13

ca. 85–80 BCE

67

8/9 CE

123

29/30 CE

139

30/1 CE

1051 1052

Rich soil layer Material culture layer

1053

Rich soil layer

No coins

1054

Material culture layer

103

17–19 or 24/5 CE

125

29/30 CE

1055

Rich soil layer

No coins

1056

Material culture layer

17

ca. 79/8–76 BCE

34

ca. 79/8–76 BCE or later

63

5/6 CE

72, 75

5/6–10/11 CE

105, 108

17–19 or 24/5 CE

137

30/1 CE

1057

Rich soil layer

93

24/5 CE

1058

Material culture layer

97

17–19 or 24/5 CE

1059

Rich soil layer

68

8/9 CE

81

5/6–10/11 CE

1060

Material culture layer: at base of garbage layer

94, 104

17–19 or 24/5 CE

1044

Fill–pre-garbage debris, Late Hellenistic/Early Roman

14

79/8 BCE

25, 40

ca. 79/8–76 BCE or later

52

37–4 BCE

87

9/10 or 10/11 CE

* See Chapter 2.

the drillings, in most cases, were spaced out at regular intervals and channels were chiseled out between the depressions (Ariel 2012: 56).8 The depth of the depressions in this fragment is ca. 1 mm. Central holes in the depressions (3 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth) are the remains of the tip of the drill. 8

Two unstruck flans, still connected, without a channel between them, were found in Shiloh’s excavations (Ariel 1990: 104–105, No. C133).

9 4 Y O AV F A R H I

Two minute pieces of bronze are still attached to the surface, in the center of the strip, below the lowest drilled line of hollows and the bottom edge. Remains of bronze are possibly preserved in the tip of the drilled holes. The Judean flan molds have been divided into three groups based on the dimensions of the depressions: 20–21 mm, 13–15 mm and 9–12 mm (ibid. 1990: 116–117). The 14 mm depressions in the flan mold from Area D3 fit well into this division. Many flan molds have been discovered in Jerusalem thus far (ibid. 2012: 65–66, Table 3, Nos. 1–35), most of which have not been fully published. Twelve flan mold fragments were documented so far from the City of David (ibid.: 65, Table 3, Nos. 20–31); only three of them are published, two from Area E1 in Shiloh’s excavations (ibid. 1990: 115–117 = ibid. 2012: 65, Table 3, Nos. 20–21) and one from the Giv>ati Parking Lot (ibid. 2013: 242 = ibid. 2012: 65, Table 3, No. 22). The Judean flan molds are dated by the lifespan of the Jerusalem mint, between the Hasmonean period and the end of the mint with the destruction of the city in 70 CE (ibid. 2012: 63). In general, the dates of flan molds can be estimated based upon the modules of the flans, with the larger flans more likely to have been made for striking 1st century CE coins (ibid. 2014: 268). Based on the 14 mm diameter of the depressions, the flan mold from Area D3 should be tentatively dated to the 1st century BCE–early 1st century CE.

REFERENCES Ariel, D.T. 1990. Excavations in the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. Ariel, D.T. 2012. Judean Perspectives of Ancient Mints and Minting Technology. Israel Numismatic Research 7: 43–80. Ariel, D.T. 2013. The Coins. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot) I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 237–264. Ariel, D.T. 2014. Coins from Area Z. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Final Report. Jerusalem: 362–368. Balog, P. 1964. The Coinage of the Mamluk Sultans of Egypt and Syria. New York. Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnick, R., Weiss, E., Weissbrod, L., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. and Reich, R. 2007. "Holy Garbage": A Quantitative Study of the City-Dump of Early Roman Jerusalem. Levant 39: 1–12. Farhi, Y. 2016. Khirbet Qeiyafa Volume 5: Excavation Report 2007–2013. The Numismatic Finds: Coins and Related Objects. Jerusalem. Farhi, Y. Forthcoming. The Numismatic Finds from the Summit of the City of David. In: Mazar. E., ed. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008. Final Reports, Vol. II. Farhi, Y. and Larsen, K.W. 2021. Some New Insights and a Note Regarding Alexander Jannaeus Anchor/Star (TJC Group L) Coins. Online Zeitschrift zur Antiken Numismatik 3: 1–10 (https://www.uni-muenster.de /Ejournals/index.php/ozean/article/view/3392/3365). Gordon, T.C. 1925. Some Arab Coins from Ophel and Siloam. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 57: 183–189. Hendin, D. 2010. The Metrology of Judaean Small Bronze Coins. American Journal of Numismatics 21: 105–121. Hendin, D. and Shachar, I. 2008. The Identity of YNTN on Hasmonean Overstruck Coins and the Chronology of the Alexander Jannaeus Types. Israel Numismatic Research 3: 87–94. Meshorer, Y. 2006. The Coins from Qumran. Israel Numismatic Journal 15: 19–23. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2003. The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 119: 12–18.

T H E N U M I S M AT I C F I N D S 9 5

SC 1 = Houghton, A. and Lorber, C. 2002. Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue I: Seleucus I through Antiochus III. Lancaster and New York. Schauer, Y. 2010. Mint Remains from Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem. Israel Numismatic Research 5: 99–108. Shachar, I. 2004. The Historical and Numismatic Significance of Alexander Jannaeus’ Later Coinage as Found in Archaeological Excavations. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 136: 5–33. Syon, D. 2014. The Coins. In: Syon, D., ed. Gamla III. The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989: Finds and Studies, Part 1 (IAA Reports 56). Jerusalem: 109–231. TJC = Meshorer, Y. 2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba. Trans. R. Amoils. Jerusalem and Nyack.

CHAPTER 5

THE CHALK VESSELS Yonatan Adler

The chalk vessels presented in this chapter1 belong to a unique group that first appeared in the second half of the 1st century BCE and all but disappeared after the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132–135 CE. Although vessels in this group have been found at hundreds of sites throughout the country, only a few significant assemblages have been published to date. These assemblages, which will serve here as our main comparanda, include those found at Shiloh’s excavations in the City of David (Cahill 1992); Magen’s excavations at Hizma (Magen 2002: 5‒51); B. Mazar’s excavations near the Temple Mount (ibid.: 63–115); some areas of Avigad’s excavations in the Jewish Quarter (Reich 2003; Geva 2006a, 2010; Gordon 2012; Gibson 2016) the excavation in Gamla and Netzer’s excavations in Jericho and fortress Cypros (Bar-Nathan and Gärtner 2013).2 Another important report, although only preliminary, concerns the excavations conducted at a chalk vessel workshop on Mount Scopus (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2008). A number of published studies have focused on various historical aspects related to chalk vessels, specifically with regard to the manner in which they may have been used within the framework of observance of the laws of Jewish ritual purity (Deines 1993; Magen 2002: 138–147; Miller 2003, 2010; Reed 2003; Adler 2011: 161–220). The present corpus, which derives in its entirety from a small section of the city dump, excavated on the eastern slope of the City of David (Area D3), is comprised of 1003 fragments of various types of chalk vessels: mugs, pitchers, bowls, lids, stoppers, goblets, trays, large kraters, debitage and additional assorted objects. The quantity of fragments in our assemblage is unrivaled by any other published corpus and provides the first opportunity to conduct a statistical analysis of the frequencies of the various chalk vessel types in use in Jerusalem during the 1st century CE. We classified the finds according to the three main production techniques employed in the manufacture of chalk vessels: (1) hand-carving, (2) turning on a small lathe and (3) turning on a large lathe. We further classified the finds according to form and, when appropriate, type. We presented the debitage separately. The large quantity of chalk vessel remains unearthed in the present excavation precludes us from providing graphic presentation of all of the finds, and for the same reason we will not present a comprehensive catalog of the entire corpus. In the plates that follow, we present only one or two representative examples of every vessel type, as well as individual items that display unique or uncommon features deemed noteworthy.

1

2

This chapter is a complete and updated version of "A Quantitative Analysis of Jewish Chalk Vessel Frequencies in Early Roman Jerusalem: A View from the City’s Garbage Dump,"an article published in 2016 by Y. Gadot and Y. Adler in Israel Exploration Journal 66: 202–219. In case of discrepancy between this chapter and the published article, the version presented here is the correct one. An important report on the chalk vessels unearthed at Gamla (Gibson 2016) appeared several years after the present report had already been completed, and accordingly we did not refer to this for parallels.

9 8 Y O N ATA N A D L E R

THE FINDS Hand-carved Vessels This group, comprised of 408 items, is distinguished by its manufacturing technique: handcarving by a chisel and hammer without the aid of a lathe. Vessels produced by this method often display a distinctive, faceted appearance formed by the chisel-marks left by the production process. Some vessels were polished with an abrasive material in order to remove these tool-marks. Handcarved vessels include a variety of forms, such as mugs, small pitchers, bowls of various forms and sizes, lids and stoppers. Fragments of vessels belonging to this group are often difficult to classify definitively according to type, since only certain features can be considered indicative.

Mugs/Small Pitchers This group consists of cylindrical containers with a straight rim; the walls are either straight or slightly convex or they slope inward toward the flat base. The walls are relatively thin (generally less than 1 cm in width), and the height, as a rule, exceeds the diameter. Reich’s metrological study of complete examples found at Masada and other sites has shown that the volume of the vessels in this group can vary widely: from as little as ca. 20 ml. to as much as ca. 1000 ml (Reich 2007). All of the vessels in this group were apparently fitted with either one or two handles in the form of rectangular projections with a round hole drilled through the center. Typologically, this group may be classified into two distinct types: 1. Mugs with a plain rim and either a single handle or two opposing handles. 2. Small pitchers fitted with an open spout protruding from the rim, placed at a 90° angle clockwise from a single handle. The above classification can be determined only with fragments which retain remnants of two opposing handles (mug), a spout (pitcher) or a single handle with the portion of the rim situated at a 90° angle clockwise from the handle (mug). Since most fragments are not sufficiently intact to enable such classification, these vessel fragments are commonly treated as a single group, as we will do here. As a rule, however, the smaller vessels in this group (with a capacity of less than 400 ml) are pitchers, while the larger vessels (with a capacity greater than 600 ml) are mugs (see Reich 2007: Tables 5, 6, 7). Although these vessels (both mugs and pitchers) are commonly referred to in the archaeological literature as “measuring cups,” researchers have long rejected this term (Magen 2002: 99), and an empirical study published by Reich has conclusively shown that these vessels were in fact never used as measuring devices (Reich 2007). In his study, Reich measured the volume of 42 complete examples of these vessels from Masada and the Jewish Quarter and found no correlation between the capacities of these vessels and any known or conjectured measuring systems. Altogether, 307 fragments have been identified as belonging to either mugs or pitchers (although it is probable that some of these fragments actually belong to hand-carved bowls of the type discussed below). Of these, 131 are base fragments (Fig. 5.1: 1), 52 are pierced-handle fragments (Fig. 5.1: 2–3), six are spout fragments belonging to pitchers (Fig. 5.1: 4–6) and the remainder (118) are body and/ or rim fragments. While most of the pierced-handles display angled (though dulled) corners (Fig. 5.1: 3), five handles are noticeably rounded (Fig. 5.1: 7–8). Similarly shaped handles have been found in Shiloh’s excavations in the City of David (Cahill 1992: 212, Fig. 20: 7, Photo 192–193 [Type 2.a.ii.A.1]) and in Area E of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva 2006a: Pl. 9.1: 10–12). Geva suggested

THE CHALK VESSELS 99

that mugs with this type of handle (along with additional distinguishing features) might belong to an early version of the hand-carved mug, which dates to the 1st century BCE (Geva 2006a: 222; Geva 2006b). Another unusually rounded handle fragment (Fig. 5.1: 9) may also belong to a mug or pitcher of this type, although the raw material from which it was fashioned is a harder stone with a pink hue and a veined, somewhat marbled appearance. The fragment that appears in Fig. 5.1: 10 is an unusual handle, with an elongated spur projecting laterally from one of its edges, and with decorative, horizontal lines incised both above and below the hole in the middle of the handle on either side. There may have been a second spur at the opposing edge of the handle, but this cannot be confirmed since the corner of this edge has been broken off. The wall of the vessel is unusually thin, and the small area that has been preserved is highly polished, with no traces of chiseling characteristic of mugs and pitchers. Two similar handles, without the incised lines, have been published previously: one from the Shiloh excavations in the City of David (Cahill 1992: 212, Fig. 21: 2 [Type 2.b.ii]) and the second from a complete vessel found in Area B of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva 2010: 165, Pl. 5.4: 10) and dubbed “coffee cup” by Avigad (1983: 176, Fig. 198). There are two spurs on each handle, one extending from the top edge and another from the bottom edge. Geva has already pointed out the similarity of this handle form with the Hellenistic skyphos, and has suggested that the shape of the handle was meant to facilitate drinking, with the thumb resting on the upper spur, the forefinger inserted into the hole, and the middle finger placed below the lower spur (Geva 2010: 165). Another unusual handle (Fig. 5.1: 11) features a small, triangular spur which extends from the edge of the handle at the point where the handle meets the wall of the vessel. A parallel from the Shiloh excavations at the City of David (Cahill 1992: Fig. 20: 2), another from Masada (Reich 2007: Fig. 1: B1), and two additional parallels unearthed at Shu>afat (Adler forthcoming) suggest that the spur was located on the roof of the handle. One fragment (Fig. 5.1: 12) belongs to an unusually small vessel, probably a pitcher. Another fragment belongs to an unfinished pitcher (Fig. 5.1: 13), and evidently derives from a chalk-vessel workshop located somewhere within the city (see below). While the external walls of mugs and pitchers were always hand-carved with a chisel and hammer, previous studies have discerned two methods used in hollowing out the interior: hand chiseling and removal of the inner core on a lathe. The former method was a technique common in the production centers in the Jerusalem region, while the latter was used primarily in the Galilean workshops (Magen 2002: 118; Amit 2010). While most of the vessels in the present assemblage show signs of having been hand-chiseled internally, many of the body fragments are smooth on the interior, probably as a result of having been polished with an abrasive material. None of the fragments display any obvious signs of the interior having been fashioned on a lathe.

Bowls This group consists of hand-carved bowls produced by the same manual chisel-work technique used in the production of the mugs and pitchers, and often displaying the same distinctive faceted appearance. These bowls have a flat rim, straight or slightly everted sides and a flat base. An array of bowl types and sizes is included here in this group, including oblong bowls (Fig. 5.1: 14) and large, deep bowls with bar handles protruding from the rim (Fig. 5.1: 15–18). Altogether, 57 fragments of hand-carved bowls are included in the present corpus. One noteworthy body fragment (Fig. 5.1: 19) features two holes, situated ca. 3.5 cm apart, drilled through the wall of the bowl ca. 4.5 cm below the rim. The holes may have been drilled after the bowl

1

5

2

6

3

7

11

9

8

12

4

13

14

16 15

17

19 18 0

Figure 5.1: Mugs/small pitchers, bowls.

5

10

10

THE CHALK VESSELS 101

Figure 5.1: Mugs/Small Pitchers, Bowls No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Type

Technique

1

14567/40

1064

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

2

14148/46

1013

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

3

13159/40

1022

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

4

14141/48

1037

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

5

14235/42

1037

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

6

10035/41

1003

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

7

14141/46

1037

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

8

14404/42

1037

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

9

13154/40

1020

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

10

13563/41

1035

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

11

13342/40

1024

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

12

13563/40

1035

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

13

13839/40

1037

Mugs/small pitchers

Hand carved vessels

14

14196/55

1022

Bowls

Hand carved vessels

15

14138/47

1022

Bowls

Hand carved vessels

16

13093/40

1019

Bowls

Hand carved vessels

17

14196/52

1022

Bowls

Hand carved vessels

18

14530/40

1013

Bowls

Hand carved vessels

19

14441/49

1037

Bowls

Hand carved vessels

had broken in antiquity, in order to tie the pieces back together—a technique for repairing ceramic and stone vessels that has been employed since prehistoric times (see Dooijes and Nieuwenhuyse 2009). Also included in the present corpus is a fragment featuring the complete profile of a small handcarved bowl (Fig. 5.1: 19), with a flat, incurved rim, a straight wall carinated near the base and a flat base.

Stoppers Our assemblage includes a hand-carved stopper, composed of a disk with a short protrusion and a hole drilled straight through the disk and the protrusion (Fig. 5.2: 1). A similar stopper, not pierced and with a somewhat longer protrusion (Fig. 5.2: 2), has a possible parallel from the Temple Mount excavations, where it is cataloged among the lathe-turned stoppers (Magen 2002: Fig. 2.21). Another stopper (Fig. 5.2: 3) is composed of a flat disk with a short protrusion on one side, and a narrower (broken) protrusion on the other. As there are no indications that this stopper was fashioned on a lathe, it is included here together with the hand-carved stoppers. A unique, very small hand-carved stopper with faceted sides (characteristic of the hand-carved mugs and pitchers) displays only the stump of a projection extending from slightly off its center (Fig. 5.2: 4).

1 0 2 Y O N ATA N A D L E R

1

2

3 0

6

2

8

9

11

0

Figure 5.2: Stoppers, lids and varia.

5

5

4

7

10

4

10

THE CHALK VESSELS 103

12

13

14

15

16 0

2

17 4

Figure 5.2: Stoppers, lids and varia (cont.).

Included here is a small, roughly carved stopper with a small flat disk and an only slightly narrower conical protrusion (Fig. 5.2: 5). A parallel has been reported in the Jewish Quarter (Reich 2003: Pl. 8.6: 8). Magen has suggested that chalk stoppers played a unique role relating to Jewish ritual purity law, since stoppers made of stone were regarded as impervious to ritual impurity and therefore effective in preventing the pottery vessels they sealed from contracting impurity through their openings (Magen 2002: 76–77). This is certainly not an accurate representation of rabbinic halakhah, which viewed all lids and stoppers as unsusceptible to ritual impurity, irrespective of the raw material from which they were fashioned (Mishna Kelim 2:5; Sifra, Shemini 8, 7). We similarly have no evidence that any Second Temple period group considered stoppers made of stone to be particularly suited to protect pottery vessels from impurities. It may be, therefore, that the choice of chalk as

1 0 4 Y O N ATA N A D L E R

Figure 5.2: Stoppers, Lids and Varia No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Type

Technique

1

13784/40

1041

Stoppers

Hand carved vessels

2

13447/41

1022

Stoppers

Hand carved vessels

3

14569/40

1066

Stoppers

Hand carved vessels

4

14570/41

1054

Stoppers

Hand carved vessels

5

14237/47

1022

Stoppers

Hand carved vessels

6

14392/41

1035

Lids

Hand carved vessels

7

13563/50

1035

Lids

Hand carved vessels

8

14097/40

1037

Varia

Hand carved vessels

9

14196/43

1022

Varia

Hand carved vessels

10

13188/41

1021

Varia

Hand carved vessels

11

13328/40

1028

Varia

Hand carved vessels

12

14622/43

1013

Varia

Hand carved vessels

13

13575/40

1022

Varia

Hand carved vessels

14

14235/49

1037

Varia

Hand carved vessels

15

13735/40

1041

Varia

Hand carved vessels

16

14445/40

1047

Varia

Hand carved vessels

17

14141/41

1037

Varia

Hand carved vessels

a raw material for making stoppers was based on purely utilitarian motives. Many, if not most, of these stoppers may have been convenient by-products of the chalk vessel industry, fashioned from the cores extracted from the interior of chalk bowls during manufacture.

Lids Eight hand-fashioned flat, circular lids appear in the present corpus (Fig. 5.2: 6). One lid fragment has a pierced handle located near its center (Fig. 5.2: 7), with one parallel known from Shiloh’s excavations in the City of David (Cahill 1992: 213, Fig. 20: 13).

Varia Included in the assemblage are a number of assorted hand-carved vessels and objects: a very shallow dish (Fig. 5.2: 8); two loom weights (Fig 5.2: 9–10); a large hollowed-out cylindrical shaped fragment (Fig. 5.2: 11); a fragment of a rectangular object (Fig. 5.2: 12); a rectangular object with a rounded end and hollow center (Fig. 5.2: 13); the rim of an unidentified closed vessel (Fig. 5.2: 14); a cylindrical object (Fig. 5.2: 15); an object with two perforations (Fig. 5.2: 16); and an object decorated with a beveled design (Fig. 5.2: 17).

Vessels Turned on a Small Lathe Small lathes were used during the Early Roman period for fashioning round chalk vessels, particularly bowls, but also goblets, stoppers and lids. Almost half of the vessels found in the current assemblage were fashioned on a small lathe (493 objects).

THE CHALK VESSELS 105

Bowls The largest group of vessels in the present assemblage consists of bowls produced on a small lathe, numbering 461 fragments. Our corpus includes a large variety of 11 different bowl types:

Bowl Type 1 (Fig. 5.3: 1)

This bowl type features a slightly inverted rim, a spherical body and a disk base. Almost all of the examples in our assemblage display two (and sometimes only one) incised lines directly beneath the rim on the outside of the bowl. Bar-Nathan and Gärtner (2013) have noted two sub-types of this bowl among the chalk vessels from Jericho, one with rounded walls (Sub-type 1A) and the other with straight walls sloping inward toward the base (Sub-type 1B). With the possible exception of one vessel (not published here), all of the examples of Bowl Type 1 body fragments in our assemblage have rounded walls. The present assemblage includes 190 indicative fragments of Bowl Type 1, making this the most prevalent, by far, of all the lathe-turned bowl types in our corpus (see below, Discussion). One noteworthy fragment (Fig. 5.3: 2) is a disk base with an indentation in its center on both the inside and outside, which could be understood as traces of a grip that held the bowl at its axis while it was turned on the lathe at some point during production. Similar indentations were found on the base of a bowl (belonging to our Type 2) found in Area A of the Jewish Quarter (Reich 2003: Pl. 8.3: 4). Another fragment of note (not published here) is a rim fragment made of a hard gray-colored chalk, a raw material usually reserved for larger vessels such as kraters. Parallels: City of David, Shiloh excavations (Cahill 1992: 202–203, Fig. 16: 2–6, Photo 132 [Type 1.a.i.I]); Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002: 69–71, Fig. 3.13: 2–3 [Type I.1.A.vi]); Jewish Quarter (Reich 2003: 267, Pl. 8.3: 1, 5; Geva 2010: 170–171, Pl. 5.10: 7–12); Hizma (Magen 2002: 24, Figs. 2.11: 1–7, 2.12, 2.13 [Type I.1.A.iii]); Mount Scopus (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2008: 332, Fig. 20.12: 13); Jericho (Bar-Nathan and Gärtner 2013: 214, Pl. 9.4: 35–38, 42 [Lathe-turned Type 1A]). Parallels in other media: For a resemblance with local pottery bowls found at Qumran, >Ein Feshkha, Machaerus and Jericho, as well as a form of Eastern Terra Sigillata bowl, see bibliography cited in Magen 2002: 70–71; Cahill 1992: 203. Similarly formed lathed-turned wooden bowls have been found at En-Gedi (Hadas 1994: Figs. 14: 11–14, 50: 16,18, 61: 8–10,14, photo 4); at Wadi Murabba‘at (De Vaux 1961: 41, Pl. X: 13, 15); the Cave of Letters (Yadin 1963: 128, Fig. 50: 14, Pl. 39: 14); Masada and Naḥal Ḥever (Sitry 2006: Pl. 29–32) and at Magdala (De Luca 2009: 392, Fig. 139, Pl. 9541).

Bowl Type 2 (Fig. 5.3: 3–4)

This is a deep, narrow bowl with straight or slightly contoured walls, and a flat base. Vessels of this type are generally wider than they are deep and as such should technically be termed “bowls,” although Magen refers to these vessels as “cups” (Magen 2002: 24, 71). The external walls of these bowls display varying numbers of decorative, lathe-incised lines. Our assemblage includes 84 indicative fragments of this type of bowl. The inside of one base fragment (Fig. 5.3: 4), apparently of this type of bowl, retains clear traces of the core that was snapped off of the base of the vessel toward the end of the manufacturing process. Parallels: City of David, Shiloh excavations (Cahill 1992: 203, Fig. 16: 7–16, photo 133 [Type 1.a.i.J]); Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002: 71, Fig. 3.13: 4–6 [Type I.1.B]); Jewish Quarter excavations (Reich 2003: Pl. 8.3: 4; Geva 2010: 170, Pl. 5.10: 1–5); Hizma (Magen 2002: 24, Figs. 2.14: 1–9, 2.15, 2.16 [Type I.1.A.iii]); Mount. Scopus (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2008: 332, Fig. 20.13: 1–2).

1 0 6 Y O N ATA N A D L E R

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

17

20

21

22 0

Figure 5.3: Bowls and goblets.

5

10

THE CHALK VESSELS 107

Figure 5.3: Bowls and Goblets No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Type

Technique

1

14570/47

1054

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

2

13623/44

1022

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

3

13445/41

1036

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

4

14899/51

1045

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

5

13901/51

1037

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

6

10226/46

1013

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

7

13093/41

1019

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

8

14386/43

1037

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

9

13617/40

1041

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

10

14441/45

1037

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

11

14710/40

1013

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

12

13373/43

1035

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

13

14223/42

1046

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

14

14494/41

1053

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

15

10035/43

1003

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

16

13076/44

1016

Bowls

Vessels turned on a small lathe

17

14437/41

1047

Goblets

Vessels turned on a small lathe

18

10226/45

1013

Goblets

Vessels turned on a small lathe

19

13393/40

1034

Goblets

Vessels turned on a small lathe

20

13650/42

1037

Goblets

Vessels turned on a small lathe

21

13847/40

1037

Goblets

Vessels turned on a small lathe

22

13346/40

1031

Goblets

Vessels turned on a small lathe

Parallels in other media: A lathe-turned wooden bowl, identical in form, was found in Cave 2 at Wadi Murabba‘at (De Vaux 1961: 41, Pl. X: 14).

Bowl Type 3 (Fig. 5.3: 5)

This is a shallow bowl characterized by straight or slightly concave walls and a low disk base. Bands of incised lines encircle the external walls of the bowl at various points beneath the rim. The present assemblage includes 71 indicative fragments of this type of bowl, most of which are body fragments. Parallels: City of David, Shiloh excavations (Cahill 1992: 201–202, Fig. 15: 9–22, Photos 126– 127 [Type 1.a.i.F]); Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002: 66, Fig. 3.5: 1–7, Fig. 3.6–3.8 [Type I.1.A.iiiForm 1]); Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva 2010: 170, Photo 5.4, Pl. 5.10: 13–15); Hizma (Magen 2002: 22, Figs. 2.3, 2.4: 1–10, 2.5 [Type I.1.A.iForm 1]); Mount Scopus excavations (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2008: 331, Fig. 20.12: 1–5); Jericho (Bar-Nathan and Gärtner 2013: 215– 216, Pl. 9.4: 51–52, 54 [Lathe-turned Type 4]).

1 0 8 Y O N ATA N A D L E R

Parallels in other media: Both Magen and Cahill noted parallels of this type in Eastern Terra Sigillata bowls as well as in assemblages of wooden vessels found in Bar Kokhba period refuge caves (see bibliography cited in Cahill 1992: 202; Magen 2002: 66). Additional parallels in wood have been found at Masada and at Qumran (Sitry 2006: Pls. 17: 61, 19: 66, 67, 71, 72; 18: 63).

Bowl Type 4 (Fig. 5.3: 6–9)

This type is characterized by sloping walls and a slightly inverted triangular-profiled rim, decorated with lathe-incised bands. Fifteen rim fragments of this bowl type are found in our assemblage. Five of these fragments represent a slight variant of this type in which the rim is not inverted (Fig. 5.3: 9). Parallels: City of David, Shiloh excavations (Cahill 1992: 201, Fig. 15: 4–6 [Type 1.a.i.D]); Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002: 68, Fig. 3.5: 8–9, Fig. 3.9 [Type I.1.A.iiiForm 2]); Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva 2010: 170, Pl. 5.10: 6); Hizma (Magen 2002: 22, Figs. 2.6: 6 [Type I.1.A.iForm 2]); Mount Scopus excavations (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2008: 331, Fig. 20.1: 7, 9–11); Jericho (Bar-Nathan and Gärtner 2013: 214–215, Pl. 43–45 [Lathe-turned Type 2]).

Bowl Type 5 (Fig. 5.3: 10)

This type is a bowl with a down-sloping rim, undercut externally by a broad concave depression. Our assemblage includes five rim fragments of this type. Parallels: City of David, Shiloh excavations (Cahill 1992: 203, Fig. 16: 17–19, Photos 134–135 [Type 1.a.i.K]). Parallels in other media: A wooden parallel of this bowl type has been found at Qumran (Sitry 2006: Pl. 25: 104).

Bowl Type 6 (Fig. 5.3: 11)

This type is represented in our assemblage by one small bowl with a narrow ledge rim, slightly rounded sides and what may be a fragment of a disk base. Parallels: City of David, Shiloh excavations (Cahill 1992: 201, Fig. 15: 2, Photos 118–119 [Type 1.a.i.B]); Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002: 65, Fig. 3.2: 1 [Type I.1.A.iForm 1]).

Bowl Type 7 (Fig. 5.3: 12)

One rim fragment of this bowl type was found. Bands of lathe-incised ridges appear below the rim, and the body is slightly rounded. No parallels from other excavations have been noted.

Bowl Type 8 (Fig. 5.3: 13)

This type is represented by two fragments of a ledge rim with two lathe-incised lines on top, and a slightly carinated body. No parallels are known to have been reported.

Bowl Type 9 (Fig. 5.3: 14)

One rim fragment of this type, which displays the complete profile of the vessel, is included in our assemblage. It belongs to a small bowl with a slightly down-sloping rim that overhangs the body of the bowl, a shallow body that rounds toward the bottom and a disk base. No parallels are known.

Bowl Type 10 (Fig. 5.3: 15)

This type is represented by one fragment, which features a flat rim with three lathe-incised ridges on top and a slightly rounded body sloping strongly inward. No parallels are known.

THE CHALK VESSELS 109

Bowl Type 11 (Fig. 5.3: 16)

One fragment of this unique, deep bowl type is found in the present corpus. The triangular-profiled rim has a small inner recess and two lathe-incised groves appear on the body of the bowl ca. 1.5 cm below the rim. No parallels have been reported.

Goblets Thirteen fragments are identified here as deriving from different types of goblets—small vessels characterized by a deep cup standing on a stemmed base. Seven of these are rim fragments decorated with bands of multiple lathe-incised lines (Fig. 5.3: 17–19). One fragment (Fig. 5.3: 20) includes a fragment of a loop handle located ca. 0.5 cm below the rim. Although the lathe-incised lines found on the interior of the vessel, as well as on the rim itself indicate that the vessel was worked on a small lathe, the band where the handle is located was certainly hand-carved. Close inspection of the body of the vessel adjacent to the handle confirms this conclusion. No other examples of a hand-carved handle found on a chalk vessel fashioned on a small-lathe are known. Two additional fragments belong to goblet stem-bases. One of these (Fig. 5.3: 21) includes the base of the cup-like upper portion of the vessel, which sits on a 2.0 cm high broad stem in the form of a truncated cone; very narrow vertical bands of fine chisel-marks indicate that this part of the vessel was hand carved. This stem sits on a flat base with a beveled edge decorated with numerous lathe-incised lines. The second goblet base (Fig. 5.3: 22) belongs to a somewhat smaller vessel and includes a fragment of the upper portion decorated with lathe-incised lines, and a low stem base decorated with lathe-incised ribbing. Parallels: City of David, Shiloh excavations (Cahill 1992: 204, Fig. 16: 20–24 [Type 1.a.ii]); Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002: 71–72, Fig. 3.15, 3.16, 3.17 [Type I.1.C]); Jewish Quarter excavations (Avigad 1983, 182, Photo 209: 2); Hizma (Magen 2002: 24, Figs. 2.17 [Type I.1.C]); Mount Scopus excavations (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2008: 333–334, Fig. 20.13: 13–16).

Stoppers Ten fragments of lathe-turned stoppers are included in the present corpus. These include the following types:

Stopper Type 1 (Fig. 5.4: 1–2)

This type consists of a flat disk with a grooved side and a truncated cone that protrudes from the center of the disk. Three stoppers of this type, with varying diameters (disk: 4 cm, 6 cm, and 6.5 cm; base of protrusion: 2 cm, 2.4 cm, and 3.5 cm), are included in our assemblage.3 Parallels have been published from Shiloh’s excavations in the City of David (Cahill 1992: 204–205, Fig 17: 4 [Type 1.a.iii.D]); the Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002: Fig. 3.25: 8–11, 3.28 [Type I.1.G.Form2]); the Jewish Quarter excavations (Reich 2003: Pl. 8.3: 8–9; Geva 2010: 5.11: 1–4) and Jericho (BarNathan and Gärtner 2013: Pl. 9.4: 64). None of the examples in the present assemblage display the stepped profile found on stoppers from other sites. Most scholars have understood that the truncated cone projecting from the center of the disk on stoppers of this type was used to plug narrow-necked vessels, and that the disk served as a top to 3

A fourth stopper (not presented in the plates) probably belongs to this type, although the protrusion has broken off, and all sides of the object have been smoothed down, leaving almost no trace of the original protrusion and grooved sides.

1 1 0 Y O N ATA N A D L E R

1

2

4

5

0

2

3

6

4

Figure 5.4: Stoppers and Lids No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Type

Technique

1

14141/47

1037

Stoppers

Vessels turned on a small lathe

2

14141/52

1037

Stoppers

Vessels turned on a small lathe

3

13263/41

1027

Stoppers

Vessels turned on a small lathe

4

10080/40

1002

Stoppers

Vessels turned on a small lathe

5

13650/52

1037

Lids

Vessels turned on a small lathe

6

13408/41

1033

Lids

Vessels turned on a small lathe

T H E C H A L K V E S S E L S 111

the stopper (see: Cahill 1992: 204–205; Magen 2002: 76–77; Bar-Nathan and Gärtner 2013: 217). Reich, on the other hand, in his final report on the stone vessels from Areas A, W and X-2 in the Jewish Quarter, presented two lathe-turned chalk stoppers with their conical projections, which he termed upward facing “knobs” (Reich 2003: Pl. 8.3: 8–9), apparently understanding that the projections served as handles. Geva accepted this interpretation and suggested that the objects be termed “lids” as opposed to “stoppers” (Geva 2010: 172). In the absence of any conclusive evidence which might support one interpretation over the other, these objects are presented graphically in Fig. 5.4, according to the conventional understanding that they were used as stoppers with downward projections that served as plugs.

Stopper Type 2 (Fig. 5.4: 3)

This stopper has a flat disk (ca. 6 cm diameter), with angled (not grooved) sides and a 3.2 cm in diameter cylindrical projection that extended from its center. A second, poorly preserved stopper may belong to this type as well. No parallels from other sites are known.

Stopper Type 3 (Fig. 5.4: 4)

This badly damaged stopper is unusually large, with grooved incisions encircling its head, and a thick protrusion that measures ca. 13 cm in diameter. No parallels are known.

Lids Eight lids, fashioned on a small lathe, belong to the assemblage (Fig. 5.4: 5). Parallels have been found in Shiloh’s excavations in the City of David (Cahill 1992: 205, Fig. 17: 7 [Type 1.a.iv]). One lid features a short handle (Fig. 5.4: 6). Parallels have been reported from the Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002: Fig. 3.54: 1–2,4, 3.57), where they are presented as having been fashioned on a large lathe, and from the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva 2010: Fig. 5.11: 6).

Vessels Turned on a Large Lathe A large lathe was used for the production of certain types of particularly large chalk vessels, including kraters, trays and lids. Within the present corpus, 61 vessels have been identified as having been manufactured on a large lathe.

