The Rephaim Valley Project - Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987-1989 9789654065443, 9654060310

Citation preview

IAA Reports, No. 3

THE REPHAIM VALLEY PROJECT

Villages, Terraces, and Stone Mounds EXCAVATIONS AT MANAHAT, JERUSALEM, 1987­1989

GERSHON EDELSTEIN IANIR MILEVSKI SARA AURANT

With contributions by:

Haim Gitler, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Mordechai E. Kislev, Ronny Reich, Arlene M. Rosen, Steven A. Rosen, Shannon Siegal, Patricia Smith

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 1998

■

f

Israel Antiquities Authority Publications

Seires Editor: Ayala Sussmann

Editor: Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz Preliminary editing: John Currid

Typesetting and layout: Phylis Naiman Plates: Pirntiv, Jerusalem Pirnted at Ahva Press

eISBN 9789654065443 ISBN 965­406­031­0 © THE

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY 1998

POB 586, Jerusalem 91004

Contents

FOREWORD

ABBREVIATIONS

INTRODUCTION

1

Gershon Edelstein

CHAPTER

1 :

THE SITE

3

Gershon Edelstein, IanirMilev ski, and Sara Aurant

CHAPTER 2: TERRACES AND STONE MOUNDS

6

Gershon Edelstein, IanirMilev ski, and Sara Aurant

CHAPTER 3 THE EXCAVATION

14

:

Gershon Edelstein, Ianir Milevski, and Sara Aurant

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE Gershon Edelstein

37

CHAPTER 5: THE GROUNDSTONE TOOLS

61

Ianir Milevski CHAPTER 6: THE CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE

78

Steven A. Rosen

CHAPTER 7: THE METAL ARTIFACTS

89

Gershon Edelstein, Ianir Milevski, and Sara Aurant

CHAPTER 8: THE SMALL FINDS

94

Ianir Milevski CHAPTER 9: THE COINS Haim Gitler

100

CHAPTER 10: THE HUMAN REMAINS Patricia Smith and Shannon Siegal

102

1

CHAPTER

11 :

THE FAUNAL REMAINS

104

Liora K. Horwitz CHAPTER 12: THE RELATIVE IMPACT OF PIG HUSBANDRY VERSUS GOAT BROWSING ON ANCIENT OAK FORESTS IN ISRAEL

113

Mordechai E. Kislev

CHAPTER

13:

PHYTOLITH REMAINS FROM SELECTED LOCI

1

19

Arlene M. Rosen

CHAPTER 14: THE M/gWEF/ (RITUAL BATH)

122

Ronny Reich

CHAPTER 15: HISTORICAL SOURCES

125

IanirMilev ski CHAPTER 16: CONCLUSIONS

130

Gershon Edelstein, Ianir Milevski, and Sara Aurant

APP£M)/X i: SELECTED GROUNDSTONE TOOLS

135

APP£M)/X2: FINAL LOCUS LIST

144

APPEND/* 3: LIST OF BUILDINGS

146

APPENDIX 4: CONCORDANCE OF ORIGINAL AND FINAL LOCUS NUMBERS

147

APP£M)/X 5: IAA REGISTRATION NUMBERS

149

j

­

­

Foreword

Building activity in Jerusalem in the last few years made imperative the archaeological survey of those areas slated for development. A. Eitan, former director of the Israel Departmentof Antiquities (today the Israel Antiq­ uities Authority), initiated a survey of open areas desig­ nated for future development for ancient sites whose excavation, preservation, or reconstruction might be necessary. The survey, coordinated by Dr A. Kloner, was con­ ducted by G. Edelstein with two colleagues, J. Gat and S. Gibson, with the help of O. Smilchuk and three volun­ teers from the USA­ P. Mainhart, A. Kiekhaefer, and T. Wax (the latter two, photographers). Segments of the wadis between Giloh and the Rephaim Valley and several areas on the northern bank of the valley, includ­ ing Masu'ah Hill and Manahat, were surveyed. At the survey's conclusion, a series of excavations were initiated at the sites of er­Ras, Nahal Repha'im, 'En Ya'el, and Manahat. Results of excavations at Manahat are presented here.

Funds for the excavations were provided by the Israel Land Administration and the Israel Antiquities Authority. We would like to thank the former director of the Israel Land Administration, Y. Ziv, for his coopera­ tion. Our thanks are due to S. Shot of D. Wind and Partner Ltd. for his help through the yearsof excavation, as well as to the Jerusalem Municipality. Our gratitude is due to S. Granovetter for reading and suggesting changes in the early manuscript of this report and to Dr J. Curridof Grove City College, Pennsylvania, who edited an early version of the manuscript. We also would like to express our appreciation to CONICET, the National Research Council of Argentina, for the pre­doctoral grant awarded to I. Milevski, which enabled him to study and work in Jerusalem. We wish to thank the many individual volunteers who participated in our excavation, especially D. Down and his volunteers from Sydney, Australia and to J. Ghiraldin and the volunteers from Tauberbischopfshein, Germany. This report is the result of the work of the Manahat staff. Chapter 3 is based on the area supervisor's reports.

Staff List Three seasons of excavations were conducted: June­ November 1987, August­November 1988, and June­ October 1989.

Staff­1987

Sabban; Registrar: Sara Aurant; Assistant Registrar: Jeanie Cresswell; Surveyors: Pavel Gertopsky, Avi Hajian, Michael Feist; Artifact Illustrations: Sandra Kaplan, Carlos Agunin; Photographer: Daniel Cohen Sabban; Administra­ tor: Moshe Mizrachi.

Director: Gershon Edelstein; Field Supervisor: Zvi Greenhut; Area Supervisors: Ya'akov Billig, Ayelet Hemik,STAFF­ 1989 Avi Ben Ishai, Yael Erlich; Registrar: T. Zeitman; Survey­ Director: Gershon Edelstein; Area Supervisors: Ya'akov ors: Avi Hajian, Michael Feist, Tanya Spector, Israel Billig, Ditza Shmuel, Ianir Milevski, Daniel Cohen Sabban, Vatkin, Andrei Okonev; Photographers:II an Sztulman, Mikko Louhivuori; Assistant Area Supervisors: Abel Daniel Cohen Sabban; Administrator: YosefYamini. Menzel, Chava Rosenberg; Registrar: Sara Aurant; Assis­ tant Registrar: Mireille Liber; Surveyor: Avi Hajian; Pho­ ~ tographer: Daniel Cohen Sabban; Administrator: Moshe ~~ Mizrachi; Pottery Restoration: Lucia Milevski; Artifact Director: Gershon Edelstein; Area Supervisors: Ditza Illustrations: Sandra Kaplan, Miriam Tlalim; Plan Draw­ Shmuel, Adrian Boas, Ya'akov Billig, Ianir Milevski; ings: Teddi Mazzola, Scott Colmes. Assistant Area Supervisors: Yaron Ben Nahe, Daniel Cohen

Abbreviations

AAAmerican AASOR 'Atiqot

IMJ

IsraelMuseum Journal

Annual of the American Schools of

JBL

Oirental Research

JFA

JournalofBiblical Literature JournalofField Archaeology

JJS

JournalofJewish Studies

Antiquity

{ES)'Atiqot(English Series)

'Atiqot (HS)'Atiqot{Hebrew Series) v

1

/

T____,

JNES

v

AinCA

AdvancesinComputer Archaeology

AJA

American Journalof Archaeology

BA

'Biblical Archaeologist

rr^o ta LALiber JPOS

" , ~ ,. T7" n7 .^ ., c. ^ Journalof the Palestine Oriental Society T

rA7

JournalofNear Eastern Studies 7

7

a o. ^­nuT­ . Annuus­ Studn Biblici Franciscani

r

1

BAIAS

Bulletin of the Anglo­Israeli Archaeological Society

LAAA

University of Liverpool, Annals of Archaeologyand Anthropology

BAR

Biblical Archaeology Review

NEAEHL

BAR Int. S.

