Yotvata: The Ze'ev Meshel Excavations (1974–1980): The Iron I “Fortress” and the Early Islamic Settlement 9781646022601

Citation preview

YOTVATA

The Zeʾev Meshel Excavations (1974–1980) The Iron I “Fortress” and the Early Islamic Settlement

Yotvata.indb 1

03/08/2022 15:50

TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY SONIA AND MARCO NADLER INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

MONOGRAPH SERIES NUMBER 42

Executive Editors

Oded Lipschits and Oren Tal

Editorial Advisory Board

Ella Assaf Shpayer Erez Ben-Yosef Yuval Gadot Ido Koch Dafna Langgut Lidar Sapir-Hen Guy D. Stiebel

Yotvata.indb 2

Managing Editor

Tsipi Kuper-Blau

Graphic Designer

Nurit Rozenfeld

03/08/2022 15:50

YOTVATA

The Zeʾev Meshel Excavations (1974–1980) The Iron I “Fortress” and the Early Islamic Settlement

LILY SINGER-AVITZ AND ETAN AYALON

With Contributions by Zohar Amar, Nitzan Amitai-Preiss, Uzi Avner, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, David Ben-Shlomo, Mordechay Benzaquen, Ariel Berman, Israel Carmi, Mark Cavanagh, Tali Erickson-Gini, Aaron Greener, Shlomo Hellwing, David Iluz, Ruth E. Jackson-Tal, Vered Kishon, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Peter Kováčik, Dafna Langgut, Nili Liphschitz, Zeʾev Meshel, Henk K. Mienis, Willie Ondricek, Steven A Rosen, Linda Scott Cummings, Dror Segal, Orit Shamir, Yigal Sitry, Naama Sukenik, Itamar Taxel and Paula Waiman-Barak

EISENBRAUNS University Park, Pennsylvania EMERY AND CLAIRE YASS PUBLICATIONS IN ARCHAEOLOGY The Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 2022

Yotvata.indb 3

03/08/2022 15:50

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Singer-Avitz, Lily, author. | Ayalon, Etan, author. | Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Title: Yotvata : the Zeʼev Meshel excavations (1974–1980) : the Iron I “fortress” and the early Islamic settlement / Lily Singer-Avitz and Etan Ayalon ; with contributions by Zohar Amar [and 29 others]. Other titles: Monograph series (Makhon le-arkheʼologyah ʻa. sh. Sonyah u-Marḳo Nadler) ; no. 42. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns ; [Tel Aviv, Israel] : Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, The Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 2022. | Series: Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology ; number 42 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “Presents the final report of the excavations at Yotvata, in the southern Arabah Valley, conducted by the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University from 1974 to 1980, directed by Dr. Ze’ev Meshel. The report covers two central sites: a fortified Iron I site and an Early Islamic settlement”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2022030789 | ISBN 9781646022298 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Excavations (Archaeology)—Israel—Yoṭvatah. | Iron age—Israel—Yoṭvatah. | Yoṭvatah (Israel)—Antiquities. Classification: LCC DS110.Y68 S56 2022 | DDC 933—dc23/eng/20220713 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022030789 © Copyright 2022 by the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 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.

Yotvata.indb 4

03/08/2022 15:50

CONTENTS

ix

PREFACE CHAPTER 1

Introduction: The Yotvata Oasis

1

ZEʾEV MESHEL

SECTION I: YOTVATA HILL—THE IRON I “FORTRESS” AND OTHER REMAINS lily singer-avitz PART I: THE SITE IN CONTEXT CHAPTER 2

Yotvata: A “Fortress” on a Road Junction

11

UZI AVNER

PART II: ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS CHAPTER 3

The Excavations and Architectural Components

23

LILY SINGER-AVITZ

PART III: ARTIFACTS CHAPTER 4

The Pottery Assemblage of the Iron I

53

LILY SINGER-AVITZ CHAPTER 5

Petrographic Analysis of the Iron I Pottery

69

DAVID BEN-SHLOMO CHAPTER 6

The Ceramic Finds from the Nabataean Built Tomb

71

TALI ERICKSON-GINI CHAPTER 7

The Chipped Stone Collections: Lithic Perspectives on an Oasis Site in the Arabah

73

STEVEN A ROSEN CHAPTER 8

Shell Artifacts

81

DANIELLA E. BAR-YOSEF MAYER CHAPTER 9

Two Bone Objects

85

ETAN AYALON

Yotvata.indb 5

03/08/2022 15:50

Contents

CHAPTER 10

Ostrich Eggshells

89

LILY SINGER-AVITZ CHAPTER 11

Ground Stone Tools

91

AARON GREENER CHAPTER 12

Worked Wooden Objects from the Iron I

97

YIGAL SITRY CHAPTER 13

A Wood Coffin from the Nabataean Built Tomb

99

YIGAL SITRY CHAPTER 14

Cords and Basketry from the Iron I and Textiles from the Nabataean Built Tomb

109

NAAMA SUKENIK AND ORIT SHAMIR

PART IV: ECOFACTS CHAPTER 15

Archaeobotanical Remains from the Iron I “Fortress” and the Nabataean Built Tomb

121

NILI LIPHSCHITZ CHAPTER 16

Charcoal Samples from the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Settlement

125

MARK CAVANAGH, MORDECHAY BENZAQUEN AND DAFNA LANGGUT CHAPTER 17

Dendroarchaeological Report on the Coffin from the Nabataean Built Tomb

131

MORDECHAY BENZAQUEN, MARK CAVANAGH AND DAFNA LANGGUT CHAPTER 18

Iron I and Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Fauna

133

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ CHAPTER 19

Radiocarbon Dates

141

ISRAEL CARMI, DROR SEGAL, LINDA SCOTT CUMMINGS, PETER KOVÁČIK AND UZI AVNER

PART V: CONCLUDING REMARKS CHAPTER 20

Maṣṣeboth (Standing Stones) in Gates

151

UZI AVNER CHAPTER 21

Summary and Conclusions

161

LILY SINGER-AVITZ ADDENDUM

Later Excavations in the Nabataean Built Tomb

179

UZI AVNER LIST OF LOCI

181

vi

Yotvata.indb 6

03/08/2022 15:50

Contents

SECTION II: THE EARLY ISLAMIC SETTLEMENT etan ayalon

PART VI: ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS CHAPTER 22

Architecture and Stratigraphy

187

ETAN AYALON

PART VII: ARTIFACTS CHAPTER 23

The Pottery

243

ITAMAR TAXEL CHAPTER 24

Perfecting Local Production of Desert Pottery: Petrographic Analysis of Early Islamic Wares

281

PAULA WAIMAN-BARAK AND WILLIE ONDRICEK CHAPTER 25

Stone and Metal Objects

287

ITAMAR TAXEL CHAPTER 26

Glass Finds

295

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL CHAPTER 27

The Ostraca

299

NITZAN AMITAI-PREISS WITH AN APPENDIX BY ITAMAR TAXEL CHAPTER 28

The Coins

311

NITZAN AMITAI-PREISS AND ARIEL BERMAN CHAPTER 29

Textiles, Textile Impressions and a Plait

315

ORIT SHAMIR

PART VIII: ECOFACTS CHAPTER 30

Identification of Dyes

329

NAAMA SUKENIK, ZOHAR AMAR AND DAVID ILUZ CHAPTER 31

Archaeobotanical Remains from the Early Islamic Site

337

NILI LIPHSCHITZ CHAPTER 32

Faunal Remains

345

VERED KISHON AND SHLOMO HELLWING CHAPTER 33

Molluscs

363

HENK K. MIENIS

vii

Yotvata.indb 7

03/08/2022 15:50

Contents

PART IX: CONCLUDING REMARKS CHAPTER 34

Discussion and Conclusions

369

ITAMAR TAXEL, ZEʾEV MESHEL AND ETAN AYALON LIST OF LOCI

385

viii

Yotvata.indb 8

03/08/2022 15:50

PREFACE

Within the framework of a research project on the history of the oasis of Yotvata in the southern Arabah Valley, surveys of the surrounding region and excavations of key sites were conducted in 1974–1980 by Dr. Zeʾev Meshel. A fortified Iron Age I site was revealed on a hilltop in the oasis, along with an earlier phase of occupation, attributed to the Chalcolithic period/Early Bronze Age I, and Nabataean and Early Islamic remains. To the northeast of the ʿEn Yotvata springs, an Early Islamic settlement was revealed. In addition, an Early Bronze site, an Intermediate Bronze site and a Roman fortress were excavated southwest of the Iron I site. These three sites are not included in this report. The surveys and excavations were conducted by Dr. Meshel on behalf of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University and the Institute for Nature Conservation Research of Tel Aviv University, in cooperation with the Israel Antiquities Authority (formerly the Department of Antiquities and Museums), Israel Exploration Society, the Israel Studies section of the Kibbutz Movement, the Kibbutz Youth Movement, the Eilot Regional Council, Kibbutz Yotvata and the Eilat Field School of the Israel Society for the Protection of Nature. The school’s staff, students and volunteers—many of them teenagers—took part in the field work. The Iron Age site was excavated for three short seasons in 1974 (August 13–18) and 1975 (March 3–9 and August 11–19). The Early Islamic site, with an emphasis on its central building, was surveyed in January 1975 and excavated for four short seasons in 1975 (March 4–8), 1977 (August 10–21), 1978 (August 9–22) and 1980 (July 20–August 1). Over the years, several brief reports of the excavation results have been published (see Chapter 1). The Iron I site on Yotvata Hill was defined by Meshel as a fortress because it was enclosed by a casemate wall. However, such fortifications (whether casemate or solid walls), which are known in the Iron Age I (Chapter 21) and later, in the Early Iron IIA, are not massive and they differ from true fortresses in strength and plan (although they may serve as a deterrent for intruders). Consequently, they have received different descriptions and interpretations in the literature (see, further, Chapter 3). As the site of Yotvata has been termed the Yotvata fortress in the literature since its discovery in the 1950s, this terminology is maintained here, but quotation marks have been added to the word “fortress.” As for the Early Islamic site, its central building has been defined by some scholars as a road inn (a khan) or even a fortress. However, based on the proximity of the village to the large irrigation systems (qanat) and its finds—including administrative/economic ostraca—the present research has concluded that it was the center of an agricultural estate owned by an elite Muslim family (see Chapter 34). The present report was prepared several decades after the completion of the excavation. The field methods customary at the time differed from today’s and the expedition’s funds were limited; thus, some of the finds (such as skeletons uncovered in tombs, heavy stone vessels and undefined body sherds) were left at the site, instead of being taken to the laboratory. Sifting and/or wet sieving were seldom undertaken, and therefore, small artifacts (such as fish bones or grain, which would have been expected) were not detected. Important finds of the excavation were exhibited for several years in the visitors’ center of Yotvata, but unfortunately only a few of them were later returned to the storerooms of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Consequently, many finds could not be located for further examination when the present report was written (in 2017–2020). The description of some of the finds is therefore only partial, based on field

Yotvata.indb 9

03/08/2022 15:50

Preface

notes, drawings and/or photographs taken during or immediately after the excavation seasons, and it is impossible to provide quantitative data regarding pottery and/or other finds. Deepest thanks are extended to Zeʾev Meshel for entrusting Lily Singer-Avitz with the publication of the excavation data from the Iron Age site and for inviting Etan Ayalon to excavate and to publish the Early Islamic settlement. Special thanks are due to Uzi Avner for his assistance and clarification of various issues, to Itamar Taxel for his help on the pottery and other finds of the Early Islamic period and his contribution to our understanding of the Early Islamic site and its significance, and to all the other contributors of this report, who completed or updated their chapters on relatively short notice. Measurements of the Early Islamic structures were taken in the field by Etan Ayalon, and field photography was by Zeʾev Meshel and Etan Ayalon. The registration was carried out by Naomi Toister and Karine Ofer. During the field work on Yotvata Hill, the late Shmuel Moshkovitz served as surveyor and prepared the site plan. Avraham Hai and Moshe Weinberg photographed some of the Yotvata finds, and Yosef Kapelyan drew the finds from the Early Islamic period. For the preparation of this final report, Debi Ben-Ami, Orit Shamir and Naama Sukenik helped to track down the finds in the storerooms of the Israel Antiquities Authority at Beth Shemesh. Yael Barschak of the photographic archives of the Israel Antiquities Authority helped to locate old negatives of a few finds, and Eran Arie, Director and Curator of Hecht Museum, University of Haifa, provided assistance in examining finds exhibited at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (where he was Curator at the time of preparation of this report). Liora Freud provided invaluable help in compiling the material for this volume—often a daunting task given the time that had elapsed since the excavation. The finds were treated in the laboratories of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Sasha Flit prepared photographs for publication from the original negatives and photographed some of the finds anew. Itamar Ben-Ezra drew the maps and plans, as well as drawing some of the pottery vessels and other finds. The plates were prepared by Itamar Ben-Ezra and Naama Earon. Penn State University Press, the co-publishers of this series, provided useful input in the publication process. Yael Hochma and Claudia Epley assisted in the editorial work. Tsipi Kuper-Blau edited the report and oversaw the book production, and Nurit Rozenfeld is responsible for the graphic design. We owe a debt of gratitude to all the above. Lily Singer-Avitz and Etan Ayalon | Tel Aviv

x

Yotvata.indb 10

03/08/2022 15:50

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION: THE YOTVATA OASIS Zeʾev Meshel

Yotvata is the modern name of an oasis (Arabic: ʿEin Ghadhian) located on the western edge of the southern Arabah Valley (Fig. 1.1). Although small, it was the largest oasis with the highest aquifer and richest agricultural soil in the region. The Arabah Valley, which stretches from the southern end of the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Eilat (ʿAqaba), is extremely hot and arid, with absolute temperatures in the summer reaching 45° C and a mean annual rainfall of 30 mm (Bruins 2006: 29–32). The oasis is situated on the main road to Eilat, ca. 40 km north of the city and 15 km north of Timna, at an elevation of 70 m above sea level. Before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the oasis consisted mainly of a few shallow pits, from which the upper ground water ran, and a small grove of tamarisks and date palms. Wide saline marshes stretch to its south. The ʿEin Ghadhian oasis has been explored and described by several travelers and scholars since the late 19th century, including the Palestine Exploration Fund expedition, A. Musil, T.E. Lawrence, F. Frank, N. Glueck (who first investigated the Iron Age I site) and Israeli archaeologists Yohanan Aharoni (the first to explore the Early Islamic site) and Beno Rothenberg (Meshel 1993: 1517; Rothenberg 2014). The site’s Arabic name is first mentioned in a 10th-century Arabic source, The Martyrdom of ʿAbd al-Masiḥ, referring to a 9th-century monk who passed through Ghadhian on his way from Sinai to Ramla (Swanson 2008; see, further, Chapter 34), and was further mentioned by the important 13th-century geographer Yaqut (n.d.: 206–207). The name probably hails from the Saxaul bush (Haloxylon persicum) (called ghadha in Arabic), commonly found in the surrounding sands. Alternatively, it may be derived from the name of adDianam, which appears on the Roman map Tabula Peutingeriana with the symbol for a temple at the junction of the Roman roads leading to Aelia (Eilat) (Atlas of Israel Map 3/I; cf. Meshel 1973). Remains of a Nabataean building, partly excavated by Y. Porath, located ca. 100 m northwest of the Yotvata spring and built of fine ashlars, could be identified as this temple (Meshel 1993: 1517; Davies and Magness 2015: 4; Avner 2018). Also noteworthy in this context is the discovery of an ancient north–south road north of Yotvata, along with several milestones, the inscription of one mentioning the distance of 12 miles from a place called Osia—corresponding to the distance from Yotvata (Avner and Roll 1996). In the Roman fortress at the site, a monumental inscription of Emperor Diocletian, discovered by chance (Roll 1989), mentions the name Costia, also known from a 6thcentury Byzantine source (Davies and Magness 2015: 3). Thus, it may be assumed that the oasis was called ad-Dianam by the Nabataeans and Osia/Costia in the Roman-Byzantine period. The names of the Iron Age site, described in Part I of this report, and the Early Islamic settlement, described in Part II, remain unknown. The oasis was given the name Yotvata in the 1950s by Israel’s Government Naming Committee due to its possible identification with “Jotbathah, a land with flowing streams” (Deut 10:7), one of the encampments of the Israelites in their desert wanderings, before they reached Abronah and Ezion-geber (Num 33:34–35). Some scholars have suggested that their route ran from north to south, based on the Arabic names Sabkhat eṭ-Ṭaba of the local saline marshes and Bir eṭ-Ṭaba, the well on their eastern edge (Meshel 1989: 237–238; cf. 1991: 5). There is, however, no proof for these identifications. In the past, as today, the oasis served as an agricultural center and the most important crossroads in the southern Arabah. The presence of water led to the establishment of settlements there in various periods,

Yotvata.indb 1

03/08/2022 15:50

Z eʾeV M esHeL D

E

190 000

F

210 000

G

230 000

H

250 000

I

270 000

290 000

540 000

14

14

N

E

G

E

520 000

13

520 000

13

540 000

560 000

Dea d S e a

170 000

560 000

C

V

15 500 000

500 000

15

Faynan

16

17 460 000

M

460 000

A r a b a h

17

480 000

480 000

V a l l e y

16

18 440 000

E

D

440 000

O

18

19

19

420 000

420 000

Yotvata

20

Naúal >Amram

380 000

21

Eilat 170 000

D

190 000

Gulf of >AqabaE

îujayrat al-Ghuzlan

0

al-Magass 210 000

F

230 000

G

5

250 000

0

10

H

20

270 000

30 km

I

290

380 000

400 000

Timna

21

C

400 000

20

Fig. 1.1: Map showing central early sites in the Arabah Valley 2

Yotvata.indb 2

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 1: I ntroduction: T he Yotvata Oasis

Fig. 1.2: The Yotvata oasis (courtesy of Uzi Avner)

with the springs serving as the focus of life in the oasis. The appearance of the site in early times likely resembled its appearance until the springs dried up in the 1960s—a number of small shallow depressions filled with water along the boundary of a grove of date palms, alongside the main road to Eilat (Fig 1.2). The archaeological sites of Yotvata, discovered in the vicinity of the springs and the ancient road, consist mainly of several single-period sites in close proximity, each dating from a different period; thus, no multi-stratum tell was created there. These sites may be divided into five main groups: fortified sites and waystations; remains related to water or agriculture; remains of settlements or encampments; remains associated with copper production; and tombs. Remains of irrigation systems were surveyed at Yotvata in 1954 by Evenari, Shanan and Tadmor (1971: 173–178) and during 1979–1981 by Porath (2016: 37*–47*, 114). They described several systems consisting of chain wells that reached groundwater (“mother wells”) and water tunnels (Arabic: qanat), which led to the cultivated fields. Porath dated these systems, the largest and most sophisticated in the country, to the Early Islamic period. Avner, who recently reexamined the irrigation remains, argued that they form two systems, of which the qanat is the later. The earlier “mother wells,” according to Avner, served as water reservoirs (for detailed description and references, see Avner 2015). A few Late Bronze and Iron Age pottery sherds collected around some of the wells suggest some use at the end of the Late Bronze Age and during the Iron Age, but since most of the sherds were Nabataean, Late Roman and Byzantine, these appear to be the periods of most extensive use (Avner 2015: 24). 3

Yotvata.indb 3

03/08/2022 15:50

Z eʾeV M esHeL 90

w i t h Jo r d a n

to Dead Sea Border

Kibbutz Yotvata

Iron I ÒfortressÓ

Early Islamic site

Roman fortress Bronze Age sites Nabataean site

to E ilat

Itamar Ben-Ezra

>En Yotvata

90

0

1

km

Fig. 1.3: Sites in the Yotvata oasis (after Meshel 1991: 18)

The single-period settlements excavated so far at the oasis date from the Early Bronze Age, the Intermediate Bronze Age, the beginning of the Iron Age, and the Nabataean, Late Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic periods (Fig. 1.3).1 There was a police guard post at the site during the British Mandate period. 1. Over the years, several brief reports of the excavation results have been published; see Meshel 1991; 1993; Meshel and Sass 1974a; 1974b; 1975. For the Nabataean period remains, see Erickson-Gini 2012; Avner 2018; 2020. For a detailed report of the Late Roman fortress, see Meshel 1989 and especially Davies and Magness 2015. For the Early Islamic water systems, see Porath 2016.

4

Yotvata.indb 4

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 1: I ntroduction: T he Yotvata Oasis

References Atlas of Israel. Jerusalem. 1956. Avner, U. 2015. Desert Farming in the Southern ʿAraba Valley, Israel, 2nd Century BCE to 11th Century CE. In: Retamero, F., Schjellerup, I. and Davies, A., eds. Agricultural and Pastoral Landscapes in Pre-Industrial Society. Choices, Stability and Change (EARTH 3). Oxford and Philadelphia: 19–35. Avner, U. 2018. Nabataeans in the Eilat Region, the Hinterland of Aila. Aram 30: 597–644. Avner, U. 2020. Nabataeans in the Yotvata Oasis. Negev, Dead Sea and Arava Studies 12/3: 97–108 (Hebrew). Avner, U. and Roll, I. 1996. Ancient Roads and Roman Milestones in the ʿArava Valley. American Journal of Archaeology 100: 762–764. Bruins, H.J. 2006. Desert Environment and Geoarchaeology of the Wadi Arabah. In: Bienkowski, P. and Galor, K., eds. Crossing the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arabah. Oxford: 29–43. Davies, G. and Magness, J. 2015. The 2003–2007 Excavations in the Late Roman Fort at Yotvata. Winona Lake. Erickson-Gini, T. 2012. ʿEn Yotvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 124. http://www .hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_eng.aspx?print=all&id=1960&mag_id. Evenari, M., Shanan, L. and Tadmor, N. 1971. The Negev: The Challenge Desert. Cambridge, MA. Meshel, Z. 1973. The Roads of the Negev According to the Geography of Ptolemy and the Tabula Peutingeriana. In: Aharoni, Y., ed. Excavations and Studies. Essays in Honour of Professor Shemuel Yeivin (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 1). Tel Aviv: 205–209 (Hebrew), XXV–XXVI (English summary). Meshel, Z. 1989. A Fort at Yotvata from the Time of Diocletian. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 228–238. Meshel, Z. 1991. Yotvata Oasis—Its History, Landscapes and Sites. Ariel 78: 6–44 (Hebrew). Meshel Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E. ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Meshel, Z. and Sass, B. 1974a. Notes and News: Yotvata. Israel Exploration Journal 24: 273–274. Meshel, Z. and Sass, B. 1974b. Yotvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 51–52: 38–39 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. and Sass, B. 1975. Yotvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 54–55: 34–35 (Hebrew). Porath, Y. 2016. Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 86: 1*–81* (Hebrew), 113–116 (English summary). Roll, I. 1989. A Latin Inscription from the Time of Diocletian Found at Yotvata. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 239–260. Rothenberg, B. 2014. The Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Yotvata—255. http://survey.antiquities.org.il /index_Eng.html#/MapSurvey/1100. Swanson, M.N. 2008. Obscure Text, Illuminating Conversation: The Martyrdom of Qays al-Ghassani (ʿAbd al-Masih). Currents in Theology in Mission 35: 374–381. Yaqut—Al-Shaykh al-Imām Shihāb al-Dīn Abī ʿAbdillah Yāqūt al-Hamawī al-Rūmī al-Baghdādī. n.d. Muʿjam alBuldān 4. Beirut.

5

Yotvata.indb 5

03/08/2022 15:50

Yotvata.indb 6

03/08/2022 15:50

SECTION I

YOTVATA HILL THE IRON I “FORTRESS” AND OTHER REMAINS

Lily Singer-Avitz

With contributions by Uzi Avner, Etan Ayalon, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, David Ben-Shlomo, Mordechay Benzaquen, Israel Carmi, Mark Cavanagh, Tali Erickson-Gini, Aaron Greener, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Peter Kováčik, Dafna Langgut, Nili Liphschitz, Steven A Rosen, Linda Scott Cummings, Dror Segal, Orit Shamir, Yigal Sitry and Naama Sukenik

Yotvata.indb 7

03/08/2022 15:50

Yotvata.indb 8

03/08/2022 15:50

PART I

THE SITE IN CONTEXT

Yotvata.indb 9

03/08/2022 15:50

Yotvata.indb 10

03/08/2022 15:50

CHAPTER 2

YOTVATA: A “FORTRESS” ON A ROAD JUNCTION Uzi Avner

The site plan of Yotvata Hill and its location, on a high cliff and next to a road junction, may support the site’s interpretation as a fortress;1 further support for such an identification is the “bent-axis” construction of the gate (Figs. 3.7–3.8 in Chapter 3).2 The site’s location links it to three additional resources. One is the spring of ʿEin Ghadhian, 1 km to the south—the second most important water source in the Arabah Valley after that of ʿAqaba (biblical Eilat). The spring could not be approached without being observed from the hill. The second resource is the copper mines and industry of Timna, 10 km to the south, and the third is the acacia savanna of Yotvata, the source of wood for the copper industry.3 Hence, the “fortress” seems to have protected the water and charcoal sources for the Timna copper industry, as well as the roads. As for the road junction, one road runs along the Arabah, and six others are winding trails ascending from the oasis up to ʿUvda Valley (Fig. 2.1), continuing farther west to join Darb Ghazza, which efficiently connected the head of the Gulf of ʿAqaba with the Mediterranean seaports (Meshel 1981). The modern names of the trails are (from south to north): Maʿaleh (“Ascent”; naqb in Arabic) Zeʾelah, Maʿaleh Zugan, Maʿaleh Shaḥarut, Maʿaleh Yitro (Jethro) and Maʿaleh Grofit. Each of these ascents split into two or three parallel trails in some sections; prehistoric cult sites were recorded along each of them, and flint items and pottery sherds attest to their use from the Early Neolithic to the mid-20th century. The most important trail seems to be Maʿaleh Shaḥarut (Naqb adh-Dhil; Fig. 2.2), described by Musil (1908: 181–184), who rode with camels from ʿUvda Valley (Wadi ʿUqfi) down to the Yotvata oasis (ʿEin Ghadhian), and by Frank (1934: 263), who rode up the naqb. Iron Age sherds were found on most of these trails, identical to those found in the copper-production centers of Timna Valley and Naḥal ʿAmram. Noteworthy is a silver pendant with a relief on both sides (Fig. 2.3), dating from the Iron Age. It was found at the top of Maʿaleh Yitro (Jethro), next to an offering table in an excavated shrine with seven maṣṣebot, dated to the fifth–fourth millennia BCE, and it attests to the use of the shrine during the Iron Age.4 Identification of a road along the Arabah is apparently problematic. In the past, several scholars addressed a road, or even roads, along the Arabah, on both sides (east and west), mainly in relation to the Roman period (Musil 1908: 180–224; Woolley and Lawrence 1915: 32; Frank 1934: 225–234; Alt 1935; Gichon 1971; 1980; 1997; 2002). Others, however, argued that no important road ever ran along the Arabah. Karmon (1968) described the difficulties of maritime navigation in the Red Sea, noting that the 1. But see Preface and Chapter 3 for an explanation why the term “fortress” appears within quotation marks in this volume. 2. Figs. 3.2–3.4 show that the eastern cliff is not protected by casemates. There are two possible reasons for this: one is that the cliff afforded the site natural protection from this side and there was therefore no need for casemates, and the other is that the casemates collapsed with time, along with the top of the cliff. For the possibility that the site also served civilian functions, see Chapter 21. 3. In 1978 I showed Z. Meshel large ash spots in the acacia savanna south of the “fortress,” just below the surface—the remains of charcoal industry. Unfortunately, these remains did not undergo radiocarbon dating. 4. I am grateful to Amir Golani (Israel Antiquities Authority) for identifying the technology and age of the pendant. 

Yotvata.indb 11

03/08/2022 15:50

Uzi Avner

Tent camp Tower Fortress Caravansary Village Town/city Other Water source Ancient road Conjectured road

Fig. 2.1: Map of the surveyed ancient roads in the Eilat region (adapted from Fig. 1 in Avner 2018; most sites are Nabataean-Roman but the same roads were used in all periods)

12

Yotvata.indb 12

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 2: Yotvata: A “Fortress” on a Road J unction

Fig. 2.2: The top of Maʿaleh Shaḥarut, leading from the Yotvata oasis to ʿUvda Valley and Darb Ghazza (note the line of cairns on the left)

Fig. 2.3: An Iron Age silver pendant from a prehistoric maṣṣebot shrine at the top of Maʿaleh Yitro

13

Yotvata.indb 13

03/08/2022 15:50

Uzi Avner

Arabah Valley leads to a “dead end”—the Dead Sea. According to Karmon, these two obstacles prevented any economic feasibility of a trade route along the valley. Rothenberg emphatically rejected the existence of an ancient road here: We did not find any evidence for systematic fortification along the Arabah that indicate traces of the biblical “Yam Suf Road”. Our opinion is that such a route, from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea never existed. … During most of the historical periods, the southern Arabah was dominated by the tribes of ʿAmaleq, Midian, Qeni and Qenazi … a dangerous no-manʼs land and a source for constant unrest. It was not accidental that the traffic routes to Eilat and Ezion Geber bypassed this difficult region, on the “Edom Road” or the “Kings Highway” on the east, and on the great western route, named “Darb Ghazza” in the Islamic period. The historical map must be changed for both the time of Solomon and for the conquests of Uziah. (Rothenberg 1967: 160–162; translation by U.A.)

Rothenberg similarly wrote about the Arabah in Roman-Byzantine times: It was a no manʼs land … the Arabah’s great heat and aridity, its difficult topography, sand-dunes, swamps and blinding sandstorms. There was never a line of 4th century castellae in the Arabah, and no traces of any north–south road running all the way from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea have ever been found. (Rothenberg 1971: 220)

Rothenberg’s views have been adopted by other scholars (e.g., Bowersock 1983: 179; Parker 1986: 6, 142). Meshel (1979: 298, 302), supporting Karmon and Rothenberg, also described the difficult conditions in the Arabah and cited the 1838 itinerary of Robinson, who preferred going from ʿAqaba to Hebron on Darb Ghazza rather than along the Arabah. He did mention, however, that a secondary road could have gone through the Arabah during the biblical period.  In my opinion, the arguments opposing the existence of an ancient road along the Arabah should be rejected, for the following reasons: 1.

Living conditions in the Arabah are not as harsh as described by Rothenberg, as is evident in the agricultural, tourism and archaeological projects that take place here throughout the year. Dust storms are rare and are limited to several hours in the spring and autumn. The sand dunes are low, easily bypassed from east or west, and were easily crossed during the Roman period too (Avner and Roll 1996; Roll and Avner 2008). The Sahara, with much higher dunes, is still crossed today by camel caravans for distances of many hundreds of kilometers (Abercrombie 1991). Swamps are formed once in several years in the playas of the southern Arabah, but they too are easily bypassed (see, e.g., Hull and Kitchener 1885: 210). Generally speaking, the flat topography of the Arabah is very convenient for caravans and can be crossed comfortably in four days, as there are water sources on either side of the valley. In addition, many roads lead from the Arabah up to the Negev Highlands and to Ghazza, or through Hebron and the Judean Desert to Jerusalem (Roll 2007; Avner 2016: Fig. 2; 2018: Fig. 36). Indeed, the Arabah was never a “no-manʼs land.” Although it has never been systematically surveyed, many archaeological finds from most periods are known here, from the Paleolithic to near modern times (e.g., Bienkowski 2006).

2.

Robinson’s avoidance of riding along the Arabah stemmed not from environmental difficulties but from threats by the Bedouin sheikh of the ʿAlawin, who was hostile to European explorers. This is well explained in the full version of his itinerary (Robinson and Smith 1841: 244), although not in the abbreviated version (Robinson and Smith 1856: 173), referenced by Meshel (1979: 298). Burckhardt (1822: 443), before Robinson, mentioned an eight-day walk from Hebron to ʿAqaba through the Arabah—“for this is both the nearest and the most commodious route”—and he also attributed to the road to King Solomon. A road from Hebron to Eilat was also mentioned by Eusebius, in the 4th century CE, who related to “Ḥazazon Tamar” (No. 8, Notley and Safrai 2005: 8–9), today Ḥaẓevah in the northern Arabah (Cohen and Israel 1995). A “highway” along the Arabah was mentioned by Kitchener (1884: 211), who passed it with camels. Petherick (1861: 33–37) described a caravan of 300 camels and 80 men that he saw in the Arabah, south

14

Yotvata.indb 14

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 2: Yotvata: A “Fortress” on a Road J unction

of Timna, carrying wheat grains from Egypt to Syria. If the journey from ʿAqaba to Hebron or vice versa takes eight days, nine days would be required between Jerusalem and ʿAqaba. Riding from ʿAqaba to Hebron on the comfortable Darb Ghazza took Robinson (Robinson and Smith 1841: 244) ten days—still two days more than through the Arabah. Walking from ʿAqaba to Jerusalem on the “Kingʼs Highway” on the Edomite plateau takes at least 13 days. This is not merely a detour, but involves strenuous climbs, requiring ascent from sea level at ʿAqaba to 1,650 m above sea level at Ras al-Naqb, then down to 250 m below sea level south of the Dead Sea, and up to Jerusalem, 800 m above sea level. Obviously, the shortest and most convenient route between the two sites runs along the Arabah, as noted by Burckhardt (above). 3.

During the second half of the second millennium BCE, the Arabah served as a highly important source of copper. During the Late Bronze Age, copper mining and smelting was intensive in Timna Valley and Naḥal ʿAmram, but not in the Faynan area. The heyday of copper production in all the three major mining and production centers was the 10th century BCE, simultaneously operated by the desert tribes, the Shasu in Egyptian sources (Levy, Najjar and Ben-Yosef 2014; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012; Ben-Yosef 2016; 2018; Avner 2014; 2021b; Avner et al. 2018). In addition to dozens of radiocarbon dates from the Timna smelting sites (15th–9th centuries BCE; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012), a collection of slag and charcoal from copper-smelting sites at Naḥal ʿAmram and along the western Arabah yielded ten radiocarbon dates from the same centuries, a timespan that includes the lifetime of the Yotvata “fortress.”5 Lead isotope analyses of copper objects from several sites in Canaan/Israel (Dan, Hazor, Beth Shean, Dor and Tel Reḥov) showed that copper from Timna and Naḥal ʿAmram reached these sites, during both the Late Bronze and the Iron Ages (Yahalom-Mack and Segal 2018; 2020). The copper from the southern Arabah was in fact transported to the north along the ancient roads that existed for millennia earlier (Avner 2016; 2021a). Thus, the connection between the Yotvata “fortress” and the southern Arabah copper industry and trade becomes clear.

4.

The notion that trade through Eilat, whether by sea or by land, was impractical is not in keeping with the evidence. A jar from Tell el-Kheleifeh bears two Sabaean letters: ‫ א‬and ‫( ח‬Glueck 1938: 16–17, Fig. 5). A south Arabian incense burner was found in the Iron Age fortress of Ḥaẓevah (Cohen and Israel 1995: 91). Sabaean letters were also found on objects from ʿAroer (Thareani 2011: Pls. 4–5), Tel Beer-sheba (Singer-Avitz 1999: 51, 57) and Jerusalem (Shiloh 1987), as well as at additional sites (van der Veen and Bron 2014). These sites delineate a route through Eilat and along the Arabah, where exotic commodities from Arabia were carried by camel caravans to Jerusalem and to Ghazza and further. 

5.

Most compelling for the trade routes along the Arabah are the clear remains of several ancient roads in the western Arabah, as well as in the east. On a plain, an ancient road is seen as a band of parallel trails, usually 100–200 m wide, such as Darb Ghazza and Darb al-Hajj (the latter crossing the Sinai from west to east; Avner 2002: 8–127; 2016: Figs. 3–4). Sections of similar trail bands were found all along the western side of the Arabah (Avner 2016); but most relevant here are bands uncovered south and north of Yotvata. Other sections of trails along the Arabah yielded substantial artifacts from almost all periods, from Early Neolithic to near modern times, including the Iron Age (Fig. 2.4), even though no artifacts were collected from the bands of trails near Yotvata (Fig. 2.5). Therefore, the remains in the field conclusively indicate the existence of ancient roads along the Arabah (for parallel roads, see Avner and Roll 1996; Avner 2016).

In conclusion, the Yotvata “fortress” served a dual function: to protect the water and wood sources of the oasis for the copper industry of Timna and to oversee the road junction in order to safeguard the transport of copper and the trade of exotic goods from south Arabia. 5. Twelve 14C dates from copper-smelting sites in the southern Arabah are now available from the Middle Bronze Age (2000–1500 BCE), a period commonly considered completely absent in the entire Negev (to be published by Avner and Scott Cummings).

15

Yotvata.indb 15

03/08/2022 15:50

UZI aVner

Fig. 2.4: Finds from a band of trails south-southeast of Beʾer Menuḥa, central Arabah 1) Pre-Pottery Neolithic B 2) Late Neolithic to Early Bronze 3) Iron Age (“Negebite Ware”) 4) Nabataean-Roman 5) Early Islamic 6) Ghazza Ware (the last 500 years) 16

Yotvata.indb 16

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 2: Yotvata: A “Fortress” on a Road J unction

Fig. 2.5: Part of a band of trails just north of the Yotvata oasis (south of Kibbutz Grofit)

References Abercrombie, T.J. 1991. Ibn Battuta, Prince of Travelers. National Geographic 180: 2–49. Alt, A. 1935. Aus der ʿArabah II. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 58: 1–78. Avner, U. 2002. Studies in the Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Population during the 6th–3rd Millennia BC (Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Jerusalem. http://www.adssc.org/sites /default/files/PhD-Uzi-RS.pdf. Avner, U. 2014. Egyptian Timna Reconsidered. In: Tebes, J., ed. Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age. Leuven: 103–163. Avner, U. 2016. Ancient Roads in the ʿArabah Valley. Negev, Dead Sea and Arava Studies 8: 25–44 (Hebrew). Avner, U. 2018. Nabataeans in the Eilat Region, the Hinterland of Aila. Aram 30: 597–644. Avner, U. 2021a. Prehistoric Cult Sites along the Desert Roads. In: Ben-David, H. and Pery, D., eds. The Incense Roads 2020. Sdeh Boqer: 165–188. Avner, U. 2021b. The Desert’s Role in the Formation of Early Israel and the Origin of Yhwh. Entangled Religions 12/2. DOI: 10.46586/er.12.2021.8889. Avner, U., Ginat, H., Shalev, S., Shilstine, S., Langford, B., Frumkin, A., Shem-Tov, R., Filin, S., Arav, R., Basson, U., Shamir, O. and Scott-Cummings, L. 2018. Ancient Copper Mines at Naḥal ʿAmram, Southern ʿArabah. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Tel Aviv and Winona Lake: 147–177.  Avner, U. and Roll, I. 1996. Roman Milestones and Ancient Roads in the ʿArabah Valley. American Journal of Archaeology 100: 762–764. Ben-Yosef, E. 2016. Back to Solomon’s Era: Results of the First Excavations at “Slaves’ Hill” (Site 34, Timna, Israel). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 376: 169–198. 17

Yotvata.indb 17

03/08/2022 15:50

Uzi Avner

Ben-Yosef, E. 2018. The Central Timna Valley Project: Research Design and Preliminary Results. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Tel Aviv and Winona Lake: 28–63. Ben-Yosef, E., Tauxe, L., Shaar, R. and Ron, H. 2012. A New Chronological Framework for the Iron Age Copper Production at Timna (Israel). Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 367: 31–71. Bienkowski, P. 2006. The Wadi ʿArabah: Meanings in a Contested Landscape. In: Bienkowski, P. and Galor, K. Crossing the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Pattern and Interaction in the Wadi ʿArabah. Oxford. Bowersock, G. W. 1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge, MA. Burckhardt, J.L. 1822. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. London. Cohen, R. and Israel, Y. 1995. On the Road to Edom, Discoveries from ʿEn Hazeva. Jerusalem. Cohen, R. and Cohen–Amin. 2004. Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands II: The Iron Age and the Persian Period. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Frank, F. 1934. Aus der ʿAraba. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 57: 191–280. Gichon, M. 1971. The Military Significance of Certain Aspects of the Limes Palestinae. In: Gichon, M., ed. Roman Frontier Studies, 1967. The Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress Held at Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv: 191–200. Gichon, M. 1980. Research on the Limes Palestinae: A Stocktaking. In: Hanson, W.S. and Keppie, L.J., eds. Roman Frontier Studies 1979. Papers Presented to the 12th International Congress of the Roman Frontier Studies (British Archaeological Reports International Series 71). Oxford: 843–864. Gichon, M. 1997. The Strategic Conception and the Tactical Functioning of the Limes Palestinae after the Diocletian Reorganisation. In: Groenman-Van Waateringe, W., van Beek, B.L., Willems, W.J.H. and Wynia, S.L., eds. Roman Frontier Studies 1995: Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. Oxford: 25–31. Gichon, M. 2002. Forty-Five Years of Research on the Limes Palaestinae—The Finding and Their Assessment in the Light of the Criticism Raised. In: Freeman, P., Bennett, J., Fiema, Z.T. and Hoffmann, B., eds. Limes XVIII: Proceeding of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies Held in ʿAmman, Jordan (September 2000) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1084). Oxford: 185–206. Glueck, N. 1938. The First Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ezion-Geber). Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 71: 3–18. Hull, E. and Kitchener, H.H. 1885. Mount Seir, Sinai and Western Palestine: Being a Narrative of a Scientific Expedition. London. Karmon, Y. 1968. The Geopolitical Position of Eilat in Historical Perspective. Studies in the Geography of Israel 6: 53–80 (Hebrew). Kitchener, H.H. 1884. Major Kitchener’s Report (Wadi ʿArabah). Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 202–221. Levy, T.E., Najjar, M. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2014. New Insight into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan. Los Angeles. Meshel, Z. 1979. A History of the Roads in the Negev. In: Shmueli, A. and Grados, Y., eds. The Land of the Negev, Man and Desert. Tel Aviv: 297–307 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1981. The History of “Darb el-Ghaza”—The Ancient Road to Eilat and Southern Sinai. Eretz-Israel 15: 358–71(Hebrew), 87* (English summary). Musil, A. 1908. Arabia Petraea II: Edom. Vienna. Notley, R.S. and Safrai, Z. 2005. Eusebius, Onomasticon, the Place Names of Divine Scripture. Berlin and Leiden. Parker, S.T. 1986. Romans and Saracens: A History of the Arabian Frontier. Winona Lake. Petherick, J. 1861. Egypt, the Sudan and Central Africa. Edinburgh.  Robinson, E. and Smith, E. 1841. Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea. London. Robinson, E. and Smith, E. 1856. Biblical Researches in Palestine and the Adjacent Regions: A Journal of Travels in the Years 1838–1852. London. 18

Yotvata.indb 18

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 2: Yotvata: A “Fortress” on a Road J unction

Roll, I. 2007. Crossing the Negev in Late Roman Times: The Administrative Development of Palaestina Tertia Saluteris and of Its Imperial Road Network. In: Lewin, A.S. and Pellegrini, P. eds. The Late Roman Army in the Near East, from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Potenza, Acerenza and Matera, Italy (May 2005) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1717). Oxford: 119–130. Roll, I. and Avner, U. 2008. Tetrarchic Milestones Found near Yahel, in the Southern Aravah. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 165: 267–286. Rothenberg, B. 1967. Negev: Archaeology of the Negev and the Arabah. Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Rothenberg, B. 1971. The ʿArabah in Roman and Byzantine Times in the Light of New Research. In: Gichon, M., ed. Roman Frontier Studies 1967. The Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress Held at Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv: 211–223. Shiloh, Y. 1987. South Arabian Inscription from the City of David, Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 119: 9–18. Singer-Avitz, L. 1999. Beersheba—A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 26: 3–75. Thareani, Y. 2011. Tel ʿAroer: The Iron Age II Caravan Town and the Hellenistic–Early Roman Settlement: The Avraham Biran (1975–1982) and Rudolf Cohen (1975–1976) Excavations (Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 8). Jerusalem. van der Veen, P.G. and Bron, F. 2014. Arabian and Arabizing Epigraphic Finds from the Iron Age Southern Levant. In: Tebes, J.M., ed. Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age. Leuven: 203–226. Woolley, C.L. and Lawrence, T.E. 1915. The Wilderness of Zin. London. Yahalom-Mack, N. and Segal, I. 2018. The Origin of the Copper Used in Canaan during the Late Bronze/Iron Age Transition. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Tel Aviv and Winona Lake: 313–331. Yahalom-Mack, N. and Segal, I. 2020. Metal Objects and Metallurgical Studies, Chapter 40B. Chemical and Lead Isotope Analysis of Copper-Based and Lead Artifacts. In: Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N., eds. Tel Reḥov, A Bronze and Iron Age City in the Beth-Shean Valley V: Various Objects and Natural-Science Studies (Qedem 63). Jerusalem: 42–51.

19

Yotvata.indb 19

03/08/2022 15:50

Yotvata.indb 20

03/08/2022 15:50

PART II

ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS

Yotvata.indb 21

03/08/2022 15:50

Yotvata.indb 22

03/08/2022 15:50

CHAPTER 3

THE EXCAVATIONS AND ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENTS Lily Singer-Avitz

The Yotvata oasis was described by many travelers and researchers in the 19th and 20th centuries, who explored the oasis, the springs and its archeological sites (for detailed discussion and quotes from travelers’ reports, see Meshel 1991: 8–17). The Iron Age site was discovered by Kibbutz Yotvata members in the 1950s (Meshel 1991: 16). It was described by Nelson Glueck, who visited it in August 1956 with kibbutz members. He saw the contours of the casemate rooms and, based on pottery sherds (including handmade pottery), he dated the site to the Iron Age II, concluding that it belonged to the “Negeb fortresses” (Glueck 1957: 23–25). In the 1960s, Rothenberg surveyed the area as part of his Arabah survey and dated the site to the Iron Age I, as well as preparing a rough ground plan of the “fortress” based on the remains that were visible on the surface (Site 44; Rothenberg 1967: 140–141, Fig. 188). Three excavation seasons were conducted there in 1974 and 1975 by Zeʾev Meshel, who published brief reports (Meshel 1974; 1975; 1991; 1993; Meshel and Sass 1974).1 As mentioned in the Preface, the Iron I site on Yotvata Hill was defined by Meshel as a fortress because it was enclosed by a casemate wall. However, such fortifications (whether casemate or solid walls), which are known in the Iron Age I (Chapter 21) and later, in the Early Iron IIA, are not massive and they differ from true fortresses in strength and plan (although they may serve as a deterrent to intruders). Consequently, they have received various descriptions and interpretations in the literature, including “enclosed settlements” providing protection (Herzog 1983); “bounded settlements,” which allowed separation between social groups and between culture and nature (Faust 2017); “segregation systems,” separating special working zones (Ben-Yosef, Langgut and Sapir-Hen 2017); and “nucleated settlements” (Porter et al. 2014). The term “fortress” is maintained here, in keeping with previous terminology in the literature since the 1950s, here used within quotation marks. In addition to the Iron Age “fortress,” remains of earlier and later periods were exposed: •

Surface finds of flint tools, attributed to the Timnian culture of the region, dating from the late fifth and early fourth millennia BCE (Chapter 7), have been discovered throughout the area of the hill.2 Radiocarbon dates obtained from the rampart and the “fortress” courtyard fills reinforce the existence of this ancient settlement (Chapter 19). These are the earliest finds to be discovered at the site.