Kraters The kraters found in the current assemblage belong to a well-known type of large, barrel-shaped vessel found in large numbers in Jerusalem, and sporadically at a number of sites located elsewhere throughout the country (see Magen 2002: 80–90). These vessels were fashioned externally on a large lathe from a sizable block of chalk and were hand-carved internally (Cahill 1992: 224; Magen 2002: 130–131; Gibson 2003: 299–300; Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2008: 325–330). It has been shown that this vessel type was used for the storage of some kind of fluid—probably water (Reich 2003: 266). The finds from the current excavation include 53 fragments of chalk kraters: 17 rim fragments, 34 body fragments and two base fragments. The rim fragments belong to three distinct types:

Rim Type 1 (Fig. 5.5: 1–3)

This rim type features a flat top with a shallow inner recess, which was apparently intended to receive a lid, and a triple-ridged profile. This is by far the dominant rim type in the assemblage,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

9

11

12

13

14 Figure 5.5: Vessels turned on a large lathe.

0

5

10

15

T H E C H A L K V E S S E L S 113

Figure 5.5: Vessels Turned on a Large Lathe No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Type

Technique

1

14731/44

1013

Kraters

Vessels turned on a large lathe

2

14486/45

1037

Kraters

Vessels turned on a large lathe

3

14752/44

1056

Kraters

Vessels turned on a large lathe

4

14388/49

1013

Kraters

Vessels turned on a large lathe

5

13075/40

1003

Kraters

Vessels turned on a large lathe

6

13872/40

1037

Kraters

Vessels turned on a large lathe

7

10253/40

1010

Kraters

Vessels turned on a large lathe

8

13668/40

1037

Kraters

Vessels turned on a large lathe

9

14441/40

1037

Kraters

Vessels turned on a large lathe

10

10060/40

1002

Trays

Vessels turned on a large lathe

11

13401/40

1017

Trays

Vessels turned on a large lathe

12

13561/45

1037

Trays

Vessels turned on a large lathe

13

13790/50

1037

Trays

Vessels turned on a large lathe

14

14735/43

1056

Trays

Vessels turned on a large lathe

15

13670/40

1043

Lids

Vessels turned on a large lathe

with 13 rim fragments included. One of these fragments (Fig. 5.5: 1) is notably small. The inner recess on another (Fig. 5.5: 2) is unusually large, measuring ca. 2 cm. in both depth and width. The exterior wall of a krater with a rim of this type (Fig. 5.5: 3) features a lightly incised sketch composed of two parallel horizontal lines intersected by seven perpendicular vertical lines; its meaning is not known. Parallels: City of David, Shiloh excavations (Cahill 1992: 207, Fig. 18: 5–12, 19: 1–2); Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002: 80–82, Fig. 3.34: 3, 3.37,); Jewish Quarter excavations (Reich 2003: 266, Pl. 8.2: 2, 4–9; Geva 2006a: 222, Pl. 9.2: 1–6; Geva 2010: 167, Pl. 5.7: 2); Jericho (BarNathan and Gärtner 2013: 214, Pl. 9.5: 66–68); Cypros (ibid.: Pl. 9.8: 106).

Rim Type 2 (Fig. 5.5: 4–5)

This type features a flat top with a single ridge beneath it; a triangular-profiled projection overhangs the body (Fig. 5.5: 4). This rim type lacks the inner recess found in Rim Type 1. A variant of this type in our assemblage has three small ridges immediately beneath the top, and the triangular protrusion is carinated (Fig. 5.5: 5). These two fragments are the only examples of this rim type in our assemblage. Parallels: City of David, Shiloh excavations (Cahill 1992: 207, Fig. 18: 3; Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002: 80, Fig. 3.34: 1–2,4, 3.35, 3.36); Jewish Quarter excavations (Reich 2003: 266, Pl. 8.2: 1, 3, 5; Geva 2006b: 222, Pl. 9.2: 7; Geva 2010: 167, Pl. 5.7: 1, 3; 5.8: 1); Hizma (Magen 2002: 39, Fig. 2.31: 1); Mount Scopus excavations (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2008: 336, Fig. 20.14: 6 –9).

1 1 4 Y O N ATA N A D L E R

Rim Type 3 (Fig. 5.5: 6)

This type has a flat top, beneath which a triangular-profiled projection overhangs the body. An ornate fluting pattern decorates the side of this angled protrusion. As in Rim Type 1, the rim has a shallow inner recess apparently meant to receive a lid. Our assemblage includes only one example of this type of rim. Parallels: Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002: Fig. 3.38: 3–7, 3.39); the Jewish Quarter excavations (Reich 2003: Pl. 8.2: 11) and Jericho (Bar-Nathan and Gärtner 2013: Pl. 9.5: 69). Four of the body fragments feature lathe-incised decorative lines, and five additional body fragments are decorated with ornamental fluting (Fig. 5.5: 7–8). Similarly decorated krater fragments have been found almost exclusively in Jerusalem; parallels have been found in the City of David (Weill 1920: Pl. XXVB; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 148–150, Fig. 138–139; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: Pl. XVIII: 24, 28, 30; Cahill 1992: 208, Fig. 19: 4–7, Photo 186; Amit and Adler 2007: 76, Pl. 6); near the Temple Mount (Magen 2002: 86, Fig. 3.41, 7); in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Magen 2002: Pl. 13) and in Akeldama (Dussaud 1912: 57–58, No. 56). Five additional examples of such kraters with similar fluting ornamentation have also been found in Jaffa (Amit and Adler 2018: 541–542, Fig. 14.2: 24–27). Although no fragments of handles were found, two body fragments include a band which was hand-carved (not presented here), and on the basis of numerous parallels (e.g., Cahill 1992: Fig. 19: 3; Magen 2002: Figs. 3.337, 3.42, 3.43; Geva 2010: Pl. 5.7: 1–2), we may conclude that these were left uncut on the lathe in order to allow for the fashioning of handles on a portion of the krater that has not been recovered. Rim and body fragments from two trumpet-shaped krater bases were found, one of which is presented here (Fig. 5.5: 9). The base is externally lathe-cut and features simple lathe-incised decorative bands on the top and on the sides. Rough chisel-marks found on the hollowed-out underside of the base indicate that it was hand carved internally. Parallels are known from the City of David (Cahill 1992, Fig. 19: 9); the Temple Mount excavations (Magen 2002, Fig. 3.34: 1–2, 3.35, 3.36); the Jewish Quarter (Reich 2003: Pl. 8.2: 14; Geva 2006a: Pl. 9.2: 9; Geva 2010: Pls. 5.7: 1, 4; 5.8: 4–6) and elsewhere. Avigad proposed identifying this type of stone krater with a vessel called qalal (‫ )קלל‬in rabbinic literature (Avigad 1983: 174), a suggestion accepted by Magen (2002: 88), Gibson (2003: 294) and others (cf. Reich 2003: 267). This identification should be regarded as improbable, however, as rabbinic literature provides no clues as to the usual form or size of the qalal and indicates only that such vessels were sometimes made of pottery and sometimes of stone (see Adler 2011: 210–212). Avigad (1983: 183) was apparently also the first to identify these vessels with the large stone jars (λίθιναι ὑδρίαι) mentioned in the New Testament account of the wedding episode at Cana (John 2:6), a suggestion which has deservedly gained wide acceptance (e.g., Gibson 1983: 181; Cahill 1992: 209; Deines 1993: 34–38, 53; Magen 2002: 142; Reed 2003).

Trays Seven fragments of trays fashioned on a large lathe were recovered in the present excavations. These include four rim fragments (Fig. 5.5: 10–13) ranging in diameter from 31–80 cm, as well as fragments of three ring bases (Fig. 5.5: 14). Similar large trays have been found in B. Mazar’s excavations adjacent to the Temple Mount (Magen 2002: 80, Figs. 3.32, 3.33).

Lid A fragment with a beveled edge and a wide outer ridge (Fig. 5.5: 15) probably belongs to a large lid. Fragments of similar lids have been found in the excavations adjacent to the Temple Mount (Magen 2002: 90, 94, Figs. 3.54: 3 [note mistake in scale], 3.55, 3.56 [Form I.2.D.Form 1]).

T H E C H A L K V E S S E L S 115

Debitage Numerous examples of debitage were found in the present excavations. These include unfinished vessels and chalk cores extracted from the interiors of vessels. Altogether, 15 fragments of unfinished lathe-turned bowls were found, each featuring distinctive ribbed striations, both internally and externally, left over from the initial working on the lathe (Fig. 5.6). One of these (Fig. 5.7: 1) clearly belongs to an unfinished hemispherical bowl (Bowl Type 1), while another (Fig. 5.7: 2) probably belongs to an unfinished deep bowl (Bowl Type 2), and two others (Fig. 5.7: 3–4) possibly belong to unfinished shallow bowls (Bowl Type 3). The remainder of the fragments are difficult to assign to any known type. All of these fragments were lathe-cut both internally and externally. Among the debitage remains is also one fragment of a small, unfinished, hand-carved pitcher (Fig. 5.1: 13) with an incomplete spout, internal walls retaining the downward-sloping incisions of a narrow chisel used to hollow it out and a hand-carved exterior displaying a faceted appearance that is unusually rough. The portion of the pitcher where the handle would typically have been positioned has not survived. Also included in our corpus are seven truncated-conical and cylindrical cores removed from chalk bowls (and perhaps also mugs or pitchers) using a small lathe (Fig. 5.7: 5–9). One of these (Fig. 5.7: 9), which has survived only partially, has an irregular, deep depression on top. Debitage similar to ours has been found at a number of chalk vessel workshop sites located outside of intramural Jerusalem: at Hizma (Magen 2002); Mount Scopus (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2008); Jabal Mukabbir (1969); Tell el-Ful (Gibson 1996: 18*) and at Reina and >Einot Amitai in the Galilee (Gal 1991; Amit 2010). Cores similar to ours have been found at these and numerous other sites, however these may have been brought from elsewhere and put to secondary

Figure 5.6: Debitage.

1 1 6 Y O N ATA N A D L E R

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 0

5

10

Figure 5.7 Debitage No.

Reg. no.

Locus

Type

Technique

1

14735/40

1056

Debitage

Vessels turned on a lathe

2

14196/46

1022

Debitage

Vessels turned on a lathe

3

13510/41

1022

Debitage

Vessels turned on a lathe

4

13820/40

1043

Debitage

Vessels turned on a lathe

5

10080/40

1002

Debitage

Vessels turned on a lathe

6

13226/40

1021

Debitage

Vessels turned on a lathe

7

14237/41

1022

Debitage

Vessels turned on a lathe

8

13084/41

1003

Debitage

Vessels turned on a lathe

9

13561/41

1037

Debitage

Vessels turned on a lathe

use as stoppers4; as such they do not necessarily indicate the presence of a chalk vessel workshop in the immediate vicinity. The significance of the debitage in the present corpus lies in the fact that it apparently derived from a chalk vessel workshop located somewhere within intramural Jerusalem itself. In the past only a small number of debitage remains has been reported from Jerusalem. This consists of six examples of unfinished lathe-turned bowls similar to ours found in the Shiloh excavations in the 4

Evidence for such a practice has been found at Khirbet Nisya, where a storage jar was found with a chalk core used as a stopper (Magen 2002: 77, n. 88).

T H E C H A L K V E S S E L S 117

City of David (Cahill 1992: 205–206, Fig. 17: 8–13 [Type 1.a.v]) and two unfinished lathe-turned bowls found in B. Mazar’s excavations adjacent to the Temple Mount (Magen 2002: 66, Fig. 3.5: 1–2, 3.8). A number of chalk vessel cores similar to ours has also been found in the past in and immediately adjacent to Jerusalem: in a cave located at the southern foot of Mount Zion (Clermont-Ganneau 1899: 291–293); in the City of David (Macalister and Duncan 1926: 158, Fig. 152a, b, d [identified as “draughtsmen,” i.e., gaming pieces]; Cahill 1992: 206–207, Fig. 17: 15–26 [Type 1.a.vi.B]); in a cistern located in the Kidron Valley (Corbo 1965: 55–57, Figs. 49–51); in excavations adjacent to the Temple Mount (Magen 2002: 77, Fig. 3.29 [Type I.1.H]) and in the Jewish Quarter (Reich 2003: Pl. 8.3: 10; Geva 2010: 173–174, Pl. 5.11: 8–11, Photo 5.6).5 The unfinished small pitcher fragment found in the present excavations (Fig. 5.1: 13) is the first example of an unfinished hand-carved vessel reported found within the city. The debitage from the current excavations provide significant new evidence for the presence of chalk vessel production within the city. However, as these finds derive solely from the context of the municipal refuse dump, we remain unable to proffer a suggestion as to exactly where in the city such production may have taken place.

DISCUSSION The quantity of fragments in our assemblage is significantly larger than any previously published corpus of chalk vessels. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that most previous assemblages have been selective; only representative fragments were retained and recorded from Avigad’s excavations in the Jewish Quarter (H. Geva, personal communication), while the corpus of chalk vessels from Shiloh’s excavations in the City of David was limited by the practice of discarding fragments considered “unindicative” at the time of recovery (Cahill 1992: 190). Only a small number of the fragments unearthed in excavations at the chalk vessel workshops at Hizma and Mount Scopus were recorded and published and no quantitative data have been reported from either of these excavations. The large quantity of chalk vessels in the present assemblage, together with the fact that all chalk vessel fragments visible to the excavators in the field were retrieved and recorded, provide the first opportunity to conduct a statistical analysis of the frequencies of the various chalk vessel types in use in Jerusalem during the 1st century CE (Table 5.1). As our assemblage derives from random garbage deposited in the city dump, this data may be presumed to represent the quantitative breakdown of vessel types used by Jerusalem’s population during the last decades of the Second Temple period. One caveat is that some vessels commonly in use during this period may have been less prone to breakage than others and consequentially these vessel types may be under-represented in our corpus. Variables, which may affect frequency of breakage, include both the form of the vessel as well as the way in which the vessel was used. It should be noted here that an analysis of the distribution of the various chalk vessel types among the well-stratified loci in the current excavations revealed no statistically significant patterns. 5

In a trial excavation conducted 50 m east of the southeast corner of the Golden Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem, the excavators discovered “numerous fragments of stone vessels, as well as industrial waste of the Second Temple period” (Reich and Shukron 1999). The excavators interpreted these finds as evidence of the presence of “houses with attached workshops producing stone vessels” in the area. No further details have been reported.

1 1 8 Y O N ATA N A D L E R

Table 5.1. Frequency of Chalk Vessels Within the Assemblage Production method

Form/type

Number of fragments

Percentage of total

Hand-carved

 

407

 

 

41%

 

Mugs/small pitchers

 

307

 

31%

 

Bowls

 

57

 

6%

 

Stoppers

 

5

 

-

 

Lids

 

8

 

1%

 

Varia

 

30

 

3%

Small lathe

 

493

 

 

49%

 

Bowls

 

461

 

46%

 

Type 1

 

 

190

19%

 

Type 2

 

 

84

8%

 

Type 3

 

 

71

7%

 

Type 4

 

 

15

1%

 

Type 5

 

 

5

-

 

Type 6

 

 

1

-

 

Type 7

 

 

1

-

 

Type 8

 

 

2

-

 

Type 9

 

 

1

-

 

Type 10

 

 

1

-

 

Type 11

 

 

1

-

 

Unidentified bowl Type

 

 

89

9%

 

Goblets

 

13

 

1%

 

Stoppers

 

10

 

1%

 

Lids

 

8

 

1%

 

Varia

 

1

 

-

Large lathe

 

61

 

 

6%

 

Kraters

 

53

 

5%

 

Trays

 

7

 

1%

 

Lids

 

1

 

-

Debitage

 

23

 

 

2%

 

Unfinished vessels

 

16

 

2%

 

Cores

 

7

 

1%

Unidentified

 

19

 

 

2%

Total

 

1003

 

 

100%

T H E C H A L K V E S S E L S 119

Frequency of Bowls Produced on a Small Lathe The number of lathe-turned bowls within the present corpus is striking; it is a full 46% of the assemblage. Of these, the vast majority of indicative fragments (92%) belong to one of three types: hemispherical bowls (Type 1), deep narrow bowls (Type 2) and shallow bowls (Type 3). Although bowls that belong to all three of these types are not uncommon among other chalk vessel assemblages in Jerusalem and elsewhere, the sheer size of the present assemblage, the nature of the site and the methodology of the excavation provide the first opportunity to investigate the frequency of each of these types in a meaningful way within a complete repertoire of 1st century CE chalk vessels. Hemispherical bowls (Type 1) are by far the most prevalent of all the bowls turned on a smalllathe within our assemblage; they comprise 51% of the bowl fragments identifiable by type. It should be noted that the actual frequency is undoubtedly much higher, as many of the 89 typologically non-indicative bowl fragments probably belong to this type as well. The second largest group is made up of the deep narrow bowls (Type 2), which comprise 23% of the typologically diagnostic bowl fragments. The shallow bowls (Type 3) make up the third-largest group, with 19% of the typologically identifiable bowls of this type. Geva has suggested that chalk bowls produced on a small lathe may have appeared only some time during the 1st century CE, as these types are missing from the chalk vessel repertoire of Area E in the Jewish Quarter, which dates to the second half of the 1st century BCE (Geva 2006a: 221; Geva 2006b: 196–197). Geva proffered this suggestion cautiously, as it is essentially an argumentum e silentio and it may simply be a matter of chance that no lathe-turned bowls were found in this excavation area. Indeed, Geva’s suggestion has been challenged by Bar-Nathan and Gärtener (2013: 208, 214), who noted the appearance of one hemispherical bowl (our Type 1) in the industrial area of Jericho, which they stratigraphically dated to the last decade of Herod’s reign (15–6 BCE). The data from the current excavation may lend important weight to Geva’s suggestion. As latheturned bowls comprise close to half of the entire chalk vessel assemblage from the City of David dump, the lack of any such vessels in Area E of the Jewish Quarter is striking. Although still an argument from silence, the current data suggests that this is in fact a rather loud silence.

Frequency of Kraters and Krater-rim Types Krater fragments make up only a small portion of the present corpus, numbering about 5%. Reed (2003: 390–401) suggested that the percentages of kraters in Late Second Temple period sites’ chalk vessel assemblages may be indicative socio-economic factors, as these vessels were luxury items which only the better-off could afford. Reed discovered support for his theory in the correlation he found between the high proportion of krater fragments uncovered at Sepphoris (15%) compared with Capernaum (less than 2%) and Nabratein (0%) on the one hand and other archaeological indicators of wealth found at these sites on the other. While at first glance it would seem surprising that the percentage of kraters in our chalk vessel assemblage from Jerusalem is significantly lower than that from Sepphoris, a simple explanation can be found in the special context of our finds: the city garbage dump. Due to the large size and massive weight of the stone kraters under discussion, these vessels were almost certainly set in one location in the home and seldom moved from place to place. As a result, we may assume that the rate at which kraters broke and found their way to the city dump was significantly lower than the rate at which small and movable chalk vessels would have fractured and been disposed of. Previously, we noted that of the 16 krater rim fragments found in our corpus, the dominant type is that bearing a triple-ridged profile (Rim Type 1), with 13 rim fragments included. Only

1 2 0 Y O N ATA N A D L E R

two examples of krater rims bearing a triangular profile (Rim Type 2) are found in the present assemblage. In contrast, all of the four published krater rims from the Mount Scopus workshop are of the triangular type (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2008: 336, Fig. 20.14: 6–9), as is the one rim found at the chalk vessel production center at Hizma (Magen 2002: 38–39, Fig. 2.31: 1). One possible explanation is that various workshops specialized in different rim styles, with some workshops producing only one type of rim. In this vein, it is even possible that the style of the rim served in antiquity as a sort of trademark meant to distinguish the workmanship of one production center from another. Another possibility is that the different rim styles represent an as-yet unrecognized development in typological forms, with our finds representing one chronological period and those from Mount Scopus (and perhaps Hizma as well), another.

Comparison with Material from Reich and Shukron’s Area L In the excavations carried out by Reich and Shukron in a different section of the 1st century CE Jerusalem dump—Reich and Shukron’s Area L—only two fragments of stone vessel rims were recovered (Bar-Oz et al. 2007: 8). According to the researchers who studied the material recovered from this site, “This low number most probably results from the fact that stone vessels are far less susceptible to breakage.” Considering the volume of material recovered from the current excavations at Area D3 relative to that recovered from Reich and Shukron’s Area L (see Chapter 2), the large number of chalk vessel fragments found in the present excavation compared with the paucity of such finds from Area L requires an explanation. One possibility is that the two deposits derive from different areas of the city, which display distinct patterns of chalk vessel usage. Another explanation might be that although the two deposits are both dated to the 1st century CE up until the Great Revolt ending in 70 CE, each may derive from a different period within this 70-year span. The disparity in the number of chalk vessels found at these two locations would thus represent a change in the intensity of chalk vessel usage in Jerusalem over time. Since the exact source within the city of the refuse deposited at either site is unknown, and since the precise date of these deposits between 1 and 70 CE is also unknown, any attempt to suggest a more definite explanation for the discrepancy in the number of chalk vessels between the two sites will remain purely speculative. The researchers who analyzed the material from Reich and Shukron’s Area L suggested that composition of the deposits strongly reflects the influence of Jewish pilgrims who visited Jerusalem in large numbers throughout the year and particularly during the three annual pilgrimage festivals (Bar-Oz et al. 2007). While this is likely the case, it should be pointed out that included among the chalk vessels in the current assemblage are types that almost certainly derived from local, probably residential contexts. In particular, the massive chalk kraters whose fragments were found in the present excavations were undoubtedly too large and heavy to have been brought to the city by pilgrims and should rather be understood as reflecting the material culture of the local Jerusalem population.

REFERENCES Adler, Y. 2011. The Archaeology of Purity: Archaeological Evidence for the Observance of Ritual Purity in Ereẓ-Israel from the Hasmonean Period until the End of the Talmudic Era (164 BCE –400 CE) (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan (Hebrew, English summary pp. I-III). Adler, Y. Forthcoming. The Chalk Vessels. In: Bar-Nathan, O., ed. Excavations at Shuʿafat Authority Reports). Jerusalem.

THE CHALK VESSELS 121

Amit, D. 2010. The Manufacture of Stone Vessels in Jerusalem and the Galilee: Technological, Chronological and Typological Aspects. Michmanim 22: 49–66 (Hebrew). Amit, D. and Adler, Y. 2007. Revisiting the 1913–1914 Weill Expedition: Recent Excavations in the City of David. In: Meiron, E., ed. City of David: Studies of Ancient Jerusalem II. Jerusalem: 69–81 (Hebrew). Amit, D. and Adler, Y. 2018. The Stone Vessels. In: Tsuf, O., ed. Ancient Jaffa from the Persian to the Byzantine Period: Kaplan Excavations (1955–1981), (Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project Series 3). Münster: 538–572. Amit, D., Seligman, J. and Zilberbod, I. 2008. Stone Vessel Production Caves on the Eastern Slope of Mount Scopus, Jerusalem. In: Rowan, Y.M. and Ebeling, J.R., eds. New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts. London: 320–342. Anonymous. 1969. A Workshop from the Second Temple Period in the Jerusalem Environs. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 30: 24 (Hebrew). Ann Arbor: 56–69. Avigad, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Bar-Nathan, R. and Gärtner, J. 2013. The Stone Artifacts from the Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho and Cypros. In: Bar-Nathan, R. and Gartner, J., eds. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. V: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros. Jerusalem: 205–234. Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnick, R., Weiss, E., Weissbrod, L., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. and Reich, R. 2007. “Holy Garbage”: A Quantitative Study of the City-Dump of Early Roman Jerusalem. Levant 39: 1–12. Cahill, J. 1992. Chalk Vessel Assemblages of the Persian/Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. In: De Groot, A. and Ariel, D., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. III: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem: 190–274. Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1899. Archaeological Researches in Palestine During the Years 1873–1874, Vol. I. London. Corbo, V.C. 1965. Ricerche archeologiche al Monte degli Ulivi. Jerusalem. Crowfoot, J.W. and Fitzgerald, G.M. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem, 1927 (Palestine Exploration Fund Annual No. 5). London. De Luca, S. 2009. La città ellenistico-romana di Magdala/Taricheae: gli scavi del Magdala Project 2007 e 2008: relazione preliminare e prospettive di indagine. Liber Annuus 59: 343–562. De Vaux R. 1961. Archéologie. In: Benoit, P., Milik, J.T. and De Vaux, R., eds. Les grottes de Murabba’ât (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II). Oxford: 3–50. Deines, R. 1993. Jüdische Steingefäße und pharisäische Frömmigkeit: Ein archäologisch-historischer Beitrag zum Verständnis von John 2, 6 und jüdischen Reinheitshalacha zur Zeit Jesu (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 52). Tübingen. Dooijes, R. and Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. 2009. Ancient Repairs in Archaeological Research: A Near Eastern Perspective. In: Ambers, J. Higgitt, C., Harrison, L., Saunders, D., eds., Holding It All Together: Ancient and Modern Approaches to Joining, Repair and Consolidation. London: 8–12. Dussaud, R. 1912. Les monuments palestiniens et judaïques (Moab, Judée, Philistie, Samarie, Galilée). Paris. Gal, Z. 1991. A Stone-Vessel Manufacturing Site in the Lower Galilee. >Atiqot 20: 25*–26* (Hebrew). Geva, H. 2006a. Stone Artifacts. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 218–238. Geva, H. 2006b. A Proposal for Jerusalemite Stone Vessel Typology of the Second Temple Period. In: Baruch, E., Greenhut, Z. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 11. Ramat Gan: 193–200 (Hebrew, English abstract: 41*–42*). Geva, H. 2010. Stone Artifacts. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 154–212. Gibson, S. 1983. The Stone Vessel Industry at Hizma. Israel Exploration Journal 33: 176–188. Gibson, S. 1996. Tell el-Full and the Results of the North-East Jerusalem Survey. In: Faust, A., ed. New Studies on Jerusalem 2. Ramat Gan: 9*–23* (Hebrew) Gibson, S. 2003. Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine: A Reassessment. In: Bottini, G.C., Di Segni, L. and Chrupcala, L.D., eds. One Land—Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM. Jerusalem: 287–308.

1 2 2 Y O N ATA N A D L E R

Gibson, S. 2016. Soft Limestone Vessels. In: Syon, D., ed., Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989, Finds and Studies, Part 2. Jerusalem: 49–81. Gordon, B. 2012. Stone Artifacts from the Cardo and the Nea Church. In: Gutfeld, O., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. V: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T). Jerusalem: 450–457. Hadas, G. 1994. Nine Tombs of the Second Temple Period at En Gedi. >Atiqot 24: 1–65 (Hebrew). Macalister, R.A.S. and Duncan, J.G. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem: 1923–1925 (Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund 4). London. Magen, Y. 2002. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period: Excavations at Hizma and the Jerusalem Temple Mount. Jerusalem. Miller, S.S. 2003. Some Observations on Stone Vessel Finds and Ritual Purity in Light of Talmudic Sources. In: Alkier, S. and Zangenberg, J., eds. Zeichen aus Text und Stein, Studien auf dem Weg zu einer Archäologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: 402–419. Miller, S.S. 2010. Stepped Pools, Stone Vessels, and Other Identity Markers of “Complex Common Judaism.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 41: 214–243. Reed, J.L. 2003. Stone Vessels and Gospel Texts: Purity and Socio-Economics in John 2. In: Alkier, S. and Zangenberg, J., eds. Zeichen aus Text und Stein, Studien auf dem Weg zu einer Archäologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: 381–401. Reich, R. 2003. Stone Vessels, Weights and Architectural Fragments. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Area A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: 263–291. Reich, R. 2007. Stone Mugs from Masada. In: Aviram, J., Foerster, G., Netzer, E. and Stiebel, G.D., eds. Masada VIII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports. Jerusalem: 195–206. Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 1999. Jerusalem, the Gihon Spring. Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 19: 60–61 (Hebrew). Sitry, Y. 2006. Wooden Objects from Roman Sites in the Land of Israel: A Typological and Technological Study (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Weill, R. 1920. La cité de David. Compte rendu des fouilles exécutées à Jérusalem, sur la site de la ville primitive. Campagne de 1923–1924. Paris. Yadin Y. 1963. The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Jerusalem.

CHAPTER 6

THE GLASS FINDS Ruth E. Jackson-Tal

About 600 fragments of glass vessels and other small glass finds and some 70 primary and secondary glass production remains were found during the excavations of Area D3 of the Early Roman landfill in the City of David, Jerusalem. They can be dated to the 1st century BCE to mainly during the 1st century CE, until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, according to their typology and additional numismatic and ceramic evidence. The glass finds are separated into two vessel groups according to their manufacturing techniques. The two groups are equal in size and are divided into vessels produced by either casting and sagging in molds (302) or by free blowing (297). A few vessels were produced by mold-blowing (5) and several small objects were produced by tooling (10). The vessels were made mostly of colorless glass, but also of light yellow, yellow-green, yellow-brown, deep blue, bluish-green and green glass. They are covered in a thick black, white and silver weathering and a strong iridescent film. The main part of the vessels and small finds were found shattered into small fragments. Some 56 vessels and objects were chosen for publication according to their state of preservation and typological significance. The glass vessels are discussed in typological and chronological order and are dated according to their context and on a typological basis. Parallels are cited mostly from well-stratified contexts in Jerusalem, from the previous City of David excavations (Ariel 1990); from the Western Wall Plaza (Gorin-Rosen 2021; Katsnelson 2021); Tyropoeon Valley (Gutrich 2013); from several areas in the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2003, 2006; Israeli and Katsnelson 2006; Israeli 2010, 2014); from the International Convention Center (Gorin-Rosen 2005) and from ShuAin >Arrub (Tsafrir and Zissu 2002: 26, Fig. 17:3), En-Gedi (Jackson-Tal 2005a:74*, Fig. 1: 2) and at Gamla (Jackson-Tal 2016a: Fig. 8.17).

130 R U T H E . J A C K S O N - TA L

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 Figure 6.3: Cast ribbed bowls.

0

2

4

THE GLASS FINDS 131

Figure 6.3: Cast Ribbed Bowls No.

Locus

Basket

Description

14

1018

10334

Rim and wall fragment. Green, silver weathering and iridescent film. Straight polished rim, thick straight wall with two horizontal grooves below rim on interior and short protruding slanted rib on exterior. Rim D. 12 cm.

15

1022

13353

Rim and wall fragment. Yellow-brown, iridescent film. Flaring ground rim, thick straight wall with short protruding slanted rib on the exterior below a polished band. Rim D. 12.2 cm.

16

1110

16327

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge, silver weathering and iridescent film. Straight rounded rim, curving wall with elongated even ribs on exterior below a polished band. Rim D. 20 cm.

17

1102

16463

Base and wall fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge, thick black and silver weathering and iridescent film. Flat base, curving wall with elongated, even ribs on exterior.

18

1173

19

1022

14411

Rim and wall fragment. Bluish-green, silver weathering and iridescent film. Straight rounded rim, straight thick wall with two horizontal grooves below rim and another one on wall on interior and slanted ribs on exterior. Rim D. 12.2 cm.

20

1102

15899

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge, silver weathering and iridescent film. Straight rounded rim, straight wall with one horizontal groove below rim and two on wall on interior and elongated shallow ribs on exterior. Rim D. 14.2 cm.

21

1022

14008

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless, silver weathering and iridescent film. Flaring polished rim, thick curving wall with one horizontal groove below rim on interior and short protruding slanted rib on exterior below a polished band. Rim D. 11.4 cm.

22

1002

10116

Rim and wall fragment. Yellow-green, silver weathering and iridescent film. Flaring polished rim, thick straight wall with one horizontal groove below rim on interior and short protruding slanted rib on exterior below a wide polished band. Rim D. 12.2 cm.

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless, silver weathering and iridescent film. Straight rounded rim, straight wall with one horizontal groove below rim on interior and elongated straight ribs on exterior. Rim D. 14.2 cm.

Free-blown Vessels Free-blown vessels were first produced in the mid-1st century BCE (Israeli and Katsnelson 2006). The dominant method for producing blown glass vessels included gathering molten glass on the end of a blowpipe, and blowing an initial parison, which was shaped into the desired vessel by marvering, re-blowing and tooling. The free-blown vessels were used in everyday life as drinking, serving and storing vessels. A large number of free-blown bowls, beakers, jugs and bottles (50% of the finds) was found at the site.

Bowls/Beakers with Straight Thickened Rims (Fig. 6.4: 30–33) Small bowls and beakers with straight walls are typical of the Roman period, known with a straight, flaring or incurving rim. Similar beakers with straight rims were found in Jerusalem in the City

132 R U T H E . J A C K S O N - TA L

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33 0

2

4

Figure 6.4: Cast ribbed, mold-blown and free-blown bowls/beakers.

THE GLASS FINDS 133

Figure 6.4: Cast Ribbed, Mold-Blown and Free-Blown Bowls/Beakers No.

Locus

Basket

Description

23

1037

14140

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge, thick black and silver weathering and iridescent film. Straight ground rim, curving shallow wall with multiple short protruding straight ribs on exterior below a wide polished band. Rim D. 12 cm.

24

1109

16412

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless, silver weathering. Straight ground rim, curving shallow wall with multiple short protruding straight ribs on exterior below a wide polished band. Rim D. 12 cm.

25

Surface find

26

1043

13838

Rim and wall fragment. Light blue, silver weathering and iridescent film. Straight ground rim, curving wall with one horizontal groove below rim on interior and multiple short protruding straight ribs on exterior below a wide polished band. Rim D. 14 cm.

27

1061

14789

Wall fragment. Light yellow. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight wall curving in on lower side, decorated on exterior with mold-blown designs including part of rectangular tabula ansata above two horizontal ridges.

28

1111

16706

Base and wall fragment. Light yellow. Little iridescence. Thin delicate base with mold-blown geometric designs on exterior side consisting of two concentric circles with central raised dot. Beginning of straight thin wall. Base D. 4 cm.

29

1035

13649

Base and wall fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge. Silver weathering and iridescence. Curving wall with densely-set vertical mold-blown ribs. Flattened base with two pairs of raised concentric circles.

30

1010

1134

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight thickened rim and straight wall. Rim D. 7.4 cm.

31

1010

10059

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight thickened rim and straight wall. Rim D. 7.4 cm.

32

1037

14152

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight thickened rim and straight wall. Rim D. 8.4 cm.

33

1022

13837

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight thickened rim and straight wall. Rim D. 10.2 cm.

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless, silver weathering and iridescent film. Straight ground rim, curving shallow wall with multiple short protruding straight ribs on exterior below a wide polished band. Rim D. 13.2 cm.

of David (Ariel 1990: 156, 163, Figs. 30: GL24–GL25; 33: GL90–GL94), in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gutreich 2013: 271, Fig. 12.2: 18–19), in the Jewish Quarter Burnt House (Israeli 2010: 225, Pl. 6.2: G24–G25), in a grave at Ketef Hinnom, dated to the 2nd–3rd centuries CE (Katsnelson 2015: 35, Fig. 1: 2) and in Herod՚s tomb at Herodium (Jackson-Tal 2015: 398–399, Pl. 9.1: 6–9).

Bowl with Folded-out Rim (Fig. 6.5: 34) Bowls with folded rims were common in Israel throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods, and therefore their exact date is uncertain. Similar bowls found in contexts dated to the 1st century CE are also known (Jackson-Tal 2009: Type 3.A.5, Fig. 5.14: 1–7). Bowls with folded rims were found in the Western Wall Plaza (Gorin-Rosen 2021: 34, Fig. 2.3: 19; Katsnelson 2021: 71, Fig. 3.2: 4), in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gutreich 2013: 271, Fig. 12.2: 20–21), in the Burnt House in the Jewish Quarter

134 R U T H E . J A C K S O N - TA L

35

34

36 37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47 0

Figure 6.5: Free-blown bowls and beakers.

2

4

THE GLASS FINDS 135

Figure 6.5: Free-blown Bowls and Beakers No.

Locus

Basket

Description

34

1030

13376

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight tubular rim, curving wall. Rim D. 8.6 cm.

35

1010

10136

Wall fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight wall with double tubular fold.

36

1045

37

1124

16417

Rim and wall fragment. Light blue. Silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring thickened rounded rim, straight wall with large exterior tubular fold. Rim D. 15.4 cm.

38

1109

15946

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless. Little black weathering and iridescence. Straight cut-off rim, curving wall with pinched vertical ribs. Rim D. 12 cm.

39

1128

16721

Rim and wall fragment. Deep translucent blue turning into light blue. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight cut-off rim, curving wall with pinched vertical ribs. Upper part thickened and lower thinning, accordingly the blue color is more pronounced on top. Rim D. 12 cm.

40

1052

14474

Rim and wall fragment. Light blue. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Straight cut-off rim, curving in wall. Rim D. 10 cm.

41

1024

13224

Base fragment. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering. Slightly flaring large tubular base-ring. Base D. 9 cm.

42

1037

13883

Base and wall fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge. Thick black and silver weathering. Slightly splaying thickened solid base with curving wall. Base D. 4 cm.

43

1046

14139

Base and wall fragment. Yellow-brown. Iridescence. Slightly splaying thickened solid base with curving wall. Base D. 4 cm.

44

1037

13900

Base and wall fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge. Silver weathering. Slightly splaying solid base with curving wall. Base D. 5 cm.

45

1057

14767

Base and wall fragment. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering. Slightly splaying thickened solid base with central pushed-in high concavity. Straight thickened wall. Base D. 4 cm.

46

1010

1134

Base fragment. Bluish-green. Silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly splaying thickened solid base. Base D. 5 cm.

47

1111

16839

Base fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge. Silver weathering. Slightly splaying solid base with a raised ridge on lower part of base, creating a solid base-ring. Base D. 4 cm.