British Archaeological Reports )International Seires)

New Encyclopediaof Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land,

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools Oriental Research

‫ן‬

o/

PEFQSt

|0q3

‫ן‬

Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement

CAH

Palaestinajahrbuch des Deutschen T. 7T A1 evangehschen Instituts Altertums­ Cambridge Ancient HistorywissenschaftdesHeiligen Landes

C&H

Computersand Humanities

PEQPalestine

EA

Knudtzon J.A. 1915. D/e El­Amarna­Tafeln. Leipzig

PMB

BIESBulletinoftheIsrael

EAEHL

Exploration Society

EncyclopediaofArchaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Jerusalem 1975­1978

El"Eretz Israel ESI

Excavationsand Surveysin Israel

IEJIsrael HA

PJB

.

^t^at* QDAP

Exploration Quarterly

PalestineMuseum Bulletin ^Quarterlyofthe r r, .^ r Department of 1

1

Antiquitiesof Palestine

_n.j RBRevue Bibhque nn

S&A

TATel

,.

Scienceand Archaeology Aviv

Exploration Journal

VT

VetusTestamentum

HadashotArkheologiyot )Archaeological News) (Hebrew)

WA

WorldArchaeology

Introduction GERSHON EDELSTEIN

The aims of the Rephaim Valley Project were to locate archaeologically neglected sites including villages, ter­ races, and stones mounds; to clarify the relationship between urban and rural settlements; and to study the development of ancient crafts and industries at these settlements. The project not only focused on chronology and artifact typology, but tried to view overall patterns of settlement in the region. Remains of ancient settlements in the area were first noted by nineteenth­century travelers (see Chapter 15). Surveys and excavations were carried out by W.F. Albright (1923), R. Amiran (1958), and Z. Yeivin (1955), allof whom investigated several tumuli (ruj'um) in the region. O. Negbi (1964a, b) identified a series of tombs at Manahat and near the Holyland Hotel, and recorded Iron II and later sherds.1 L. Stager (1969) and J. Landgraf (1971) dug an Iron Age tomb near the Holyland Hotel, while J. Gat and L.Y. Rahmani (1977) published a Roman tomb excavated at Manahat. Work on our project began in 1980 with a two­month (October­November) emergency survey of the Rephaim Valley. The survey extended from Giloh (Beit Jalla) in the south to Manahat on the north and from Gonen on the east to the city boundaries on the west (Fig. 1.1). The survey was scheduled prior to the construction of the Malha shopping mall, Teddy Stadium, roads, and housing at Manahat, and the relocation of the Biblical Zoo.

Aerial photographs and topographical maps were utilized as an adjunct to the archaeological survey and provided information on the ancient remains in the survey area (Gibson and Edelstein 1985; Edelstein and Milevski 1994). Only small quantities of Iron, Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic sherds were found on the surface. Significantly, Middle Bronze Age I and II potsherds were absent from the surface material. However, a bulldozer cutting a trench near Manahat accidentally uncovered

MB I and MB II pottery. On the basisof this discovery a two­day test excavation was conducted. The corner of a structure associated with MB I and MB II pottery, stone tools, and many animal bones was found. These finds led to five seasons of excavations at Nahal Repha'im and three seasons of excavations at Manahat. The excavation of two farms at er­Ras and at 'En Ya'el revealed remains of MB I and MB II settlements at both sites (Eisenberg and Edelstein 1984; Edelstein and Eisenberg 1985; Gibson and Edelstein 1985; Edelstein 1990). That the Rephaim Valley was so densely inhabited in antiquity was unknown in the past. Stray Chalcolithic flints provided evidence of earlier human activity in the project area. The settlements excavated, Nahal Repha'im and Manahat, were of MB I date, between the twenty­ third and the twentieth centuries BCE, after which they were abandoned. Many MB I settlements have recently been discov­ ered in Israel and Jordan (Gophna and Portugali 1969). The sedentary character of these settlements seems to refute the traditional view of MB I society as predomi­ nantly nomadic or semi­nomadic (Dever 1980:35­64).2 Findings in the last years show the shift from Early Bronze III rural traditions to the MB I village/town (Richard and Boraas 1990: 127). In MB II, people built settlements on both sidesof the valley, as is indicated by sherds found in the Beit Safafa area during a short survey conducted in September 1988 during the Manahat exca­ vations. The excavations at Manahat and in the Rephaim Valley revealed that MB II settlers built their houses on the remains of the MB I occupation. These MB 1­11 settlements were not in evidence in prior surveys, partly due to erosion, and partly as a result of later construction of agricultural terraces. The terrace fills in many cases completely covered the sites and pottery did not reach the surface.

2

The wide­scale construction of agricultural settle­ ments began, to the best of our knowledge, during Iron II. During the Roman period, ancient terraces were ex­ tensively re­used and new farmsteads were established; this process reached its peak during the Byzantine period.

In reporting the excavations at Manahat, we have attempted to achieve a comprehensive view of the Middle Bronze Age and an understanding of later remains associated with terrace agriculture practices in the region.

Notes We would like to thank Prof. O. Negbi of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, for her permission to pub­ lish this information. 1.

of terminology for the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (see Gerstenblith 1983:3) has merely generated more confusion. For this reason we will use the term MB I. 2. The change

References Albright W.F. 1923. Interesting Finds in Tumuli near Jerusa­ lem. BASOR 10:2­3. Amiran R. 1958. The Tumuli West of Jerusalem. Survey Exca­ vations, 1953. IEJ 8:205­227. Dever W. 1980. New Vistas on the EB IV (MB I) Horizon. BASOR 237:35­64. Ann Edelstein G. 1990.Manahat­ 1988 Season. £5/7­8:121­123. Edelstein G. and Eisenberg E. 1985. 'Emek Refa'im'. ESI 3:51­52. Edelstein G. and Milevski I. 1994. The Rural Settlement of Jerusalem Re­Evaluated. Surveys and Excavations in the Repha'im Valley and Mevasseret Yerushalayim. PEQ 126:2­23. Eisenberg E. and Edelstein G. 1984. 'Emek Refa'im. ESI 1:53­

Arbor.Landgraf

56. Gat J. and Rahmani L.Y. 1977. A Roman Tomb at Manahat, Jerusalem. IEJ 27:209­214.

Gersetnblith?. 19S3.The Levantatthe Beginningofthe Middle Bronze Age (ASOR Dissertation Seires 5). Winona Lake.

Gibson S. and Edelstein G. 1985. Investigating Jerusalem's Rural Landscape. Levant 17:139­155. Gophna R. and Portugali J. 1969. Settlement and Demographic Processes in Israel's Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. ;?ASO?269:1 1­28. J. 1971. The Manahat Inscription: Isdh. Levant 3:92­ 95.

Negbi O.\9642l.Holyland HotelandMalha(Manahat) (Exca­ vation Report). Department of Antiquities and Museums. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Negbi O. 1964b. Notes and News: Tombs near Manahat South­ West of Jerusalem. /£7 14: 1 14. Richard S. and Boraas R. 1990. The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan: Third Preliminary Report, 1984 Season (BASOR Supp. 25). Baltimore. Pp. 107­130. Stager L.E. 1969. An Inscirbed Potsherd from the Eleventh Century BC. BASOR 194:45­52. New Haven. Yeivin Z. 1955. Archaeological Activities in Israel 0948­ 1955). Jerusalem.

Chapter

1

The Site GERSHON EDELSTEIN, IANIR MILEVSKI, AND SARA AURANT

The site (Fig. 1.1) is situated east of Manahat (Malha) on the northern slope of the Rephaim Valley, which extends westward from the Jaffa Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem to Nahal Soreq. To the south, across the valley, is the modern neighborhood of Giloh. To the east lie Gonen (Katamon) and the Arab village of Beit Safafa. On the hill north of Manahat is the residential area of

The MB I­II settlements at Manahat were constructed on limestone bedrock of alternating soft and hard layers. Some of the soft uppermost limestone bedrock eroded, forming natural step­like terraces, upon which the houses were built in antiquity (Plan 1.1). An approximately 1.5 km2 area, adjacent to Manahat in the bed of the Rephaim Valley, was apparently suit­ able for farming (Fig. 1.2). In the distant past, a stream

Bay it Vegan.

/7­^ f

^ji__^j1

s­f

]

El*Jib

/

(Giv'on)

\ Mevasseret Yerushalayim^

\_/^~­

v^'

­

/.Bayit Vegan

'En Kerem mry^~^^

/'­'­­^^ /< Nahal Repha' xm/^^^ \*S

. ^^_/rRepha' im Valley

^^=:\

/

r^EnYa'el

*^ \ J? \f ^f­

/‫ך‬ (( (

/

/

/

II

I I

/

/ ) // Ramat . Rahel

Beit Safafa *

))L^^^^y IS

I

■

0

x~^

Battir

.(Betar)

Giloh.