•

Later tombs, which could not be dated, were dug into the ruins of the Iron I “fortress.” In addition, a built tomb, possibly affiliated with Nabataean culture and probably dating from the late Hellenistic period (labeled D in Figs. 3.2–3.3), was erected on the earthen rampart.

•

Remains of an isolated stone structure (labeled E in Figs. 3.2–3.3) were discovered in the southern part of the courtyard of the “fortress.” Meshel has suggested an Early Islamic date for this structure.

1. During the field work the late Shmuel Moshkovitz served as surveyor and prepared the site plan, Zeʾev Meshel took the area photographs and Avraham Hai photographed the finds. 2. Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily, who investigated the site in 2001, identified the lithic assemblage as Late Neolithic (2004: 19–20), but a later examination points to a later date (Chapter 7).

Yotvata.indb 23

03/08/2022 15:50

Lily Singer-Avitz

Fig. 3.1: Yotvata Hill, looking northwest (photo by Uzi Avner)

The Iron I “Fortress” The Iron I site of Yotvata (which should mostly probably be attributed to the early Iron Age I; see Chapter 4) is situated south of Kibbutz Yotvata (Fig. 1.3), built on a flat hilltop that rises above the Arabah (at an elevation of 125 m above sea level) and overlooks the Yotvata oasis (Figs. 3.1–3.3). It consists of two architectural elements: a casemate wall (A in Figs. 3.2–3.3) and an earthen rampart built farther along the summit, to the west of the casemate wall. This rampart (B in Figs. 3.2–3.3) may have been incorporated into the defense system of the site, serving as an additional line of defense. However, as discussed in more depth later, since the stratigraphic connection of the earthen rampart to the casemate wall is uncertain, it may alternatively be associated with the earliest phase of existence at the site (Chalcolithic or Early Bronze I).

The Casemate Wall An irregular casemate wall (labeled A in Figs. 3.2–3.3) was built on the flat summit of a high and steep hill, isolated on three sides, which makes up part of the cliff enclosing the oasis from the west. The casemate rooms encircled an open courtyard (Fig. 3.4; ca. 50 × 76 m) and were built only around the northern and western edges of the summit, with the steep southern and eastern cliffs making casemate construction on those sides unnecessary. The wall was built on the flat surface of the site, with no foundation trenches, although it seems to cut a thin ash layer, predating its construction. In the southwest, a gate complex providing indirect entry to the compound, was uncovered. The gate was probably protected by a small tower, which apparently stood on a rectangular stone platform that occupied part of the casemate to its south. A stone slab, distinct in shape and size from the stones found in the walls and debris, was uncovered in the gate passage; it has been interpreted by the excavators as a ritual maṣṣebah (standing stone) placed at the gate (Chapter 20). Some of the casemate walls were visible prior to excavation. Most of the rooms were exposed in the course of the excavations, with some left unexcavated for the next generation of archaeologists. The casemate wall is made of two roughly parallel walls with room openings facing the courtyard. The outer wall (W6 and W3) is 0.8–1 m thick, while the inner wall (W5 and W1) is 0.5–0.7 m thick; the partition walls between the casemate rooms are ca. 0.40 m thick. 24

Yotvata.indb 24

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 3: T he Excavations and A rchitectural Components

A E

B

C

D

Fig. 3.2: Plan of Yotvata Hill: A) Iron I casemate wall; B) earthen rampart; C) section in earthen rampart; D) Nabataean built tomb; E) Early Islamic building

B C B

D

A

E

0

50M

Fig. 3.3: Aerial view of Yotvata Hill: A) Iron I casemate wall; B) earthen rampart; C) section in earthen rampart; D) Nabataean built tomb; E) Early Islamic building (photo by Uzi Avner) 25

Yotvata.indb 25

03/08/2022 15:50

Yotvata.indb 26

W3 21 34

22

23

14

1

W1 W2

12

25 24

13

2 W7 7

W21

W22

W23

W19

10

W6

28A W24

28C 28B

Fig. 3.4: Plan of the Iron I casemate wall

27

standing stone

W16 4

11

33

W5

19

W25

15

W26

20A 26

20B

W8

3

W17

W9

W10

W27

16

29

W28

31 32 30

W29

18B

17

0

5

10

m

LILY sInGer-aVItZ

26

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 3: T he Excavations and A rchitectural Components

The walls were built of irregular local fieldstones, the spaces between them filled with smaller stones and earth. The walls were preserved to a height of 0.60–0.70 m; based on the fallen stones in the debris, their original height reached ca. 1 m. These stone walls carried a mudbrick superstructure, not preserved, many fragmentary bricks of which were found in the debris (Fig. 3.5). The casemate rooms, packed with fallen stones and brick debris, are characterized by their irregularity: they are 1.9–2.4 m wide and of varying lengths. The floors consist of bedrock or a leveled earthen and ash fill. Remains of palm fibers, also found among the debris, may suggest the roofing method. Many fragments of ore and slag were found on the flat hilltop—several in the casemate rooms, but mainly on its eastern side. This may point to the copper-smelting activity at the site, which, as explained below, may be attributed to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I, as well as to the Iron Age I. The “fortress” was a single-period site; since no phase repairs or superimposed floors have been discerned, we may assume that it was occupied for a relatively short time. A significant number of the casemate rooms revealed traces of fire, suggesting that the site met its end in a conflagration. The casemate rooms are described from the south to the northeastern edge of the hill.3

Casemate Room 7 This casemate is the southernmost room. Its edge near the cliff was not exposed, thus we do not know how the two were related. It is 2.25 m wide, the natural rock sloping slightly towards the edge of the cliff. W7 (0.40 m in thickness) separates Casemate Room 7 from Casemate Room 2, leaving an opening between them (ca. 1 m wide), the threshold of which is a natural bedrock terrace (0.15 m high). Traces of fire have been detected in the room. A few fragments of a handmade cooking krater (Reg. No. 104) have been found in the debris.

Fig. 3.5: Mudbricks from Casemate Room 2

3. The excavation was conducted without a grid, but along the individual casemate rooms. The highest wall in each room was designated as the zero point from which the heights in each room were measured. Since the height of the walls is not identical in all the rooms, the measured heights are of no significance and, consequently, are not marked on the plan.

27

Yotvata.indb 27

03/08/2022 15:50

Lily Singer-Avitz

Casemate Room 2 The size of the room is ca. 2.25 × 3.00 m. Several entire mudbricks were found in the debris (Fig. 3.5; 0.11 m. thick, 0.20 m wide, 0.30–0.40 m long). A rock terrace (0.20 m high) rises toward the threshold of the opening (0.85 m wide) that led to the courtyard. In the southwestern corner of the room, as well as in the opening between Casemate Rooms 2 and 7, traces of fire and a few fragments of crumbling handmade cooking kraters were found. Two grinding stones were also uncovered in this room (Chapter 11, Table 11.1:7a,7b).

Casemate Room 12 In this room (ca. 2.20 × 4.80 m, reaching a width of 2.40 m at its western end), bedrock is higher (ca. 0.20 m) than in the adjacent Room 2. The inner wall (W5) was partly built and partly a bedrock terrace that had probably been raised by a mudbrick wall that did not survive. It is therefore unclear where the opening to the courtyard was. In the southwestern corner, in a smudge of ashes on the bedrock floor, a copper ingot was found (Sample 148; for analysis results, see Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004: 24). Two cords of date palm fibers (Phoenix dactylifera; Figs. 14.1–14.2) and ostrich eggshell fragments (Reg. No. 149/40) were also uncovered (Chapter 10). In the northeastern corner, a small cell (L24; 1.25 × 1.15 m) leans against W5 and W22. Its thin walls are 0.20 m in thickness, and it was devoid of finds. A complete handmade cooking krater (Fig. 4.3:4) was found in an irregular depression in the northwestern corner (L25), lying on its side among black ashes and broken twigs.

Casemate Room 13 This room (ca. 4.33 m long) varies in width: 1.90 m on the eastern side and 2.25 m in the west (Fig. 3.6). A cupmark (0.15 m in diameter) was hewn in the bedrock floor. Traces of fire were detected throughout the room. The room was rich in finds: a Qurayyah Painted Ware bowl (Fig. 4.4:2); two storage jars (Fig. 4.2:3,5); three cooking kraters (Fig. 4.3:5,8,11); two granite grinding stones (Table 11.1:8a,8b); a Lambis truncate shell from the Red Sea (Fig. 8.1:5); a handle made of a domestic cattle bone (Bos taurus; Figs. 9.1, 18.2); and a fragment of a copper ring (Reg. No. 125/60, now lost, which, according to the field notes, contained 97.75% Cu). The northwestern corner features a small cell (L22; 1.50 × 1.05 m), leaning against W6 and W23. Its thin walls are 0.15–0.20 m in thickness. Sherds of a handmade cooking krater (Reg. No. 126) and one flint pounder (Table 11.1:11) were found in the cell.

Casemate Room 14 This casemate room (length: 6.05 m., maximum width: 2.10 m) borders the entrance gate. Near the gate it narrows to 1.45 m due to the thickening of the southern wall (W6) from its usual width of 1.00 m to 1.75 m. Next to W19 the wall forms a square foundation (1.75 × 1.72 m), which may have served as a podium (or platform) for a tower overlooking the gate (see below). The bedrock floor, inclining to the east, contains many depressions and grooves filled with ash. Fragments of a handmade cooking krater (Reg. No. 131), ostrich eggshell fragments (Reg. No. 132) and a horn sheath of a dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas; Fig. 18.1) were found on the floor.

Gate 21 A gate complex, accessed indirectly through a right-angled corner, was attached to the casemate rooms (Figs. 3.7–3.10). The two walls forming the gate passage are massive and uneven in thickness (W2: 0.90– 1.0 m thick; W19: 0.75–0.80 m thick). The gate passage is 2.0 m wide at its northern end and 2.2 m wide at 28

Yotvata.indb 28

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 3: T he Excavations and A rchitectural Components

Fig. 3.6: Casemate Room 13, with a cupmark hewn in the bedrock floor in the center and a cell (L22) in the northwestern corner, looking northwest

Fig. 3.7: Gate 21, looking northeast; note protruding stones delineated with white line (photo by Uzi Avner) 29

Yotvata.indb 29

03/08/2022 15:50

LILY sInGer-aVItZ

W5 W1

W19

W2

34

W3

W16

W6

0

2

m

Fig. 3.8: Plan of Gate 21

Fig. 3.9: Gate 21, looking northeast 30

Yotvata.indb 30

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 3: T he Excavations and A rchitectural Components

Fig. 3.10: Gate 21, looking southwest; note maṣṣebah (see Chapter 20) its southern end. Two parallel walls were attached to the gate’s façade: the eastern one W19 (1.75 m long) and the western one W16 (4 m long), the continuation of W2. Remains of a right-angled corner turning eastward were preserved in W16, most probably creating a “bent axis” access to the gate. Ca. 2 m east of W16 and the corner and ca. 2 m from W19, two stones protrude above the surface, probably marking the continuation of the wall that creates the indirect entrance to the gate (Figs. 3.7–3.8). This reconstruction would place the overall length of the gate entrance at ca. 7.5 m. This indirect entrance prevented a direct assault on the gate. The gate was probably also protected by a small tower in Casemate Room 14 to its south (described above). A large rectangular limestone slab (0.92 × 0.37 × 0.18 m) was found toppled across the entryway to the gate (Figs. 3.9–3.10). The stone differs in shape and size from any other stone found in the walls and debris. Its rectangular shape is natural, taken from a limestone ledge, but its top is rounded. Its shape and location led the excavators to interpret it as a ritual gate maṣṣebah (for the function of maṣṣeboth in gateways, see Chapter 20).​​ Only a few sherds and a flint pounder (Fig. 11.1:5; Table 11.1:5) have been found in the gateway.

Casemate Room 1 This room (Fig. 3.11), situated west of the gate, was poorly preserved, and the partition wall separating it from the casemate room to its north did not survive. On the bedrock floor, crumbling fragments of a handmade cooking krater (Reg. No. 101), copper ore and slag (Samples 112 O and 112 S; for analysis results, see Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004) and fragments of an ostrich eggshell (Reg. No. 112) were found. Signs of fire were detected. 31

Yotvata.indb 31

03/08/2022 15:50

Lily Singer-Avitz

Fig. 3.11: Casemate Room 1, looking south

Casemate Room 11 The state of preservation of this casemate room was poor, and the inner casemate wall (W1) was only partially preserved. The room (ca. 3.30 m wide) appears wider than the other casemates. In its southern part there was a bedrock terrace (0.30 m high). The partition wall between Rooms 11 and 1, which did not survive, was possibly built on this bedrock terrace. Signs of fire were detected.

Casemate Room 28 At its northern end this room was divided into two small cells (L28B and L28C; Fig. 3.12). In the southeastern corner of the main room (L28A), a handmade cooking krater was found (Fig. 4.3:6). In the eastern cell, one Conus arenatus and three Monetaria annulus shells from the Red Sea (Fig. 8.1:1,3) were discovered, as well as a grinding stone (Fig. 3.13; Table 11.1:9).

Casemate Room 15 This casemate room (1.80–2.00 m wide, 4.60 m long) is divided at its northern end into two small open cells (Fig. 3.14) by a partition wall (1.50 m long, 0.20 m wide). The opening to the courtyard is 1.30 m wide. On the bedrock floor, which slopes slightly to the north, handmade sherds were scattered throughout. Also uncovered were a wheel-made bowl (Fig. 4.1:2), a flint pounder (Fig. 11.1:2; Table 11.1:2), slag (Sample 155; for analysis results see Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004) and date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) log (Chapter 15). In the northwestern corner of the western cell, an ostrich eggshell (Reg. No. 159), along with a relatively large piece of slag (7 cm in diameter), have been found (Fig. 3.15) (Sample 159, for analysis results, see Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004). Signs of fire were detected throughout the room. 32

Yotvata.indb 32

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 3: T he Excavations and A rchitectural Components

Fig. 3.12: Cells 28B and 28C in Casemate Room 28, looking north

Fig. 3.13: Cell 28B, looking north 33

Yotvata.indb 33

03/08/2022 15:50

Lily Singer-Avitz

Fig. 3.14: Casemate Room 15, looking north

Fig. 3.15: Slag in the northwestern corner of Casemate Room 15 34

Yotvata.indb 34

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 3: T he Excavations and A rchitectural Components

Casemate Room 20A The northern partition wall of this long casemate room was not excavated, and consequently, we do not know its full length. In the southern part of the room, the burnt debris layer on the bedrock floor contained three storage jars (Figs. 3.16, 4.2:6–8) and a juglet (Fig. 4.1:5). The field records indicate that several other artifacts were found, such as fragments of an iron object (Reg. No. 153), of a copper and iron ornament (Reg. No. 188) and three cords (Reg. No. 179). Unfortunately, these finds could not be located. One meter to the north of the opening to the courtyard (which was 1.50 m wide), and under the eastern wall (W1), a pit (L20B, 40–50 cm deep) was uncovered, containing a large assemblage of grinding stones (14 complete stones and fragments of 16 others; Figs. 3.17–3.18). Some of these stones were photographed but left at the site after excavation (Fig. 3.19; Table 11.1:19). As these grinding stones were found under the casemate wall, they should be attributed to the early occupation (Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age I) at the site.

Casemate Room 16 Near the northeastern corner of this casemate room (ca. 4.30 × 1.80 m) there is an opening to the courtyard. The casemate walls were built on bedrock terrace higher than the center of the room. At its southern end, a partition wall (1.25 m long, 0.20 m wide) divided the room into two small open cells. A walnut shell (Juglans regia) was found among the debris, in addition to collapsed bricks and charred wood remains of saxaul (Haloxylon persicum) (Chapter 15), two samples of which have been submitted to radiocarbon testing. One of the samples fits well into the 12th century BCE (Table 19.1:2), while the date of the other is much later than Iron I (Table 19.1:1; and see chronological discussion in Chapters 4 and 21).

Fig. 3.16: Fragmented storage jars in Casemate Room 20A, looking south 35

Yotvata.indb 35

03/08/2022 15:50

Lily Singer-Avitz

Fig. 3.17: Grinding stones in Pit 20B under wall in Casemate Room 20A, looking east

Fig. 3.18: Grinding stones in Pit 20B under wall in Casemate Room 20A, looking north 36

Yotvata.indb 36

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 3: T he Excavations and A rchitectural Components

Fig. 3.19: A collection of grinding stones found in Pit 20B under the wall of Casemate Room 20A

A relatively rich pottery assemblage was found in this room: three wheel-made storage jars (Fig. 4.2:1–2,4), three handmade cooking pots (Fig. 4.3:3,7) and one handmade juglet (Fig. 4.3:12). A fragment of a bowl made of saxaul (Haloxylon persicum) wood (Fig. 12.1:1) was also found in the room, as well as two grinding stones (Table 11.1:10a,10b). A copper ingot also uncovered there was analyzed (Sample 201—for analysis results, see Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004). There were traces of a strong conflagration in the room. A burial, probably later in date, was found at the northern end (see below, Burial 40). Remains of a basket made of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) (Fig. 14.3), as well as a date pit (Chapter 15), were found next to the skeleton. The excavators did not notice a burial pit, but since the room contains traces of fire and the skeleton was not burnt, they were inclined to assume that the burial was later in date. Since the basketry and the date pit were burnt, they should be attributed to the casemate-room assemblage.

Casemate Room 29 Stones of the wall of this casemate room were blackened from fire. The northern partition wall was not detected. Several finds were exposed on the bedrock floor: a Qurayyah Painted Ware bowl (Figs. 3.20, 4.4:1), a cooking krater (Fig. 4.3:1), a Red Sea Cypraea pantherina shell (Fig. 8.1:4), a Tridacna sp. valve (Fig. 8.1:6), fragments of ostrich eggshell (Reg. No. 186), a pounder (Table 11.1:12) and copper slag (Sample 169; for analysis results, see Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004). In the southeastern corner of the room, a small cell was built against the walls (L31). The walls of this cell are thin (ca. 0.15–0.20 m thick). The cell was full with remains of charred wood—saxaul (Haloxylon 37

Yotvata.indb 37

03/08/2022 15:50

Lily Singer-Avitz

Fig. 3.20: Casemate Room 29, a Qurayyah Painted Ware bowl

persicum) and Euphrates poplar (Populus euphratica)—and ash (see Chapter 15). These remains include a haft (of a work tool?) made of saxaul (Fig. 12.1:2), a handmade cooking krater (Fig. 4.3:2) and a large granite pestle (ca. 18 cm long) used for grinding or pounding (Fig. 11.1:3; Table 11.1:3).

Casemate Rooms 32 and 17 Only parts of these rooms were uncovered, so we do not know their exact length. In Room 32 only one small bowl was found (Fig. 4.1:3), while in Room 17 several finds were exposed: a handmade cooking krater (Fig. 4.3:9), two stone tools—an abrader and a platter (Fig. 11.1:1,4; Table 11.1:1,4), remains of charred saxaul (Haloxylon persicum) and tamarisk (Tamarix) (Chapter 15), fragments of ostrich eggshell (Reg. No. 120/40), and remains of an unidentified bird and a young sheep/goat (Chapter 18).

Soundings in the Courtyard Several soundings were made in the courtyard along and next to the inner casemate wall:

Locus 10 This sounding is adjacent to Casemate Room 1 near the gate passage. In the thin layer of ash covering the bedrock, fragments of copper were found. One copper ore and slag were analyzed (Samples 113 O 38

Yotvata.indb 38

03/08/2022 15:50

CHaPter 3: t He eXCaVatIons anD a rCHIteCtUraL CoMPonents

and 113 S; for results, see Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004). Other finds include a few sherds of handmade cooking kraters and remains of charred wood of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera), Persian salvadora (Salvadora persica) and moringa (Moringa peregrina) (see Chapter 15).

Locus 19 In this sounding, adjacent to Casemate Room 15, only a fragment of a handmade cooking krater was found (Fig. 4.3:10).

Locus 26 In 1995, at the request of Zeʾev Meshel, Uzi Avner extended a probe (1 × 1.5 m) in the “fortress” courtyard, next to Casemate Room 20A. Over the years, the section walls were swept away by rain and collapsed. In 2017, the probe was expanded to 7 × 2.7 m and its sides were straightened afresh by Avner in order to clarify various details (Fig. 3.21). Most of the surface in this probe is “paved” with hard gypsum, which also occurs in the section below the surface, with gypsum concretion lumps of various degrees of hardness. Beneath the surface there was a thick layer of soft gray soil rich with ash and charcoal (for identification of charcoal samples, see Chapter 16). Charcoal from a depth of 15–20 cm in this layer was dated by 14C to the second half of the fourth millennium BCE (Table 19.1:4). Below it was a soft brown layer, rich in organic material and animal dung.4 A concretion chunk of gypsum and stone divides this layer into two: an eastern and a western section, within depressions in the bedrock, 60 and 70 cm below the surface respectively. Charcoal from the bottom of the western depression was dated by 14C to the second half of the fifth millennium BCE (Table 19.1:5). Both layers were cut by the Iron I casemate wall. Several additional finds were collected in the probe. Due to the collapse of the baulks, these could not be assigned to their original findspots and therefore have not been assigned to specific layers. The finds include pounders and fragments of grinding stones (Fig. 11.1:7–9; Table 11.1:13–18), flint items (Chapter 7), a few pottery sherds (mainly non-indicative body sherds and simple handmade holemouth jar rims) dating from the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze period, a perforated bone tool, probably used for weaving (Fig. 9.3), and a variety of faunal remains (Chapter 18).

cm

Hard gypsum flagstones

Hard gypsum flagstones

Hard gypsum flagstones

Hard gypsum flagstones

Hard gypsum flagstones cm

0

0

10

Brown soil

Gypsum concretion lumps

Stone

Stone

20

Gray layer

30

Stone

20

Gray layer

Stone

40

30 40

Gypsum and stone concretion

50

Brown soil

Brown soil

60

10

Bedrock

50 60

70

70

80

80

0

50 cm

Fig. 3.21: Section (L26) made next to the inner casemate wall, looking north 4. Microscopic examination by Dafna Langgut showed high concentrations of spherulite, indicating a large amount of crushed animal dung (email correspondence of November 24, 2017).

39

Yotvata.indb 39

03/08/2022 15:50

Lily Singer-Avitz

Locus 30 This sounding, adjacent to Casemate Room 32, included several layers of varied soils with ashes, leaning against the casemate wall. In the top layers (0.15–0.20 m. below surface) much copper slag was reported, but not analyzed. The amount of slag decreases as the sounding deepens. In 2017, the sections were cleaned afresh by Uzi Avner; a sampling of 3 kg of ashy soil from a depth of 32 cm below surface yielded 109 gr of copper slag and a small amount of charcoal. One charcoal sample submitted for radiocarbon testing has been dated to the second half of the fifth millennium BCE (Table 19.1:3).

Locus 18B This sounding was conducted adjacent to Casemate Room 17. In the upper part of the section, remains of later burials were found (see below, Burial 18A). Several Iron Age pottery sherds were found scattered near and around the skeleton: a wheel-made bowl and a jug (Fig. 4.1:1,4), a sandstone abrader (Fig. 11.1:6; Table 11.1:6), a group of sawn and perforated Conus arenatus shells, used as beads (Fig. 8.1:2), a copper fragment (slag samples 139 and 140; for analysis results, see Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004) and a fragment of an ostrich eggshell (Reg. No. 135/40). It seems that the burial was dug later than the time of use of the “fortress,” causing a disturbance. As it was difficult to clearly define the boundaries of the grave, the burial was designated as L18A and the other finds as L18B.

Soundings outside the Casemate Wall Several soundings were made outside the casemate wall, adjacent to it.

Locus 27 This sounding was conducted in the corner outside the casemate wall (W6), between the eastern wing of the entrance gate (W19) and the square foundation in Casemate Room 14. The bedrock was covered with collapsed bricks and was devoid of finds.

Locus 4 This sounding was conducted in the corner formed by the western wing of the gate (W16) and the external casemate wall (W3), near Casemate Room 1. The bedrock was covered with collapsed bricks and was devoid of finds.

Locus 33 This sounding was conducted near the external casemate wall (near Casemate Room 28); it was devoid of finds.

The Earthen Rampart West of the casemate wall are the remains of a curving rampart (Fig. 3.22; labeled B in Figs. 3.2–3.3; dimensions: 1–1.5 m high, 5 m wide, 160 m long). Its northern end is near the outer side of Casemate Room 20, but the connection with the wall is at present cut by a small wadi, rendering the stratigraphic relationship between the two elements unclear. Its southern end reached the southern cliff of the hill. The rampart was built on the only accessible side of the hill. A section (1.50 m wide) was cut in the southern part of the rampart (L5; Figs. 3.23–3.24, labeled C in Figs. 3.2–3.3). It was found to be built of layers of brown soil, ash and stones, mixed with charred moringa wood (Moringa peregrina) and concreted by natural local gypsum. Apart from organic material (Chapter 15) and one small piece of copper slag, the section was devoid of pottery and other small finds. 40

Yotvata.indb 40

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 3: T he Excavations and A rchitectural Components

Fig. 3.22: The earthen rampart, looking north

Fig. 3.23: Section in the rampart 41

Yotvata.indb 41

03/08/2022 15:50

Lily Singer-Avitz

Fig. 3.24: Section in the rampart, looking north (photo by Uzi Avner)

A charcoal sample from the bottom of the rampart rendered a date in the first half of the fifth millennium BCE (Table 19.1:8). Two higher ash layers—40 cm above the base on the southern side and 57 cm above the base on the northern side—were dated to the second half of the fifth millennium BCE (Table 19.1:6–7). On the basis of flint tools scattered all over the hilltop and dated to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I, it has been suggested that the rampart may belong to an early stage of existence at the site (Meshel 1993: 1517). Due to the finding of copper slag all over the hill, it was assumed that the rampart was built in order to protect the copper-industry activities that took place there.5 This may be supported by the discovery of a long stone wall, possibly a defense wall, at the Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I village of Tall Hujayrāt al-Ghuzlān, ʿAqaba (Eichmann, Khalil and Schmidt 2009: 25 and Fig. 6),6 a site with an intensive copper industry (Klimscha 2013). Another possibility should be considered: that the rampart that contains charcoal samples dated to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I was erected by the builders of the casemate wall. If this is the case, they would have collected remains of the earlier settlement for construction of the rampart (thus accounting for the early radiocarbon-dated samples obtained here), so that it could serve as a front defense line for the Iron I “fortress,” enlarging the protected area for various activities.

The Nabataean Built Tomb On the prominent point of the southern edge of the rampart and next to the steep cliff, a square stone tomb structure (3.65 × 3.2 m) was discovered (labeled D in Figs. 3.2–3.3), built of hewn stones (Figs. 3.25–3.26). It was faced on the exterior with white plaster; remains of a red band were visible on the plaster on W11 and W13. The structure was roofed with stone slabs, upon which fieldstones were placed. It consists of two adjoining burial cells, opening to the northeast (Figs. 3.25–3.27). The roofing stone slabs were placed on ledges in the inner faces of W13 and W15, as well as on the partition wall (W11), ca. 80 cm above the bedrock floor. 5. Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily (2004) suggested that it may even have begun as early as the Late Neolithic period. 6. The excavators also proposed that it could have been a protective wall against floods.

42

Yotvata.indb 42

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 3: T he Excavations and A rchitectural Components

The southeastern burial cell (L8; 205 × 70–75 cm) contained a coffin made of cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) (Chapters 15 and 17) without a lid (Figs. 3.26, 3.28; and see Chapter 13). Only a few fragmentary bones were found inside. The northwestern cell (L9; 170 × 50–66 cm) contained a human skeleton laid on its back, its head facing south (Figs. 3.26, 3.28). Several pieces of linen were found near his chest (Chapter 14), suggesting that the human remains were wrapped in shrouds. The skeleton was photographed and left covered at the site.7 In addition, pieces of burnt moringa wood (Moringa peregrina) have been found (Chapter 15). Two copper ore samples were analyzed (Samples 116 and 116a; for results, see Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004). An oil-lamp fragment (Fig. 6.1:10) and a copper (or bronze) ring (Fig. 3.29:1) were found above the coffin. Several surface finds were uncovered to the southwest of the tomb (L6): two copper (or bronze) chain links8 (Fig. 3.29:2), a bead made of scoria (Fig. 3.29:3) and a few scattered pottery sherds (Fig. 6.1:1–9). It is likely that the tomb was robbed and these items removed and scattered. The sherds were identified by the excavators as dating from the Roman period and the built tomb was originally dated accordingly (Meshel 1993: 1518). However, reexamination of the sherds’ drawings by Erickson-Gini (Chapter 6) and a few other sherds found later by Avner, including Nabataean fine ware and Eastern Sigillata A ware, suggests that they should be assigned to the Late Hellenistic period, dated to the second half of the 2nd century BCE, pointing to a Nabataean affiliation.

Fig. 3.25: The Nabataean built tomb, looking southwest 7. In order to determine further details about the skeleton (such as age and sex), a two-day excavation (December 30–31, 2018) was conducted by Uzi Avner, Guy Stiebel and Israel Hershkovitz (assisted by Sarah Borgel and Ariel Pokhojaev), in which the skeleton was exposed again. Preliminary results of this excavation are presented below in an addendum by Uzi Avner. The full report will be published separately elsewhere. 8. The ring and the chain links could not be found in order to be analyzed.

43

Yotvata.indb 43

03/08/2022 15:50

LILY sInGer-aVItZ

0.0

W12 0.45

Fig. 3.26: Plan of the Nabataean built tomb

0.5

W13

W15

Wood coffin

0.5

0.7

L8

W11

L9

Fig. 3.27: The entrances to the Nabataean built tomb, looking southwest 44

Yotvata.indb 44

03/08/2022 15:50

CHaPter 3: t He eXCaVatIons anD a rCHIteCtUraL CoMPonents

Fig. 3.28: The burial cells of the Nabataean built tomb, looking southwest

3

2 1

3

2

1

2

Fig. 3.29: Small finds attributed to the Nabataean built tomb 1) copper/bronze ring (102/60, L8) 2) copper/bronze chain links (103/60, L6) 3) bead made of scoria (107/80; L6)

3

45

Yotvata.indb 45

03/08/2022 15:50

Lily Singer-Avitz

Later Burials Later graves, dug in the ruins of the “fortress,” were found in two of its rooms (Burials 23 and 40), and a third was uncovered in the courtyard adjacent to the casemate wall (Burial 18A). As no finds were associated with the skeletons, the date of the graves could not be established.

Burial 23 A grave was dug into the southwest corner of Casemate Room 14. An oval frame of stones surrounded five skeletons placed parallel to one another. No finds accompanied them. The excavators photographed the skeletons and then covered them up again.

Burial 40 At the northern end of Casemate Room 16, a skeleton was found lying on the bedrock floor, its head facing the opening and its knees are bent (Fig. 3.30). Three carnelian beads were found near it. The excavators did not notice a burial pit, but since the room exhibited traces of a fierce fire and the skeleton was not affected by it, they were inclined to assume that the burial was later than the Iron I casemate wall.

Fig. 3.30: Burial 40 46

Yotvata.indb 46

03/08/2022 15:50

Chapter 3: T he Excavations and A rchitectural Components

Burial 18A In the upper part of the section adjacent to Casemate Room 17, remains of a skeleton and skull of an infant were uncovered, surrounded by stones. Several stones lying above it served as the cover of the burial, which leaned against the casemate wall and therefore should be later in date. As noted above, several Iron I pottery sherds and a few other finds were found scattered near and around the skeleton (see above, L18B). Since it was difficult to clearly define the boundaries of the burial, it was marked as L18A and the other finds as L18B.

An Early Islamic Structure in the Courtyard The remains of an isolated, one-room stone structure (L3; 1.9 × 2.5 m) were discovered in the southern part of the courtyard of the “fortress” (Figs. 3.4, 3.31–3.32, labeled E in Figs. 3.2–3.3). Its opening faced south towards the Arabah Valley. Both sides of the walls and the floor were coated with white plaster. A few sherds from the Early Islamic period were discovered here, testifying that the structure is contemporaneous with the nearby Early Islamic site (see Part II). One large bowl, which seems to be of Mahesh Ware (see Chapter 23), is presented in Fig. 3.33. From the structure it was possible to view the entire oasis.

Fig. 3.31: Stone structure from the Early Islamic period in the courtyard of the “fortress” (L3), looking southeast 47

Yotvata.indb 47

03/08/2022 15:50

Lily Singer-Avitz

Fig. 3.32: Stone structure from the Early Islamic period, looking northwest

Fig. 3.33: Early Islamic period bowl (110/3, L3)

48

Yotvata.indb 48

03/08/2022 15:51

Chapter 3: T he Excavations and A rchitectural Components

References Ben-Yosef, E., Langgut, D. and Sapir-Hen, L. 2017. Beyond Smelting: New Insights on Iron Age (10th c. BCE) Metalworkers Community from Excavations at a Gatehouse and Associated Livestock Pens in Timna, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11: 411–426. Eichmann, R., Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K. 2009. Excavations at Tall Ḥujayrāt al-Ghuzlān (ʿAqaba/Jordan): Excavations 1998–2005 and Stratigraphy. In: Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K., eds. Prehistoric ʿAqaba I (Orient Archäologie 23). Rahden: 17–78. Faust, A. 2017. The Bounded Landscape: Archaeology, Language, Texts, and the Israelite Perception of Space. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 30: 3–32. Glueck, N. 1957. The Fifth Season of Exploration in the Negeb. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 145: 11–25. Herzog, Z. 1983. Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb and the Wilderness of Beer-sheba. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 250: 41–49 Klimscha, F. 2013. Innovations in Chalcolithic Metallurgy in the Southern Levant during the 5th and 4th Millennia BC. Copper Production at Tall Hujayrāt al-Ghuzlān and Tell al-Magaṣṣ, ʿAqaba Area, Jordan. In: Burmeister, S., Hansen, S., Kunst M. and Müller-Scheeßel, N., eds. Metal Matters: Innovative Technologies and Social Change in Prehistory and Antiquity. Rahden: 31–63. Meshel, Z. 1974. Yotvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 51–52: 38–39 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1975. Yotvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 54–55: 34–35 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1991. Yotvata Oasis—Its History, Landscapes and Sites. Ariel 78: 6–44 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Meshel, Z. and Sass, B. 1974. Notes and News: Yotvata. Israel Exploration Journal 24: 273–274. Porter, B.W., Routledge, B.E., Simmons, E.M. and Lev-Tov, J.S.E. 2014. Extensification in a Mediterranean Semiarid Marginal Zone: An Archaeological Case Study from Early Iron Age Jordan’s Eastern Karak Plateau. Journal of Arid Environments 104: 132–148. Rothenberg, B. 1967. Negev: Archaeology in the Negev and the Arabah. Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Rothenberg, B., Segal, I. and Khalaily, H. 2004. Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Copper Smelting at the Yotvata Oasis (South-west Arabah). Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 24: 17–28.

49

Yotvata.indb 49

03/08/2022 15:51

Yotvata.indb 50

03/08/2022 15:51

PART III

ARTIFACTS

Yotvata.indb 51

03/08/2022 15:51

Yotvata.indb 52

03/08/2022 15:51

CHAPTER 4

THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE OF THE IRON I Lily Singer-Avitz

Introduction The pottery assemblage found at Yotvata Hill consists of three well-defined groups: wheel-made unpainted pottery, handmade vessels also known as “Negebite Ware” and fragments of two imported bowls of Qurayyah Painted Ware (commonly known as “Midianite”; henceforth QPW). All the vessels still available or about which sufficient information could be gleaned are presented in the figures. Eleven vessels (wheel-made and handmade) were examined under a petrographic microscope by David BenShlomo. With the exception of the two QPW bowls, the examined vessels were all made of the same shale-rich clay, probably local to the region of Yotvata (see Chapter 5).1 The location of Yotvata in the Arabah Valley and its proximity to the Timna copper mines might lead to the expectation of tempering with crushed copper-smelting slag, as, indeed, was detected in vessels found at Timna and at copper-processing sites in Wadi Faynan, as well as at sites in the Negev Highlands (for discussion and earlier references, see Martin and Finkelstein 2013; Martin et al. 2013; Yahalom-Mack et al. 2015). However, the Yotvata samples contain no slag inclusions or remains of igneous rocks. Some contain crushed calcite. This difference might stem from chronological reasons: the use of slag-tempered clays is common mainly in the Iron IIA, with only a few occurrences earlier (Martin et al. 2013: 3788).

The Pottery Non-Decorated Wheel-Made Pottery A small assemblage of complete wheel-made vessels was recovered in the casemate rooms. Storage jars dominate the assemblage. Notable is the fact that not a single fragment of a wheel-made cooking pot was found; it can therefore be assumed that the handmade vessels (sherds of which were found in almost every casemate room; see Chapter 3) were used for cooking (see below). None of the wheel-made vessels are slipped, burnished, or decorated.

Deep Carinated Bowl with Everted Rim (Fig. 4.1:1) This bowl has a rounded carination above mid-body. The everted rim protrudes inward and outward. The thin wall is worn, as the clay is brittle and crumbly. Only a portion of the bowl is preserved, and the base is missing. Similar vessel profiles are best known among larger kraters, very common in Late Bronze Age strata. This type of krater, dubbed Group K-1 at Lachish (Yannai 2004: 1037, 1041, 1047, 1053), KR1 at Tel Batash (Panitz-Cohen 2006: 57–61) and KR2 at Tel Aphek (Gadot 2009: 209–211), has a variety of 1. The handmade vessels tested from the neighboring Early Islamic site were also made locally (see Chapter 24).

Yotvata.indb 53

03/08/2022 15:51

Lily Singer-Avitz

2

1

3

5

4

Fig. 4.1: Bowls, jug and juglet No. 1 2 3 4 5

Type Bowl Bowl Bowl Jug Juglet

Reg. No. 141/1 124/1 164/1 133/1 145/1

Locus 18B 15 32 18B 20A

rim forms. One rim variant of these large kraters comparable to the Yotvata bowl appears at sites such as Lachish Levels VII and VI (Yannai 2004: Figs. 19.27:13–17, 19.47:1,5, 19.51:13) and Tel Batash Strata VII and VI (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pls. 39:4–5, 55:14). This krater type continues to appear in Iron I strata, e.g., at Tel Batash Stratum V (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pls. 61:17, 68:16). Smaller variants, similar to the bowl in question, are known at other sites, e.g., Lachish Level VI (Yannai 2004: Fig. 19.47:2) and Tel Ṣippor Stratum VI (Yannai 2000: Fig. 4:18), although they are less common.

Deep Carinated Bowl with Simple Rim (Fig. 4.1:2) The bowl has a rounded carination above the mid-body point and an almost vertical upper wall ending with a simple rounded rim. 54

Yotvata.indb 54

03/08/2022 15:51

Chapter 4: T he Pottery Assemblage of the I ron I

This bowl type is known at Late Bronze sites, e.g., Fosse Temples II and III at Lachish (Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pls. XXXIXB:62, XLIB:107), and continues to appear at Iron Age I sites such as Tell Qasile Stratum XII (Mazar 1985: Fig. 11:10) and at Tell el-Farʿah (South), Tomb 542 (Laemmel 2013: Fig. 4:6). A similar bowl is presented in the pottery repertoire from Timna: at Site 2, dated by Rothenberg to the Late Bronze Age/early Iron Age (Rothenberg 1972: 105–111, Pl. 30:8), and at Site 34, dated to the Iron I (Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017: Fig. 7:4).

Small Bowl with Soft Low Carination and Rounded Base (Fig. 4.1:3) The rim of this bowl is missing. This vessel type is not common; a similar bowl was found at Tel Masos Stratum III, dated to the Iron Age I (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Pl. 132:9–10).

Large Jug with Wide Neck and Trefoil Rim (Fig. 4.1:4) A thick loop handle extends from the rim to the sloping shoulder of this vessel. Only the upper part survived, and its base is missing. However, from the parallels presented below we may conclude that it has a piriform body ending with a narrow base. This jug type appears in many Late Bronze pottery assemblages such as Tel Batash Stratum VII (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pls. 43:1,2, 53:5), Tell Beit Mirsim Tomb 100 (Ben-Arieh 2004: Fig. 2.36:83–85), Tel Beth-Shemesh Level 7 (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2016: Fig. 6.75:3–5), the tomb at Tell Jedur (Ben-Arieh 1981: Fig. 3:9) and Timna Site 2 (Rothenberg 1972: Fig. 30:6). It is still known in the Iron Age, appearing at Tell el-Farʿah (South), Tomb 532 (Laemmel 2003: Pl. 87:532/24).

Dipper Juglet (Fig. 4.1:5) This juglet has a slightly everted neck, a trefoil rim and one loop handle extending from the rim to the sloping shoulder. The lower part, now missing, may have had a pointed or rounded base. This juglet type appears in many Late Bronze pottery assemblages (Killebrew 2005: 119, Fig. 3.16:CA 15), at sites such as Tel Batash Strata VIII–VII 2 (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pls. 23:8, 44:9–10), Tel Ṣippor Stratum V (Yannai 2000: Fig. 3:18–20), Tell Beit Mirsim Tomb 100 (Ben-Arieh 2004: Fig. 2.34:73), Timna Site 200 (Rothenberg 1988: Fig. 15:4),3 as well as in Iron I sites: Site 34 at Timna (Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017: Fig. 8:15), Ashdod Stratum XII (Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.32:1), Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985: Fig. 20:11), Ashdod Stratum XII (Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 32:6) and Tell el-Farʿah (South), Tombs 542, 562 and 615 (Laemmel 2013: Figs. 5:29–31, 10:22–25, 12:5–6).

Four-Handled Storage Jar (Fig. 4.2:1–6) Four loop handles extend from the sloping rounded shoulder to the vessel wall.4 The slanted neck is short, and the rim is thickened and rounded on the outside. The body, wide in the shoulder region, gradually narrows toward the slightly pointed base. Two complete storage jars and the lower part of a third one were found in L16 (Fig. 4.2:1–2,4). The upper part of a similar jar was found in L13 (Fig. 4.2:3), together with one of the QPW vessels (see below). This type of storage jar seems to be the successor of the typical Late Bronze jar well known in the southern part of Cisjordan at sites such as Lachish Levels VII–VI (Yannai 2004: 1048, 1053; Groups SJ-3 and SJ-4), Tel Batash (Panitz-Cohen 2006: 77–81, Fig. 5: SJ2 and SJ2b) and Ashdod (Dothan 1971: Fig. 2. The Tel Batash juglets have an emphasized shoulder. 3. This juglet is defined by Rothenberg as “rough handmade,” but an examination of this vessel at the Israel Antiquities Authority storeroom established that it was wheel-made. 4. The drawings of two storage jars (Fig. 4.2:5–6) have been reconstructed on the basis of only a few fragments; consequently, not all the four handles are shown in the drawing.

55

Yotvata.indb 55

03/08/2022 15:51

LILY sInGer-aVItZ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

8

Fig. 4.2: Storage jars 56

Yotvata.indb 56

03/08/2022 15:51

Chapter 4: T he Pottery Assemblage of the I ron I

Fig. 4.2: Storage jars No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Reg. No. 195/1 192/1 129/1 190/1 127/1 163/3 163/1 163/2 00/1

Locus 16 16 13 16 13 20A 20A 20A Surface find

Petrography

Table 5.1, Sample No. 6

Table 5.1, Sample No. 1

83:1–3). This typical Late Bronze storage jar has two or four handles. Storage jars with four handles are especially characteristic of the early 12th century BCE (Killebrew 2005: 123, Type CA 21b, Fig. 3.20). The Yotvata storage jars differ from the examples cited above mainly in their base, which is pointed, rather than a stump base. Storage jars with pointed base are known at Iron I Giloh (Mazar 1981: 23–27, Fig. 8:1–2) and at Tell Deir ʿAlla Phase A (Franken 1969: Fig. 47:2), at both sites with two handles. Examples of the four-handled variant with pointed base dated to the Iron Age I were found in Tombs 553 and 562 at Tell el-Farʿah (South) (Laemmel 2003: Pls. 137:553/1, 142:562/21). Another jar was found in the “Philistine” tomb at Tell ʿEitun (Edelstein and Aurant 1992: Fig. 10:1) and possibly at Ashkelon (Barako 2008: Fig. 23.7), although its base is missing. Sherds (rim and base) of a similar jar were found at Beth-Shemesh Stratum III (Grant and Wright 1938: Pl. IX:3–4).

Ridged-Neck Storage Jar (Fig. 4.2:7) This vessel, with two loop handles extending from the rounded shoulder to the wall, has a ridged neck with an inner depression, and a thickened rounded rim. The body, wide in the shoulder region, gradually narrows toward the rounded base. This type of jar is relatively rare in southern Israel: a similar jar was found in Tomb 542 at Tell el-Farʿah (South), dated to the Iron Age I (Laemmel 2003: Pl. 112:542/50; 2013: 159–160), and one jar rim from Tel Masos Stratum III is possibly of the same type (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Pl. 131:4). It is noteworthy that in many sites in the northern part of Cisjordan, this type is well known mainly in Iron I strata. While most storage jars of this type have a narrow body, some are broader. At Yoqneʿam this jar type was uncovered in Iron I strata (XVIII–XVII) and continues to appear, albeit less frequently, during the first part of the Iron IIA (Strata XVI–XV) (Zarzecki-Peleg, Cohen-Anidjar and Ben-Tor 2005: 296–298, Fig. II.29:1, Photo II.25). At Megiddo it begins to appear in the Late Bronze Age and is commonly found in Iron I strata (Arie 2013: 517–518, Fig. 12.36: SJ1A; Martin 2013: 378–379, Type SJ61, both articles with references to other sites). At Beth Shean this type begins to appear in the Iron IA (Stratum S-5) and becomes the most frequent jar in the Iron IB (Stratum S-2), but is unknown in the Iron IIA (PanitzCohen 2009: 233–234, with references to other sites, Photo 5.28a). Panitz-Cohen (2009: 234) notes that many storage jars of this type exhibit bands of coils in the center. These suggest the use of a technique of combining two, or possibly three, parts. Panitz-Cohen suggests that the lower part of the jar and the 57

Yotvata.indb 57

03/08/2022 15:51

Lily Singer-Avitz

neck and rim were wheel-formed, then joined by means of several coils at mid-body. It seems that a similar feature occurs on the Yotvata jar as well.