Rim and wall fragment. Colorless with bluish tinge. Silver weathering. Slightly flaring rounded rim, curving wall with exterior tubular fold. Rim D. 7.2 cm.

(Israeli 2010: 222–223, Pl. 6.1: G1–G6), and in Herod՚s tomb (Jackson-Tal 2015: 398, Pl. 9.I: 5) and the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces and Roman estate at Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a: 108–109, 112–113, Pls. 3.5: 42–45; 3.8: 4–5).

Bowl with Double Tubular Fold (Fig. 6.5: 35) Bowls with tubular folds below the rims and on the walls are a typical feature throughout the Roman period. The small fragment found at the site is of a bowl with a double tubular fold on the wall, known in the late 1st–early 2nd century CE Double tubular folds, located just below the

136 R U T H E . J A C K S O N - TA L

rim, were very common during this period. Similar bowls were found in the Western Wall Plaza (Katsnelson 2021: 72, Fig. 3.2: 7), in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gutreich 2013: 271, Fig. 12.2: 27) and at En-Gedi (Jackson-Tal 2007:475, 479, 481, Pl. 1: 7; 4:2; 5:2). A beaker with a double tubular fold on the wall was found in a tomb at Geva-Abu Shusha (Israeli and Katsnelson 2015: 210, Fig. 4: g with reference to unpublished finds from Masada). Other bowls, usually with an added crimped trail, are known in similar contexts in a hiding complex at >Ain->Arrub (Tsafrir and Zissu 2002: 27–28, Fig. 17: 5, 7–8) and in the refuge caves at >Abud Cave (Jackson-Tal 2016c: 42, Fig. 11: 2) and the Cave of Letters (Barag 1963:104–105, Fig. 38: 7).

Bowls with Exterior Folds (Fig. 6.5: 36–37) This type of bowl is also known throughout the Roman period. Similar bowls were found in Early Roman contexts in Jerusalem—in the City of David (Ariel 1990: 163: Fig. 33: GL89), in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gutreich 2013: 271, Fig. 12.2: 22), in the Burnt House (Israeli 2010: 225, Pl. 6.2: G26), and in a burial cave on Mount Scopus (Kloner and Whetstone 2016: 217, Fig. 10.24: 1). Others were found in the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces at Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a: 107, Pl. 3.5: 40) and in Caesarea (Israeli 2008: 372–373, No. 25).

Bowls with Pinched Ribs (Fig. 6.5: 38–39) This type belongs to the so-called Zarte Rippenschalen ribbed bowl type, dated (when possible) to the second half of the 1st century CE (Isings 1957: 35–36, Form 17). Two bowls were found at the site, one of which is made of deep translucent blue glass. Bowls of this type were found in Israel in contexts dated till 70 CE, in Area A of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, in Stratum 4, dated to the mid-1st century CE, until 70 CE (Gorin-Rosen 2003: 383, Pl. 15. 15.6: G60–G61); in Area E of the Jewish Quarter, in Stratum 2, dated to the 1st century CE (Gorin-Rosen 2006: 253–254, Pl. 10.5: G64); and at the International Convention Center in Jerusalem (Gorin-Rosen 2005: 197–198, Fig. 1: 6). Additional vessels were found at Oboda (Jackson-Tal 2016d: 78–79, Fig. 5: 1), Caesarea (Israeli 2008: 372, Nos. 21–22) and at Tel Qiri (Barag 1987: 34–35, Fig. 6: 12). A bichrome rounded shoulder fragment of a bottle or jar, made of colorless and light purple glass with thin vertical rib remains was found in Locus 1128, Basket 17014.

Beaker with Cut-off Rim (Fig. 6.5: 40) Beakers with cut-off rims are typical throughout the Roman period. During the Early Roman period they are often further decorated with horizontal grooves or incisions (Jackson-Tal 2009: Type 3.B.2, Figs. 5.30: 7–15; 5.31). Similar beakers, plain, with grooved, incised or indented decoration, were found in the Western Wall Plaza (Gorin-Rosen 2021: 38–39, Fig. 2.5: 30–35; Katsnelson 2021: 73, Fig. 3.3: 9), in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gutreich 2013: 272, Fig. 12.2: 33), in the Akeldama tombs, Kidron Valley (Winter 1996: 95–96, Fig. 5.1: 1–2), in Areas A and E of the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2003: 382–383, Pls. 15.2: G18; 15.8: G88–G89; 2006: 254, Pl. 10.5: G66–G67), and at Shu>afat (Katsnelson 2009: 165, Fig. 4:1–4). Similar shaped vessels with incised and mold-blown decoration were found in the tomb precinct at Herodium (Jackson-Tal 2015: 399, 401, 404, Pls. 9.II: 12; 9.III: 20)

Vessel with Tubular Base (Fig. 6.5: 41) Tubular bases are known throughout the Roman period. Similar bases were found in Jerusalem in the City of David (Ariel 1990: Fig. 33: 163, GL87), in the Western Wall Plaza (Gorin-Rosen 2021: 37, Fig. 2.4: 25b; Katsnelson 2021: 79, Fig. 3.5: 25), in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gutreich 2013: 271,

THE GLASS FINDS 137

Fig. 12.2: 26), in the Jewish Quarter Area A (Gorin-Rosen 2003: 382, Pl. 15.6: G63–G64) and in the Burnt House (Israeli 2010: 224, Pl. 6.1: G17–G19), at Shu>afat (Katsnelson 2009: 164, Fig. 3: 7), at Horvat Mesad (Jackson-Tal 2012a: 180, Fig. 8.1: 12–13) and at the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces in Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a: 108, 110, Pl. 3.6: 47–48, 50).

Vessels with Flaring Flat Bases (Fig. 6.5: 42–47) Flaring solid bases of small bowls or beakers are known during the Early Roman period in the area, plain or with pinched thin ribs (Katsnelson 2009: 167, Fig. 7). Base Fig. 6.5: 44 has a central high concavity, less typical in such bases but known in similar contexts (see at Gamla; Jackson-Tal 2016a: Fig. 8.23: 160). Base 6.5: 47 has a raised ridge on the lower part of the base, creating a solid base-ring also less typical (see in the Jewish Quarter; Gorin-Rosen 2003: 382, Pl. 15.6: G62; Israeli 2010: 224, Pl. 6.1: G15). Similar plain bases were found in the City of David (Ariel 1990: 156, 163, Fig. 30: GL26–GL27; 33: GL85–GL86), in the Western Wall Plaza (Katsnelson 2021: 78, Fig. 3.5: 22), in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gutreich 2013: 271, Fig. 12.2: 23–25) and in the Burnt House (Israeli 2010: 224, Pl. 6.1: G13). Similar bases of ribbed vessels were found at the same sites.

Ribbed Jug Handle (Fig. 6.6: 48) This delicate, thin ribbed jug handle is less common in the region than the wide ribbed handles (Jackson-Tal 2016c: 49, 51, Fig. 17). Similar handles were found in Early Roman contexts at Ketef Hinnom, Jerusalem (Katsnelson 2015: 37–38, Fig. 1: 6), at ati Parking Lot), Vol. I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 265–289. Ignitiadou, D. 2002. Colorless Glass in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Macedonia. Journal of Glass Studies 44: 11–24. Isings, C. 1957. Roman Glass from Dated Finds. Groningen–Djakarta. Israeli, Y. 2005. What Did Jerusalem՚s First-Century BCE Glass Workshop Produce? Annales de l՚Association Internationale pour l՚Histoire du Verre 16: 54–57. Israeli, Y. 2008. The Glass Vessels. In: Patrich, J., ed. Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC KK and NN, Final Reports 1: The Objects. Jerusalem: 367–418. Israeli, Y. 2010. Glass Vessels. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem: 221–235. Israeli, Y. 2014. Glass Vessels from Stratum 3, Area J. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem: 288–301. Israeli, Y. and Katsnelson, N. 2006. Refuse of a Glass Workshop of the Second Temple Period from Area J. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report. Jerusalem: 411–460. Israeli, Y. and Katsnelson, N. 2015. A Foreign Family՚s Tomb? Reconsidering the Glass Finds from Geva-Abu Shusha. Annales of the International Association for the History of Glass 19: 207–214. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2004. The Late Hellenistic Glass Industry in Syro-Palestine: A Reappraisal. Journal of Glass Studies 46: 11–32.

THE GLASS FINDS 141

Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2005. The Glass Vessels from >En Gedi. >Atiqot 49: 73–82 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 138). Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2007. Glass Vessels from En-Gedi. In: Hirschfeld, Y., ed. En Gedi Excavations II, Final Report (1996–2002). Jerusalem: 474–506. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2009. Early Roman Glass Vessels from Dated Contexts in Palestine: From Pompey to Hadrian (63 B.C.E.–137 C.E.). (Ph. D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Jerusalem (Hebrew). Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2011. Glass Objects. In: Thareani, Y., ed. Tel ՚Aroer: The Iron Age II Caravan Town and the Hellenistic and Early Roman Settlement. Jerusalem: 369–378. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2012. Glass Vessels. In: Fischer, M., ed. Horvat Mesad, A Way-Station on the Jaffa-Jerusalem Road (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 30). Tel Aviv: 177–195. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2013a. The Glass Finds from the Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. In: Bar-Nathan, R. and Gärtner, J., eds. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. V: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros. Jerusalem: 100–129. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2013b. The Glass Finds from the Palatial Fortress at Cypros. In: Bar-Nathan, R. and Gärtner, J., ed. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. V: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros. Jerusalem: 165–173. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2015. The Glass Finds from the Area of Herod’s Tomb. In: Porat, R., Chachy, R. and Kalman, Y., eds. Final Reports of the 1972–2010 Excavations Directed by Ehud Netzer, Volume I, Herod՚s Tomb Precinct. Jerusalem: 396–408. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2016a. Glass Vessels. In: Syon, D., ed. Gamla III, The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976– 1989, Finds and Studies, Part 2 (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2016b. The Glass from the 1995 Excavations in Camp F at Masada: The Use of Luxury and Common Early Roman Glass in Military Context. Levant 48/1: 63–78. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2016c. Glass Vessel Use in Time of Conflict: The Evidence from the Bar Kokhba Refuge Caves in Judaea, Israel (135/136 C.E.). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 376: 29–62. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2016d. Nabataean Cultural Habits: The Glass Finds from Oboda. Israel Exploration Journal 66(1): 70–95. Jennings, S. 2006. Vessel Glass from Beirut, BEY 006, 007, and 045 (Berytus Archaeological Studies XLVIII– XLIX, 2004–2005). Beirut. Katsnelson, N. 2009. Early Roman Glass Vessels from Judea—Locally Produced Glass? A Preliminary Report. Annales del՚Association internationale pour l՚histoire du verre 17: 163–69. Katsnelson, N. 2015. Glass Finds from Ketef Hinnom, Jerusalem. >Atiqot 80: 35–44. Katsnelson, N. 2016. The Courthouse Site: The Glass from Areas TB and TC. In: Hartal, M., Syon, D., Stern, E and Tatcher, A., eds. ‘Akko II, The 1991–1998 Excavations, The Early Periods (IAA Reports 60). Jerusalem: 65–89. Katsnelson, N. 2021. Glass Finds from the 2017 Excavation Season. In: Weksler-Bdolah, S. and Onn, A., eds. Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations, Volume 3, The Roman and Byzantine Periods: Small Finds from the Roman Refuse Dump and Other Contexts (IAA Reports 67). Jerusalem: 69–98. Kloner, A. and Whetstone, S. 2016. A Burial Complex and Ossuaries of the Second Temple Period on Mount Scopus, Jerusalem. In: Killebrew A.E. and Faßbeck, G., eds. Viewing Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology, VeHinnei Rachel—Essays in Honor of Rachel Hachlili. Boston: 193–270. Lightfoot, C.S. 2014. Ennion: Master of Roman Glass. New York. Mandruzzato, L. and Marcante, A. 2005. Vetri antichi del Museo ArcheologicoNazionale di Aquileia: Il vasellame da mensa. Corpus delle collezioni del vetro nel Friuli Venezia Giulia 2. Venice. Nenna, M.-D. 1999. Exploration archéologique de Délos: Les verres. Fascicule 37. Paris. Price, J. 1991. Decorated Mould-Blown Glass Tablewares in the First Century AD. In: Newby, M. and Painter, K., eds. Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Invention. London: 56–75. Price, J. 1992. Glass Vessels and Other Objects. In: Sackett, L.H., ed. Knossos from Greek City to Roman Colony. Excavations at the Unexplored Mansion II (British School of Archaeology at Athens Supplementary Volume 21). Athens: 415–462. Spaer, M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum, Beads and Other Small Objects. Jerusalem.

142 R U T H E . J A C K S O N - TA L

Stekelis, M. 1934. A Jewish Tomb Cave at Ramat-Rachel. Journal of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 3: 19–40 (Hebrew). Stern, E.M. 1995. The Toledo Museum of Art Roman Mold-Blown Glass: The First through Sixth Centuries. Rome. Triantafyllidis, P. 2006. Late Hellenistic Glass from Kos, Dodecanese, Greece. Journal of Glass Studies 48: 145–161. Tsafiris, V. 1986. The Ancient City of Akko Ptolemais. In: Yedaya, M., ed. The Western Galilee Antiquities. Tel Aviv: 266–280. Tsafrir, Y. and Zissu, B. 2002. A Hiding Complex at >Ain-ara dated slightly later (Kayesar 2013: 49, Fig. 4: 1). One other tool in this group (Fig. 7.1.1: 6) could be considered as a double-sided spatula. It includes one thickened end and an opposite flat and straightcut end (almost triangular, sometimes referred to as “oar-shaped”). Although several variations of spatulae include some form of a flat end, the one presented here is considerably smaller and lacks the definition of a spathomele. Other objects similar in size were found in the Tyropoeon Valley, for example (Krakovsky 2013: 294, Fig. 13.2: 17), En-Gedi (Chernov 2007: 509–510, Fig. 8, Pl. 2: 1), Jericho Jewish Cemetery (Hachlili 1999: 139, Fig. III: 82) and Tel-Anafa (Berlin and Herbert 2012: 234, Pl. 14: M65–M67). The remainder of the finds in this category were poorly preserved, broken or highly fragmented, yet still visibly recognizable as cosmetic tools.

Jewelry and Fittings Two fragments of broken clothes fittings, a small piece of a buckle-tongue and a broken brooch were identified. The fragment of the buckle (Fig. 7.1.2: 1) could not provide additional information. The fragment of the brooch (Fig. 7.1.2: 2) was made of a copper-alloy and included the complete bow section (the pin, however, was missing) and clearly belonged to an elbow-shaped (triangular) fibula, as was evident from the two decorative ridges on the bent, sharply angular bow. The brooch represents the type most popular in the Near East in the 8th century BCE and continued into the Persian‒Hellenistic periods, with intermittent appearances later, up until the 1st century CE (Stronach 1959: 193). Most extant examples are made from copper-alloy; some made from iron also exist. The stratigraphical context of the fibula in this case could not provide an exact date. While corrosion of the brooch makes identification of the technique and sub-type difficult, I suggest assigning it as per Stronach՚s catalog to either Type 43 or Type 5.4 One parallel is already known from the City of David, dated to the Persian‒Hellenistic periods (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: No. 14, Fig. 5); another late example comes from Gamla (Jackson-Tal 2016: 194–197, Fig. 13.3: 17–18). The jewelry pieces discovered in the landfill include an assortment of finds. Most impressive are the seven finger rings, almost all in excellent condition. One copper-alloy, crescent-shaped5 earring (Fig. 7.1.2: 3) is also in this assemblage. This highly common type is in the shape of an oval loop, thickening at the bottom, with the thin end of the loop meant to curve through the ear. This type appeared in the Levant in the Middle Bronze Age and continued to be in use throughout the centuries in a variety of metals (for a typological study, see the Akhziv cemeteries [Dayagi-Mendels 2002: 142]). Two round copper-alloy rings/loops—one made by casting, the other by bending an open loop—are presented here (Fig. 7.1.2: 4–5) although their function is uncertain. While it is likely that these delicate rings could have been used as jewelry, their simple design in a closed hoop 3

4 5

“Triangular fibulas with grooved rings on each arm,” most popular type in Syro-Palestine, latest examples dated to the 1st century CE, Stronach 1959: 195–196. “Triangular fibula with coiled ribs on each arm,” Stronach 1959: 195. There is a lack of uniformity in its presentation; it often appears under the type “crescent” or “lunate.” Although attempts have been made to create a typology of this type, no study has provided sufficient definite information for precise dating.

T H E M E TA L A RT I FA C T S 147

and round section suggests that they were used as part of a chain in other implements or decorations, like their counterparts in the instrumenta domestica category (see below). The identification in this case relies mainly on their size and material. Parallels from the Roman period are found in Jerusalem at the Jewish Quarter excavations, Area A (Zitronblat and Geva 2003: 356, Pl. 14.2: 26) and at En- Gedi (Chernov 2007: 514, Fig. 25). A single fragment (Fig. 7.1.2: 6) belongs to a large, heavy and solid copper-alloy bracelet which potentially could have been worn as an armlet/anklet. It is undecorated and bears only a delicate slit along its entire length. This is a simple type, most likely made by casting, appearing well before this period and retaining the same design. Here it is dated by context to the Early Roman period (a similar bracelet was recovered from the Burnt House in the Jewish Quarter excavations (NennerSoriano 2010: 251, Pl. 8.2: M17). The remainder of the finds in this category are all finger-rings (Fig. 7.1.2: 7–13), most of which are surprisingly well preserved and bear a complete bezel with an engraved relief, excluding Fig. 7.1.2: 13.6 This is a worn and corroded iron ring with an apparent small flattened section, which may have been a bezel as well (parallels in the Jewish Quarter excavations: in Area E, Gutfeld and Nenner-Soriano 2006: 275, Pl. 2.1: M14–M18; in the Burnt House, Nenner-Soriano 2010: 251, Pl. 8.2: M13). All the rings have a delicate band, most of them intact except Fig. 7.1.2: 7 and Fig. 7.1.2: 11 which have only a partial band. The bezel in this type of ring can take various shapes—four of the rings found in the City of David bear an oval bezel (Fig. 7.1.2: 7–9, 11) and two (Fig. 7.1.2: 10, 12) a rectangular one. All rings are decorated with a number of straight and curved incised lines in various geometric patterns. While Fig. 7.1.2: 8 is decorated with a more complex motif, possibly vegetal, it is still quite common, and the general schematics of the motif do not allow for a more precise dating. Similar patterns from the Early Roman period can be seen in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Area A, Zitronblat and Geva 2003: 357, Pl. 4.2: M.29) and at En-Gedi (Chernov 2007: 514–516, Figs. 36–40, Pl. 4: 6–20).

Weapons One small copper-alloy arrowhead was found (Fig. 7.1.3: 1). It originated from a fill dated to the Late Hellenistic period at the site. This is a trilobate socketed, “Irano-Scythian” arrowhead (Dugaw, Lipschits and Stiebel 2020), the small circular socket corresponding to the blades՚ base. All three blades (also referred to as “edges” or “veins”) are broken. Originally Scyhtian, it was adopted successfully by the Persian, Babylonian and Greek armies. Starting in the late 7th–early 6th century BCE, when it was first used by the Greek army, it gained immense popularity and appeared all across the Greek world. In the Eastern Mediterranean it appeared in the Iron IIB and became especially popular in the Persian period. Although many variations developed, all seem to evolve from the socketed ancestor (Davis 2013: 81). Commonly, this arrow appears in bronze but examples in iron are also known. It has either a foliated or a triangular shape; the socket can appear with either a flat (as in arrowhead in Fig. 7.1.3: 1) or predominant socket (elongated below the blades). This characteristic design has significant advantages: The third blade helps to reduce the bending of the arrow upon impact and the socket՚s design enables a better attachment to the shaft and decreases breakage at this point. On the other hand, the same design (usually produced in a mold and possibly mass produced) limits the user as it requires a large variety of matching bows and arrows (ibid.: 82). The Irano-Scythian arrow 6

All-metal iron rings, with or without relief/gemstones are recurrent finds from the Roman period. There are several attempts to ascribe them to a specific section of the population. See Amorai-Stark and Hershkovitz 2016: 430–434 for additional references.

148 CHEN ANTLER

1

2

3

4

5

7

6

10

9

11

12 0

Figure 7.1.2: Cloth fittings and jewelry.

8

2

13 4

T H E M E TA L A RT I FA C T S 149

Figure 7.1.2: Jewelry and Clothing No

Type

Reg. no.

Locus

Width

Length, bezel

Thickness

1

Buckle

13776

1005

0.58

2.26

2

Fibula

20001

1146

4.43

3

Earing

18959

1182

0.36 max

4

Loop/ ring

17333

1124

5

Loop/ ring

13488

6

Bracelet

7

Weight

State

0.375

2

Fragment

0.4-0.76

7

Broken, corroded

1.9*1.2

1

Intact, highly corroded

0.15

0.68

Ein el-Sha>ara. >Atiqot 73: 45–52. Kletter, R. 2015. New Look at the Roman Period Limestone Weights from Jerusalem. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 131: 183–200. Krakovsky, M. 2013. The Metal Objects. In: Ben-Ami., D. ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Gi՚vati Parking Lot), Vol. 1 (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 291–296. Matheson, S.B., ed. 2004. Yale University Art Gallery Bulletin. New Haven: 124–176. Nagar-Hillman, O. 2016. Metal Weights and Similar Artifacts. In: Syon, D., ed. Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutman Excavations 1976–1989: Finds and Studies, Part 2 (IAA Reports 59). Jerusalem: 213–224. Nenner-Soriano, R. 2010. Metal Artifacts. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies. Jerusalem: 248– 260. Nenner-Soriano, R. 2012. Metal Artifacts from the Cardo and the Nea Church. In: Gutfeld, O., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. V: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T). Final Report. Jerusalem: 426–436. Nenner-Soriano, R. 2014. Metal Artifacts from Areas J and N. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Final Report. Jerusalem: 311–317. Qedar, S. 2005. Weight of Eretz Israel in the Roman Byzantine Period. In: Measuring and Weighing in Ancient Times, Catalogue of the Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum: 33–38 (Hebrew). Reich, R. 2009. The Distribution of Stone Scale-Weights from the Early Roman Period and Its Possible Meaning. Israel Exploration Journal 59: 175–184. Stiebel, G.G. 2013. The Military Equipment. In: Ben-Ami., D. ed. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givati Parking Lot reflect household consumption patterns, with less than 2% of the total assemblages suggesting burnt material (Horwitz 1996: 305; Bar-Oz and Raban-Gerstel 2013: 352). The logic behind burning refuse is to consolidate the land. Moreover, incineration obscures the smell of decomposition, reducing the attraction of scavengers (Rathje and Murphy 2001: 33). Intensive burning practices in the landfill have hitherto only been positively identified in the faunal remains. As mentioned previously, the landfill is made up of alternating layers. Some layers seemed rich in material culture and other layers were of similar composition but contained a greater amount of soil. The faunal remains from the alternating layers were not limited to, nor found in higher frequencies in the material culture layers. While modern disposal practices include covering refuse with a layer of earth between deposits (ibid.: 1989: 101), it seems that the habits in Roman Jerusalem included throwing bones away with other organic or earthen material (Hayden and Cannon 1983: 130). The difference in the amount of soil between the two types of layers is probably related to downslope erosion. Layers were also observed in the documented sections of the Northern Cut (Bar-Oz et al. 2007: 4), suggesting that this phenomenon was not coincidental.

Animal Economy and Socioeconomic Reflections The species present in the landfill are comprised of domestic livestock including some chicken, supplemented by lower frequencies of wild game. The remains from all five assemblages representing Early Roman Jerusalem include only animals that are ritually pure (kosher, e.g., sheep, goats, cattle and deer) as stated in Deuteronomy 14:3–21 and Leviticus 11:1–47 (Horwitz 1996: 312–314; Bar-Oz et al. 2007: 7; Bouchnick 2011: 239–242; Bar-Oz and Raban-Gerstel 2013: 352). Our comparison with the Northern Cut focuses on frequencies and identity of domesticated species, skeletal element frequencies and aging and sexing profiles. Bouchnick, Bar-Oz et al. (2007; Bouchnick 2011) propose that the faunal remains in the Northern Cut were derived from cultic activities in the Temple and hence deemed the landfill “holy garbage.” Hartman et al. (2013) showed, based on carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis, that the majority of caprines originated from

FA U N A L R E M A I N S Comparison of Caprine Body Parts

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

phalanges

femur

tibia

metapodials

carpals/tarsals

ulna

radius

humerus

scapula

pelvis and sacrum

lumbar v

thoratic v

cervical v

mandible

Southern Landfill cranium

MNE

a)

213

Nothern Landfill

Comparison of Ca�le Body Parts

b)

70 60 40 30

Phanalges

Femur

Tibia

metapodials

carpals/tarsals

ulna

radius

humerus

mandible

cranium

0

scapula

Nothern Landfill pelvis and sacrum

10

lumbar v

Southern Landfill

thoratic v

20

cervical v

MNE

50

Figure 11.13: Body part frequencies of (a) caprines and (b) cattle based on Minimum Number of Elements of the Northern Cut (based on Table 4.12a published in Bouchnick 2011: 95) and the Southern Cut.

areas outside Jerusalem. They concluded that Jerusalem’s economy relied mainly on pilgrimage, promoted by the city’s cultic nature. The disparities between the Northern Cut and the Southern Cut assemblages are striking (Table 11.14). The most notable difference is the presence of pigeons in the Northern Cut assemblage (23% of the avian bones, Table 11.15; Bouchnick 2011: 73). This stands in stark contrast to the absence of pigeons in the Southern Cut. Pigeons are also absent in the lower economy dwellings in Area A1 (Horwitz and Tchernov 1996: 299) and in other residential assemblages. The presence of pigeons in Jerusalem is widely attested in the archaeological remains of columbaria and in literary sources (Zissu 1995; War 4.181). While pigeons are commonly used for consumption and their fecal matter

214 ABRA SPICIARICH AND LIDAR SAPIR-HEN

is used as fertilizer (Hirschfeld and Tepper 2006), in Jerusalem they were predominantly used by the lower classes as sacrificial offerings in the Temple (Safrai 1994: 176; Lev 14:30; Mark 11:15; Matt 21:12; John 2:16). The observed difference in pigeon exploitation is likely a reflection of the Northern Cut’s proximity to the Temple Mount. It appears that pigeons were not a part of the daily domestic consumption of food within Jerusalem. Domestic chicken is the third most exploited animal, and the most exploited avian species in the Southern Cut assemblage. Chicken body part frequencies suggest that the remains are primarily from consumption debris, as indicated by lack of cranial and phalanx elements (Horwitz and Tchernov 1996: 299; Serjeantson 2013: 164). There was a clear preference for hens, suggesting that these remains come from slaughtered poultry rather than from activities, such as cock fighting. There are also differences between the two cuts of the landfill in domestic livestock exploitation. The relative frequencies of these species are similar (see Bouchnick 2011: 61), with caprines dominating the assemblages (NISP % ~70–80%) and cattle representing the next most exploited animal (NISP % ~10– 13%). The majority of caprine body parts present in the Southern Cut were the forelimbs, which are high meat-bearing parts, whereas the Northern Cut has a higher frequency of meat-poor elements (Fig. 11.15a) (cranial, metapodials and phalange; Bouchnick 2011: 95; Fig. 11.13b). The body part frequencies of cattle in the Southern Cut are primarily trunk elements, in addition to meat-poor elements. This pattern differs from the Northern Cut, which displays higher frequencies of the meat-poor elements (Bouchnick 2011: 95) (Fig. 11.14b). The disparity between the two assemblages might be an indication that the northern assemblage demonstrates more primary butchering and food preparation, as well as potentially more sacrificial and/or feasting remains (Bar-Oz et al. 2007: 10; Lev-Tov and McGeough 2007: 105; Bouchnick 2011: 142; Exod 29:17). In contrast, the livestock body part frequencies from the Southern Cut represent more consumption remains. The Southern Cut refuse was most likely removed from urban residential areas. This observation is supported by the minimal preference for the priestly portion (right hind limb; Lev 7:28–37); but note that this aspect was tested only in the Southern Cut. Caprines and cattle from both assemblages were exploited mainly for their meat (Figs. 11.14a and 11.14b). The majority of caprines in the Southern Cut were slaughtered at one and a half years when they reached optimum meat-gain age versus cost of rearing (Payne 1973: 281). The remaining caprines were most likely kept alive for breeding and secondary products. Similarly, the main usage of cattle was for their meat, as the majority of the individuals were killed before the age of three (Fig. 11.14b). Some cattle were kept alive past this age, suggesting a husbandry strategy that included some level of breeding and agricultural work (Sasson 2008: 44–45). The observed pattern differs from the Northern Cut, where the focus was solely on meat, and none of the animals survived to older age (Fig. 11.14b). The pattern of caprine exploitation in both assemblages shows a similar preference for juveniles, with a focus on six months to one year of age (Fig. 11.14a). This pattern can be related to economic strategies in several ways. The first is that meat-producing strategy eliminated animals at the end of the suckling period, around three months of age, or at one year. The guiding principle was to eliminate any animal that might be an economic burden (Borowski 1998: 231). Economically encumbered animals would be those that did not produce anything other than their meat, namely males, because they could neither produce milk nor reproduce. As the elite favored young animals, the producers could command a high price for this meat (Payne 1973: 281). A counter argument would be commoners’ exploitation of juvenile caprines; communities that depend on milk and meat production sometimes kill off surplus lambs when there is not enough winter feed to provide for them (Payne 1973: 282). However, considering the proximity of the Temple, the ritualistic killing of first-born young caprines (Exod 29:28; Lev 9:3, 12:6, 23:12; Num 12:14, 28:3) cannot be overlooked as a possible explanation

Caprine Survivorship

a) % of Survivorship

100 80 60 40

20 0

0

6 Months

6 Months- 1-1.5 Years 1 Year

1.5- 2.5 Years

2.5 -4 Years

4 + Years

Northern Landfill Landfill Comparison of Ca�leSouthern Survivorship

100 % of Survivorship

b)

FA U N A L R E M A I N S 215

80 60 40 20 0 6-10 Month

1-2 Years

2-3 Years

Northern Landfill

3-3.5 Years

3.5-4 Years

Southern Landfill

Figure 11.14: (a) Caprine and (b) cattle survivorship of the Northern cut (based on Table 4.29 and Table 4.30 published in Bouchnick 2011: 168–171) and of the Southern cut.

for the culling pattern. Possibly, some of the meat from sacrificial offerings (that was not claimed by the priestly portion of the right hind limb; Lev 7:28–37) was sold in the market to those who wanted a piece of religious fare (Safrai 1994). Differentiating between animals slaughtered because they were unproductive and those that were sacrificed is difficult, due to the use of unnecessary herd animals as ritual sacrifices. The selection of male yearlings for sacrifice (Lev 1:10, 3:6, 5:6, 9:3, 16:3) is a natural reaction to everyday subsistence strategies, which demand killing-off male yearlings to preserve resources (e.g., pasture and grazing land) for females kept for secondary products (Sasson 2008: 126). Males and females were evenly represented in the Southern Cut assemblage. As the assemblage is not male-dominated, this reflects a non-sacrificial or non-cultic pattern (Maher 2014: 117). The Northern Cut’s caprine assemblage is dominated by males, reflecting a more cultic usage of the animals closer to the Temple (Bouchnick 2011: 172). Other features also shed light on the social and economic classes within Jerusalem’s urban society. Differences in the economic standing of various population sectors are already evident in the animal economy of the Iron Age (8–6th centuries BCE;

216 ABRA SPICIARICH AND LIDAR SAPIR-HEN

Sapir-Hen, Gadot and Finkelstein 2016). In the Early Roman period, assemblages from residential areas differ from the landfill areas (Table 11.15). A higher frequency of cattle is present in the residential assemblages as opposed to those found in landfill assemblages. Yet, this result may be biased due to different collection methods (hand collecting vs. sifting). These assemblages also differ in the mortality profiles and body part frequencies of caprines and cattle. In Area A1 of the City of David, Horwitz (1996) noted that 50% of the caprines were slaughtered by the age of three. Additionally, caprine body parts were found with a proportionally high incidence of butchery marks (ibid.: 312). This pattern may be indicative of exploitation by lower socioeconomic groups that is concentrated on the local preparation and consumption of meat. Such practice is in accordance with the status of the City of David ridge during the Early Roman period. The subsistence strategy of the Lower City in the Giv>ati Parking Lot reflects an elite exploitation pattern. Elite demand placed a high value on secondary products such as milk and wool, as well as breeding, based on relatively low proportions of juvenile caprines (less than 30%; Bar-Oz and Raban-Gerstel 2013: 351–352). Continued support for preference for secondary products is sourced from the mortality profile of the elite quarter’s cattle. Aging of cattle reflects some slaughtering of prime adults, with young cattle comprising only 15% of the total cattle herd (ibid.: 352). While a high proportion of mature cattle are not typically a symbol of wealth, Bar-Oz and Raban-Gerstel suggest a husbandry system that placed a high value on secondary products and their use as traction animals. The elite social class may also be reflected in the fill remains from the paved street near the Temple Mount; Reich et al. (2015: 26) suggest that it is the high frequency of cattle that represents the apogee of cultic activities in Jerusalem in the Early Roman period. To summarize the points raised above, the Southern Cut’s assemblage has more in common with the residential areas than with the northern part of the same landfill, suggesting different sources within the city for refuse deposits.

Table 11.15: Early Roman Faunal Assemblages from Jerusalem Sheep/ Goat

Site/Area (reference)

Livestock exploitation

Cattle

Function

NISP

%

MNI

NISP

%

MNI

City of David: Area A1 Stratum VI (Horwitz 1996: 312)

563

65

18

230

27

5

Caprine: meat Cattle: meat

Lower economic residential area

Giv>ati: Stratum VII (Bar-Oz and RabanGerstel 2013: 350)

375

69.4

20

129

23.9

5

Caprine: secondary products Cattle: secondary products

Higher economic residential area

City of David: Area C and Area L (Bar-Oz et al. 2007: 5–8; Bouchnick 2011: 68–78)

3787

78

-

717

15

-

Caprine: meat Cattle: meat

Refuse/ garbage dump

City of David: Area D3 (This study)

4470

79

56

728

13

13

Caprine: meat Cattle: meat

Refuse/ garbage dump

FA U N A L R E M A I N S 217

CONCLUSIONS Our assessment of the faunal material from Area D3, or the Southern Cut, contributes to a greater understanding of its formation processes and the economic, social and religious status of the people who created the landfill. Our results demonstrate that during the Roman period, Jerusalem’s inhabitants observed Jewish dietary practices. The culling strategies and body part frequencies of caprines and cattle, as well as the absence of pigeon remains, suggest that the remains from the Southern Cut represent disposal from the residential areas of Jerusalem’s “Lower City.” This is in contrast to the previously studied Northern Cut in the landfill, which represents the disposal from cultic activities. Finally, our results demonstrate that differences in animal usage, stemming from socioeconomic disparities, existed in Jerusalem of the Early Roman period.

REFERENCES Baker, J. and Brothwell, D. 1980. Animal Diseases in Archaeology. London. Bar-Oz, G. 2004. Epipalaeolithic Subsistence Strategies in the Levant: A Zooarchaeological Perspective. Boston. Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnick, R., Weissbrod, L., Mayer, B. and Reich, R. 2007. “Holy Garbage”: A Quantitative Study of the City-Dump of Early Roman Jerusalem. Levant 39: 1–12. Bar-Oz, G. and Raban-Gerstel, N. 2013. The Faunal Remains. In: Ben-Ami, D., ed. Jerusalem, Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot), Vol. I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem: 349–380. Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1978. Taphonomic and Ecological Information from Bone Weathering. Paleobiology 4: 150–162. Binford, L.R. 1984. Butchering, Sharing, and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3: 235–257. Borowski, O. 1998. Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel. Walnut Creek. Bouchnick, R. 2011. Meat Consumption in Israel during the Late Second Temple Period (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Haifa). Haifa (Hebrew). Cope, C. 2004. The Butchering Patterns of Gamla and Yodefat: Beginning the Search for "Kosher" Practice. In: O’Day, S.J., Van Neer, W. and Ervynck, A., eds. Behaviour Behind Bones. Oxford: 25–33. Cope, C. 2016. Butchery Patterns. In: Syon, D., ed. Gamla III: Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989 Finds and Studies, Part 2 (IAA Report 59). Jerusalem: 331–342. Dobney, K. and Reilly, K. 1988. A Method for Recording Archaeological Animal Bones: The Use of Diagnostic Zones. Circaea 5(2): 79–96. von den Driesch, A. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (MA thesis, Harvard University). Cambridge, MA. Gadot, Y. 2014. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Jerusalem's Southeastern Hill, Area D3. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 3(2): 279–292. Grant, A. 1982. The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Ungulates. In: Wilson, B., Grigson, C. and Payne, S., eds. Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Oxford: 91–108. Greenfield, H.J. and Bouchnick, R. 2010. Kashrut and Shechita—The Relationship between Dietary Practices and Ritual Slaughtering of Animals on Jewish Identity. In: Amundsen-Meyer, L., Engel, N. and Pickering, S., eds. Identity Crisis: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Identity: Proceedings of the 42nd (2010) Annual Chacmool Archaeology Conference, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Calgary: 1–10. Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T. and Ryan, P.D. 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4. Retrieved from http://palaeo-electronica .org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm. Hartman, G., Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnick, R. and Reich, R. 2013. The Pilgrimage Economy of Early Roman Jerusalem (1st century BCE–70 CE) Reconstructed from the ∂15N and ∂13C Values of Goat and Sheep Remains. Journal for Archaeological Science 40 (12): 4369–4376.