/\ f ^­­^dC^ \^J/

Manahat®

128

J

{

/^

J

130_

,

,

//

'Anata

J

\^_^^

\^

Moza

.

/('Anatot) f

,

■"

II

­J

I

­ \Z"\

;

1

I I

Nabi Samwil^X/­

36

f,

f

>

lkm

' ,

Fig. 1.1. Mapof Jerusalem and vicinity.

,

±~

■

,,

.

\

,

/

4

GERSHON EDELSTEIN, IANIR MILEVSKI, AND SARA AURANT

I

I

\/

™"

/L

M TERRACE WALLX Cl 1.

1.

oolo

1O

UP

O

­ar

~~^­^//////////MM'////,/i

Plan

r^lo

Q

I

^\

.0

/ /i

­­‫­יי‬

j 11

700

­

50‫תז‬

I

O

f

::)

/

.^‫^י‬/­‫)^ץ‬

Topographic plan showing the buildingsof the MB II village andthe farm enclosure

Fig. 1.2. TheRephaim Valleybed southeastof Manahat.

w* ^SHHHHH^^MKS ^

■"­

..'

.■ץ‬5^95 BSfjf^l^:^.^'\;­ ,\^.:;­,: ­''\/­■■ ..■^.'■­/­■■\.^^:^ ■Ki^­rf"^"'^;r.' * ./" . "' "'■"■­­"'' ,­.­■­: ■'^^^$ BjK^w

.

"

­

'*:

■P

­

K;­.­.

\

‫'­'יי‬

­

\

■'

­, ­/ ■■■IIHr^^ X /;

"_■

''

:i

^'

^^^J^^^^^H

­^ ^^^^MsL^^'r j"^^^^^'"'v■■■ ^'*l^H ^C^^^^ftHiHH^HI^HHW^HHHi *

^^

o^ ^^,,

/ro^

,

;.

,

Fig. 2.3. Area800­Terrace ifll (L868), looking southwest. A

the MB II buildings. This indicates that when the terraces were built, no cultivable land existed on the slopes. Albright (1938:12­13) describes this subject as fol­ lows: "...in the late third millennium at Tell Beit Mirsim; even the red earth was only saved from being washed away when it lay in the rock... Consequently the earliest walls on the site generally stand on the virgin rock." The terraces were clearly constructed to produce cul­ tivable land and not to prevent erosion. However, their construction prevented erosion of this man­made farm­ land as long as the terraces were properly maintained.

900 )L90 1 and a large part of L902; Table 2.1 ) contained

appeared but also in the lower vvJ not only in the topsoil r levels. Iron Age pottery was found in the middle levels. In Area 800 (Table 2.4), finds representing an exten­ sive chronological range, including Turkish pipes and glass bracelets, were recovered. Roman pottery was found on bedrock, as in L80 1 . Iron II pottery was discov­ ered in the middle levelof the terrace, indicating that this pottery was brought along with the terrace fill. Area 700 lacked Iron Age pottery; Roman pottery was located in the lower levels. A coin of Constantine (313­ 337 CE) was found in L715. Other Roman materials, such as tesserae and glass, were present. The chipped stone material merits a separate mention (Table 2.5; see also Chapter 6). Pre­MB I material ap­ peared only in the terrace fill. Choppers, chopping tools, ‫ץ‬ ‫נ‬ rrrr ot backed blade sickles (Chalcolithic), and adzes and axes (Neolithic and Chalcolithic) were discovered in topsoil or terrace fill. From this one may infer that a Chalcolithic settlement was located near the MB IIB Manahat settle­ ment, with part of the terrace fill having been brought from that site. The presence of a large number of Roman sherds in the stone fill at the bottom of the terrace, or directly above bedrock, indicates the date of the original con­ struction of the terrace. The later period, with the "float­ ing" rocks mentioned below (Chapter 3), can be dated to the Islamic period.

Artifacts and Chronology The sherds and stone tools found in the terraces provided valuable information concerning the chronology of the

Stone Mounds

terraces.Various­

sized stone mounds are found in many locations in the Jerusalem area, with many in the Rephaim Valley. During the Manahat excavations, two stone mounds were found superimposed on MB II buildings (in Areas 200

The tables that follow present selected examples of pottery and artifacts found in the terraces; they demon­ strate, unequivocally, the mixed character of the terrace fill. For instance, the topsoil level in the terrace of Area

and 1000; Figs. 2.4, 2.5).

CHAPTER 2: TERRACES AND STONE MOUNDS

evident that these stone mounds were formed following the collapse of the terrace walls after their abandonment at the end of the Roman period. Later agriculturists cleared the surfaceof these collapsed walls by heaping the stones in areas that were not plowable. It is

The color of the outer faces of the stone mounds

represents alterations to the landscape, some caused by man and some due to lichen (algae cells) growth on exposed stone (Fig. 2.6). As each layer of lichen dies the stone surface changes color, giving the Jerusalem land­ scape its characteristic coloration. These layers of lichen began to grow when the stone was exposed to weather. However, if the stone had been moved and once again covered, the lichen died, producing a new color. The stone mounds at Manahat are mostly of uniform color, indicating undisturbed lichen growth. The Manahat mounds consist of large building stones intermingled with small stones on the outer face. A sec­ tion excavated along the center of one of the stone

9

Fig. 2.6. Detail of a stone mound, showing lichen on the stone.

mounds revealed, approximately one meter from the top, walls of MB II buildings. The schematic section (Plan 2.2) demonstrates that the first settlement (MB I) was constructed on bedrock. It was abandoned for a lengthy period and most of it eroded. Further destruction was caused by buildings of the MB II village. The aban­ donment of this village resulted in further collapse, as erosion again took over. The remainder was covered by a layer of dark brown soil. A terrace wall was then built against the MB II remains; a layerof light brown soil was used to level the terrace for cultivation in the Roman period, when a farm was built atop the ancient remains. Stones from the MB I and II buildings were reused to build fences and terraces; stones and soil were also brought in for the terrace fill. The centuires­long aban­ donmentof these terraces ended with the formationof the stone mounds by farmers seeking cultivable plots.

Fig. 2.5. Area 200­ Drawingof the stone mound.

10

GERSHON EDELSTEIN, IANIR MILEVSKI, AND SARA AURANT

Stone heap

0

2

MB IIB

1~

wallX

/^MB

occupation / / /Virgin soil level / / Floor I

fill\

^^

/

Terracefill V

Plan 2.2. Schematic section of a stone mound and terrace.

References Albright W.F. 1938.The Excavationof TellBeit Mirsim^. The Bronze Age (AASOR 17). New Haven.

Edelstein G. and Kislev M. 1981. Mevasseret Yerushalayim­ The Ancient Settlement and Its Terraces. BA 44:53­56.

Table 2.1. Baskets from the Terrace of Area 900, L901­902 Locus

Basket

Ceramic peirod

Elev.

Finds

Source

P

Terrace fill Terrace fill

Note

(m asl) 901

501/88

MB I­II, Roman

901

502/88

MB II, Iron, Roman, Islamic

901 902 902

503/88

MB II, Iron, Roman

507/88

MB II, Iron, Roman

508/88

MB I­II, Iron, Roman

902 902 902

509/88

MB I­II, Iron, Roman

510/88

MB II, Roman

511/88

MB II, Iron, Roman, Islamic

902 902 902 902 902 902 902 902 902 902 902 902 902 902

514/88

MB II, Roman

515/88 516/88 517/88 518/88 519/88 520/88 521/88 523/88 524/88 525/88 526/88 527/88 528/88

MB II, Roman

Abbreviations for Tables 2.1­2.4:

699.50 699.50 699.50 699.20 699.30 699.17 699.21 699.11 698.81 699.78 699.73 698.61 698.51 699.73 699.58 698.29 699.30 699.80 699.10 699.00 699.20 697.80

MBI, MB II, Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Roman MB MB

I­II, Iron, Roman I­II, Iron, Roman

MB I, MB II, Roman

MB I, MB II, Iron MB II, Iron, Roman MB II, Iron, Roman MB I, MB IIB MB I, MB II MB I, MB II, Roman P

­ Pottery; F = Flint; B

= Bones;

S =

P

P/O P P P P P

P/F P

P/F

P/F/B

P P/F/S

P P/F/O P/F P/F/O P/F P/F P/F/S P/F/S/B/O

Soil Topsoil Topsoil Terrace fill Topsoil Terrace fill Terrace fill Topsoil Topsoil Terrace fill Terrace fill Topsoil Topsoil Terrace fill Terrace fill Topsoil Terrace fill Light brown soil

Terrace fill Above bedrock

Stone; O = Other finds (specified in tables(.