Large Storage Jar with Wide Opening and Sloping Shoulder (Fig. 4.2:8) This vessel has two loop handles extending from a mild shoulder carination to the body, which narrows toward the flattened base. It has a short neck ending with a molded rim. It is an unusual vessel; to the best of my knowledge, a similar vessel (albeit with four handles) is known only at Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Pls. 137:13, 151:9).

Non-Decorated Egyptianized Storage Jar The rim fragment shown in Fig. 4.2:9 belongs to a large, Egyptian-style, storage jar without a neck and with a rolled rim. It has thick walls, a bag-shaped body and probably a rounded base. The clay is dark red and includes many small and large white grits and is locally produced (petrographic group 1b; see Chapter 5, Table 5.1:1). Similar jars without handles, uncovered in Egypt, are typically made of Nile silt and were popular during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties (Martin 2008: 255). A few such Egyptianized rims were found at several sites in Canaan, such as at Ashkelon (Martin 2008: 255, Fig. 7) and Tel Mor Stratum V (Martin and Barako 2007: 143–145, Fig. 4.10:6).

Handmade Vessels Handmade vessels known as “Negebite Ware” have been found at numerous Iron Age sites in the Negev, the Arabah and southern Transjordan. As these vessels usually have a very simple shape and the manufacturing technology and typology did not change significantly during the Iron Age, they form a relatively homogeneous group throughout the entire period. Since “Negebite Ware” vessels have a wide chronological range (Haiman and Goren 1992; Meshel 2002; Tebes 2004; Bernick-Greenberg 2007), their date within the Iron Age cannot be determined.

Cooking Krater (Fig. 4.3:1–11) This vessel type is the most popular among the handmade vessels found at Yotvata. They were manufactured from coarse clay, which included many large grits and organic material. Most bear traces of soot, testifying to their function as cooking vessels. The base is flat, the wall in most cases is upright or slightly incurved, and the rim is simple. Remains of mat, basket, or textile impressions on the base, visible on many vessels of this group at other sites,5 are not discernable on the vessels found at Yotvata. On the outer side of the rim of one of the vessels, a clay coil and a knob handle were attached (Fig. 4.3:4). Noteworthy is one vessel that has two repair holes, indicating that the vessels were considered sufficiently valuable to merit being fixed (Fig. 4.3:5).

Juglet (Fig. 4.3:12) This vessel has an elongated body, a broad neck and one handle extending from the rim to the body. The rim is slightly pinched. The vessel may be an imitation of a wheel-made juglet. Only one such vessel was uncovered at Yotvata.

Qurayyah Painted Ware and Its Date Fragments of two QPW bowls (Fig. 4.4) were unearthed in two of the casemate rooms (L13 and L29), together with wheel-made and handmade vessels (Figs. 4.2:3,5, 4.3:1,5,8,11). The bowls, made of pale clay and heavily 5. For detailed discussion and references, see Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 200–206.

58

Yotvata.indb 58

03/08/2022 15:51

Chapter 4: T he Pottery Assemblage of the I ron I

tempered with red, brown and black inclusions, have thick walls and are well fired. The composition and manufacture of these two vessels have been thoroughly discussed by Kalsbeek and London (1978).

No. 1 This is a large bowl (Fig. 4.4:1) with straight thick walls and a thickened rim; its base is missing. The bowl was manufactured with the coil technique, and the rim was most likely formed on a rotating wheel (Kalsbeek and London 1978: 52). The interior is brown-pink slipped, and both sides are decorated with red and black geometric designs. The rim is red-painted. The upper part of the exterior, just below the rim, is decorated with a broad horizontal red band, flanked by black lines (one above the red band and two beneath it). Under this horizontal decoration, the circumference of the bowl bears a decoration of red “arches” divided by black vertical lines. The upper part of the exterior, beneath the rim, is decorated with four painted horizontal stripes: the upper stripe consists of short vertical black lines; the second one is a broad horizontal red band flanked by two black lines; the third stripe consists of black lozenges; and the fourth one is a broad horizontal red band flanked by two black lines. Below this horizontal ornament, the circumference of the bowl is vertically divided by a metopic design with red and black paint.

No. 2 This small bowl (Fig. 4.4:2), formed on a rotating wheel (Kalsbeek and London 1978: 51), has a thick straight wall, a simple rim and a flat base. It is red/brown-slipped on both its interior and exterior; the exterior is decorated with two horizontal black lines: one above the base and the other beneath the rim. The interior is horizontally hand-burnished. QPW has been found at many sites in southern Transjordan and Cisjordan. Petrographic chemical analyses have demonstrated that this pottery was manufactured in the Hejaz, most probably in Qurayyah and/or Tayma (Rothenberg and Glass 1983; Glass 1988; Gunneweg et al. 1991; Kalsbeek and London 1978; Slatkine 1974; Daszkiewicz 2014; Luciani 2016; Luciani and Alsaud 2020; Tourtet, Daszkiewicz and Hausleiter 2021). There is, however, debate with regard to their cultural influences: whether they were inspired by Bichrome Ware or Mycenaean pottery (Dayton 1972; Muhly 1984), by Egyptian faience vessels (Parr 1982: 129–130), by an early group of Sea People (Parr 1996; Rothenberg 1998) or by a combination of local Levantine, eastern Mediterranean and Arabian motifs in the rock art of Arabia (Tebes 2014).6 Another topic still under debate is the dating of the QPW. It was generally considered to date from the period between the 13th (or late 14th) and the mid-12th centuries BCE (the period of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties) based on the finds from Timna Site 200 (Rothenberg and Glass 1983: 100–101; Rothenberg 1998: 201). However, following new excavations conducted in the southern regions of the Cisjordan (Timna Valley; see Ben-Yosef et al. 2012; Erickson-Gini 2014; Ben-Yosef 2016) and southern Transjordan (Wadi Faynan; see Levy, Najjar and Ben-Yosef 2014), scholars have questioned this dating, arguing that the time frame in which this pottery was in use is much longer, continuing even to the Iron IIA and IIB (i.e., a period of ca. 700 years) (Ben-Yosef 2010: 574; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012: 63; Bienkowski 2001; Bienkowski and van der Steen 2001: 23, n. 2, 26, n. 8; Bimson and Tebes 2009; Smith 2009: 569; Smith and Levy 2008: 84; Tebes 2007: 12; 2013: 319–323). Until recent years no site in the northern Hejaz, the homeland of this pottery,7 was properly excavated, and the available data was based on surveys and surface finds. Since 2004, a joint Saudi-German archaeological project has been investigating the site of Tayma. Based on the stratigraphy at the Oasis of Tayma and results 6. See Tebes 2015 for a detailed study on the painted decorative motifs. 7. This pottery was found at approximately a dozen sites, in addition to Qurayyah; see Parr, Harding and Dayton 1970: 229–238; Ingraham et al. 1981: 71–74.

59

Yotvata.indb 59

03/08/2022 15:51

LILY sInGer-aVItZ

1

2

3 4

5

6

9

7

8

10

11

12

Fig. 4.3: Handmade cooking kraters and a juglet 60

Yotvata.indb 60

03/08/2022 15:51

CHaPter 4: t He PotterY asseMBLaGe of tHe I ron I

Fig. 4.3: Handmade cooking kraters and a juglet No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Reg. No. 170/1 167/1 189/1 147/1 128/1 172/1 182/1 128/2 119/1 130/1 128/3 196/1

Locus 29 31 16 25 13 28A 16 13 17 19 13 16

Petrography Table 5.1:11 Table 5.1:10 – Table 5.1:9 – Table 5.1:4 Table 5.1:5 Table 5.1:7 – Table 5.1:3 Table 5.1:8 –

1

2

Fig. 4.4: Qurayyah Painted Ware bowls No. 1 2

Reg. No. 169/1 160/1

Locus 29 13

61

Yotvata.indb 61

03/08/2022 15:51

Lily Singer-Avitz

of radiocarbon tests, Hausleiter suggested that QPW probably began to appear at the site in the 13th–12th centuries BCE8 and that the main phase of its production and use may have come to an end before the end of the 11th century BCE (2014: 408).9 In fact, this pottery group does not seem to have been in use in Tayma later than the mid-11th century BCE (Tourtet, Daszkiewicz and Hausleiter 2021: 57). Reexamination of the data pertaining to the date of this pottery at sites in southern Cisjordan and southern Transjordan shows that despite the fact that QPW has been found at relatively many sites in these areas, most have yielded only a few sherds not always in stratigraphic context. Fragmentary or complete QPW vessels have been found in a reliable context only at a limited number of sites (for detailed discussions and references, see Singer-Avitz 2014; Intilia 2016). In the “Governor’s Residency” at Tell el-Farʿah (South) and at Timna (Sites 200 and 2) this pottery was found in a context dated to the period of the Twentieth Dynasty (12th century BCE). A few QPW sherds have been found at Timna, in Site 3, dated to the Late Bronze Age (Yagel, Ben-Yosef and Craddock 2016), and in Strata III–II in Site 30, dated to the Iron I. In Site 34, a relatively large number of sherds of this pottery group have been recovered (mostly surface finds), attributed to the Iron I (Ben-Yosef 2016; Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017).10 We may assume that the QPW bowls found at the Tell Jedur tomb and at the Amman Airport building should be attributed to the latest phases of the tomb and the site respectively, and should thus be dated to the 12th century BCE. It can therefore be concluded that the QPW appeared at the end of the Late Bronze Age and continued into the early Iron I. As explained below, I have adopted the view that the Late Bronze Age came to an end in Canaan ca. 1130 BCE, concurrently with the end of the Egyptian hegemony of the Twentieth Dynasty. Dating the QPW to the latter part of the Late Bronze and to the early Iron I and its end to the mid11th century is in keeping with the dates given recently at the Hejaz (Tayma), the homeland of this ware, whence it was exported northward. It appears that there is no data confirming the notion that the QPW survived for several centuries, long after its manufacture at its place of origin had come to an end.

Dating the Yotvata Assemblage The date and nature of the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age I is a much debated topic and merits a brief discussion here. The traditional date of 1200 BCE for this transition was set in 1921 when the three official schools of archaeology in Jerusalem (British, French and American), in cooperation with the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, drew up a system of archaeological periods dividing the Iron Age into sub-periods (Albright 1949: 111–112). Excavations in sites such as Lachish, Megiddo and Tel Seraʿ led to the realization that the Canaanite material culture continued into the 12th century (the period of the Twentieth Dynasty Egyptian presence in Canaan), ending only after the reign of Ramesses VI (ca. 1130 BCE) (Finkelstein 1995; Oren 1985; Ussishkin 1985; 1995). The lack of consensus leads to some confusion in terminology, with scholars disagreeing on the character of the 12th century BCE and on how to refer to this period. The 12th-century assemblages are variously called “Iron I” (Mazar 2008: 86–87; 2011: 105; 2015: 5; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2009: 8. Following the excavations conducted in Qurayyah, suggestions place the appearance of this pottery in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Luciani 2018; Luciani and Alsaud 2018; 2020). 9. Hausleiter (2014: 423) states (in his Table 1) that the terminal date of this group is probably the 10th century BCE (with a question mark). This is based on (or affected by) the dates proposed by scholars for some Levantine sites (Hausleiter 2014: 402). 10. Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef (2017: 254) argue that based on radiocarbon results the site should be dated to the late Iron I, i.e., between the late 11th and late 10th centuries BCE. However, it seems that several radiocarbon results show an earlier date (Ben-Yosef 2016: Table 1); thus, it is possible that the site existed already at the end of the 12th century BCE. Strengthening this earlier date is the fact that most of the parallels brought by the authors to the pottery vessels found at Site 34 are from Sites 2 and 200 at Timna.

62

Yotvata.indb 62

03/08/2022 15:51

Chapter 4: T he Pottery Assemblage of the I ron I

116), “Late Bronze IIIB” (Ussishkin 2004: 74–75), “LB|IR transition” (Sharon, Gilboa and Boaretto 2008: 185) and “Transitional (Late) Bronze and Iron Ages” (TBI) (Martin 2011: 20). Following Ussishkin, the term “Late Bronze IIIB” is used here for the period of the 12th century BCE (until ca. 1130 BCE). Yotvata Hill was a single-period site, and based on its architecture, where phase repairs or superimposed floors have not been discerned, we infer that it was short-lived. From the discussion above, it appears that most of the unpainted wheel-made ceramic vessels found at Yotvata have parallels mainly in southern sites, in strata and tombs dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age (Lachish Level VI, Tel Batash Stratum VI, Tel Ṣippor Strata VI–V, Tell Beit Mirsim Tomb 100 and the tomb at Tell Jedur), as well as to the Iron Age I (including Tel Masos Stratum III, Iron I Giloh, Tel Batash Stratum V, various tombs in Cemetery 500 at Tell el-Farʿah [South], Ashdod Stratum XII and Tell Qasile Strata XII–XI).11 No doubt some vessels (bowls, jug and juglet) point to a continuum between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age I. However, it seems that the storage jars (the four-handled storage jars with thickened rim and the ridged-neck storage jar) appear mainly in the early Iron I, although in many cases they have direct LB antecedents. Given the fact that most of the vessels discussed above appear in the Late Bronze III and the early Iron I and some mainly in the latter period, we may cautiously propose a dating for the assemblage sometime within the second half of the 12th and the first half of the 11th centuries BCE.12 This dating corresponds well with the dates recently obtained for the QPW at the Hejaz (Tayma), the homeland of this ware, from where it was imported northward.13

References Albright, W.F. 1949. The Archaeology of Palestine. London. Arie, E. 2013. The Late Bronze III and Iron I Pottery: Levels K-6, M-6, M-5, M-4 and H-9. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Cline, E.H., eds. Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 31). Tel Aviv: 475–667. Barako, T.J. 2008. Amphoras through the Ages. In: Stager, L.E., Schloen, J.D. and Master, D.M., eds. Ashkelon I: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006). Winona Lake: 429–461. Ben-Arieh, S. 1981. A Late Bronze Age Tomb from Tell Jedur. Eretz-Israel 15: 115–128 (Hebrew), 81* (English summary). Ben-Arieh, S. 2004. Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 23). Jerusalem. 11. An exception is the unusual wide-mouthed storage jar. As aforementioned, to the best of my knowledge, only a single similar vessel, from Tel Masos Stratum II, is known—and it is later in date (Early Iron IIA). As it is the only comparison available for this jar and as no other late vessel is known at Yotvata, we should not take this vessel into consideration for the purpose of our dating. 12. Archaeomagnetic investigation conducted on one sherd, a surface find on Yotvata Hill, suggests a dating in the Late Bronze Age (13th–early 12th centuries BCE) or the Early Islamic period (Peters, Tauxe and Ben-Yosef 2018). The authors rejected the Early Islamic date as they believed that there was no evidence of this period at the site and they tended to date Yotvata in accordance with the early stage of production at Timna (Sites 200, 2 and 3). However, as the Early Islamic period is, in fact, represented at the site (L3; see Chapter 3), it is difficult to draw definite conclusions from the investigation of a single sherd. Regrettably, the sherd itself could not be found for further examination. On the basis of the complete assemblage of vessels found at Yotvata, it seems that the site should be dated to the early Iron Age, contemporaneous with the subsequent stage at Timna, i.e., Sites 30 (Strata III–II) and 34. 13. Two charred wood samples (from Casemate Room 16) were submitted to radiocarbon dating. One of the samples (RT 1550: 1201–904 BCE Cal. [95.4%]; Table 19.1:2) may fit within the second half of the 12th and/or the 11th century BCE. The date of the second sample (RT 1549: 901–780 BCE Cal. [95.4%]; Table 19.1:1), however, is too late and cannot contribute to the dating of the pottery.

63

Yotvata.indb 63

03/08/2022 15:51

Lily Singer-Avitz

Ben-Shlomo, D. 2005. Material Culture. In: Dothan, M. and Ben-Shlomo, D. Ashdod VI: The Excavation of Areas H and K (1968–1969) (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 24). Jerusalem. Ben-Yosef, E. 2010. Technology and Social Process: Oscillations in Iron Age Copper Production and Power in Southern Jordan (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego). San Diego. Ben-Yosef, E. 2016. Back to Solomon’s Era: Results of the First Excavations at “Slaves’ Hill” (Site 34, Timna, Israel). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 376: 169–198. Ben-Yosef, E., Shaar, R., Tauxe, L. and Ron, H. 2012. A New Chronological Framework for Iron Age Copper Production at Timna (Israel). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 367: 31–71. Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2007. The Negebite Ware Typology. In: Cohen, R. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el Qudeirat) 1976–1982 (Israel Antiquities Authority Report 34). Jerusalem: 187–210. Bienkowski, P. 2001. Iron Age Settlement in Edom: A Revised Framework. In: Daviau, P.M.M., Wevers, J.W. and Weigl, M., eds. The World of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOT Supplement Series 325). Sheffield: 257–269. Bienkowski, P. and van der Steen, E. 2001. Tribes, Trade and Towns: A New Framework for the Late Iron Age in Southern Jordan and the Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 323: 21–47. Bimson, J.J. and Tebes, J.M. 2009. Timna Revisited: Egyptian Chronology and the Copper Mines of the Southern Arabah. Antiguo Oriente 7: 75–118. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2009. The Archaeology of Border Communities. Renewed Excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh, Part I: The Iron Age. Near Eastern Archaeology 72: 114–142. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2016. Tel Beth-Shemesh: A Border Community in Judah. Renewed Excavations 1990–2000: The Iron Age (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 34). Winona Lake. Daszkiewicz, M. 2014. Archaeometric Analyses of Qurayyah Painted Ware from Tayma and Qurayyah. In: Luciani, M. and Hausleiter, A., eds. Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in Syro-Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions. Proceedings of the International Workshop Berlin, 2–5 November 2006 (Orient-Archäologie 32). Rahden: 409–413. Dayton, J.E. 1972. Midianite and Edomite Pottery. Proceedings of the Fifth Seminar for Arabian Studies, Held at the Oriental Institute, Oxford 22nd and 23rd September, 1971. London: 25–33. Dothan, M. 1971. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967 (Text, Figures and Plates) (ʿAtiqot 9–10). Jerusalem. Dothan, M. and Porath, Y. 1993. Ashdod V: Excavation of Area G: The Fourth–Sixth Seasons of Excavations 1968– 1970 (ʿAtiqot 23). Jerusalem. Edelstein, G. and Aurant, S. 1992. The “Philistine” Tomb at Tell ʿEitun. ʿAtiqot 21: 23–42. Erickson-Gini, T. 2014. Timna Site 2 Revisited. In: Tebes, J.M., ed. Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 45). Leuven: 47–83. Finkelstein, I. 1995. The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan. Tel Aviv 22: 213–239. Franken, H.J. 1969. Excavations at Tell Deir ʿAlla I: A Stratigraphical and Analitycal Study of the Early Iron Age Pottery. Leiden. Fritz, V. and Kempinski, A. 1983. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el-Msas (Tel Masos) 1972–1975, I–III. Wiesbaden. Gadot, Y. 2009. Late Bronze and Iron Age Pottery. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains of the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 182–341. Glass, J. 1988. Petrographic Investigations of the Pottery. In: Rothenberg, B., ed. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the Arabah 1959–1984 1). London: 96–112. Grant, E. and Wright, G.E. 1938. Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine), Part IV (Pottery). Haverford. 64

Yotvata.indb 64

03/08/2022 15:51

Chapter 4: T he Pottery Assemblage of the I ron I

Gunneweg, J., Beier, T., Diehl, U., Lambrecht, D. and Mommsen, H. 1991. “Edomite,” “Negbite” and “Midianite” Pottery from the Negev Desert and Jordan: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis Results. Archaeometry 33: 239–253. Haiman, M. and Goren, Y. 1992. “Negebite” Pottery: New Aspects and Interpretations and the Role of Pastoralism in Designating Ceramic Technology. In: Bar-Yosef, O. and Khazanov, A., eds. Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives (Monographs in World Archaeology 10). Madison: 143–152. Hausleiter, A. 2014. Pottery Groups of the Late 2nd/Early 1st Millennia BC in Northwest Arabia and New Evidence from the Excavations at Tayma. In: Luciani, M. and Hausleiter, A., eds. Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in Syro-Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions. Proceedings of the International Workshop in Berlin, 2–5 November 2006 (Orient-Archaologie 32). Rahden: 399–434. Ingraham, M.L., Johnson, T.D., Rihami, B. and Shatla, I. 1981. Preliminary Report on a Reconnaissance Survey of the Northwestern Province (with a Brief Note on the Northern Province). Atlal 5: 59–84. Intilia, A. 2016. Qurayyah Painted Ware: A Reassessment of 40 Years of Research on Its Origins, Chronology and Distribution. In: Luciani, M., ed. The Archaeology of North Arabia Oases and Landscapes: Proceedings of the International Congress Held at the University of Vienna, 5–8 December, 2013 (Oriental and European Archaeology 4). Vienna: 175–255. Kalsbeek, J. and London, G. 1978. A Late Second Millennium B.C. Potting Puzzle. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 232: 47–56. Killebrew, A.E. 2005. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity. An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 B.C.E. (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 9). Atlanta. Kleiman, S., Kleiman, A. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2017. Metalworkers’ Material Culture in the Early Iron Age Levant: The Ceramic Assemblage from Site 34 (Slaves’ Hill) in the Timna Valley. Tel Aviv 44: 232–264. Laemmel, S. 2003. A Case Study of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Cemeteries of Tell el-Farʿah (South) (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford). Oxford. Laemmel, S. 2013. A Few Tomb Groups from Tell el-Farʿah South. In: Killebrew, A. and Lehmann, G., eds. The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology. Atlanta: 145–189. Levy, T.E., Najjar, M. and Ben-Yosef, E., eds. 2014. New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan. Los Angeles. Luciani, M. 2016. Mobility, Contacts and the Definition of Culture(s) in New Archaeological Research in Northwest Arabia. In: Luciani, M., ed. The Archaeology of North Arabia Oases and Landscapes: Proceedings of the International Congress Held at the University of Vienna, 5–8 December, 2013 (Oriental and European Archaeology 4). Vienna: 21–56. Luciani, M. 2018. Pottery from the “Midianite Heartland”? On Tell Kheleifeh and Qurayyah Painted Ware. New Evidence from the Harvard Semitic Museum. In: Nehmé, L. and Al-Jallad, A., eds. To the Madbar and Back Again: Studies in the Languages, Archaeology, and Cultures of Arabia Dedicated to Michael C.A. Macdonald. Leiden and Boston: 392–438. Luciani, M. and Alsaud, A.S. 2018. The New Archaeological Joint Project on the Site of Qurayyah, North-west Arabia: Results of the First Two Excavation Seasons. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 48: 165–183. Luciani, M. and Alsaud, A.S. 2020. Qurayyah 2015: Report on the First Season of the Joint Saudi Arabian-Austrian Archaeological Project. Atlal 28: 48–77. Martin, M.A.S. 2008. Egyptians at Ashkelon? An Assemblage of Egyptian and Egyptian-Style Pottery. Ägypten und Levante 18: 245–274. Martin, M.A.S. 2011. Egyptian-Type Pottery in the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant. Vienna. Martin, M.A.S. 2013. The Late Bronze IIB Pottery from Levels K-8 and K-7. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Cline, E.H., eds. Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 31). Tel Aviv: 343–457. 65

Yotvata.indb 65

03/08/2022 15:51

Lily Singer-Avitz

Martin, M.A.S. and Barako, T.J. 2007. Egyptian and Egyptianized Pottery. In: Barako, T.J. Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959–1960 (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 32). Jerusalem: 129–165. Martin, M.A.S., Eliahu, A., Anenburg, M., Goren, Y. and Finkelstein, I. 2013. Iron IIA Slag-Tempered Pottery in the Negev Highlands, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 3777–3792. Martin, M.A.S. and Finkelstein, I. 2013. Iron IIA Pottery from the Negev Highlands: Petrographic Investigation and Historical Implications. Tel Aviv 40: 6–45. Mazar, A. 1981. Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site near Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 31: 1–36. Mazar, A. 1985. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two, the Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes (Qedem Reports 20). Jerusalem. Mazar, A. 2008. From 1200 to 850 B.C.E.: Remarks on Some Selected Archaeological Issues. In: Grabbe, L.L., ed. Israel in Transition from Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.). New York and London: 86–120. Mazar, A. 2011. The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint. Near Eastern Archaeology 74: 105–111. Mazar, A. 2015. Iron Age I: Northern Coastal Plain, Galilee, Samaria, Jezreel Valley, Judah, and Negev. In: Gitin, S., ed. The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors: From the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period. Jerusalem: 5–70. Meshel, Z. 2002. Does Negebite Ware Reelect the Character of Negev Society in the Israelite Period? In: Aḥituv, S. and Oren, E.D., eds. Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines (Beersheva: Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East 15). Beersheba: 283–300. Muhly, J.D. 1984. Timna and King Solomon. Bibliotheca Orientalis 41: 275–292. Oren, E.D. 1985. Governor’s Residencies in Canaan under the New Kingdom: A Case Study of Egyptian Administration. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14: 37–56. Panitz-Cohen, N. 2006. The Pottery of Strata XII–V. In: Panitz-Cohen, N. and Mazar, A., eds. Timna (Tel Batash) III: The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE (Qedem Reports 45). Jerusalem: 9–150. Panitz-Cohen, N. 2009. The Local Canaanite Pottery. In: Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, A., eds. Excavations at Tel BethShean 1989–1996, III: The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S. Jerusalem: 195–433. Parr, P.J. 1982. Contacts between Northwest Arabia and Jordan in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. In: Hadidi, A., ed. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I. Amman: 127–133. Parr, P. 1996. Further Reflections on Late Second Millennium Settlement in North West Arabia. In: Seger, J.D., ed. Retrieving the Past. Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek. Winona Lake: 213–217. Parr, P.J., Harding, G.L. and Dayton, J.E. 1970. Preliminary Survey in N.W. Arabia, 1968. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 8–9: 193–242. Peters, I., Tauxe, L. and Ben-Yosef, E., 2018. A Preliminary Archaeomagnetic Investigation of the Yotvata Fortress. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Tel Aviv: 118–126. Rothenberg, B. 1972. Were These King Solomon’s Mines? Excavations in the Timna Valley. New York. Rothenberg, B., ed. 1988. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the Arabah 1959–1984 1). London. Rothenberg, B. 1998. Who Were the “Midianite” Copper Miners of the Arabah? About the “Midianite Enigma.” Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 8: 197–212. Rothenberg, B. and Glass, J. 1983. The Midianite Pottery. In: Sawyer, J.F.A. and Clines, D.J.A., eds. Midian, Moab and Edom. The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 24). Sheffield: 65–124. Sharon, I., Gilboa, A. and Boaretto, E. 2008. The Iron Age Chronolgy of the Levant: The State-of-Research at the 14C Dating Project, Spring 2006. In: Grabbe, L.L., ed. Israel in Transition from Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.). New York: 177–192. Singer-Avitz, L. 2014. The Date of the Qurayyah Painted Ware in the Southern Levant. Antiguo Oriente 12: 123–148. 66

Yotvata.indb 66

03/08/2022 15:51

Chapter 4: T he Pottery Assemblage of the I ron I

Slatkine, A. 1974. Comparative Petrographic Study of Ancient Pottery Sherds from Israel. Museum Haaretz Yearbook 15–16: 101–111. Smith, N.G. 2009. Social Boundaries and State Formation in Ancient Edom: A Comparative Ceramic Approach (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego). San Diego. Smith, N.G. and Levy, T.E., 2008. The Iron Age Pottery from Khirbat en-Nahas, Jordan: A Preliminary Study. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 352: 41–91. Tebes, J.M. 2004. Iron Age “Negevite” Pottery: A Reassessment. Antiguo Oriente 4: 95–117. Tebes J.M. 2007. Pottery Makers and Premodern Exchange in the Fringes of Egypt: An Approximation to the Distribution of Iron Age Midianite Pottery. Buried History 43: 11–26. Tebes, J.M. 2013. Investigating the Painted Pottery Traditions of First-Millennium BC North-Western Arabia and Southern Levant: Chronological Data and Geographical Distribution. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 43: 317–336. Tebes, J.M. 2014. The Symbolic and Social World of the Qurayyah Pottery Iconography. In: Tebes, J.M., ed. Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 45). Leuven: 163–201. Tebes, J.M. 2015. Investigating the Painted Pottery Traditions of the First Millennium BC Northwestern Arabia and Southern Levant: Context of Discovery and Painted Decorative Motives. Aram 27: 255–82. Tourtet, F., Daszkiewicz, M. and Hausleiter, A. 2021. Pottery from Tayma: Chronostratigraphy, Archaeometric Studies, Cultural Interaction. In: Luciani, M., ed. Proceedings of the Workshop The Archaeology of the Arabian Peninsula: Connecting the Evidence, 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vienna, 2016, Oriental and European Archaeology. Vienna: 43–88. Tufnell, O., Inge, C.H. and Harding, L. 1940. Lachish II: The Fosse Temple. London. Ussishkin, D. 1985. Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the End of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. In: Tubb, J.N., ed. Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. London: 213–228. Ussishkin, D. 1995. The Destruction of Megiddo at the End of the Late Bronze Age and Its Historical Significance. Tel Aviv 22: 240–267. Ussishkin, D. 2004. A Synopsis of the Stratigraphical Chronological and Historical Issues. 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: 50–122. Yagel, O.A., Ben-Yosef, E. and Craddock, P.T. 2016. Late Bronze Age Copper Production in Timna: New Evidence from Site 3. Levant 48: 1–19. Yahalom-Mack, N., Martin, M.A.S., Tirosh, O., Erel, Y. and Finkelstein, I. 2015. Lead Isotope Analysis of SlagTempered Negev Highlands Pottery. Antiguo Oriente 13: 83–98. Yannai, E. 2000. A Re-evaluation of the Late Bronze Pottery from Tel Ṣippor. Israel Exploration Journal 50: 203–215. Yannai, E. 2004. The Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area S. 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: 1032–1146. Zarzecki-Peleg, A., Cohen-Anidjar, S. and Ben-Tor, A. 2005. Pottery Analysis. In: Ben-Tor, A., Zarzecki-Peleg, A. and Cohen-Anidjar, S., eds. Yoqneʿam II: The Iron Age and the Persian Period. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988) (Qedem Reports 6). Jerusalem: 235–344.

67

Yotvata.indb 67

03/08/2022 15:51

Yotvata.indb 68

03/08/2022 15:51

CHAPTER 5

PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE IRON I POTTERY David Ben-Shlomo

Eleven Iron Age coarse ware vessels and sherds from Yotvata were analyzed by thin section petrography. All of the pottery was made of a “shaley clay” type soil (Group 1a, Table 5.1, Fig. 5.1a). The fabric is characterized by a dark (crossed polarized light) and reddish to brown (regular polarized light) matrix color. Main components are shale and clay pellets, grog and calcareous inclusions; silty quartz and possibly occasional igneous rock fragments appear as well in small quantities. No slag fragments were identified in the samples (see Martin and Finkelstein 2013 for such inclusions). This general group (Group 1a, Fig. 5.1a) has several variations according to high quantities of crushed calcite (Group 1b, Fig. 467b), or calcareous sand (Group 1c), possibly used as temper. The Yotvata 4 sample had very few inclusions (Group 1d). The more typologically “unusual” vessels (the Yotvata 1 and 2 samples) were made of the same clay as the handmade cooking kraters. This fabric may be the same as the fabric of vessels uncovered in the Negev Highlands and Kadesh Barnea (Haiman and Goren 1992; Martin and Finkelstein 2013: 12), where the clay is suggested to have an origin from the southwestern Negev (Hatira Formation of the Lower Cretaceous). Within the analysis of the Timna pottery, the fabric of the group designated “normal pottery” (Glass 1988: 101–108, Pl. 107:4) is somewhat similar, but the Yotvata samples lack the dolomite and gypsum

Table 5.1: Vessels analyzed from Yotvata and their petrographic grouping

Yotvata.indb 69

Sample

Basket

Description

Main Inclusions

Petrographic Illustration Group 1b Fig. 4.2:9

Yotvata 1

00/1

Egyptianized storage jar

Yotvata 2

173/1

Flat base

Shaley clay, quartz shale, crushed calcite Shaley clay, quartz shale, grog

Yotvata 3

130/1

Handmade cooking krater

Crushed calcite

1b

Fig. 4.3:10

Yotvata 4

172/1

Handmade cooking krater

Very few inclusions

1d

Fig. 4.3:6

Yotvata 5

182/1

Handmade cooking krater

Fig. 4.3:7

129/1

Wheel-made storage jar

1a

Fig. 4.2:3

Yotvata 7

128/2

Handmade cooking krater

1a

Fig. 4.3:8

Yotvata 8

128/3

Handmade cooking krater

1a

Fig. 4.3:11

Yotvata 9

147/1

Handmade cooking krater

More quartz Shaley clay, quartz shale Shaley clay, quartz shale, grog Shaley clay, quartz shale, grog Calcareous temper, igneous temper?

1a

Yotvata 6

1c

Fig. 4.3:4

Yotvata 10

167/1

Handmade cooking krater

1b

Fig. 4.3:2

Yotvata 11

170/1

Handmade cooking krater

Limestone, calcite Limestone, calcite

1b

Fig. 4.3:1

1a

03/08/2022 15:51

David Ben-Shlomo

described in the Timna assemblage. The latter was provenanced to “Ora shales” or the Turonian Ora Formation in the southern Arabah (just west of the Yotvata region). In the vicinity of Yotvata both the Hazera Formation of the Albian-Cenomanian (limestone, dolostone, chalk and marl) and the Kurnub Formation of the lower Cretaceous (sandstone, mudstone, clay and conglomerate) are exposed. Therefore, the clay represented by Yotvata Group 1 (with the four variations denoted as Groups 1a–1d) could in fact be local to the region of Yotvata, in particular from the Kurnub (Lower Cretaceous) Formation south of the site. The calcareous inclusions are typical of the local Hazera Formation, and could have been added separately as temper or have resulted from a mixture with the Ora Formation deposits nearby.

a

b

Fig. 5.1: Photographs of thin sections (photos by David Ben-Shlomo) a) Yotvata 6 sample, Group 1a, showing shale b) Yotvata 11 sample, Group 1b, showing calcite, limestone and quartz; crossed polarized light, width of photo 6.8 mm

References Glass, J. 1988. Petrographic Investigations of the Pottery. In: Rothenberg, B., ed. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the Arabah 1959–1984 1). London: 96–113. Haiman, M. and Goren, Y. 1992. “Negbite” Pottery: New Aspects and Interpretation and the Role of Pastoralism in Designating Ceramic Technology. In: Bar-Yosef, O. and Khazanov, A., eds. Pastoralism in the Levant (Monographs in World Archaeology 10). Madison: 143–151. Martin, M.A.S. and Finkelstein, I. 2013. Iron IIA Pottery from the Negev Highlands: Petrographic Investigation and Historical Implications. Tel Aviv 40: 6–45.

70

Yotvata.indb 70

03/08/2022 15:51

CHAPTER 6

THE CERAMIC FINDS FROM THE NABATAEAN BUILT TOMB Tali Erickson-Gini

Very few ceramic sherds were recovered by the excavators in the area of the Nabataean built tomb on Yotvata Hill. Only one lamp fragment (Fig. 6.1:10) was found above the coffin, and all other sherds were scattered on the surface southwest of the tomb and were most likely removed from it when it was robbed. Unfortunately, the sherds have not been located, and thus the following report is based solely on the available drawings. Based on comparisons with published parallels, the assemblage appears to date from the second half of the 2nd century BCE. The assemblage includes Nabataean fine-ware bowl rims and bases, as well as rims of early examples of imported Eastern Sigillata A and part of an oil lamp.

Nabataean Fine-Ware Painted Bowl This is a fine-ware hemispherical bowl (Fig. 6.1:1) with a painted rim, corresponding to Schmid’s Dekorphase 1 in Zantur-Petra and dated to 150–50 BCE (Schmid 2000: Ills. 73, 75). A similar example was discovered at nearby ʿEn Yotvata (Erickson-Gini 2012: Fig. 5:1).

Incurved Bowls These bowls (Fig. 6.1:2–4) correspond to Schmid’s Gruppe 5: undecorated fine-ware bowls (Schmid 2000: Ills. 41–43). Both plain-ware and fine-ware incurved bowls are strongly represented in Hellenistic Nabataean sites in the Petra region and the Negev, and they have been found in surveys north of Petra (Knodell et al. 2017: Fig. 14:6–8). The excavation at the nearby site of ʿEn Yotvata also produced an incurved bowl (Erickson-Gini 2012: Fig. 5:10).

Eastern Sigillata A Ware One of these bowls (Fig. 6.1:5) is incurved, ending in a delicate pointed rim. It corresponds to Hayes’ Form 4a, dated to the beginning of the 1st century BCE (Hayes 1985: Pl. I:9). The other example (Fig. 6.1:6) is carinated with a thick rim like that of Hayes’ Form 3, dated to the late 2nd and early 1st centuries BCE (Hayes 1985: Pl. I:8). These forms have been found at other Hellenistic Nabataean sites in the Negev and the Petra region (Schneider 1996: Ills. 538–539); they appear to have been imported from northern Syria.

Bowl Bases Ring bases like those presented here (Fig. 6.1:7–9) appear on the earliest types of Nabataean fine-ware painted bowls, corresponding to Schmid’s Dekorphase 1, mentioned above (Schmid 2000: Ills. 40–42).

Yotvata.indb 71

03/08/2022 15:51

Tali Erickson-Gini

Oil Lamp The sherd of an oil lamp (Fig. 6.1:10) with raised radial molding around a raised filler hole corresponds to similar lamps of the Hellenistic period, usually appearing with an S-coil molded decoration on the side. These are generally dated to the mid-2nd–mid-1st centuries BCE (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 13, No. 22). 1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

1

2

3

4

5 5

6 6

5

6 7 7

8 8

9 9

7

8

9

10 10 10

Fig. 6.1: Pottery found near the Nabataean tomb 1–9) bowl fragments (107/1–9, L6) 10) lamp (102/1, L8)

References Erickson-Gini, T. 2012. ʿEn Yotvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 124. http://www .hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_eng.aspx?print=all&id=1960&mag_id. Hayes, John. 1985. Sigillate Orientali. In: Enciclopedia dell’arte antica classica e orientale. Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche II, Ceramica Fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterraneo (Tardo Ellenismo e Primo Impero). Rome: 1–96. Knodell, A.R., Alcock, S.E., Tuttle, C., Cloke, C.F., Erickson-Gini, T., Feldman, C., Rollefson, G.O., Sinibaldi, M., Urban, T.M. and Vella, C. 2017. The Brown University Petra Archaeological Project: Landscape Archaeology in the Northern Hinterland of Petra, Jordan. American Journal of Archaeology 121: 621–683. Rosenthal, R. and Sivan, R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Scholoessinger Collection (Qedem Reports 8). Jerusalem. Schmid, S.G. 2000. Die Feinkeramik der Nabataer. Typologie, Chronologie und kulturhistorische Hintergrunde. In: Schmid, S.G. and Kolb, B., eds. Petra. Ez Zantur II: Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992. Mainz: 1–199. Schneider, C. 1996. Die Importkeramik. In: Bignasca, A., Desse-Berset, N., Fellmann Brogli, R., Glutz, R., Karg, S., Keller, D., Kolb, B., Kramar, C., Peter, M., Schmidt, S.G., Schneider, C., Stucky, R.A., Studer, J. and Zanoni, I., eds. Petra. Ez Zantur I: Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992. Mainz: 129–149. 72

Yotvata.indb 72

03/08/2022 15:51

CHAPTER 7

THE CHIPPED STONE COLLECTIONS: LITHIC PERSPECTIVES ON AN OASIS SITE IN THE ARABAH Steven A Rosen

Introduction The three investigations of Iron Age Yotvata, conducted successively by Rothenberg (Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004) from the 1960s onward, by Meshel (1993) in the 1970s, and by Avner (unpublished) in the 1990s, all included the collection of chipped stone artifacts. Although each of these collections has been the subject of descriptive reports, by I. Mozel (unpublished) for the Meshel excavations, by H. Khalaily (surface finds: Rothenberg, Segal, and Khalaily 2004: 19) and by U. Avner (unpublished),1 they were studied independently and without the benefit of the (later) publication of contemporary and near contemporary assemblages from other sites in the Negev and southern Jordan. A synthesis of these reports, with a renewed study of the two collections available (from the Meshel and Avner excavations) offers new insights into the chronology of the site, its functions and its place in the culture history of the region. Brief ly stated, typological and technological analysis of the lithic industry indicates that it should be attributed primarily to the mid- to late Timnian culture, in this context probably best dated to the late fifth to mid-fourth millennia BCE. The presence of a relatively high proportion of sickle segments of local technology is clear evidence of reaping—that is, agriculture—ref lecting the special microenvironment of the oasis. In this and other features, the combined assemblage resembles those of other similar microenvironments where agriculture could be practiced in the desert, as in the ʿAqaba area and, somewhat later, in the ʿUvda Valley sites. There are some hints of Iron Age lithics, but their attribution is unclear. The three assemblages (Tables 7.1a and 7.1b) are small. The assemblage from the Meshel excavations consists of only 30 artifacts (not including the lost Haparsa arrowhead, reported on by Mozel and illustrated by Avner in his report; Fig. 7.1:1), 25 of which were retouched tools. With such a high proportion of tools, the collection clearly ref lects a selection process. The collection from Avner’s excavations was sieved through a 2 mm mesh, a procedure ref lected in the presence of large quantities of small waste, production waste in general, and relatively many chipped stone artifacts, considering the small size of the area excavated (171 artifacts, 155 of which are waste). The Rothenberg assemblage consisted of 33 artifacts (ignoring typos in the text which render the internal arithmetic off), including 21 waste artifacts and 12 tools. The small number of chips and small artifacts indicates that the (surface) collection was selected and not sieved. Notwithstanding their differences, the assemblages share many features and clearly ref lect an integrated industry. Each collection is described separately below, followed by a synthesis.

1. From a section conducted in the “fortress” courtyard (L26).

Yotvata.indb 73

03/08/2022 15:51

steVen a rosen

Table 7.1a: Lithic frequencies from the Yotvata site, according to project Meshel assemblage No. % Debris

Debitage

Chips Chunks Total Flakes Primary Blades/Bladelets CTE Total

Cores Total waste

Tools

Total tools Total lithics

Arrowheads Sickles Ret. Blades Tabular Awls Microdrills Scrapers Ret. Flakes

1 1 3

20% 20% 60%

5

100%

5 1 5 2 9 1 2 4 2 26 31

4% 19% 8% 35% 4% 8% 15% 8% 100% 100%

Rothenberg assemblage No. % 2 100% 2 8

100% 50%

8

50%

16 3 21

100% 100%

2 5 1 3 1 12 33

17% 42% 8% 25% 0% 8% 0% 100% 100%

Avner assemblage No. % 107 81% 25 19% 132 100% 20 91% 1 1 22 1 155

1 7 1 1 3 3 16 171

4.5% 4.5% 100% 100%

6% 44% 6% 6% 19% 19% 100% 100%

Total No. 109 25 134 29 1 12 1 43 4 181 1 7 8 17 5 3 8 5 54 235

% 81% 19% 100% 67% 2.5% 28% 2.5% 100% 100% 2% 13% 15% 31% 9% 6% 15% 9% 100% 100%

Table 7.1b: Total lithic frequencies

Debris Debitage Core Tools Total lithics

Meshel assemblage No. % 0 0% 5 16% 0 0% 26 84% 31 100%

Rothenberg assemblage No. % 2 6.06% 16 48.48% 3 9.09% 21 36.36% 33 100%

Avner assemblage No. % 132 77.19% 22 12.87% 1 0.58% 16 9.36% 171 100%

Total No. 134 43 4 54 235

% 57.02% 18.30% 1.70% 22.98% 100%

The Meshel Collection This assemblage was initially studied by Ilana Mozel in the 1970s. It was restudied by the author, with the benefit of an additional 40 years of research on desert lithic industries. Only two pieces were found in the excavations: a tabular scraper and a retouched blade. They are undoubtedly intrusive to the Iron Age occupation. All other finds were surface finds, also to be attributed to the mid/late Timnian culture, late fifth–fourth millennia BCE. 74

Yotvata.indb 74

03/08/2022 15:51

1 2

1 1

2 1

2

3

2

4 3

4

1

1

1 1

1

81

2

3

2 2

8

2

2

2

2

4

3

3

3

93 3 5 9

4

3

8 10

3

3

4

4 6

5

4

4

4

6

8 5 5

5

6

6

6

8

8 8

8

8

8

8

10

9

8 11

8

9 9 9 10

9

9

10

9 12 11 12

9

9

7

7

7

10 7

8

9

7

7

10 13

12

9 13

12

11

13

10

5

6

7

6

10

10 10 10

5

6

6

10

109

4

9

7

7 8

4

10

3

6

7

7

3

7

4 104 5 5 5

6

2

6

7

5 6

5

7

2

2

2

4

1

1

1

5

1

6

5

1

4

CHaPter 7: t He CHIPPeD stone CoLLeCtIons

3

5

3

12

13 11

11

13

12 11

11 11

11 11 11 11 14 11 14

11

13

12

12

121112 12

12 14 13

12

12

13 13 13 13 14 13

13

12

13 15 15

15

14 15

Fig. 7.1: Chipped stone objects (drawn by Eli Cohen-Sasson) No. Object 1 Arrowhead 14 2 14 14

14 14 14 14Fragment of

sickle

314 4 5 6 7 8

segment Backed blade Microlithic drill Microlithic drill Sickle segment Sickle segment Sickle segment

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Tabular scraper fragment Awl Scraper Tabular scraper Tabular scraper Tabular scraper Scraper

14

Reg. No. Findspot 14 _ Surface find 118/50 15

118/54 15 118/51 118/52 118/53 144/50 144/51 118/55 300/50 118/56 156/51 118/57 156/52 144/52

Surface find

15

15 15

Description Excavations 15 Haparsa15point, now lost, drawn from Meshel original photograph and sketch 15 15 Note gloss on right edge Meshel

Surface find15 Surface find Surface find Surface find Surface find Surface find

Broken Meshel – Meshel – Meshel Plain blade Meshel Plain blade Meshel Backed; gloss present on edge, but Meshel very weak (gloss not indicated) Surface find – Meshel L26 – Avner Surface find Round Meshel Casemate Room 15 Elongated Meshel Surface find Elongated Meshel Casemate Room 15 Sidestruck Meshel Surface find Steep Meshel

75

Yotvata.indb 75

03/08/2022 15:51

Steven A Rosen

Only five waste products were recovered. The two flakes, one retaining cortex, were both small—less than 3 cm in length. The three blades were all broken. All were small (less than 1.5 cm in width), one retained cortex, and the technology reflected in their dorsal scar patterns is not standardized. No cores were recovered. From an examination of the tools as well as the waste, two primary technologies are evident: a small flake industry and a large tabular or cortical flake industry. Within the flake industry, irregular blades and bladelets were also produced, variants of the same general chaîne opératoire that produced the small flakes. It is difficult to demonstrate this based on the assemblage recovered here, but the materials accord in general terms with those from other middle/late Timnian assemblages (e.g., Hermon, Vardi and Rosen 2011; Knabb et al. 2018). The technology used for the tabular scrapers was based on significantly larger flakes (Fig. 7.1:9,12–14) from specific raw materials (brown, fine-grained flint, Eocene or Turonian sources). Cortex was deliberately retained on these pieces, and they are all undoubtedly imports from the surrounding regions.