218 ABRA SPICIARICH AND LIDAR SAPIR-HEN

Hayden, B., and Cannon, A. 1983. Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2 (2): 117–163. Hirschfeld, Y. and Tepper, Y. 2006. Columbarium Towers and Other Structures in the Environs of Shivta. Tel Aviv 33: 83–116. Horwitz, L.K. 1996. Faunal Remains from Areas A, B, D, H, and K. In: Ariel, D.T. and De Groot, A., eds. Excavations at the City of David Final Report IV (Qedem 35). Jerusalem: 302–337. Horwitz, L.K. and Tchernov, E. 1996. Bird Remains from Areas A, D, H, and K. In: Ariel, D. and De Groot, A., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. IV (Qedem 35). Jerusalem: 298–301. Lev-Tov, J. and McGeough, K. 2007. Examining Feasting in Late Bronze Age Syro-Palestine through Ancient Texts and Bones. In: Twiss, K., ed. The Archaeology of Food and Identity. Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 34. Carbondale: 85–111. Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge, UK. Lyman, R.L. 2008. Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge, UK. Maher, E.F. 2014. Lambs to the Slaughter: Late Iron Age Cultic Orientations at Philistine Ekron. In: Spencer, J.R., Mulllins, R.A. and Brody, A.J., eds. Material Culture Matters: Essays on the Archaeology of the Southern Levant in Honor of Seymor Gitin. Winona Lake: 111–130. Nicholson, R.A. 1993. A Morphological Investigation of Burnt Animal Bone and an Evaluation of Its Utility in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 20 (4): 411–428. O’Connor, T. 2000. The Archaeology of Animal Bones. College Station. Texas Payne, S. 1973. Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Asvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23: 281–304. Rathje, W.L. and Murphy, C. 1989. Rubbish! The Atlantic Monthly 264 (6): 99–109. Rathje, W.L. and Murphy, C. 2001. Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. Tucson. Reich, R., Billig, Y., Hakker-Orion, D. and Lernau, O. 2015. Faunal Remains from the 1994–1996 Excavation at the Temple Mount. >Atiqot 80: 19–34. Safrai, Z. 1994. The Economy of Roman Palestine. London. Sapir-Hen, L. 2010. Faunal Remains from a Complex Tel Site. Taphonomic Aspects and Reconstructing Ancient Life. Tel Dor as a Case Study (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. Sapir-Hen, L., Bar-Oz, G., Sharon, I., Gilboa, A. and Dayan, T. 2014. Food, Economy, and Culture at Tel Dor, Israel: A Diachronic Study of Faunal Remains from 15 Centuries of Occupation. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 371: 83–101. Sapir-Hen, L., Gadot, Y., and Finkelstein, I. 2016. Animal Economy in a Temple City and Its Countryside: Iron Age Jerusalem as a Case Study. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 375: 103–118. Sasson, A. 2008. Reassessing the Bronze and Iron Age Economy: Sheep and Goat Husbandry in the Southern Levant as a Model Case Study. In: Fantalkin, A., and Yasur-Landau, A., eds. Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages Offered in Honour of Israel Finkelstein. Boston: 113–134. Serjeantson, D. 2013. Birds. Cambridge, UK. Silver, I.A. 1969. The Ageing of Domestic Animals. In: Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E., eds. Science in Archaeology. New York: 283–302. Stiner, M.C., Kuhn, S.L., Weiner, S. and Bar-Yosef, O. 1995. Differential Burning, Recrystallization, and Fragmentation of Archaeological Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 22 (2): 223–237. Symmons, R. 2005. New Density Data for Unfused and Fused Sheep Bones, and a Preliminary Discussion on the Modelling of Taphonomic Bias in Archaeofaunal Age Profiles. Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (11): 1691–1698. Vigne, J.D. and Helmer, D. 2007. Was Milk a Secondary Product in the Old World Neolithisation Process? Its Role in the Domestication of Cattle, Sheep and Goats. Anthropozoologica 42(2): 9–40. Zeder, M.A. 2001. A Metrical Analysis of a Collection of Modern Goats (Capra hircus aegargus and C. h. hircus) from Iran and Iraq: Implications for the Study of Caprine Domestication. Journal of Archaeological Science 28 (1): 61–79.

FA U N A L R E M A I N S 219

Zeder, M. 2006. Reconciling Rates of Long Bone Fusion and Tooth Eruption Wear in Sheep (Ovis) and Goat (Capra). In: Ruscillo, D., ed. Recent Advances in Aging and Sexing Animal Bones. Oxford: 87–118. Zissu, B. 1995. Two Herodian Dovecotes: Ḥorvat Abu Haf and Ḥorvat ‘Aleq’. In: Humphrey, J.H., ed. The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series Number 14). Ann Arbor: 56–69.

APPENDIX

MEASUREMENTS Goat (Capra hircus) Element

Number

Loci

Context

Metacarpal

Measurement Bp

Bd

3298

1039

Material culture and earth

27.27

431

1022

Material culture and earth

23.53

1653

1037

Material culture and earth

27.91

1670

1037

Material culture and earth

26.58

3111

1065

Material culture and earth

27.60

930

1022

Material culture and earth

25.11

3617

1055

Earth

27.56

4684

1039

Material culture and earth

1608

1037

Material culture and earth

25.62

1841

1037

Material culture and earth

25.22

1840

1037

Material culture and earth

24.21

Metatarsal

Phalanx 1

20.98

25.05

Glpe

Bp

Sd

Bd

4837

1050

Material culture

37.06

13.86

11.16

11.13

4818

1055

Earth

40.97

13.98

11.89

12.7

3611

1055

Earth

41.79

13.88

11.6

12.54

4787

1055

Earth

40.83

13.95

11.09

11.69

4699

1057

Earth

40.76

14.58

12.28

12.8

3467

1056

Material culture

40.14

13.65

11.58

12.89

4616

1060

Material culture

41.36

15.55

13.17

12.1

2158

1063

Earth

40.17

13.72

11.58

13.8

135

1043

Material culture and earth

40.58

14.1

12.48

13.74

76

1037

Material culture and earth

38.77

13.74

10.88

11.97

1885

1037

Material culture and earth

39.35

13.35

10.05

11.99

1441

1037

Material culture and earth

41.9

13.11

10.74

12.13

1734

1037

Material culture and earth

39

13.06

11.42

12.67

1896

1037

Material culture and earth

39.65

13.22

10.54

12.46

1865

1037

Material culture and earth

43.1

14.55

12.6

14.59

FA U N A L R E M A I N S 221 Element

Number

Loci

Context

Measurement

3089

1065

Material culture and earth

38.7

14.27

12.33

13.07

2911

1027

Material culture and earth

40.15

14.23

12.4

13.09

3439

1010

Material culture and earth

41.33

14.79

13.25

13.9

1170

1022

Material culture and earth

36.32

12.78

10.7

11.69

1242

1022

Material culture and earth

37.25

13.16

11.21

12.62

880

1022

Material culture and earth

39.84

12.41

13.59

Phalanx 2

Glpe

Bp

Sd

Bd

4934

1049

Material culture and earth

22.61

12.29

9.4

9.01

2533

1045

Material culture and earth

28.2

14.21

10.68

10.66

2304

1045

Material culture and earth

25.96

11.71

8.62

9.49

2301

1045

Material culture and earth

27.6

12.33

8.78

9.3

1810

1037

Material culture and earth

22.57

12.9

10.35

9.7

1989

1037

Material culture and earth

27.05

12.21

10.51

9.46

2659

1045

Material culture and earth

24.72

13.23

10.45

11.18

4674

1052

Material culture

26.87

12.98

9.54

9.85

4332

1052

Material culture

25.02

13.87

11.34

10.22

4413

1051

Earth

25.3

11.4

8.18

9.06

4448

1053

Earth

24.72

13.79

10.48

10.05

4479

1053

Earth

25.43

12.72

10.26

9.15

2467

1045

Material culture and earth

24.43

14.22

10.68

11.55

4765

1057

Earth

21.33

12.69

10.24

9.12

4892

1050

Material culture

26.66

13.01

9.87

9.55

2086

1068

Material culture

27.8

12.73

9.04

10.2

4906

1056

Material culture

24.58

11.68

9.18

8.18

344

1022

Material culture and earth

24.27

13.67

10.83

10.94

239

1040

Material culture and earth

24.54

11.18

8.29

8.86

4553

1058

Material culture

25.39

14.05

10.55

9.99

4976

1058

Material culture

26.75

12.11

9.52

8.61

1922

1037

Material culture and earth

25.29

13.76

11.44

10.91

2845

1021

Material culture and earth

24.16

11.7

8.78

9.57

600

1061

Earth

23.67

12.31

9.07

9.13

766

1058

Material culture

26.31

13.63

10.78

11.67

908

1022

Material culture and earth

26.25

12.23

9.41

10.09

222 ABRA SPICIARICH AND LIDAR SAPIR-HEN Element

Number

Loci

Context

Measurement

910

1022

Material culture and earth

25.33

11.22

8.85

9.3

1147

1022

Material culture and earth

27.67

12.69

8.6

9.71

GL1

GLm

D1

Bd

14.07

17.9

Astragalus 4370

1052

Material culture

27.42

3623

1057

Earth

31.76

30.11

16.57

18.42

1168

1022

Material culture and earth

29

26.78

15.23

17.65

4556

1058

Material culture

4132

1059

Earth

34.47

31.82

17.7

22.88

3122

1044

Material culture and earth

31.4

29.64

16.13

18.57

1451

1037

Material culture and earth

18.67

20.17

1607

1037

Material culture and earth

34.61

34.03

18.15

21.23

372

1037

Material culture and earth

31.82

30.12

16.06

20.41

2550

1045

Material culture and earth

30.2

27.58

15.16

18.52

2521

1045

Material culture and earth

28.57

26.37

15.38

18.63

Loci

Context

Measurement

18.69

Sheep (Ovis aries) Element

Number

Metacarpal

Bp

Bd

1459

1027

Material culture and earth

27.6

4240

1054

Material culture

25.85

4624

1060

Material culture

26.62

453

1022

Material culture and earth

28.45

Metatarsal

Bp

Bd

1528

1037

Material culture and earth

27.19

1564

1037

Material culture and earth

26.38

1460

1037

Material culture and earth

27.25

3091

1065

Material culture and earth

25.4

1248

1022

Material culture and earth

27.67

Phalanx 1

Glpe

Bp

Sd

Bd

4897

1056

Material culture

41.9

14.62

12.81

13.88

3709

1056

Material culture

41

13.62

11.52

12.67

4074

1056

Material culture

44.84

14.85

12.24

13.75

4905

1056

Material culture

43.54

15.18

12.4

14.51

FA U N A L R E M A I N S 223 Element

Number

Loci

Context

Measurement

4545

1058

Material culture

40.1

13.88

11.96

12.04

2307

1045

Material culture and earth

38.85

14.09

11.39

12.14

2614

1045

Material culture and earth

38.68

13.57

11.7

12.44

2606

1045

Material culture and earth

41.28

14.55

12.88

14.08

2302

1045

Material culture and earth

35.74

12.31

8.96

11.21

2612

1045

Material culture and earth

38.1

12.13

9.73

11.39

2134

1062

Material culture

39.04

13.44

12.39

12.91

2244

1063

Earth

40.26

13.33

10.81

12.18

347

1022

Material culture and earth

40.75

13.06

11.16

12.4

1499

1037

Material culture and earth

35.68

12.5

10.33

11.11

1579

1037

Material culture and earth

37.81

13.8

12.07

12.92

1751

1037

Material culture and earth

42.57

14.51

12.05

13.1

1864

1037

Material culture and earth

41.66

12.85

11.25

11.55

1619

1037

Material culture and earth

38.89

13.7

11.65

12.1

3088

1065

Material culture and earth

37.44

12.95

10.89

12.3

608

1063

Earth

38.35

12.32

11.51

12.68

603

1063

Earth

38.09

13.45

11.63

12.69

764

1058

Material culture

37.04

14.21

11.48

12.86

1227

1022

Material culture and earth

46.21

16

13.23

15.12

1370

1022

Material culture and earth

39.54

14.18

10.61

12.81

Glpe

Bp

Sd

Bd

Phalanx 2 4945

1048

Material culture and earth

23.77

11.72

8.33

9.29

4338

1052

Material culture

28.35

12.8

10.22

9.65

4335

1052

Material culture

25.71

11.72

9.26

8.6

4334

1052

Material culture

23.45

13.1

11.51

9.98

4337

1052

Material culture

25.55

13.08

10.2

8.91

4336

1052

Material culture

23.77

12.24

9.05

9.41

4839

1050

Material culture

25.69

13.68

11.53

10.43

4785

1055

Earth

21.92

11.8

10.01

9.7

4788

1055

Earth

24.83

12.71

10.67

9.38

4481

1053

Earth

24.04

13.81

11.33

10.24

4714

1057

Earth

21.81

12.16

9.27

8.66

4904

1056

Material culture

23.42

12.54

9.23

8.59

224 ABRA SPICIARICH AND LIDAR SAPIR-HEN Element

Number

Loci

Context

Measurement

3469

1056

Material culture

22.86

11.9

9.06

8.7

4073

1056

Material culture

23.42

12.85

10.38

9.78

4554

1058

Material culture

23.75

12.38

9.49

8.72

3952

1046

Material culture

25.02

12.39

8.54

8.11

3136

1044

Material culture and earth

25.9

14.99

11.25

10.52

2542

1045

Material culture and earth

23.22

11.75

7.9

8.8

2543

1045

Material culture and earth

23.14

12.17

10.48

9

2476

1045

Material culture and earth

28.37

12.88

10.16

10.14

2305

1045

Material culture and earth

24.29

12.86

10.64

10.63

2532

1045

Material culture and earth

23.26

11.95

10.54

9.56

2413

1045

Material culture and earth

27.55

13.38

10.66

10.96

2615

1045

Material culture and earth

25.02

12.48

9.94

9.74

2087

1068

Material culture

22.33

11.67

8.95

9.47

136

1043

Material culture and earth

25.55

11.5

8.17

8.82

384

1037

Material culture and earth

25.82

12.29

8.91

9.38

432

1022

Material culture and earth

26.08

13.04

10.59

9.86

1920

1037

Material culture and earth

28.28

15.21

11.9

11.84

622

1061

Earth

26.69

12.32

8.8

9.76

624

1061

Earth

21.66

10.85

8.79

8.35

623

1061

Earth

23.06

12.27

9.73

9.61

2937

1026

Material culture and earth

23.16

13.28

10.61

10.74

1271

1022

Material culture and earth

26.14

12.12

9.88

9.16

GL1

GLm

D1

Bd

Astragalus 4670

1052

Material culture

31.02

29.78

17.18

19.54

3610

1055

Earth

32.7

31.05

17.94

19.92

4754

1057

Earth

4901

1056

Material culture

5000

1058

Material culture

4166

1059

Earth

3793

1046

Material culture and earth

32.61

29.84

17.56

22.41

3268

1041

Material culture and earth

34.27

32.56

19.28

20.85

3314

1070

Material culture

32.18

30.32

17.95

20.1

2651

1045

Material culture and earth

34.98

31.83

18.58

21.61

21.31 30.18 33.12

31.22

19.95 18.44

21.93 23.24

FA U N A L R E M A I N S 225 Element

Number

Loci

Context

Measurement

2551

1045

Material culture and earth

24.86

32.21

19.45

267

1022

Material culture and earth

32.36

29.58

18.34

20.69

37

1022

Material culture and earth

30.77

29.19

17.13

19.85

1518

1037

Material culture and earth

32.58

30.36

18.54

20.68

1770

1037

Material culture and earth

36.07

3427

1010

Material culture and earth

Radius 4942

1049

1302

1022

Calcaneous

Material culture and earth

19.56 20.56

SD

Bd

BFd

17.13

32.28

26.68

29.46

24.31

Material culture and earth

GL

GB

4614

1060

Material culture

61.2

23.06

168

1022

Material culture and earth

59.67

22.37

Caprine (Sheep and Goat) Element

Number

Loci

Context

Measurement

Cuboid

3543

1054

Material culture

28.16

23.25

4925

1049

Material culture and earth

26.4

22.93

4924

1049

Material culture and earth

22.18

17.37

4645

1052

Material culture

27.1

22.89

4646

1052

Material culture

46.55

48.47

3606

1055

Earth

24.41

21.59

4477

1053

Earth

20.22

21.9

3629

1057

Earth

26.1

23.8

4103

1057

Earth

25.17

20.11

4131

1059

Earth

18.17

21.56

3920

1046

Material culture

26.13

23.41

2322

1045

Material culture and earth

24.73

19.92

2437

1045

Material culture and earth

27.95

23.04

270

1022

Material culture and earth

23.9

19.86

1906

1037

Material culture and earth

25.98

28.52

226 ABRA SPICIARICH AND LIDAR SAPIR-HEN Element

Number

Loci

Context

Measurement

1314

1022

Material culture and earth

21.2

20.49

GLP

LG

BG

Scapula 3609

1055

Earth

36.61

28.36

22.58

4694

1057

Earth

34.44

26.29

20.62

4970

1058

Material culture

36.52

27.88

23.06

4639

1060

Material culture

37.74

27.09

24.32

3820

1046

Material culture

31.58

26.36

24.77

3121

1044

Material culture and earth

32.8

23.66

23.08

1660

1022

Material culture and earth

36.92

28.26

23.84

1654

1022

Material culture and earth

33.8

25.32

22.42

1689

1022

Material culture and earth

37.75

28.02

24.15

1871

1022

Material culture and earth

37.97

27.66

22.5

L

B

24.33

8.83

Mandibular Tooth M3 4718

1057

Earth

4716

1057

Earth

4685

1057

Earth

4629

1060

Material culture

9.36

2748

1045

Material culture and earth

9.43

2523

1045

Material culture and earth

26.93

9.76

214

1037

Material culture and earth

22.39

9.24

1600

1037

Material culture and earth

25.22

9.81

7

8

9

82.1

55.21

25.61

Mandible 4685

1057

Earth

1600

1037

Material culture and earth

Tibia

9.48 25.25

1044

Material culture and earth

11

52.08 GL

3114

8.7

L1

15c

15b

15.63

21.11 24.98

Bp

Dp

43.89

25.96

15a

FA U N A L R E M A I N S 227 Element

Number

Loci

Context

1761

1037

Material culture and earth

40.34

29.13

2983

1027

Material culture and earth

45.15

25.42

SDO

BPC

Patella 335

1022

Material culture and earth

Pelvis 115

1044

Material culture and earth

85

1022

Material culture and earth

1456

1037

Material culture and earth

Humerus 1703

1037

Material culture and earth

Ulna

Measurement

GB

GL

23.14

30.45

LA

LAR

33.19 26.34 24.45 BP

DP

44.13

49.15

LO

DPA

1728

1037

Material culture and earth

46.13

915

1022

Material culture and earth

41.44

24.99 27.88

23.79

18.68

Cattle (Bos tarsus) Element

Number

Loci

Context

Metatarsal

Measurement Bp

Bd

113

1044

Material culture and earth

52.61

1487

1037

Material culture and earth

48.98

3042

1029

Material culture and earth

46.46

Phalanx 1

Glpe

Bp

Sd

4973

Bd 24.95

94

1035

Material culture and earth

55.76

25.41

20.9

3087

1065

Material culture and earth

59.32

27.42

23.65

25.98

2834

1021

Material culture and earth

58.83

30.47

24.98

25.75

967

1022

Material culture and earth

54.78

24.19

21.14

23.97

Glpe

Bp

Sd

Bd

36.5

26.1

21.24

21.32

Phalanx 2 3544

1054

Material culture

228 ABRA SPICIARICH AND LIDAR SAPIR-HEN Element

Number

Loci

Context

Measurement

3956

1046

Material culture

44.43

32.06

25.67

27.65

2110

1068

Material culture

38.52

25.31

21.17

20.68

169

1022

Material culture and earth

41.87

27.24

22.7

23

428

1022

Material culture and earth

41.9

25.94

21.98

23.77

95

1035

Material culture and earth

25.21

20.11

21.78

8

1037

Material culture and earth

23.41

18.74

19.75

1581

1037

Material culture and earth

43.9

28.87

24.51

24.51

1884

1037

Material culture and earth

40.48

29.05

23.53

29.5

1580

1037

Material culture and earth

35.7

27.77

24.3

22.03

3049

1029

Material culture and earth

39.44

29.26

23.6

22.59

1002

1022

Material culture and earth

42.42

25.37

22.09

21.03

1243

1022

Material culture and earth

41.98

29.2

24.83

23.3

GL1

GLm

D1

Bd

60.73

57.07

34.62

38.94

Astragalus 2817

1020

Material culture and earth

462

1022

Material culture and earth

450

1022

Material culture and earth

58.35

Mandibular Tooth: M3

62.22

56.45

L

B

40.02 33.58

39.91

Bp

Sd

Bd

GL1

GLm

D1

Bd

32.49

30.51

18.61

20.42

13

1037

Material culture and earth

35.77

12.04

360

1037

Material culture and earth

38.89

13.59

Gazelle (Gazella gazella) Element

Number

Loci

Context

Measurement

Phalanx 1

Glpe 1056

1037

Material culture and earth

11.19

Astragalus 4382

1052

Material culture

Chicken (Gallus gallus) Element

Number

Loci

Context

Coracoid 4266

1050

Material culture

4964

1049

Material culture and earth

Measurement GL

Lm

48.97

45.97

Bb

BF 10.16

13.02

10.01

FA U N A L R E M A I N S 229 Element

Number

Loci

Context

3685

1052

Material culture

4825

1055

Earth

4735

1057

Earth

436

1022

Material culture and earth

53.56

50.71

11.93

1879

1037

Material culture and earth

44.42

43.24

8.38

920

1022

Material culture and earth

Scapula

46.97

GL

44,60

1055

Earth

12.27

4429

1051

Earth

12.21

4494

1053

Earth

12.77

3600

1057

Earth

11.77

2227

1062

Material culture

10.94

2031

1037

Material culture and earth

10.96

GL 4200

1054

Material culture

2512

1045

Material culture and earth

2225

1062

Material culture

2224

1062

Material culture

187

1022

Material culture and earth

1491

1037

Material culture and earth

68.93

11.11

14.35

11.28

9.44

13.3

10.96

15.44

12.38

SC

Bd

6.61

15.46

7.05

13.25

Dic

4796

Humerus

Radius

Measurement

Bp

17.96

16.74 13.71 75.67

GL

20.72

7.64

18.77

6.39

SC

Bd

15.72

230 ABRA SPICIARICH AND LIDAR SAPIR-HEN Element

Number

Loci

Context

4427

1051

Earth

3.32

6.22

5013

1058

Material culture

3.17

6.19

2407

1045

Material culture and earth

2.58

2435

1045

Material culture and earth

2.66

5.1

665

1061

Earth

4.03

8.22

579

1061

Earth

3.53

6.52

1405

1022

Material culture and earth

4.13

7.14

1365

1022

Material culture and earth

3.05

5.85

1066

1022

Material culture and earth

3.16

6.28

993

1022

Material culture and earth

1267

1022

Material culture and earth

Carpometacarpus

Measurement

6.99

GL

3.49

5.63

L

Bp

Dip

4739

1057

Earth

34.07

10.55

6.45

3716

1056

Material culture

36.85

10.89

6.7

800

1058

Material culture

35.39

10.68

7.92

1380

1022

Material culture and earth

40.42

9.86

7.93

Bp

Dp

Femur

GL 3633

1057

Earth

3317

1070

Material culture

Lm

15.85

12.34

SC

Bd

Dd

5.35

12.16

9.56

FA U N A L R E M A I N S 231 Element

Number

Loci

Context

2775

1045

Material culture and earth

14.03

11.44

2331

1045

Material culture and earth

15.51

11.99

2591

1045

Material culture and earth

6.15

12.42

9.67

292

1037

Material culture and earth

6.88

13.89

12.72

221

1037

Material culture and earth

5.78

13.51

11.67

1584

1037

Material culture and earth

1707

1037

Material culture and earth

7.05

16.26

13.21

1595

1037

Material culture and earth

6.05

12.39

10.85

Bd

Dd

Tibiotarsus

Measurement

78.91

85.85

GL

73.87

79.99

La

14.77

10.9

13.59

9.66

15.71

12.1

Dip

SC

3512

1054

Material culture

11.97

4425

1051

Earth

9.21

12.58

4733

1057

Earth

11.85

12.6

4914

1056

Material culture

8.79

9.81

3860

1046

Material culture

2.42

4.48

5.45

3297

1039

Material culture and earth

6.06

10.98

12.42

2733

1046

Material culture

188

1022

Material culture and earth

11.22

11.74

18.46

7.23 6.53

232 ABRA SPICIARICH AND LIDAR SAPIR-HEN Element

Number

Loci

Context

442

1022

Material culture and earth

1526

1037

Material culture and earth

11.18

12.51

1442

1037

Material culture and earth

10.13

11.4

480

1022

Material culture and earth

9.7

10.63

1412

1022

Material culture and earth

23.1

22.05

Tarsometatarsus

Measurement 21.55

GL

Bp

SC

Bd

5.95

11.51

3513

1054

Material culture

4643

1052

Material culture

14.07

4793

1055

Earth

11.6

4453

1053

Earth

4096

1056

Material culture

16.32

2589

1045

Material culture and earth

11.36

2240

1062

Material culture

11.71

2223

1063

Earth

11.83

1708

1037

Material culture and earth

14.34

1750

1037

Material culture and earth

12.78

1046

1022

Material culture and earth

6.28

6.88

13.85

12.96

6.95

11.96

FA U N A L R E M A I N S 233 Element

Number

Loci

Context

Ulna

Measurement GL

Dip

Bp

SC

Did

4965

1049

Material culture and earth

9.64

4492

1053

Earth

9.18

3634

1057

Earth

3493

1056

Material culture

3970

1046

Material culture

626

1061

Earth

71.85

13.06

8.68

4.25

8.94

4.49

9.29

3.94

9.68 10.01

Partridge (Alectoris chukar) Element

Number

Loci

Context

Tibiotarsus

Measurement GL

3860

1046

Material culture

La

Dip

SC

Bd

Dd

2.42

4.48

5.45

CHAPTER 12

FISH REMAINS Omri Lernau

The fish bones described in this report were collected during the excavation of the landfill of Area D3. They were found in layers of garbage dated to the Early Roman period, over remains of the Iron II. The excavated soil was sifted in part through a 2 mm mesh. Fish bones were then hand-picked out of the remaining residue. The bones were identified by comparison to bones of recent fish in the author’s private reference collection. Names of skeletal elements follow Wheeler and Jones (1989). Taxonomic nomenclature and details about the fish follow Nelson (1994), Golani (1996) and Goren (1983). The minimum number of individuals (MNI) was not calculated, since it stands to reason that each bone inside this large refuse dump, formed over many decades, represents an individual fish. Measurements of 57 better-preserved bones were taken according to accepted standards (Morales and Rosenlund 1979) and were used to calculate estimated sizes of the original fish, using published allometric equations (Desse, Desse-Berset and Rocheteau 1987; Desse and Desse-Berset 1996) or the reference collection.

RESULTS The total number of fish bones available for analysis was 591. They included 23 different skeletal elements and 34 unrecognized fragments. Most bones were badly damaged. Their state of preservation was assessed on a subjective scale of 1‒6 to be bad (25%) or poor (73%), with only a few well-preserved bones. In most cases, poor preservation prevented identification below the taxonomic level of families, especially of vertebrae, which comprised 86% of the bones that were largely broken and eroded. Three hundred fifty bones (63% of all recognized skeletal elements) could be identified as belonging to eight families of marine fish and four families of freshwater fish (Table 12.1). These bones form the basis for the following discussion. Marine fish comprise 48.6% of the identifiable bones. The most abundant among them belong to the mullet family (Figs. 12.1 and 12.2). A few bones could be further identified as belonging to the species Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus 1758, flathead gray mullet) and to the similar genus Liza. Seven species of mullets inhabit shallow waters, lagoons and estuaries along the Mediterranean coast of Israel. The species under consideration is catadromous; the young fish migrate upriver, grow in freshwater and return to the sea for breeding as adults. They feed on small plankton and decayed organic matter and typically move in dense schools, thus rendering them easy to capture in nets. Mullets were highly regarded in the past and are currently raised in fish ponds in Israel and are an important commercial commodity. Other identified marine fish were jacks (3.7%) and porgies (2.6%). Bones of a few mackerels (1.7%), groupers (1.7%), drums (1.1%) and single bones of a triggerfish and a sea bass were also found. Jacks (Fig. 12.3) and mackerels are fast swimming predators of the open seas. Groupers are large, solitary, predatory fish found in shallow warm waters of the Eastern Mediterranean, common along

236 OMRI LERNAU

0

0,5

1

Figure 12.1: Anterior vertebra of a mullet (family Mugilidae, probably Mugil cephalus), leftlateral view.

0

0,5

0

1

Figure 12.2: Posterior vertebra of a mullet, right-lateral view.

0,5

1

Figure 12.3: Posterior vertebra of a jack (family Carangidae), left-lateral view.

Table 12.1 Fish Remains from Area D3 Family

Genus

Species

NISP

%

Marine fish

 

 

 

 

Mugilidae

Mullets

 

 

127

36.3

 

 

Mugil

Cephalus

2

0.6

 

 

Liza

Sp.

1

0.3

Carangidae

Jacks

 

 

13

3.7

Sparidae

Porgies

Sparus

Auratus

9

2.6

Scombridae

Mackerels

 

 

6

1.7

Serranidae

Groupers

Epinephelus

Sp.

6

1.7

Sciaenidae

Drums

 

 

4

1.1

Balistidae

Triggerfish

Balistes

Carolinensis

1

0.3

0,2

Sea basses

Dicentrarchus

Labrax

1

 

 

 

170

0 Moronidae

0,1

  Fresh water fish Cyprinidae

Carps

 

 

 

Centropomidae

0

0,1

0,2

0.3 0

0,148.6

 

 

154

44.0

Barbus

Longiceps

3

0.9

Snooks

Lates

Niloticus

8

2.3

Cichlidae

Cichlids

 

 

10

2.9

Clariidae

Catfish

Clarias

Gariepinus

5

1.4

 

 

 

 

180

51.4

 

 

350

100.0

241

40.8

591

100.0

All identified bones No odentification Total

 

 

 

0,2

FISH REMAINS 237

4

the coast of Israel (Fig. 12.4). Small or medium-sized drums are found along the coast where they may be caught with simple fishing gear including nets and lines. The large family of porgies (sparidae) has numerous representatives in the Mediterranean. The most commonly identified porgy in archaeological excavations in Israel is Sparus auratus, a euryhaline fish capable of inhabiting waters with a wide range of salinity. At most sites, porgies comprise a large proportion of the identified fish, in contrast to their relatively small percentage in the present assembly (Figs. 12.5–12.7). Freshwater fish comprise 51.4% of the identifiable bones. The largest identified family among them, which is also the major family in the entire assemblage, is the carp family (Cyprinidae), with 154 bones (44%). Most bones probably belong to Luciobarbus longiceps (Valenciennes 1842, the Jordan barbel) although only a few could be identified with certainty to this species (Figs. 12.8– 12.11). This family is the most abundant fresh-water fish in the world, with ten species in Israel, most of them too small to have nutritional value. The larger kinds (barbels) are common in Israel’s 5 of the Jordan River system. Only one cyprinid, Capoeta damscina Sea of Galilee and other parts 0 2 1 2 (Valenciennes 1842)0 occurs today in coastal rivers flowing into the 1Mediterranean. Bones of different kinds of carp are difficult to differentiate morphologically and therefore, and for practical purposes, the origin of the excavated carp is ascribed to the lakes along the Jordan River system. Ten bones belonged to tilapia, a common name used for many species of the family Cichlidae (Fig. 12.12). They are small- to medium-sized freshwater fish, up to 25 cm in length, common in many of Israel’s lakes, rivers and streams, residing among stones and abundant vegetation. There are seven

6 0

1

2

7 0

0,5

1

Figure 12.4: Poorly preserved left premaxilla of a grouper (family Serranidae), medio-inferior view.

0

0,5

1

Figure 12.6: Left maxilla of Sparus auratus, lateral view.

0

0,5

1

0

1

2

0

0,5

1

Figure 12.5: Left premaxilla of the porgy Sparus auratus, mediointerior view.

Figure 12.7: Posterior vertebra of Sparus auratus, left-lateral view.

238 OMRI LERNAU

cichlid species in Israel today, four of them large enough to be nutritional. Remains of tilapia, which were apparently as popular in ancient times as today, are found in many archaeological excavations. The local catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Burchell 1822, North African Catfish), is represented in this assemblage with five bones. This catfish is the largest freshwater fish in Israel, attaining a maximum length and weight of 150 cm and 20 kg. It can survive in poorly oxygenated waters and even crawl between puddles, employing a kind of a primitive lung. The catfish can be found in coastal rivers and swamps along the Mediterranean and in the Jordan River system, where it is easily caught by rod and hook or with nets. 9 locally occurring freshwater fish, there were also eight bones of a snook, In addition to these three Lates niloticus (Linnaeus 1758, the Nile perch, Figs. 12.13‒12.14). The 1Nile perch is the largest fish 0 2 in the Nile, confined to the African continent (Greenwood 1976). It can attain a maximum size of up to 200 cm and a weight of 175 kg (Latif 1974). Bones of Nile perch have been identified in a large number of excavated sites in Israel, attesting to a continuous import of these fish from Egypt over long periods of time, not only to Canaan but also to the entire Eastern Mediterranean basin (Van Neer et al. 2004).

1

2

11 0

10

0,5

1

0

Figure 12.8: Left hyomandibular of 0 1 2 (family the carp Barbus longiceps cyprinidae), well preserved, external view.

0

0,5

1

Figure 12.10: Poorly preserved lower pharyngeal bone of a carp, superior view.

0

0,5 1

1

2

Figure 12.9: Poorly preserved anterior vertebra of the carp Barbus longiceps, left-lateral view.

0

0,5

1

Figure 12.11: Same, inferior view.

FISH REMAINS 239

13

0

1

0

0,5

2

1

0

0,5

1

Figure 12.13: Anterior vertebra of Lates niloticus (family Centropomidae), right-lateral view.

Figure 12.12: Anterior vertebra of a tilapia (family Cichlidae), leftlateral view.

14

0

1

2

0

0,5

1

Figure 12.14: Dorsal spine of Lates niloticus, anterior view. 0,2 Measurements of 057 of 0,1 the better-preserved bones enabled estimations of sizes of the original fish. These turned out to be relatively small, not only for the smaller kinds of fish (51 mullets 12‒35 cm, 22 carps 15‒26 cm and 4 porgies 13‒22 cm), but also for fish that have the potential to attain large sizes (two Nile perches 55 abd 65 cm and one grouper 25 cm).