O = seeds

O

= bead

O = glass

11

CHAPTER 2: TERRACES AND STONE MOUNDS

Table 2.2a. Baskets from the Terraceof Area 100, L103 Locus

Basket

Ceramic period

Finds

Source

694.50

P/S

Topsoil

Elev.

Note

(m asl) 103

7/87

MB I­II, Iron

103

13/87

MB II, Iron

694.50

P/S

Stone fall

103

19/87

MB I­II, Iron

694.50

P

Stone fall

103

22/87

MB I­II

694.50

P/B

Stone fall

103

29/87

MB I

P

103

42/87

MB

694.50 694.20

Stone fall Stone fall

I­II, Roman

P/S

103

52/87

MB I, Roman

694.00

59/87

MB

I­II

693.50

P P

Stone fall

103 103

80/87

MB II, Iron, Roman

693.00

P/B/F

Soil

103

96/87

MB I­II, Iron, Roman

693.00

P/B

Soil

103

97/87

MB I, MB II

693.00

P/B

Soil

103

101/87

MB l­II, Iron

693.00

P

Stone fall

103

116/87

MB I­II, Roman

694.80

P

Stone fall

103

122/87

MB I­II, Iron, Roman

694.30

P/B

Stone fall

103

129/87

MB I­II, Iron, Roman

133/87

MB II, Roman

694.50 694.30

B/O

103

Topsoil Stone fall

P/B/F

Soil

O = pomegranate

Abbreviations: See Table 2.1.

Table 2.2b. Baskets from the Terraceof Area 100, L114, 119 Locus

Basket

114

130/87MB

114

136/87

MB II, Iron, Roman

114

121/87

MB

114

148/87

MB II, Iron, Roman

694.40

114

161/87

Iron, Roman

694.10

119

171/87MB

119

Ceramic period

II

Elev. (m asl)

Finds

Source

Note

695.00

P/O

Terrace fill

O = bell

694.40

Terrace fill

II

694.10

P P P P P

178/87

MB II, Iron

694.10

P/F/S

Stone fall

119

192/87

MB II, Iron

693.80

P

Stone fall

119

196/87

MB, Iron, Roman

693.80

P/B

Stone fall

119

211/87

MB, Roman, Modern

693.80

P

Terrace fill

119

226/87

MB, Iron, Roman

693.80

P

Terrace fill

119

257/87

MB II, Iron

693.80

P

Terrace fill

119

282/87MB

II

693.80

P

Terrace fill

119

292/87

MB II, Roman

693.80

P/B

Terrace fill

119

303/87

MB I­II, Roman

694.20

P

Terrace fill

119

511/87

MB I­II, Iron, Roman

694.27

P

Terrace fill

Abbreviations: See Table 2.1.

I­II, Iron, Roman

694.50

Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill

Stone fall

12

GERSHON EDELSTEIN, IANIR MILEVSKT, AND SARA AURANT

Table 2.3. Baskets from the Terrace of Area 1000, L1035 Locus

Basket

Ceramic period

Elev. (m asl)

Finds

Source

1035

1262/89

MB I, Roman

1035

1263/89

MB II, Roman

1035

1264/89

MB II, Roman

P/S/F P/S/F P/F

1035 1035

1266/89

MB II, Roman

1035

1267/89 1268/89

1035

1270/89

1035

1271/89

1035

1272/89

1035

1275/89

1035

1277/89

1035

1279/89

1035

1280/89

1035

1281/89

1035 1035

1284/89 1287/89 1291/89 1293/89 1308/89 1326/89

Roman Roman Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Roman MB I­II, Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Iron, Roman MB I, MB II, Roman MB II, Iron, Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Roman, Islamic MB II, Roman

697.29 697.24 697.60 696.77 697.02 697.32 696.57 696.85 697.07 696.77 696.76

Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill O = glass Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Stone fall W35 W36 W35 (Terrace wall)

1035

1035 1035 1035 1035 1035

1327/89MB 1330/89MB

II II

696.81

696.47 696.61 696.65 696.47 695.99 695.92 697.06 696.99 696.93 696.89

P/S

P/B/S/F P/S/F/O P/F P/F P/F

P/S/F P/S/F P/B/S P/F P/F/S P/F P/S/F P/F

P/F P P/B/S/F P/F P

Note

Abbreviations: See Table 2.1.

Table 2.4. Baskets from the Eastern Part of Terrace 828 Locus

Basket

Ceramic period

864 864 864 864

95/88 101/88 107/88 112/88

MB I­II Roman MB II, Roman, Islamic

864 864 864 864 868 868 868 869

118/88 125/88

868

160/88

869

161/88

868

169/88

868

174/88

868

180/88

868

184/88

Roman, Islamic MB II, Iron, Roman MB II, Roman, Islamic MB II, Iron, Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Roman, Islamic MB II, Iron MB II, Roman MB I­II, Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Roman MB II, Roman

132/88 133/88 140/88 146/88 153/88 154/88

Abbreviations: See Table 2. 1 .

Finds

Source

MB II, Roman

P/F

MB II, Roman

P

P/F

Topsoil Topsoil Topsoil Topsoil

P P

Fill Fill

P/F/O

Fill

P P

Fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill

Elev. (m asl)

P/F/B

689.14 686.20 685.95 686.17 688.70 688.65 685.60 688.60 685.55 688.57

P/F P P

P/B P P

685.40 685.20 685.30

P/S P

P

Terrace Terrace fill Terrace Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill Terrace fill

Note

O = glass

13

CHAPTER 2: TERRACES AND STONE MOUNDS

Table 2.5. Flint Tools from Terrace Loci

I

Locus

Basket

Tool

Source

839

7/88

Large sickle

Topsoil

839

13/88

BorerBalk­

8209

26/89

Esquille

8209

58/89

2 scrapers, retouched blade, 2 awls, retouched chopper

8209

58/92

2 notches, backed blade sickle

Topsoil

8209

59/89

Scraper, denticulate

Terrace fill

828

146/88

Ax

Terrace fill

topsoil

Terrace fill

awlFill­

8209

153/89

Endscraper,

876

505/89

Backed blade sickle

901

506/88

Canaanean sickle

Terrace fill

876 901

51 1/89

512/88

2 scrapers, chopper Ax

Topsoil Terrace fill

901

514/88

Ax, adze, truncated blade, backed blade sickle

Terrace fill

876

517/89

Backed blade sickle

Terrace fill

901

523/88

Scraper

Terrace fill

876

523/89

Large sickle, notched tool, 2 scrapers

Topsoil­ stone fall

876

523/89

ChopperTopsoil­

876

527/89

2

901

526/88

Notched tool

Light brown soil

901

528/88

Denticulate

Above bedrock

901

530/88

2

choppers

Light brown soil

901 901

531/88 532/88

scraper Large sickle

Terrace fill Light brown soil

901 876

533/88

2

534/89

notched tools, denticulate Scraper

Terrace fill Occupation level

901

536/88

Notched tool, scraper

Light brown soil

901

537/88

Borer

Topsoil

901

538/88

2

901

539/88

2 notched tools,

901

543/88

Notched tool, denticulate, sickle

Above bedrock

901

545/88

Sidescraper, notched tool

Terrace fill

901

547/88

Scraper

Topsoil

901

549/88

Chopper

Terrace fill

901

556/88

Scraper

Topsoil

901

560/88

Steep scraper, denticulate, notched tool

Topsoil

876

570/89

Large sickle

Terrace fill

876

587/89

Backed blade sickle

Terrace fill

901

598/88

Canaanean sickle

Stone fall

901

600/88

Backed blade sickle

1035

1262/89

Scraper, retouched flake

1035

1263/89

2 crystal, denticulate

Terrace fill

1035

1272/89

Notched tool

Terrace fill

1035

1275/89

Scraper

Terrace fill

1035

1277/89

Scraper, denticulate

Terrace fill

1035

1281/89

2 scrapers, miscellaneous trimmed piece

Terrace fill

1035

1326/89

Retouched flake

W35

soil and stones

stone fall

Stone fall

scrapers

1

scrapers, notched tool, miscellaneous trimmed piece 3

scrapers, retouched blade

Topsoil Topsoil

Stone fall ,

Terrace fill

Chapter 3

The Excavation gershon edelstein, ianir milevski, and sara aurant

/

*■■

r.