Tool Descriptions The single arrowhead (Fig. 7.1:1), now lost, is illustrated in Avner’s report (although recovered from the Meshel excavations). It is a small Haparsa point (1.0 cm in length and 0.75 cm in width).2 It displays wings and a thick tang and is broad at the base. It was shaped by pressure retouch. Only the ventral face was illustrated. Although usually attributed to the Pottery Neolithic (beginning with the Yarmukian) and no longer part of the Chalcolithic repertoire in the settled zone, small points are known as late as the Late Timnian (Early Bronze II) in the desert (e.g., Rosen 2011). Five sickle segments were recovered, all broken (Fig. 7.1:2,6–8), but two nearly complete (Fig. 7.1:8). All show diagnostic sickle gloss along a single working edge. All are technologically simple blades, with little morphological standardization, in contrast to both of the typical prismatic blades of northern industries in the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age and typical of contemporary Timnian desert industries (Rosen 1997: 44–60, 141; 2011; Hermon, Vardi and Rosen 2011). Two pieces are burnt. Two are classified as backed blade sickles (Fig. 7.1:2,8), with abrupt retouch along the non-glossy edge (to facilitate hafting). Three are plain blade sickles (Fig. 7.1:6–7), with no backing. Bulbs of percussion are absent from all pieces. Working edge retouch varies from minor edge damage to edge nibbling, that is, there is little retouch on the glossy edges. The average width of the four segments that could be measured was 1.67 cm; the average thickness was 0.53 cm. Of the two nearly complete segments, one (Fig. 7.1:7) was a plain blade (4.88 × 1.47 × 0.43 cm) and the other a backed blade (5.86 × 2.08 × 0.94 cm). Both retouched blades are technologically simple and retain the bulb of percussion. One (6.5 × 2.7 × 0.81 cm) shows retouch on the distal pointed end and edge damage along the lateral edges. The other (5.15 × 1.95 × 0.52 cm) shows a single truncation on the distal end. Neither displays edge gloss. Nine tabular scrapers—six fragments and three complete or almost complete—dominate the tool assemblage. Three pieces are patinated to a dark brown color, probably reflecting long surface exposure. Three are burnt, showing typical pocking and pot lidding (Fig. 7.1:14), crazing and discoloration to shades of gray and white. All pieces, including the fragments, show smooth cortical surfaces, perhaps deliberately ground, the retention of flat cortex a diagnostic feature of tabular scrapers. The six fragments are identifiable by reference to the flat cortex and the direct percussion dorsal retouch on the edge (Fig. 7.1:9). Of the three complete, or nearly complete, pieces, one (Fig. 7.1:12) is end-struck, retouched along the edges, retains part of the bulb of percussion (the part removed by retouch) and is patinated (6.99 × 3.80 × 0.50 cm). Another (Fig. 7.1:13) is also elongated and end-struck, but does not retain the bulb of percussion; it shows retouch only on the two lateral edges, and was made on high-quality brown (Eocene/Turonian) flint (9.89 × 3.11 × 0.83 cm). The third complete piece (Fig. 7.1:14) was side-struck (that is, a transverse flake), retains the bulb of 2. Measurements were determined on the basis of the photograph in Avner’s report.

76

Yotvata.indb 76

03/08/2022 15:51

Chapter 7: T he Chipped Stone Collections

percussion, is burnt and broken in its upper right corner and shows retouch around the entire circumference (7.08 × 10.21 × 1.01 cm). One awl was made on a small flake and shows an elongated bit. Two microlithic drills (Fig. 7.1:4–5) are of the double-shoulder type (Rosen 1997: 68; Hermon, Vardi and Rosen 2011), typical of the Late Timnian. Both show long, apparently unused, bits (1.68 and 1.86 cm respectively). The bits are only 3 mm thick, showing abrupt dorsal retouch and one edge of one piece also showing ventral retouch. The overall dimensions of the two drills are 2.91 × 1.06 × 0.29 cm and 2.72 × 1.44 × 0.27 cm respectively. The four scrapers are not standardized. One endscraper on a blade shows dark patination. Of the three scrapers on flakes, one is round, on a thick flake, with dorsal retouch on the lateral edges and bifacial retouch, perhaps use damage, on the distal end (Fig. 7.1:11). Another is a steep sidescraper with dorsal retouch on one lateral edge and ventral on the other (Fig. 7.1:15). The final scraper is on a flat flake and shows dorsal retouch on two lateral edges. Two retouched flakes were recovered. Both are patinated.

The Rothenberg Assemblage The assemblage collected during Rothenberg’s survey was examined by H. Khalaily and described briefly in the publication of their survey (Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004).3 As the material was not available for further study, one must make do with the written description and low-resolution illustrations. According to this description, 21 waste artifacts were recovered, including eight flakes, eight blades, two chips and three cores—a flake core, a blade core and an amorphous core (presumably also a flake core) (Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004: Fig. 5.1). The tool assemblage included three awls on thick flakes (Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004: Fig. 5.4), five retouched blades (two backed [Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004: Fig. 6.8] and three with simple edge retouch), two sickle segments (Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004: Fig. 6.5), one steep scraper on a flake (Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004: Fig. 6.5), and one fragment of a tabular scraper (Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004: Fig. 6.6). The tabular scraper was made on light brown raw material, and it is suggested that it was imported. Of particular interest are the two sickle segments. It is difficult to work from illustrations and descriptions, and the sample size is inadequate, but the suggestions that can be offered are important. Although only one segment is described as having a glossy edge, both of them presumably did. Both show backing and a single truncation. Edge retouch on one is described as irregular, but is not indicated for the other, although the illustrations indicate that working edge retouch is present on both pieces. Both show complex (non-parallel) dorsal scar patterns, differing considerably from the parallel and sub-parallel scar patterns of the other sickles found on the site. Both are described as having been produced on “wide blanks”; however, measuring from the illustrations, the dimensions of the two sickle segments are 5.14 × 2.99 × 1.09 cm and 4.54 × 2.88 × 0.77 cm, respectively. The length-to-width ratios on these pieces are 1.71 and 1.57 respectively. Both the dimensions and the length-to-width ratios of the sickle segments from the Rothenberg survey differ considerably from those of the Meshel excavations (in which the length-to-width ratio for the two complete segments are 3.32 and 2.82). These contrasts suggest basic differences in typology and technology, and combining the measures with morphology and dorsal scar patterns, the two sickle segments from the Rothenberg survey seem best described as “Large Geometrics” (Rosen 1997: 50–56, 142–143), attributable to the second millennium BCE, and thus most likely to the Iron Age occupation. 3. The section on the lithic assemblage in this report unfortunately suffers from several errors, and the numbers do not add up. Fig. 6:7, perhaps a blade, is not referred to in the text, and the two Figs. 5 and 6 are numbered so that Fig. 5 includes Nos. 1–4 and Fig. 6 includes Nos. 5–8. The scale is present only in Fig. 6, although it presumably applies to Fig. 5 as well; if it does, the dimensions of the sickles do not match the description in the text.

77

Yotvata.indb 77

03/08/2022 15:51

Steven A Rosen

The Avner Assemblage As noted above, the Avner assemblage is the most representative, including a large sample of waste products, as well as tools. It derives from a section made in the courtyard at a point where the casemate wall cut earlier living levels (L26, Chapter 3). The waste assemblage dominates, constituting 90.6% of the assemblage, a typical proportion for sieved assemblages. Within the waste assemblage, 107 pieces are less than 2 cm long, usually classified as chips. Of these, however, 36 pieces are in fact small flakes, with intact bulbs of percussion. These were either intentionally flaked, for use in small tools such as microlithic drills or transverse arrowheads (not found here, but present in other contemporary sites), or result from lithic manufacture, e.g., retouching. Twenty-four chunks were recovered, all greater than 2 cm in length, either broken pieces with no diagnostic attributes or raw material. One of these was a piece of granite, obviously imported. The 20 flakes were irregular and small, the largest only 5.77 cm long and all the rest less than 4 cm in length. One simple blade and one core trimming element (CTE), an irregular piece of striking platform, complete the debitage counts. No primary flakes were found. One amorphous flake core, with four striking platforms, measured 6.01 cm in maximal length. Excepting the tabular scraper assemblage from the site, the waste assemblage collected by Avner accords well with the tools found on the site. The tools are on irregular flakes and small flakes, which match both the core and the flake assemblage. Thus, it is a locally produced assemblage.

Tool Descriptions One backed blade fragment shows a fresh working edge and a single truncation. Gloss was not present. As with the Meshel assemblage, tabular scrapers dominate the tool assemblage, in this case all fragmentary. They all show the flat, perhaps treated, cortex. Two are small spalls, with cortex and a bit of retouch. One piece is rectangular (4.98 × 3.54 × 0.85 cm), with retouch on all four edges and bifacial retouch on the bulbar base. Although described here as a fragment, it is in fact a repaired piece. One awl on a flake fragment was recovered (Fig. 7.1:10). One microlithic drill, with sloped shoulders, a variant of double shoulder type recovered from the Meshel excavations, shows a broken bit and measures 2.39 × 0.88 × 0.55 cm. The bit is 0.28 wide and 0.29 thick. Retouch on the bit was dorsal retouch only. One scraper fragment and two steep scrapers, one nosed and one denticulated, were recovered. One retouched flake and two retouched pieces, broken flakes, complete the list of tools. The Avner collection also included one grinding stone fragment, of local pink subarkosic coarse sandstone (Fig. 11.1:7; Table 11.1:13), exposed in the Timna Valley. Five pounders, two of limestone and three of flint, were also recovered (Fig. 11.1:8–9; Table 11.1:14–18).

Discussion Chronologically, the lithic assemblage from the various investigations at Yotvata predates the Iron Age “fortress” and should be attributed to the mid-late Timnian culture. The two sickle segments from the Rothenberg survey may constitute exceptions. Within the lithic assemblage itself, there are a number of indicators (Rosen 2011): 1.

Tabular scrapers, the numerically dominant tool type on the site, are associated with the Timnian culture, from its early stages through the Late Timnian (early–mid-third millennium BCE), although they do not extend to the Terminal Timnian (Early Bronze IV). The absence of incised pieces might suggest a prefourth millennium date but alternatively, may merely be a sampling issue.

2.

The high number of tabular scrapers in the assemblage is reminiscent of the late fifth–fourth millennium ʿAqaba sites (Herling 2002a; 2002b; Hikade 2009).

78

Yotvata.indb 78

03/08/2022 15:51

Chapter 7: T he Chipped Stone Collections

3.

The double-shouldered microlithic drills are especially typical of the Late Timnian, mid-fourth/early third millennium BCE.

4.

The Haparsa point is Timnian, but cannot be precisely dated within the sequence.

5.

The sickle types (plain and backed, on irregular blades) are also best associated with the Timnian.

Although Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily (2004) attributed the early pottery from the site to the Late Neolithic (although acknowledging a Chalcolithic date as well) and Meshel (1993) suggested the possibility of a Chalcolithic date, other aspects also suggest an early to mid-fourth-millennium date. Later assessment of the pottery from Wadi Fidan 4 and comparison to the ʿAqaba sites of Tall al-Magaṣṣ and Tall Hujayrāt al-Ghuzlān (especially Kerner 2009; 2011) clearly indicates that it should be dated to the early–mid-fourth millennium BCE. Radiocarbon dates also support this chronology (Chapter 19). Notably, chronologies established for the settled zone in the proto-historic periods do not obtain for the desert (Rosen 2011), and much of the terminological argument is difficult. As above, the two sickle segments from the Rothenberg survey could be Iron Age, but in the absence of proper examination, this remains speculative. Thus, interpreting the three collections as representing a single period—roughly the late fifth to early fourth millennia BCE—one may draw conclusions. The raw materials from the three assemblages show great heterogeneity, varying considerably in color and texture. With the exception of the tabular scrapers, these materials appear to be local, many deriving from wadi cobbles the geological sources of which varied considerably. Excepting the burnt and patinated pieces (for which the raw material cannot be determined), tabular scrapers were manufactured on finely textured brown flint with flat cortical surfaces, indicating that they derived from geologically in situ flint nodules or veins, not present in the Arabah, although not necessarily from distant regions. In other words, the raw materials suggest that tabular scrapers were imported (e.g., Rosen 1983; 1997: 75; Müller-Neuhof 2013; Quintero, Wilke and Rollefson 2002), but other tools were manufactured on site. The presence of sickle blades in an oasis site is of great interest. Roughly contemporary sites in the central Negev contain few sickle segments (e.g., Knabb et al. 2018; Hermon, Vardi and Rosen 2011), but sites in specific microenvironments, apparently where run-off could be exploited (the ʿUvda Valley, the ʿAqaba area), contained high sickle frequencies (e.g., Rosen 1997: 127–131; Herling 2002a; 2002b; Hikade 2009). The frequency of sickle segments in the Yotvata assemblages is roughly similar to those from these areas, even considering the biases of selected collection. This strongly suggests that some kind of agriculture was practiced on the site; milling stones found at the site may perhaps support this, although they are difficult to date. In turn, this suggests that we are not dealing with a mere campsite. Given the location between the Faynan copper sources and the ʿAqaba entrepôt sites (Khalil and Schmidt 2009), and the claims by Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily (2004) for metallurgy on the site, one may further suggest that the site relates to the early copper trade. The presence of two possible Iron Age sickle segments at a desert oasis site suggests agricultural practices, but as above, it is impossible to be definitive on this issue. The presence of microlithic drills indicates bead making on site. This is not uncommon and reflects the large range of economic activities that took place at mid–late Timnian sites in the Negev (Rosen 2003). The presence of dense concentrations of waste flint (when collected properly, as in Avner’s excavations) indicates on-site lithic production for most of the tools. In sum, the lithic assemblages offer a window into the longer history of the Yotvata site. It may be linked to the general Timnian culture of the region, and given its geographic and historical contexts, it may be related to the early copper trade as well.

79

Yotvata.indb 79

03/08/2022 15:51

Steven A Rosen

References Avner, U. n.d. The Yotvata Hill: A Section Adjacent to the Iron Age Casemate Fort and a Section of the Ramp (unpublished report on file with the Israel Antiquities Authority, dated June 2017; Hebrew). Herling, L. 2002a. The Lithic Artefacts from Tall Ḥujayrāt al-Ghuzlān. In: Brückner, H., Eichmann, R., Herling, L., Kallweit, H., Kerner, S., Khalil, L. and Miqdadi, R. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Sites near ʿAqaba, Jordan (Orient-Archäologie 5). Berlin: 257–269. Herling, L. 2002b. The Lithic Artefacts from Tall al-Magaṣṣ. In: Brückner, H., Eichmann, R., Herling, L., Kallweit, H., Kerner, S., Khalil, L. and Miqdadi, R. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Sites near ʿAqaba, Jordan (OrientArchäologie 5). Berlin: 217–331, 286–320. Hermon, S., Vardi, J. and Rosen, S.A. 2011. The Lithic Assemblage from the Camel Site. In: Rosen, S.A. An Investigation into Early Desert Pastoralism: Excavations at the Camel Site, Negev (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA Monograph 69). Los Angeles: 81–109. Hikade, T. 2009. The Lithic Industry at Tall Ḥujayrāt al-Ghuzlān—Campaigns 2000–2003. In: Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K., eds. Prehistoric ʿAqaba I (Orient-Archäologie 23). Rahden: 233–246. Kerner, S. 2009. The Pottery of Tall Ḥujayrāt al-Ghuzlān 2000–2004. In: Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K., eds. Prehistoric ʿAqaba I (Orient-Archäologie 23). Rahden: 127–232. Kerner, S. 2011. The Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age Transition in the Southern Levant and Some Pottery from Ḥujayrāt al-Ghuzlān. In: Chesson, M., ed. Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant. Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub. Winona Lake: 153–172. Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K., eds. 2009. Prehistoric ʿAqaba I (Orient-Archäologie 23). Rahden. Knabb, K.A., Rosen, S.A., Hermon, S., Vardi, J., Horwitz, L.K. and Goren, Y. 2018. A Middle Timnian Nomadic Encampment on the Faynan-Beersheva Road: Excavations and Survey at Nahal Tsafit (Late 5th/Early 4th Millennium BCE). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 380: 27–60. Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Mozel, I. n.d. Flint Tools (unpublished report submitted to Z. Meshel, on file with the Israel Antiquities Authority). Müller-Neuhof, B. 2013. Southwest Asian Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age Demand for “Big-Tools”: Specialized Flint Exploitation beyond the Fringes of Settled Regions. Lithic Technology 38: 220–236. Quintero, L., Wilke, P. and Rollefson, G. 2002. From Flint Mine to Fan Scraper: The Late Prehistoric Jafr Industrial Complex. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 327: 17–48. Rosen, S.A. 1983. The Tabular Scraper Trade: A Model for Material Culture Dispersion. Bulletin of the American Schools for Oriental Research 249: 79–86. Rosen, S.A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age. Walnut Creek. Rosen, S.A. 2003. Early Multi-Resource Nomadism: Excavations at the Camel Site in the Central Negev. Antiquity 77: 750–761. Rosen, S.A. 2011. Desert Chronologies and Periodization Systems. In: Lovell, J. and Rowan, Y., eds. Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition (Council for British Research in the Levant). London: 71–83. Rothenberg, B., Segal I. and Khalaily, H. 2004. Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Copper Smelting at the Yotvata Oasis (South-West Araba). Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies Newsletter 24: 17–28.

80

Yotvata.indb 80

03/08/2022 15:51

CHAPTER 8

SHELL ARTIFACTS Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer

Shells are present in most archaeological sites, either as a result of human activities, in which case they are considered as artifacts, or entering the site on their own as part of the local fauna, in which case they are ecofacts (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2008). During the excavations at Yotvata, 16 mollusc shell artifacts were collected, belonging to five taxa, all from the Red Sea. These included 10 Conus arenatus, three cowries of the Monetaria annulus species, another cowrie of the species Cypraea cf. pantherina and one Lambis truncata shell. In addition, a Tridacna sp. valve was excavated (Fig. 8.1:6), but not inspected in person by the author. Among the Conus shells, one was complete (slightly broken at the lip; Fig. 8.1:1) and all the others were the perforated apices of the same species (Fig. 8.1:2). All of the perforated items (diameter: 2–3 cm) had signs of grinding around the hole (hole diameter 1.5–5.8 mm). Three of these items were burned, and one of the latter was broken. Another specimen had a spot of red pigment, probably ochre, in the hole of the spire. The three small (19–20 mm long) M. annulus shells were all complete (Fig. 8.1:3), whereas the large C. pantherina (76.7 mm long) had its dorsum removed, but the hole was not ground down, resulting in an irregular hole (Fig. 8.1:4). The Lambis specimen is a part of the body whorl of that species, consisting of a part from the base to above the last suture of the spire; its edges are smooth, and it could have been collected from the beach as such (Fig. 8.1:5). The artifacts described above can be correlated to similar artifacts of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. The Conus beads are known from several Late Bronze and Iron Age sites. A relatively large assemblage was found at Beth Shemesh (Tamar 2009; Tamar and Mienis 2008). Others were found at Tel Gezer, Tell el-Farʿah (S) and Megiddo (Brandl 1985 and references therein). It has been proposed that the M. annulus cowries served as currency during the Iron Age (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2007). They are found consistently in almost every Iron Age site in the Levant (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2008; 2020). The Lambis fragment is dubbed a “receptacle,” and similar items, usually with signs of manipulation, are known from the Iron Age site of Kadesh Barnea (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2007) and from as far as Tel Reḥov (from an unknown context; Bar-Yosef Mayer 2020). Tridacna was also present in several Iron Age sites, sometimes as abraded specimens of unknown function and sometimes bearing unique engravings (BarYosef Mayer 2007). C. pantherina is usually more typical of the Byzantine and Islamic periods (Bar-Yosef and Heller 1985; Mienis 2004; Ktalav et al. 2021). To conclude, the shell assemblage from Yotvata represents several possible human activities expressed by the presence of personal ornaments, shell currency and a shell receptacle.

Yotvata.indb 81

03/08/2022 15:51

DanIeLLa e. Bar-Yosef M aYer

1

2

3

4

6

5

Fig. 8.1: Mollusc shells No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Species Conus arenatus Conus arenatus Monetaria annulus Cypraea pantherina Lambis truncata Tridacna sp.

Reg. No. 175/80 135/80 175/81 184/80 127/80 184/80

Locus 28B 18B 28B 29 13 29

82

Yotvata.indb 82

03/08/2022 15:51

Chapter 8: Shell A rtifacts

References Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. 2007. Shell Trade at Kadesh Barnea. In: Cohen, R. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 1976–1982 (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 34). Jerusalem: 273–283. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. 2008. Archaeomalacological Research in Israel: The Current State of Research. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 56: 191–206. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. 2020. Imported and Worked Mollusc Shells at Tel Reḥov. In: Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N., eds. Tel Reḥov: A Bronze and Iron Age City in the Beth-Shean Valley V (Qedem 63). Jerusalem: 635–640. Bar-Yosef, D.E. and Heller, J. 1985. Molluscs from the Excavation at Sde Boqer. In: Nevo, Y.D., ed. Sde Boqer and the Central Negev, 7th–8th Century AD: Papers Presented to the 3rd International Colloquium: From Jahiliyya to Islam, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June 30 to July 6, 1985. Jerusalem: 33. Brandl, B. 1985. Appendix: Scarab, Scaraboid and Beads Made of Shell from the Persian Period at Yafit. In: Magen, Y. Two Tumuli in the Jordan Valley (Yafit). Eretz-Israel 18: 290–292 (Hebrew). Ktalav, I., Tepper, Y., Gambash, G., Lehnig, S. and Bar-Oz, G. 2021. Long-Distance Trade and Consumption of Mollusks in the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods in the Negev Desert. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102927. Mienis, H.K. 2004. The Molluscs of Nessana. In: Urman, D., ed. Nessana: Excavations and Studies I (Beer-Sheva: Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East 17). Beersheba: 165–196. Tamar, K. 2009. Animal Remains from Tel Beth Shemesh: A Border Town of the Early Shefelah (unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. Tamar, K. and Mienis, H.K. 2008. Conus Arenatus Aequipunctatus at Tel Bet Shemesh, Israel: From Cone “Crowns” to Holed Cone Rectangles. The Archaeo+Malacology Group Newsletter 14: 1–2.

83

Yotvata.indb 83

03/08/2022 15:51

Yotvata.indb 84

03/08/2022 15:51

CHAPTER 9

TWO BONE OBJECTS Etan Ayalon

Two bone objects were found in the Iron Age I “fortress” at Yotvata.

Handle (?) This object (Fig. 9.1; Reg. No. 127/40, IAA No. 1978-821) was found in one of the casemate rooms (L13). Dimensions: length 20.5 cm; width in center 2.2 cm; thickness 2.5 cm. This is an almost complete right metatarsal shaft of domestic cattle (Bos taurus). Both the proximal and distal epiphyseal ends have been removed with a knife and partly smoothed, so as not to interfere with the work performed with the tool. A hole (0.4 cm in diameter) was drilled near the middle of the shaft from the dorsal longitudinal groove all the way through to the other side, by means of a long and straight drill bit, probably made of metal. On both sides of the hole (but only on the side of the dorsal longitudinal groove) the shaft is smooth and shiny, probably the result of prolonged holding of the tool by hand. Liora Kolska Horwitz reports that the distal metatarsal canal and possibly the plantar longitudinal groove were also artificially enlarged (see Chapter 18). The wear on this tool points to it being handheld, suggesting that this was a handle of some kind. If a string was tied to it through the hole (which is not worn), it is possible that a similar bone shaft was tied to the other end of the string and that some work was performed with the string stretched between the two “handles.” The combined tool could be used to slice some soft material. Such a tool is still used today by potters to cut the slumps of wet clay before mounting them on the wheel or to remove the vessel from the wheel (for a modern potter using a similar tool, see Fig. 9.2). This may explain the shiny surface of the shaft, caused by the potter’s hand, which was coated with wet clay. Other possibilities, however, also come to mind, such as slicing cheese, bread, or other soft materials. If the other perforations in the bone were also in use, it seems that they might have served a similar use although it would have been less convenient as they are much closer to the end of the shaft. The only parallels found to this tool are remote in place and time: similar shafts (although usually smaller, made of pig and sheep metacarpals) with one perforation in the middle were widespread throughout Europe from the local Iron Age to the Middle Ages. Several explanations have been proposed for their use, such as bobbins, fasteners, or toggles, but they are usually interpreted as toys spun with a cord first in one direction and then the other, producing a humming sound (MacGregor 1985: 102–103, Fig. 59; Riddler 2010: 276, Fig. 112:4). This, however, does not seem the function of our tool.

Weaving Tool (?) This tool (Fig. 9.3; Reg. No. 302/40) was found while re-cleaning a section in the inner side of the casemate wall (L26). Both ends are broken. Dimensions: length: 5.1 cm; width 1.5 cm. Because the section walls * I wish to thank Liora Kolska Horwitz for the osteological identification and Yehoshua (Yeshu) Dray for examining the tools (using an ×25 binocular) and observing on their possible use. The first English draft was edited by Miriam Feinberg Vamosh.

Yotvata.indb 85

03/08/2022 15:51

etan aYaLon

Canalis metatarsi distalis

Canalis metatarsi distalis

Distal metatarsal canal

Distal metatarsal canal

c

distalis

Distal metatarsal Distal metatarsal canal Distal canal metatarsal

canal

b

Sulcus longitudinalis plantaris

CanalisCanalis metatarsimetatarsi Canalis metatarsi distalis distalis

Sulcus longitudinalis Sulcus longitudinalis plantaris plantaris

Sulcus longitudina Plantar longitudinal Plantar longitudinal Sulcus longitudina groove plantaris grooveplantaris

Plantar longitudinal groove

Plantar longitudin Plantar groove longitudin groove a

d

Fig. 9.1: Handle (?); a) photograph, drawing and section; b) distal metatarsal canal; c) the drilled hole; d) planter longitudinal groove (photos by Liora Kolska Horwitz)

Fig. 9.2: A potter using traditional methods to cut the finished pot off the wheel by passing a stretched string under its base while the wheel is still rotating (photo by Etan Ayalon) 86

Yotvata.indb 86

03/08/2022 15:51

CHaPter 9: t Wo Bone oBJeCts

Fig. 9.3: Weaving tool (?) (photo by Uzi Avner)

were swept away by rain , the finds are out of context; thus, the object cannot be dated with certainty to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I or to the Iron Age I. This is a triangular tool made on a shaft fragment of a mammalian long bone. Although the tip broke in the past, use of the tool continued, as indicated by the shiny use-wear on the present end, including part of the already broken tip (on left, view from top). The rear end is completely broken. Both sides have been straightened and smoothed, probably by rubbing with sandstone. They also bear shiny use-wear. A perforation (0.4 cm in diameter) has been nicely drilled from the bottom in the center of the tool, by means of a long and straight bit. The hole is slightly worn in the front part, towards the tip, the result of pulling the tool backwards while some kind of string or fiber was tied in the perforation. This tool was likely used as a shuttle of some kind for weaving or plaiting. It was possibly pushed through some (warp?) fibers with a (weft?) fiber tied in the perforation; another fiber would then have been pushed through the tied string and the tool pulled backwards. A somewhat similar tool, also broken, was found in one of the Caves of the Spear in the Judean Desert, which were in use during the Chalcolithic and Roman periods (Porat, Eshel and Frumkin 2009: Fig. 14).

References MacGregor, A. 1985. Bone Antler Ivory & Horn, The Technology of Skeletal Materials since the Roman Period. Totowa, NJ. Porat, R., Eshel, H. and Frumkin, A. 2009. The Caves of the Spear––Refuge Caves of Ein-Gedi. In: Eshel, H. and Porat, R., eds. Refuge Caves of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Riddler, I. 2010. Bone, Antler and Ivory Objects. In: Wrathmell, S., Marlow-Mann, E. and Harding, C., eds. Wharram: A Study of the Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds: The Post-Medieval Farm and Vicarage Sites (Wharram Settlement Series 12). York: 275–286.

87

Yotvata.indb 87

03/08/2022 15:51

Yotvata.indb 88

03/08/2022 15:51

CHAPTER 10

OSTRICH EGGSHELLS Lily Singer-Avitz

Fragments of ostrich eggshells were found in six of the casemate wall rooms at Yotvata (L1, L12, L14, L15, L17 and L29) and in a sounding in the courtyard near the casemate wall (L18B), as well as in the Nabataean built tomb (see Chapter 18). Ostrich bones, however, are missing in the archaeological record. The exact origin is not clear, although the ostrich (Struthio camelus), the largest bird in the world, lived until recent times in deserts of the Middle East (Bodenheimer 1960: 59). They became extinct sometime in the mid-20th century as a result of intensive hunting (Mynott 2018: 87). Ostrich eggshells have been recovered from many sites in the Middle East, dating from prehistoric periods onward. The nutritional value of the ostrich egg is highly valued, as a single ostrich egg contains the equivalent food of about two dozen or slightly more chicken eggs (Hitchcock 2012: 94–95). In addition, the eggshell, which is about 2 mm thick, was used for various products. At times, the eggshell was shaped and drilled into small disc-beads1 or pendants. Sometimes a small portion at the top was cut off and the shell was used as a container.2 Intact eggshells were decorated with carved motifs of animals and warriors and were traded (Hodos et al. 2020). They possessed symbolic/religious meaning (Green 2006; Oguchi 2019), but were also used as secular objects, such as water containers. The use of ostrich eggshells as vessels holding water continued until modern times, as is evident from ethnographical observations (for eggshell objects in the Levant, Mesopotamia, Arabia and Egypt, see Bodenheimer 1960: 59–60; Caubet 1983; Gorzalczany and Rosen 2021; Laufer 1926; Moorey 1994; Mynott 2018: 177, Fig. 3.12; Oguchi 2019; Potts 2001; Phillips 2009; Ziffer 2015: 514–517; Zuckerman 2011). The eggshells found at Yotvata are fragmentary, and since there is no evidence that they were drilled, they most likely served as containers. Such fragments have also been found in several sites at Timna (Avner 2014: 111, Fig. 7:2; Grigson 2012: 84; Ben-Yosef, Langgut and Sapir-Hen 2017: 419; Erickson-Gini 2014: 58). It is noteworthy that ostriches were depicted on several Qurayyah Painted Ware vessels (Rothenberg and Glass 1983: 99; Tebes 2017). Images of ostriches are also depicted on rock cliffs in the Timna mines and are commonly presented in Arabian rock art (Rothenberg 2003; Tebes 2017).

1. For ostrich-eggshell bead production and the mechanism of exchange, sale and gift giving, see Hitchcock 2012. 2. The eggshell is permeable and has a high water-retention capacity (Oguchi 2019: 36).

Yotvata.indb 89

03/08/2022 15:51

Lily Singer-Avitz

References Avner, U. 2014. Egyptian Timna: Reconsidered. In: Tebes, J., ed. Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 45). Leuven: 103–163. Ben-Yosef, E., Langgut, D. and Sapir-Hen, L. 2017. Beyond Smelting: New Insights on Iron Age (10th c. BCE) Metalworkers Community from Excavations at a Gatehouse and Associated Livestock Pens in Timna, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11: 411–426. Bodenheimer, F.S. 1960. Animal and Man in Bible Lands. Leiden. Caubet, B. 1983. Les awfs d’autruche au Proche Orient ancient. Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 193–198. Erickson-Gini, T. 2014. Timna Site 2 Revisited. In: Tebes, J.M., ed. Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 45). Leuven: 47–83. Gorzalczany, A. and Rosen, B. 2021. Ostriches and People in Archaeological Contexts in the Southern Levant and Beyond. Levant. DOI:10.1080/00758914.2021.2000709. Green, N. 2006. Ostrich Eggs and Peacock Feathers: Sacred Objects as Cultural Exchange between Christianity and Islam. Al-Masāq 18: 27–78. Grigson, C. 2012. Camels, Copper and Donkeys in the Early Iron Age of the Southern Levant: Timna Revisited. Levant 44: 82–100. Hitchcock, R.K. 2012. Ostrich Eggshell Jewelry Manufacturing and Use of Ostrich Products among San and Bakgalagadi in the Kalahari. Botswana Notes and Records 44: 93–105. Hodos, T., Cartwright, C.R., Montgomery, J., Nowell, G., Crowder, K., Fletcher, A.C. and Gönster, Y. 2020. The Origins of Decorated Ostrich Eggs in the Ancient Mediterranean and Middle East. Antiquity: 1–20. https://doi .org/10.15184/aqy.2020.14. Laufer, B. 1926. Ostrich Egg-Shell Cups of Mesopotamia and the Ostrich in Ancient and Modern Times (Anthropology Leaflet 23). Chicago. Moorey, P.R.S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford. Mynott, J. 2018. Birds in the Ancient World: Winged Words. Oxford. Oguchi, K. 2019. Ostrich Eggshell Use in Mesopotamia. In: Nakata, I., Nishiaki, Y., Odaka, T., Yamada, M. and Yamada, S., eds. Prince of the Orient: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa (Orient: Journal of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan, Supplement I). Tokyo: 31–45. Phillips, J.S., 2009. Ostrich Eggshell. In: Willeke, W., ed. UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles. http:// escholarship.org/uc/item/0tm87064. Potts, D.T. 2001. Ostrich Distribution and Exploitation in the Arabian Peninsula. Antiquity 75: 182–190. Rothenberg, B. 2003. Egyptian Chariots, Midianites from Hijaz/Midian (Northwest Arabia) and Amalekites from the Negev in the Timna Mines: Rock Drawings in the Ancient Copper Mines of the Arabah—New Aspects of the Region’s History II. Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies News 23: 9–14 Rothenberg, B. and Glass, J. 1983. The Midianite Pottery. In: Sawyer, J.F.A. and Clines, D.J.A., eds. Midian, Moab and Edom. The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 24) Sheffield: 65–124. Tebes, J.M. 2017. Iconographies of the Sacred and Power of the Desert Nomads: A Reappraisal of the Desert Rock Art of the Late Bronze/Iron Age Southern Levant and Northwestern Arabia. Die Welt des Orients 47: 4–24. Ziffer, I. 2015. Iron Age Stamp Seals, a Cylinder Seal and Impressions. In: Beit-Arieh, I. and Freud, L., eds. Tel Malḥata: A Central City in the Biblical Negev (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 32). Tel Aviv: 514–523. Zuckerman, D. 2011. An Ostrich Egg Container in the Hecht Museum Collection. Michmanim 23: 7–14.

90

Yotvata.indb 90

03/08/2022 15:51

CHAPTER 11

GROUND STONE TOOLS Aaron Greener

Fifteen ground stone tools were recorded during the excavation of the casemate-walled Iron I “fortress” at Yotvata (Table 11.1). Unfortunately, although most were stored in the Israel Antiquities Authority warehouse, only four could be located and examined while preparing the current publication. In this brief chapter I present these few remaining items, as well as the information gathered on two lost items from a couple of small blackand-white photographs and on nine additional tools mentioned in the excavators’ field notes (some of which were probably left in the field). Obviously, some of the definitions below must be regarded as tentative since we could not examine many of the items ourselves. In addition to the items found within the casemate rooms of the Iron I “fortress,” ca. 30 ground stone tools were found in a “deposit” beneath one of the Iron I walls (L20B; Table 11.1:19). They were attributed by the excavators to an earlier period—to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I occupational phase at the site. In a recent attempt to clean and renew one of the collapsed sections in the fills of the courtyard (L26), six additional ground stone tools were recovered. Lithic finds found in this fill and radiocarbon tests attribute them to the earlier occupation, i.e., the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I. These items are mentioned below in the text and catalogue.

The Iron I Assemblage All the information gathered from the study of the available tools and photographs, along with the excavators’ notes, is presented below.

Grinding Stones Seven items were registered as grinding tools by the excavators (Cat. Nos. 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9, 10a and 10b). From a functional point of view, these items are rough tools suitable for grinding grains or other substances. In more northern regions of the southern Levant, they were manufactured from various rock types such as basalt, limestone and flint (e.g., Hovers 1996: 181; Rosenberg 2008: 101; Yahalom-Mack and Panitz-Cohen 2009). In the southern regions many were manufactured of various types of sandstone (e.g., Abadi 2003). At the copperproduction sites in the Timna Valley, located ca. 15 km south of Yotvata, the grinding stones associated with the copper-production sites were almost all manufactured of pink subarkosic coarse sandstones and pebble conglomerates of the Amudei Shlomo Formation (PSC Sandstone; Greener and Ben-Yosef 2016; Greener, in preparation). Two of the Yotvata items which were defined as grinding stones were apparently made of granite; the material from which the others were manufactured was not defined.

Abraders One disc-shaped abrader made of PSC sandstone was found (Fig. 11.1:1). Such tools were used for rubbing or abrading which took place directly against the worked material. However, this tool was also used for light pounding, as can be evidenced by the many battering marks on its wider facets. Another round disc-shaped tool (Fig. 11.1:6) may have served a similar purpose, as its photo resembles Fig. 11.1:1.

Yotvata.indb 91

03/08/2022 15:51

Yotvata.indb 92

Pounder

Pestle

Platter

Pounder

Abrader

Grinding stone? Grinding stone? Grinding stone? Grinding stone? Pounder? Pounder? Grinding stone

Pounder

Pounder

Pounder

Pounder

Pounder?

Ca. 30 items

2

3

4

5

6

7a, 7b 8a, 8b 9 10a, 10b 11 12 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20B

26

26

26

26

26

2 13 28B 16 22 29 26

18B

21

17

31

15

17

Abrader

1

Intact

Fragment

Intact

Intact

Unknown Granite Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown PSC sandstone

Fragment Unknown

Various stones

Chipped

Chipped

Intact

Flint

Flint

Flint

Chalcolithic/ Limestone Early Bronze I? (flinty)

Intact

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Fragment

PSC sandstone? Intact

Limestone (flinty)

Yellow sandstone

Gray granite

Flint nodule

Measurements (cm; h × l × w) 3 × 12.5 × 11

Description

h = 5; D = 6.5 4.5 × 7.5 × 5.5

4.5 × 8.5 × 7

7.5 × 9.5 × 7

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown h=4

Unknown Unknown

Unknown Unknown

196

206

407

495

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Unknown h = 5; D = 10.8

Includes grinding stones, pounders and anvils

Original shape lost due to battering Pecking marks

Rounded end fragment of flat grinding stone; one smoothed facet Dome-shaped; many flaking scars, especially on wider oval facet Palm-sized oval disc; many flaking scars, esp. on one wider facet Rounded; many flaking scars

Round disc; light pounding?

Oval disc; light pounding?; one facet has more pecking marks than the other 886 h = 8; D = 9 Oblate; few flaking scars and pecking marks; partially smoothed 1059 18 × 5.5 × 6 Elongated cylinder; rounded on narrow ends; a few facets chipped Unknown h = 5; base = 3.5; End fragment of a round or oval D = 17? shallow platter; rounded smoothed rim Unknown h = 5; D = 8 Round; flaking scars on at least one facet

Condition Weight (gr) PSC sandstone Intact 409

Material

Chalcolithic/ Limestone Early Bronze I?

Iron I Iron I Iron I Iron I Iron I Iron I Chalcolithic/ Early Bronze I?

Iron I

Iron I

Iron I

Iron I

Iron I

Iron I

Phase

Chalcolithic/ Early Bronze I? 301/54 Chalcolithic/ Early Bronze I? 301/55 Chalcolithic/ Early Bronze I? “Deposit” Chalcolithic/ Early Bronze I?

301/53

301/51

301/52

126/50 170/50 301/50

105/50 146/50 174/50

140/50

154/50

122/50

166/50

156/50

122/51

Locus Basket

Cat. No. Object

Table 11.1: Ground stone tools

Fig. 3.19

Fig. 11.1:9

Fig. 11.1:8

Fig. 11.1:7

Fig. 3.13

Fig. 11.1:5 (courtesy of the IAA) Fig. 11.1:6 (courtesy of the IAA)

Fig. 11.1:4

Fig. 11.1:3

Fig. 11.1:2

Fig. 11.1:1

Illustration

A aron Greener

92

03/08/2022 15:51

CHaPter 11: GroUnD stone tooLs

1

2

3

5

4

9

8

7

6

Fig. 11.1: Ground stone tools (see Table 11.1 for details) No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Object Abrader Pounder Pestle Platter Pounder Abrader Grinding stone Pounder Pounder

Material PSC sandstone? Flint nodule Gray granite Yellow sandstone Limestone (flinty) PSC sandstone? PSC sandstone Limestone Limestone

Cat. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 14 15

93

Yotvata.indb 93

03/08/2022 15:51

A aron Greener

Pounders The two pounders were defined by their morphology and the evidence of battering wear and flaking scars caused by pounding. The item in Fig. 11.1:2 is a nicely shaped round flint nodule which was not used much and thus retained its original shape. Only a photo was available for an additional item (Fig. 11.1:5), which seems also to be a round tool (flint nodule) with flaking scars on at least one of the facets. Two additional items (Cat. Nos. 11 and 12) were defined as pounders by the excavators, but we have no additional information about them.

Pestles One elongated conical pestle was discovered at the site (Fig. 11.1:3). Such items were used for crushing and processing a variety of materials, mostly plant products, in a circular motion. The gray granite tool is rounded on both of its narrow facets, although one of them is more battered than the other. It may have originally been part of a larger item, since a couple of its facets are angular and not completely rounded. Alternatively, this shape may be the result of breakage and chipping.

Platter The item in Fig. 11.1:4 is an end fragment of a yellow sandstone platter, with a short rounded and smoothed rim. Such an item may have been used for serving food or for many other household chores, such as light grinding or pecking.

The Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Tools The Ground Stone Tool “Deposit” (Pit under Wall of Casemate Room 20A) During excavation beneath one of the walls of Casemate Room 20A, a pit (L20B) inside which a “deposit” of ca. 30 ground stone tools, some complete and others fragmentary, was found (Chapter 3; Figs. 3.17–3.18). This “deposit,” which predates the Iron I “fortress,” was attributed by the excavators to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I (Meshel 1993: 1517). Unfortunately, although these tools were photographed in the field, they were not collected or described in any detail. We must therefore rely only on a single photograph of the stones, which were placed side by side by the excavators (Fig. 3.19). Most of them seem to be upper and lower grinding stones made of various rock types (perhaps PSC sandstone, granite and limestone). These were either loaf-shaped or small handheld tools, as well as a mortar and several pounders. We cannot determine whether these tools were found in their original place of use or were deposited together for an unknown reason.

Additional Tools (Locus 26) Six ground stone tools were found while cleaning and renewing a section within the “fortress” courtyard; they are attributed to the earlier occupation, i.e., the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I. These include one grinding stone made of PSC sandstone (Fig. 11.1:7) and five battered pounders. Two of these, made of limestone (Fig. 11.1:8–9), were found complete—one disc-shaped and the other dome-shaped. The other three, made of flint (Cat. Nos. 16–18), were found chipped, and their original shape could not be determined.

Discussion Unfortunately, the ground stone tools from Yotvata were not recorded or collected properly; consequently, we had access to very few of the reported ground stone tools. Additional information came from fragmentary documentation in the field and several old photographs. Nevertheless, a close examination of the available 94

Yotvata.indb 94

03/08/2022 15:51

Chapter 11: Ground Stone Tools

data allows us to reach several conclusions regarding the ground stone tools and the related activities at the site, at least for the Iron Age I. The inhabitants of Yotvata during both the Iron I and the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I periods were familiar with the properties of the different raw materials and the requirements dictated by the tool purposes. The assemblage suggests that some effort was expended in procuring the suitable raw material and in manufacturing and maintaining the artifacts. The tools to which we had access, and which could be dated to the Iron Age I were made of gray granite (pestle; Fig. 11.1:3), flint (pounder; Fig. 11.1:2), PSC sandstone (abrader; Fig. 11.1:1) and yellow sandstone (platter; Fig. 11.1:4). The materials from which the other items were manufactured were determined from the photographs or the excavators’ notes, none of which are wholly reliable or certain. These include three granite items (two grinding stones and one pestle), one limestone pounder, one sandstone abrader and seven grinding stones of unknown material (as well as another unclear fragment). It is likely that some of the raw materials needed to produce these tools, such as the granite and PSC sandstone, originated in the Timna Valley, where this raw material is readily available (Greener and Ben-Yosef 2016). The flint, limestone and yellow sandstone could have been brought from closer areas. The tools found while cleaning the section (L26) were made of flint (three items; pounders), limestone (two items; pounders) and PSC sandstone (one item; a grinding stone). As for the “deposit” beneath the wall (L20B)—it seems to have contained items manufactured from various materials, including PSC sandstone, granite, limestone and flint. The types of stone tools found at Iron I Yotvata suggest that domestic activities took place at this “fortress.” The assemblage as a whole is functionally associated with the processing of cereals, grains and other agricultural produce. This assemblage is very different than the industrial tools found in the contemporaneous copper-production sites in the Timna Valley (Greener and Ben-Yosef 2016; Greener, in preparation). The items attributed to the earlier Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I period (many pounders and grinding stones) seem to lean more heavily towards an industrial setting. We note, however, that the sample of stone finds described in this chapter is too fragmentary and coincidental for any definitive conclusions or to support or negate any hypotheses about the metallurgical activities which took place at Yotvata during both the Iron I and the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I periods.

References Abadi, Y. 2003. Early Bronze Age Grinding Stone Production in the Negev Highlands (M.A. thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev). Beersheba. Greener, A. In preparation. Ground-Stone Tools. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Timna Valley Revisited: The Tel Aviv Excavations (2013–2018) and Other Studies in the Ancient Copper Mining District of the Southern Aravah (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA. Greener, A. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2016. The Ground Stone Assemblage of a Metal Workers Community: An Unexplored Dimension of Iron Age Copper Production at Timna. Journal of Lithic Studies 3/3: 191–220. Hovers, E. 1996. The Groundstone Industry. In: Ariel, D. and De Groot, A., eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, IV: Various Reports (Qedem Reports 35). Jerusalem: 171–203. Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Rosenberg, D. 2008. Spatial Distribution of Food Processing Activities at Late Iron I Megiddo. Tel Aviv 35: 96–113. Yahalom-Mack, N. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2009. Groundstone Implements. In: Panitz-Cohen, N. and Mazar, A., eds. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, III: The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S. Jerusalem: 719–736. 95

Yotvata.indb 95

03/08/2022 15:51

Yotvata.indb 96

03/08/2022 15:51

CHAPTER 12

WORKED WOODEN OBJECTS FROM THE IRON I Yigal Sitry

Two wooden items were discovered in Yotvata in casemate rooms (Rooms 31 and 16) from the Iron Age I. The wood from which they were manufactured was identified as Haloxylon persicum (saxaul), which forms a special type of forest common to the sand dunes of the Arabah Valley (Chapter 14). In favorable ecological conditions Haloxylon persicum trunk can reach over 20 cm in diameter, as is evident from contemporary examples in the Arabah (Simcha Lev-Yadun: personal communication). The use of local trees for making various objects has been seen in other sites in the Negev and the Arabah; a similar phenomenon in the Iron Age was observed at Kuntillet ʿAjrud, where 85% of the items were made from local wood (Sitry 2012: 325). The two items under discussion were mechanically cleaned in order to identify tool marks on their surfaces.