DISCUSSION All fish consumed in ancient Jerusalem had to be imported into the city from various fishing grounds. Fish can therefore be considered as tokens of trade connections. The most obvious origin of marine fish was the Mediterranean. Local fishermen would bring marine fish to coastal markets where they were available for traders supplying inland sites, including Jerusalem. In the same markets merchants might also find freshwater fish caught in coastal rivers, as well as fish imported from Egypt, presumably by boat. The latter included Nilotic fish, mainly Nile perch,

0

0,1

0,2

240 OMRI LERNAU

as well as porgy from the Bardawil Lagoon along the northern Sinai coast. A recent analysis of teeth of S. auratus, has shown that these fish were isotopically harvested in the hypersaline Bardawil Lagoon and imported to a large number of ancient sites across the country (SismaVentura et al. 2018). This import from the lagoon began sometime in the Late Bronze Age, after the lagoon had been formed by the rising level of the Mediterranean, stabilizing at its present level around 1600 BCE. Import of porgies peaked in the Iron Age and also continued in later periods, as attested by their remains at many excavated sites, in which they often comprise the most abundant kind of fish (for example, the “Rock Cut Pool” in Iron II Jerusalem [Reich, Shukron and Lernau 2007], Iron II Tel Rehov [Lernau 2009b] or Hellenistic Ashkelon [Lernau forthcoming]). Their low proportion of only 2.6% in the present assemblage is odd. On the other hand, mullets, which are also found at most excavated sites, albeit in much lower proportions, are by far the most abundant marine fish in this assemblage (75% and 43% of all identified bones), rather than porgies. Another peculiar finding is the relatively high proportion of freshwater fish. Marine and imported Nilotic fish comprise the large majority of identified bones at most excavated sites, with only low percentages of local freshwater fish. This is the case not only along the coast, e.g., Iron I Ashkelon (Lernau 2020), but also inland, e.g., Late Bronze Lachish (Lernau and Golani 2004), Iron Age Megiddo (Lernau 2006) and even at sites along the rift (e.g., Late Bronze and Iron Age Beit Shean (Lernau 2009a) and Tel Rehov (Lernau 2009b). The large majority of these freshwater fish in the present assemblages are carp from the Sea of Galilee or Lake Hula. A similar situation occurs in another relatively small assemblage of 95 fish bones from the eastern slope of the City of David, excavated some 300 m farther north of Area D3, much closer to the Temple Mount. It was therefore dubbed “holy garbage” and identified as refuse originating from the Temple itself. This assemblage is characterized by a low percentage of porgy and a high percentage of mullet and carp (Bouchnik et al. 2009; Bouchnick, BaOz and Reich 2021). Table 12.2 compares the two Early Roman excavations in Jerusalem (Area L and Area D) with the Iron II excavation of the “Rock Cut Pool” in the City of David (Reich, Shukron and Lernau 2007). There were no carp remains whatsoever in the Iron II excavation, and the large majority of bones belonged to porgies. In another large assemblage of 3062 fish bones from the summit of the City of David Ridge dated to the Iron II, Babylonian and Persian periods, of all the bones retrieved only seven were carp bones (Lernau 2015). The source of carp is in the Sea of Galilee and might well be related to a fish processing enterprise that was operative in the lake in the Hellenistic/Roman period, in the city of Tarichaea, presumably today’s Migdal. The Greek name Tarichaea means “pickled fish,” and points to its function— the salted fish industry. Strabo wrote : “At the place called Taricheæ the lake supplies the best fish for curing” (Strabo 16.2.45 Geography, 16.2.45). We may therefore assume that not only the carp originated in the Sea of Galilee, but tilapia and catfish as well. In conclusion: According to what we know today, the fish remains retrieved from the thick layers of garbage in the Early Roman city of Jerusalem join a long tradition of consumption of many different types of fish imported to Jerusalem. Fish merchants supplying the city relied primarily on markets along the Mediterranean coast, where they would find locally-caught marine as well as freshwater and marine fish brought in from Egypt. This changed in Roman times, apparently due to a reduction of import from Egypt and the commercial production and availability of processed freshwater fish from the Sea of Galilee, which apparently, according to the data presented here, became the main source of fish for Jerusalem.

FISH REMAINS 241

Table 12.2: Comparison of Fish Remains in City of David Family

Family

Early Roman Area D3 (NISP=294)

Early Roman Area L (NISP=95)

Iron II “Rock Cut Pool” (NISP=5419)

Cyprinidae

Carps

44.9

18.6

0.0

Mugilidae

Mullets

37.1

21.6

19.3

Carangidae

Jacks

3.7

10.8

0.1

Cichlidae

Cichlids

2.9

3.9

1.9

Sparidae

Porgies

2.6

8.8

66.9

Centropomidae

Snooks

2.3

3.9

2.5

Scombridae

Mackerels

1.7

2.0

0.0

Serranidae

Groupers

1.7

2.9

0.8

Clariidae

Catfish

1.4

0.0

4.0

Sciaenidae

Drums

1.1

13.7

3.5

Balistidae

Triggerfish

0.3

1.0

0.0

Moronidae

Sea Basses

0.3

0.0

0.0

Percentages of 12 kinds of fish in the Iron II and Early Roman periods 80

70 60

50 40 30

20

Early Roman Area D3 (NISP=294)

Early Roman Area L (NISP=95)

Iron II "Rock Cut Pool" (NISP=5419)

Figure 12.15: Percentages of 12 kinds of fish in the Iron II and Early Roman periods.

Sea Basses

Triggerfish

Drums

Catfish

Groupers

Mackerels

Snooks

Porgies

Cichlids

Mullets

Carps

0

Jacks

10

242 OMRI LERNAU

REFERENCES Bouchnick, R., Lernau, O., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2009. A Jerusalem Fish Menu from the Late Second Temple Period. In: Baruch, E., Levy-Reifer, A. and Faust, A., eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 15. Ramat Gan: 97–118. Bouchnick, R., Lernau, O., Bar-Oz, G. and Reich, R. 2021. Area L, The Faunal Remains. In: Reich, R. and Shukron, E., eds. Excavations in the City of David (1995–2010): Areas A, J, F, H, D and L Final Report (AJP Series I). University Park and Jerusalem: 482–489. Desse, J. and Desse-Berset, N. 1996. Ostéométrie et archéologie de la daurade royale (Sparus aurata, Linné 1758). Fisches d’ostéologie animale pour l’archéologie Series A: Poissons 9. Juan-les-Pins. Desse, J., Desse-Berset, N. and Rocheteau, M. 1987. Contribution à l'ostéométrie du mulet : Liza ramada Risso, 1826 = Mugil capito Cuvier, 1929 (Fiches d'ostéologie animale pour l'archéologie). Fisches d’ostéologie animale pour l’archéologie Series A: Poissons. Juan-les-Pins. Golani, D. 1996. The Marine Ichthyofauna of the Eastern Levant: History, Inventory, and Characterization. Israel Journal of Zoology 42: 15–55. Goren, M. 1983. Freshwater Fishes of Israel. Biology and Taxonomy. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Greenwood, P.H. 1976. A Review of the Family Centropomidae (Pisces, Perciformes). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology 29: 1–81. Latif, A.F.A. 1974. Fisheries of Lake Nasser, Aswan Regional Planning. Aswan. Lernau, O. 2006. Fish Remains. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D., and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo IV. The 1998– 2002 Seasons. Tel Aviv: 474–496. Lernau, O. 2009a. Fish Bones. In: Panitz-Cohen, N. and Mazar, A., eds. Excavations at Tel Bet-Shean 1989– 1996, Vol. III. Jerusalem: 774–781. Lernau, O. 2009b. The Fish Remains. In: Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N., eds. Excavations at Tel Rehov, 1989–1996. Vol. III. Jerusalem: 774–78. Lernau, O. 2015 Fish Bones. In: Mazar, E., ed. The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008, Final Reports, Vol. I: Area G. Jerusalem: 525–537. Lernau, O. 2020. Fish Bones. In: Stager, L.E., Master, D.M. and Aja, A.J., eds. Ashkelon 7. The Iron Age I. University Park: 731–746. Lernau, O. and Golani, D. 2004. The Osteological Remains (Aquatic). In: Ussishkin, D. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 2456–2489. Morales, A. and Rosenlund, K. 1979. Fish Bone Measurements. Copenhagen. Nelson, J.S. 1994. Fishes of the World. New York. Reich, R., Shukron, E. and Lernau, O. 2007. Recent Discoveries in the City of David, Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 57: 153–169. Sisma-Ventura, G., Tütken, T., Zohar, I., Pack, A., Sivan, D., Lernau, O., Gilboa, A. and Bar-Oz, G. 2018. Tooth Oxygen Isotopes Reveal Late Bronze Age Origin of Mediterranean Fish Aquaculture and Trade. Scientific Reports 8. Van Neer, W., Lernau, O., Friedman, R., Mumford, G., Poblome, J., and Waelkens, M. 2004. Fish Remains from Archaeological Sites as Indicators of Former Trade Connections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Paléorient 30/1: 101147. Wheeler, A. and Jones, A.K.G. 1989. Fishes. Cambridge.

CHAPTER 13

ARCHAEOBOTANICAL ANALYSIS Helena Roth and Dafna Langgut

Approximately 2000 pieces of charcoal dated to the 1st century CE were retrieved from the Area D3 landfill during the 2014 season. The charred material was transferred to the Laboratory of Archaeobotany and Ancient Environments at Tel Aviv University for wood identification. Of these, 175 samples with a satisfactory state of preservation were analyzed. In addition, 11 sediment samples (from Loci 1044, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058 and 1059) were collected from various strata of Section 313 for palynological analysis. All sediment samples were pollen barren and are therefore not discussed in this paper. Jerusalem is located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. It has a typical Mediterranean climate with an average annual winter precipitation of about 500 mm. Although the modern city spreads across both sides of the watershed, the walled Old City is located to its east. The current natural vegetation of the Judean Mountains is characterized by degraded Mediterranean forest-maquis, garigue and batha formations reflecting millennia of intensive human activity. The most common association in the forestmaquis is the Palestine oak (Quercus calliprinos), and the terebinth (Pistacia palaestina), with occasional stands of individual Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), which represents a relic of a sub-climax pine forest. An open maqius of the carob (Ceratonia siliqua) and mastic (Pistacia lentiscus) followed by Palestine oak is a common formation of the western foothills of the Judean Mountains. The eastern slopes of the Judean Mountains are characterized by a narrow strip of semi-arid Irano-Turanian steppe vegetation, dominated by the very thorny Ziziphus lotus, as well as by the Persian turpentine (Pistacia atlantica), and various dwarf shrubs, e.g., Artemisia herba-alba, Sarcopoterium spinosum, and many species of herbaceous plants (Zohary 1962: 68, 90, 91, 98, 102–103, 110, 208–212). However, the natural landscape of the region is highly anthropogenic since it was subjected to extended changes over the period of human occupation of the area (Zohary 1962: 69–70, 208–212). Due to human alterations of the landscape, such as the thinning of the Mediterranean maquis resulting from forest clearing for agriculture, grazing, felling of trees for timber, production of charcoal and other uses of wild plants, and because of the proximity of the city to the Irano-Turanian phytogeographical territory (resulting in the replacement of the natural Mediterranean vegetation by semi-arid steppe vegetation elements), the current vegetation of the Jerusalem region is dominated by low batha shrubs, predominantly the thorny burnet (Sarcopoterium spinosum) (e.g., Zohary 1962: 209–212; Lev-Yadun 1997).

MATERIALS AND METHODS The charred material from the landfill was systematically collected in situ, and the context of the landfill layers was carefully documented. Further, the landfill material excavated was dry sifted using a 0.5 cm mesh, and subjected to floatation in order to obtain the maximum amount

244 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

of identifiable material. The samples were taken from different loci in the context of the landfill layers (Loci 1020, 1047, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1071, 1102, 1105, 1106, 1109, 1111, 1113, 1114, 1119, 1122, 1128, 1129 and 1131). The identification of wood remnants is based on their anatomical structure and is possible due to their preservation in charred material. The identification is made on the basis of the three-dimensional structure of wood (seen in transverse, radial and tangential sections of the sample), when the state of preservation is satisfactory. Altogether, 175 charred pieces larger than 0.5 cu cm were analyzed. The samples were cut using razor blades and examined along the three wood axes under a Zeiss SteREO Discovery V20 epi-illuminated microscope at magnifications of up to ×360 with a bright/ dark field objective. A Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM: TM3030 plus) was used when a higher magnification was required. The wood’s anatomical structures (e.g., the presence or absence of annual growth rings and their abundance, arrangement and the size of the vessels, tracheids, rays and fibers), along with a number of other diagnostic characteristics (such as the presence or absence of resin ducts), were noted and compared with wood and charcoal reference collections of the southern Levant, provided by the Steinhardt Museum of Natural History at Tel Aviv University. Regional wood anatomy atlases were also used in order to make a determination (e.g., Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986; Wheeler, Baas and Gasson 1989; Schweingruber 1990; Richter, Grosser, Heinz and Gasson 2004; Akkemik and Yaman 2012; Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013).

RESULTS Area D3’s charred wood assemblage is characterized by a poor state of preservation. Most of the charred pieces examined were approximately 0.5–3 cu cm in size. In addition, the assemblage is characterized by a high degree of diversity of tree species and a medium occurrence of roots and tubers (Tables 13.1, 13.2 and Fig. 13.1). Around 54% (= 95 samples) were identified, as one of at least ten species in declining frequency: olive, Aleppo pine, Italian cypress, cedar of Lebanon, common fig, sycamore, green olive, Persian turpentine, mastic and common grape vine. Close to 2.85% (= 5 samples) were determined only to the genus level, as one of three genera, in declining frequency: Oak, terebinth and tamarisk. Ca. 26% of the assemblage (= 45 samples) were identified as roots or tubers, which are characterized by a different set of diagnostic features and thus cannot be attributed to a specific species using the available dendroarchaeological taxonomic determination database used in this study. About 17% (= 29 samples) were left undetermined due to poor state of preservation. One sample was determined only as a nonspecified conifer due to its small size and poor state of preservation.

DISCUSSION The discussion below follows the data presented in Fig. 13.1 and Table 13.1. The taxa identified in this study are discussed in details that concern their habitat, environmental significance, anatomical characteristics and distribution and uses in antiquity. Then, the entire assemblage is discussed as a whole, suggesting possible uses of the wood (fuel, production of wooden objects and construction).

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 4 5

Olea europaea

Pinus halepensis Cupressus sempervirens

unidentifiable

Cedrus libani

conifer Ficus carica Quercus spp.

Olea europaea

Phillyrea latifolia

root/tuber

Vitis vinifera Pistacia atlantica

Pin

Pistacia lenticus

le ha us

Pistacia spp. Tamarix spp.

pen

Ficus sycomorus

sis

root/tuber unidentifiable

Figure 13.1: Relative frequencies of the identified taxa in the charred wood assemblage from the city’s landfill.

Table 13.1: Identification of Charred Wood Remains from the City’s Landfill Taxon

English name

Number of finds

% of finds

Olea europaea

Olive

69

39.43%

Pinus halepensis

Aleppo pine

10

5.71%

Cupressus sempervirens

Italian cypress

3

1.71%

Cedrus libani

Cedar of Lebanon

1

0.57%

1

0.57%

Conifer Ficus carica

Common fig

4

2.29%

Quercus spp.

Oak

3

1.71%

Phillyrea latifolia

Green olive

2

1.14%

Vitis vinifera

Common grape vine

2

1.14%

Pistacia atlantica

Persian turpentine

2

1.14%

Pistacia lentiscus

Mastic

1

0.57%

1

0.57%

Pistacia spp. Tamarix spp.

Tamarisk

1

0.57%

Ficus sycomorus

Sycamoreck

1

0.57%

Root/tuber

45

25.71%

Unidentifiable

29

16.57%

Total

175

100.00%

246 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

Pinus halepensis

Cupressus sempervirens Cedrus libani conifer Phoenix dactylifera Fraxinus syriaca Platanus orientalis

Olea europaea Buxus spp. Quercus calliprinos Quercus ithaburensis Crataegus spp.

Ficus sycomorus Ficus spp. Pistacia lenticus root/tuber Figure 13.2: Relative fragments of wood samples from Area D3.

Table 13.2: Classification of All Charred Wood Samples from Area D3, in Alphabetical Order of Taxa Determined Identification

Locus

Basket

Object

Additional description

Cedrus libani

1053

18001

4

 

Conifer

1113

16345

1

Possibly piece of branch, 0.5 cm radius

Cupressus sempervirens

1055

18105

6

 

Cupressus sempervirens

1056

15929

2

 

Cupressus sempervirens

1105

15920

2

 

Ficus carica

1020

14348

3

Young branch

Ficus carica

1051

18004

2

 

Ficus carica

1051

18004

3

Ficus carica

1051

18004

4

 

Ficus sycomorus

1053

18051

3

 

Olea europaea

1047

14655

1

 

Olea europaea

1047

14655

3

 

Olea europaea

1049

18000

1

 

Olea europaea

1049

18000

3

 

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 4 7 Identification

Locus

Basket

Object

Additional description

Olea europaea

1049

18000

6

 

Olea europaea

1050

18018

1

 

Olea europaea

1050

18036

2

 

Olea europaea

1051

15672

4

 

Olea europaea

1051

15672

5

 

Olea europaea

1051

15672

6

 

Olea europaea

1051

18004

5

 

Olea europaea

1051

18004

6

 

Olea europaea

1051

18033

1

Olea europaea

1051

18033

2

 

Olea europaea

1052

14866

1

 

Olea europaea

1052

15671

2

 

Olea europaea

1052

15672

1

 

Olea europaea

1052

15672

3

 

Olea europaea

1052

15692

1

 

Olea europaea

1053

18001

2

 

Olea europaea

1054

14874

1

 

Olea europaea

1054

15770

1

 

Olea europaea

1054

18092

4

 

Olea europaea

1054

18092

5

 

Olea europaea

1054

18092

6

 

Olea europaea

1054

18092

7

 

Olea europaea

1054

18092

8

 

Olea europaea

1054

18092

11

 

Olea europaea

1054

18092

17

 

Olea europaea

1054

18092

20

 

Olea europaea

1055

18007

4

 

Olea europaea

1055

18007

10

 

Olea europaea

1055

18105

10

 

Olea europaea

1055

18105

13

 

Olea europaea

1055

18105

15

 

Olea europaea

1056

15871

2

 

Olea europaea

1056

15871

3

 

Olea europaea

1056

15871

5

 

Olea europaea

1056

15871

6

 

Olea europaea

1056

15929

5

 

248 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT Identification

Locus

Basket

Object

Additional description

Olea europaea

1056

18109

2

Branch

Olea europaea

1056

18109

7

 

Olea europaea

1056

18109

9

 

Olea europaea

1057

15491

3

 

Olea europaea

1058

14794

1

 

Olea europaea

1058

14794

2

 

Olea europaea

1058

15968

2

 

Olea europaea

1058

15968

4

 

Olea europaea

1058

15968

5

 

Olea europaea

1058

15968

6

 

Olea europaea

1058

18007

1

 

Olea europaea

1059

16065

1

 

Olea europaea

1059

16065

3

 

Olea europaea

1059

16111

1

 

Olea europaea

1061

16458

2

 

Olea europaea

1106

16315

2

 

Olea europaea

1109

16673

2

 

Olea europaea

1114

16451

1

 

Olea europaea

1114

16451

2

 

Olea europaea

1119

16903

1

 

Olea europaea

1119

16903

2

 

Olea europaea

1122

17187

2

 

Olea europaea

1129

16780

2

 

Olea europaea

1129

16780

3

 

Olea europaea

1129

16780

4

 

Olea europaea

1129

16780

5

 

Olea europaea

1129

16780

6

 

Olea europaea

1131

17213

1

 

Olea europaea

1131

17213

3

 

Phillyrea latifolia

1020

14348

1

 

Phillyrea latifolia

1020

14348

2

 

Pinus halepensis

1049

18000

4

 

Pinus halepensis

1050

18036

3

 

Pinus halepensis

1052

15672

2

 

Pinus halepensis

1054

18092

18

 

Pinus halepensis

1055

18105

5

 

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 4 9 Identification

Locus

Basket

Object

Additional description

Pinus halepensis

1055

18105

9

 

Pinus halepensis

1055

18105

11

 

Pinus halepensis

1056

18109

5

 

Pinus halepensis

1056

18109

8

 

Pinus halepensis

1057

15491

2

 

Pistacia atlantica

1047

14655

2

 

Pistacia atlantica

1055

18105

8

 

Pistacia lentiscus

1054

18092

3

 

Pistacia spp.

1055

18105

14

 

Quercus spp.

1054

18092

10

Poor state of preservation

Quercus spp.

1056

18109

6

 

Quercus spp.

1113

16345

3

 

Root/tuber

1050

14863

1

 

Root/tuber

1050

18018

1

 

Root/tuber

1050

18018

3

 

Root/tuber

1050

18036

1

 

Root/tuber

1052

15671

1

 

Root/tuber

1053

18001

1

 

Root/tuber

1053

18001

5

 

Root/tuber

1054

18092

1

 

Root/tuber

1054

18092

9

 

Root/tuber

1054

18092

12

 

Root/tuber

1054

18092

13

 

Root/tuber

1054

18092

15

 

Root/tuber

1054

18092

16

 

Root/tuber

1055

18007

1

 

Root/tuber

1055

18007

2

 

Root/tuber

1055

18007

3

 

Root/tuber

1055

18105

1

 

Root/tuber

1055

18105

2

 

Root/tuber

1055

18105

3

 

Root/tuber

1055

18105

4

 

Root/tuber

1055

18105

12

 

Root/tuber

1055

18105

16

 

Root/tuber

1055

18105

17

 

Root/tuber

1055

18105

18

 

250 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT Identification

Locus

Basket

Object

Additional description

Root/tuber

1056

15871

1

 

Root/tuber

1056

15871

4

 

Root/tuber

1056

15929

1

 

Root/tuber

1056

15929

3

 

Root/tuber

1056

15929

6

 

Root/tuber

1057

15491

1

 

Root/tuber

1058

15968

1

 

Root/tuber

1058

15968

3

 

Root/tuber

1061

16458

1

 

Root/tuber

1071

14813

1

 

Root/tuber

1071

14813

2

 

Root/tuber

1102

16440

1

 

Root/tuber

1111

16999

1

 

Root/tuber

1111

16999

2

 

Root/tuber

1111

16999

3

 

Root/tuber

1111

16999

4

 

Root/tuber

1111

16999

5

 

Root/tuber

1113

16345

2

 

Root/tuber

1122

17187

3

 

Root/tuber

1129

16780

1

 

Root/tuber

1131

17213

2

 

Tamarix spp.

1053

18051

2

 

Unidentifiable

1049

18000

5

Unidentifiable

1050

18018

2

Unidentifiable

1051

18004

1

Unidentifiable

1052

15671

3

 

Unidentifiable

1052

15671

4

 

Unidentifiable

1052

15692

2

Unidentifiable

1052

15692

3

Unidentifiable

1053

18001

3

Unidentifiable

1053

18051

1

Unidentifiable

1054

18092

2

Unidentifiable

1054

18092

14

Unidentifiable

1054

18092

19

Unidentifiable

1055

18105

7

Unidentifiable

1056

15929

4

Poor state of preservation  

 

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 5 1 Identification

Locus

Basket

Object

Additional description

Unidentifiable

1056

18109

1

 

Unidentifiable

1056

18109

3

Unidentifiable

1056

18109

4

Unidentifiable

1059

16065

2

Unidentifiable

1059

16111

2

Unidentifiable

1060

16322

1

 

Unidentifiable

1062

16466

1

 

Unidentifiable

1106

16315

1

 

Unidentifiable

1109

16673

1

 

Unidentifiable

1111

16999

6

Unidentifiable

1111

16999

7

Unidentifiable

1122

17187

1

Unidentifiable

1128

17325

1

Unidentifiable

1128

17325

2

Unidentifiable

1128

17325

3

Vitis vinifera

1049

18000

2

 

Vitis vinifera

1105

15920

1

 

 

Taxa Determined Common Olive, Olea europaea (39.43%, Fig. 13.1) is an evergreen tree and a natural element of the Mediterranean forest-maquis in Israel. However, over the last six millennia this species has been more common as a cultivated tree than as a wild one (Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 116–120). Though the wild olive has always been a minor component in the natural Levantine environment, as is reflected in Late Pleistocene palynological diagrams (e.g., Horowitz 1979; Weinstein-Evron 1983; Langgut et al. 2011), olive orchards are currently a major component of the south Levantine landscape, expressing the great economic importance of this fruit tree through the history of its cultivation in the Mediterranean basin (Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 116; Langgut et al. 2019). Palynological records from the Dead Sea, reflecting mainly pollen originating from the Judean Mountains, show an increase in olive pollen percentages since the Early Hellenistic period (Neumann et al. 2010 and references therein; Litt et al. 2012; Langgut and Lipschits 2017).1 A previous dendroarchaeological study showed that olive groves were the most common orchards around Jerusalem during this period (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019; Roth and Langgut forthcoming a. Though this tree could reach a height of up to 10 m (Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 434), and produce a great deal of timber, it was probably protected from felling due to its high economic value in the olive market. At the same time, olive plantations produced a significant amount of agricultural refuse, originating from pruning. Pruning was and still is an important and standard practice in olive orchard maintenance (Zinger, 1985). Pruned branches must be cleared to prevent the spreading of pathogenic fungi and pests to healthy trees. Pruning was conducive to a significantly higher fruit 1

Evident also by archaeobotanical remains (Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975).

252 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

yield given that, in most cases, trees bear fruit only on one-year-old branches. Furthermore, pruning also helps to regulate the phenomenon of alternate-year bearing, helps in treating infectious diseases and keeps trees at a moderate height, which is helpful to harvesting (Zinger, 1985). As olive wood has a high density (0.75–0.96 g/cm3; Engel and Frey, 1996: 191; Crivellaro and Schweingruber, 2013: 434), it is considered a high-quality fuel source. Therefore, the pruned refuse would have served as good quality firewood at nearby settlements. Olive wood can be determined by the presence of indistinct annual growth rings or their absence altogether, the arrangement of the vessels in radial multiples of 2–4 and by diffused porosity. Its rays, mostly 1–3 seriate and up to 12 cells high (and in some cases up to 20 cells high) are heterogeneous and mostly 1–3 rowed (and in some cases up to 6 rows wide), with square and upright marginal cells (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 136–137; Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 435). In addition, olive wood is characterized by a large structural variability because of irregular growth forms (Schweingruber 1990: 573). Due to its hard, durable and aromatic wood, the timber of the olive tree is suitable for fuel as well as for crafting small objects (Fahn and Werker 1992). Olive wood is characterized by a relatively high basic density of 0.75 g/cu cm (Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 435). The common olive was identified in large quantities within the Middle Bronze through Iron Age strata in Shiloh’s City of David excavations (Fahn and Werker 1992; Liphschitz and Waisel 1992; Werker and Baruch 1992). It was also identified within the Iron Age stratum of the Ophel excavations (Liphschitz 1989) and in the late Iron Age in Persian period strata of the Scottish Church excavation (Liphschitz and Waisel 1980). Despite its high economic value, common olive wood was employed in the manufacturing of wooden objects, usually of various durable wooden artifacts that were preserved at various sites in Judea spanning from the Hellenistic to the Late Roman periods.2 Sixteen pieces of common olive wood were identified within the assemblage of the excavations of the Western Wall foundations, four samples were found within the assemblage of the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavations and 23 samples within the Stepped Street excavation (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019), all dating to the Early Roman period in Jerusalem. Although olive horticulture was an essential part of Roman agriculture (e.g., Adams 2014: 84), it was also widespread across the southern Levant during earlier periods, as can be seen from the palynological data (e.g., Litt et al. 2012) as well as the archaeological record (Langgut et al. 2019 and references therein). Olive plantations were common in the Shephelah during the Iron II as is evident from the Lachish reliefs (Amar 1999) and as recently discussed by Finkelstein and Langgut (2018). Both Pliny the Elder and Columella (1st century CE prominent Roman writer on agriculture) described the large-scale planting of this crop, and mentioned olive trees being grown in nurseries before being replanted in the orchards (Historia Naturalis 15:1; De arbor 18). This fact might emphasize the importance of this species in the horticulture of the Roman world. Seasonal pruning was a subject frequently described by the authors of the classical period, probably due to its importance (e.g., Historia Naturalis 15: 2; De agri. 44:1; De caus. 3: 7; Historia Plantarum 2: 73). The agricultural waste resulting from this expansive activity produced large amounts of available olive wood for use as fuel. The Greek botanist Theophrastus (late 4th–early 3rd centuries BCE) described olive wood as a suitable fuel source of good quality (Historia Plantarum 5: 9). However, Cato the Elder mentioned its wood as a low quality fuel (De agri. 55.1). Pliny described this tree as sacred (Historia Naturalis 12: 2, 15: 135) and claimed that its use for fuel was forbidden even in cultic contexts (ibid.:15: 40). However, 2 3

E.g., Liphschitz 1998; Liphschitz and Waisel 1999; Sitry 2006a: 170, 2006b: 13; Cariaggi and Mancini 2009. Though Theophrastus predated the Early Roman period in Judea by approximately 300 years, conceptions described in his writings may have passed on through the ages.

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 5 3

on other occasions the written sources confirm that olive timber was used for the manufacture of small objects (ibid.: 16: 222, 230; De arch. 1: 5, 3: 4). According to Pliny the Elder, the twisted growth pattern of the wood made it suitable for the manufactue of small objects (Historia Naturalis 17: 30). It is evident that the sanctity of this wood, and the prohibition of its corruption was common also in Judea, as its use was prohibited from serving as fuel at the altar within the Temple of Jerusalem (Mishnah Tamid 2: 3). Aleppo Pine, Pinus halepensis (5.71%) is a softwood tree that occurs naturally in Israel and a minor characteristic arboreal component of the Mediterranean forest-maquis. It grows at altitudes that range between sea level and up to 1000 m, forming natural forests or forest remnants (Zohary 1973: 135, 341, 397, 501–502). It is also the only naturally-occurring pine species in the southern Levant (WeinsteinEvron and Lev-Yadun 2000). Aleppo pine usually lives up to 150 years (Zohary 1987: 218), making it a relatively short-lived tree (Zohary 1973: 341). However, in some cases, it may attain an age of 200 or more years, mainly resulting from arboricultural care (Lev-Yadun, Liphschitz and Waisel 1981). It is a relatively fast-growing species with moderate ecological requirements (Zohary 1962: 92; 1987: 213). Aleppo pine is restricted to the Mediterranean climate to areas that enjoy winter precipitation of 450–1000 mm, and a dry summer, although in southern Europe it may enjoy some summer rains, and is highly drought resistant. In plantations with deep soils it can reach a height of 30 m, while in a mountainous environment with shallow soils it usually grows to lower hights (Bolotin 1963). Its trunk diameter at full maturity is usually greater than 50 cm (Zohary 1962: 92; Lev-Yadun, Liphschitz and Waisel 1981). Based on early Holocene palynological data from the Dead Sea, it seems that Aleppo pine was always a natural yet minor component of the Judean Mountains (Litt et al. 2012). Aleppo pine is one of the few species of softwood growing in Israel and the only pine species native to Israel (Zohary 1973: 341). It can be anatomically distinguished from other native Israeli conifers by the presence of axial and radial normal resin ducts that appear regularly in every annual growth ring. Most of its rays are uniseriate and can reach up to 16 cells high (in some cases up to 22 cells) with multiseriate rays occurring when they contain a radial resin duct. Aleppo pine, like all typical conifers, is characterized by bordered pits (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 57–58; Schweingruber 1990: 121). Aleppo pine was identified within the Iron Age and Persian period strata in Shiloh’s excavations in the City of David (Liphschitz and Waisel 1992; Werker and Baruch 1992), the Scottish Church excavation (Liphschitz and Waisel 1980) as well as in the Ophel excavations south of the Temple Mount (Liphschitz 1989). One sample was unearthed in Area X-2 in the Jewish Quarter and was dated to the Late Hellenistic period (1st century BCE; Liphschitz 2003). In total, 188 pieces of various sizes of charred Aleppo pine wood were identified within the Early Roman period strata in Jerusalem. Six of the samples were found in the Burnt House in the Jewish Quarter (Liphschitz 2010), three samples were identified in the fill of a pool in the Ophel (Liphschitz 1989) and nine pieces were retrieved from the Western Wall foundations excavation. Fifty-eight samples were determined as Aleppo pine within the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavations, where an assemblage representing relics of the interior of a wealthy house was identified. In this assemblage, the wood was used for construction, furniture and receptacles as well as for other artifacts and uses (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019; Roth and Langgut forthcoming b). An additional 112 Aleppo pine samples were discovered in Area S1 of the Stepped Street excavation; most had originated from the destruction layer covering it (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). Although its timber was utilized for construction during earlier periods, a relatively high occurrence of Aleppo pine wood was identified in the Shephelah and Coastal Plain within Hellenistic

254 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

and Roman‒Byzantine period sites. This phenomenon was interpreted as an indication of trade of pine logs with other regions (Liphschitz and Biger 2001). However, its frequent appearance in archaeological contexts of the Hellenistic through the Byzantine periods may originate in the local cultivation of the species, rather than import. Its cultivation may have been facilitated by its being a common component of the Mediterranean maquis in Israel, thriving in the natural conditions of the area. The local cultivation of Aleppo pine may have been driven by a change in cultural choices regarding construction (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). Aleppo pine timber was widely used in the Greco-Roman culture in a variety of crafts. Theophrastus described the use of Aleppo pine in construction work, carpentry and furniture manufacturing (Historia Plantarum 5: 7). Vitruvius (1st century BCE) suggested replacing the desirable yet rare Abies and Picea woods, among other taxa, with pine, if those are hard to come by (De arch. 1: 2). Pliny the Elder described pine as resistant to rot and wood worms (Historia Naturalis 1681) and as suitable for fuel used in smelting copper and iron (ibid.: 33: 30). Common Fig, Ficus carica L (2.29%) is a deciduous fruit shrub or tree native to the Mediterranean region and was one of the first fruit trees to be cultivated in the Mediterranean basin (Zohary 1987: 330–331; Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975). Prior to cultivation, the oldest known fig pips were discovered in the ca. 780,000 YBP Acheulean Gesher Benot Ya>akov site in Israel (Melamed et al. 2016). The common fig has been part of regular food production in the Levant since the Early Bronze Age, providing fresh fruit in summer and storable, sugar-rich, dried fruit all year round (Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 126). The wild common fig grows mainly in the low altitudes of the Mediterranean phytogeographical region, in moist conditions, along stream sides or in habitats such as rock crevices and gorges. However, today this species is cultivated at high elevations of up to 1500 m. Feral types of common fig are widely distributed in secondary man-made habitats, such as cultivated terraces and edges of plantations, cave entrances and collapsed cisterns (Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 128; Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 410). Pruning and training of trees is routine in common fig horticulture since it allows for a sufficient amount of sunlight to reach all tree branches and facilitates in harvesting the fruit (Flaishman, Rodov and Stover 2008). The common fig is distinguished by diffuse porosity, with 20% of the vessels solitary, or otherwise arranged in radial multiples and clusters of two to four (and in some cases up to seven), occasionally with fine tyloses. The parenchyma is comprised of two to six seriate tangential bands in vasicentric, marginal and fusiform performance. The heterogeneous rays are one to four cells wide and up to 45 cells high, with procumbent central cells, and upright and square marginal cells. In some rays all types of cells are mixed throughout the ray (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 131; Schweingruber 1990: 551; Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 411). Two wooden bowls discovered in the En-Gedi cemetery, dating to the Late Hellenistic period, were determined to be Ficus spp. (Werker 1994). Within the Early Roman stratum of Jerusalem, two samples of common fig were identified within the excavations of the Western Wall’s foundations excavation. Eight samples determined as common fig were discovered in Area S1 of the Stepped Street excavation; half of them were discovered in situ inside a tanur clay cooking installation, and appear to have been used as fuel (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019; Roth and Langgut forthcoming c). Theophrastus mentioned the wood of the common fig was just as good a fuel source as olive wood, since it ignites easily but burns for a long time. He also described it giving pungent smoke (Historia Plantarum 5: 9). Columella suggested cutting the tops off the trees when they begin to grow leaves in order to make them stronger and more prolific (De arbor. 20). Pliny the Elder