"■

Sections (Plan 3.2 [fold­out]) excavated in some of the terraces showed that they were built during the Ro­ man period and were part of a farm constructed on the remains of the MB IIB village. The historical sequence of settlement at Manahat is divided into five stages (from latest to earliest): I. Stone mounds II. Roman terraces III. LB II reuse of MB II Building 1028 IV. MB IIB village V. MB I building remains. Nine excavation areas were opened (Plan 3.1). Areas 1 00, 200, 300, 1000, and 1 100 contained buildings which were completely or partially excavated. Area 400 was an

The few sherds found during the surface survey repre­ sented the late Iron Age and the Roman and Islamic periods. No signs of earlier periods were detected. During three seasons of excavations, wall remains of an MB IIB village encompassing more than 40 dunams (approximately 11 acres) were uncovered. A few MB I walls were discovered outside the build­ ings in open courtyards in Areas 200, 300, 800, and 1 000. The MB II builders probably removed soil and ancient building remains to found their walls on solid rock, which could thus explain the lack of MB I remains under the MB II floors. The only exceptions were a pit (L121; Fig. 3.4), which was covered by the floorof Building 106 (Plan 3.2), and a cupmark in L884 (Plan 3.6).

■ ■

I

^w

i 1" I

J

area 1000

j.\> ^//'^^‫ג‬ \/^*

■­y

AREA 1100

±T

15

­77­1­

*

Tytr­

1

V'/

11128

10850

­

/ ^ \ i f WLAREA8OOS7AREA 400 X!^f

19'r ^g

I

I T1 1

1

1

A

4

AREA 700

/

­J

11111

1

£g 1

^

AREA 100

I

1

^r 850

^­

: ­

0

5

^­ ­

^m

800

~

^o

I1

~

I

^­r^k&r S^^W

AREA 300

20^00

yY

_VnT*

AREA 200

14

18

\

m

AREA 900

ifS'**L

V

I

[H|J|K|L|M|N|O|P|Q|R|S|T|U|A|B|C|D|E|F|G|H|J|K|L|MJN|O|P|

I I I IT I I 1M I

Plan 3.1. Manahat excavation areas, 1987­1989.

I

■J

~|

1

I

2

1I20I

­­"‫^ל‬

?

696J0entrance

1®2‫י‬

‫י‬

^1‫ל‬

^"7

1026

^^

.­^

N

^

1"^

#696.57 ~h~­

£‫י‬/

Oc^

^ rO20W#

1028I

fN #696.26

rH

^0311^^3^^^0'^

17I

16I

151

£/3 ^U

^

^g

g^]

O

H

7^

1

1

1i

10

^S////

^

^1

­^

O1029

^1030

1

///y//^/

//^v, AREA 100

Kjt0(f\

■

695.75

Krf­p

Q

695.53

^0^dT^

158

69448|^

695.72/

^£j

^

Bedrock

#695.18

n

f95.29

^3

PiHarS

1

‫י‬

1

‫י‬

^­‫י‬ ,

1

‫י‬

­r

1^

#694.51

695J5

.

/ /

124^ J& 123

A/\S'4S^?1^^>

w

>^4^/{^

m

/

^^

694.34

Plan 3.4. Area 300, plan and section (inset).

Area 800 _,.

"'­

Area 8002 is located in the southern partof the settlement along the 688/690 m asl contour line (Fig. 3.16; Plan 3.6 ]fold­out]). Similarly to other excavation areas at Mana­ hat, it was covered by an agricultural terrace. The terrace preserved the remains of MB IIB buildings, but also introduced intrusive material into the Middle Bronze Age levels. Since no structure was found south of this area, the buildingsof Area 800 were assumed to mark the limit of the MB IIB settlement. Two small entrances to the settlement were found here, one on the west (L888) and one on the southeast (L8217). The settlement was

enclosed by the buildings, probably for defensive rea­ sons, but it was not fortified (Plan 1.1; Fig. 3.17). The MB II buildings were contiguous and aligned northwest­southeast (Plan 3.6 [fold­out]). Six units were excavated, most consisting of a long room and a court­ yard. The rooms varied in length from 10 to 18 m and were all approximately 5 m wide.

Building 884 This unit was located in the northwestern corner of the area (Fig. 3.18). It was entered from the south through a narrow corridor (Entrance L888, L881). The entrance was bordered by a fence (W45). The courtyard was open

­

22

GERSHON EDELSTEIN, IANIR MILEVSKI, AND SARA AURANT

A

B

''^|^690.15 2"

I \

689'47

Si­

D

1

|

f

689■5f/t,

!

f^:!700^::

:::

I

C

690.26

19

! 1| j

| |

­"

6^.n

689.00

J^r

'^

//­­11 ^^ ^ | ! ^/^ ^f89.30

ji

/y^

I

^"

714

! \^^ ] |

^^L ‫^^ר^ו‬

/^‫­^י‬/^ 69008^‫^כ‬ ^^Jf

689.91

0

_4g

j

‫יי‬

690­08

nQcW690.12

| XJ^|V

690.29

jfQ

690.43

^Q

Plan.

Fig.3.16.Area 800­ Aerial

view.

y/r7 690.42

690.46

W3

/Plan3.5.Area700.

­^ "x

[715]

w2

/

! 1| I | I |

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

Fig.3.17.Area 800 ­ Reconstructionof buildings.

*"^ '^iliiii^^

Fig. J.75.

Ar^

■ ■

Stone Mound (see Chapter 2) Excavation of a small, oval­shaped stone mound was , ,‫ י‬,‫י‬. .. .,,. undertaken in the expectation of finding building re­ mains similar to those in Area 200. The stone mound was about 12 m long, 7 m wide, and less than 2 m high from r

­ml^ ®v^^₪m₪₪^^^mm

^m₪₪₪mmm ^

Summary

6

WefA^jj^^^jf^^Mi^^^^^^^^^B^^■

,

.

.

its base. The stones appear to have been discarded on the mound in no particular order over a long period of time. Small, fist­sized stones were thrown together with stones over 0.4 m long. The pottery sherds found between the stones belonged to all periods of settlement at Manahat, from MB I to modern times. Pottery dating from the Roman period through mod­ ern times was found only in the uppermost layers of the stone mound, while in the center and in the lower section sherds from earlier periods were discovered. n. . r . ‫וו‬ Prior to excavation, remains of terrace walls were observed on the surface (see L1035, Plan 3.2 [fold­out],

^^^BBBBBHHBBBB^MBlJBHB

B|9^^^

of dark­brown soil and small stones; most of the sherds in this fill were of the Roman peirod. The terrace walls were built atop the remains of an­

^^^^^^^^^S^BBH^^K^^^E^^Sa^^^^

cient walls, many centuries after their collapse.

^^^^^^^^^S^^^mg^SBMK/B^^^^^W

The walls of a building were found under the stone mound, the terrace, and a few centimeters of topsoil. The

|y|'||''A'''*1*L'1al'11111'''

­t" r',

1

' ^1'^h

11tHIiiii1naniilii'!*"*'

"‫'^'^^ר י^י‬

11'|‫י‬

"

.‫י‬

4

‫\ ";י‬N

.k.'■.,:BaTC^My^M|BpW|MJhk1' '''1*ft&BmimtFi

188*

­‫י‬

‫י‬

‫*י*ו>י‬1

‫י‬

""'‫וי‬

‫י~ י‬

■

‫'יי‬

'‫'י‬l '1'1­v*1 ^$­*41)$

"

‫יי‬

"'

­*'*'

"*W'­i";'''^^S1.'* ^

'

^'1" '''''1^iiii^iW'/'"''''''

Fig. 3.35. W37, looking west. Two levelsof construction: upper level LB //

'!­':"' 'andblocked

entrance ofMBII building.