Bowl Fragment This fragment of a handmade wooden bowl (Fig. 12.1:1) is estimated to be 190 mm in diameter, with a wall thickness of 14 mm. Its inner and outer surfaces display tool marks, worn down over time. The direction of the fibers is tangential to the rim of the bowl, indicating expert technical use of the wood. Knots are evident on the side of the vessel and the grain is distorted, pointing to abnormal growth. Indeed, abnormal growth is evident in various items made of local wood in arid areas, which do not offer a wide variety of suitable trees for woodworking.

Cylindrical Object This item (Fig. 12.1:2; length: 80 mm; maximum diameter: 28 mm) is made from a branch shaped into a long cylinder resembling a haft of a work tool, possibly a knife. There are tool marks on both ends of the cylinder, which have been worn down over time. A cavity cut along the cylinder was probably intended to firmly hold the tang of the blade in the haft.

1

2

Fig. 12.1: Worked wood objects from the Iron Age 1) bowl (Reg. No. 185/90; L16) 2) haft? (Reg. No. 165/90; L31)

Yotvata.indb 97

03/08/2022 15:51

Y igal Sitry

References Sitry Y. 2012. Wooden Artifacts from Hurvat Teiman. In: Meshel, Z., ed. Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah–Sinai Border. Jerusalem: 317–326.

98

Yotvata.indb 98

03/08/2022 15:51

CHAPTER 13

A WOOD COFFIN FROM THE NABATAEAN BUILT TOMB Yigal Sitry

A square stone tomb structure from the Late Hellenistic period was discovered on the prominent point of the southern edge of the earthen rampart at Yotvata, next to the steep cliff (for the earthen rampart, see Chapter 3). The tomb consisted of two burial cells, both of which appear to have been looted before excavation. A complete skeleton was discovered lying supine in the northern cell (L9), and a wooden coffin (IAA No. 1978/10), made of Cedrus libani (cedar of Lebanon; see Chapters 15 and 17) and containing crushed bones, was found in the southern cell (L8; Figs. 13.1–13.2). Several sherds found in an earth dump, which are thought to have been cleared from the tomb at the time of the looting, assisted its dating (Chapter 6). The building, the wooden coffin and the finds were drawn by Danny Bachar upon discovery. This initial sketch of the wooden coffin bears handwritten notes, which were of use in the research of the coffin. The coffin is a rectangular box with a flat bottom and lid protruding slightly beyond the sides. The coffin is almost completely symmetrical: The long sides of the coffin are almost identical in length (202 cm). The width tapers by 3 cm: at one end it is 46.5 cm wide and at the other 49.5 cm wide. The coffin measures 20 cm in height, including base and lid. The lid has not been found, but the holes along the top edges of the side boards suggest that it was flat and identical in size to the bottom. This enables the reconstruction of a rectangular coffin (Fig. 13.3). The coffin was built as a box structure,1 its side boards connected to end boards by means of dovetail joints. The bottom was fixed to the side boards with metal nails: three nails close together along each of the narrow sides and ten nails spaced 25–35 cm apart along each of the long sides. The lid was fixed to the side boards by means of treenails:2 three in each of the end boards and ten in each of the side boards. As aforementioned, the bottom and lid of the coffin extend beyond the dimensions of the side boards; this is assumed to be due to technical considerations—to enable the connection of the base and lid to the side boards without causing indent damage3 (Fig. 13.4). The sides of the coffin were constructed from single boards (average thickness: 2.5 cm). The bottom (and probably the lid as well) was made by connecting three long boards along their long edges. The boards forming the bottom are ca. 2.5 cm thick, with the central board wider (23 cm) than the other two (19 and 14 cm wide). Holes were drilled in their edges for connecting the adjoining boards, and fragments of dowels have been found in some of these holes. The holes are spaced 20 cm apart on average, a reasonable spacing for preventing movement between the boards. 1. A box structure is a rectangular box-shaped piece of furniture, with each facet connected directly to at least three other facets. 2. A polygonal wooden nail tapered to its end. 3. The metal nails are approximately 9 mm in diameter and the head approximately 20 mm in diameter. This led the carpenter to extend the base to enable continuity of the grain along the planks beyond the holes. Inserting the nail at the edge of the plank without extending the base would have left only 7 mm between the hole and the edge of the bottom, putting the board at risk of indentation breaking, i.e., the short grain (the grain beyond the hole) would have been pushed out.

Yotvata.indb 99

03/08/2022 15:51

Y igal Sitry

Fig. 13.1: The two burial cells

Fig. 13.2: The coffin; note base protruding from the side panels (photo by Clara Amit; courtesy of Israel Antiquities Authority) 100

Yotvata.indb 100

03/08/2022 15:52

Chapter 13: A Wood Coffin from the Nabataean Built Tomb

B

D E

A C

Fig. 13.3: Schematic reconstruction of the coffin (drawing by Yigal Sitry)

Fig. 13.4: Detail of a corner of the coffin, showing remains of treenails connecting the lid to the side boards (photo by Clara Amit; courtesy of Israel Antiquities Authority)

As already stated, the side boards were connected using dovetail joints, with the tails cut in the end boards and the pins located in the side boards (Figs. 13.5–13.6).4 This arrangement was designed to keep the side boards from collapsing outward. The measurement of the dovetails (3 cm) is consistent in all the joints. The angles of the tails are not consistent; thus, the internal spaces between the dovetails vary: in some they are smaller than necessary, which led to matching pins that were too narrow. The pins are in poor condition, most having been worn down, which makes it difficult to evaluate the accuracy of the sawing. In other parts, where they are in better condition, we located greater spacing than expected between the tails and pins; it is therefore possible that wooden wedges were used to tighten the joints. As mentioned above, the coffin was built of Cedrus libani (Chapters 15 and 17; and Liphschitz 1996: 94). Tests from various parts of the coffin show that the treenails were made of Rhamnus palaestinus (Mediterranean buckthorn) and Cupressus sempervirens (Italian cypress) (Chapter 17), which are harder than Cedrus libani. Hardwood was often used for nails in furniture construction, enabling a polygonal nail to fit firmly into a round hole. Many types of hardwood grow near the site, from which the nails could have been made. The fact that the treenails were made of wood from a mountainous area of Israel, rather than from a local wood, suggests that the coffin was constructed inland, in an area where Cupressus sempervirens and Rhamnus palaestinus were local species, readily available to the craftsman. There are 4. It appears that the sequence of work began with sawing the dovetails in the end boards—accounting for their uniform size—and then their shape was copied onto the side boards in order to saw the slanted pins.

101

Yotvata.indb 101

03/08/2022 15:52

Y igal Sitry

Fig. 13.5: Dovetail joints connecting the coffin’s side panels (photo by Clara Amit; courtesy of Israel Antiquities Authority)

C A

Fig. 13.6: Reconstruction of the dovetail joints between the panels (drawing by Yigal Sitry) 102

Yotvata.indb 102

03/08/2022 15:52

Chapter 13: A Wood Coffin from the Nabataean Built Tomb

many closely-spaced knots along the planks and cross-sections of side branches that can be seen in some of the boards (Fig. 13.7). This shows that the planks originated from the upper part of the trunk, which is of inferior quality and is usually meant to be used as a pole, rather than to be sawed into planks. Planks A and B (see above, Fig. 13.3) originate from a full radial section and include the pith (the center) of the trunk. The section of the central plank of the base (E) is radial and adjacent to the pith (core). The two long sides (C and D) have semi-radial cuts, indicating that they were sawn from parts adjacent to planks A+B and E. It seems that all planks used for the sides and end boards come from the radial or almost radial section of one trunk. Thus, the sawing of the trunk can be reconstructed as follows (Fig. 13.8): nine planks, each 25 mm wide, were sawed along the length of one tree trunk. The radial (central) planks, which are wider, were used for the central board at the bottom and for the lid (not found), while the others were used for the sides.5 The outer planks with a tangential section were used as the outer boards for the bottom and the lid. In total, 202 cm of the trunk were used, equal to seven Roman feet, with a total volume of 0.1 m 3. The weight of the coffin is estimated at approximately 60 kg. The use of treenails in box structures to connect the planks of the bottom and the lid to the side boards is well known. The lid of the box under discussion was connected to the coffin using pre-drilled holes, 8.5 mm in diameter—some of which still contain fragments of the treenails that connected the lid to the coffin (Fig. 13.4). The holes are spaced 20 cm apart, with deviations of up to 5 mm. The depth of the holes in the sides is 6–7 cm, making a total length of 9 cm together with the presumed thickness of the

a

b

c Fig. 13.7: Side panels: a) detail showing knot; b) showing connection of two panels; c) showing knot (photos by Clara Amit; courtesy of Israel Antiquities Authority) 5. Using a radial cut for wide planks ensures the integrity of the sides and prevents the development of cracks after working.

103

Yotvata.indb 103

03/08/2022 15:52

Y igal Sitry

Fig. 13.8: Cutting plan for planks in tree trunk (drawing by Yigal Sitry)

lid. It seems that the treenails used were 10 cm long and the projecting parts of the nails were removed and smoothed after the sealing of the coffin. Nails of a similar length were used to connect parts of coffins found at ʿEn Gedi (Hadas 1994: 48). The large number of nails in our coffin indicates that it had been closed with no intention of reopening it for further use. The Yotvata coffin is well made, apparently constructed by a skilled and experienced craftsman who made efficient use of a single cedar tree trunk and used high-quality joints with the correct tools. The absence of tool marks on the external surfaces indicates special attention to fine finishing. Some tool marks were found in concealed parts of the coffin. Saw marks were evident on the stumps of the side boards and the joints, and chisel marks were found in the spaces between the pins and the dovetails. Other tool marks appear near the joints; it seems that the craftsman used a marking gauge to mark the length of the dovetails. A slit-shaped chisel mark (a carpenter’s mark) was evident on the surface of a side board. Wooden coffins of this kind have been dated to the beginning of the Hellenistic and throughout the Roman period; they differ in types of wood, quality and structure. A Nabataean coffin was uncovered in the northern cemetery at Khirbat adh-Dharih, in southern Jordan (al-Muheisen and Villeneuve 1994: 754). The cemetery and the coffin date from the 1st–4th centuries CE. The coffin is rounded at the head. It is similar to the Yotvata coffin in size and was also constructed with edge-jointed wide boards of Cedrus libani and with hardwood pegs.6 Remains of many wooden coffins were also found in the Nabataean cemetery at Mamshit, but most could not be documented (Negev 1971: 117–120). In some cases, only traces of wood were found together with the metal nails that held them together. A coffin from Tomb 100, documented in detail by Negev, was constructed of four panels, each 6. Ahmad et al. 2018: 6–7. The coffin measures 193 cm in length, 54 cm in width and 32 cm in height. The preserved boards were 32.5 and 25.5 cm wide. The authors preferred using the term “peg,” which functions mechanically as a treenail. The wood of the pegs is as yet unidentified due to its condition, although researchers assume that they were made from a broad-leaf tree, possibly Pistacia atlantica.

104

Yotvata.indb 104

03/08/2022 15:52

Chapter 13: A Wood Coffin from the Nabataean Built Tomb

made of four edge-jointed boards of Cedrus libani attached to four corner posts. The information provided regarding the coffin’s structure is contradictory but seems to imply a post-and-rail structure.7 A coffin of a similar size and structure has been found in Saqqara, Egypt (Edgar 1905: 8, Pl. IV, Coffin 33.122). This coffin is also built as a box, its side boards connected by dovetail joints and the bottom consisting of several narrow edge-jointed boards projecting from the box’s outline. About 30 wooden coffins have been found in a cemetery from the Roman period unearthed in Marina el-Alamein (Zych 2003: 75–77, Fig. 4a and b). Some of these were of high-quality box construction, employing dovetail joints; in others metal nails were used as a simple alternative to joints. Dovetail joints were also used in the construction of a high-quality coffin in Shakhoura, Bahrain (Andersen et al. 2004: 221–222) and in a contemporaneous coffin in Fayyum (Edgar 1905: 10–11, Pl. VI, Coffin 33.123). Both the latter had gabled lids. Wooden fragments were found in a cemetery from the time of the Mishna and Talmud in Beth Sheʿarim (Mazar 1958: 118, 152–153, Fig. 27, Pl. 30; Avigad 1972: 136).8 The shapes of the coffins were reconstructed on the basis of the positions in which the fragments were found and the way the iron nails were scattered. The expedition’s architect, J. Pinkerfield, concluded that the coffin was built as a box structure (Mazar 1958). The metalwork found on site and its exact location show that eight 5 × 5 cm metal angles strengthened the connections of the side boards to the ends.9 To date, some 75 wooden coffins have been found in Cisjordan and there are indications of additional coffins.10 Not surprisingly, most of the coffins were found in the Judean Desert, especially in Jericho and ʿEn Gedi. Thirty-nine coffins were found in the cemetery in ʿEn Gedi and were dated to the 1st century BCE (Hadas 1994: 69–71). Most of them were made of Ficus sycomorus (sycamore), and the nails were usually of a hardwood, such as Cupressus sempervirens or Tamarix sp. The coffins were of box construction, but the raw material and craftsmanship were of poor quality.11 The long sides of the coffins were connected to the end boards and reinforced at the corners with vertical battens by treenails. In some Group A coffins from ʿEn Gedi, the reinforcements projected 5 cm below the base, raising the coffin from the ground. The boards at the bottom were edge-jointed with dowels. 7. The corner posts are 15.2 cm wide and 9 cm thick. Negev stated that no nails were used in the joints and that the sides were dovetailed into the corner posts, but the illustration there (Negev 1971: 118, Fig. 6) does not show the joint in detail and the locations of the boards (both of the long and narrow sides) in the figure make this claim dubious. The remains of the coffin have not been found to confirm this report. 8. Two types of coffins were discovered at Beth Sheʿarim: large coffins were found (reconstructed size: 190 cm long and 45 cm wide), and other, smaller, coffins, identified by Mazar as wooden ossuaries, were uncovered in other locations in the cemetery. 9. The upper angles connected both side facets, and the lower angles connected the bottom to the sides. Two pairs of nails found 30 cm from the edges of the coffins were the basis for reconstructing two battens that strengthened the bottom, while raising the coffin from the floor. 10. Sitry 2006: I, 39–45. In addition to the coffins noted here, remains of Roman-period wooden coffins were also discovered in Jerusalem in a catacomb in Akeldama (Avni and Greenhut 1996), Ramat Raḥel (Mazar 1958: 152, n. 1), Malḥata (Eldar and Nahlieli 1982), Upper Ḥurvat Karkur (Figueras 1991), Kefar Giladi (Kaplan 1967: 107), in the Judean Shephelah (Kloner, Regev and Rappaport 1992: 28) and Qumran (De Vaux 1973). Remains of a Nabataean wooden coffin were recently discovered by Svetlana Talis (IAA Permit No. A-7962/2017). Some of the boards have round drilled holes, thought to have accommodated treenails. Some researchers have interpreted the metal nails found in the graves as evidence of wooden coffins. Hachlili cautions against this (2005: 511–512), suggesting that iron nails could indicate the adoption of pagan burial traditions, or could mark the ownership of a burial site and possibly also a burial of impure objects used by the deceased in his lifetime. 11. The coffins were made of relatively thin boards. The sides are ca. 1 cm thick, and the ends are 2–3 cm thick. The main joint used is treenails. Some of the planks show signs suggesting that the wood was previously used for other objects or furniture. Many of the boards have patches, suggesting repairs, and in some cases two boards were connected longitudinally (Hadas 1994: 48). The finishing of the coffins is of low quality, with obvious tool marks, some identified as sawing, chopping and drilling marks. Some of the boards were lengthened with a double scarf.

105

Yotvata.indb 105

03/08/2022 15:52

Y igal Sitry

A wooden coffin dating from the 1st century BCE was found by N. Avigad in Naḥal David near ʿEn Gedi in the 1960s (Avigad 1962). It had a box-structure construction and a gabled lid.12 It was decorated with geometrical shapes combined with floral forms, made of thin, delicate and high-quality alternating boards of wood. No saw marks were visible, and some of the gable boards were completely smooth. More than 15 wooden coffins were found in the Jewish cemetery at Jericho and were dated by Hachlili to the 1st century CE (Hachlili and Killebrew 1999: 165). These coffins are large and are of high-quality wood and craftsmanship.13 Hachlili divided the coffins into three types according to the shapes of their gables and their ornamentation. They were all of a similar structure—a post-and-rail construction, with the sides made of dowelled edge-jointed boards attached by double mortise and tenon joints or elongated tenon joints and secured with round dowels to massive corner posts.14 The bottoms of the coffins were also made of edge-jointed boards, sometimes reinforced with battens. The lids consisted of two edge-jointed boards meeting at the top of the gables shaped like isosceles triangles, which formed the ends of the lid.15

Discussion Coffin burial is known throughout the ancient Mediterranean and beyond.16 The shapes of the coffins represent the deceased—e.g., coffins in human form from Egypt—or scenes and/or belongings from the deceased’s world—e.g., houses or furniture. The tradition of burial in gabled coffins imitating houses is thought to have begun in the Aegean world, where the use of such lids was common (Hagg and Sieurin 1982 and references therein). In the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE it spread to the area influenced by Hellenistic culture, and such coffins have been uncovered in many sites, although some distant from this rainy climate region. In the Second Temple period the Jewish community used coffins for primary burials.17 The coffins may be divided into two main types according to shape: A) rectangular box-shaped coffins with a flat bottom and a lid lying on raised battens or directly on the ground; and B) coffins with gabled lids, usually raised from the ground by corner posts. Both types vary in wood quality, as well as in structure and workmanship. These definitions also apply to many wooden coffins found in the Middle East, from the Hellenistic period onward.

12. The sides are made of two edge-jointed boards 12 mm thick, and the end boards are 8–10 mm thick. The box’s four sides are connected to one another and to the bottom with wooden nails, with four reinforcing posts in the corners, each 3 cm thick. The gabled lid is made of two boards on either side, connected by means of wooden nails to two triangular ends. The nails at the top of the gable are approximately 6 mm in diameter, and the average diameter of the nails of the box is 4.5 mm. The nails are well smoothed, flush with the surface of the boards. 13. They were usually 190 cm in length and 42–50 cm in width, with the exception of Coffin 190, with an external width of 42 cm and an internal width of only 34 cm. 14. Traditional carpenters used securing nails as a tightening method; the hole at the tenon was moved slightly backward so that when the securing pin was inserted, a tightening force was created. The condition of the wood does not permit an examination to determine whether the carpenters in Jericho were acquainted with this method. 15. Coffin 113, probably initially used as a chest, had two rows of hinges. Other gabled coffins had a top ridge alternately colored to imitate a hinge system, as was common in Hellenistic coffins. 16. A list of 33 wooden coffins from the Hellenistic period was published by Watzinger (1905), ranging from coffins found in Abu Sir and Fayyum in Egypt to Piraeus, to Olbia and to Kerch in the Crimea. All the coffins are of excellent quality and show a high level of technological skill. Some of the gabled coffins were equipped with sophisticated hinges. Watzinger suggested that in shape the coffins imitated buildings or furniture used in daily life and he therefore divided them according to shape into coffins imitating chests (Kastensarkophage) and coffins imitating buildings (Haussarkophage). 17. This is evidenced by wooden coffins placed in burial halls, as well as coffins in which several skeletons were discovered. For burial traditions in Judea, see Hachlili and Killebrew 1999.

106

Yotvata.indb 106

03/08/2022 15:52

Chapter 13: A Wood Coffin from the Nabataean Built Tomb

The coffins from Yotvata, Hirbat adh-Dharih (Type A) and Mamshit (Type B) were made of Cedrus libani.18 The coffins from Jericho (A) were mainly made of Ficus sycomorus19 and Cupressus sempervirens,20 combined with Populus euphratica (Poplar) and Pinus halepensis (Aleppo pine). One coffin was made entirely of Pinus brutia (Calabrian pine). Hardwood, such as Ziziphus spina-christi (Christ thorn), was used for dowels and treenails (Liphschitz and Waisel 1999: 91). Coffins from ʿEn Gedi all consisted of thin planks of Ficus sycomorus and were of low-quality wood and craftsmanship (see above, n. 11). The two groups are distinguished on the basis of the coffin structure: Type A coffins are of the box structure, while Type B consists of post-and-rail type constructions. Type A coffins tend to be simple and strong, based on direct connection between side boards, with dovetailing as the preferred joint. This joint, when made accurately and correctly, using the right thickness of wood, will ensure a stable and lasting structure and prevent the side boards from collapsing outward. Making dovetail joints requires knowledge, precise tools and good craftsmanship. In these cases, high-quality wood was used, as in the Yotvata coffin. This group also included poor-quality coffins, such as those from ʿEn Gedi, in which the craftsman used poor-quality wood and treenails to connect the side panels. Vertical reinforcements were added to the corners and nailed to the panels of coffins made of thin boards. The wooden coffins from Beth Sheʿarim were also built as box structures with thin boards. The thin side boards of the coffin found in Naḥal David (Avigad 1962) were probably the reason that the carpenter preferred the box structure to the post-and-rail type. The coffins of Type B, of post-and-rail construction, are mostly raised from the ground. This structure consists of four massive corner posts to which the side boards connect on both sides.21 It is strong and stable, and the posts can be lengthened, raising the coffin from the ground. All the coffins discovered in the Roman cemetery in Jericho were of this type, and so was Coffin 100 from Mamshit and probably four additional coffins whose remains were found there. The posts were 15 × 9 cm on average in crosssection. All these coffins were wide and high, requiring several edge-jointed boards in each side, usually connected with dowels.22 Most of these high-quality coffins had an elegant gable lid; some also had a system of hinges at the top ridge, facilitating the opening and closing of the coffin.23 The tradition of using gabled lids is also seen in the ʿEn Gedi coffins, despite their poor quality. Almost all the Type B coffins were elegant and decorated. A close connection has been found between these coffins and the quality of raw materials used. These features probably reflect the financial status of the people buried in them and the settlements in which they lived. The coffins found in Israel appear to have been inspired by the Hellenistic coffin style. This is evident in all the coffins uncovered, but is, of course, most significant in the high-quality coffins uncovered at Jericho, Mamshit and Yotvata, as well as in the coffin found by Avigad at ʿEn Gedi.

18. Cedrus libani is imported and is of higher quality than local trees. Its wood has additional benefits, including insectrepelling resin, a great advantage for coffins. 19. In the Second Temple period Ficus sycomorus trees were grown for the timber industry (Sitry 2006: 159–160, 171). 20. The extent to which Cupressus sempervirens trees were prevalent in the mountainous areas of the Land of Israel is debated (Sitry 2006: 156–158). Pinus brutia was imported from Cyprus. 21. This structure is mainly used for building furniture raised from the floor, such as beds, tables and chests. The joints used in these structures are based on variations of the mortise-and-tenon joint. 22. Unfortunately, the sections of the boards were not drawn showing the direction of growth rings, which prevents us from determining to what extent the craftsman understood the nature of the wood and its shrinking and swelling. 23. The hinges may have been part of chests used in the houses of the affluent. This was probably true of coffins as well. Some scholars believe that these coffins were originally used as functional furniture in the home and were later brought to the tomb as part of the burial rites or to be used for the primary burial. Traces of such hinges were found in Coffin 113 in Jericho, which might have originally been used as a chest.

107

Yotvata.indb 107

03/08/2022 15:52

Y igal Sitry

References Ahmad, A., Elserogy, A., al-Muheisen, Z., Villeneuve, F. and el-Oqlah, A. 2018. The Conservation of Wooden Nabataean Coffin Box from Jordan—Application of Non-Destructive Ultrasinic Technique. Wood Research 63: 1–14. Andersen, F.S., Strehle, H., Tengberg, M. and Salman, I. 2004. Two Wooden Coffins from Shakhoura Necropolis, Bahrain. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 15: 219–228. Avigad, N. 1962. Camp I—Nahal David. Yediʿot 26: 143–158 (Hebrew). Avigad, N. 1972. Beit Sheʿarim III. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Avni, G. and Greenhut, Z. 1996. The Akeldama Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 1). Jerusalem: 73–94. De Vaux, R. 1973. Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. London. Edgar, C.C. 1905. Graeco-Egyptian Coffins, Masks and Portraits (Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire 26). Cairo. Eldar, I. and Nahlieli, D. 1982. Tel Malḥata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 80–81: 39–41 (Hebrew). Figueras, P. 1991. Ḥ. Karkur ʿIllit. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 97: 82 (Hebrew). Hachlili, R. 2005. Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Boston. Hachlili, R. and Killebrew, A. 1999. Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 7). Jerusalem. Hadas, G. 1994. Nine Tombs of the Second Temple Period at ʿEin Gedi (ʿAtiqot 24). Jerusalem. Hagg, R. and Sieurin, F. 1982. On the Origin of the Wooden Coffin in Late Bronze Age Greece. Annual of the British School at Athens 77: 177–186. Kaplan, J. 1967. A Mausoleum at Kfar Giladi. Eretz-Israel 8: 104–113 (Hebrew) 71*–72* (English summary). Kloner, A., Regev, D. and Rappaport, U. 1992. A Hellenistic Burial Cave in the Judaean Shephelah. ʿAtiqot 21: 28–50 (Hebrew with English summary). Liphschitz, N. 1996. Timber Analysis of En Gedi Wooden Coffins: A Comparative Study. ʿAtiqot 28: 93–97. Liphschitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 1999. Timber Analysis. In: Hachlili, R. and Killebrew, A. Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 7). Jerusalem: 88–92. Mazar, B. 1958. Beit Sheʿarim I. Jerusalem (Hebrew). al-Muheisen, Z. and Villeneuve, F. 1994. Découvertes nouvelles à Khirbet edh-Dharih (Jordanie), 1991–1994: Autour du sanctuaire nabatéen et romain. Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 138: 735–757. Negev, A. 1971. The Nabatean Necropolis of Mampsis (Kurnub). Israel Exploration Journal 21: 110–129. 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). Watzinger, C. 1905. Griechische Holzsarkophage aus der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen. Leipzig. Zych, I. 2003. Wooden and Leaden Coffins from the Graeco-Roman Burial Ground of Marina el-Alamein. Polish Archaeology of the Mediterranean 14: 72–83.

108

Yotvata.indb 108

03/08/2022 15:52

CHAPTER 14

CORDS AND BASKETRY FROM THE IRON I AND TEXTILES FROM THE NABATAEAN BUILT TOMB Naama Sukenik and Orit Shamir

In the course of the excavations at Yotvata a few fragments of cordage and textiles were found, preserved as a result of the dry climate in the region. The finds are dated to the Iron Age I and the late Hellenistic period on the basis of their archaeological context and are presented and discussed in detail below.

The Iron Age I Cordage Two cords made of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) (Chapter 15) were found in Casemate Room 12 (Figs. 14.1–14.2). The ropes are made of two Z-spun strings plied to an S direction (zS2). One fragment (Fig. 14.1) is 7.7 cm long and 0.8 cm in diameter; the other (Fig. 14.2) is 21 cm long and 1.2 cm in diameter. The fiber, which comes from the date palm, was one of the raw materials that was commonly utilized in the cordage industry (Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: 131). Only a few ropes dating from the Iron Age were found. In recent excavations conducted at Timna Valley, Workman (2016: 149) identified a few date-palm ropes made from similar fibers. Baskets made of date palm dated to the Iron Age have been found at Kuntillat ʿAjrud (Sheffer and Tidhar 1991: 23) and at Tel Beer-sheba (Sheffer 1973), but they were made of palm frond (leaflets), and not trunk fibers.

Coiling One burnt basket fragment (6 × 3 cm) uncovered in Casemate Room 16 (Fig. 14.3) was found with datepalm seed (Chapter 15). The basket was made using a coiling technique and is slightly convex, constructed from closely packed coils (Baginski and Shamir 1995: 33). The basketry technique of coiling consists of a passive element that is rolled into coils and secured by an active element—a long strip that winds around it (Wendrich 1991: 54). Coiling generally begins at the center of a basket and builds upon itself in spiral rounds, each attached to the previous round. Fragments of coiling baskets from the Iron Age, identified as sieves, were found in Kuntillat ʿAjrud (Sheffer and Tidhar 1991: 11–12). The coiling technique is very common in basketry craft and is known from the prehistoric period until modern times. Coiled baskets dating from the Chalcolithic period, for example, have been found in the Cave of the Warrior (Schick 1998a) and in Naḥal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: 190–191). Such baskets have also been uncovered at Roman period sites like Masada (Bernick 1994: 291–292) and ʿEn Raḥel (Shamir 1999: 104). The fragment from Yotvata (0.5 cm in diameter) consists of bunches of semi-hard stems with four stitches per centimeter.

Yotvata.indb 109

03/08/2022 15:52

naaMa sUKenIK anD orIt sHaMIr

Fig. 14.1: Rope made of date palm (Reg. No. 149/90; Casemate Room 12; IAA No. 2017-1972; photo by Clara Amit; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

Fig. 14.2: Rope made of date palm (Reg. No. 149/91; Casemate Room 12; IAA No. 2017-1973; photo by Clara Amit; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

Fig. 14.3: Fragment of coiled basket (Reg. No. 199/90; Casemate Room 16, IAA No. 1978-823; photo by Clara Amit; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

110

Yotvata.indb 110

03/08/2022 15:52

Chapter 14: Cords and Basketry from the I ron I and T extiles from the Nabataean Built Tomb

The Late Hellenistic Period Four well-preserved linen textiles were found at the Nabataean built tomb with a human skeleton (L9; Table 14.1; Figs. 14.4–14.7), in a chamber close to the wooden coffin (for description of the burial, see Chapter 3). The largest textile measures 45 × 33 cm (Fig. 14.4). All the fragments are warp-faced (Fig. 14.8), S-spun with 16–24 threads per cm in the warp and 6–7 threads per cm in the weft. One fragment has plain selvedge (Fig. 14.6; magnification in Fig. 14.9), and another fragment (Fig. 14.4; magnification in Fig. 14.10) has a 2 cm length of five blue linen threads (S-spun, medium), sewn below two warp threads. All of the textiles were bleached bright white (see, for example, Fig 14.8), with the exception of one fragment, which is less bright and has brown pieces on the fiber, probably from the plant (Fig. 14.7; magnification in Fig. 14.11), which are indicative of a fiber’s lower cleaning quality. We can assume that three of the fragments (Figs. 14.4–14.6) belong to the same high-quality textile: the cleanliness and fine quality of the fiber with its bright white color, the lack of any weaving faults and the blue threads (probably used as sewn threads) are indicative of a high-performance textile, while the fragments presented in Fig. 14.7 were probably made with different threads and do not belong to the same textile. Although this is the first time bleached shrouds have been uncovered and despite the absence of staining, which would have stemmed from the decomposition of the body (e.g., Schick 1998b: 7), the discovery of the textiles in a burial with a human skeleton leaves us to believe that these fragments are part of a shroud—most likely the outer layer. In terms of material, a high percentage of linen is uncommon among textiles discovered at sites in Israel. Seventy-five percent of the Roman period textiles are made of wool, whereas only 25% are linen (Shamir 2015: 9). A considerable amount of the linen uncovered is associated with burial contexts. In Jewish burials, for example, with only one exception (a wool shroud from Jerusalem; Shamir 2015), the shrouds are made of linen (Shamir 2006a; 2006b; 2015). Linen shrouds have been discovered in burials dating from the late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods at ʿEn Gedi (Hadas 1994; Sheffer 1994). In a wooden coffin from Jericho dated to the Roman period, imprints of textiles were found on bones and skulls (Hachlili and Killebrew 1999: 169), and the material used was identified as linen because of the equal number of threads in the warp and the weft. This finding is consistent with Jewish literature, which mention the use of white linen for shrouds (BT Ketuboth 8b; see also Grossi 2012: 19). In Nabataean burials the shrouds are also made of linen, such as at ʿEn Tamar (Shamir 2007; 2016). At Kh. Qazone a small number of items were made specifically for burial, e.g., decorated leather shrouds encountered in seven burials and a new linen shroud not previously used or washed (Politis 1998; 1999; Shanks 1999; Granger-Taylor 2000; Shamir 2016: 56*). To date, most of the linen shrouds found in the Land of Israel are undyed and are cream or beige in color, but not white, which was achieved by bleaching. This is in contrast to Talmudic sources that mention white shrouds (Grossi 2012: 19). Bleaching was a long process intended to whiten linen textiles, which are naturally a beige color. The textiles were soaked in cleaning and whitening chemicals and were then exposed to the sun for weeks (Forbes 1956: 95; Shamir and Sukenik 2011: 220). The bleaching process was generally applied to textiles for clothing or for other important items, like the scroll wrappers from Qumran (Shamir and Sukenik 2011: 220), but not to low-grade textiles. Furthermore, the textiles from Yotvata do not seem to have been in secondary use, because they bear no signs of mending or patching. The high level of the textiles found in the burial may point to the status of the deceased, as indeed, is also indicated by the wood coffin made of cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani), found in the adjacent burial (Chapters 13, 15 and 17).

111

Yotvata.indb 111

03/08/2022 15:52

Yotvata.indb 112

IAA No.

Good

15.7 37.5 6

Linen Linen

45

Linen

Linen

7.2

9

5

33

Warp Weft

Preservation Material Size (cm)

117/91 1996- Good 9137/1 117/92 1996- Good 9137/2 117/93 1996- Medium 9137/3

117/90 19969137

Reg. No.

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

Spinning tightness

18

28

24

16

7

7

7

6

Warpfaced Warpfaced Warpfaced

Warpfaced

Medium

Dense

Dense

Dense

Threads per Weaving Density cm of weaving Warp Weft Warp Weft Warp Weft

Spinning direction

Table 14.1: The textiles from the Nabataean built tomb (L9)

Fragment

Description Illustration

White White Plain Fig. 14.6 selvage White White Many small Fig. 14.7 pieces; the fibers have brown fragment

White White Two other Fig. 14.4 pieces 15 × 11, 16.5×x 9 Blue sewn White White – Fig. 14.5

Warp Weft

Color

Naama Sukenik and Orit Shamir

112

03/08/2022 15:52

CHaPter 14: CorDs anD BasKetrY froM tHe I ron I anD t eXtILes froM tHe naBataean BUILt toMB

Fig. 14.4: Linen fragment (Reg. No. 117/90; L9, IAA No. 1996-9137; photo by Clara Amit; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

Fig 14.5: Linen fragment (Reg. No. 117/91; L9, IAA No. 1996-9137/1; photo by Clara Amit; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

Fig 14.6: Linen fragment (Reg. No. 117/92; L9, IAA No. 1996-9137/2; photo by Clara Amit; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

113

Yotvata.indb 113

03/08/2022 15:53

Naama Sukenik and Orit Shamir

Fig. 14.7: Linen fragments (Reg. No. 117/93; L9, IAA No. 19969137/3; photo by Clara Amit; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

Fig. 14.8: Close-up of textile (Reg. No. 117/92; L9, IAA No. 19969137/2; photo by N. Sukenik using Dino Lite)

114

Yotvata.indb 114

03/08/2022 15:53

Chapter 14: Cords and Basketry from the I ron I and T extiles from the Nabataean Built Tomb

Fig. 14.9: Close-up of textile with simple selvedge (Reg. No. 117/92; L9, IAA No. 1996-9137/2; photo by N. Sukenik using Dino Lite)

Fig. 14.10: Close-up of textile with blue threads (Reg. No. 117/90; L9, IAA No. 1996-9137; photo by N. Sukenik using Dino Lite)

115

Yotvata.indb 115

03/08/2022 15:53

Naama Sukenik and Orit Shamir

Fig. 14.11: Close-up of textile (Reg. No. 117/93; L9, IAA No. 19969137/3; photo by N. Sukenik using Dino Lite)

References Baginski, A. and Shamir, O. 1995. Textiles, Basketry, and Cordage from Naḥal ʿOmer. ʿAtiqot 26: 21–42. Bar-Adon, P. 1980. The Cave of the Treasure: The Finds from the Caves in Nahal Mishmar. Jerusalem. Bernick, K. 1994. Masada Basketry, Cordage and Related Artifacts. In: Aviram, J., Foerster, G. and Netzer, E., eds. Masada, The Yigael Yadin Excavation 1963–1965 Final Report IV. Jerusalem: 284–317. Forbes, R.J. 1956. Studies in Ancient Technology IV. Leiden. Granger-Taylor, H. 2000. The Textiles from Khirbet Qazone (Jordan). In: Cardon, D. and Feugère, M., eds. Archéologie des Textiles des Origines au Ve Siècle: Actes du Colloque de Lattes, Octobre 1999. Montagnac: 149–162. Grossi, A. 2012. Jewish Shrouds and Funerary Customs: A Comparison with the Shroud of Turin. First International Congress on the Holy Shroud in Spain: 1–33. https://independent.academia.edu/AdaGrossi. Hachlili, R. and Killebrew, A. 1999. Jericho—The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period (Israel Antiquity Authority Reports 7). Jerusalem. Hadas, G. 1994. Nine Tombs of the Second Temple Period at ʿEn Gedi (ʿAtiqot 24). Jerusalem. Politis, K.D. 1998. Rescue Excavations in the Nabatean Cemetery at Khirbat Qazone 1996–1997. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42: 611–614. Politis, K.D. 1999. The Nabataean Cemetery at Khirbet Qazone. Near Eastern Archaeology 62/2: 128. Schick, T. 1998a. The Basket. In: Schick, T., ed. The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 5). Jerusalem: 26–27. Schick, T. 1998b. The Textile. In: Schick, T., ed. The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 5). Jerusalem: 6–22. Shamir, O. 1999. Textiles, Basketry, and Cordage from ʿEn Rahel. ʿAtiqot 38: 91–124. Shamir, O. 2006a. Shrouds and Other Textiles from ʿEn Gedi. In: Hirschfeld, Y., ed. ʿEn Gedi, “A Large Village of Jews.” Haifa: 57*–59*. Shamir, O. 2006b. Textiles, Basketry and Cordage and Fruits from ʿEn Tamar: Preliminary Report. In: Bienkowski, P. and Galor, K., eds. Crossing the Rift Valley (Levant Supplementary Series 3). Oxford: 191–194. Shamir, O. 2007. Textiles from the 1st Century CE in Jerusalem­––A Preliminary Report. In: Gillis, C. and Nosch, M.-L.B., eds. Ancient Textiles: Production, Craft and Society. Oxford: 77–80.

116

Yotvata.indb 116

03/08/2022 15:53

Chapter 14: Cords and Basketry from the I ron I and T extiles from the Nabataean Built Tomb

Shamir, O. 2015. A Burial Textile from the First Century CE in Jerusalem Compared to Roman Textiles in the Land of Israel and the Turin Shroud. Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation: 1–14. IEEE-ATSI. SHS Web of Conferences. http://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2015/02 /shsconf_atsi2014_00010.pdf. Shamir, O. 2016. Mixed Wool and Linen Textiles (Shaʿatnez in Hebrew) from a Nabatean Burial Cave at ʿEn Tamar. In: Patrich, J., Peleg-Barkat, O. and Ben-Yosef, E., eds. Arise, Walk through the Land. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Land of Israel in Memory of Yizhar Hirschfeld on the Tenth Anniversary of His Demise. Jerusalem: 53*–60*. Shamir, O. and Sukenik, N. 2011. Qumran Textiles and the Garments of Qumran’s Inhabitants. Dead Sea Discoveries 18: 206–225. Shanks, H. 1999. Who Lies Here? Jordan Tombs Match Those at Qumran. Biblical Archaeology Review 25/5: 49–53. Sheffer, A. 1973. An Object of Palm Frond. In: Aharoni, Y., ed. Beer-Sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba 1969–1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv: 47–51. Sheffer, A. 1994. Textiles from Tomb 2 at ʿEn Gedi. In: Hadas, G., ed. Nine Tombs of the Second Temple Period at ʿEn Gedi (ʿAtiqot 24). Jerusalem: 66–68 (Hebrew), 9* (English abstract). Sheffer, A. and Tidhar, A. 1991. Textiles and Basketry at Kuntillat ʿAjrud. ʿAtiqot 20: 1–26. Wendrich, W. 1991. Who Is Afraid of Basketry: A Guide to Recording Basketry and Cordage for Archaeologists and Ethnographers. Leiden. Workman, V.A. 2016. The Fabric of Copper Production: The Textile and the Cordage Artifacts from Iron Age Timna (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. Zohary, D., Hopf, M. and Weiss, E. 2012. Domestication of Plants in the Old World: Origin and Spread of Domesticated Plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin. Oxford.

117

Yotvata.indb 117

03/08/2022 15:53

Yotvata.indb 118

03/08/2022 15:53

PART IV

ECOFACTS

Yotvata.indb 119

03/08/2022 15:53

Yotvata.indb 120

03/08/2022 15:53

CHAPTER 15

ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS FROM THE IRON I “FORTRESS” AND THE NABATAEAN BUILT TOMB Nili Liphschitz

Introduction The mean annual rainfall in the Arabah Valley is low (30 mm), but it can be erratic and unpredictable (Bruins 2006: 29–32). The mean annual temperature there is high. The local high table of ground water results in the formation of a saline. The center of the saline, of about 3 km2, is sterile and devoid of vegetation. Around the sterile center, in an area of about 20 km2, the vegetation appears in belts, corresponding to a definite range of salt. The high table of ground water exists in the center of the saline. Cappilar upward movement of water and immediate evaporation result in the formation of a salt layer on the soil surface. Some of the water resources exhibit moderate salinities, with 500–1500 ppm of chloride (Gat and Naor 1979). However, there are springs with non-saline water at the edge of the oasis. In the periphery the ground water exists at a depth of 4–5 m, and deep-rooted plants enjoy water with relatively low salt concentration. The soluble salts in the center of the saline comprise 5–8%, and in the periphery only 1–2%. The area to the south (Timna) and north (Grofit) of Yotvata is covered with sands. This sand, originating from Nubian sandstone, is brought from the east and west by water streams. Around the sterile center the vegetation is arranged in three main belts, each characterized by a specific plant community. The innermost zone, adjacent to the sterile center, is a belt of Tamarix mannifera—Tamarix tetragyna community. The second zone, a wet inundated soil, is characterized by a belt of Acacia raddiana. Plants of Phragmites communis, Tamarix mannifera, Phoenix dactylifera, Junceum maritimus and Cressa cretica also inhabit this belt. The dates are part of the dense grove that once covered the region. This was undoubtedly the place of the natural and cultivated dates. The outermost peripheral zone is of lateral ravines, reaching the saline from east and west. The soil is not saline and consists of sand, gravel and stones. It is characterized by a belt of Acacia raddiana and Hammada. On the sands in the vicinity of Yotvata, near Grofit, there is Haloxylon persicum—Retama roetam community. Haloxylon persicum forms a special type of forest or scrub. The Arabic name of Yotvata is ʿEin Ghadian, which most probably originates from “Ghada,” the Arabic name of Haloxylon persicum. In the ravines the leading species is Acacia raddiana, accompanied by Acacia tortilis. South of Yotvata another saline appears: ʿEn ʿAvrona. There one finds stands of Hyphaene thebaica, as well as trees of Phoenix dactylifera and bushes of Suaeda. In the area between Yotvata and ʿEn ʿAvrona the Acacia—Hammada community prevails in wadi beds, while Haloxylon persicum, Hammada and Zygophyllum occupy the other regions. Two additional tree species appear in the oases of the Arabah Valley: Moringa peregrina and Salvadora persica (Zohary 1962; 1980; Waisel 1984; Waisel and Alon 1980).

* This chapter was prepared for publication posthumously, and various new references were added by the editors.

Yotvata.indb 121

03/08/2022 15:53

N ili Liphschitz

Analysis of the Archaeobotanical Remains The samples examined were taken mainly from the Iron Age I casemate wall rooms, and a few were taken from a section made in the rampart and from the Nabataean built tomb (Table 15.1; see also Chapter 3).

Material and Methods Pieces of 0.5–1 cm3 of wood were taken from each sample for botanical identification. Samples were aspirated in absolute ethyl alcohol and dipped in Celloidin solution for 24 hours. Excess solution was rinsed in absolute ethyl alcohol and transferred to 55 °C paraffin in the oven. Blocks were made in paraffin and 12 μm thick cross sections, and longitudinal tangential as well as longitudinal radial sections were made with a rotary microtome. Identification of the trees up to the species level, based on the three-dimensional structure of the wood, was made microscopically from these sections. Comparison was made with reference to sections prepared from systematically identified live trees and shrubs and with anatomical atlases (Liphschitz 2007: 12).

Results and Discussion The analysis shows that the wood remains collected at Yotvata from the Iron Age I belong to local species that still characterize the region today: Acacia raddiana, Haloxylon persicum, Moringa peregrina, Phoenix dactylifera, Phragmites communis, Salvadora persica, Tamarix (×4) and Tamarix (×5). Populus euphratica grows at ʿAvdat and in the region of ʿEn Gedi. Cedrus libani (cedar of Lebanon) (Fig. 15.1), from which the coffin from the Nabataean built tomb was constructed, was in all likelihood imported from Lebanon.