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 5 5

elaborated on the different varieties of figs, how to cultivate them and how to import them to Rome (Historia Naturalis 15: 18, 21). Italian Cypress, Cupressus sempervirens (1.71%, Fig. 13.1) is an evergreen coniferous tree common to the Mediterranean forest-maquis (Zohary 1973: 501). The tree can live for over 450 years and it can grow to a height of 30 m (Liphschitz 2007: 116) and a girth of up to 2 m (Lev-Yadun 1987). It occurs naturally in mountainous habitats up to altitudes of 1200 m above sea level and is able to tolerate less rainfall and higher temperatures than many other Mediterranean conifers (e.g., Gale and Cutler 2000: 380). Cypress trees are important though rare participants in several plant communities in the Middle East (Zohary 1973: 529–532; Lev-Yadun and Weinstein-Evron 1993), and its wood-charcoal remains appear in prehistoric sites in Israel (Lev-Yadun 1987; Lev-Yadun and Weinstein-Evron 1993). Previously, over-exploitation of Italian cypress timber for construction was suggested as a reason for its extinction from the natural environment of Israel (Zohary 1980: 139). However, as the cultivation of this species was widespread within the Roman culture, we suggest the intensive use of Italian cypress wood for timber as the catalyst of large scale cypress cultivation in Israel during the Early Roman period (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). Italian cypress, which belongs to the Cupressaceae family, is one of the several species of softwoods growing in the Mediterranean region of the southern Levant. It can be anatomically distinguished from conifers within the Pinaceae family by the lack of resin ducts in the wood. It may also be distinguished from other members of the Cupressaceae (e.g., Juniperus spp.) by its relatively high uniseriate rays reaching 3–20 cells high (and in rare cases up to 40 cells high). Italian cypress is also characterized by the occurrence of cuprassoid ray pits and exclusively uniseriate tracheid pits (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 55; Schweingruber 1990: 137). It is also characterized by the rarity to complete absence of ray tracheids, as can be detected in the radial section (Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 55). Despite some evidence for the use of Italian cypress in earlier periods, a dramatic increase in the amount of cypress remnants was documented from the Roman period in the southern Levant. The increase in cypress remains may derive from its common use in Roman monumental construction projects, and the possible cultivation of the tree for this purpose, as stated above (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). The extremely high percentage of Cupressaceae pollen (21%) extracted from the plaster of an Early Roman (Herodian) structure within the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavation corroborates this suggestion regarding local cultivation (Langgut 2017, Table 2, sample no. 7). Langgut, Gleason and Burrell (2015) also suggested the use of the cypress as an ornamental tree in royal gardens dated to the Roman period in the southern Levant and beyond. This application of cypress was first described by Pliny the Elder (Historia Naturalis 16: 40). Since the Hellenistic period, large assemblages of cypress wood remnants and wooden beams were discovered at several sites in the region: Herodium (Liphschitz and Waisel 1975), Tel Beersheba (Liphschitz and Waisel 1973), Cypros (Liphschitz 2004), ‘En Boqeq (Liphschitz 2000) and Jericho (Liphschitz and Waisel 1999). Thirty-nine samples of Italian cypress were identified at Masada, where the wood was used for construction as well as for the making of furniture and some unidentifiable objects (Liphschitz and Lev-Yadun 1989; Liphschitz 1994; Lev-Yadun, Lucas and Weinstein-Evron 2010). Prior to this analysis, in Jerusalem itself, Italian cypress was identified in the City of David excavations directed by Shiloh, within the Iron Age strata (Liphschitz and Waisel 1992), and in the destruction layer of the Iron Age fortification in Area W of the Jewish Quarter excavations

256 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

in Jerusalem (Liphschitz 2003). An Italian cypress wood beam was preserved in secondary use within the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The beam, with carved decorations of “bead and reel” moldings, was examined and documented after its removal during renovations in the 1930s (Hamilton 1949: 83, 87, Fig. 44, Pl. XLV). It was dated to the Roman period on the basis of the style of decoration and it was suggested that the beam had been taken from a monumental building on the Temple Mount or its vicinity (Reuven 2009).4 The Early Roman stratum of Jerusalem yielded 128 pieces of Italian cypress: 15 samples (mostly logs) were discovered in the Burnt House (Liphschitz 2010) and four in Area P of the Jewish Quarter excavations (the Palatial Mansion) (Liphschitz 2010 and references therein); five within the excavations of the Western Wall foundations and 37 samples in the Giv>ati Parking Lot assemblage, where the wood was used for construction, furniture and receptacles, as well as for unidentified objects (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019; Roth and Langgut forthcoming b). Sixty-seven additional samples determined as Italian cypress were unearthed in the destruction layer on top of the Stepped Street excavation (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). Across the Greco-Roman world, the straight and long trunks of the most probably planted types of cypress trees were used for, among other purposes, the construction of monumental buildings and shipbuilding, as roof-timber and supporting beams, for manufacture of boxes, coffins, furniture, and for the carving of images (e.g., Meiggs 1982). The qualities of the Italian cypress timber were widely addressed by the authors of the classical periods. Theophrastus described cypress as the only wood that took a fine polish and for this reason it was used for making valuable objects (Historia Plantarum 5: 4). He also mentioned the cypress as a wood suitable for house building (ibid.: 5: 7). The 1st century BCE Roman architect and civil and military engineer Vitruvius suggested replacing the desirable yet rare Abies and Picea woods, among other taxa, with cypress and pine wood if those were hard to come by (De arch. 1: 2). According to Pliny the Elder, cypress wood, like pine, is resistant to rot and to wood worms (Historia Naturalis 16: 81). The cultivation of cypress trees was mentioned several times in ancient texts. Theophrastus and Pliny described this species as one requiring little water and manure (ibid.: 17: 247; Historia Plantarum. 2: 7). Pliny also mentioned its profitable cultivation (Historia Naturalis 16: 139–141). Cato the Elder described the collecting of seeds and the seeding and planting of shoots (De agri. 48: 1–2, 151: 1–4). Green Olive, Phillyrea latifolia (1.14%; Fig. 13.1: 3) is a small evergreen tree or bush common to the Mediterranean forest-maquis.5 It occurs naturally in the Upper and Lower Galilee, the coast of the Western Galilee, Acco and Sharon Plains, Mount Carmel as well as in the Samarian and Judean Mountains (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 137). The green olive can be found in the evergreen maquis-forest in association with the Palestine oak and the terebinth. It is a natural component of the Aleppo pine forests, as well as the Mount Tabor oak (Quercus ithaburensis)–snowdrop bush (Styrax officinalis) forests (Zohary 1962: 89, 94). This species can grow to a height of 4 m (Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 436). Prior to this study no remains of the green olive had been discovered at Judean sites dated to the Early Roman period. Furthermore, this species, which usually does not provide much timber, was not described by the classical authors. The wood of the green olive can be detected on the basis of diffuse porosity and distinct annual growth rings marked by flattened fibers in its latewood, as well as by the banded parenchyma cells. The vessels are solitary or otherwise arranged in short rows and small clusters alongside 4

5

The botanical analysis itself was not presented within the publication. Therefore, the determination is not a firm one, and it probably should be considered generally as a conifer. P. latifolia is co-specific with P. media (e.g., Zohary 1962 and references therein).

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 5 7

axial parenchyma cells, and create a dendritic pattern visible in the transverse section. The vessels’ outline, as can be detected in this section, is polygonal. They have simple perforation plates, spiral thickenings and vasicentric tracheids which may be detected in the tangential section. The rays are one to three seriate and may reach a height of 15 cells (and in rare occasions up to 23 cells). The rays are heterogeneous and are combined of radially oriented (procumbent) central cells and one to two rows of marginal square cells (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 137; Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 437). This species is characterized by a relatively high basic density of 0.72 g/cu cm (Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 437). Persian Turpentine, Pistacia atlantica (1.14%; Fig. 13.1: 4) is a native deciduous tree and an IranoTuranian element found in the steppes and the semi-steppe areas of Israel and Transjordan as well as in the Mediterranean territory of Israel (Zohary 1962; Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 63–64). Its natural distribution is wide and stretches from the Canary Islands through North Africa and the Sinai peninsula to Israel, Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. In Israel, stands of very old Persian turpentines represent relics of steppe forests (Zohary 1973: 167). The Persian turpentine has moderate ecological requirements and can grow four to ten m high (and in some cases up to 15 m) and develop a very thick trunk (Zohary 1987: 484–485; Danin 2004: 199; Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 104). Although the wood of the Persian turpentine tree displays high structural variability, it can be detected on the basis of its distinct growth rings marked by different vessel sizes, with some solitary vessels, especially in the beginning of the growth ring, but mainly arranged in radial multiples of two to ten (and in rare cases up to 13), or in clusters with tracheids. Both vessels (except for the widest) and tracheids display prominent spiral thickenings. Rays are commonly one to five seriate (and in rare occasions up to six seriate). Uniseriate rays are up to one to nine cells high, while multiseriate rays are 3 to 33 cells high and rarely contain resin ducts. All rays are heterogeneous, with strongly procumbent central cells, and one to three rows of upright, square or weakly procumbent marginal cells (Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 105; Schweingruber 1990: 189; Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 63–64). The wood is characterized by a relatively high basic density of 0.74 g/cu cm (Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 105). Five samples of Persian turpentine wood were discovered at Masada and dated to the Early Roman period. The wood was used to make joints, vessels, furniture and unrecognizable objects (Liphschitz and Lev-Yadun 1989; Liphschitz 1994). In Jerusalem, five samples were identified within the Middle Bronze Age stratum and seven samples were identified within the Iron II stratum in the City of David excavations, one of which was a plank segment with crude furrows from Area G (Fahn and Werker 1992; Werker and Baruch 1992). Prior to this study, a single sample of Persian turpentine tree was determined in the Early Roman period context in Jerusalem, revealed within the destruction layer on top of the Stepped Street excavation (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). Common Grape Vine, Vitis vinifera (1.14%; Fig. 13.2: 1) is a deciduous climber, with a trunk reaching a length of up to six m (Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 568). The natural distribution of the wild variety of the common grape vine includes southern Europe and western Asia, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Himalayas and western India. This species also thrives in the Hyrcanian forest belt south of the Caspian Sea and the Pontic belt along the southern coast of the Black Sea (Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975; Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 175). The natural distribution of common grape vine in Israel is restricted to its northern region, mainly the Golan Heights and the Hula Valley, and especially to river banks and springs (Danin 2004: 202). The common vine

258 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

1

2

3

4

Figure 13.3: 1. Common olive, tangential section × 150; 2. Italian cypress, transverse section × 100; 3. Green olive, transverse section × 60; 4. Persian turpentine, transverse section × 60.

can withstand colder and more humid conditions than other Mediterranean species, such as olive. These ecological requirements stimulated its cultivation to spread to central Europe and central Asia (Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 121). Prior to cultivation, the oldest known grape pips were discovered in the ca. 780,000 YBP Acheulean Gesher Benot Ya>akov site in Israel (Melamed et al. 2016). Relativly large-scale regional vine cultivation is dated to the Early Bronze Age (Zohary and Spiegel Roy 1975; Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 121). During this time, the fruit of the vine was incorporated into the southern Levant diet, in the form of sugar-rich fresh and dried berries, as well as fermented liquids (wine), and became a key component in the Mediterranean trade system (Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 121). Palynological records from the Dead Sea, reflecting mainly pollen originating from the Judean Mountains, show an increase in vine pollen percentages during the second half of the first millennium BCE, which continued into the first half of the first millennium CE (Baruch 1993: 202). This species’ natural reproduction relies on pollination and seed distribution. However, in cultivated vineyards the reproduction is mainly vegetative, relying on the clonal propagation. The

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 5 9

1

2

3

4

Figure 13.4: 1. Common grape vine, transverse section ×100; 2. Tangential section ×200; 3. Cedar of Lebanon, tangential section × 150, traumatic resin ducts visible in rays; 4. Sycomore fig, transverse section × 120.

annual pruning of the vines facilitates harvest and horticultural care, and helps to control the the yield (Zohary 1987: 476–477; Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 121). The common grape vine may be distinguished on the basis of its ring to semi-ring-porous wood, which together with flattened fibers create distinct annual growth rings noticed in the transverse section. The vessels are arranged mainly in radial multiples of 2 to 15 and in clusters, and rarely appear in solitary performance, usually in the earlywood. The perforation plates in some of the narrower vessels are scalariform, and as are the intervessel pits in some of the wider vessels. Irregular spiral thickening appears in the narrower vessels as well as in the vasicentric tracheids. In most cases the rays are 7 to 13 seriate (and in rare cases 3 to 13 seriate) and may reach a height of 20 mm, a characteristic typical of climbers such as this vine The rays are structured with procumbent cells with little square or upright cells. The wood of the vine is characterized by a relatively low basic density of 0.40 g/cu cm (Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 569). The earliest evidence of viticulture in Israel was discovered at Lachish (Helbaek 1958), Arad (Hopf 1978) and Jericho (Hopf 1983) and date to the Early Bronze Age. Nevertheless, it appears that

260 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

common grape vine remains are underrepresented in both dendroarchaeological and palynological assemblages (Liphschitz 2007: 115; Langgut et al. 2013). In Jerusalem, vine wood remains were discovered at the City of David excavation directed by Shiloh, within the Middle Bronze Age strata (Fahn and Werker 1992; Werker and Baruch 1992), while vine seed remains were detected within the Iron Age stratum (Liphschitz and Weisel 1992). Thus far, no wood remains determined to this species were detected within the Early Roman period strata in Jerusalem. Viticulture was widely addressed by the classical authors. Cato the Elder described several varieties of this species cultivated for different purposes across the Roman world, and mentioned that they were grown in greenhouses prior to being replanted in vineyards (De agri. 6.4, 40.1, 47.1– 2). Though viticulture served as an important branch of the Roman world’s agriculture (Jashemski, Meyer and Ricciardo 2002: 136), it seems that viticulture was widespread across the southern Levant in the Early Roman period, as is evident from the archaeological finds of wine presses (Hirschfeld 1981). In addition, viticulture was common in the Shephelah area during the Iron Age, as can be seen in the Lachish reliefs (Amar 1999). Written sources describe the importance of pruning of the vine and the different ways it should be performed. Theophrastus devoted many chapters to the subject of viticulture (e.g., De caus. 3.11.1– 16.4) and claimed that the vine should be pruned more intensively than other fruit trees (Historia Plantarum 2.7.2). Both his and Pliny the Elder’s descriptions of this craft indicate its importance and relative high frequency (Historia Naturalis 14.10; De caus. 3.7.7; Historia Plantarum 2.7.2). Pruning of the vine is also mentioned in the Tannaitic text (Mishnah Shevi‘it 4:6). Additional information derived from the classical texts indicates the vine’s roots were also subjected to pruning (De caus. 3.8.1; Historia Plantarum. 2.7.5). The pruned vine branches were mainly used as fuel (e.g., De agri. 37.5, 50.2). The practice of pruning and removing the dried branches of the vine and their use as fuel is also echoed in the text of the New Testament (John 15:1–6). However, it seems that the vine pruning refuse served also as sheep fodder (De res rus 2.219), as is supported by the dendroarchaeological finds in Oplontis (Jashemski, Meyer and Ricciardi 2002: 272). The scarcity of the finds of the common grape vine in the dendroarchaeological assemblages, and more so in Jerusalem, stands in contrast to the abundance of textual evidence concerning the cultivation of this species. This may be explained by the vine’s relatively low basic density, the lowest of all other species detected in the assemblage, making it a poor quality fuel. Moreover, such thin branches may burn altogether and leave no trace in the sediments. It is also possible that many of the pruned branches of the vine were used for purposes other than fuel, e.g., animal fodder, as is suggested by the textual and dendroarchaeological evidence (see above). It is also possible that this low quality fuel was not brought back into the city but was used by farm workers, as is described in texts such as Cato’s De agri (37.5, 50.2). Cedar of Lebanon, Cedrus libani (0.57%, Fig. 13.2: 3) is an evergreen conifer that was common in the northern Levant (prior to the destruction of most of its populations), and foreign to the natural arboreal vegetation of Israel. Scattered cedars and some larger groves are still found in the mountains of Lebanon, and probably are relics of a formerly wider distribution. Other remnants are found in northwestern Syria and in the Taurus mountain ranges of southern Turkey (Beals 1965). Another variety, Cedrus libani brevifolia, is still found in the area of Paphos in Cyprus (Zohary 1973: 560, 562). Cedar of Lebanon creates forests in association with the Cilician fir (Abies cilicica ) in areas with precipitation of 800–1500 mm and in elevations of 1000 to 2000 m above sea level (Beals 1965

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 6 1

and references therein). This long-lived tree can reach a height of 40 m (Zohary 1987: 218; Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 66) and provides long and straight beams. Cedar of Lebanon can be distinguished from the common local conifers by the lack of longitudinal and horizontal resin ducts in most growth rings, but typical traumatic resin ducts are sometimes found in certain growth rings. Its rays are 3 to 20 cells high (and in rare cases up to 35 cells high). The rays are usually uniseriate; rarely two to three seriate in part, with ray tracheids commonly present (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 57; Schweingruber 1990: 111; Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 67). The end walls and horizontal walls of the ray parenchyma cells are distinctly pitted (Akkemik and Yaman 2012: 34). Cedar of Lebanon may also be identified by the fringed torus in early wood tracheids’ pits (Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 67). Cedar of Lebanon was found to be incorporated in a wooden coffin discovered in the EnGedi Late Hellenistic cemetery (Werker 1994). Ninety-nine samples dated to the Early Roman period were discovered at Masada, where the wood was used for furniture, beams, posts, boards, possibly vessels and unrecognizable objects (Liphschitz and Lev-Yadun 1989; Liphschitz 1994). 6 A cedar of Lebanon wooden beam was identified in Cyprus and dated to the Early Roman period (Liphschitz 2004). Additional beams were discovered in Herodium (Liphschitz and Waisel 1975). In Jerusalem, one item made of cedar of Lebanon was discovered in the Ophel excavations and dated to the Iron Age (Liphschitz 1989). A cedar of Lebanon log was discovered in the Jewish Quarter excavations and dated to the Late Hellenistic period (1st century BCE) (Liphschitz 2003). Six charred remains were unearthed in the Burnt House of the Jewish Quarter excavation and dated to the Early Roman period (Liphschitz 2010). Other finds dated to this period include eight cedar of Lebanon logs discovered in the Palatial Mansion of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Liphschitz 2010 and references therein). Twenty-five cedar of Lebanon samples were retrieved from the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavations and 26 samples from the Stepped Street excavation, where the wood was used for construction, furniture, receptacles as well as for unidentified objects and uses (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019; Roth and Langgut forthcoming b, c). Cedar of Lebanon wood is easily worked and polished. It is characterized by a basic density of 0.45 g/cu cm (Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 67). Its high resistance to insect and fungal attacks made cedar one of the most valued timbers in the ancient Mediterranean world. In antiquity, it was used for various construction works, in particular for architectural features such as monumental doors or long roofing beams for monumental constructions, but also for shipbuilding, manufacture of furniture, chests and coffins (Meiggs 1982: 64, 78, 118, 292, 293, 308, 409). However, it is difficult to cite concrete textual evidence regarding the use of cedar in Greek and Roman cultures, since the same word was used for both cedar and juniper both in Greek (kedros) and in Latin (cedrus) due to similar qualities of the two conifers (Meiggs 1982: 410). Therefore, only the more secure identifications have been incorporated into this analysis. Theophrastus mentioned the Phoenician cedar as a wood suitable for house building (Historia Plantarum 5: 7). He also mentioned cedar as one of the most suitable woods for carving images (ibid.: 5: 3). Vitruvius describes the statue of Diana in the Temple of Ephesus as made of this wood (De arch. 2: 9) and Pliny the Elder explained the making of statues of gods out of this wood, due to its seemingly everlasting quality (Historia Naturalis 13: 11). 6

Ninety-nine samples determined as cedar of Lebanon within this assemblage were reported by Liphschitz and Lev-Yadun (1989). However, only 94 samples were reported in the final report by Liphschitz (1994).

262 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

Sycamore Fig, Ficus sycomorus (0.57%, Fig. 13.2: 4) is common in its wild form in eastern Africa, from Sudan to South Africa as well as in Yemen, and can be found mainly near streams and ephemeral water sources (Zohary 1973: 246; Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 130). The sycamore fig has been cultivated in Egypt for its fruit and timber starting from early dynastic times, ca. 6000 years BP (Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 130). This thermophile, cultivated usually evergreen tree (though it can be deciduous in cold winters) was introduced by the Egyptians to the southern Levant probably during the Late Bronze Age when the region was under Egyptian rule and has commonly been cultivated in the region since then. The domesticated type common to this area reproduces through clonal propagation, because outside its natural distribution zone, the sycamore fig does not produce seeds due to the absence of its pollinating wasp. This species can reach a height of 8–20 m (Danin 2004: 24; Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 130; Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 412). In Israel, it is mainly restricted to the area of the southern Coastal Plain and the Lower Shephelah, as well as to the Jordan Valley, but it can also be found in the western Negev and the Acco Plain (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 132; Zohary 1987: 332). The sycamore fig can be determined anatomically by diffuse porosity, indistinct or absent growth rings, and by the presence of alternating wide bands of parenchyma and fibers. The vessels are rarely solitary and are mostly arranged in radial bands of two to three (and in rare cases up to six) or in clusters. Many of the vessels contain tyloses. Rays of two sizes are common in the sycamore fig: one to four seriate (up to 14 cells high), and 5–14 seriate rays (up to 1.4 mm high). The rays are heterogeneous, composed of strongly procumbent central cells and one or two rows of slightly procumbent, square and upright marginal cells. All the cells in uniseriate rays are often square or upright (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 132; Schweingruber 1990: 551). Though it is hard to distinguish the sycamore fig from the common fig, it is possible due to the existence of wider rays in the sycamore fig, eight to ten cells wide, and uniform marginal bands of parenchyma and libriform fibers. The wood is characterized by a basic density of 0.46 g/cu cm (Schweingruber 1990: 551; Crivellaro and Schweingruber 2013: 413). Pieces of wooden coffins discovered in the En-Gedi cemetery dated to the Late Hellenistic period were identified as sycamore fig. In addition, two wooden bowls from En-Gedi were identified as Ficus spp. (Werker 1994). Seventy-seven samples of sycamore fig that originated in coffins were collected in the Jericho cemetery of the late Second Temple period (Liphschitz and Waisel 1999). One hundred and eighteen samples dated to the Early Roman period were unearthed at Masada. The wood was used for a variety of objects (Liphschitz and Lev-Yadun 1989; Liphschitz 1994). In Jerusalem, the sycamore fig was identified within the Iron Age strata with three samples identified in the City of David excavations (Fahn and Werker 1992) and eight samples discovered within the destruction layer of the Iron Age fortification in Area W of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Liphschitz 2003). Prior to this study, one sample of sycamore fig dating to the Early Roman period in Jerusalem was documented in the Giv>ati Parking Lot assemblage and four in the Stepped Street excavation (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). The growing of sycamore fig trees in the Shephelah during the Iron Age was depicted in the Lachish reliefs (Kislev 2000). The cultivation of this species in that region was also described in the biblical text (1 Kings, 10:27; 2 Chr 1:16) and the Tannaitic source (Tosefta Shevi>it, 7:9). It was common in Egypt in ancient times and was used for its fruit and timber (Historia Plantarum 4: 2). Pliny the Elder described this tree as the “Egyptian fig” and mentioned the usefulness of its wood (Historia Naturalis 13: 14). Although it was also cultivated for its fruit, it seems that sycamore fig wood was the tree’s main economic value (Kislev 2000).

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 6 3

Mastic tree, Pistacia lentiscus (0.57%) is an evergreen bush that can attain the size of a small tree, and a Mediterranean element natural to the maquis and garigue and common to the Coastal Plain and the lower hill country up to 300 m (and in rare cases up to 500 m, where it is restricted to the southern face). Today it may also be found on the Coastal Plain, from the coast of the upper Galilee to the Sharon, as well as on Mount Carmel, in the Galilee, in the Samarian and Judean Mountains and the deserts. It may also be found, in lower frequency, in the southern Coastal Plain, the Hula and Beth She’an Valleys, the Golan Heights and the Gilead (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 64; Danin 2004: 199). The tree is one of four species of Pistacia that occur naturally in Israel (Fahn, Werker and Baas: 63–66).7 Its anatomical structure may be determined on the basis of its ring to semi-ring porous wood and its distinct annual growth rings. Its vessels are mostly arranged in radial multiples of 2–10 (and in rare cases up to 12) or in clusters with vasicentric tracheids. The vessels seldom appear individually, usually in the beginning of the annual growth ring. Simple perforation plates may be observed in the vessels, as well as distinct spiral thickenings (except in the widest) and in the vasicentric tracheids. The rays are predominantly uniseriate to biseriate (and in rare cases up to three seriate). The uniseriate rays may reach a height of one to ten cells, while the multiseriate rays may appear as high as 6–28 cells. The rays are heterogeneous, comprised of procumbent parenchyma cells in the center of the ray, and of square to slightly procumbent marginal parenchyma calls. Radial resin ducts are frequently observed in multiseriate rays (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 64–65). One sample determined as a mastic tree was discovered in the Jewish Quarter excavations and dated to the Early Roman period (Liphschitz 2007: 45). Another single sample of this wood was discovered in the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavation (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). The main benefit of this species was its sap, described frequently by the classical authors. Cato the Elder mentioned mastic sap used in marinating olives (De agri. 7: 4, 117: 1, 118: 1). Pliny the Elder described it as the second best quality sap produced in the east (Historia Naturalis 14: 122, 24: 32). He also mentioned its use in medicine, cosmetics manufacture, wine spicing and for diluting myrrh and balsam incense (ibid.: 12: 71, 121, 13: 9, 14: 135, 16: 55, 23: 67, 23: 89, 24: 36, 24: 42–43, 34: 133). He also mentioned the mastic as a cultivated species, nurtured for the production of sap (ibid.: 15: 105), which is still practiced today (Zohary 1987: 484). Oak, Oak spp. (1.71%) is a genus that includes three species that occur naturally in Israel (not including the Mount Hermon), two of which are deciduous (Mount Tabor oak and Aleppo oak and one of which is evergreen (Palestine oak). The three species are common to many parts of the Mediterranean phytogeographical region in the Levant and represent a variety of local ecosystems that vary in precipitation, average temperatures, elevation and soils (Zohary 1962: 22, 44, 54, 94– 96; 1973: 354, 358–359; Zohary 1987: 340; Danin 2004: 23). The species of oak that occur naturally in Israel may be distinguished from other taxa on the basis of several anatomical characteristics. First, all oaks have two ray types: thin ones of one to two seriate rays (that can reach a height of 2–17 cells and in rare cases up to 20 cells), and huge aggregate ones that can sometimes be seen by the naked eye (up to 40 cells wide reaching a height of 11 mm). It is possible to distinguish between the oak species according to their typical patterns of vessel arrangements: almost exclusively solitary vessels, forming a radial or oblique dendritic pattern (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 106–108; Akkemik and Yaman 2012: 160). 7

Another species of terebinth (Pistacia khinjuk) can be found in southern Transjordan and the Sinai (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 64).

264 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

Two samples of Mount Tabor oak dated to the Early Roman period were discovered at Masada, one of which was a squared charred fragment (Liphschitz and Lev-Yadun 1989; Liphschitz 1994). In Jerusalem Mount Tabor oak was identified within the Iron Age strata in the City of David excavations (Fahn and Werker 1992; Liphschitz and Waisel 1992). Two samples identified as Mount Tabor oak were discovered in the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavation and four in the Stepped Street excavation and were dated to the Early Roman period (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). Aleppo oak is rare within the regional dendroarchaeological assemblage. In Hebron, four samples of this species were dated to the Early Bronze Age and three samples were dated to the Iron Age (Liphschitz 2007: 45–146). At Megiddo, one sample was dated to the MB III/LB I, while another sample was recovered from a stratum dated to the LB II (Benzaquen, Finkelstein and Langgut 2019). One Aleppo oak sample, dating to the Early Roman period in Jerusalem, was documented in the Stepped Street excavation (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). Remains of Palestine oak had already been discovered at prehistoric sites, starting from 780000 BP, at Gesher Benot Ya>akov (Van Zeist and Bottema 2009). Eleven samples of this species were discovered at Masada and were dated to the Herodian (Early Roman) period. It appears that the wood was used for making a variety of artifacts, among them a bowl and turned legs of a luxurious bed (Liphschitz and Lev-Yadun 1989; Liphschitz 1994). In Jerusalem, many samples of Palestine oak were retrieved from the Iron Age strata of the City of David and Ophel excavations (Liphschitz 1989; Liphschitz and Waisel 1992). One sample of Palestine oak was discovered in the Jewish Quarter excavations and dated to the Late Hellenistic period (Liphschitz 2003). Two samples of this species were unearthed in the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavation (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). In classical texts, the species of the oak is seldom specified. The mentioning of oaks can at times relate to either or both evergreen and deciduous types (Meiggs 1982: 45–146, 309), challenging the attribution of a specific species to the text. Due to the wide distribution of oak species across the Mediterranean district of Israel, it is difficult to say whether this wood represents an artifact brought from afar or the remains of fuel collected in the vicinity of the site. Furthermore, the original use of the remains of this wood in Area D3 cannot be determined due to poor preservation of the physical shape as well as the vague descriptions in the classic textual evidence. Tamarisk (0.57%), is a large genus of trees or shrubs common to the semi-arid and arid areas of Eurasia and Africa, and in Israel it is mainly an Irano-Turanian element. Many tamarisk species can form a type of open-forest in deserts and in saline soils, river banks, desert wadi beds, and act to bind the sand on dunes. Some species are salt-tolerant and some are heat demanding (Zohary 1973: 385). The only species of tamarisk occurring naturally in the Judean Mountains is the Nile tamarisk (Tamarix nilotica; Danin 2004: 214–1215). Some other tamarisk species are endemic to Israel. The tamarisk wood, genus Tamarix, is characterized by vessels that are mostly solitary, with alternate inter-vessel pits, rounded, with slit-like, at times coalescent apertures. The rays may vary in width within the different species of tamarisk, ranging from 1 to 23 seriate rays (sometimes can be seen by the naked eye). However, all of the species of tamarisk found in Israel are characterized by the presence of very tall rays, ranging between 1 and 4 mm (Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 164–171). Forty-nine pieces of tamarisk dated to the Early Roman period were discovered at ‘En Boqeq (Liphschitz 2000). A total of 65 samples was unearthed at Masada and determined to be two different species of tamarisk. The wood was used to make various objects and for construction (Liphschitz and Lev-Yadun 1989; Liphschitz 1994; Lev-Yadun, Lucas and Weinstein-Evron 2010).

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 6 5

Ninety-two percent (171 samples) of the wood remains obtained from the Roman siege rampart at Masada were identified as tamarisk (possibly Tamarix jordanis) (Liphschitz, Lev-Yadun and Waisel 1981). In Jerusalem, Tamarix aphylla was identified within the Iron II stratum in the City of David excavations (Liphschitz and Waisel 1992). Two samples of an unspecified species of tamarisk were discovered in the Stepped Street excavation (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). Theophrastus commented on the strength of tamarisk of Arabia compared to the frail kind found at the northern Mediterranean coast (Historia Plantarum 5: 4). Tamarisk was briefly mentioned by Pliny the Elder (Historia Naturalis 13: 35). The branches of an unspecified tamarisk were used for brooms (ibid.: 16: 108), while its wood was used for different artifacts such as troughs and vessels (ibid.: 24: 67–68). An unidentified species of this genus also served as an ornamental tree (ibid.: 30: 97).

INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS The assemblage from Area D3 reflects the context of urban garbage laid down during the first half of the 1st century CE (Chapters 2, 3, 4). It is characterized by a relatively high percentage of fruit trees, with a moderate presence of coniferous trees and little representation of wild dicotyledonous trees and shrubs. Seventy-six samples were determined as remains of fruit tree wood, and represent 43.43% of the assemblage. Fifteen charred samples were determined as remains of coniferous trees and represent 8.56% of the assemblage. The three coniferous species found included two which occur naturally in Israel (Aleppo pine and Italian cypress) and one (cedar of Lebanon) which is not native to the Israeli flora. Ten additional samples, representing 5.70% of the assemblage, were detected as one of at least five species of dicotyledonous trees and shrubs, most of which occur naturally in the forest-maquis of the Judean Mountains.8 The fruit tree remains of common olive, common fig and common grape vine indicate their cultivation in the vicinity of Jerusalem. High percentages of charred fruit-tree wood usually originate in fueling refuse and can indicate an urban garbage context. It appears that the agricultural refuse produced within the fruit tree plantations, including pruned branches and roots (the latter representing ca. 25% of the assemblage), was collected and brought to the city to be used as fuel, as is supported by a single sample of common olive wood which preserved the shape of a young branch (Locus 1056, Reg. No. 18109.2), and by textual evidence. This form of recycling of agricultural refuse can still be seen, to a certain extent, in the current rural population of the Levant (e.g., Hobbs 1989: 53) and is also ethnographically recorded in other regions (e.g., in central Africa—Gelabert, Asouti and Martí 2011). In addtion, relatively large amounts of charred olive and fig wood remains were discovered in the Western Wall Foundations excavation and interpreted as remains of agricultural refuse used as fuel (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019; Roth and Langgut forthcoming a). Olive and fig tree charred wood remains were also detected in the Giv>ati Parking Lot and the Stepped Street excavations (some of which preserved the shape of a young branch, and some discovered in situ inside a tanur), where they were interpreted as fuel remains (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019; Roth and Langgut forthcoming b, c). The presence of common grape vine charred wood remains dating to the Early Roman period was identified in small quantities solely in the landfill context. These few finds stand in contrast to the archaeological, palynological and textual evidence, the first two of which (archaeological and palynological) underrepresent the species as it produces thin branches that can be totally burnt, and the pollen of the common grape vine is characterized by low pollen dispersal eficiancy and is 8

One sample, representing 0.57% of the assemblage, was determined as Tamarix spp., with no specific provenance.

266 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

therefore under-represented in palynological spectra. This contrast may alternatively be explained by the vine wood being considered a low quality fuel source and thus not traded and used by the workers in the farms themselves, or used for other purposes. An additional fruit-tree species detected within the assemblage is sycamore fig. However, this fruit tree should not be considered as an indicator of local cultivation or as a common fuel source as it is well known that its main product was timber rather than fruit. The dendroarchaeological and textual evidence indicate that sycamore fig wood was used mainly for construction and furniture manufacture, as well as for other smaller wooden artifacts. Hence, the presence of charred sycamore fig wood may represent a local fire event in a residential area somewhere in the city, after which the debris was cleared to the landfill area, or the use of firewood items that went out of use for whatever reason. It appears that this species was cultivated for its wood in other areas of Judea, farther from Jerusalem, and that complete artifacts, whether as a construction beam or a cabinet, were brought to the city from the Jordan Valley, the Shephelah or the southern Coastal Plain. The relatively low occurrence of coniferous species stands in contrast to their high frequency in the assemblages of domestic contexts excavated in Jerusalem and dated to the Early Roman period, such as the Burnt House (Liphschitz 2010), the Giv>ati Parking Lot excavation and the Stepped Street excavation (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019), where they represented ca. three fourths of each assemblage and expressed both the prestige context and their high quality (e.g., Roth, Szanton and Langgut 2016). This contrast may point to the different context of Area D3. According to the dendroarchaeological and textual evidence, it appears that these coniferous species were most probably used for purposes other than fuel, such as construction and the production of wooden artifacts. In light of this evidence it appears that the charred remains of coniferous species in Area D3 originated in a local event of destruction by fire in a residential area of Jerusalem, after which the debris was cleared to the landfill area. This interpretation correlates to Vitruvius’s description of pine as extremely flammable (De arch. 10.14.3). To support this suggestion, remains of buildings destroyed by fire were cleared to the garbage pile in the Villa in San Giovani (Monckton 2002). However, the possibility of restricted use of these species as high quality fuel should also be considered, especially in light of the procurement of imported coniferous wood for this purpose by the elite when they spent time at Masada (Lev-Yadun, Lucas and Weinstein-Evron 2010). Furthermore, the use of pine wood as fuel for smelting kilns is described in the textual evidence. As with other pyrotechnical industry waste discovered in Area D3 (see Chapters 3, 6, 7.1, 7.2 in this volume), this suggestion should not be overlooked. At least three different forest/maquis species were detected within the wild dicotyledons: green olive, Persian turpentine and mastic. Four samples that could be determined only to the level of genus were identified as one of three genera: oak, terebinth and tamarisk. These samples did not preserve their original shapes, which might indicate their original use due to the poor state of preservation of the charred material from this assemblage. The absence of dendroarchaeological and textual evidence of green olive makes it difficult to reconstruct its possible uses. However, its current natural distribution in the Mediterranean forest/maquis in the Judean Mountains, as its provenience in the same locus as a charred fig twig (Table 13.3; L. 1020), may indicate its past distribution in the vicinity of the city and its use as fuel. The presence of charred remains of Persian turpentine in the assemblage, a species common to the eastern slopes of the Judean Mountains, may indicate the exploitation of the arboreal environment east of the city during the Early Roman period. However, it is difficult to determine whether this wood was used as fuel or in artifact manufacture. The mastic tree, common to the Mediterranean phytogeographical

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 6 7

region, was described by the classical authors. It appears that this plant was cultivated in the eastern part of the Roman Empire for the extraction of sap, and its branches were later used as fuel. The determination of the sample of tamarisk only to the genus level is insufficient for recognizing its geographic origin. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether this species occurred naturally in the vicinity of the city or was brought from afar (hence reducing the chance of it serving as fuel). The dendroarchaeological finds at Masada show that tamarisk wood was used in construction, artifact manufacture and as fuel. However, the provenience of this sample may disclose the original use of this wood. The tamarisk sample was discovered in the same locus with the only samples of sycamore fig and cedar of Lebanon detected in the assemblage (Locus 1053). Since these two species were mostly used for construction and artifact manufacture, it is possible that the charred remains of the tamarisk that originated in the same context represent a similar use. It is possible that the remains of these three species may be related to a single event of discarding debris of a building destroyed by fire somewhere in the city. Table 13.3: Classification of All Charred Wood Samples from Area D3, According to Loci Locus

Basket

Object

Identification

Additional description

1020

14348

3

Ficus carica

Young branch

1020

14348

1

Phillyrea latifolia

 

1020

14348

2

Phillyrea latifolia

 

1047

14655

1

Olea europaea

 

1047

14655

3

Olea europaea

 

1047

14655

2

Pistacia atlantica

 

1049

18000

1

Olea europaea

 

1049

18000

3

Olea europaea

 

1049

18000

6

Olea europaea

 

1049

18000

4

Pinus halepensis

 

1049

18000

5

Unidentifiable

1049

18000

2

Vitis vinifera

 

1050

18018

1

Olea europaea

 

1050

18036

2

Olea europaea

 

1050

18036

3

Pinus halepensis

 

1050

18018

3

Root/tuber

 

1050

18036

1

Root/tuber

 

1050

18018

1

Root/tuber

 

1050

14863

1

Root/tuber

 

1050

18018

2

Unidentifiable

1051

18004

2

Ficus carica

1051

18004

3

Ficus carica

1051

18004

4

Ficus carica

1051

18033

1

Olea europaea

   

268 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT Locus

Basket

Object

Identification

Additional description

1051

18033

2

Olea europaea

 

1051

18004

5

Olea europaea

 

1051

18004

6

Olea europaea

 

1051

15672

4

Olea europaea

 

1051

15672

5

Olea europaea

 

1051

15672

6

Olea europaea

 

1051

18004

1

Unidentifiable

1052

15692

1

Olea europaea

 

1052

14866

1

Olea europaea

 

1052

15672

1

Olea europaea

 

1052

15672

3

Olea europaea

 

1052

15671

2

Olea europaea

 

1052

15672

2

Pinus halepensis

 

1052

15671

1

Root/tuber

 

1052

15692

2

Unidentifiable

1052

15692

3

Unidentifiable

1052

15671

3

Unidentifiable

 

1052

15671

4

Unidentifiable

 

1053

18001

4

Cedrus libani

 

1053

18051

3

Ficus sycomorus

 

1053

18001

2

Olea europaea

 

1053

18001

1

Root/tuber

 

1053

18001

5

Root/tuber

 

1053

18051

2

Tamarix spp.