1020). At the same time, the space between the pillars in W17 was filled with stones, leaving an opening for two doorways connecting Courtyards 1028 and 1029. Room 1037 (Fig. 3.35) was excavated from the top of what remainedof W42. A second scarab bearing a seal of Amenhotep III was found under the upper floor.

terrace step; the orientation of the buildings differs from that in Area 200. The MB IIB structure, as in other areas, was covered by later agricultural terraces.

Building 1114

Basically, this structure contained three main elements MB I Remains (Fig. 3.36): a partly excavated room (LI 114), a courtyard In the northwest of Area 1000, three walls (W7, W8, and(LI 112; Fig. 3.37), and a corridor to the north of these W29) were located, all running northwest­southeast, an loci (Lllll). The corridor was enclosed by W4 on the orientation different from thatof the MB IIB walls. MB I north and seems to have contained the western entrance pottery associated with these walls dates these features. to the area (LI 1 10). The eastern part of Corridor 1111 broadened (Fig. 3.38). From the corridor, an entrance led Summary to Courtyard 1112, bordered by W2 on the west and There were four periods of occupation in Area 1000: concealed on the south by the terrace fill. Three pillars MB I, MB IIB, LB 11, and the Roman terraces, atop were arranged in a row, running northeast­southwest, which a stone mound was raised. The MB I buildings with a distance of more than one meter between them. were abandoned after a relatively short period of occupa­ There were two types of walls displaying different tion. In Building 1028 two stages were distinguished. construction methods. The first type is seen in Wl, built The LB II phase was constructed on top of the MB IIB of a single course of stones and belonging to the same walls, 0.3­0.4 m above the earlier floor. A terrace, using style of construction as W3 and W5, which surrounded stones and soil from the ancient buildings, was built on Room 1114. W2 curved from east to west, then turned the southern partof the building in Roman times. to the south. The second type, built of two rows of stones, is represented by W6, which is the continuation of Wl to the south and which directed its course Area 1100 slightly eastward. Large blocks were employed in its construction. Area 100 (Plan 3.3 [fold­out]), the western limit of the Room 11 14 had a clear occupation level, with a floor settlement, was located west of Area 200, on the same of beaten earth, in contrast to the courtyard where this 1

32

GERSHON EDELSTEIN, IANIR MILEVSKI, AND SARA AURANT

Fig. 3.36. General view ofLllll,LI 112,

Fig. 3.37. Courtyard 1112with pilasters, looking southwest,

level seemed to have been eradicated when the terrace was built. Part of this room, which was not excavated,

andLI 114, looking southeast.

J^m^Km^Km^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^K/f^^" BH|B^BBBil^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^PEj^L :

I

^^^^^^^^^^^^₪K^^^K/^^^m

■■■■■^^';^"^^^^Hl^^^^^^^^^^m

remained under the terrace ifll. WK^^^^K/^^^^SS^KBFtKl^^^^^^^ti^m Most of the potsherds, discovered mainly in the occu­ :t^^BBB||^^^^^^^^^^^H|||B^^^^^B^ pation and floor levels, belonged to MB IIB. In the li^^^^^^^^r^^^^HHH^^^H^^^^^^■ terrace fill, Iron and Roman pottery, as well as later *>^^^^^^^^S^^^^^K^^^^^^^₪^^^^^^M material such as glass fragments and Islamic ceramics, were found. As in the buildings in other areas, plaster*^*^P; , \ fragments of the MB IIB occupation level were uncov­ "^ f­tf " 11^^^­ '­^^^^^^^^HhUH^^■ ered. Metal objects six needles or pins, a knief frag­ '^^^^^[f'^i^^^^^^^^^^m^^^^m ment and a small arrowhead came out Qf tne terrace '^'}^*MK^\ .^­­ , ^ ";^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^J^[ )see Chapter 7). Stone hammers, lower grinding stones, cJ^jiBPii'* ■J£*± ~^ ' l■™■■■■■■■■■^■ and pestles were also found. Fig. 3.38. Corridor 1111, looking east.

^^^^1^^^‫י‬1­‫^^^^^^^^^^^^י‬8818■^ 'i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^■

­

­'

­

^^^'M'

*

^

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

Summary Beneath the terrace' s stone fill was a clearly defined level with dark brown soil, which overlaid a gray occupation level. However, in several places two floor levels ap­ peared, as in the eastern part of the corridor(LI 111). There was almost no evidence of virgin soil on the bedrock underneath the beaten­earth floorof this level.

Architectural Features Walls The wallsof the Manahat buildings were of three types. 1. External walls: 0.7­1.0 m thick, constructedof two rows of stone, as found in Area 200 and W3 in Area 1 000. All the south­facing walls in Area 800 are of this type (Fig. 339). 2. Internal walls: usually built of one row of stones, as in Area 200, W23 and W32. 3. Fence walls: boulders placed side by side on their narrow ends. The use of boulders in the walls was com­ mon in several places. The space between them was filled with medium­sized stones as in Area 1 100 (W2, W4), in Area 1000 (W37, Room 1037), and in Area 800 (W45; Entrance 888), although this wall is unusual in that its stones were placed perpendicularly (Fig. 3.40). The boulder­construction in the MB IIB level of the building contrasted with the medium­sized stones used in the LB II level (Plan 3.2 [fold­out]: Section 7­7;

­

Fig. 3.39. Area 800

33

Fig. 3.35). As Fig. 3.41 (Area 800, W42) indicates, the faces of the boulders showed clear evidence of chiseling. Other construction examples were found in W36 be­ tween L8213 and L8210, which was constructed by fill­ ing the area between four well­made pillars with crude stones and partition walls built during the second phase of MB IIB, such as W37 of Area 800, which were built haphazardly (Fig. 3.23). Walls were used in Areas 900 (Courtyard 903) and 1000 (Courtyard 1028) to subdivide courtyards using pre­existing pillars. The thick walls of the MB IIB buildings indicate the existence of a second story in several of the construe­ tions. The quantity of collapsed stone found during the excavations is also evidence of the existence of a second story in Area 200 (Room 250) and in Area 1000. In all cases, the stones were fitted together without cement or any other mortar­like material.

Plaster Numerous plaster3 fragments were found in some of the MB IIB buildings. The fill inside the rooms contained many fragments of plaster, 2.5­5.0 cm thick. The plaster fragments were flat on one side while the reverse was uneven from having adhered to the stone walls (Fig. 3.42). A preliminary laboratory analysis carried out at the Hebrew University by P. Goldberg revealed that the plaster contained a large amount of lime. Similar plaster

W18 at corner where it connects with W15, looking northwest.

34

GERSHON EDELSTEIN, IANIR MILEVSKI, AND SARA AURANT

H^^RN^^^^^^9||^HHHHHMIj^|2§8S

HHH^^^^^^^^^HWHH

was found and analyzed at Beth Shemesh (Grant 1929:29).

^^^^^■■8k; :^^*m>M₪I^^M ^^^^BK^^K^^^^^^^m^KHKI^^^m !^^^^'8^^^^i ? ^l¥^ ,­ ^^^S^₪m^B^m

Pillars

^^^^K^^^^' j"' ^'' ^Mt^K^K^^B^^^^^ma ^^^^■tf ^^^HI^^^^^V||H|Hi^^^ ‫^^^^^^י י;; י^^^^^נ‬yn^l^^J^^B^"

Pillars were found in several courtyards of the MB IIB buildings, indicating that parts of the courtyards had been roofed. Phytolith evidence (see Chapter 13) may indicate the kind of roofing material used. The pillars were built of stones placed one atop the other. The distribution of these pillars was not uniform. Courtyards 216 and 1028 had three pillars arranged in a triangle, while in Courtyards 903 and 1112 the pillars were arranged in a line. The latter was also true for Passage 230 leading to Buildings 215 and 251. Some­ times only a single pillar was found, as in Courtyards

^^^mgk^

128, 1029, and 8210.