Table 15.1: Archaeobotanical finds from the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age I, the Iron Age I and the Nabataean built tomb Locus 5 10 15 16 16

Reg. No. 115/90 113/90 128/90 183/90 185/90

Period Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Iron Age I Iron Age I Iron Age I Iron Age I

Tree Species Moringa peregrina Moringa peregrina Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum

Description

16 31

189/90 165/90

Iron Age I Iron Age I

Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum

17 10 12 12

121/90 113/91 149/90 149/91

Iron Age I Iron Age I Iron Age I Iron Age I

Haloxylon persicum Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera

15 16

157/90 199/90

Iron Age I Iron Age I

Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera

16 (pit) 17 10 31 16 8 9

199/91 121/91 113/92 165/91 185/91 – 116/90

Iron Age I Iron Age I Iron Age I Iron Age I Iron Age I Nabataean built tomb Nabataean built tomb

Phoenix dactylifera Tamarix (×4) Salvadora persica Populus euphratica Juglans regia (walnut) shell Coffin (Chapter 13) Cedrus libani Moringa peregrina

Bowl fragment (Chapter 12, Fig. 12.1:1) Haft? (Chapter 12, Fig. 12.1:2)

Cord (Chapter 14, Fig. 14.1) Cord ( Chapter 14, Fig. 14.2) Basketry (Chapter 14, Fig. 14.3)

122

Yotvata.indb 122

03/08/2022 15:53

Chapter 15: A rchaeobotanical R emains from the I ron I “Fortress” and the Nabataean Built Tomb

a

b

c

e

f

d

g Fig. 15.1: Cross and longitudinal sections in the xylem of Cedrus libani a) cross section (×100) b) cross section (×390) c) tangential longitudinal section (×100) d) tangential longitudinal section (×390) e) radial longitudinal section (×100) f) radial longitudinal section (×390) g) radial longitudinal section—bordered pits with fringed torus (×645) 123

Yotvata.indb 123

03/08/2022 15:53

N ili Liphschitz

References Bruins, H.J. 2006. Desert Environment and Geoarchaeology of the Wadi Arabah. In: Bienkowski, P. and Galor, K., eds. Crossing the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arabah. Oxford: 29–43. Gat, J.R. and Naor, H. 1979. The Relationship Between Salinity and the Recharge/Discharge Mechanism in Arid Lowlands. In: The Hydrology of Areas of Low Precipitation Symposium: Proceedings of the Canberra Symposium, December 1979 (International Association of Hydrological Sciences International Association of Hydrological Sciences 128). Washington, D.C.: 307–312. Liphschitz, N. 2007. Timber in Ancient Israel: Dendroarchaeology and Dendrochronology (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 26). Tel Aviv. Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Waisel, Y. 1984. Vegetation of Israel. In: Alon, A., ed. Plants and Animals of the Land of Israel; An Illustrated Encyclopedia 8. Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Waisel, Y. and Alon, A. 1980. Trees of the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv. Zohary, M. 1962. Plant Life of Palestine (Israel and Jordan). New York. Zohary, M. 1980. Vegetal Landscapes of Israel. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

124

Yotvata.indb 124

03/08/2022 15:53

CHAPTER 16

CHARCOAL SAMPLES FROM THE CHALCOLITHIC/EARLY BRONZE I SETTLEMENT Mark Cavanagh, Mordechay Benzaquen and Dafna Langgut

Samples of charcoal collected from a section made in the courtyard of the Iron I “fortress,” at a point where the casemate wall cut earlier settlement levels (L26; Fig. 3:21), were submitted for identification. In total, 61 samples were identified to the highest possible systematic level, and ten unique genera were identified. The identified taxa are largely reflective of the local desert1 or oasis vegetation, though some selective preferences on the part of the ancient inhabitants of the site may be inferred from the assemblage, as well as the potential for a slightly greener landscape than what is witnessed today.

Charcoal Identification Analysis of wood is performed on the basis of the tissue structure examined beneath a Zeiss SteREO Discovery V20 epi-illuminated microscope at magnifications of up to ×360. Samples were cut using razor blades and examined along three axes (transverse, radial and tangential). The arrangement, size and abundance, along with a number of other characters of certain diagnostic features of a wood sample’s anatomy, were noted and compared with a wood and charcoal reference collection of the southern Levant (provided by the Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University), as well as wood anatomy atlases (e.g., Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986; Wheeler, Baas and Gasson 1989; Schweingruber 1990; Richter et al. 2004; Akkemike and Yaman 2012) in order to make a determination. The charcoal samples were collected from a thick layer of soft gray soil rich with ash, which lay 15–20 cm below the surface (L26, Fig. 3:21). Charcoal from this layer was dated by 14C to the second half of the fourth millennium BCE (Table 19.1:4). It seems, therefore, that all the other charcoal samples that were examined should be dated accordingly to the Early Bronze I. The character of the other finds from the probe, including a small assemblage of bones, all burnt (Chapter 18), coupled with the fact that very few small pieces of slag were collected and only from the bottom of the probe, just above bedrock (perhaps deriving from an earlier period of activity), suggests that the charcoal was the refuse produced as a result of domestic activities—such as cooking, heating, or lighting—as opposed to metallurgical activities.

1. The average temperature in the Arabah lowlands, based on information recorded from ʿAqaba, near Eilat, is 23–24 °C (73–75 °F; Bruins 2006), with temperatures often exceeding 40 °C (104 °F) in the summer and 21 °C (70 °F) in the winter (Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics 2008). The average annual rainfall in this part of the Arabah is usually less than 30 mm annum (Goldreich and Karni 2001; Bruins 2006; Ginat et al. 2011).

Yotvata.indb 125

03/08/2022 15:53

M ark Cavanagh, Mordechay Benzaquen and Dafna Langgut

In total, 612 individual pieces of charcoal were identified to some systematic level and include plants ranging from small sub-shrubs to sizeable desert trees (Table 16.1; Fig. 16.1). Of these, Tamarix spp. was the most represented group at 39% of the overall assemblage. Tamarisks are a group of about 90 trees and bushes growing mostly in deserts of the temperate and subtropical regions of the Old World (Zohary 1972: 350–351). Unfortunately, it is very difficult to distinguish between the species at the anatomical level, though of the species growing in the Arabah, Tamarix nilotica and T. aphylla (as well as its sub-species T. aphylla Var. articulata) are the most abundant, growing along the channel of Naḥal Arabah, while T. aravensis is found at the Yotvata oasis as well (Danin 1983: 47–49). Tamarix nilotica, a Saharo-Arabian tree or shrub bearing several local subspecies, is the most critical species among the local representatives of the genus; it can be found in sandy soils, gravelly wadis, and stony and sandy dry wadi beds, as well as in saline soils near marshes and saline springs (Zohary 1972: 355–358). Tamarix aphylla is a Sudanian tree or high shrub growing in sandy planes and dunes and in salty deserts and wadi beds (Zohary 1972: 359). Tamarix aravensis is an Eastern Saharo-Arabian or Eastern Sudanian shrub or small tree growing in salines (Zohary 1972: 362). At 25% of the assemblage, Suaeda spp. (sea blights) were the second most represented group. This is a genus of annual or perennial herbs, shrubs and trees growing in coastal, interior, or desert salines (Zohary 1966: 157–158). Three species of Suaeda were noted. S. monoica is a Sudanian shrub or tree growing 2–4 m in height in wet salines, including the environs of the Dead Sea and the Red Sea, where it is a leading plant in the Suaeda monoica community. S. fruticosa is a mainly Sudanian (with extensions into adjacent tropical and Saharo-Arabian zones) woody and many-branched shrub, growing to a height of 40–100 cm in wet salines; it is a leading plant in the Suaeda monoica community (Zohary 1966: 160–161), but today it does not appear in the southern Arabah, and its closest stands are in the northern Arabah. Finally, S. asphaltica (asphaltic sea blight) is a many-branched Saharo-Arabian dwarf shrub growing in deserts frequently on gypsaceous soils and steep slopes of chalk, marl and phosphorite, where it is restricted to certain levels of salinity (Zohary 1972: 158–159; Danin 1983: 88). Following the Suaeda group, the Salsola was the next largest group, at 21% of the assemblage. Salsola (saltworts) is a group of herbaceous or shrubby plants growing especially in steppes and deserts (Zohary 1966: 168). Two species were identified: Salsola vermiculata, the narrow-leaved saltwort, a shrubby Saharo-Arabian and IranoTuranian perennial growing in calcareous stony steppes and somewhat saline soils, where it is a common desert pasture plant (Zohary 1966: 174); and S. tetrandra, a Saharo-Arabian dwarf shrub, which grows in deserts and dry saline soils and is one of the few xero-halophytic shrubs tolerating both extreme drought and salinity (Zohary 1966: 172–173). Other species noted in the assemblage, though comprising only about 2–3% of all identified samples each, are listed below. Zygophyllum coccineum is a many-branched and woody-based perennial low shrub or herb belonging to the Saharo-Arabian zones and found in hot deserts in gravelly or sandy, often saline soils (Zohary 1972: 253–254). Atriplex halimus (Mediterranean saltbush) is a much-branched woody shrub growing to about 1–2 m in height. It can be found growing in salines, wadi beds and sandy soils and is common in inundated saline depressions and around oases (Zohary 1966). It is a good fodder plant for animals and is heavily browsed, while the leaves are sometimes even eaten by humans (Aronson 1989; Le Houérou 1989). Ochradenus baccatus (tally weed) is a small shrub growing only to about 100 cm in height. It has erect stems, is woody with divaricate, twiggy, or simple branches and grows in hot desert wadis and depressions (Zohary 1972). It often appears in stands associated with Acacia pachyceras, A. raddiana and Anabasis articulata, and can be seen in the wadis in and around Timna Valley and 2. In addition, two charcoal samples were identified as Moringa peregrina, the ben tree, and then combined when submitted for 14C dating (Table 19.1:4). In the original publication of this combined sample (Segal and Carmi 1996: 98), they incorrectly identify the context as from the rampart. While the association of the combined sample with the present assemblage cannot be certain, it was reported to have been collected from a depth that corresponds with that of the present assemblage. For more information regarding this tree, which was found in Iron Age and Early Islamic assemblages from Yotvata, see below.

126

Yotvata.indb 126

03/08/2022 15:53

Chapter 16: Charcoal Samples from the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Settlement

Table 16.1: List of genera and species identified in the present Yotvata assemblage Taxa

Quantity

Percentage

Artiplex halimus

1

1.6%

Balanites aegyptiaca

1

1.6%

Halothamnus lancifolius (Aellenia lancifolia)

1

1.6%

Ochradenus baccatus

1

1.6%

Populus euphratica

2

3.3%

Prosopis farcta

1

1.6%

Salsola spp.i

13

21.3%

15

24.6%

24

39.3%

Zygophyllum coccineum

2

3.3%

Total

61

100%

Suaeda spp.ii Tamarix spp.

i

iii

Two species of Salsola, a genus of mostly halophytic shrubs and dwarf shrubs belonging to the Chenopodiaceae/ Amarathaceae family, were identified. This included S. vermiculata (n = 7) and S. tetrandra (n = 3), while another three samples were identified as belonging to the genus Salsola, although they could not be identified further to the species level.

ii Three species belonging to the genus Suaeda were identified. This includes S. monoica (n = 10), S. fruticosa (n = 3), and S. asphaltica (n = 1), while another sample was identified only to the genus level. iii It is difficult to identify Tamarix to the species level, so tamarisks are listed only according to the genus. A number of tamarisk species grow in the Arabah and near Yotvata, including T. nilotica, T. aphylla and T. articulata, which are the most abundantly present in the Arabah today. Other, less prominent species around Yotvata and the southern Arabah include T. aravensis, T. passerinoides and T. amplexicaulis.

% 3.3 , 2 % 1.6 1, .6% 1, 1 % 1, 1.6 1, 1.6%

24, 39.3%

2, 3.3% 1, 1.6 %

Fig. 16.1: Chart displaying the relative frequencies of the present Yotvata assemblage

Zygophyllum coccineum Artiplex halimus Balanites aegyptiaca Halothamnus lancifolius

15, 24.6%

13, 21.3%

Ochradenus baccatus Populus euphratica Prosopis farcta Salsola spp. Suaeda spp. Tamarix spp.

127

Yotvata.indb 127

03/08/2022 15:53

M ark Cavanagh, Mordechay Benzaquen and Dafna Langgut

the Arabah (Munzbergova and Ward 2002). Halothamnus lancifolius (formerly Aellenia lancifolia) is a perennial subshrub, growing only 30–60 cm in height with erect stems, a woody base and branching mostly in its upper portion. Balanites aegyptiaca (desert date/Jericho balsam) is a thorny shrub or tree, growing up to 6 m in height, with long, spiny and intricate branches and edible drupes (Zohary 1972: 258). Today, however, it is not found in the southern Arabah, and its closest stands, although still quite rare, are found in the northern Arabah closer to the Dead Sea and the Negev Highlands. Perhaps most notable in the assemblage was the identification of two samples of Populus euphratica (Euphrates poplar) and a single sample of Prosopis farcta (Syrian mesquite), neither of which appear in the immediate environs of Yotvata today; the closest are located over 50 km away in the central and northern Arabah and they are found still farther in the Dead Sea area and the central and northern Negev. Populus euphratica is a tall, somewhat salt-tolerant, tree that grows along river banks and springs of the Mediterranean, the Irano-Turanian and Saharo-Arabian zones (Zohary 1966: 29). It has been previously identified at the Hathor Temple (Site 200) in Timna, only ca. 15 km away, where it was found as a worked board (Werker 1988). The chronology of this temple is complex, and although the sample has been associated with the Late Bronze/Iron Age (when the large casemate “fortress” at Yotvata might have been operational), the possibility remains that it was either earlier (Chalcolithic/Early Bronze) or later (Roman). Beyond the Arabah, Populus has been found at sites in the Sinai—e.g., the Chalcolithic Site 1105 in the south, the Iron Age sites of Kuntillet ʿAjrud, Qseime and Kadesh Barnea in the east (Liphschitz 1998; 2007: 99), and in many Roman/Byzantine desert sites (Ashkenazi et al. 2021 and references therein; Liphschitz 2007: 98). Prosopis farcta, though appearing as a shrub or dwarf shrub, is in fact a large underground tree, a western Saharo-Arabian element growing in alluvial soils and among crops, as well as in saline soils and along river banks (Zohary 1972: 30; Fahn, Werker and Baas 1986: 119). Because of its large root system beneath the surface, it is considered harmful to agricultural crops and is often removed from such contexts, although the possibility of regrowth remains if the deep roots are not fully removed. Archaeological evidence for the genus has so far been identified only in the Early Bronze stratum in Jericho (Western 1983). The presence of these two species mixed with the other local desert and oasis vegetative elements that still maintain some presence in the environs suggests that the region may have been slightly wetter during the period under discussion and/or that over-exploitation of the wood and water resources may have deforested these species from the area. This, however, does not dismiss the possibility that the wood was brought from farther north or west along trade routes, supplied by a larger timber economy. The absence of any species of Acacia, which would have certainly been found in relative abundance throughout the wadis and in the vicinity of oases, is also noteworthy. Similarly, Phoenix dactylifera (date palms) were not represented within this assemblage, despite being a feature of oasis vegetation and which, unlike Acacia, have been identified in the Iron Age I casemate rooms (see Chapter 15 and below). The absence of Acacia may be due to strict resource management in the extreme environment, with lesser quality woods used more for domestic activities (such as cooking or heating—as, indeed, may be the case with this assemblage), while Acacia and other high calorific woods (such as Retama raetam, also conspicuously absent from this assemblage) were earmarked for industrial usage (i.e., copper smelting, recycling and casting; Cavanagh 2016). The present assemblage marks the third dedicated investigation into charcoal remains recovered from archaeological sites at the Yotvata oasis. An assemblage collected from within the casemate rooms of the Iron I “fortress” exhibited a different variety of desert vegetation, including Haloxylon persicum (white saxaul; n = 4), Moringa peregrina (the ben tree; n = 6), Phoenix dactylifera (date palm; n = 6), Populus euphratica (n = 1), Salvadora persica (the toothbrush tree; n = 1) and Tamarix sp. (n = 1) (Chapter 15). While these are all able to grow in hot and dry climates, only the saxaul (a shrub or tree that grows in wadis and shifting sands up to 2–4 m in height and thrives in extreme conditions; Zohary 1940; 1962), the date palm (which can grow to a height of 30 m in wet soils and thrives near hot desert springs and 128

Yotvata.indb 128

03/08/2022 15:53

Chapter 16: Charcoal Samples from the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Settlement

oases within Sudanian and Saharo-Arabian climate zones) and the tamarisk are seen today in the oases and deserts of the southern Arabah. In contrast, the poplar and toothbrush trees appear in the northern Arabah, as well as in the northern Negev and the Dead Sea area (and, in the case of the toothbrush tree, along the Edomite Plateau in Jordan), around oases and rivers, but not in the vicinity of the Yotvata oasis (Zohary 1966; 1972). The ben tree, which grows to a height of 4–10 m in hot ravines (Zohary 1966: 340), is found near Eilat/the southern tip of the Negev, as well as on the Edomite Plateau in Jordan and in the Negev Highlands and the Dead Sea area. Another investigation into charcoals collected from an Early Islamic (end of 7th–beginning of 9th century) site next to the oasis also revealed mostly typical oases and desert vegetation: Phoenix dactylifera (n = 43), Haloxylon persicum (n = 28), Tamarix sp. (n = 16), Acacia raddiana (twisted acacia; n = 4), Moringa peregrina (n = 2), and Phragmites communis (the common reed; n = 1); in addition, Cedrus libani (cedar of Lebanon; n = 9) and Pinus halepensis (Jerusalem pine; n = 5) were identified (Chapter 31), both of which are large evergreen trees that could only have been imported from the Mediterranean climate zones more than 200 km to the north (and, particularly for the cedar, from the mountains of Lebanon). Acacia raddiana is a relatively large thorny tree growing to a height of 4–7 m with a distinct branching trunk and a round irregular crown. It is the most widespread of the three acacia species growing in the deserts of Israel and is commonly found occupying the main wadi systems, depressions and oases throughout the Negev, the Arabah Valley, the Judean Desert, the Dead Sea area and Edom (Zohary 1972; Ward and Rohner 1997). Phragmites communis is a reed that grows to a height of 3–4 m in the vicinity of places with substantial amounts of water, such as rivers, springs and oases, and is a clear indicator of potable water (Danin 1983). Phoenix dactylifera, Populus euphratica and Phragmites communis all thrive in fresh to slightly saline waters (Danin 1983: 121), whereas Moringa peregrina and Salvadora persica are thermophytes with high water requirements (Danin 1983: 39). This suggests that in antiquity, a greater amount of water was present at the oases than today. The increasing number of date palms may also reflect the growing reliance on this species as an agricultural cultivar. In addition to its being a source of edible fruit, both its trunk and dry leaves are useful in the construction of houses, huts and fences for animal enclosures, while the leaflets and the fibers in the trunk are useful for making rope, baskets and sieves; and hollowed-out trunks may be used as irrigation conduits (Chao and Krueger 2007). Though wild date palms may also be found throughout the present range of the cultivated type, evidence of their cultivation has been recorded in Jordan as early as ca. 6,800–5,800 BP at the Chalcolithic site of Tuleilat Ghassul in the Jordan Valley (Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975) and in Israel at the Chalcolithic (ca. 5500–5200 BP) Cave of the Treasure in Naḥal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980).

References Akkemike, Ü. and Yaman, B. 2012. Wood Anatomy of Eastern Mediterranean Species. Remagen, Oberwinter. Aronson, J.A. 1989. HALOPH, a Data Base of Salt-Tolerant Plants of the World. Tucson. Ashkenazi, E., Tepper, Y., Zituni, R., Langgut, D., Dafni, A. and Bar-Oz G. 2021. Poplar Trees in Israel’s Desert Regions: Relicts of Roman and Byzantine Settlement. Journal of Arid Environments 193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .jaridenv.2021.104574. Bar-Adon, P. 1980. The Cave of the Treasure: The Finds from the Caves in Naḥal Mishmar. Jerusalem. Bruins, H.J. 2006. Desert Environment and Geoarchaeology of the Wadi Aravah. In: Bienkowski, P. and Galor, K., eds. Crossing the Rift: Resources, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Aravah. Oxford: 29–44. Cavanagh, M. 2016. Sustainability of an Industry on the Fringe: A Dendroarchaeological Investigation into Fuel Sources at the Iron Age Copper Smelting Sites of the Timna Valley (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. 129

Yotvata.indb 129

03/08/2022 15:53

Chao, C.T. and Krueger, R.R. 2007. The Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.): Overview of Biology, Uses, and Cultivation. HortScience 42: 1077–1082. Danin, A. 1983. Desert Vegetation of Israel and Sinai. Jerusalem. Fahn, A., Werker, E. and Baas, P. 1986. Wood Anatomy and Identification of Trees and Shrubs from Israel and Adjacent Regions. Jerusalem. Ginat, H., Shlomi, Y., Batarseh, S. and Vogel, J. 2011. Reduction in Precipitation Levels in the Arava Valley (Southern Israel and Jordan), 1949–2009. Journal of Dead-Sea and Arava Research 1: 1–7. Goldreich, Y. and Karni, O. 2001. Climate and Precipitation Regime in the Arava Valley, Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 50: 53–59. Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics. 2008. Israel in Figures (Hebrew). Le Houérou, H.N. 1989. An Assessment of the Economic Feasibility of Fodder Shrubs Plantation (with Particular Reference to Africa). In: McKell, C.M., ed. The Biology and Utilization of Shrubs. New York: 603–630. Liphschitz, N. 1998. The Arboreal Vegetational Landscape of Sinai during Antiquity as Evident from Archaeological Wood Remains. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences 46: 53–59. Liphschitz, N. 2007. Timber in Ancient Israel: Dendroarchaeology and Dendrochronology (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 26). Tel Aviv. Munzbergova, Z. and Ward, D. 2002. Acacia Trees as Keystone Species in Negev Desert Ecosystems. Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 227–236. Richter, H.G., Grosser, D., Heinz, I. and Gasson, P.E., eds. 2004. IAWA List of Microscopic Features for Softwood Identification. Leiden. Schweingruber, F.H. 1990. Anatomy of European Woods. Bern. Ward, D. and Rohner, C. 1997. Anthropogenic Causes of High Mortality and low Recruitment in Three Acacia Tree Taxa in the Negev Desert, Israel. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 877–893. Werker, E. 1988. Wood. In: Rothenberg, B., ed. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the Arabah 1959–1984 1). London: 232–235. Western, A. C. 1983. Appendix F. Catalogue of Identified Charcoal Samples. Excavation at Jericho 5: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds: 770–773. Wheeler, E.A., Baas, P. and Gasson, P.E., eds. 1989. IAWA List of Microscopy Features for Hardwood Identification. Leiden. Zohary, M. 1940. On the “Ghada”-Tree of Northern Arabia and the Syrian Desert. Palestine Journal of Botany (Jerusalem Series) 1: 413–416. Zohary, M. 1962. Plant Life of Palestine: Israel and Jordan. New York. Zohary, M. 1966. Flora Palaestina: Part One, Equisetaceae to Moringaceae. Jerusalem. Zohary, M. 1972. Flora Palaestina: Part Two, Platanaceae to Umbelliferae. Jerusalem. Zohary, D. and Spiegel-Roy, P. 1975. Beginnings of Fruit Growing in the Old World. Science 187: 319–327.

Yotvata.indb 130

03/08/2022 15:53

CHAPTER 17

DENDROARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT ON THE COFFIN FROM THE NABATAEAN BUILT TOMB Mordechay Benzaquen, Mark Cavanagh and Dafna Langgut

Fourteen samples belonging to the wood coffin recovered from the Nabataean burial (L8; see Chapter 13) were processed for taxonomic identification (Table 17.1). Only 13 of the samples could demonstrate sufficient anatomical features for identification at the most specific systematic level. Overall, three separate species were identified for this assemblage. Two samples were identified as Cedrus libani, primarily though the consistency of the rays and the presence of traumatic resin canals, which are characteristic of the species in question (Fig. 17.1). Seven separate samples were undoubtedly conifers and were all regarded as Cupressus sempervirens on the basis of the rays and the absence of resin canals (Fig. 17.2). Lastly, two samples were determined to be Rhamnus palaestinus on the basis of their anatomical features, most notably the dendritic pattern of the vessel arrangement (Figs. 17.3–17.5).

Table 17.1: Samples from the coffin Sample No. 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Tag ID/other information Edge of board, side B of the coffin Treenail Edge of board, bottom Treenail Edge of board, side C Treenail Treenail Treenail Treenail Treenail Treenail Treenail

Fig. 17.1: Transverse section of Cedrus libani

Yotvata.indb 131

Taxonomic identification Cedrus libani Rhamnus palaestinus Cedrus libani Rhamnus palaestinus Unidentifiable Cupressus sempervirens Cupressus sempervirens Cupressus sempervirens Cupressus sempervirens Cupressus sempervirens Cupressus sempervirens Cupressus sempervirens

Common name Cedar of Lebanon Mediterranean buckthorn Cedar of Lebanon Mediterranean buckthorn Italian cypress Italian cypress Italian cypress Italian cypress Italian cypress Italian cypress Italian cypress

Fig. 17.2: Transverse section of Cupressus sempervirens

03/08/2022 15:53

Mordechay Benzaquen, M ark Cavanagh and Dafna Langgut

Fig. 17.3: Transverse section of Rhamnus palaestinus

Fig. 17.4: Tangential section of Rhamnus palaestinus

Fig. 17.5: Transverse section of Rhamnus palaestinus

132

Yotvata.indb 132

03/08/2022 15:53

CHAPTER 18

IRON I AND CHALCOLITHIC/EARLY BRONZE I FAUNA Liora Kolska Horwitz

The Iron I “fortress” of Yotvata is located adjacent to the oasis of ʿEin Ghadhian (modern-day Yotvata), an important water source and palm grove on the Arabah road. Pieces of copper slag found at the “fortress” point to connections to the copper mines of the southern Arabah (Meshel 1993; Meshel and Sass 1977; Ben-Yosef 2010). In fact, Meshel (1993) suggested that the Yotvata oasis served as a supplier of water and fresh food for the mines. During excavations at the site by Zeʾev Meshel and subsequent investigations by Uzi Avner, two small collections of faunal remains were recovered, dating from the Iron Age I and Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age I, respectively. These finds are described below.

The Iron I Remains Meshel (1991) reported the recovery of faunal remains from several Iron Age contexts, both in the casemate rooms and in soundings conducted in the courtyard along the inner aspect of the casemate wall. These finds were listed as goat, sheep, fallow deer, fragments of ostrich eggshell (Chapter 10) and Red Sea shells (Chapter 8). Unfortunately, only six faunal items from this assemblage have been located, the rest apparently having been mislaid. The surviving bones are described below (see also Table 18.1).

Partial Horn Sheath of Dorcas Gazelle (Gazella dorcas) Uncovered in Casemate Room 14 (Fig. 18.1; Reg. No. 132/40; IAA No. 1978-814), this find is ca. 9 cm long and 1.5 cm wide at the base of the preserved fragment. Given its size and morphology, compared to modern specimens held in the National Natural History Collection of the Hebrew University, it belongs to an adult female dorcas gazelle. The horn sheath is a permanent sheath composed of keratin (fibrous proteins) covering the inner bony horncore in bovids (e.g., sheep, goat, cattle and gazelle). Preservation of an ancient horn sheath is rare since this raw material is extremely sensitive to degradation (O’Connor, Solazzo and Collins 2014). Horn sheaths are occasionally found at archaeological sites in Israel, in arid regions where stable conditions of extremely low humidity have enabled keratin and soft organic tissues to become desiccated and even mummified (Horwitz 2002a; 2002b). For example, at the site of Naḥal ʿAmram, near Yotvata, a domestic goat (Capra hircus) horncore, with its sheath still intact, was found within the gallery of a copper mine, dating to the Roman or Early Islamic periods (Horwitz, Avner and Lernau 2018). At the Roman period site of Masada in the Judean Desert, horn sheaths of domestic sheep and goats, still covering the bony horncore, have been recovered (personal observation.). In antiquity, horn was a cheap and readily available raw material, exploited worldwide for the manufacture of a wide range of cultural objects, including musical instruments (e.g., Adler 1893; Lund 1981), containers for powders and liquids and for ornamentation of items such as boxes, helmets and the handles of tools, swords and knives (e.g., MacGregor 1985; O’Connor 2013; Unwin 2014). It was also used in traditional medicine, especially for cupping (e.g., Qureshi et al. 2017). Given that the Yotvata horn

Yotvata.indb 133

03/08/2022 15:53

Liora Kolska Horwitz

Table 18.1: Faunal representation in the Iron I “fortress” in comparison to the nearby Late Roman fortress Species

Domestic goat (Capra hircus) Domestic sheep (Ovis aries) Domestic sheep/goat (Ovis/Capra) Medium-sized mammal (sheep/goat/ gazelle) Cattle (Bos taurus) Horse and donkey (Equus asinus and E. caballus) Large mammal (cattle/equid/camel) Camel (Camelus dromedarius) Nubian ibex (Capra ibex nubiana) Pig (Sus scrofa) Dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas) Gazelle/deer (Gazella/Cervidae) Carnivore species (Carnivora spp.) Bird species (Aves spp.)

Halbmaeir Sample (Late Roman)i NISP 14 15 90 106 4 9

1

Avner Sample (Chalcolithic/EB I) NISP 1 1 5 7

1

8 37 2? 32

3 2 1

37 17 39

Ostrich eggshell (Struthio camelus) Turtle species (Testudines spp.) Fish species (Pisces spp.) Total

Meshel Sample (Iron Age I) NISP

4 502 916 iii

2 (cf. sand partridge, Ammoperdix heyi) ?ii

2

5iv

21

i. Halbmaier 2015. ii. Fragments of ostrich eggshell were found in seven loci in the site. iii. This excludes counts of unidentified small, medium-sized and large mammal remains. iv. This excludes the eggshell fragments, which were not counted.

sheath has not been worked or modified in any way, it most probably represents butchery refuse from a hunted gazelle, rather than an item used in artifact manufacture. Dorcas gazelle is a small species of antelope, attaining a maximum body weight of 20 kg, which entered the Levant from North Africa in the early Holocene and still inhabits the Negev and the Arabah (Mendelssohn and Yom-Tov 1999). Numbering only 800 animals in a recent survey (Hadas et al. 2015), it is considered an endangered species.

Complete Right Cattle Metatarsal Shaft (Bos taurus) This metatarsal (Fig. 18.2; Reg. No. 127/40; IAA No. 1978-821) was uncovered in Casemate Room 13. Its proximal end is modified, resulting in a rounded epiphysis, while the distal epiphysis is missing (broken?). Consequently, it is not possible to determine with certainty whether it belongs to an adult or immature animal, although the size and texture of the shaft point to an adult individual. The distal metatarsal canal and possibly the plantar longitudinal groove were also artificially enlarged. The bone, which was utilized as a tool (Chapter 9, Fig. 9.1), is white in color, indicating long-term exposure on the site’s surface. This item was previously misidentified and appears in Meshel (1991) as belonging to a fallow deer. 134

Yotvata.indb 134

03/08/2022 15:53

Chapter 18: I ron I and Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Fauna

Fig. 18.2: Worked cattle (Bos taurus) metatarsal shaft (Iron Age)

Fig. 18.1: Iron Age dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas) horn sheath (right), compared to a modern female dorcas gazelle horn sheath (left)

Unidentified Bird and Ostrich Eggshell Fragments Two fragmented bone shafts of an unidentified bird (a femur and a tarsometatarsal shaft; Reg. No. 121/40) were found in Casemate Room 17. Although the morphologically diagnostic epiphyseal ends are missing, the size and morphology of the remains are reminiscent of the sand partridge (Ammoperdix heyi), a typical desert bird commonly found in the Judean Desert, the Negev and the Arabah (Paz 1987). Fragments of ostrich eggshells were recovered in seven locations—in six of the casemate rooms (L1, L12, L14, L15, L17 and L29) and in a sounding in the courtyard (see also Chapter 10). They probably belong to the endemic sub-species of ostrich, Struthio camelus syriaca, that inhabited the deserts of the southern Levant. It became extinct at the beginning of the 20th century following the introduction of firearms (Bodenheimer 1935). Ostriches are often portrayed in Iron Age iconography from the region, engraved on scarabs and painted on pots (see discussion in Tebes 2014). 135

Yotvata.indb 135

03/08/2022 15:53

Liora Kolska Horwitz

Domestic Sheep/Goat A left domestic sheep/goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus) tibia shaft (Reg. No. 121/41) with an unfused proximal epiphysis was uncovered in Casemate Room 17. Since this bone fuses only between 3–3.5 years (Silver 1969), the Yotvata bone must derive from a younger animal. The consistency of the cortical bone, lacking multiple pores, suggests that it was not a very immature animal. This bone does not show signs of burning or any other type of modification.

The Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Remains Uzi Avner extended a section excavated by Meshel in the “fortress” courtyard (L26), next to Casement Room 20, at a point where the casemate wall cut earlier living levels. A small assemblage (Reg. Nos. 302/40 and 302/41) of 21 identifiable animal remains was recovered from this deposit, in addition to 102 unidentifiable bone splinters and one worked bone. Due to the collapse of the section’s walls, the finds were not separated into layers. Two charcoal samples (one from the bottom of the section and another 40 cm higher) were dated by radiocarbon to the second half of the fifth and the first half of the fourth millennia BCE, i.e., late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I (Table 19.1:4–5). In contrast to the Iron I sample, all faunal material in this collection was burnt, ranging in color from reddish-brown and black through to white (calcined), suggestive of differential proximity to a fire source or of different episodes of burning at different temperatures. Since all bones were burnt and were found together with charred botanical and material cultural remains, this was most likely the result of accidental burning or of firing of a refuse dump, rather than of food-processing activities. As illustrated in Table 18.1, the most common remains are those of domestic caprines, with both goat (Capra hircus) and sheep (Ovis aries) represented (caprine species were identified following criteria given in Boessneck 1969). The sheep is represented by a fusing distal metacarpal (with a condylar index of 72.3), while the goat is represented by a complete left astragalus (talus), with the following measurements: greatest length of the lateral half (GL1): 30.77 mm; greatest breadth distal end (Bd): 16.04 mm; greatest depth of the lateral half (Dl): 16.16 mm (all measurements follow von den Driesch 1976). The domestic caprine remains represent all body parts: cranial remains (jaw and teeth), trunk elements (ribs and vertebrae) and fore- and hind limbs (Table 18.2). This suggests that whole animals may be represented in this assemblage, either raised or brought to the site. While most limbs lack epiphyses (they are broken), the fusing sheep metacarpal gives an age of ca. 18–24 months, while a goat phalanx I (toe bone) with a fused proximal end gives an age of older than 13–16 months (Silver 1969: Table A). Together, along with an unfused vertebral body of a medium-sized mammal (possibly caprine), they indicate the presence of at least one sub-adult animal. In addition to the skeletal remains of domestic caprines, there were two extremely large and robust goat bones in the collection—a fused left distal humerus (minimum distal condyle breadth [BT]: 37.16 mm; Fig. 18.3) and a right ulna with a fused proximal epiphysis. Their large size is highlighted when the humerus measurement is compared to that of wild-type Pre-Pottery Neolithic B goats from ʿAin Ghazal, Jordan (with a range of 30–40 mm; see Horwitz 2003: Table 4). Both the Yotvata bones are far larger than domestic animals from other, roughly contemporaneous sites in the region, for example, Chalcolithic Gilat in the northern Negev (N = 16) with a mean BT of 29 mm and a range of 26.6–32.3 mm (Grigson 2006: Appendix 6.2); combined data for three Bronze Age sites in the Mediterranean region (N = 7) with a mean BT measurement of 28.9 mm and a range of 27.5–30.8 mm (Horwitz 2003: Table 4); and a mixed sheep/goat sample from Tel Yoqneʿam (N = 43, MB IIA through to Iron IIA layers), with BT measurements ranging between 25.8–35.4 mm (Horwitz et al. 2005: Table A2). Based on biogeography, the wild bezoar goat (Capra aegagrus) can be ruled out as a candidate for the Yotvata specimen, while in terms of morphology, 136

Yotvata.indb 136

03/08/2022 15:53

Chapter 18: I ron I and Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Fauna

Table 18.2: Skeletal element representation in the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age assemblage Skeletal element Mandible corpus Mandible ramus Tooth fragments Vertebral body Rib shaft fragment Humerus distal Ulna proximal Metacarpal distal Femur shaft Pelvis ischium Pelvis pubis Tibia shaft Astragalus Metatarsal shaft Phalanx I distal Total NISP

Sheep

Goat

Ibex

Sheep/Goat

Medium-sized mammal 1

Large mammal 1

4 1 (unfused) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

1

2

1 5

7

3

Fig. 18.3: Medial aspect of the left distal humerus, tentatively identified as ibex (Capra ibex nubiana) (Chalcolithic/EB I); arrow indicates fracture

the distal humerus conforms well to features for European C. ibex outlined in Fernandez (2001). Thus, in terms of morphology and biometry the Yotvata humerus most closely resembles that of an adult male ibex (Capra ibex nubiana), a species that still inhabits the region (Mendelssohn and Yom-Tov 1999). If belonging to the same animal, the fused proximal ulna would make this an adult, older than three years (Silver 1969: Table A). There are two parallel cut marks on the medial aspect of the humerus, while the shaft above the distal end has a green fracture indicating breakage while fresh; both modifications are associated with food preparation rather than slaughter (Fig. 18.3). 137

Yotvata.indb 137

03/08/2022 15:53

Liora Kolska Horwitz

The bone assemblage also includes fragmentary remains of a pelvis and a mandible ramus belonging to a large mammal, either cattle or equid (but too small for a camel) and two ostrich eggshell fragments. A worked bone object, possibly a weaving tool (Reg. No. 302/40, see Fig. 9.3), was also found. It is flat with a tapering end and has a small perforation in the middle. This item was manufactured on a piece of long bone shaft from a medium-sized mammal, though the particular species cannot be determined.

Discussion Despite the extremely small and selective nature of the faunal samples recovered from the Yotvata “fortress,” they include a broad spectrum of species. The domestic animals represented are goat (Capra hircus), sheep (Ovis aries) and cattle (Bos taurus); the three—or perhaps four—wild taxa found are dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas), probably Nubian ibex (Capra ibex nubiana), bird (perhaps the sand partridge, Ammoperdix heyi) and ostrich (Camelus struthio), the latter represented only by fragments of eggshell (and see Chapter 10). The wild taxa are typical desert species, all of which still inhabit the region today, with the exception of the ostrich, which is now extinct. Domestic caprines are the most common faunal component of Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I assemblages from the southern Jordanian desert, the Negev highlands and the southern Negev, such as at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan, Naḥal Ṣafit, Har Saggi/Ein Hameara and Jebel el-Jill (Henry et al. 1985; Benecke 2009; Horwitz 2014; Knabb et al. 2018), as well as from contemporaneous settlements in the northern Negev, such as the sites of Gilat, Grar and Naḥal Besor (Grigson 1995; 2006; Horwitz et al. 2002). At these other sites, however, many more species are represented (e.g., gazelle, pig, carnivores, small mammals, reptiles and fish), undoubtedly given their larger sample sizes, though differences in site function cannot totally be excluded. The Yotvata faunal assemblage shows the closest resemblance to that recovered from the neighboring site of Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan—located across the Arabah on the outskirts of ʿAqaba—since the latter contained remains of cattle, equid (ass/hemiones) and ibex, in addition to domestic caprines (Benecke 2009). The early Iron Age fauna from sites associated with copper mining at Timna Site 34 (“Slaves’ Hill”) and Site 30 (Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef 2014; Sapir-Hen, Lernau and Ben-Yosef 2018) are geographically and chronologically the closest to the Yotvata “fortress.” Remains of domestic caprines predominate in all assemblages, followed by remains of donkey, ostrich eggshell and—surprisingly, given the proximity to the Red Sea—fish almost exclusively from the Mediterranean Sea. Site 30 at Timna also yielded remains of cattle and camel, the latter initially thought to represent the earliest camel remains in the region, dating from the early Iron Age (late second to early first millennia BCE; Grigson 2012; Sapir-Hen and BenYosef 2014). The absence of camel bones in Iron I Yotvata can probably be attributed to the small size of the faunal sample, such that rare taxa are poorly represented. The latter was the explanation offered by Sapir-Hen, Lernau and Ben-Yosef (2018) for the absence of game animals at the Timna site, although, in contrast, hunted taxa are represented in the Yotvata Iron Age “fortress” assemblage, despite its small size. Sapir-Hen, Lernau and Ben-Yosef (2018) also noted that if the Timna mines were provisioned, lower species diversity would be expected relative to the supplier sites. The Late Roman period fortress at Yotvata, located below and to the southwest of the Iron Age site, is thought to have been self-sufficient rather than provisioned (Halbmaier 2015). In this period, sheep and goats were the most common species associated with a wide range of other domestic and wild taxa including pigs, cattle, equids, camels, gazelle/deer, ibex, carnivores, birds and fish. The wild taxa, however, are found in low numbers (Halbmaier 2015). Clearly, sample size is yet again a factor influencing the range of animal species found—the larger the sample the more diverse the faunal spectrum (Lyman 2008). The Late Roman fortress appears to have relied on local resources (caprines and gazelles), along with those obtained in the wider region (marine fish, cattle and pigs), The presence in the Iron Age “fortress” of a 138

Yotvata.indb 138

03/08/2022 15:53

Chapter 18: I ron I and Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Fauna

typical desert game species, dorcas gazelle, together with a domestic caprine, may imply that a similar strategy was practiced in the earlier site. In sum, the Iron I and Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I faunal assemblages recovered during excavation of the Yotvata “fortress” to a large extent are in keeping with our current knowledge of animal subsistence in contemporaneous sites in the southern arid regions of the Levant. Clearly, larger samples would facilitate a more in-depth analysis and could shed light upon more complex aspects of animal management and acquisition.

References Adler, C. 1893. The Shofar, Its Use and Origin. Proceedings of the United States National Museum XVI 936: 287–301. Benecke, N. 2009. Faunal Remains of Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (Excavations 2000–2004). In: Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K., eds. Prehistoric Aqaba I (Orient-Archäologie 23). Raden: 339–354. Ben-Yosef, E. 2010. Technology and Social Process: Oscillations in Iron Age Copper Production and Power in Southern Jordan (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego). San Diego. Bodenheimer, F.S. 1935. Animal Life in Palestine. Jerusalem. Boessneck, J. 1969. Osteological Differences Between Sheep (Ovis aries L.) and Goat (Capra hircus L.). In: Brothwell, D.R. and Higgs, E.S., eds. Science in Archaeology. New York: 331–358. von den Driesch, A. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Bulletin 1). Cambridge, MA. Fernandez, H. 2001. Ostéologie comparée des petits ruminants eurasiatiques sauvages et domestiques (genres Rupicapra, Ovis, Capra et Capreolus): diagnose différentielle du squelette appendiculaire (Ph.D. dissertation, Universite de Genève). Geneva. Grigson, C. 1995. Cattle Keepers of the Northern Negev: Animal Remains from the Chalcolithic Site of Grar. In: Gilead I., ed. Grar: A Chalcolithic Settlement in the Northern Negev. Beersheba: 377–416. Grigson, C. 2006. Farming? Feasting? Herding? Large Mammals from the Chalcolithic of Gilat. In: Levy, T. E., ed. Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel. London: 215–319. Grigson, C. 2012. Camels, Copper and Donkeys in the Early Iron Age of the Southern Levant: Timna Revisited. Levant 44: 82–100. Hadas, L., Hermon, D., Boldo, A., Arieli, G., Gafny, R., King, R. and Kahila Bar-Gal, G. 2015. Wild Gazelles of the Southern Levant: Genetic Profiling Defines New Conservation Priorities. PLoS ONE 10: e0116401. doi:10.1371 /journal.pone.0116401. Halbmaier, R. 2015. The Faunal Remains. In: Davies, G. and Magness, J. The 2003–2007 Excavations in the Late Roman Fort at Yotvata. Winona Lake: 219–238. Henry, D.O., Turnbull, P.F., Emery-Barbier, A. and Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1985. Archaeological and Faunal Evidence from Natufian and Timnian Sites in Southern Jordan, with Notes on Pollen Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research: 45–64. Horwitz, L.K. 2002a. The Fauna from Caves in the Northern Judean Desert. ʿAtiqot 41: 257–280. Horwitz, L.K. 2002b. Nonhuman Remains. In: Schiffman, L.H. and VanderKam, J.C., eds. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford: 882–884. Horwitz, L.K. 2003. Temporal and Spatial Variation in Neolithic Caprine Exploitation Strategies: A Case Study of Fauna from the Site of Yiftahʾel, (Israel). Paléorient 29: 19–58. Horwitz, L.K. 2014. Early Bronze Age Fauna from Three Sites in the Negev Highlands. In: Saidel, B.A. and Haiman, M., eds. Excavations in The Western Negev Highlands. Results of the Emergency Survey 1978–89 (BAR International Series 2684). Oxford: 137–144. Horwitz, L.K., Avner, U. and Lernau, O. 2018. Miners’ Meals at the Copper Mines of Nahal ʿAmram, Southern Israel. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Copper: Essays in Memory of Professor Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Winona Lake and Tel Aviv: 199–216. 139

Yotvata.indb 139

03/08/2022 15:53

Liora Kolska Horwitz

Horwitz, L.K., Bar Giora, N., Mienis, H.K. and Lernau, O. 2005. Faunal and Malacological Remains from the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age Levels at Tel Yoqneʿam. In: Ben-Tor, A. Ben-Ami, D. and Livneh, A., eds. Yoqneʿam III: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988) (Qedem Reports 7). Jerusalem: 395–435. Horwitz, L.K., Tchernov, E., Mienis, H.K., Hakker-Orion, D. and Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. 2002. The Archaeozoology of Three Early Bronze Age Sites in Nahal Besor, North-Western Negev. In: van den Brink, E.C.M. and Yannai, E., eds. In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv: 107–133. Knabb, K.A., Rosen, S.A., Hermon, S., Vardi, J., Horwitz. L.K. and Goren. Y. 2018. A Middle Timnian Nomadic Encampment on the Faynan–Beersheva Road: Excavations and Survey at Nahal Tsafit (Late 5th/Early 4th Millennium BCE). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 380: 27–60. Lund, C. 1981. The Archaeomusicology of Scandinavia. World Archaeology 12: 246–265. Lyman, R.L. 2008. Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge, U.K. MacGregor, A. 1985. Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn: The Technology of Skeletal Materials since the Roman Period. London. Mendelssohn, H. and Yom-Tov, Y. 1999. Mammalia of Israel (Fauna Palestina). Jerusalem. Meshel, Z. 1991. Yotvata Oasis—Its History, Landscapes and Sites. Ariel 78: 6–44 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Meshel, Z. and Sass, B. 1977. Yotvata. Revue Biblique 84: 266–270. O’Connor, S. 2013. Exotic Materials Used in the Construction of Iron Age Sword Handles from South Cave, UK. In: Choyke, A. and O’Connor, S., eds. From These Bare Bones: Raw Materials and the Study of Worked Osseous Objects. Proceedings of the Raw Materials Session at the 11th ICAZ Conference, Paris, 2010. Oxford: 188–200. O’Connor, S., Solazzo, C. and Collins, M. 2014. Advances in Identifying Archaeological Traces of Horn and Other Keratinous Hard Tissues. Studies in Conservation 60: 393–417. Paz, U. 1987. The Birds of Israel. Tel Aviv. Qureshi, N.A., Ali, G.I., Abushanab, T.S., El-Olemy, A.T., Alqaed, M.S., El-Suba, I.S. and Al-Bedah, A.M. 2017. History of Cupping (Hijama): A Narrative Review of Literature. Journal of Integrative Medicine 15: 172–181. Sapir-Hen, L. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2014. The Socioeconomic Status of Iron Age Metal Workers: Animal Economy in the “Slaves’ Hill,” Timna, Israel. Antiquity 88: 775–790. Sapir-Hen, L., Lernau, O. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2018. The Diet of Ancient Metal Workers: The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in the Arabah Valley (Timna and Faynan). In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Copper: Essays in Memory of Professor Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Winona Lake and Tel Aviv: 64–80. Silver, I.A. 1969. The Ageing of Domestic Animals. In: Brothwell, D.R. and Higgs, E.S., eds. Science in Archaeology. London: 283–302. Tebes, J.M. 2014. The Symbolic and Social World of the Qurayyah Pottery Iconography. In: Tebes, J.M., ed. Unearthing the Wilderness. Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 45). Leuven: 163–201. Unwin, J. 2014. The Versatility of Bone, Ivory and Horn—Their Uses in the Sheffield Cutlery Industry. Anthropozoologica 49: 121–132.