 

1053

18051

1

Unidentifiable

Poor state of preservation

1053

18001

3

Unidentifiable

Xylem

1054

18092

4

Olea europaea

 

1054

18092

5

Olea europaea

 

1054

18092

6

Olea europaea

 

1054

18092

7

Olea europaea

 

1054

18092

8

Olea europaea

 

1054

18092

11

Olea europaea

 

1054

18092

17

Olea europaea

 

1054

18092

20

Olea europaea

 

1054

14874

1

Olea europaea

 

1054

15770

1

Olea europaea

 

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 6 9 Locus

Basket

Object

Identification

Additional description

1054

18092

18

Pinus halepensis

 

1054

18092

3

Pistacia lentiscus

 

1054

18092

10

Quercus spp.

Poor state of preservation

1054

18092

1

Root/tuber

 

1054

18092

9

Root/tuber

 

1054

18092

12

Root/tuber

 

1054

18092

13

Root/tuber

 

1054

18092

15

Root/tuber

 

1054

18092

16

Root/tuber

 

1054

18092

2

Unidentifiable

1054

18092

14

Unidentifiable

1054

18092

19

Unidentifiable

1055

18105

6

Cupressus sempervirens

 

1055

18007

10

Olea europaea

 

1055

18007

4

Olea europaea

 

1055

18105

10

Olea europaea

 

1055

18105

13

Olea europaea

 

1055

18105

15

Olea europaea

 

1055

18105

5

Pinus halepensis

 

1055

18105

9

Pinus halepensis

 

1055

18105

11

Pinus halepensis

 

1055

18105

8

Pistacia atlantica

 

1055

18105

14

Pistacia spp.

 

1055

18105

1

Root/tuber

 

1055

18105

2

Root/tuber

 

1055

18105

3

Root/tuber

 

1055

18105

4

Root/tuber

 

1055

18007

1

Root/tuber

 

1055

18007

2

Root/tuber

 

1055

18007

3

Root/tuber

 

1055

18105

12

Root/tuber

 

1055

18105

16

Root/tuber

 

1055

18105

17

Root/tuber

 

1055

18105

18

Root/tuber

 

1055

18105

7

Unidentifiable

1056

15929

2

Cupressus sempervirens

 

 

270 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT Locus

Basket

Object

Identification

Additional description

1056

15929

5

Olea europaea

 

1056

18109

2

Olea europaea

Branch

1056

18109

7

Olea europaea

 

1056

18109

9

Olea europaea

 

1056

15871

2

Olea europaea

 

1056

15871

3

Olea europaea

 

1056

15871

5

Olea europaea

 

1056

15871

6

Olea europaea

 

1056

18109

5

Pinus halepensis

 

1056

18109

8

Pinus halepensis

 

1056

18109

6

Quercus spp.

 

1056

15929

1

Root/tuber

 

1056

15929

3

Root/tuber

 

1056

15929

6

Root/tuber

 

1056

15871

1

Root/tuber

 

1056

15871

4

Root/tuber

 

1056

15929

4

Unidentifiable

 

1056

18109

1

Unidentifiable

 

1056

18109

3

Unidentifiable

1056

18109

4

Unidentifiable

1057

15491

3

Olea europaea

 

1057

15491

2

Pinus halepensis

 

1057

15491

1

Root/tuber

 

1058

15968

2

Olea europaea

 

1058

15968

4

Olea europaea

 

1058

15968

5

Olea europaea

 

1058

15968

6

Olea europaea

 

1058

18007

1

Olea europaea

 

1058

14794

1

Olea europaea

 

1058

14794

2

Olea europaea

 

1058

15968

1

Root/tuber

 

1058

15968

3

Root/tuber

 

1059

16065

1

Olea europaea

 

1059

16065

3

Olea europaea

 

1059

16111

1

Olea europaea

 

1059

16065

2

Unidentifiable

 

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 7 1 Locus

Basket

Object

Identification

Additional description

1059

16111

2

Unidentifiable

1060

16322

1

Unidentifiable

 

1061

16458

2

Olea europaea

 

1061

16458

1

Root/tuber

 

1062

16466

1

Unidentifiable

 

1071

14813

1

Root/tuber

 

1071

14813

2

Root/tuber

 

1102

16440

1

Root/tuber

 

1105

15920

2

Cupressus sempervirens

 

1105

15920

1

Vitis vinifera

 

1106

16315

2

Olea europaea

 

1106

16315

1

Unidentifiable

 

1109

16673

2

Olea europaea

 

1109

16673

1

Unidentifiable

 

1111

16999

1

Root/tuber

 

1111

16999

2

Root/tuber

 

1111

16999

3

Root/tuber

 

1111

16999

4

Root/tuber

 

1111

16999

5

Root/tuber

 

1111

16999

6

Unidentifiable

1111

16999

7

Unidentifiable

1113

16345

1

Conifer

Possibly piece of branch, 0.5 cm radius

1113

16345

3

Quercus spp.

 

1113

16345

2

Root/tuber

 

1114

16451

1

Olea europaea

 

1114

16451

2

Olea europaea

 

1119

16903

1

Olea europaea

 

1119

16903

2

Olea europaea

 

1122

17187

2

Olea europaea

 

1122

17187

3

Root/tuber

 

1122

17187

1

Unidentifiable

1128

17325

1

Unidentifiable

1128

17325

2

Unidentifiable

1128

17325

3

Unidentifiable

1129

16780

2

Olea europaea

 

272 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT Locus

Basket

Object

Identification

Additional description

1129

16780

3

Olea europaea

 

1129

16780

4

Olea europaea

 

1129

16780

5

Olea europaea

 

1129

16780

6

Olea europaea

 

1129

16780

1

Root/tuber

 

1131

17213

1

Olea europaea

 

1131

17213

3

Olea europaea

 

1131

17213

2

Root/tuber

 

The natural arboreal environments of the city were exploited as a fuel source, either by collecting dead branches from the ground or by felling trees. The high occurrence of fruit-tree wood versus the low percentage of the natural forest-maquis components indicated that during the Early Roman period the environment of Jerusalem was already highly anthropogenic, and that large amounts of land were dedicated to horticulture. The assemblage’s poor state of preservation is reflected in the relatively high percentage of unidentifiable samples, and indicates the secondary deposition context of the material. It appears that the garbage went through a number of depositional processes. The fuel remains were removed from the ovens or kilns into the local domestic garbage pile. From there they were relocated at least once to the landfill area. This shifting of material to the landfill, as well as the consequent rolling down the slope, where it remained susceptible to rain and to other environmental effects, resulted in small and crumbled samples. It is probable that this state of preservation was influenced by the initial small size of the woody fuel material, made mainly of pruned branches and collected twigs.

CONCLUSIONS The high occurrence of charred fruit tree wood, roots and tubers, as well as the poor state of preservation of the material, indicate its origin in the context of urban refuse. This context is also supported by other finds discovered in Area D3.. Most of the charred wood material originated in oven or kiln fuel remains and possibly also following small domestic fires, which were discarded in a secondary deposition in the city’s landfill. The fuel was comprised mainly of agricultural refuse in the form of roots and tubers, as well as pruned branches of fruit trees, mainly olive, fig and vine. Previously, the agricultural activity around the city was assumed to be restricted to viticulture due to the high frequency of vine presses and relative scarcity of oil presses dated to the Early Roman period in that area (Baruch 1998). However, by contrast to previous assumptions, these dendroarchaeological remains, combined with the textual evidence, indicate that the city’s agricultural hinterland was largely devoted to olive and fig horticulture, with an unknown scale of viticulture. The textual evidence, as well as the ethnographical studies, indicate that the agricultural refuse was collected, bundled and carried to the city, where it was distributed as fueling material essential for food preparation, pyrotechnical industries and for heating. After the fuel would burn out, its remains would be discarded, and eventually reach the city’s landfill on the Eastern Slope.

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 7 3

Despite the intensive horticulture around the city, natural components of the Judean Mountains and foothills, such as green olive, mastic, Persian turpentine, oak and possibly tamarisk, grew in the vicinity of Jerusalem during the Early Roman period, although the scope of their frequency and distribution cannot be determined. The few charred coniferous-tree remains detected within the assemblage, originated most probably in local events of buildings destroyed by fire, debris which was later cleared to the city’s landfill. Charred remains of sycamore fig and of tamarisk were also employed in construction or in artifact manufacture and reached the landfill in the same manner.

REFERENCES Adams S.L. 2014. Social and Economic Life in Second Temple Judea. Louisville. Akkemik, U. and Yaman, B. 2012. Wood Anatomy of Eastern Mediterranean Species. Kessel. Amar, Z. 1999. Agricultural Products in the Lachish Relief. Beit Mikra: Journal for the Study of the Bible and Its World 44.4: 350–356 (Hebrew). Baruch, E. 1998. The Economic Hinterland of Jerusalem in the Herodian Period. Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv 89: 41–62 (Hebrew). Baruch, U. 1993. The Palynology of Late Quarternary Sediments of the Dead Sea (Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Jerusalem. Beals, E.W. 1965. The Remnant Cedar Forests of Lebanon. Journal of Ecology 53 (3): 679–694. Benzaquen, M., Finkelstein, I. and Langgut, D. 2019. Vegetation History and Human Impact on the Environs of Tel Megiddo in the Bronze and Iron Ages (ca. 3,500–500 BCE): A Dendroarchaeological Analysis. Tel Aviv 46: 42–64. Bolotin, M. 1963. Contributions to the Arboreal Flora of Israel: Pinus halepensis Mill. La-Yaaran 13: 120–127. Cariaggi, F. and Mancini, F. 2009. Appendice 4: Relazione di Restauro di Materiali Lignei Provenienti dallo scavo di Magdalla. In: De Luca, S., ed. La citta ellenistico-romana di Magdala/Taricheae. Gli scavi del Magdala Project 2007 e 2008: Relazione. Preliminare e Prospettive di Indagine (Liber Annuus 59): 549–552. Cato the Elder. 1935. De agri. On Agriculture. (Hooper, W.D. trans., Loeb Classical Library). London. Columella. 1952. De arbor. On Trees. (Forester, E.S. and Hefner E.H. trans., Loeb Classical Library). London. Crivellaro, A. and Schweingruber, F.H. 2013. Atlas of Wood, Bark and Pith Anatomy of Eastern Mediterranean Trees and Shrubs. Heidelberg. Danin, A. 2004. Distribution Atlas of Plants in the Flora Palaestina Area. Jerusalem. Fahn, A. and Werker, E. 1992. Macrobotanical Remains, Section B. In: De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T., eds. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. III: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem: 106–114. Fahn, A., Werker, E. and Baas, P. 1986. Wood Anatomy and Identification of Trees and Shrubs from Israel and Adjacent Regions. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. and Langgut, D. 2018. Climate, Settlement History and Olive Cultivation in the Iron Age Southern Levant. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 379: 153–169. Flaishman, M.A., Rodov, V. and Stover, E. 2008. The Fig: Botany, Horticulture and Breeding. Horticulture Reviews 34: 96–132. Gale, R. and Cutler, D. 2000. Plants in Archaeology. West Yorkshire. Gelabert, L.P., Asouti, E. and Martí, E.A. 2011. The Ethnoarchaeology of Firewood Management in the Fang Villages of Equatorial Guinea, Central Africa: Implications for the Interpretation of Wood Fuel Remains from Archaeological Sites. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30: 375–384. Hamilton, R.W. 1949. Structural History of the Aqsa Mosque. London. Helbaek, H. 1958. Appendix A: Plant Economy in Ancient Lachish. In: Tufnell, O., ed. Lachish IV. The Broze Age. London: 309–317. Hirschfeld, Y. 1981. Ancient Wine Presses in the Ayalon Park Area. Eretz-Israel 15 (Yohanan Aharoni Volume): 383–390 (Hebrew).

274 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

Hobbs, J.J. 1989. Bedouin Life in the Egyptian Wilderness. Austin. Hopf, M. 1978. Plant Remains, Strata V-I. In: Amiran, R., ed. Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early /Bronze Age City I, First-Fifth Seasons of Excavation, 1962–1966. Jerusalem: 64–82. Hopf, M. 1983. Appendix B. Jericho Plant Remains. In: Kenyon, K.M. and Holland, T.A., eds. Excavations at Jericho, Volume Five: The Pottery Phases of the Tell snd other Finds. Jerusalem: 576–621. Horowitz, A. 1979. Palynology. In: Horowitz, A. The Quaternary of Israel. New York: 180–259. Jashemski, W., Meyer, F.G. and Ricciardi, M. 2002. Plants: Evidence from Wall Paintings, Mosaics, Sculptures, Plant Remains, Graffiti, Inscriptions, and Ancient Authors. In: Jashemski, W. and Meyer, F.G., eds. The Natural History of Pompeii. Cambridge: 80–180. Kislev, M. 2000. The Sycomore Trees in the Lachish Reliefs- An Identification Based on the Writings of Chazal. In: Schwartz, Y., Amar, Z. and Ziffer, I., eds. Jerusalem and Eretz Israe, Arie Kindler Volume. Ramat Gan: 23–30. Langgut, D. 2017. Palynological Analysis of the Glacis of the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem: Duration of Construction and Environmental Reconstruction. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., and Adams, M.J. eds. Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein. Winona Lake: 207–220. Langgut, D., Almogi-Labin, A., Bar-Matthews, M. and Weinstein-Evron, M., 2011. Vegetation and Climate Changes in the South Eastern Mediterranean during the Last Glacial-Interglacial Cycle (86 ka): New Marine Pollen Record. Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 3960–3972. Langgut, D., Cheddadi, R., Carrión, J.S., Cavanagh, M., Colombaroli, D., Eastwood, W.J., Greenberg, R., Litt, T., Mercuri, A.M., Miebach, A., Roberts, N., Woldring, H. and Woodbridge, J. 2019. The Origin and Spread of Olive Cultivation in the Mediterranean Basin. The Holocene 29: 902–922. Langgut, D., Gadot, Y., Porat, N., and Lipschits, O. 2013. Fossil Pollen Reveals the Secrets of the Royal Persian Garden at Ramat Rahel, Jerusalem. Palynology 37: 115–129.‫‏‬ Langgut, D., Gleason, K., and Burrell, B. 2015. Pollen Analysis as Evidence for Herod’s Royal Garden at the Promontory Palace, Caesarea. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences 62: 111–121. Langgut, D. and Lipschits, O. 2017. Dry Climate during the Babylonian and the Early Persian Period and Its Impact on the Creation of Idumea. Transeuphratène 49: 141–172. Lev-Yadun, S. 1987. Cupressus sempervirens L. A Native and Cultivated Tree in the East Mediterranean Region. Rotem 23–24: 33–40 (Hebrew; English summary p. 162). Lev-Yadun, S. 1997. Flora and Climate in Southern Samaria: Past and Present. In: Finkelstein, I., Ledermen, Z., and Bunimovitz, S. eds. Highlands of Many Cultures, the Southern Samaria Survey: The Sites (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 14). Tel Aviv: 85–102. Lev-Yadun, S., Liphschitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 1981. Dendrochronological Investigations in Israel: Pinus halepensis–the Oldest Living Pine in Israel. La-Yaaran 31: 1–8 (Hebrew, English summary pp. 49*–52*). Lev-Yadun, S., Lucas, D.S. and Weinstein-Evron, M. 2010. Modeling the Demands for Wood by the Inhabitants of Masada and for the Roman Siege. Journal of Arid Environment 74: 777–785. Lev-Yadun, S. and Weinstein-Evron, M. 1993. Prehistoric Wood Remains of Cupressus sempervirens L. from the Natufian Layers of El-Wad Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. Tel Aviv 20: 125–131. Liphschitz, N. 1989. Dendroarhcaeological Studies 150: The Ophel (Jerusalem) 1986 (Appendix C). In: Mazar, E. and Mazar, B. eds. Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount- The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem (Qedem 29). Jerusalem: 142–143. Liphschitz, N. 1994. Wood Remains from Masada. In: Aviram, J., ed. Masada IV. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports. Jerusalem: 319–346. Liphschitz, N. 1998. Timber Analysis of Household Objects in Israel: A Comparative Study. Israel Exploration Journal 48: 77–90.‫‏‬ Liphschitz, N. 2000. Dendroarchaeological Remains. In: Fischer, M., Gichon, M. and Tal, O., eds. ‘En Boqeq: Excavations in an Oasis on the Dead Sea II. Mainz: 127–130. Liphschitz, N. 2003. Archaeobotanical Remains. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2- Final Report. Jerusalem: 496–500.

A R C H A E O B O TA N I C A L A N A LY S I S 2 7 5

Liphschitz, N. 2004. Dendroarchaeological Analysis of Wood Remains from Cypros. In: Netzer, E., LaureysChachy, R. and Meshorer, Y., eds. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports of the 1973– 1987 Excavations II. Jerusalem:281–285. Liphschitz, N. 2007. Timber in Ancient Israel: Dendroarchaeology and Dendrochronology. Tel Aviv. Liphschitz, N. 2010. Archaeobotanical Remains. In: Geva, H., ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. IV: The Burnt House of Area B and other Studies- Final Report. Jerusalem: 300–304. Liphschitz, N. and Biger, G. 2001. Past Distribution of Aleppo Pine (Pinus halepensis) in the Mountains of Israel (Palestine). The Holocene 11: 427–436. Liphschitz, N. and Lev-Yadun, S. 1989. The Botanical Remains from Masada: Identification of the Plant Species and the Possible Origin of the Remnants. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 274: 27–32. Liphschitz, N., Lev-Yadun, S. and Waisel. Y. 1981. Dendroarchaeological Investigations in Israel (Masada). Israel Exploration Journal 31: 230–234. Liphschitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 1973. Dendroarchaeological Investigations in Israel in the Northern and Eastern Negev: Tel Beer Sheba and Tel Arad. Israel Exploration Journal 23: 30–36. Liphschitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 1975. Dendroarchaeological Investigations in Israel: Herodium. (Mimeographed Report No. 37). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 1980. Dendroarchaeological Investigations: The Scottish Church (Mimeographed Report No. 83). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 1992. Macrobotanical Remains–Section A. In: De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T., Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. III: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem: 105–106. Liphschitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 1999. Timber Analysis. In: Hachlili, R. and Killebrew. A.E., eds. Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period (IAA Reports 7). Jerusalem: 88–92. Litt, T., Ohlwein, C., Neumann, F.H., Hense, A. and Stein, M. 2012. Holocene Climate Variability in the Levant from the Dead Sea Pollen Record. Quaternary Science Reviews 4995–105. Meiggs, R. 1982. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford. Melamed, Y., Kislev, M.E., Geffen, E., Lev-Yadun, S., and Goren-Inbar, N. 2016. The Plant Component of an Acheulian Diet at Gesher Benot YaAtiqot. Roth, H. and Langgut, D. Forthcoming b. Dendroarchaeological Analysis: Charcoal Remains from the Giv>ati Parking Lot Excavation (Area M3). Jerusalem. Roth, H. and Langgut, D. Forthcoming c. Dendroarchaeological Analysis: Charcoal Remains from the Stepped Street Excavation (Area S1), Jerusalem. Roth, H., Szanton, N. and Langgut, D. 2016. Prestige and Splendor Evident from the Stepped Street (Jerusalem): The Dendroarchaeological Evidence. In: Stiebel, G.D., Uziel, J., Re’em, A., Cytryn-Silverman, K. and Gadot,

276 HELENA ROTH AND DAFNA LANGGUT

Y., eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, Collected Papers X, Jerusalem:128–148 (Hebrew). Schweingruber, F.H. 1990. Anatomy of European Woods. Kessel. Sitry, Y. 2006a. Wooden Objects from Roman Sites in the Land of Israel, A Typological and Technological Study—Part I (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Sitry, Y. 2006b. Wooden Objects from Roman Sites in the Land of Israel, A Typological and Technological Study—Part II (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Theophrastus. 1990. De caus. De causis plantarum (Einarson, B. and Link, G.K.K., trans. The Loeb Classical Library). London. Theophrastus. 1961. Historia Plantarum. Enquiry into Plants (Hort, A. trans. Loeb Classical Library) London. Vitruvius. 1999. De arch. Ten Books on Architecture. (Rowland, I.D. and Howe, T.N. trans.) Cambridge. Weinstein-Evron, M. 1983. The Paleoecology of the Early Wurm in the Hula Basin, Israel. Paléorient 9: 5–19. Weinstein-Evron, M. and Lev-Yadun, S. 2000. Palaeoecology of Pinus halepensis in Israel in the Light of Archaeobotanical Data. In: Ne’eman, G. and Trabaud, L., eds. Ecology, Biogeography and Management of Pinus halepensis and Pinus brutia Forest Ecosystems in the Mediterranean Basin. Leiden: 119–130. Werker, E. 1994. Botanical Identification of Wood Remains from the ‘En Gedi Excavation. >Atiqot 24: 69–72 (Hebrew, English summary p. 10*). Werker, E. and Baruch, U. 1992. Macrobotanical Remains, Section C. In: De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T., eds. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. III: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem: 115–121. Wheeler, E., Baas, P. and Gasson, P. 1989. IAWA List of Microscopy Features for Hardwood Identification. IAWA Journal 10: 219–332. Van Zeist, W. and Bottema, S. 2009. A Palynological Study of the Acheulian Site of Gesher Benot Ya>aqov, Israel. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 18: 105–121. Zinger, A. 1985. Olive Cultivation. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zohary, M. 1962. Plant Life of Palestine: Israel and Jordan. New York. Zohary, M. 1973. Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East. Stuttgart. Zohary, M. 1980. Vegetal Landscape of Israel. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zohary, M. 1987. The Plant World: Morphology, Taxonomy, Evolution, Biology. Tel Aviv. Zohary, D. and Spiegel-Roy, P. 1975. Beginnings of Fruit Growing in the Old World. Science 187: 319–327. Zohary, D., Hopf, M. and Weiss, E. 2012. Domestication of Plants in the Old World (4th ed.). Oxford.

CHAPTER 14

SEEDS, GRAINS AND OTHER PLANT ORGANS Ilana Peters and Ehud Weiss

Excavations of Area D3 unearthed the charred remains of over 11000 archaeobotanical finds, including seeds, grains and fruits of 39 species (Table 14.1) that enable the reconstruction of the nutritional diversity and the lifestyle of the inhabitants of Early Roman period Jerusalem (for further discussion, see Weiss and Kislev 2008). The analysis of the finds was done at the Archaeobotany Laboratory, Institute of Archaeology, Martin (Szuz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar-Ilan University. For a preliminary report on the results see Peters and Weiss 2018.

METHODOLOGY The excavation in Area D3 involved deliberately cutting sections into the landfill so that the accumulated layers would become visible to the excavators. These layers were then excavated as separate loci (see Chapter 2). Buckets of earth were brought to the archaeobotany laboratory to be wet-sifted and to retrieve the smaller seeds. Once at Bar-Ilan University, approximately 10 liters from each locus were analyzed (1050, 1052, 1054, 1056–1058, 1201–1204, and 1206–1211). First, to prevent any damage to the floatation machine, a crate with large holes was used to separate the larger rocks from the other rocks, sherds, sediment and archaeobotanical finds. A floatation machine (FLOTE-TECH, Model A) was then used to separate the charred botanical remains from the sediment and smaller rocks, as it allowed the charred remains to float to the top (for a visual reference, see Frumin and Weiss 2018: Fig. 2). The wet-sieving at the lab used screens with 0.3 m holes. The charred remains were then left on trays to air-dry at a slow rate, to avoid cracking that might result from drying too quickly. Once dry, they were sorted by size with a set of sieves (4 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.3 mm holes) to prevent eyestrain during microscopic analysis and improving visual examination as all items are the same size. The archaeobotanical remains were then examined under an Olympus binocular microscope, and visually compared to the reference collection of plants at the botanical archaeology lab directed by Mordechai Kislev, Faculty of Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan University. Literary sources were also referenced during this stage of identification, the most notable being Flora Palaestina (Zohary 1966; Zohary 1972; Feinbrun-Dothan 1978; Feinbrun-Dothan 1986).

RESULTS The archaeobotanical finds from Area D3 exhibit a wide variety of taxa amounting to 39 species (Table 14.1)—including a large amount of uncultivated remains. Such a range is appropriate for a garbage mound. Both cultivated grains and weeds were found, as well as cultivated legumes, fruits and other edible plants, including wild legumes and inedible plants and plants that may have been used for medicinal purposes.

278 ILANA PETERS AND EHUD WEISS

The finds provide evidence of a diverse diet, which included carbohydrates from grains such as barley (Hordeum) and wheat (Triticum), proteins from legumes (Lens culinaris), sugar from fruits (Ficus carica, Morus nigra, Punica granatum, Vitis vinifera) and oil from olives (Olea europea).

Protein Sources Faba beans (Vicia faba), chickpeas (Cicer arietinum), lentils (Len. culinaris) and bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) were found at the site; these indicate the availability of plant-based proteins. These four species are the principle pulses grown in the Mediterranean (Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 89). High consumption of legumes causes lathyrism, a neurological disorder, but the quantity found at the landfill does not indicate a solely legume-based diet (Lev, Kislev and Bar-Yosef 2005: 481).

Fruit Cultivation Various fruit organs were discovered, including grape pips (Vitis viniferavinifera), olive pits (Olea europea), fig nutlets (Ficus carica), pomegranate seeds (Punica granatum) and a black mulberry seed (Morus nigra). The syconium of one fig, a grape raisin and multiple pedicels were identified, indicating that the preservation at the site was quite good. The high number of fig nutlets in Table 14.1 should not be misread: they represent a much smaller quantity of fruits, as each fruit includes numerous nutlets. This fits well with Roth and Langutt’s analysis, which indicates that a visible but nonetheless small percentage of fig nutlets (Ficus carcia) wood was found in the landfill (see Chapter 13: Table 13.1). Pomegranate does not grow in the southern Levant in its wild form and is therefore considered a luxury item. This find is a strong indication of Jerusalem’s wealth during this period. The black mulberry from this excavation is the earliest found in Israel, as this garbage mound dates from the 1st century BCE (see Chapter 2). Prior to this study, its earliest appearance, also found in Jerusalem, was dated to the Abbasid period (Amichay and Weiss 2021: 645–702).

Grain Processing Several species of cultivated and uncultivated grains were found. Wheat (Triticum dicoccum/ durum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) were found in very small quantities, comprising a total of 136 cultivated grains. Conversely, there was a relatively high number of Gramineae weeds (Lolium temulentum and Phalaris sp.): 25 weeds. Normally, weeds are not found in such great quantities, and usually there is a much higher ratio of cultivated grains (e.g., Galili et al. 2009: 40; Kislev et al. 2009: Table 17.1; Simchoni and Kislev 2009: Table 1; Weiss and Kislev 2004: Table 1). During food preparation, the grains are hand-sorted or sieved whereupon the weeds are removed. The large quantity of weeds in comparison to the cultivated grains in this area suggests that the landfill included the unwanted weeds that had been hand-sorted and removed prior to cooking. No chaff was found in this area. This indicates that the plants deposited here were already harvested, threshed and winnowed elsewhere prior to separating the weeds from the cultivated grains.

CONCLUSIONS The landfill in Area D3 contains a large number and variety of plant finds. The finds indicate the availability of a balanced diet—including carbohydrates, proteins, sugars and oils—during the 1st century CE. The plant assemblage is clean of chaff, suggesting that the landfill was used when

SEEDS, GRAINS AND OTHER PLANT ORGANS 279

the products were already clean, near the final stage of food preparation. Furthermore, the finds represent the waste from hand-sorting or sieving, as befits a garbage mound. This area also includes the earliest discovery of black mulberry in Israel. Additionally, the pomegranate seeds point to Jerusalem’s wealth, as this was a luxury produce in the Early Roman period.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Dr. Yuval Gadot for inviting us to participate in this project. We would also like to thank Dr. Yael Mahler-Slasky, Dr. Yoel Melamed and Dr. Anat Hartmann-Shenkman for their help in identifying the species.

2

1

Grain

Triticum sp. cf.

Seed Endosperm

Punica granatum

Vitis vinifera Pedicel

3

Stone

Olea europea

3

1 1

Syconium Seed

1645

3

4

4

2

1033

64

1

4

3

1307

41

1

1

1

1003

3

1

2

2

1725

3

3

195

L1203

Nutlet

28

1

1

5

1

1

578

1

1

1

1

417

3

3

4

4

240

2

2

1

1

1

746

3

3

580

L1209

Morus nigra

Ficus carica

Seed Seed

Vicia sp.

1

Seed

Vicia/Lathyrus sp.

3

Seed

Vicia ervilia

Vicia faba cf.

2

37

23

Seed

Lens culinaris

56

1

Seed Seed

33

Cicer arietinum

1

48

Lathyrus sp. cf.

1

37

1

L1058 1

L1202

Fruits

Grain

Triticum dicoccum/durum/ Hordeum vulgare

L1201 2

L1204

21

12

L1206

34

13

L1207

2

29

L1208

Total

L1050 6

1

684

5

4

1

2

2

L1210

Cultivated legumes

L1052

Grain

L1054

Grain

L1056

Triticum dicoccum/durum

Organ

L1057

Hordeum vulgare

Plant Latin name

489

3

2

1

L1211

Total

Cultivated grains

Group

Table 14.1

3

1

13

17

1

6

10642

147

1

1

3

10

128

1

3

136

3

1

100

32

Total

280 ILANA PETERS AND EHUD WEISS

L1050

L1052 5

Grain Grain

Lolium temulentum

Lolium sp.

4

11

9 1

Grain Seed

3

Hordeum sp.

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

Liliaceae cf.

Seed Seed

Heliotropium sp.

Grain/seed

Gramineae/Cephalaria

Hippocrepis unisiliquosa

2 21

Mericarp Grain

Galium sp.

Gramineae

7

Seed Seed

Fumaria sp. cf.

1

Fumaria/Ficus carica

Seed

Fumaria sp.

2

Seed Seed

Chenopodium sp.

1 1

Seed Seed

Capparis sp.

Chenopodium murale

Chenopodium sp. cf.

1

Seed

Bupleurum subovatum

3 1

Mericarp Mericarp

Asperula/Galium sp.

Asperula/Galium sp. cf.

1

Mericarp Mericarp

Adonis annua/microcarpa

1130

Asperula arvensis

1690

6

12

4

1

3

1

1366

1

L1058

Seed

1

1

2

1

1007

1

3

2

1

1

1732

1

1

196

8

1

1

580

1

2

2

1

422

3

2

240

L1207

Adonis

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

750

1

1

1

580

L1209

Weeds and Wild Plants

L1054 1

L1056

Raisin

L1057

Raisin?

L1201 7

L1202

3

L1203

51

L1204

83

L1206

36

L1208

Pip

Organ

1

1

688

3

L1210

Vitis vinifera cf.

Plant Latin name

1

490

1

L1211

Total

Group

12

17

1

9

1

6

1

58

3

7

11

4

1

7

1

1

6

1

4

1

2

1

10875

1

1

190

Total

SEEDS, GRAINS AND OTHER PLANT ORGANS 281

1

1481

6

32

2

L1058

1315

6

31

1017

L1202 1746

3

3

8

199

1

1

2

L1203

Unknown

5

591

10

L1204

35

2

1

1

1

437

3

3

5

L1206

1

41

1

1

244

2

L1207

1825

70

1

2

3

1 2

774

11

11

10

1

1

583

1

1

2

L1209

Seed

Seed Seed

Trifolium sp. cf.

Seed

Scorpiurus muricatus

Vicia/Lathyrus sp.

Seed Seed

Podonosma orientalis

Mesocarp

Reseda sp.

Cone scale

Pinophyta

Grain

Phalaris sp. cf.

2

1

L1208

Pistacia lentiscus cf.

9 3

Seed Grain

Seed

Onobrychis sp.

L1057

Papilionaceae

2

Seed

Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum

L1201

Phalaris sp.

1 1

2

L1050

Seed

698

3

1

L1210

Total

L1052

Seed

1

L1054

Medicago minima cf.

Fruit

Malva sp.

L1056

Medicago sp.

Organ

Plant Latin name

494

1

L1211

Unknown

Group

11409

57

56

1

194

3

1

2

1

1

1

3

3

8

10

2

1

1

1

1

Total

282 ILANA PETERS AND EHUD WEISS

SEEDS, GRAINS AND OTHER PLANT ORGANS 283

REFERENCES Amichay, O. and Weiss, E. 2021. The Archaeobotanical Remains. In: Ben-Ami, D. and Tchekhanovets, Y., eds. Excavation in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv>ati Parking Lot), Vol. II: The Byzantine and the Early Islamic Periods (IAA Reports 66): 645–702. Feinbrun-Dothan, N. 1978. Flora Palaestina, Vol. 3. Jerusalem. Feinbrun-Dothan, N. 1986. Flora Palaestina, Vol. 4. Jerusalem. Frumin, S. and Weiss, E. 2018. Plant Use in the Bronze and Iron Ages at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Near Eastern Archaeology 81: 77–80. Galili, E., Eshed, V., Rosen, B., Kislev, M., Simchoni, O., Hershovitz, I. and Gopher, A. 2009. Evidence for a Separate Burial Ground at the Submerged Pottery Neolithic Site of Neve-Yam, Israel. Paléorient 35: 31–46. Kislev, M.E., Simchoni, O., Melamed, Y. and Maroz, L. 2009. Botanical Remains: Food and Industrial Crops. In: Panitz-Cohen, N. and Mazar, A., eds. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. III: The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S. Jerusalem: 764–771. Lev, E., Kislev, M.E. and Bar-Yosef, O. 2005. Mousterian Vegetal Food in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 475–484. Peters, I. and Weiss, E. 2018. Ancient Seeds of Knowledge. In: Gadot, Y. Jerusalem and the Holy Land(fill). Biblical Archaeology Review 44: 38. Simchoni, O. and Kislev, M.E. 2009. Relict Plant Remains in the “Caves of the Spear.” Israel Exploration Journal 59: 47–62. Weiss, E. and Kislev, M.E. 2004. Plant Remains as Indicators for Economic Activity: A Case Study from Iron Age Ashkelon. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 1–13. Weiss, E. and Kislev, M.E. 2008. Plant Remains as a Tool for Reconstruction of the Past Environment, Economy, and Society: Archaeobotany in Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 56: 163–173. Zohary, M. 1966. Flora Palaestina, Vol. 1. Jerusalem. Zohary, M. 1972. Flora Palaestina, Vol. 2. Jerusalem. Zohary, M., Hopf, M. and Weiss, E. 2012. Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Domesticated Plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin. Oxford.