.;

^^jt^Kft^^^MHtJItiK^^^■■' .Ji^^^^^^^H

W^^^^mKB^KK^BK^^^Sl^^^^^^^m

^^^^K^^^^^^^^^^^^^^S^^^^^^^^m ^^^J^^^^^^^^^fHHppfSf'1 T^KKKKHmm

I^^^^^^^II^^^hBiI

M^^Km^^f^^^^KmSlK^Sf^

jV:

"

W^BtK'^^^^

^H^^^K^^.^ ^ ‫יי‬ ^^^^m₪*­

^^^^^^

'1^^^^nH^^^l

‫י‬

­

m

^

#

^'H^^^^^Bt^

^^^^S'1­ W^^^^W

^^^^H^^K^^^^K^­ ^

*

^^^^^^K₪₪B^^Mf^xW^^^^^^^ ;

"^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^m₪^₪a^^^^^mMkrf

'

Fig. 3.40. Area800­ W45, looking north.

Two kinds of floors were present in MB IIB buildings in almost every arcci. 1. A beaten­earth floor made of several layers of ash, chalk, and clay. Its impermeable qualities became appar­ ent after the excavation when the winter rains came and the floor remained dry, while open areas became muddy. Examples of this type of flooring were the upper floors of

M^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^₪₪^am B^^^^^^^^B^^^^^^^HbH^^HE^^^^^^^^

■^^^^^^^^H^H|^^^^^B|p^^^^m ~Vff |^P^^B^^^^^^^^^^?^^Sf­^^!^₪ki^M

Rooms 875 and 8212, where the ashy­chalk floor super­ seded the stone­paved lower floors. 2. A paved flagstone floor, present in several rooms. Earth and even potsherds were used as bedding beneath

V^^^^^uKKKK^^^^^KKK/KKM^^^

Stone installations were used in several areas. Installa­

**

^^^^jfj^^^^^^^^^^­ "J"

'

""'

­*'"­'­­■■"' ""*"■""

­

"si^

Fig.3.41. Area800­W42, looking west.

"^^^^^ "*■­

(Building 29 1 ) were constructed with great care. Installa­ tions 281 and 842 had paved floors. In Area 1000, there were two installations, rectangular in Courtyard 1028 and oval in Courtyard 1029. Stone tools were found in

Fig. 3.42. Area 200­Plasterfragments showing top and bottom faces and section. Scale 2:5.

35

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

­­

1­1

Plan 3.8. Area 200. Plan, section and reconstruction 0/ tabun

every instance inside the installations, but their exact use cannot be determined. The best preserved tabun (L221 Plan 3.8) appeared in Courtyard 215. Other well­preserved tabuns were found in Courtyards 908, 212 and 8216. The tabuns were built of several layers of clay and sherds. In the case of Court­ yard 212, the tabun was constructed directly on the bed­ rock. ;

Asphalt Fragments Asphalt fragments were found in several loci. Most of them did not come from the occupation level or the floor, but from the soil fill of the rooms, perhaps because this material had been employed to seal the roofs. Pieces of asphalt (Find No. 555/89) were found near a hearth, which may demonstrate another known use for asphalt the making of torches. Asphalt also was util­ ized to affix handles to tools. The presence of this mate­ rial indicates relations with the Dead Sea region.

­

CONCLUSIONS

The building remains reveal at least three different occu­ pation peirods in the villageof Manahat: MB I, MB IIB, and LB II. The first was represented by several walls in

in

Courtyard 215.

which the buildings, probably of one story, were built of mud­brick supeirmposed on one row of stone. The con­ struction of the MB IIB village destroyed most of the MB I remains. At least two MB IIB phases were evidenced by renovations to, and the extension of, some buildings. These two phases of occupation may simply reflect two generations. Few complete vessels and only a small amount of pottery and metal, which had obviously been discarded, were found. Many stone vessels turned up in the excavation, indi­ eating that when the inhabitants abandoned the site, they took their personal belongings, discarding broken pottery and unusable tools, as well as heavy stone utensils which they could not transport. The buildings collapsed and, eventually, were covered by soil and later by terraces built during the Roman period (see Chapter 2). Most of the architecture of the MB IIB settlement was of a domestic nature. The Manahat building plan re­ vealed a standard unit of rooms built around a courtyard. The courtyard could have been open or partially roofed. In some cases there was only one room with an adjoining courtyard (as in Area 800), while in others there were several rooms. Some courtyards may have served as animal pens. In two areas (200 and 900) the entrances to

36

GERSHON EDELSTEIN, IANIR MILEVSKI, AND SARA AURANT

the buildings were triangular. The extent of the buildings varied from 100 to 200 m2, with courtyards between 50 and 150m2. Comparable building features can be found in other MB IIB settlements throughout the country. Generally, comparisonof plans and measurementsof buildings from cities such as Megiddo, Hazor, and Tel Mevorakh with Manahat reveals no great differences. Similar series of rooms surrounding a courtyard can be seen at Megiddo (Stratum XIII: L5071 and L5034; Loud 1948:84­87, Fig. 397), Hazor (Area C, Dwelling 6205; Yadin et al. 1959; PI. CCVII), Tell Beit Mirsim (Level D; Albirght 1938:39­42, PI. 51),and Beth Shemesh(Rooms 4, 5, 18, 19; Grant 1932: PL XXVI). Pillars or columns in court­ yards were discovered at Tel Nagila (Amiran and Eitan 1965:121). Tabuns appeairng in the corners of courtyards were also a characteirstic feature at Hazor, Tel Nagila, and Tel Mevorakh (Stratum XIII, L318), even though Stern (1984:49) called this locus a room. Paved floors appeared together with others of beaten earth at Tel Nagila. The excavators (Amiran and Eitan 1965: 121) related the paved floors to roofed areas.

All of these sites revealed a style of wall construction similar to that found at Manahat. At Beth Shemesh (Stratum V, Sq AA 29; Grant 1929:30­39; 1932) the excavators also reported walls faced with beaten lime plaster. The methods of construction reveal a long architec­ tural tradition. The plansof the MB II buildings and their function reflect the style typical of the era. Comparison of Manahat with other settlementsof the period, even the large tells, shows that the Manahat architecture was not unlike that of other citiesof the time (Kempinski 1989). The main difference at Manahat is the absence of exter­ nal fortified walls, ramparts, and gates for defensive purposes. Building 106, possibly the only structure identifiable as a public building, may have been used for cult pur­ poses. It had a central hall with six cells, three on each side. Remains of the LB II settlement were very fragmen­ tary. MB II building remains were reused in Area 1000 and possibly in Area 200. Sherds and other LB II finds were also found in Area 300.

Notes 1. Structures receive the same number as the main final locus included in it, generally a room or a courtyard. In the plans, these structure numbers are enclosed in a square. The final loci are subunits of these structures, composed of several loci. In the text, loci are marked by the letter L, while the final loci are designated by the nameof the structure, i.e., courtyard, room, terrace, etc. Locus numbers of finds refer to the original locus number (not to the final locus number). For a list of

final loci, see Appendix 2; for a list of building numbers, see Appendix 3; for a concordance of original and final locus numbers, see Appendix 4. 2. As this area was excavated over three seasons, it has three seires of locus numbers: 800, 8200, and 8300. 3. Early in the excavation, we believed these to be fragments of mudbricks, but closer examination revealed them to be plaster.

References Albright W.F. 1938. The Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim II. The Bronze Age(AAS OR 17). New Haven. Amiran R. and Eitan A. 1965. A Canaanite­Hyksos City at Tell M2gj/e. Archaeology 18:1130­123. Grant E. 1929. Ain Shems (Palestine). Baltimore. Grant E. 1932. Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine) II. Balti­ more.

Kempinski A. 1989. The Middle Bronze Age. In TheArcheol­ ogyof Ancient Israel in the Biblical Period Sections 6­7 (Open Universityof Israel). Tel Aviv. Pp. 7­80 (Hebrew). Loud G. 1948. Meg/ddo II. Chicago. Stern E. 1984. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973­1976). The BronzeAge (Qedem 18). Jerusalem. Yadin et al. 1 959. Hazor II. An Accountof the Second Season of Excavation. Jerusalem.