140

Yotvata.indb 140

03/08/2022 15:53

CHAPTER 19

RADIOCARBON DATES Israel Carmi, Dror Segal, Linda Scott Cummings, Peter Kováčik and Uzi Avner

The following report on the radiometric dates obtained from Yotvata Hill combines two series of data from two different laboratories, measured according to different methods. The RT series was prepared and measured in the Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, in 1991 by Israel Carmi and Dror Segal (Segal and Carmi 1996: 98), using conventional 14C dating. The samples were treated with the acid-alkaline-acid process (AAA) to avoid any possible contamination by external materials. They were converted to carbon dioxide by oxidization, and the CO2 was then converted to lithium carbide and to acetylene by addition of distilled water, and finally to ethane by addition of hydrogen. The ethane was filled into a proportional counter, which measured the radiocarbon by decay counting for 1,000 minutes. The counting data was converted to BP age as a percentage of modern carbon isotopes rate in the air. Botanical identification of the charcoal was made by Nili Liphschitz of Tel Aviv University (Chapter 15). The PRI series was prepared in the PaleoResearch Institute, Golden, Colorado, in 2017 and 2019 by Linda Scott Cummings, R.A. Varney and Peter Kováčik, and was measured in The Center for Applied Isotope Studies (CAIS) in Athens, Georgia, using AMS 14C dating (first published here). Charred botanical and charcoal samples were identified to genus or species levels and weighed prior to selecting sub-samples for pre-treatment. After lyophylization the samples were treated with acid-alkaline-acid and then converted to graphite prior to being measured on the accelerator. All dates presented here are recalibrated with OxCal 4.4.3 (Reimer et al. 2020). Following are the sample details and description of both laboratories according to loci. Table 19.1 presents the 2σ range of error (95.4% probability), and the approximate mean dates addressed below in the discussion are based on the dominant peaks in the calibration curves, presented in Figs. 19.1–19.12.

Radiocarbon Results The Iron I “Fortress” Casemate Room 16 RT 1549 was sampled from a burnt layer in Casemate Room 16 (Reg. No. 183/90), which was relatively rich in finds. The charcoal was identified as Haloxylon persicum, dated 2655±42 BP; with 2σ calibration, the range is 901–780 BCE (Table 19.1:1; Fig. 19.1). RT 1550 is also from this room’s burnt layer (Reg. No. 189/90). Also identified as Haloxylon persicum, it is dated 2857±48 BP; with 2σ calibration, the range is 1201–904 BCE (Table 19.1:2; Fig. 19.2).

Sounding in the Courtyard, Locus 30 This probe, ca. 40 cm deep, was excavated in the courtyard next to the inner wall of the northern Casemate Room 32; it exposed an earlier layer of ash rich with furnace copper slag, cut by the casemate wall. The charcoal here was too powdery for botanic identification.

Yotvata.indb 141

03/08/2022 15:53

Israel Carmi, Dror Segal , Linda Scott C ummings, Peter Kováčik and Uzi Avner

Table 19.1: Radicarbon dates of Yotvata Hill, calibrated by OxCal 4.4.3 (Reimer et al. 2020), measured in Rehovot, Israel (RT) and Golden, Colorado (PRI) No. Location

Sample

Identification

BP 14C date

2σ Cal BCE (95.4%)

1 2

L16 L16

RT 1549 RT 1550

Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum

3

L30

PRI 5920

Unidentified twig

4

L26 (top)

RT 1546/7 Moringa peregrina

5

L26 (bottom)

PRI 5827

Unidentified hardwood twig

6 7

Rampart L5 Rampart L5

PRI 5829 PRI 5828

Amaranthaceae Unidentified hardwood twig

8

RT 1548

Moringa peregrina

9

Rampart L5 (bottom) Built tomb L8

2655±42 901 BCE (95.4%) 780 BCE 2857±48 1201 BCE (7.3%) 1142 BCE 1133 BCE (88.2%) 904 BCE 5450±15 4346 BCE (38.0%) 4319 BCE 4295 BCE (57.4%) 4256 BCE 4650±70 3634 BCE (88.8%) 3327 BCE 3229 BCE (3.7%) 3182 BCE 3156 BCE (3.0%) 3109 BCE 5369±31 4331 BCE (53.0%) 4220 BCE 4203 BCE (21.0%) 4161 BCE 4133 BCE (21.5%) 4056 BCE 5440±27 4346 BCE (53.0%) 4249 BCE 5489±26 4441 BCE (4.6%) 4423 BCE 4367 BCE (72.4%) 4321 BCE 4294 BCE (18.4%) 4258 BCE 5808±46 4785 BCE (95.4%) 4544 BCE

PRI 6188

Acacia

10 11 12

Built tomb L9 Built tomb L8 Built tomb L9

PRI 6189 PRI 6190 PRI 6111

Tamarix Cedrus, uncharred Fabric

δ1 3 C (o/oo) -21.57 -10.99 -14.1 -25.00 -26.4 9.7 -11.6 -21.45

5368±22 4328 BCE (27.0%) 4286 BCE 4268 BCE (28.7%) 4223 BCE 4200 BCE (23.5%) 4163 BCE 4129 BCE (3.8%) 4109 BCE 4101 BCE(12.4%) 4059 BCE) 5418±23 4339 BCE (95.4%) 4243 BCE 2107±20 176 BCE (95.4%) 49 BCE 2165±15 351 BCE (46.4%) 289 BCE 227 BCE (0.9%) 220 BCE 210 BCE (48.1%) 155 BCE

Fig. Curves (OxCal (OxCal 4.4) 4.4) Fig. 18. 18. Radiocarbon Radiocarbon Calibration Curves

IronAge Agefortress, fortress, Locus Locus 16, 16, ca. ca. 810 810 BCE BCE 1.1. Iron Fig. 19.1: Radiocarbon Calibration Curve (OxCal 4.4.3): Iron Age “fortress,” L16

2. 2. Iron Iron Age Age fortress, fortress, Locus Locus16, 16,ca. ca.1030 1030BCE BCE Fig. 19.2: Radiocarbon Calibration Curve (OxCal 4.4.3): Iron Age “fortress,” L16

142

Yotvata.indb 142

03/08/2022 15:53

Fig. 18. Radiocarbon Calibration Curves (O

Chapter 19: R adiocarbon Dates

PRI 5920, charcoal of an unidentified twig from this section, from a depth of 32 cm below surface, was dated to 5450±15 BP; with 2σ calibration, the range is 4346–4256 BCE (Table 19.1:3; Fig. 19.3).

Sounding in the Courtyard, Locus 26

Fig.

This sounding was conducted in the courtyard next to the inner wall of Casemate Room 20, in a layer of ash and organic materials cut by the casemate, containing charcoal and artifacts (see description in Chapter 3). RT 1546/71 consists of two charcoal samples, both identified as Moringa peregrina, taken from a depth of 15–20 cm below the surface. They were merged in the laboratory and dated 4650±70 BP; with 2σ calibration, the range is 3634–3109 BCE (Table 19.1:4; Fig. 19.4). PRI 5827 was sampled from the bottom of the section, 70 cm below surface. The charcoal collected was identified as Tamarix, vitrified Amaranthaceae and unidentified vitrified hardwood (three pieces of each). A twig fragment of an unidentified vitrified hardwood rendered a date of 5369±31 BP; with 2σ 18. Radiocarbon Calibration Curves (OxCal 4.4)Fig. 1. calibration, the range is 4331–4056 BCE (Table 19.1:5; 19.5). Iron Age fortress, Locus 16, ca. 810 BCE

2. Iron Age fo

Section in the Rampart Locus 5 This section, cut by Meshel close to the southwestern end of the rampart, exposed several layers of ash with a few furnace copper slag. PRI 5829 was sampled from the northern side of the section, 57 cm above the rampart’s base. Charcoal identified as Amaranthaceae twig was dated 5440±27 BP; with 2σ calibration, the range is 4346–4249 BCE (Table 19.1:6; Fig. 19.6). PRI 5828 was sampled from the southern side of the section, 40 cm above the rampart’s base. A twig of unidentified hardwood was dated 5489±26 BP; with 2σ calibration, the range is 4441–4258 BCE (Table 19.1:7; Fig. 19.7). RT 1548 was sampled from the southern side of the section, from an ash layer with a few small furnace slag pieces, just below the rampart base (Reg. No. 115/90). Two samples were merged in the laboratory. 1. Iron Age fortress, Locus 16, of ca.both, 810 BCE 2. Iron Age fortress,was Locus 16,5808±46 ca. 1030BP; BCE Charcoal identified as Moringa peregrina, dated with 2σ calibration, the range is 4785–4544 BCE (Table 19.1:8; Fig. 19.8). 3. Prob, Locus 30, ca. 4330/4280 BCE

3. Prob, Locus 30,Calibration ca. 4330/4280 BCE Fig. 19.3: Radiocarbon Curve (OxCal 4.4.3): sounding, L 30

Prob, LocusCalibration 26, ca. 3440 BCE Fig. 19.4:4. Radiocarbon Curve (OxCal 4.4.3): sounding, L26

5. Prob,

1. In the earlier publication (Segal and Carmi 1996: 98) the sample was erroneously attributed to the section in the rampart.

143

Yotvata.indb 143

03/08/2022 15:53

3. Prob, Locus 30, ca. 4330/4280 BCE

IsraeL CarMI, Dror seGaL , LInDa sCott C UMMInGs, Peter KOVÁČIK anD UZI aVner Fig.

18. Radiocarbon Calibration Curves (O

Fig. 18. Radiocarbon Calibration Curves (OxCal 4.4)

3440 BCE

5. Prob, Locus 26, ca. 4250 BCE Fig. 19.5: Radiocarbon Calibration Curve (OxCal 4.4.3): sounding, L26

6. Rampart, Locus 5, ca. 4330/4280 BCE

Fig. 19.6: Radiocarbon Calibration Curve (OxCal 4.4.3): rampart, L5

adiocarbon Calibration Curves (OxCal 4.4) 6. Rampart, Locus 5, ca. 4330/4280 BCE

7. Ram

7. Rampart, Locus 5, ca. 4340 BC

8. Rampart, Locus 5, ca. 4700 BCE

30/4280 BCE

Rampart, Locus 5, ca. 4340 Fig. 19.7:7.Radiocarbon Calibration CurveBCE (OxCal 4.4.3): rampart, L5

Rampart, Locus 5, ca. 4700 Fig. 19.8:8.Radiocarbon Calibration CurveBCE (OxCal 4.4.3): rampart, L5

The Nabataean Built Tomb Loci 8 and 9

The built tomb, on the southern edge of the hill, was first excavated by Meshel in 1974 and re-excavated by Avner et al. in December 2018 (see Addendum to Part I of this report). Four samples from the tomb were dated by 14C— two are related to the Chalcolithic phase of the site and two are related to a Nabataean burial. PRI 6188, charcoal of an Acacia branch, sampled from L8, dated 5368±22 BP; with 2σ calibration, 9. Mausoleum, Locus 8, ca. 4240 BCE 10. Mausole the range is 4328–4059 BCE (Table 19.1:9; Fig. 19.9). PRI 6189, charcoal of a Tamarix branch, sampled from L9, dated 5418±23 BP; with 2σ calibration, 8. Rampart, Locus the 5, ca. 4700 range is BCE 4339–4243 BCE (Table9.19.1:10; Fig. 19.10). Mausoleum, Locus 8, ca. 4240 BCE 10. Mausoleum, Locus 9, ca. 4290 BC PRI 6190 was sampled from a fragment of imported cedar wood from the coffin excavated by Meshel (one of many wood splinters that remained on the cell’s bottom and collected during the second excavation). The sample was dated 2107±20 BP; with σ-2 calibration the range is 176–49 BCE (Table 19.1:11; Fig. 19.11). PRI 6111 was sampled from a tiny fragment of an unidentified fabric, probably from a shroud, found attached to the skeleton (L9). It is dated 2165±15 BP; with 2σ calibration, the range is 351–155 BCE. The calibrated curve shows two peaks, ca. 320 and 180 BCE (Table 19.1:12; Fig. 19.12 and see below). 144

Yotvata.indb 144

03/08/2022 15:53

8.8.Rampart, Locus 5,5,ca. 4700 BCE 8.Rampart, Rampart, Locus 5, 4700 BCE CHaPter 19: r aDIoCarBon Dates Locus ca.ca. 4700 BCE 8. Rampart, Locus 5, ca. 4700 BCE

9.9. Mausoleum, Locus 8, ca. 4240 BCE 9.9.Mausoleum, Locus 8,8,ca. 4240 BCE Mausoleum, Locus ca. 4240 BCE Mausoleum, Locus 8, ca. 4240 BCE Fig. 19.9: Radiocarbon Calibration Curve (OxCal 4.4.3): built tomb, L8

Mausoleum, Locus 9, ca. 4290 BCE Mausoleum, Locus 9,9,ca. 4290 BCE 10.10. Mausoleum, Locus ca.ca. 4290 BCE 10. Mausoleum, Locus 9, 4290 BCE Fig. 10. 19.10: Radiocarbon Calibration Curve (OxCal 4.4.3): built tomb, L9

11. Mausoleum, Locus 8, ca. 130 BCE 11. Mausoleum, Locus 8, ca. 130 BCE Mausoleum, Locus 8,ca. ca.130 130 BCE 11.11. Mausoleum, Locus 8, BCE Fig. 19.11: Radiocarbon Calibration Curve (OxCal 4.4.3): built tomb, L8

12. Mausoleum, Locus 9, ca. 320/180 BCE Locus 9, 320/180 BCE 12. Mausoleum, Locus ca.ca. 320/180 BCE Mausoleum, Locus 9,9,ca. 320/180 BCE Fig.12. 19.12: Radiocarbon Calibration Curve (OxCal 4.4.3): built tomb, L9

Discussion The two dates from Casemate Room 16 are the only ones obtained for the “fortress.” Sample RT 1550, ranging between 1201–904 BCE ( Table 19.1:2; Fig. 19.2), may fit a date in the 11th century BCE, as suggested by the analysis of the ceramic assemblage (Chapter 4). The range of Sample RT 1549 is 901–780 BCE (Table 19.1:1; Fig. 19.1), later than the date of the “fortress” as deduced from the ceramic typology. Additional 14C dates from safe contexts would be necessary to resolve this discrepancy. Most of the other dates: from the soundings in the courtyard, from the section in the rampart and from the tomb’s bottom, fall within the second half of the fifth millennium BCE (Table 19.1:3,5–7,9–10). One date is even earlier, ca. 4700 BCE (Table 19.1:8; Fig. 19.8),and one date is later, ca. 3480 BCE (Table 19.1:4; Fig. 19.4), in the Early Bronze I. All these are dates of ash layers that contained copper slag; therefore, they represent the copper industry on the hill during the Chalcolithic period and Early Bronze Age I. This activity was contemporary with, but also preceded, the intensive copper industry of two villages within modern ʿAqaba, 40 km south of Yotvata—Tall Hujayrāt al-Ghuzlān and Tall al-Magaṣṣ, dated by 24 14C dates from ca. 4200 to ca. 3100 Cal. BCE (Klimscha 2009: 363–369, 396–398). The earliest date from Yotvata Hill, ca. 4700 Cal. BCE (see above), is in fact the oldest presently available of copper slag 145

Yotvata.indb 145

03/08/2022 15:54

Israel Carmi, Dror Segal , Linda Scott C ummings, Peter Kováčik and Uzi Avner

in the Near East.2 Obviously, further research is required in order to establish the emergence of true metallurgy in the Arabah. The date of the rampart is intriguing. Due to erosion at its northeastern end, its relation with the casemate wall of the “fortress” is unclear. The three 14C dates from the section in the rampart are from ca. 4700–4300 Cal. BCE. The fact that close dates were retrieved from ash layers in different levels may indicate that silt and stones collected for construction of the rampart included dumps from the Chalcolithic copper industry. This can be interpreted in two different ways. One is that the rampart was built in the Chalcolithic period, to defend the technological secrets of the early copper production. In this case, the rampart could be the earliest fortification in the Near East.3 A close parallel, but somewhat later, is the double wall discovered on the southern side of Tall Hujayrāt al-Ghuzlān (Eichman, Khalil and Schmidt 2009: 25 and Fig. 6). Another possibility is that the rampart was built in the Iron Age as an outer line of defense for the “fortress,” using deposits of the older copper industry. In both cases, the rampart was built to defend the hill from the west, the only accessible side. At present, the date of the rampart remains in question; refreshment of the section and OSL dating could perhaps clarify the matter. Two of the four dates from the tomb belong to it. The earlier (Table 19.1:12), ca. 320/180 BCE, indicates two optional approximate dates for construction of the tomb and interment of the deceased male (see Addendum). The other date, of the wooden coffin (Table 19.1:11; Fig. 19.11), is from the 2nd century BCE. These dates bear important implications for the history of the region, of the Nabataeans and of the town of Aila (see brief discussion in the Addendum and a detailed discussion in Avner 2019).

References Aardsma, G.E. 2001. New Radiocarbon Dates for the Reed Mat from the Cave of the Treasure, Israel. Radiocarbon 43: 1247–1254. Avner, U. 2019. Nabataeans in the Eilat Region, the Hinterland of Aila. Aram 30: 597–644. Barkai, R. and Liran, R. 2008. Midsummer Sunset at Neolithic Jericho. Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture 1: 273–284. Bar-Yosef, O. 1986. The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation. Current Anthropology 27: 157–162. Ben-Yosef, E., Tauxe, L., Ron, H., Agnon, A., Avner, U., Najjar, M. and Levy, T.E. 2008. A New Approach for Geomagnetic Archaeointensity Research: Insights on Ancient Metallurgy in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2863–2879. Bronk Ramsey, C. 2013. Recent and Planned Development of the Program OXCAL. Radiocarbon 55: 720–730. Burleigh, R. and Hewson, A. 1979. British Museum Natural Radiocarbon Measurements XI. Radiocarbon 21: 339–352.

2. Copper industrial remains from Tepe Ghabristan, northern Iran, are considered the earliest indication of true metallurgy, i.e., smelting of minerals to metal. They were dated to the Late ʿUbaid period, ca. 4500 BCE, although this date is under debate (Muhly 1995: 1504; Pigott 1999a: 77; 1999b: 111–112). Remains of copper smelting from Chalcolithic sites in the Beer-sheba Valley fall within the third quarter of the fifth millennium BCE (Gilead 1994: 11). Furnace remains at Timna Site 39b were dated as Chalcolithic, or even Late Neolithic; however, a 14C date from inside the furnace was ca. 150 CE (Burleigh and Hewson 1979: 349– BM 1116, 1945±309 BP; Rothenberg 1990; Rothenberg and Merkel 1998). A paleomagnetic dating of slag from the furnace showed three periods of use—Chalcolithic, Iron Age and Roman (Ben-Yosef et al. 2008: 2872–2875). Chalcolithic or even Late Neolithic dates of copper production on Yotvata Hill has been suggested by Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily (2004, based on surface finds; and see Chapter 7). Newer 14C dates from the hoard of Naḥal Mishmar indicate that it was stored in the cave around 4300 BCE (Aardsma 2001; Klimscha 2013: 37). 3. Following the excavation of K. Kenyon at Jericho, the tower of Jericho and its wall were considered the world’s oldest fortifications, dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Kenyon 1957; Kenyon and Holland 1981). It is now accepted that the wall was in fact built to protect the settlement from floods, while the tower is understood as a cultic monument (Bar-Yosef 1986; Barkai and Liran 2008).

146

Yotvata.indb 146

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 19: R adiocarbon Dates

Eichman, R., Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K. 2009. Excavations at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (Aqaba Jordan): Excavations 1998– 2005 and Stratigraphy. In: Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K., eds. Prehistoric ʿAqaba I (Orient-Archäologie 23). Rahden: 17–33. Gilead, I. 1994. The History of the Chalcolithic Settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva Area: The Radiocarbon Aspect. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296: 1–13. Kenyon, K.M., 1957. Digging Up Jericho. London. Kenyon, K.M. and Holland, T.A., eds. 1981. Excavations at Jericho, 3: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tel. London. Klimscha, F. 2009. Radiocarbon Dates from Prehistoric ʿAqaba and Other Related Sites from the Chalcolithic Period. In: Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K., eds. Prehistoric ʿAqaba 1 (Orient-Archäologie 23). Rahden: 363–401. Klimscha, F. 2013. Innovations in Chalcolithic Metallurgy in the Southern Levant during the 5th and 4th Millennium BC. Copper-production at Tall Hujayrāt al-Ghuzlān and Tall al-Magaṣṣ, ʿAqaba Area, Jordan. In: Burmeister, S. and Hansen, S., eds. Metal Matters: Innovative Technologies and Social Change in Prehistory and Antiquity. Rahden: 31–63. Muhly, J.D. 1995. Mining and Metalwork in Ancient Western Asia. In: Sasson, J.M., ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New York: 1501–1520. Pigott, V.C. 1999a. The Development of Metal Production on the Iranian Plateau: An Archaeometallurgical Perspective. In: Pigott, V.C., ed. The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World (MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 16). Philadelphia: 73–106. Pigott, V.C. 1999b. A Heartland of Metallurgy. Neolithic/Chalcolithic Metallurgical Origins on the Iranian Plateau. In: Hauptmann, A., Pernicka, E., Rehren, T. and Yalcin, U., eds. The Beginnings of Metallurgy: Proceedings of the International Conference “The Beginnings of Metallurgy,” Bochum 1995. Bochum: 107–120. Reimer, P.J., Austin, W., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Butzin, M., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., et al. 2020. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 Cal kBP). Radiocarbon 61: 725–757. Rothenberg, B. 1990. The Chalcolithic Copper Smelting Furnace in the Timna Valley—Its Discovery and the Strange Argument Surrounding Its Dating. Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 15–16: 9–12. Rothenberg, B. and Merkel, J. 1998. Chalcolithic, 5th Millennium BC, Copper Smelting at Timna. Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 20: 1–3. Rothenberg, B., Segal, I. and Khalaily, H. 2004. Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Copper Smelting at the Yotvata Oasis. Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 24: 17–28. Segal, D. and Carmi, I. 1996. Rehovot Radiocarbon Date List V. ʿAtiqot 29: 79–106.

147

Yotvata.indb 147

03/08/2022 15:54

Yotvata.indb 148

03/08/2022 15:54

PART V

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Yotvata.indb 149

03/08/2022 15:54

Yotvata.indb 150

03/08/2022 15:54

CHAPTER 20

MAṢṢEBOTH (STANDING STONES) IN GATES Uzi Avner

The fallen stone slab found during excavation of the gate of the “fortress” at Yotvata (Figs. 20.1–20.2; Chapter 3, Figs. 3.9–3.10) was interpreted by Meshel (1993: 1518) as a maṣṣebah (a ritual standing stone). Its location and meaning merit the discussion of two phenomena. One is the abundance of maṣṣeboth in the desert, in hundreds of sites from the eleventh millennium BCE onward (Avner 2018, with further references); second is the frequent occurrences of maṣṣeboth in cult rooms or installations, and in gates of cities, temples and other sites (Table 20.1; see also Blomquist 1999; Bernett and Keel 1998: 35–74, both with references).1 A gate was not only a contact point between the interior of the city and the open rural or wilderness domain, but also the location of a variety of events. In the Bible, the “gate plaza” (‫ ;רחוב שער העיר‬e.g., 2 Chron 32:6) served as a place for judgment (2 Sam 15:2; Amos 5:15); for a reception and congregation (Gen 19:1; Jer 39:3); as the seat of the elders (Josh 20:4) and of kings (e.g., 2 Sam 18:4,24, 19:9; 2 Kings 22:10; Jer 38:2); for the preaching of prophets (Jer 19:2, 39:3; Amos 5:10); for reading the Torah in public (Neh 8:1–3); for gathering for war (Exod 32:26; 1 Sam 4:8); and even for a death sentence (Deut 22:22–24). In addition, the Bible mentions “gate high places”, i.e., shrines, in connection with maṣṣeboth (2 Kings 22:8; and see below). The earliest maṣṣeboth found in city gates were from the Early Bronze Age at Beiçesultan, western Anatolia, and Beth Yeraḥ (Table 20.1:1). Later, in the Middle Bronze Age, three different shrines with maṣṣeboth were set at the gates of Troy (see n. 1). Maṣṣeboth shrines inside or next to gates were found in a number of Iron Age locations (Table 20.1:3–23). Their recurrence illuminates the importance of cult rituals in gates and raises several issues.

The Orientation and Position of the Maṣṣebah In the desert, the vast majority of maṣṣeboth face the general east, many of them in the direction of the winter sunrise, i.e., the southeast (Avner 2002: 66; 2018: 29). At Yotvata, the maṣṣebah was set on the left side of the gate, when viewed from the outside, and faced southeast (azimuth 141°, based on its position as found fallen or laid down; Fig. 20.1). This orientation is south of the winter solstice (azimuth 122°, measured at sunrise, December 21, 2018), most probably due to the orientation of the gate itself, but it still follows the majority of desert maṣṣeboth—the general east. Table 20.1 lists 19 locations in which the 1. Table 20.1 includes only the most relevant sites with maṣṣeboth erected in gates. Other maṣṣeboth in the gates of settlements and temples are: Beiçesultan (western Anatolia) (Lloyd and Mellaart 1965: 28–29); Byblos (Dunand 1958 II,2: 895, Pl. 43; Saghieh 1983: Pls. III, IV); Troy (Blegen, Caskey and Rawson 1953: 96–98, 105; Blegen 1963: 105, 138–139); Shechem (Sellin 1928: 119–120; Wright 1957: 25–26, 1965: 83–86); Megiddo (Schumacher 1908: 125–129, 139); Beth Shemesh (Grant 1929: 45, 48; 1931: 40; Grant and Wright 1939: 72, 77); and Ader (Albright 1924: 10). Maṣṣeboth were found in two additional city gates—at Tell en-Naṣbeh—but out of context, so their original position is unknown (McCown 1947: 9; Blomquist 1999: 108–110).

Yotvata.indb 151

03/08/2022 15:54

Uzi Avner

Fig. 20.1: The maṣṣebah in the gate in situ in its fallen position, view from the northeast, from inside the “fortress” (photo by Zeʾev Meshel)

Fig. 20.2: The maṣṣebah, restored to its standing position, view from the south, from outside the “fortress” (photo by Uzi Avner) 152

Yotvata.indb 152

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 20: M aṣ ṣeboth (Standing Stones) in Gates

Table 20.1: Maṣṣeboth in gates Period Site

1

2

Location

Beth Yeraḥ Outside Early southern Bronze gate Age Hazor Late Bronze Area K Age

Side of No. of gate maṣṣeboth Right 1

Left In Courtyard 5013, between gate and city wall By city wall, – outside outer gate In front of – outer gate

3+

5

Iron Age

Tel Dan 1

Iron Age

Tel Dan 2

Iron Age

Tel Dan 3

Lower plaza, Right L.5122

5

Iron Age

Tel Dan 4

1

Iron Age

Tel Dan 5

Right Next to “canopy installation” Upper plaza, Right L.5181

Iron Age

Tel Dan 6

Outer plaza, L.5188

–

2 (+2)

Iron Age

Bethsaida 1

Right and left

1 (+1)

Iron Age

Bethsaida 2

One of an original pair flanking outer gate In plaza outside main gate

–

1

11

Iron Age

Bethsaida 3

Right

1

12

Iron Age

Bethsaida 4

Right and left

2

3

4

1

5

6

7

5

8

9

10

Next to outer north bastion of the main gate Pair flanking front of main gate

Additional Comments features Offering The maṣṣebah table is perforated at its head (anchor shape) Stone The maṣṣeboth platform are small and or bench well-shaped, some broken; total number not reported

Pottery bowls, remains of burnt olive-tree trunk (Asherah?)

Incomplete, not in situ, square section and wider base Found in situ, set on stone bench

References Bar-Adon 1955; Paz and Greenberg 2006: 239–247 Yadin 1972: 63; Yadin et al. 1989: 291–292, Pls. 42:2, 294:13; Bechar 2018: 34–35 Biran 1998: 43–44 Biran 1994: 243; Biran and Naveh 1995: 1–2 Biran 1994: 244–245; 1998: 43, 45

Biran 1998: 43–44 Found in situ

Biran 1994: 245; 1997: 14; 1998: 43; Biran and Naveh 1995: 5 Biran 1997: Later than Basalt 15–16; 1998: bowl, two gate’s 43, 45; Biran additional destruction and Naveh (indicating smaller maṣṣeboth, perpetuation of 1995: 1–2 tradition) juglets Arav 2009: Head broken, 48–51; Bernett found and Keel 1998: embedded in 1–7 floor Head broken Arav 2009: off, not in situ 48–51 Podium, basin

Iconic broken stele, identified as representing Hadad Head broken, embedded in floor

Arav 2009: 48–51; Savage 2014 Arav 2009: 48–51

153

Yotvata.indb 153

03/08/2022 15:54

Uzi Avner

Table 20.1 (continued) Period Site

Location

Iron Age Iron Age

Bethsaida 5 Bethsaida 6

15

Iron Age

Tell el-Farʿah (North)

In Chamber 2 of the gate Pair flanking the inner side of the main gate In the inner plaza of the gate

16

Iron Age

Kh. Qeiyafa 1

17

Iron Age

Kh. Qeiyafa 2

18

Iron Age

Kh. Qeiyafa 3

19

Iron Age

Tell elʿUmeiri

Iron Age Iron Age

Kh. Mudayna Ḥorvat Ḥaluqim

Iron Age Iron Age

Yotvata

13 14

20 21

22 23

Timna 30

Southern gate, first left cell, Stone C5067a, L. 5007A In plaza next to the southern gate, Stone C5184, In a room next to the western gate, Stone B237 Inside gate

Side of No. of gate maṣṣeboth Left 1 Right and left

2

Left

1

Left

1

Left

1

Additional Comments features Head broken, not in situ One broken, one leaning to wall Basin

Pavement, cavity, bronze bowl

Left

Left

1

Basin

Outside gate Left

1+1

Stone platform

Outside gate Right

1(+1?)

In gate passage In front corner of gate

Left

1

Left

1

Set on base

References Arav 2009: 48–51 Arav 2009: 48–51

De Vaux 1951: 428; Gray 1952: 112; Chambon 1984: 30, 40 Freikman and Found turned Garfinkel upside-down, incorporated in 2014: 128–141; Garfinkel a later wall 2018: 56, Figs. 3.1–3.3 Freikman and Found in situ Garfinkel 2014: 128–141; Garfinkel 2018: 59–60, Figs. 3.1, 3.4–3.6 Not in situ

Garfinkel 2018: 61–64, Figs. 3.10–3.12

Found in situ, gate partially preserved

Low 1991: 187; Tyson 2019: 26 Daviau et al. 2006: 252 Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004: 41

Broad maṣṣebah, 53 × 57 cm; details hitherto unpublished Found fallen Meshel 1991: 24; 1993: 518 Blomquist 1999: 107–108, Fig. 13, information and photo by Uzi Avner

154

Yotvata.indb 154

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 20: M aṣ ṣeboth (Standing Stones) in Gates

position of maṣṣeboth on the side of the gate could be determined. In ten of these sites they were set on the left side of the gate, when observed from the outside; in six locations they were on the right side, and in three locations they occur on both sides.2 Two sites influence this ratio towards the right side, Tel Dan and Bethsaida, but the majority are still on the left. If the side of maṣṣeboth in the gate is counted by sites, at two sites they are set on the right side, at three sites on both the left and right, and at eight sites they were set on the left side. The predominance on the left side is manifest in a biblical text on the reform of Josiah (2 Kings 23:8): “He broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua, the governor of the city, which were on the left at the city gate.” Although the text does not state from where the observer is looking, according to the archaeological remains, he was most probably looking from the outside. An interesting related case is the nearby site of Timna 30 (ca. 15 km southwest of Yotvata; Fig. 20.3). Here the maṣṣebah is also set on the left side of the gate, but it faces west. Among the desert maṣṣeboth, only 21% face west and are all broad. Since the maṣṣebah under discussion is narrow, but still facing west, it may mean that the custom or principle of placing the maṣṣebah on the left side of the gate was preferred over the principle of orienting it to the east.

Fig. 20.3: A maṣṣebah in the gate of Timna 30, view from the northeast (photo by Uzi Avner)

2. In four locations, it is unclear on which side of the gate the maṣṣeboth occur but at Bethsaida (Table 20.1:9,12,14), maṣṣeboth were set on both sides of the gate. In the gate of the Ḥaluqim fortress, a taller stone (82 cm) is set next to the broad maṣṣebah, but it was not mentioned by the excavator and was not presented in the site plan (Cohen and Cohen Amin 2004: 41–42). It was probably added during restoration works in 1993.

155

Yotvata.indb 155

03/08/2022 15:54

Uzi Avner

The Meaning of Maṣṣeboth Maṣṣeboth are commonly accepted as cult objects, but their actual meaning is often overlooked. Ancient written texts from various periods and cultures of the Near East clearly indicate that maṣṣeboth were perceived as abodes for the power and spirit of deities, sometimes also for ancestors. Only two examples are given here. In Genesis 28:22, Jacob addresses the stone he used first as a pillow: “and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar (maṣṣebah), shall be God’s house.” The annals of the Assyrian king Tukulti Ninurta II (ca. 885 BCE) mention that: “he camped by the stones in which the great gods are dwelling” (Schramm 1970: 150).3 Hence, maṣṣeboth are in fact similar to statues of deities; yet in another sense they are also the opposite, since they are an abstract, aniconic representation of the gods (Mettinger 1995). In the Bible the theological principle of avoiding figurative representation is well attested in the second commandment (Exod 20:3) and is explained in Exod 20:22: “If you make for me an altar of stone, do not build it of hewn stones; for if you use a chisel upon it you profane it.”4 This means that the natural, unshaped stone was perceived as sacred, and therefore, altars and the temple in Jerusalem were built of “complete stones” (Deut 27:5–6; Josh 8:30–31; 1 Kings 6:7). In the desert, almost all maṣṣeboth are indeed unshaped, beginning in the Harifian culture (10,000 BCE), shortly after their inception (Avner 2018: 30–31). In fertile lands, on the other hand, maṣṣeboth are both shaped and unshaped. So the biblical commandment actually continued a long-standing desert theology. At Yotvata, the maṣṣebah is largely unshaped, but its top is rounded, similar to two desert maṣṣeboth (Avner 1984: Fig 1; 2002: Table 13:1) and like many others in fertile lands. Documentation of thousands of maṣṣeboth in hundreds of desert sites, from their earliest occurrence in the eleventh millennium BCE until the Early Islamic period, indicates that the ancient people consistently distinguished between broad and narrow stones. This allows the interpretation of the broad stones as representing goddesses, while narrow stones represented male gods (Avner 1993: 174–175; 2000: 100–103; 2018: 24–34). In this light, the maṣṣebah at Yotvata most probably represented a god.

Prohibition of Maṣṣeboth Most of the Iron Age sites with maṣṣeboth in gates detailed in Table 20.1 are identified as Israelite. In addition, maṣṣeboth are also found in other Israelite and Judahite sites, in locations other than gates, e.g., at Arad (Aharoni 1968: 19–20; Herzog et al. 1984; Herzog 2002)5 and Tel Reḥov (Mazar 1999: 26–28, Fig. 17; 2016: 37e–38e, Fig. 46). The presence of maṣṣeboth in Israel and Judah seems to contradict the biblical prohibition, mentioned in 18 passages. However, a closer look into the biblical sources reveals the following: eleven of these passages deal with the destruction of maṣṣeboth of foreign gods,6 three passages denounce maṣṣeboth with no clear deity affiliation (1 Kings 14:22; 2 Chron 14:2, 31:1) and one verse prohibits any cult of maṣṣeboth (Lev 21:1). Surprisingly, only one passage explicitly prohibits the cult of maṣṣeboth for Yhwh (Deut 16:21). In addition, nine biblical passages mention maṣṣeboth without any condemnation.7 Furthermore, in all these passages, maṣṣeboth are associated with the cult of Yhwh, the same god that “hates” maṣṣeboth. While the contradiction is often accounted for by the claim that the prohibition originated in Deuteronomistic ideology, in reality, worship of maṣṣeboth was common. This is also evident in the attitude of the prophets toward them. In all 3. For other ancient written sources on the meaning of maṣṣeboth, see Avner 2000: 99–100; 2002: 88).  4. In English translations (e.g., NIV) the verses are 20:24 and 20:25. 5. For detailed archaeological discussion on the maṣṣeboth of Arad, with further references, see Bloch-Smith 2015: 99–105. 6. Exod 34:13, 23:24; Lev 26:1; Deut 7:5, 12:3; 1 Kings 14:22; 2 Kings 3:2, 17:10, 23:14; Jer 43:13; Ezek 26:11. 7. Gen 28:6–22, 35:4–16; Exod 24:4–8; Josh 24:6; 1 Sam 6:5, 1:2; 1 Kings 3:4; 2 Kings 23:3; 2 Chron 34:1.

156

Yotvata.indb 156

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 20: M aṣ ṣeboth (Standing Stones) in Gates

the prophetic books, only two passages (Jer 2:27; Mic 5:12) denounce the belief in maṣṣeboth, while in two others they are considered legitimate and even associated with Yhwh. According to Isaiah (19:19), “In that day there will be an altar for Yhwh in the Land of Egypt, and a maṣṣebah for Yhwh within its border,”8 and Hosea (3:4–5): “For many days the Israelites will live with no king or a minister, with no sacrifice, no maṣṣebah and no ephod or teraphim. Then the Israelites will return and seek Yhwh their God.” Here, the absence of maṣṣeboth and other cult objects is viewed as a time of crisis. In some way, passages that legitimize maṣṣeboth survived the Deuteronomistic edition of the Bible. Sometimes the editors changed the word maṣṣebah to a more neutral term—“large stone” or just “stones”; in two cases maṣṣebah was changed to ‫“ עמוד‬pillar” (2 Kings 11:14–20 and 2 Kings 23:3 / 2 Chron 34:31).9 Based upon the frequent occurrences of maṣṣeboth in Israelite sites, especially in the Judahite temple of Arad (Aharoni 1968: 18–21; Herzog 2002: 62–65), and based upon the biblical sources, one may conclude that the “imageless” Yahweh was indeed worshipped through abstract aniconic maṣṣeboth. They both shared the same theology and their association is actually expected since they both originated in the desert.10 The maṣṣebah at Yotvata cannot be attributed to the Israelites. Based on the ceramic typology (Chapter 4), the “fortress” is dated to the early Iron Age I, before the establishment of the Judahite kingdom. In addition, no Judean pottery was found in any of the copper-mining and -production centers along the Arabah, the heyday of which was during the 10th century BCE. However, the maṣṣebah can be attributed to the desert tribes, the Shasu in Egyptian sources, who ran the large-scale copper industry in the Arabah (Levy, Adams and Muniz 2004; Levy, Najjar and Ben-Yosef 2014: 986–994; Avner 2014: 141–143, 2021; Avner et al. 2018: 172; Ben-Yosef 2016: 191–196; 2019), whose god was also Yahu/Yhwh (Avner 2021, with references to ample previous studies).

Ritual at the Gate It may be assumed that when someone left a city, a village, or a fortress to reach another destination, he exposed himself to a variety of risks. People naturally sought divine protection, as expressed in the vow of Jacob (Gen 28:20–21): “If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God.” In a similar matter, road prayers are recited today by observant Jews whenever they depart on journey, following an old commandment: “Rabbi Ḥisda said: Anyone who goes out to the road must recite the road prayer” (BT Brachot 29:2). In this light, a ritual at the gate before the maṣṣebah could be performed to invoke divine protection before going on the road, and when returning safely, to express gratitude to the god.

Summary The maṣṣebah in the gate of the Yotvata “fortress” is not an isolated occurrence but part of a broader phenomenon, and its placement on the left side of the gate, when looking from the outside, was intentional. 8. In most Bible translations, the end of this passage is rendered: “maṣṣebah for the Lord on the border of Egypt,” leading scholars to see it as just a border stone. However, the biblical Hebrew word ‫ אצל‬means “within,” i.e. “within the territory of Egypt,” as the passage also says about the altar of Yhwh. See an example for the error in LaRocca-Pitts 2001: 103 and a correction in Avner 2006: 53. Problems in translation are common. One additional example is Isa 6:13, in which the word maṣṣebah occurs twice in the Hebrew text, but not in the NIV or other translations. 9. For more on the biblical attitude towards maṣṣeboth, see Mettinger 1995: 135–143, 191–197; Larocca-Pitts 2001: 205–228; Zevit 2001: 256–266, 348–349; Bloch-Smith 2015; Avner 2001; 2006; 2021. 10. For the desert origin of Yahweh in the Bible, see Avner 2021, with ample references to previous studies. For the desert origin of maṣṣeboth, see Avner 2001: 39–41; 2002: 82–83, 2018: 28–30, 47–48.

157

Yotvata.indb 157

03/08/2022 15:54

Uzi Avner

Due to its narrow shape, it most probably represented a male god and served as a small version of ‫במות‬ ‫שערים‬, “gate high-places.” People prayed before it to the god’s power that dwelled within the stone for protection when they left or entered the city. Some of the events in the “gate plaza” mentioned in the Old Testament (see above) took place under the domination of the gods represented by the maṣṣeboth.

References Aharoni, Y. 1968. Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple. The Biblical Archaeologist 31: 2–32. Albright, W.F. 1924. The Archaeological Results of an Expedition to Moab and the Dead Sea. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 14: 2–12. Arav, R. 2009. Final Report on Area A, Stratum V: The City Gate. In: Arav, R. and Freund, R.A. Bethsaida, a City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, IV. Ann Arbor. Avner, U. 1984. Ancient Cult Sites in the Negev and Sinai Deserts. Tel Aviv 11: 115–131. Avner, U. 1993. Maṣṣeboth Sites in the Negev and Sinai and Their Significance. In: Aviram, J., ed. Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology in Jerusalem 1990. Jerusalem: 166–181. Avner, U. 2000. Nabatean Standing Stones and Their Interpretation. Aram 11–12: 95–122. Avner, U. 2001. Sacred Stones in the Desert. Biblical Archaeology Review 27/3: 30–41. Avner, U. 2002. Studies in the Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Population during the 6th–3rd Millennia BC (Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Jerusalem. http://www.adssc.org/sites/default /files/PhD-Uzi-RS.pdf. Avner, U. 2006. Book Review: Larocca-Pitts, E., “Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65: 51–55. Avner, U. 2014. Egyptian Timna—Reconsidered. In: Tebes, J.M., ed. Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age. Leuven: 103–163. Avner, U. 2018. Protohistoric Developments of Religion and Cult in the Negev Desert. Tel Aviv 45: 23–62. Avner, U. 2021. The Desert’s Role in the Formation of Early Israel and the Origin of Yhwh. Entangled Religions 12/2. DOI: 10.46586/er.12.2021.8889. Avner, U., Ginat, H., Shalev, S., Shilstine, S., Langford, B., Frumkin, A., Shem-Tov, R., Filin, S., Arav, R., Basson, U., Shamir, O. and Scott-Cummings, L. 2018. Ancient Copper Mines at Nahal ʿAmram, Southern Arabah. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Winona Lake and Tel Aviv: 147–177. Bar-Adon, P. 1955. Beit Yerah. Israel Exploration Journal 5: 273. Bechar, S. 2018. Take a Stone and Set It Up as a Maṣṣeba. The Tradition of Standing Stones at Hazor. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 134: 28–45. Bernett, M. and Keel, O. 1998. Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor: Die Stele von Betsaida (et Tell). Freiburg. Ben-Yosef, E. 2016. Back to Solomon’s Era: Results of the First Excavations at “Slaves’ Hill” (Site 34, Timna, Israel). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 376: 169–198. Ben-Yosef, E. 2019. Architectural Bias in Current Biblical Archaeology. Vetus Testamentum 69: 361–387. Biran, A. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem. Biran, A. 1997. Tel Dan. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 16: 14–17. Biran, A. 1998. Sacred Spaces: Of Standing Stones, High Places and Cult Objects at Tel Dan. Biblical Archaeology Review 24/5: 38–45, 70. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. Israel Exploration Journal 45: 1–25. Blegen, C.W. 1963. Troy and the Trojans. London. Blegen, C.W., Caskey, J.L. and Rawson, M. 1953. Troy. The Sixth Settlement, III. Princeton. 158

Yotvata.indb 158

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 20: M aṣ ṣeboth (Standing Stones) in Gates

Bloch-Smith, E. 2015. Massebot Standing for Yhwh. The Fall of a Yhwistic Cult Symbol. In: Collins, J.J., Lemos, T.M. and Olyan, S.M., eds. Worship, Women and War. Essays in Honor of Susan Niditch (Brown Judaic Studies 357). Providence. Blomquist, T.H. 1999. Gates and Gods: Cult in the City Gate of Iron Age Palestine. An Investigation of the Archaeological and Biblical Sources. Stockholm. Chambon, A. 1984. Tell el Farʿah I: l‘Âge du Fer. Paris. Cohen, R. and Cohen-Amin, R. 2004. Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands II: The Iron Age and the Persian Period (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 20). Jerusalem (Hebrew). Daviau, P.M.M., Chadwick, R., Steiner, M., Weigl, M., Dolan, A., Mcquinn, Z., Mulder-Hijmans, N., Judd, M.A. and Ferguson, J. 2006. Excavations and Survey at Khirbat al-Mudayna and Its Surroundings: Preliminary Report of the 2001, 2004 and 2005 Seasons. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 50: 249–283. De Vaux, R. 1951. La Troisième Campagne de Fouilles a Tell el-Farʿah, Près Naplouse. Revue Biblique 58: 393–430. Dunand, M. 1958. Fouilles de Byblos II, 1933–1938. Paris. Freikman, M. and Garfinkel, Y. 2014.  Area C. In: Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M.G., eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa 2: Excavation Report 2009–2013: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem: 93–226. Garfinkel, Y. 2018. The Standing Stones. In: Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. Khirbet Qeiyafa 4: Excavation Report 2007–2013: Art, Cult and Epigraphy. Jerusalem. Grant, E. 1929. Beth Shemesh (Palestine). Haverford. Grant, E. 1931. Ain Shams Excavations I. Haverford. Grant, E. and Wright, G.E. 1939. Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine), V. Text. Haverford. Gray, J. 1952. Tell el Farʿa by Nablus: A “Mother” in Ancient Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 84:10–113. Herzog, Z. 2002. The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad, an Interim Report. Tel Aviv 29: 3–109. Herzog, Z., Aharoni, M., Rainey, A.F. and Moshkovitz, S. 1984. The Israelite Fortress at Arad. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 254: 1–34. Larocca-Pitts, E. 2001. “Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters. Winona Lake. Levy, T., Adams, R.B. and Muniz, A. 2004. Archaeology of the Shasu Nomads—Recent Excavations in the Jabal Humrit Fidan, Jordan. In: Friedman, R.E. and Propp, W.H.C., eds. Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute to David Noel Freedman. Winona Lake: 63–89. Levy, T.E., Najjar, M. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2014. New Insight into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan. Los Angeles. Lloyd, S. and Mellaart, J. 1965. Beycesultan II. London. Low, R.D. 1991. Field F: The Eastern Shelf. In: Herr, L.G., Geraty, L.T., LaBianca, Ø.S. and Younker, R.W., eds. Madaba Plains Project 2: The 1987 Season at Tell el-Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrein Springs: 170–231. Mazar, A. 1999. The 1997–1998 Excavations at Tel Reḥov: Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 49: 1–42. Mazar, A. 2016. It Is the Land of Honey: Discoveries from Tel Reḥov, the Early Days of the Israelite Monarchy. Tel Aviv. McCown, C.C. 1947. Tell en-Nasbeh I: Archaeological and Historical Results. New Haven. Meshel, Z. 1991. Yotvata Oasis—Its History, Landscapes and Sites. Ariel 78: 6–44 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Mettinger, T.N.D. 1995. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Stockholm. Paz, Y. and Greenberg, R. 2006. Area BF: The Bar-Adon Excavations of the Fortification, 1952–1955. In: Greenberg, R., Eisenberg, E., Paz, S. and Paz, Y., eds. Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound, I: Excavation Reports, 1933–1986 (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 30). Jerusalem: 235–276. Saghieh, M. 1983. Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C.: A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections. Warminster. 159

Yotvata.indb 159

03/08/2022 15:54

Uzi Avner

Savage, C. 2014. The Sacred Precinct at the Gate. In: Ellens, J.H., ed. Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture: A Festschrift in Honor of John T. Green. Newcastle upon Tyne: 47–59. Schramm, W. 1970. Die Annalen des Assyrischen Königs Tukulti-Ninurta II. Bibliotheca Orientalis 27: 147–160. Schumacher, G. 1908. Tell el-Mutesellim I. Leipzig. Sellin, E. 1928. Die Masseben des El-Berit in Sichem. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 51: 119–123. Tyson, C.W. 2019. The Religion of the Ammonites: A Specimen of Levantine Religion from the Iron Age (ca. 1000–500 BCE). Religions 10(3) 153: 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10030153. Weippert, M. 1971. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: A Critical Survey of Recent Debates. London. Wright, G.E. 1957. Part III. The Archaeology of the City. The Biblical Archaeologist 20: 19–32. Wright, G.E. 1965. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. London. Yadin, Y. 1972. Hazor. Oxford. Yadin, Y., Ben-Tor, A., Dunayevsky, I., Amiran, R., Aharoni, Y., Dothan, T., Geva, S. and Stern, E. 1989. Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation, 1957–1958. Jerusalem. Zevit, Z. 2001. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London.