Part IV: SYNTHESIS AND

SUMMARY

CHAPTER 15

COMMITTING THE KIDRONʼS WESTERN SLOPES TO GARBAGE DISPOSAL: JEWISH URBANISM UNDER ROMAN HEGEMONY Yuval Gadot

Many archaeologists acknowledge that the source of most items found in archaeological excavations is in fact garbage (Hayden and Cannon 1983; Schiffer 1987; Needham and Spence 1997; Rathje and Murphy 2001). In most cases, these objects are found randomly in soil accumulations such as constructional earthen fills placed in the foundations of buildings or in open fields that gather soil and debris—the result of natural soil movement. Only in rare cases is refuse exposed where it can be defined as “secondary deposition”: objects that were purposely removed from their place of use and deposited in defined locations such as nearby pits (e.g., LeeDecker 1994; Ilan 2008), middens (Shahack-Gross, Gafni and Finkelstein 2009; Shillito and Mackay 2020), down the slopes of tells (Kamp 1991) and in public landfills (Wilson 1994; Needham and Spence 1997; Shaw 2012). The study of material culture found in secondary deposition has the potential to apprise and enlighten us regarding social and economic aspects of ancient societies. As a result, it has become possible in recent years to see a greater number of research projects targeted at landfills and other kinds of waste management installations as a means of addressing social, economic and environmental issues (see, for example, Bar-Oz et al. 2019(. The excavations carried out in what is claimed to be the landfill of Early Roman Jerusalem is a prime example of this type of research (Reich and Shukron 2003; Bar-Oz et al. 2007; Dvira, Zigdon and Shilov 2011; Reich, Bar-Oz and Shukron 2021; and the excavations reported upon in this volume). However, defining these sloping earth layers so rich in material culture as a “landfill” is under dispute (Shiloh 1990: 6–7; De Groot 2012: 183–184). The following paragraphs are devoted to the presentation of supportive evidence for the claim that these layers are indeed part of a landfill as has been suggested by earlier scholars. Subsequently, an attempt will be made to evaluate the significance of the landfill and its content for understanding 1st century CE Jerusalem’s urban development and cultural nature. During the Early Roman period, especially from the reign of Herod and into the days of the procurators that followed him, Jerusalem reached its zenith (Levine 2002; Szanton et al. 2019). Public building enterprises, of a magnitude the city never experienced before, completely altered the city’s layout as new neighborhoods were built around the old core. These were also the times when Jerusalem became a vibrant political, economic and religious center, a status that became most apparent during the Jewish pilgrim holidays with the ebb and flow of hundreds and thousands of people streaming from all over the land into the holy city (Hartman et al. 2013; Szanton et al. 2019). These are the circumstances by which the decision to consign the slopes of the “Lower City” ridge eastward into the Kidron Valley for the purpose of waste disposal should be evaluated.

2 8 8 Y U VA L G A D O T

PREVIOUS RESEARCH The layers of soil of Area D3 in the City of David ridge are extremely rich with finds and have not gone unnoticed by researchers working there over the last 150 years. Chapter 1 (Introduction) of this volume includes a description of previous research (see also Reich and Shukron 2003: 12–13; Reich, Bar-Oz and Shukron 2021). Most excavators have chosen to ignore these layers and have simply tried to dig through them in order to reach the “real” archaeological layers. A few archaeologists have attempted to explain the phenomenon of Area D3 and the reasons for its creation; even fewer scholars have chosen to adapt their excavation technique so it would supply the needed information for a sound interpretation based on systematic collection of evidence. Weill, who excavated just south of Area D3, was in fact the first to excavate above ground in Jerusalem and so was the first to relate to these layers. He suggested that the layers date to the Roman period and that they are the result of garbage disposal (Weill 1920: 194–195). More than 60 years later, Shiloh excavated through these layers in his excavations of Areas B, D and E. While he did use mechanical tools to remove the layers, he did not ignore this feature in his interpretation and related the formation of the layers to his Stratum 5, the Late Roman period (Shiloh 1984: Table 1; Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 71–72). Thus, Shiloh disconnected the date of the material culture found within the layers, which is clearly the Early Roman period, from the actions that brought them to the place where they were found, which he suggested took place a few decades later. According to Shiloh, the layers contain remnants of houses and other buildings that stood during the Early Roman period at the top of the City of David ridge. He claimed that following the Roman destruction of the city in 70 CE, these remnants were cleared and thrown downslope, making way for new construction. In his final publication of the finds from Area E, the main area excavated on the eastern slopes, De Groot presented further argumentation for dating the formation of the layers to the Late Roman period (De Groot 2012: 183–184). He based his case mainly on stratigraphical reasoning: the thick layers were found to be sealing a system of terrace walls that also date to the Early Roman period, and so must be dated later. It should be noted that when relating to Shiloh’s work, one must make a distinction between the layers described above, found in Areas B, D and E, and the earth and stone layers containing pottery dating to the Hellenistic period that were recorded in Area G, below the Hellenistic wall (Shiloh 1984: 20–21; 1990: 6–7). These layers are part of a glacis that may have been constructed with the walls of the Seleucid/Early Hasmonean fortress (Akra? Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2016; Zilberstein 2021). The first systematic study of the content of these layers was preformed and published by Reich and Shukron following their excavations in Area C, and to some extent also in Areas A, B and J (Reich and Shukron 2003; Reich et al. 2021: Table 3.1) At this stage of their excavations, they dug through the layers but did not attempt to sift the finds. They argued that based on pottery typology and coins collected, the earth layers should be dated between the second part of the 1st century BCE and the beginning of the Jewish Revolt (66 CE). They also defined the extent of this phenomenon spatially and claimed its northern edge is the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount and from there it continues for 400 m farther to the south, along the slope of the City of David ridge, into the Kidron. Reich and Shukron rejected the claims that these layers are part of a glacis built with the Early Roman city wall or that the layers were formed by the clearing of destroyed buildings after 70 CE (Reich and Shukron 2003: 17). Instead, they interpreted these layers as being the city’s landfill that was formed through the intentional and organized clearance of garbage from the city to its southeastern outskirts.

COMMITTING THE KIDRONʼS WESTERN SLOPES TO GARBAGE DISPOSAL 289

A second and more systematic study of the earthen layers was conducted in Area L, located near the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount (Bar-Oz et al. 2007; Reich, Bar-Oz and Shukron 2021). As was described in the final publication, the researchers seized an opportunity to conduct a study of the layers as running water teemed through. Large heaps of the soil were carried off by mechanical tools to a place where they went through systematic wet sifting. As a result, the inner stratigraphy of the phenomenon was only documented in the section that was formed (Bar-Oz et al. 2007: Fig. 3) but the finds were not studied in relation to the stratigraphy. The researchers remained firm in their belief that layers were formed by a long process of garbage disposal. Two coins dating to the Great Jewish Revolt led the excavators to suggest that the landfill was operational up until the city’s destruction in 70 CE (and not the beginning of the rebellion, as had been suggested previously).1 Finally, the proximity of the excavation to the Temple Mount led the researchers to claim that the source of the garbage was sacred activities conducted at the Temple, either remnants left behind by the thousands of Jewish pilgrims (Bar-Oz et al. 2007: 9–10) or as leftovers from the slaughtering of animal offerings at the Temple (Bouchnick, Bar-Oz and Reich 2004; Hartman et al. 2013). As will be discussed below, there are a number of significant differences between the assemblage studied here and the one presented by Bar-Oz and colleagues, and these differences may be the outcome of the divergent origins of the two assemblages. Another study of layers possibly formed by the depositing of garbage was conducted by Dvira, Zidgon and Shilov (2011). This study was carried out farther north of Area L and into layers that accumulated along the western slope of the Kidron. It was initiated after the site had already been damaged, following the construction of supporting walls. According to the excavators, the pottery within the fill dates to a longer time range than the one reported by Reich and Shukron (Dvira, Zigdon and Shilov 2011: Table 2). It is unclear whether the fact that there is pottery from different periods is the result of modern construction or that the Early Roman fill had already combined with earlier remains in antiquity. In any case, the finds here must be dealt with carefully as it is not possible to know just how mixed the finds are, especially those that are dateable only by their context (bones, seed and more). Finally, sloping layers dating to the Early Roman period were also noted along the southern slopes of Mount Zion (Zelinger 2010). Contained within the layers are pottery sherds dating to the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, fragments of chalk vessels, animal bones and fragments of plaster. This content seems to be similar in nature to the content of the layers in Area D3. However, the finds were not sifted in a fashion similar to the system used in this study and used by Reich and Shukron, which means that it is not possible to conduct a quantitative comparison.

DISCUSSION An observation of the section created by the excavation into the layers shows that it is actually composed of at least 12 layers of varied thickness and that there are two types of layers: “earthrich layers,” which are typified by immense amounts of soil mixed with large amounts of material culture items; and “material culture-rich layers,” which are very rich in material culture items mixed with very little soil (Chapter 2). We made several attempts to quantify the differences in the amount of soil and/or finds in the two types of layers and it seems that while the number of finds is more or less the same, the volume of soil in the “earth-rich layers” is significantly higher. 1

In the final publication, this dating was abandoned. See Reich, Bar-Oz and Shukron 2021: 477.

2 9 0 Y U VA L G A D O T

The material culture items making up the layers include mainly pottery sherds, animal bones, seeds, charcoal, fragments of chalk vessels, coins and other small metal objects, glass fragments, pieces of clay from clay ovens and chipped plaster. There were almost no stones larger than the size of a fist, and in general all material culture items were small in size. Based on the meticulous study of the artifacts and ecofacts found within the layers and presented in each of the chapters of this volume, it is now possible to conduct a fresh evaluation of the date, formation processes and function of the sloping layers. This study is based on the composition of the finds, their relative quantity and state of preservation.

THE SOURCE OF THE MATERIAL CULTURE Even though scholars are divided concerning the circumstances that led to the creation of the layers, there is a general agreement that the material culture items found within it are garbage. Some would claim that it is garbage located in its original disposal place (i.e., landfill theory), while others would claim that it is material accidentally thrown away while soil was brought over to be used for the construction of a glacis or any other architectural element. The fact that the bulk of the material culture is dated to the Early Roman period (i.e., before the city was destroyed) is also undisputed (see more specific dating below). A systematic inspection of the finds from Area D3 supports the conclusion that they originated from the households making up the city and not necessarily the richer households. While our research lacks a comparable dwelling from the city that was dug and published comprehensively,2 the following observations do support this claim: 1. The finding of fragments of clay ovens and simple wall plaster was shown to be typical of household garbage at the time (Dvira, Zidgon and Shliov 2011: 73). 2. The study of the tree species making up the charcoal assemblage (Chapter 13) shows that they mainly include twigs, roots and/or tubers, mainly of olive trees, that were systematically collected to be used as fuel for ovens. This stands in contrast to assemblages typical of destruction debris, where wood that was used for construction and for furniture is more frequent (Roth, Gadot and Langgut 2019). 3. The composition of the ceramic assemblage that was quantified includes ca. 11000 indicative sherds that were divided into functional units: serving vessels, cooking vessels, large storage vessels, small liquid containers, lighting vessels and other special vessels (Chapter 3). The results show that over 70% of the vessels served for the preparation, serving and consumption of food, while only 15% served for large storage. This composition appears to be typical of households where food preparation and consumption seems to be the most basic task (Sandhaus 2014: 33; Lynch 2016). When compared with the composition of the Area L assemblage, it is possible to observe some differences. Most notable is the relatively modest percentage of small serving bowls (6% of the entire assemblage: Bar-Oz et al. 2007: Table 2), compared with their frequency in Area D3 (38% of the assemblage). Their higher frequency comes at the expense of cooking pots that are the most common vessel type in Area L (32%) and are only third in their presence in Area D3. According to Bar-Oz and colleagues, the higher number of cooking pots may reflect waste, left behind by pilgrim activities at the Temple Mount. It is interesting to note 2

Relatively complete households were unearthed below the Jewish Quarter, the Upper City. These houses were published but the excavation method and publication policy does not allow systematic and quantifiable analysis of items composing a typical “household kit” at the time.

COMMITTING THE KIDRONʼS WESTERN SLOPES TO GARBAGE DISPOSAL 291

that fragments of imported vessels are relatively rare in the D3 assemblage and in the Area L assemblage (Lieberman 2021: 488). As imported ware was found in higher numbers at houses located in the Upper City, this may reflect the economic status of the households from which the garbage originated. Another option is that some of Jerusalem’s residents abstained from using imported ware as it was thought to be impure according to the rules of Halakhah (Adler 2011: 270–274; Lieberman 2021: 480). 4. The assemblage of faunal remains is typical of a household. It is composed mainly of sheep/ goat bones together with 13% cattle and 7% chicken bones, similar to that found in dwellings in other parts of the city (Spiciarich, Gadot and Sapir-Hen 2017; Chapter 11). Viewing age and sex patterns prove that the herd management was oriented towards meat production. It is not possible to discern preference towards higher quality body parts or towards cult related parts. 5. A limited amount of industrial waste related to the production of Jewish chalk vessels and glass vessels was found (Chapters 5 and 7.2) While large-scale workshops were located outside of the city (e.g., Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2008 for chalk vessel production; Levy and Be’eri 2017 for pottery production), there is evidence for smaller scale domestic production (e.g., Cahill 1992; Magen 2002). When viewed altogether, we can safely assume that the garbage found in Area D3 originated from neighboring dwellings and that these were inhabited by middle class people when compared with the richer houses excavated in the Upper City (Geva 2010). Comparing the finds from Area D3 to those found in Area L shows that there are significant differences that may point to the fact that at least part of the garbage in Area L originated from a location that is not a household. The first major difference is in the number of the well-known Jewish chalk vessels that are connected to the observation of halakhic rules of purity. Over 900 fragments of such vessels were found in Area D3 (Chapter 5) compared with two similar fragments reported from Area L (Bar-Oz et al. 2007: 8). A second notable difference relates to the frequency of pigeon bones. While 4% of the bones from Area L belong to pigeons, no such bones were found in Area D3 (see Chapter 11 for references for both areas). In some cases, differences in the way objects were collected and/or recorded shape their frequency in the published report. However, this is not the case here, as the two assemblages went through similar processes of wet sifting; furthermore, the two trends noted are of objects that appear in high numbers in one assemblage and are completely missing in the other. Regarding the Jewish chalk vessels, Bar-Oz and his colleagues assumed that these vessels were mostly stationary; and as they were made of stone and so tended to break less, they did not end up in the garbage. The assemblage studied here teaches us that this assumption is wrong, and that small, less stationary vessels did in fact break and their fragments were thrown into the garbage. It seems that both differences reflect the fact that while Area D3 finds did originate in households, the source of the finds from Area L is from activities preformed at or near the Temple Mount. Pigeons are known to have been brought by pilgrims as offerings at the Temple. This may explain why they are not as frequent in the average household diet. Pilgrims arriving at the Temple carried with them only necessary vessels, mainly cooking pots. The chalk vessels were perhaps unneeded for activities performed in or near the Temple.

Dating The relative dating of the layers as a whole, and each of the sub-layers specifically composing it, is based chiefly on pottery sherds (Chapter 3). It is interesting to note that although the assemblage

2 9 2 Y U VA L G A D O T

is based solely on sherds, as there are no complete or even semi-complete vessels, this assemblage is rather unified and includes a relatively small variety of vessel types. In addition, and contrary to what one may expect to see in a multi-layered site like Jerusalem, there are no earlier-dating sherds mixed into the assemblage. This is a clear indication that the layers were not formed by natural erosion, typical of the slopes of all other Levantine tells (and see further below). In Chapter 3, Machline suggested that the pottery typical of our Phase D3-3, an earthen fill buried below the layers, is best paralleled by Group 1 as defined by Berlin in her publication of the pottery found at the National Convention Center excavations (see Chapter 3 for discussion and references). This group should be dated either to the later part of the Hellenistic period or to the beginning of the Early Roman period. The pottery found within the layers is paralleled by Berlin’s Groups 2, 3 and 4, which date to the Early Roman period and up until the destruction of the city. Machline was not able to observe meaningful typological differences between the assemblages of pottery making up each of the sub-layers. It seems that changes in vessel shapes are not sufficiently refined to allow us to define the time of each of the sub-layers. Two more quantified observations made by Machline may help narrow down the relative time range: 1. Only 1% of the 11532 sherds studied here are typical of our Phase D3-3 and Berlin’s Group 1. It is true that we were hardly able to expose this earlier stage, but this is a clear indication that pottery from this earlier phase did not mix into the layers that were piled above them and that the layers have to post-date Berlin’s Group 1. 2. Ninety-three percent of the sherds are of vessel types that can be related to Groups 2, 3 and 4 of Berlin’s typology, while 6% are typical only to her Group 4. This means that the bulk of the activity at the site should be related to the time frame represented by Berlin’s Groups 2 and 3. The absolute dating is based on the coins collected and studied by Farhi and presented in Chapter 4. This study lends further support to the conclusions reached through the pottery. The majority of the coins studied date to the days of the procurators and Agrippa I, that is, the 1st century CE and up to the year 58/9. In regard to the earliest date when these layers began to form, it is set by the coin found in Locus 1044 of Phase D3-3, which dates to the year 10 CE (Chapter 4: Coin 87). As noted by Farhi, the two coins found in the locus on top, date to between the years 17 and 25 CE. It should be noted that there are earlier dating coins within the assemblage, especially coins dating to the days of Alexander Yannai; however, these are coins that were being reused during the Early Roman period. As for the latest dating coins, no coins that were minted at the time of the Great Revolt were found during the excavations. This seems to be consistent with most other excavations in these layers but does stand in contrast with the finds from Area L (Reich and Shukron 2003: 16). It seems that the layers stopped accumulating in the year 60 CE at the earliest or just before the revolt at the latest. It should be noted that none of the other finds reported here, such as glass, metal and so forth, have a date that contradicts these conclusions and that the controlled excavations through the sub-layers did not help determine the time of each of the sub-layers by itself.

Formation Process The question of how these layers formed stands at the heart of the argument between scholars regarding their interpretation. While Shiloh and De Groot assume the layers were dumped in one, short-term event that took place during the Late Roman period (Shiloh 1990; De-Groot 2012), Reich and Shukron (2003) and Bar-oz et al. (2007) suggested the layers accumulated over years, one layer on top of the other. As presented in Chapter 2, the section into the layers shows that it is made of alternating sub-layers, six of them very dense with material culture

COMMITTING THE KIDRONʼS WESTERN SLOPES TO GARBAGE DISPOSAL 293

items, and in between them six layers rich with soil. Both the pottery typology and the coin distribution failed to distinguish the time difference between the layers. There are, however, sufficient observations that do support the second scenario suggested by Bar-oz and colleagues, and Reich and Shukron. These are mainly taphonomic issues observed on the bones as well as on the sherds and coins: 1. Brakeage: A high percentage of the bones show a great degree of fraction. This is a clear indication that the bones are in secondary context and also that they broke as they rolled downhill. A similar picture emerges from the analysis of the sherds. Previous literature offered indices that help reconstruct the process through which the sherds went before they reached their find spot (Schiffer 1983: 679 and earlier literature there). Garbage located in its primary context would have included large-sized sherds with the possibility of vessel restoration. As the sherds moved from place to place, they broke again and again, becoming considerably smaller. Their edges also became rounded, a similar process that the bones went through. As was presented in Chapter 3, a statistical analysis of the size of the sherds showed that while the sherds were not in their prime discarding site (the sherds are not especially large and no restoration was possible), there were still considerable variations in the size of the sherds and a high percentage of them had pointy edges. It seems that while the size of the sherds was affected by landslides downhill, it can be assumed that they were not shifted many times between their place of use/break and until the moment they were thrown down the slope. 2. Gnawing and weathering: As presented in Chapter 11, the number of gnawing marks on the bones is very low. In addition, the bones were hardly affected by the weathering processes. These markers indicate that the bones were not exposed for very long. They were probably covered by the layers of soil seen in the sections. 3. Firing: 14% of the bones show evidence of burning and charring (Chapter 11). Similarly, a high percentage of burnt bones was noted in the other bone assemblages from the layers (Bouchnick, Bar-Oz and Reich 2021; Dvira, Zidgon and Shilov 2011: 74). Fourteen percent is a very high percentage when compared to known percentages of burnt bones in domestic contexts (2%), and so does not reflect cooking habits. Signs of firing were also noted on many of the coins (Chapter 4). These observations lead me to suggest that the garbage layers were purposely set on fire, possibly in order to deal with the smell and to drive away scavenging animals. In light of the above evidence, it seems that the forming of the layers was intentional. Garbage, brought from its place of use was thrown downslope to be set on fire and quickly covered with soil. This had to be a well-planned and managed operation. The length of time that elapsed between the forming of each layer remains unknown but it seems that the dates obtained by the coins hint at a process that went on for a few decades (see Reich and Shukron 2003: 17 for a calculation of the volume of the layers and the time needed for them to form).

Function Based on the analysis performed above, it is now possible to conduct a sound reevaluation of the actions that stand behind the forming of the layers. There is no argument regarding the fact that the material culture composing the layers is garbage. The debate is whether this garbage was brought over as part of an intentional human act to deal with waste accumulation in the city or for different reasons.

2 9 4 Y U VA L G A D O T

It seems that the first question that needs to be dealt with is whether the layers are actually the result of natural wash, which occurs on the slopes of every ancient tell site. In fact, accumulation of waste on the outskirts of every settlement is a well-known phenomenon in the Near East, especially at the bottom of tell slopes where items end up naturally as they tumble downhill as they are discarded without much thought. The fact is well known that archaeological surveys conducted in Israel concentrate their effort at the bottom of a site’s slopes, knowing they will get a representative sample of the periods when the site was inhabited. It is only natural to anticipate that these natural layers will become thicker and more intensive in periods when the site experienced a demographic growth, such as the Early Roman period. It seems that while this is a reasonable explanation, there is enough evidence to reject it. First, if this was a natural downslope accumulation, then one would expect to see items representing all periods during which the site was settled, especially the Iron Age, a period in which the City of David ridge was intensively inhabited. As was noted above, the hundreds and thousands of sherds collected all date to the Early Roman period, with no earlier sherds mixed in, not even sherds of vessels known to date to the later part of the 1st century CE. Second, the orderly appearance of the sub-layers that make up the layers, with alternating covering of each layer with soils, could not have formed naturally. For comparison, a natural accumulation of soil and material culture items was documented at the slope above the Gihon Spring (Uziel and Szanton 2015). This layer has no internal order and is composed of many stones of different sizes. The conclusion, therefore, is that the layers in Area D3 are the result of intentional human action and not a natural phenomenon. Having established human agency in the creation of these layers, it is now possible to evaluate whether the garbage was brought over as a means for the construction of some other architectural complex: buildings or fortifications. Examples of massive constructional fills in Jerusalem are a well-known phenomenon; the best documented one is the fill that was placed beneath the shops built along the “Stepped Street” as it approached the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount (Hagbi and Uziel 2015). This constructional fill included a vast amount of garbage, but that garbage was brought over accidently with the soil and not due to waste management policy. The fact that no building was built above the layers and that they sloped downward at a sharp angle with no attempt to level the slope help reject the option that the layers were part of a constructional fill for a building or a street. However, the layers can be compared with attempts to reshape the slopes of sites by bringing a vast amount of soil containing garbage. The reshaping of slopes was sometimes done for the construction of fortification elements such as a glacis, as was documented at the Giv>ati Parking Lot and Area G excavations (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2016). In other cases, the reshaping of the slopes was done as part of the display of power and affluence, as was the case at the site of Herodium (Porat, Chachy and Kalman 2015: 147–151). A look at the sections of these two examples highlights the differences between the layers at Area D3 and the glacis and the reshaping of the slopes at Herodium. The glacis is indeed based on alternating sub-layers in a fashion similar to the layers in Area D3 (Zilberstein 2021), but this is the only similarity. The glacis is composed of layers of stones of different sizes. The excavators also noted distinct thin layers of crushed lime that served to cement the soil and stone layers and prevent them from sloping down. Pollen grains found within these layers prove that the lime was crushed and watered at the spot and was exposed while still moist (Langgut 2017). None of the layers described here was noted at Area D3. The reshaping of the slopes of Herodium was a very

COMMITTING THE KIDRONʼS WESTERN SLOPES TO GARBAGE DISPOSAL 295

sophisticated engineering project that included the construction of retaining walls that prevented the fill from washing downslope and the compression of the layers. These constructions are completely missing from Area D3. Based on the discussion above, it seems clear that the idea that the layers were brought over in order to construct a building or a fortification element can be rejected. In light of that conclusion, we are left with the option that the garbage was brought as a deliberate human action., At this point there are two optional explanations that need to be discussed. First, that the garbage was brought over as part of a municipal policy of waste management during the Early Roman period. Alternatively, as Shiloh and later De Groot suggested, these layers were thrown downslope after the city was destroyed and the new construction of the city by the Romans demanded the clearance of the old ruined buildings (see above for references). Resolving this debate depends on two issues: realizing the length of time that elapsed between the forming of each of the sub-layers and viewing the materials that are present within the garbage as well as those that are absent. The chronological analysis is not sufficiently finetuned to resolve the dating issue, but it is sufficient to look at the section, with the 11 distinct sub-layers, to realize that the entire phenomenon was formed in a process and not an event. It is difficult to believe that if the Roman soldiers were working on clearing the ruined houses of Early Roman Jerusalem by throwing their remains downslope, they would be careful enough to form each sub-layer and then cover it with a layer of soil. To that we should add the following observations: 1. The firing of the layers, as seen through the bones and coins, is a clear sign of waste management. 2. There is an absence of restorable pottery vessels, like that found on the ruined Stepped Street excavation (Szanton et al. 2019: 152). 3. There is an absence of coins dating to the years of the Revolt, which are typically found in the ruins of a city. 4. There is an absence of worked or field stones that were parts of buildings. 5. The wood remains that were found are of wood that was used for firing ovens and other heating and lighting devices. On the other hand, wood remains found within the destruction debris of the city are of wood used for construction and for furniture. 6. The seed and grain remains that were found within the layers are a mixture typical of unsorted organic material. This is in contrast to the very clean collection of seeds and grains that were found in the destruction at the Stepped Street, which is typical of household storage, ready to be consumed. 7. In regard to the coins, the layers in Area D3 stopped accumulating ca. 20 years prior to the Revolt. If these layers were formed after the Revolt, it would be reasonable to find remains from the Revolt, if not from the Late Roman period. It seems that the supportive evidence is enough to prove that the phenomenon described here, of a huge concentration of domestic garbage, was not a by-product of another event but rather of deliberate action of waste management taking place for decades, as Reich and Shukron proposed in earlier publications. It should be noted that the stratigraphical considerations that were raised by De Groot (2012: 183–184) in which he noted that the terrace walls date to the Early Roman period and were buried below the landfill, remains valid. However, this is a relative observation only and both features date to the Early Roman period, the earlier to the second part of the 1st century BCE, while the later, the landfill, to the 1st century CE.

2 9 6 Y U VA L G A D O T

THE LANDFILL IN ITS CULTURAL CONTEXT Summing up the evidence presented in the different chapters of this report and evaluated in the discussion here, it is clear that during the 1st century CE, the outskirts of the city in general and the western slopes of the Kidron specifically, were dedicated to waste management. The landfill reaches a depth of 9 m and more, and has altered the appearance of the Kidron dramatically. Excavations that penetrated below the landfill layers and reached down to the bedrock, have shown that the natural slope was much steeper than it appears today and included a number of sharply inclined cliffs, ca. 4 m high. This slope was first moderated by a system of terracing walls built during the second part of the 1st century CE (Stager 1982; De Groot 2012: 182), that in their turn were buried below the landfill. The garbage layers also accumulated down at the riverbed and made it shallower and wider (Ariel and Lender 2000: Plan 11, Section D-D; Reich Bar-Oz and Shukron 2021; 463‒469). Reich and Shukron claimed in their 2003 publication that concentrating such an amount of garbage in a few decades necessitates the development of a sophisticated system that could collect garbage from the city’s different sectors and its transportation, possibly using donkeys, to the top of the slope. To that we may now add evidence for management of the landfill as the layers were systematically set on fire and then buried under a layer of soil. All of that comes to prove that the landfill should be seen as the end product of a public enterprise. Archaeological and ethnographic models have correlated between a rising demography and higher levels of specialization in waste management (Hayden and Cannon 1982; LeeDecker 1994). There should be no doubt that the dramatic growth in Jerusalem’s demography turned the rapidly accumulating garbage into a hazard. A look through the city’s demographic history, however, shows that the development of a public waste management apparatus is not the natural outcome of demographic growth. The city reached a demographic peak during the Iron II B‒C as well as the Byzantine period, and, apparently, we hold no evidence for organized waste management and there is nothing in the archaeological record to suggest the existence of landfills for both periods. Furthermore, we know very little regarding waste management in contemporary provincial cities such as Caesarea or Scythopolis, during the 1st century CE. It seems, then, that the landfill and the systematic waste management it represents is, at this stage of research, unique to Jerusalem and should be explained in light of local social developments taking place within the urban context. One possible explanation would be to tie the civic development with the placing of Jerusalem under the direct rule of Roman procurators (Levine 2002). The contribution of the procurators to the city’s development and the applying of empirical management patterns is becoming apparent through discoveries taking place in recent excavations. One such example is the suggested dating of the paving of the main pilgrim road connecting the Siloam Pool and the Temple Mount to the days of the procurators ruling during the time of Tiberius, and specifically to the days of Pontius Pilate (Szanton et al. 2019). The construction of the street was accompanied by a development of a web of underground sewage channels, another indication of municipal planning and governing. It seems that taking care of the mounting urban garbage should be seen as another indication of civic organization, something at which the Roman provincial rule excelled (see, for example, Ezban 2012). It is interesting to note that according to the coins uncovered in the foundation of the monumental pilgrim street and those found in the landfill, the two enterprises were contemporary. However, connecting the initiative to mobilize garbage out of the city and the civic order placed by the procurators, does not disclose the entire picture and the reasons why the garbage had to be concentrated outside of the city. As mentioned above, we have very little evidence

COMMITTING THE KIDRONʼS WESTERN SLOPES TO GARBAGE DISPOSAL 297

for such enterprises taking place in other neighboring Roman urban centers and even in cities located at the heart of the empire such as Pompeii (Aldrete 2004: 98–99). Why would it then be natural to expect to see such an operation in Jerusalem? It seems that the explanation would not be complete without taking into account the Jewish population living in the city and the social and religious process it was experiencing during the 1st century CE. Jewish halakhic rules and the perception of the pottery vessels as impure are the reasons for the incredible amount of broken pottery vessels found in the landfill (Bar-Oz et al. 2007: 9). According to this approach, the strict observation of halakhic rules by the Jewish population, especially of those related to purity and impurity, forbade them to reuse vessels made of clay. As a result, vessels made of chalk were broken after use and thrown in the trash. While BarOz and his colleagues focused on one aspect of the garbage, it is possible that the rules related to purity are the reasons behind the garbage phenomenon in general. It is clear that during the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, the discussion over what is pure and what is impure in Jewish Halakhah had intensified and affected every aspect of daily life (Adler 2011: 285; 2017). Scholars have noted the spreading use of Miqwaati Parking Lot Excavations, Jerusalem. In: Berlin, A.M. and Kosmin, P.L., eds. Middle Maccabees, Archaeology, History, and the Rise of the Hasmonean Kingdom. Atlanta: 37–52.

INDEX OF LOCI

Locus

Square

Type

Sub‒type

Sifting strategy

Phase

Period

1002

M10

Top soil

Not sifted

1005

No square

Unprovenanced finds

Not sifted

1009

N10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1010

N10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1011

M10

Garbage layer

Not separated

Not sifted

D3‒1

Early Roman

1013

N10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1015

N11

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1016

N10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1017

N10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1018

M10

Top soil

1019

N10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1020

M10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1021

M11

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1022

N14

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:5

D3‒1

Early Roman

1024

N10/M10

Top soil

1026

N10/M10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1027

N11

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1029

N11/N12

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1030

M‒M/11

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1031

N10/M10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:5

D3‒1

Early Roman

1032

M14

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1033

N10/M10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1034

N10/M10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1035

N11

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1036

N11/N12

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:5

D3‒1

Early Roman

1037

N10

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1038

N11/N12

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:5

D3‒1

Early Roman

1039

M10/M11

Top soil

Not sifted

1040

M11/M12

Top soil

Not sifted

‒

Not sifted

Not sifted

302 INDEX OF LOCI Locus

Square

Type

1041

M10

Top soil

1043

M14

Garbage layer

1044

N14

Fill

1045

M11/M12

Garbage layer

1046

M‒N/10‒11

1047

Sub‒type

Sifting strategy

Phase

Period

1:30

D3‒1

Early Roman

1:5

D3‒2

Late Hellenistic/ Early Roman

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

M‒N/10‒11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1048

M‒N/10‒11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1049

N13/N14

Top soil

1050

M14/N14

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1051

M14/N14

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1052

M14/N14

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1053

M14/N14

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1054

M14/N14

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1055

M14/N14

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1056

M14/N14

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1057

M14/N14

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1058

N13/N14

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1059

N13/N14

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1060

N13/N14

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1061

M‒N/10‒11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1062

M‒N/10‒11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1063

M‒N/10‒11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1064

M10

Fill

1:5

D3‒2

Late Hellenistic/ Early Roman

1065

N10

Garbage layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1066

M14

Fill

1:5

D3‒2

Late Hellenistic/ Early Roman

1067

M10/M11

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1068

M‒N/10‒11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1069

M‒N/10‒11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1070

M‒N/10‒11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

Not sifted Not separated

Not sifted

Material culture

INDEX OF LOCI 303 Locus

Square

Type

Sub‒type

Sifting strategy

Phase

Period

1071

M‒N/10‒11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1072

M‒N/10‒11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1028

M/N11

Garbage layer

Not separated

Not sifted

D3‒1

Early Roman

1101

N15

Top soil

1102

M11

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1103

N11

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1105

M14

Garbage layer

Not separated

Not sifted

D3‒1

Early Roman

1106

L14

Garbage layer

Not separated

Not sifted

D3‒1

Early Roman

1107

M11/N11

Garbage layer

Not separated

Not sifted

D3‒1

Early Roman

1108

M10

Garbage layer

Not separated

Not sifted

D3‒1

Early Roman

1109

N12

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:30

D3‒1

Early Roman

1110

M14

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:30

D3‒1

Early Roman

1111

M12/M13

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1112

L14

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1113

M11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1114

M11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1115

M11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1116

M11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1117

M11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1119

M11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1120

M11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1122

M11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1123

M11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1124

M12

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:30

D3‒1

Early Roman

1125

L15

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:30

D3‒1

Early Roman

1126

N15

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:30

D3‒1

Early Roman

1127

L13

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:30

D3‒1

Early Roman

1128

M10/M11

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:30

D3‒1

Early Roman

1129

M11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1131

M12/M13

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:30

D3‒1

Early Roman

1132

N13

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:30

D3‒1

Early Roman

1133

M16

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1140

N14/N15

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

Not sifted

304 INDEX OF LOCI Locus

Square

Type

Sub‒type

Sifting strategy

Phase

Period

1144

M14/M15

Fill

1146

P16

Fill

1148

C3

Garbage layer

D3‒1

Early Roman

1151

Q16

Top soil

Not sifted

1156

P16

Fill

Not sifted

D3‒2

Late Hellenistic/ Early Roman

1158

N14

Garbage layer

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1163

O16

Fill

Not sifted

D3‒2

Late Hellenistic/ Early Roman

1165

O16

Fill

Not sifted

D3‒2

Late Hellenistic/ Early Roman

1166

M‒N/16

Top soil

Not sifted

1173

N14

Garbage layer

D3‒1

Early Roman

1175

O17

Top soil

Not sifted

1178

P17

Top soil

Not sifted

1181

N16

Garbage layer

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

1182

O16

Terrace wall

Not sifted

D3‒2

Late Hellenistic/ Early Roman

1201

M11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1202

M11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1203

M11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1204

M11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1205

M11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1206

M11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1207

M11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1208

M11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1209

M11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1210

M11

Garbage layer

Material culture

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1211

M11

Garbage layer

Rich soil layer

1:1

D3‒1

Early Roman

1251

M11

Garbage layer

Not separated

1:20

D3‒1

Early Roman

Not sifted Not separated

Not separated

Not separated

Not separated

1:20

1:20