Chapter 4

The Pottery Assemblage GERSHON EDELSTEIN

Although the pottery found in the excavation can be a cultic nature?) a krater was uncovered near a stone assigned to several periods­ MB I, MB IIB, LB IIB, bench, opposite two upright stones (stelae?). Jug and Iron II, Iron III, Roman, Early Islamic, and modern­ the store­jar sherds were found at its entrance. majoirtyof the material belonged to MB II. The terrace Most of the MB IIB sherds belonged to jars and fill contained sherds attirbuted to all of these peirods, cooking pots, while the remainder of the pottery con­ although the sherds on the terrace base were primairlysistedof bowls, plates, kraters, jugs, andjuglets. Roman, indicating that most of the terraces at Manahat The majorityof the vessels were plain; very few were were built at that time (see above, Chapter 2, 3). painted or decorated. However, many of the store jars were white washed. Some were decorated with one or two applied clay ropes or a plastic strip with incisions. MB I Pottery Also found were sherds of burnished juglets, brown and off­white painted ware, yellow­burnished goblet sherds, MB I pottery was found on MB I floors, on bedrock, in and a few sherdsof Tell el­Yahudiyeh ware. the terrace fill, and in the stone mounds. Most of the pottery was locally produced on a hand Due to the paucity of sherds, the mateiral was not wheel (Amiran 1956:46­49). Six basalt potters' wheels analyzed in detail. Better preserved buildings, with were found in the excavation at Nahal Repha'im (Eisen­ complete vessels, were found in the neighboring Nahal berg 1993:92). Since the Nahal Repha'im village was Repha'im excavation (Eisenberg 1993). built on a clay layer and the pottery of both sites was The assemblage contained bowls (Fig. 4.1:1,2); cook­ nearly identical, it may very well be that the workshops at ing pots (Fig. 4.1:3­9), often with incisions or applied Nahal Repha'im produced pottery for Manahat.1 plaster bands with finger or thumb impressions; various sized jars (Fig.4.1:10­13); jugs (Fig. 4.1:14­16); and a Rounded Bowls(FigA.2:1,2). No. 1, thin witha smooth­ juglet (Fig. 4.1:17). The vessels were handmade and ed surface, is similar to a bowl found at Gibeon.2 probably fired in a kiln, as the core of the pottery was well oxidized. Flat Bowls (Fig. 4.2:3­13). This category was extremely common in MB IIB­C. The same form appeared from north to south with only slight differences. Most vessels MB IIB Pottery were covered by a slip, and a few were hand burnished. The body shapes are mostly rounded. Comparisons The MB IIB pottery, which came primairly from the can be made to Megiddo, as well as MB IIB tombs in the Canaanite settlement, consisted mostly of sherds. Two Bronze Age cemetery at Gibeon. Tell Beit Mirsim also phases of occupation were discerned and could not be yielded flat bowlsof this type. Two flat bowls were found differentiated; the earlier phase yielded only a small in a tomb at Moza. It is possible that these bowls were number of artifacts. Sherds of the same vessel were produced in a central pottery workshop, similarly to sometimes retrieved from more than one room, at times kraters and the decorated store jar. even from rooms and the terrace fill. In Building 106 (of

38

GERSHON EDELSTEIN

2

^^ P

,

/

,

^­­n\

.

*

,1

I

J

6

7

­

8

^

L^^X t

dxm ■

9

Fig. 4.1. MB I Vessels. Scale: Nos. 1­15, 1:5; Nos.

No. 1

2 3

4 5

6 7 8

9

Reg. No.

Locus

Locus Type

23/1/87 57/3/87 642/12/87 25/7/87 582/1/88 2039/3/87 1187/1/88 2031/1/87 2141/1/87

105

Cell Room Room Stone mound Topsoil Open area Courtyard Open area Room

204 142 200 907 210 1028

210 236

10 11

12 13

14 15 16 17

7(5, 77,

/;2.

Reg. No.

Locus

Locus Type

2222/1/87 748/1/87 648/13/87 133/2/87 133/1/87 18/2/87 49/3/87 1199/2/88

201

Room Terrace Room Terrace Terrace Cell Courtyard Courtyard

130 142 103 103 102

203 1028

39

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE

'

‫יין‬

2

3

4

5

6

­

*

'

7

8

9

‫ו‬0

‫וו‬

12

^­r=^

^­‫*י‬

45

CHAPTER 4: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE

Fig. 4.5 Reg. No.

Locus

Locus Type

1

96/1/87

103

Terrace

2

25/4/87

200

Stone mound

3

1156/6/88

1020

Room

4

77/1/89

8216

Courtyard

5

127/1/87

310

Room

No.

Parallels

Shechem (Cole 1984:P1. 23:b); Megiddo Str. XVI­XII, T. 2147 (Loud 1948: PL 30:5); Gezer (Dever 1986: PL 6:11­ Str. 1­10; PL4:15­ Str. 12­11); Tell Beit Mirsim Str. G (Albright 1932: PL 41:6). 1

1021

Room

4/13/87

100

Topsoil

1618/1/88

267

Room

Shechem (Cole 1984: PL 26:e).

8260/1/87

843

Room

Tell Beit Mirsim Str. C (Albright 1932: Fig. 12:2).

53/4/87

110

Courtyard

11

1133/2/88

1033

Room

12

1339/389

1040

Room

6

1924/5/88

7 8 9

10

TellBeitMirsim (Albright 1932:PL 13:11).

Small and Medium Store Jars (Fig. 4.6:1­18). These Decorated Pithoi (Fig. 4.8:7). A decorated pithos has store jars held 2CM­0 liters. The majority have two loop applied rope decoration and incisions on the shoulder; it handles attached below the shoulder to facilitate trans­ probably had four handles. It was found in MB IIB port. The rims vary from simple flaring to thickened Courtyard 825. profiles. Noteworthy is the incised decoration on the rim of Fig. 4.6:18. In many cases, the necks are short and Decorated Jar Handles (Fig. 4.8:8­10). Nos. 8 and 9 have a ridge (Fig. 4.6:3,5,8, 10). Typical of these jars is have a snake­like application. No. 10 is stamped with an a combed body. Although their shape developed from the'S' ­shaped double scroll or volute, usually assigned a MBIIA jars, they can easily be distinguished. They are Mediterranean origin, particularly from Crete and the common throughout the country during the MB IIB­C Cycladic area, during the Bronze Age and continuing periods, as indicated in the parallels. through the Iron Age (cf. for instance Ekschmitt 1986: 1, Pis. 17, 18;II,Fig. 66). Store Jar Bases (Fig. 4.7:1­7). As only sherds were Although not found in a sealed context in the Levant, found it is difficult to relate bases to complete vessels. parallels­ e.g., Byblos (Montet 1928: PL CXIII)and Tell The small bases are flat or slightly concave (Fig. 4.7:1­ Beit Mirsim (Albright 1938: Pis. 30:6, 31:4)­ attest to an 5); or they are ring bases, and may have been part of MB IIB dating. pithoi (Fig. 4.7:6, 7).

Pithoi (Fig. 4.8: 1­6). These vessels are characterized by an opening measuring 20­28 cm in diameter, a short

'

concave neck, and in many cases, a collar or ridge at the base of the neck. The walls are 0.15­0.30 cm thick. Complete jars of this type from other excavations have a height in excess of one meter. Such ajar may have held 60­100 liters. Many of the vessels also have a combed surface covered by a white wash.

Jugs, Juglets, Tel el­Yahudiyeh Ware, and Dipper Juglets (Fig. 4.9). The jugs represented in this figure are typical of MB IIB and C. One jug (Fig. 4.9:1) has a globular body, a long neck with a typical ridge between the neck and the body, and a loop handle attached to the shoulder. The body was covered with a light­colored burnish. This is a common vessel e.g., Megiddo and Gibeon­in both habitation sites and tombs from this period. Figs. 4.9:2­14 are variations of Fig. 4.9: 1 .

­

46

.

GERSHON EDELSTEIN

‫ו‬

c­i­f

‫=ף‬/

9

3

5

*6

7

'

9

8

­

'

14

‫ו‬7

PT1F / ~

15

10

^^?

18

1'

Fig. 4.6. Small and medium store jars.

Two handmade jugs are uniquely shaped (Fig. 4.9: 15, 16); their provenance at Manahat indicates an MB IIB date. A piriform juglet (Fig. 4.9:17) with a button base is typical of both MB IIA and B. A few sherds of Tell el­Yahudiyeh type were found )Fig. 4.9:18, 19). Two of the sherds have punctured

P=TfV

/

Sc