160

Yotvata.indb 160

03/08/2022 15:54

CHAPTER 21

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Lily Singer-Avitz

Remains of four periods were discerned on Yotvata Hill. The most striking architectural element is the Iron I fortified site with its casemate wall surrounding a courtyard. An earthen rampart, built west of the casemate wall, may have served as another line of defense. An earlier phase of occupation predating the “fortress” lacks any architectural remains and is attributed to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I. Remains of later periods were also exposed: a Nabataean built tomb built on top of the earthen rampart, several late burials dug into the casemate wall and an Early Islamic stone structure that was built in the courtyard of the Iron I “fortress.” Remains of these later periods are isolated and do not constitute a proper settlement on the hill. The location of the Iron I “fortress” (and most probably the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I occupation) on a steep high cliff, overlooking the oasis of Yotvata and the roads leading to it, may have been aimed at protecting the rich source of water and the traffic at this main crossroads (Chapter 2). The relative proximity of the site to Timna led the excavator to believe that the Yotvata oasis and its environs were the only major source of water and wood for the people producing copper at the Timna Valley sites, as wood is limited in Timna and water is scarce (Meshel 1993: 1518). Metallurgical investigations point to connections between the copper-related activities carried out at the site and Timna, Wadi ʿAmram and Jordan (see below).

Metallurgical Investigations Small lumps of slag, ores and ingots were found scattered all over the summit of the hill, indicating that copper-smelting activity had taken place at the site. Beno Rothenberg and his team analyzed some of the metallurgical remains found during Meshel’s excavations and several items found during their visit to the site in 2001 (Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004). These include four samples of copper ores: two samples from the Nabataean built tomb (L9), one from Casemate Room 1 and one from a sounding in the courtyard (L10), adjacent to Casemate Room 1. They also analyzed several copper slags: four from Casemate Rooms 1, 15 and 29, four from soundings in the courtyard adjacent to the casemate wall (L10 and L18B), one from the Early Islamic structure built in the courtyard (L3) and five surface finds. In addition, two ingots from Casemate Rooms 12 and 16 were analyzed (for a detailed list, see Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004: Table 1). They concluded that: 1.

The type of ore found at Yotvata is uncommon in the Timna Valley, but common in Wadi ʿAmram (south of Timna) and especially in Jordan (Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004: 21).

2. The Yotvata ingots were most likely produced from the local oxidic ore of nearby Timna (Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004: 25–26).

Yotvata.indb 161

03/08/2022 15:54

Lily Singer-Avitz

3.

On the basis of metallurgical technological characteristics (gleaned from comparisons with Sites F2 and 39 at Timna), they claimed that as early as the Late Pottery Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, copper-smelting activity was performed at the site. This is also supported by the presence of flint tools and a few sherds that were scattered throughout the hill area and identified by Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily as dating from the Late Pottery Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods.

This dating, however, is not without problems from both archaeological and copper-technology aspects: 1.

The flint artifacts were reexamined by Rosen and dated to the Timnian culture (Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I) and not the Late Pottery Neolithic–Chalcolithic periods, as dated by Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily (Chapter 7).

2. As argued by Muhly (1984: 287–288), development of metallurgical technology is not a reliable method for dating. Ben-Yosef and his team, who performed geomagnetic archaeointensity experiments on slag samples from several copper-production sites in the Arabah, also argued that archaeometallurgical typology is probably not reliable as a dating tool, as the technological development had not been unilinear, and that “primitive” technology could have been practiced in later periods as well (BenYosef 2010: 604–606; Ben-Yosef et al. 2008a; 2008b; Ben-Yosef, Tauxe and Levy 2010). Several other copper-smelting sites in the southern Arabah have been dated by Rothenberg to the Late Pottery Neolithic–Chalcolithic periods on the basis of archaeometallurgical typology and archaeological finds, e.g., flint tools and a few sherds (Rothenberg 1978; 1996–97; 1999a). In several cases, this early date is under debate. Ben-Yosef and his team raised doubts about Rothenberg’s dating of smelting Site F2 to the Pottery Neolithic period, dating it instead to the 13th–11th centuries BCE (Ben-Yosef, Tauxe and Levy 2010 and further literature therein). Avner also raised doubts about the dating of Site F2 (and several other sites) to such an early time period (Avner 2002: 45–47). Site 39 was dated by Rothenberg and Merkel (1998) to the fifth millennium BCE. This dating has been widely criticized, and later investigations have suggested that smelting activities took place there over more than one period (Ben-Yosef et al. 2008b; Hauptmann and Wagner 2007). It seems that the evidence for copper exploitation at Timna points to a date no earlier than the Chalcolithic period (Adams 1998; Hauptmann and Wagner 2007; Ben-Yosef et al. 2008b; Shaw and Drenka 2018). This most likely applies to Naḥal ʿAmram as well (Avner et al. 2018). “Primitive” technological remains from Yotvata, considered by Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily to represent Chalcolithic or even Neolithic smelting activities, were dated via the geomagnetic archaeointensity method to the Late Bronze–Iron Age I (Ben-Yosef et al. 2008b: 2876; Ben-Yosef, Tauxe and Levy 2010: 1119).1 Unfortunately, additional slag samples were not analyzed with this method. It is quite possible that if tested, they would have shown a later date than that determined by Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily. In conclusion, it seems that copper activity at Yotvata could have been practiced during the early occupation (the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I), as well as during the Iron Age I. In both periods the copper probably originated at the mines at Timna and Naḥal ʿAmram (Avner et al. 2018). No smelting installations of any kind were found at the site. However, it is possible that metallurgical activities (the crushing and grinding of the ores) were conducted somewhere on the hilltop in simple pits dug in the ground and in cupmarks cut in the bedrock (for this technique, see Rothenberg 1978; Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004: 19). Hammerstones, pounders and numerous ground stones were found in a pit under the wall of Casemate Room 20, which predates the construction of the “fortress.” Although the 1. Although the one sample that is reported as originating from Site 44 was found in a pile of slag next to the Late Roman fortress, located at the foot of the Iron Age site (E. Ben-Yosef: email correspondence, June 29, 2017). Since the Late Roman fortress bears no evidence of earlier remains, it is possible that the item rolled down from the Iron Age site.

162

Yotvata.indb 162

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 21: Summary and Conclusions

finds cannot corroborate the existence of a workshop for copper processing at the site, this possibility cannot be ruled out (Chapter 11).

The Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Occupation Flint artifacts and a few pottery sherds (mainly handmade body sherds and some handmade holemouth-jar rims) were scattered throughout the hilltop area. The flint tools were dated by Rosen to the Timnian culture (Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I) (Chapter 7). Flint tools and waste and some sherds that can be associated with the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I 2 have also been found in the courtyard fills (L26, Chapters 3 and 7). West of the casemate wall are the remains of an earthen rampart, 1–1.5 m high, 5 m wide and 160 m long (Chapter 3, L5, B in Figs. 3.2 and 3.3; Fig. 3.22). Its southern end reaches the southern cliff of the hill, and its northern end is near the external side of Casemate Room 20. Its juncture with the casemate wall is presently cut by a small wadi, rendering the stratigraphic relationship between the two elements unclear. Three charcoal samples originating from different heights in the rampart’s fills were submitted for radiocarbon tests and were dated to the fifth millennium BCE (Table 19.1:6–8), suggesting that the rampart might be attributed to the earliest settlement at the site. However, we should also consider the possibility that the rampart was erected by the builders of the casemate wall, in an effort to establish a front defense line for the Iron I “fortress,” thus increasing the protected area for various activities. In this case, they would have collected debris of the early settlement for the construction of the rampart. It seems that the second option is preferable. If, indeed, the rampart is part of the defense system of the Iron Age, no architectural remains can be attributed to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I. However, the charcoal samples from the rampart fills and the three charcoal samples from the courtyard fill (from L26, Table 19.1:4–5 and from L30, Table 19.1:3) yielded dates within the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I (Chapter 19). It is therefore suggested that there was an early stage of occupation predating the Iron I Age “fortress”—from the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age—at the site. As discussed above, evidence of metallurgical activity, which can be associated with this period, was found throughout the summit of the hill. Several copper-mining and -smelting sites at Timna and Naḥal ʿAmram were dated by Rothenberg to the Chalcolithic period (Rothenberg 1996–97; 1999a). Although some of his chronological conclusions have been questioned in recent years (see above), evidence of mining from this period cannot be refuted. Extensive copper-production activities were discovered in Tall Ḥujayrāt al-Ghuzlān and Tell alMagaṣṣ, located on the Gulf of ʿAqaba (Khalil and Schmidt 2009). On the basis of pottery typology and radiometric evidence, these sites have been dated to the late fifth and early fourth millennia BCE, in the transitional period between the late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age (Kerner 2009; 2011). Interestingly, the origin of the raw copper material at Tell al-Magaṣṣ came from Timna (Hauptmann, Khalil and Schmidt-Strecker 2009). Although extraction of metal from Faynan ores is known to have existed already during the fifth– fourth millennia BCE, there is no evidence there of metal production (smelting and casting) during the Chalcolithic period. The available evidence indicates that copper ores from Faynan were transported to Chalcolithic settlements in the Negev and the Beer-sheba region, where small-scale metal production took place (Hauptmann 2007; MacDonald 2014: 39). In the area of Faynan, evidence of metalworking activity 2. These are mainly non-indicative body sherds and handmade holemouth-jar rims. On the difficulty of using holemouth jars as a chronological tool to distinguish between the Chalcolithic period and the Early Bronze Age, see Sebbane et al. 1993: 43–45. I would like to thank Raphael Greenberg for his help with this issue.

163

Yotvata.indb 163

03/08/2022 15:54

Lily Singer-Avitz

is documented for the first time at sites dating from the Early Bronze I, such as Wadi Fidan 4 (Adams and Genz 1995; Genz 1997: 444)3 and Wadi Faynan 100 (Wright et al. 1998). The raw copper material at Yotvata originates from three mines: from Timna, Naḥal ʿAmram and Jordan (Rothenberg, Segal and Khalaily 2004). This indicates that metallurgical activity took place in both the southeast and southwest Arabah during the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I. It may therefore be concluded that there was inter-regional collaboration and that Yotvata was integrated in this regional copper-production system during this early stage. Based on the frequency of sickle segments Rosen suggests that some kind of agricultural work was practiced at the site alongside the metallurgical activity (Chapter 7). Significantly, the botanical evidence suggests a slightly wetter climate during this period (Chapter 16), a fact that may well support the existence of agricultural activity. Animal dung deposits 4 (it is not clear what kind of animal), found in the courtyard’s lower fills (L26), may suggest that animal husbandry was practiced at the site as well. Early Bronze I remains (unpublished) were discovered about 1 km southwest of the hill, in the vicinity of the ʿEin Ghadhian spring at the edge of the Arabah Valley (Meshel 1993: 1517–1518; Meshel and Sass 1975: 35; see Chapter 1, Fig. 1:3 in the present volume). An Egyptian cylindrical vessel made of alabaster was also uncovered (Brandl 1992: 469). It is reasonable to assume that the two adjacent settlements functioned in collaboration.

The Iron I Fortified Site The Iron Age “fortress” consists of an irregular casemate wall surrounding an open courtyard (ca. 50 × 76 m), cutting into the earlier levels of the settlement remains from the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I (Fig. 3.3). In the southwestern part of the wall an indirect entrance gate complex was built; the gateway was probably protected by a small tower that apparently stood on a rectangular stone podium (Figs. 3.7–3.8). A large rectangular limestone block with a rounded upper part was found toppled in the entryway; it was interpreted as a maṣṣebah (standing stone), used in ritual activity at the entrance to the site (Chapter 20). The finds uncovered in the casemate rooms include pottery vessels used for storage and cooking (locally produced wheel-made storage jars and handmade cooking kraters) (see Chapters 4 and 5). Only two of the vessels uncovered were found to have originated from a clay not available near the settlement—the Qurayyah Painted Ware bowls that were imported from northwest Arabia.5 Artifacts made of Red Sea marine shells uncovered in several casemate rooms also point to trade with the south (Chapter 8). The stone tool assemblage suggests domestic activities, such as the processing of cereals, grains and other agricultural produce. The small sample size, however, does not preclude the possibility that copper processing also took place at the site (Chapter 11). The dry climate preserved organic items such as cords made of date-palm (Phoenix dactylifera) fibers and basketry (Chapter 14), as well as worked wood items (Chapter 12). Archaeobotanical analyses of charred plant remains demonstrated that they were of the same local species that characterize the region today (Chapter 15) and that they were less diverse than in the earlier Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I occupation (Chapter 16). Two flint sickle segments probably point to agricultural practices at the site (Chapter 7). 3. The site of Wadi Fidan 4 was originally dated to the Chalcolithic period (Adams and Genz 1995), but reanalysis of the pottery assemblage and radiocarbon dates make it clear that the site should be dated to the beginning of the Early Bronze I (Genz 1997: 444). 4. Identified as such by Dafna Langgut, based on the presence of high concentrations of spherulites. 5. It is noteworthy that these three types of pottery ware—wheel-made local pottery, handmade pottery and QPW—were found together in all copper-mining and -smelting sites in the Faynan region in the northern Arabah and in the area of Timna to the south (Singer-Avitz 2004: 1282–1283; 2008: 78).

164

Yotvata.indb 164

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 21: Summary and Conclusions

The faunal assemblage, of which only a few items were preserved, includes game animals and domestic sheep/goat and cattle (Chapter 18). One bone was reworked into a working tool (Chapter 9). Despite the domestic nature of the finds and the many handmade cooking vessels, no ovens were found in the casemate rooms. It may be assumed that cooking activity took place in the courtyard, which was not excavated except for a few limited soundings. In addition, many small lumps of copper slag (a few ores and ingots) were found in the casemate rooms and all over the hilltop, perhaps indicating copper-smelting activity.6 As stated above, Rothenberg dated the metallurgical finds at the site to the early occupation on the basis of archaeometallurgical typology. Ben-Yosef, Tauxe and Levy, however, argue that this method is unreliable as a dating tool; they performed geomagnetic archaeointensity experiments on one sample from Yotvata,7 dating it to the Late Bronze– Iron I (Ben-Yosef, Tauxe and Levy 2010: 1119).8 This suggests that copper production was practiced at the site during the early occupation (the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I) as well as during the Iron Age I. Unfortunately, we were not able to perform further tests to corroborate this possibility. As discussed above, an earthen rampart was built to the west of the Iron I “fortress” (Chapter 3, L5, labeled B in Figs. 3.2 and 3.3; see also Fig. 3.22). Given the unclear stratigraphic data, one possibility is that the rampart is associated with the “fortress”; if this is the case, the protected area beyond the casemate wall would have been larger, allowing for various activities. The “fortress” was a single-period site, and since no phase repairs of superimposed floors were discerned, we may posit that it had a limited time span. The resemblance of its finds to those from Timna copper-production sites, especially the QPW pottery, led the excavator to conclude that the fortified site should be dated “to the beginning of the Iron Age or, more precisely, to the period of activity at Timna” (Meshel 1993: 1518). Typological comparisons point to parallels for the wheel-made vessels at Timna and at sites located north of Yotvata, mainly in the southern part of the Land of Israel, in strata and tombs dating from the end of the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age I (Chapter 4). Given the fact that most of the vessels are known during these periods and that part of them appear mainly in the earlier part of the Iron Age I, it is suggested to date the Yotvata assemblage to the beginning of the Iron Age I, somewhere within the second half of the 12th and first half of the 11th centuries BCE (for the absolute chronology adopted here, see Chapter 4). Radiocarbon dating tests were performed on two charred wood samples (from Casemate Room 16; see Chapter 19). One of the samples (Table 19.1:2—1201–904 BCE Cal. [95%]) is in keeping with an Iron Age I dating. The date of the second sample, however (Table 19.1:1—901–780 BCE Cal. [95.4%]) is much too late; this sample is apparently an outlier. As the Yotvata “fortress” is a single-stratum site with a presumably short timespan and it includes a series of complete local vessels (as opposed to the sherds found at other sites in the Arabah), its date has particular bearing upon the dating of the QPW group. Indeed, its dating to the earlier part of the Iron I corresponds well with the dates given recently to this pottery group at the Hejaz (Tayma), the homeland of the QWP, from where it was imported northward (Chapter 4). Petrographic analyses indicate that the vessels (both wheel-made and handmade) were produced in the vicinity of Yotvata, in particular from clay of the Kurnub (Lower Cretaceous) formation situated south of the site, and that these vessels differ in type of clay from the vessels at Timna (Chapter 5). Since there is no other contemporary site in the immediate vicinity, the pottery was most likely produced at 6. Even though significant copper-production activity took place at the site, finished items are particularly rare. 7. For the provenance of the sample, see above, n. 1. 8. Ben-Yosef, Tauxe and Levy also conducted archaeointensity experiments on slag material at Site F2 at Timna, which had been dated by Rothenberg using metallurgy to the Pottery Neolithic period. In this case, too, it transpired that the metallurgical finds should be dated to the 13th and 11th centuries BCE (Ben-Yosef, Tauxe and Levy 2010).

165

Yotvata.indb 165

03/08/2022 15:54

Lily Singer-Avitz

the site.9 The vessels are similar in form to those uncovered at sites north of Yotvata, pointing to cultural connections with the population of southern Canaan.

Iron I Walls/Enclosures The site plan of the Iron I site at Yotvata, consisting of a casemate wall surrounding a large courtyard, is similar to that of the enclosed settlements in the Negev Highlands (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004; Haiman 1994; Meshel 1994). Consequently, the Yotvata site was dated upon its discovery to the Iron Age II and was considered as “one of a long series of Iron II fortresses spread throughout the Negeb and Wadi ʿArabah” (Glueck 1957: 24). However, Yotvata should be dated to the Iron I; therefore, it predates the Negev Highlands settlements, which are dated to the Early Iron IIA (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004: 225–226);10 moreover, it was not part of the network of Negev settlements. This is not the only fortified Iron I site to be uncovered in the region. In the copper-ore area of Timna Valley, ca. 15 km south of Yotvata, defense walls have been uncovered at two smelting sites (Sites 30 and 34). Prior to a discussion of Timna’s two smelting sites, several issues related to dating methods should be clarified. The method used for dating the Yotvata “fortress” is based upon pottery typology and a comparison of material culture of various sites to create a cultural-chronological horizon. On the basis of this pottery analysis, I suggested that the site should be dated to the earlier part of the Iron Age I (Chapter 4). In dating the sites at Timna, Ben-Yosef and his team relied mainly on radiometric methods (e.g., Ben-Yosef 2016; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012; Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017; Yagel, Ben-Yosef and Craddock 2016). Timna Site 30 was dated by radiocarbon from the second half of the 12th to the late 9th century (Ben-Yosef et al. 2012: 51; Ben-Yosef 2016: 169; and see below); therefore, in its early phases it may have existed contemporaneously with Yotvata in the early Iron Age I. Radiocarbon results from Timna Site 34 date the site to between the late 11th and the second half of the 10th centuries (Ben-Yosef 2016).11 Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef (2017: 256) studied the pottery assemblage from the site, dating it to the Iron Age I. Although they determined that the pottery of Site 34 “is virtually identical to Site 30” (Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017: 256) (which, as previously mentioned, commenced in the second half of the 12th century), they narrowed the date, fixing the site’s chronology between the late 11th and the late 10th centuries BCE, i.e., to the late Iron I (Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017: 254, 257). They further state that Site 34 has ceramics parallel to Sites 2, 3 and 200 (Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017: 256–257),12 which are dated (Sites 2 and 3 by radiocarbon) to the Late Bronze Age (Erickson-Gini 2014: Table 1; Avner 2014: Table 1; Yagel, Ben-Yosef and Craddock 2016: 16). 9. A bone shaft found in Casemate Room 13 may have been used as a tool in pottery production (Chapter 9, Fig. 9.1). 10. Results of radiometric tests pointing to the Iron Age I were published from two enclosed settlements: Ḥorvat Ḥaluqim (Bruins and van der Plicht 2005; 2007; Bruins, Segal and van der Plicht 2018) and Kadesh Barnea (Bruins and van der Plicht 2005; 2007). However, the Ḥorvat Ḥaluqim samples were not taken from the enclosed settlement and/or adjacent buildings but from the edge of a terraced field, and consequently, they do not provide a date for the settlement itself. In Kadesh Barnea, the Iron I samples do not belong to an enclosed settlement (the oval “fortress” Substrata 3b−a), but instead, to an earlier settlement at the site, Substratum 4c (Singer-Avitz 2008). 11. Although several radiocarbon results show an earlier date (Ben-Yosef 2016: Table 1). 12. Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef rely upon a single radiocarbon sample from Site 200 dated to the 10th century BCE to stretch the date of the site to the Iron Age I (Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017: 257). Based on this one sample, they even suggest that “the Hathor Temple included a substantial Iron I phase” (Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017: 257). Needless to say, such far-reaching assumptions on the basis of a single sample are unwarranted.

166

Yotvata.indb 166

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 21: Summary and Conclusions

Radiocarbon dating has several serious difficulties and cannot provide an absolute solution, especially for a short period of time. One problem out of a few is the calibration curve, which is revised periodically as more data is accumulated (see, recently, Manning et al. 2018). That is why radiocarbon should be “considered one of many lines of evidence that inform our chronological picture of the Iron Age” (Frese and Levy 2010: 197). In my opinion, the pottery assemblage of Site 34 should indeed be dated to the Iron Age I, but from a typological-cultural point of view, there is no reason to “push” it to the end of the period. On the contrary, the resemblance of many of its types to those of the Late Bronze sites (as shown by Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017) attests to a dating early in the Iron Age I. It seems that the Timna team was prompted to lower the dating of the site on the basis of the assumption that its abandonment was due to Pharaoh Shoshenq I’s campaign to Canaan (Ben-Yosef 2016; Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017: 254). Doing so brings them in line with the historical interpretation expressed in the excavations of Khirbet en-Nahas (Ben-Yosef 2016: 193; Kleiman Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017: 254). In light of all this, I believe that Site 34 and the early phases of Site 30 existed at the beginning of the Iron Age I, contemporaneously with Yotvata. Site 30, one of the largest smelting camps in the region, was excavated in 1974 and 1976 by Rothenberg (Bachmann and Rothenberg 1980; Rothenberg 1980; 1999b: 158–163). The site is surrounded by a semicircular solid wall; it is 1 m wide and 1.5–2 m high. It is protected on its southern side by the natural steep slopes of the hill, where the wall climbs approximately 20 m before it reaches the cliffs. The gate was flanked by two platforms (podia) that probably served as bases for the gate towers (Rothenberg 1980: Fig. 207, Beilage 26). A stone pillar was exposed in situ, standing on a stone base at the outer left corner of the gate. It should probably be interpreted as a maṣṣebah, indicating cultic activity performed at the entrance to the site. The gate and its finds were not published (Blomquist 1999: 105, Fig. 13; and see Chapter 20). In the middle of the site, Rothenberg excavated a “slag mound” ca. 2 m high, in which he distinguished three major layers—Layers III and II, dated from the end of the 14th to the mid-12th century BCE, and Layer I, dated to the 10th–9th centuries BCE (Rothenberg 1980: 210–211). With the aim of clarifying the chronology by using AMS radiocarbon tests, Ben-Yosef re-excavated the “slag mound” (Area S) and dug a probe in metallurgical deposits (Area L), where he defined an earlier layer (Layer IV) as well. The radiocarbon dates (only three of the eleven samples were short-lived) obtained for Layers IV–I demonstrated that activity started here in the last decades of the 12th century BCE (Ben-Yosef et al. 2012: 51, Table 4). Layers III and II, which contained the same metallurgical sequence with no distinct difference in material culture (Ben-Yosef et al. 2012: 51) and yielded QPW sherds (Rothenberg 1980: 201; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012: Fig. 12), began in the 11th century BCE (although one radiocarbon date is from the end of the 12th century). Layer I is dated to the 10th–9th centuries BCE (Ben-Yosef et al. 2012: Table 4). The wall was connected to the earlier layers and ceased to exist in Layer I. Nearby, a large smelting site, Site 34, located on a flat hilltop, was surveyed by Glueck, who identified wall remains around the circumference of the hilltop and suggested that the site was also a prison camp for laborers (Glueck 1935: 43–44). Excavations conducted by Ben-Yosef in 2014 exposed a two-room gate, attached to the solid wall. The width of the wall is estimated as 1.7 m, and he termed it “perimeter wall” (Ben-Yosef 2016; Ben-Yosef, Langgut and Sapir-Hen 2017). The gate passage is flanked by two platforms (or podia), each directly abutting the outer wall. The two podia probably served as bases of towers (Ben-Yosef 2016: 189–191, Figs. 19–20). A large, flat-topped stone block (50 × 30 × 25 cm), found in the middle of the passageway attached to the northern roomʼs wall, was interpreted by Ben-Yosef as a “seat” serving administrative and/or cultic purposes (Ben-Yosef, Langgut and Sapir-Hen 2017: 414, Figs. 5, 8). Seed samples from several contexts were dated by radiocarbon (see above). 167

Yotvata.indb 167

03/08/2022 15:54

Lily Singer-Avitz

The similarity between the site plans13 of the two smelting sites at Timna (Sites 30 and 34) and that of Yotvata is interesting. Although the wall at Yotvata is a casemate wall while at the Timna sites it is a solid wall, many other features are similar: 1.

All three sites can be dated to the early Iron Age I;

2. All three sites were associated with copper-production activities; 3.

All three sites were surrounded by a wall that has an entrance gate;

4.

The gates at all three sites had platforms (podia) that probably formed a base for protecting towers;

5.

At all three sites ritual activities took place at the gate; there were either standing stones (maṣṣeboth) (at Yotvata and Timna Site 30) or a “seat” (at Timna Site 34).

If we turn to the north, it seems that Yotvata has much in common with the Moabite fortified settlements along Wadi Mujib and its tributaries, such as Khirbet el-Medeineh el-Muʿarrajeh, Khirbet el-Medeineh ʿAliya, Khirbet el-Muʿammariyya and Khirbet el-Lehun (on these sites, see, e.g., Routledge 2000; 2004; 2008; Finkelstein and Lipschits 2011; Porter et al. 2014). A similar phenomenon is also evident in Wadi Zarqa (north of Wadi Mujib), at Khirbat Safra (Emswiler 2020) and Boz al-Mushelle (Strobel and Wimmer 2003). These Moabite sites as well as Yotvata have many shared similarities: they are all dated to the Iron Age I,14 all are situated on a steep hill, and all are protected by an irregular casemate wall, surrounding an open place (a courtyard). All were inhabited for only a short period. Some scholars believe that the Wadi Mujib sites protected the borders of an early Moabite polity that took part in the overland trade routes, transporting copper from Wadi Faynan (Khirbet en-Nahas and neighboring sites) to the north (Finkelstein and Lipschits 2011). Others counter that these settlements formed parts of a segmentary system of households integrating into small-scale communities practicing grain agriculture and animal husbandry (Lev-Tov, Porter and Routledge 2011; Porter 2014; Porter et al. 2014; Routledge 2008; Routledge et al. 2014).

The Yotvata “Fortress” in Its Broader Context The main reason for the expansion of the southern Arabah sites (including Timna and apparently Yotvata) are the copper mines and other tasks involved with copper processing. As noted above, water and probably wood were supplied to the Timna copper mines from the oasis of Yotvata. Based on the evidence of fire in many of the casemate rooms in the short-lived settlement of Yotvata, as well as the recovery of complete pottery vessels within them, it may be assumed that the site was not 13. Ben-Yosef believes that the defense systems of Sites 30 and 34 are parallel and contemporaneous to the massive fortress at Khirbat en-Nahas in Faynan (Ben-Yosef 2016: 191; Ben-Yosef, Langgut and Sapir-Hen 2017: 424). However, the latter fortress is fundamentally different in site plan, character and function from Sites 30 and 34 and should be dated much later, to the end of the 8th century BCE (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2008; 2009). 14. Defining chronological phases within Iron I Moab is difficult. The Moabite sites have been only partially published, and the publications present only a few sherds. Therefore, their date within the Iron I is not clear, ranging between the 12th and 11th centuries BCE (Routledge 2000; 2004; Steiner 2013; Swinnen 2009; Porter 2011; 2014). Based on radiocarbon dates from Khirbet el-Medeineh ʿAliya, the excavators set its date within the 11th century BCE (Porter 2011: 48; Routledge et al. 2014: 87). Finkelstein and Lipschits (2011) date these sites to the 11th–10th centuries BCE on the basis of historical considerations, arguing that the sites may have come to end as an outcome of Shoshenq Iʼs campaign. The pottery found at Boz al-Mushelle (Wadi Zarqa) has been dated to the early Iron or perhaps even to the Late Bronze Age (Strobel and Wimmer 2003: 88). But several scholars prefer to date the site later: Wimmer believes that on architectural and historical grounds the site should be dated to the Iron II (Wimmer 2000: 1778). Ji (2019), who surveyed the site, also prefers to date it to the Iron IIA. It should be noted that Ji relies upon two non-indicative sherds found during his survey (Ji 2019: Fig. 19:1–2).

168

Yotvata.indb 168

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 21: Summary and Conclusions

abandoned by its inhabitants, but was violently destroyed. This destruction could have been caused by one of the desert tribes, although it is difficult to determine who destroyed the site and why. The finds in the Iron I “fortress” suggest that various activities were carried out there: 1.

The metallurgical remains attest to copper-smelting activity;

2. The rich water source, flint sickle segments and abundant ground stones probably indicate that agricultural work was carried out at (or near) the site; 3.

The few faunal remains may indicate that the inhabitants of the settlement were involved in pastoral activity as well;15

4.

The Yotvata oasis with its springs is located along a convenient south–north route connecting the Timna area with the northern regions. The location of the Iron I site at the top of a hill suggests that the inhabitants of the site were involved in the copper trade and guarded its route and the water source.

Thus, it may be concluded that the basis of the subsistence economy of the site included crafts, trade and probably agriculture (farming alongside animal husbandry). The Egyptian temple (sanctuary) (Site 200) and Egyptian finds found at the Timna sites led Rothenberg to conclude that copper production was probably controlled by or carried out under the patronage of the Egyptian authorities (Rothenberg 1972; 1988). Based on the fact that these Egyptian finds have been found together with QPW pottery, Rothenberg suggested a partnership between Egyptian mining expeditions and the “Midianites” from northwest Arabia (Hejaz),16 who brought this pottery with them (Rothenberg 1996–97: 36), as the latter were “experts in copper metallurgy and probably also mining” (Rothenberg 1998: 207).17 The Negev local population was identified by him as the biblical Amalekites and considered to be the workers in the mines (Rothenberg 1999b: 170). In recent years, the political and socio-economic structure of the population that operated the coppermining and -smelting sites in the southern Arabah has become a much discussed topic. Among the debated issues is the role of the Egyptians at Timna, and an attempt has been made to diminish its importance, as well as the importance of Egyptian activity. It is argued that the mining activity started earlier than the time of the Egyptian presence (Avner 2014) and apparently continued after the Egyptians had left the area (Ben-Yosef 2016: 194). It seems, however, that during the period of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties, there was a strong Egyptian presence in Timna; the Egyptians probably controlled the mining operations (Yagel, Ben-Yosef and Craddock 2016: 14–16), and their presence should not be downplayed (Sweeney 2018).18 Following Rothenberg, the accepted view is that the labor force in the mines was based on nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes (or desert tribes), both local and Arab people from the northwestern Arabian Peninsula (e.g., Avner 2014; Ben-Yosef 2016).19 The demand for copper led the nomads to settle in permanent or 15. The large courtyard was barely excavated, but it can be assumed that herds were gathered there during the night. 16. Evidence of connections between Egypt and northwest Arabia has been strengthened with the discovery of the rock inscription of Ramesses III near the Oasis of Tayma, as well as the discovery in Tayma of a large amount of Egyptian finds (Somaglini and Tallet 2013). 17. The connection between northwest Arabia and the Arabah mines is also documented in the isotopic composition of a group of objects from Tayma dating from the early Iron Age that possibly originate from the Timna–Faynan area (Renzi et al. 2016). However, lead isotope and chemical analyses conducted on two samples of metallurgical remains from Qurayyah (dating from the Late Bronze Age) indicate that their copper did not come from Timna (or from Faynan) (Liu et al. 2015). 18. Interestingly, Egyptian bronze-working practices probably conducted by Egyptian bronze smiths were in use in northern sites in Canaan during the period of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Egyptian Dynasties (Yahalom-Mack 2015). 19. The presence of these Arab workers may explain the association of the QPW with all copper-production sites in the Faynan region in the northern Arabah, as well as in the area of Timna to the south (Singer-Avitz 2004: 1282–1283; 2008: 78).

169

Yotvata.indb 169

03/08/2022 15:54

Lily Singer-Avitz

semi-permanent sites, while certain nomadic groups from North Arabia were engaged in its transfer and trade. Similar observations were raised also at the Faynan copper-smelting sites (Levy 2009; Levy, Adams and Muniz 2004; Levy, Najjar and Ben-Yosef 2014). As previously stated, copper activity at Timna began during the Late Bronze Age (as at Sites 2, 3, 200 and probably 35—Rothenberg 1988; Avner 2014; Erickson-Gini 2014; Yagel, Ben-Yosef and Craddock 2016; Ben-Yosef 2018)20 and continued during the Iron Age I (Sites 15, 30, 34 and probably 30a—Ben-Yosef 2016; 2018; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012; Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017; Peters, Tauxe and Ben-Yosef 2018) and the Iron IIA (Site 30) (Ben-Yosef et al. 2012). It should be asked why, despite the importance of Yotvata as the subsistence supplier for the copper mines at Timna, the Yotvata “fortress” was built only in the early Iron I, long after the copper activity at Timna had already begun. It seems that this may be explained by the Egyptian method of control. In the Late Bronze Age, especially during the time of the Twentieth Dynasty, the Egyptian government supervised the mining works; they may have controlled the trade routes and the copper transport and probably did not allow the local population to take an active role in it independently. However, in the last third of the 12th century, the Egyptian hold on Canaan weakened and eventually came to an end. The desert nomads took advantage of the absence of a dominating power and could participate in the trade (or even control it) and protect its ways. It seems that the new political situation, combined with the economic resources (exploitation of the copper mines), allowed some of the desert nomads to settle. To this phase we may attribute the establishment of the “fortress” at Yotvata, contemporaneously with mining Sites 30 and 34 at Timna. As previously emphasized, Yotvata provided Timna’s basic needs (water, wood and probably food products) and guarded and maintained the trade routes. It seems that the goal in establishing the fortified early Iron I site of Yotvata was to protect the northern approach to Timna’s copper mines. Yotvata controlled the main water source required for the mining and smelting processes and secured the crossroads of the Arabah Valley, where copper was transported from Timna (and probably also from Wadi ʿAmram). The copper could have been transported to the north, to the Mediterranean coast 21 and farther to Egypt.22 Isotope analyses of metal objects from Tel Dor, Tell Jatt, Beth Shean and Tel Dan have determined that their copper originated at Timna (Stos-Gale 2006; Yahalom-Mack and Segal 2009; 2011; 2018). It is, of course, possible that these objects were manufactured elsewhere and then taken to their marketing destinations; thus, one cannot draw conclusions with regard to the copper trade route. However, analysis of a copper ingot found at the metallurgical workshop at Tell Deir ʿAlla showed that it originated at Timna (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014). Hence, it is quite possible that the fortified Moabite settlements mentioned above, which are similar to Yotvata in their site plan and are located on the way between the southern Arabah and Tell Deir ʿAlla, also took part in the international trade route and transportation of copper to the north, along the King’s Highway.23 As previously mentioned, the site of Yotvata was probably short-lived, and it can be assumed that it did not exist until the end of the Iron Age I, i.e., beyond the mid-11th century. Since its foundation and existence was related to the copper industry and trade, one might expect that the site would last 20. Rothenberg attributed Sites 13, 14, 15 and 185, which were not excavated, to the Ramesside period as well (Rothenberg 1972: 65–67). 21. Remains of fish from the Mediterranean uncovered at Timna also attest to such a connection (Sapir-Hen, Lernau and Ben-Yosef 2018). 22. Copper-alloy items from bronze workshops in Pi-Ramesse, which were active during the 13th century BCE, have been analyzed for their chemical and lead isotope composition. The results indicate that copper arrived at the site from various places, including the Arabah, and it seems likely that some items came from Timna (Rademakers, Rehren and Pernicka 2017). There is also evidence of continued contacts in the Iron Age (Vaelske, Bode and Loeben 2019; Ben-Dor Evian 2021). 23. For discussion on the King’s Highway, see Mattingly 1996; 2015.

170

Yotvata.indb 170

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 21: Summary and Conclusions

throughout the mining period in Timna. However, according to Ben-Yosef and his team, the activity at Timna continued throughout the Iron I and into the Iron IIA. They concluded that Site 34 should be dated to the Iron Age I and was abandoned at the end of that period as a result of Pharaoh Shoshenq I’s campaign (Ben-Yosef 2016; Kleiman, Kleiman and Ben-Yosef 2017). Layers IV–II at Site 30 are also attributed to the Iron Age I, while Layer I is dated to the end of the 10th and 9th centuries BCE (Rothenberg 1980; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012: 52). It should be noted that this late dating of Layer I is based on a few sherds (four of them published) (Rothenberg 1980: Figs. 209:1, 213:4–5,7) and on a radiocarbon date obtained from a wood twig (Ben-Yosef et al. 2012: Table 4). It is unknown what brought about the destruction and desertion of the Yotvata “fortress” as long as the production in Timna continued. Since the copper activity apparently continued in Timna after the settlement at Yotvata had been abandoned, the activity in Timna remained without a strategic hinterland.

Later Periods After the destruction of the “fortress,” Yotvata Hill was abandoned and never resettled. Only sporadic remains were exposed: a Nabataean built tomb, several undated burials and an Early Islamic period stone structure. These later remains do not constitute a proper settlement on the hill, although they are probably related to contemporary single-period sites at the oasis.

The Nabataean Built Tomb A stone structure covered on the outside with white plaster, 24 consisting of two adjoining burial cells, was built on the earthen rampart. It contained an empty coffin made of cedar of Lebanon and a human skeleton presumably originally wrapped with linen (see Chapters 3, 6, 13 and 14).25 Nabataean period remains (a building, a caravansary and probably a temple) were found in the oasis of Yotvata (Erickson-Gini 2012; Avner 2018: 604–605); it may therefore be concluded that residents of this settlement were buried in the tomb. In light of the unusual investment in the construction of the tomb and the efforts involved in transporting the cedar wood coffin (either the coffin itself or the raw material for preparing it) from afar, it seems that the deceased were wealthy and probably enjoyed a high social status.

Undated Burials Three graves were found dug into the ruins of the “fortress” (Chapter 3). No finds were associated with the skeletons, and their date could not be determined. They may date from the late Hellenistic period (contemporary with the built tomb) or even later. Since the main cemetery of the Bedouin who lived in the area until the 1950s was situated next to the Roman fortress (Meshel 1991), these burials may possibly belong to this graveyard (see also Chapter 22 and Fig. 22.53).

The Early Islamic Structure The remains of an isolated one-room stone structure coated with white plaster were discovered in the southern part of the courtyard of the “fortress” (Chapter 3). Meshel suggested that the structure might have 24. A building covered in white plaster can be seen from a distance. 25. A two-day excavation was conducted in December 2018 by Uzi Avner, Guy Stiebel and Israel Hershkovitz (assisted by Sarah Borgel and Ariel Pokhojaev), in which the skeleton was exposed again. In a short addendum at the end of Part I of this volume, Uzi Avner presents preliminary results of this excavation. The full report will be published elsewhere.

171

Yotvata.indb 171

03/08/2022 15:54

Lily Singer-Avitz

been a maqam (sacred place)26 or a sheikhʼs tomb (Meshel 1991: 25), similar to such Early Islamic period tombs in southern Sinai, which were probably strategically located to control the Christian pilgrimage routes (Meshel 1971: 94–95). However, Taxel, Meshel and Ayalon suggest that this was a watchtower/ booth designed to control and guard the nearby agricultural areas (see Chapter 34). An Early Islamic settlement, consisting of several structures, was also discovered in the Yotvata oasis (Meshel 1991: 1520; Meshel and Sass 1975); it is discussed in detail in Part II of this volume. Evidence for Early Islamic activity has been uncovered at other sites in the southern Arabah too; this activity includes agriculture, copper mining and smelting, pilgrimage and trade (Avner and Magness 1998; Noll 2015).

References Adams, R.B. 1998. On Early Copper Metallurgy in the Levant: A Response to Claims of Neolithic Metallurgy. In: Gebel, H.G.K., Kafafi, Z. and Rollefson, G.O., eds. The Prehistory of Jordan, II: Perspectives from 1997 (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4). Berlin: 651–655. Adams, R.B. and Genz, H. 1995. Excavations at Wadi Fidan 4: A Copper Village Complex in the Copper Ore District of Feinan, Southern Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 127: 8–20. Avner, U. 2002. Studies in the Material Spiritual Population during the 6th–3rd Millennia BC (Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Jerusalem. Avner, U. 2014. Egyptian Timna—Reconsidered. In: Tebes, J.M., ed. Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 45). Leuven: 103–162. Avner, U. 2018. Nabataeans in the Eilat Region, the Hinterland of Aila. Aram 30: 597–644. Avner, U., Ginat, H., Shalev, S., Shilstine, S., Langford., B., Frumkin, A., Shem-Tov, R., Filin, S., Arav, R., Basson, U., Shamir, O. and Scott-Cummings, L. 2018. Ancient Copper Mines at Nahal ʿAmram, Southern Arabah. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Winona Lake and Tel Aviv: 147–177. Avner, U. and Magness, J. 1998. Early Islamic Settlement in the Southern Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310: 39–57. Avni, G. 1994. Early Mosques in the Negev Highlands: New Archaeological Evidence on Islamic Penetration of Southern Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 294: 83–100. Avni, G. 2007. From Standing Stones to Open Mosques in the Negev Desert: The Archaeology of Religious Transformation on the Fringes. Near Eastern Archaeology 70: 124–138. Bachmann, H.G. and Rothenberg, B. 1980. Die verhüttungsverfahren von Site 30. In: Conrad, H.G. and Rothenberg, B., eds. Antikes Kupfer im Timna-Tal. 4000 Jahre Bergbau und Verhüttung in der Arabah (Israel) (Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 1). Bochum: 215–236. Ben-Dor Evian, S., Yagel, O., Harlavan, Y., Seri, H., Lewinsky, L. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2021. Pharaoh’s Copper: The Provenance of Copper in Bronze Artifacts from Post-Imperial Egypt at the End of the Second Millennium BCE. Journal of Archaeological Science, Reports 38: 1–13. Ben-Yosef, E. 2010. Technology and Social Process: Oscillations in Iron Age Copper Production and Power in Southern Jordan (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego). San Diego. Ben-Yosef, E. 2016. Back to Solomon’s Era: Results of the First Excavations at “Slaves’ Hill” (Site 34, Timna, Israel). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 376: 169–198. 26. Although open-air mosques are common in the Negev, they characteristically have a miḥrab (a niche facing south or south-southeast) (Avni 1994; 2007), an element that is absent from our structure.

172

Yotvata.indb 172

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 21: Summary and Conclusions

Ben-Yosef, E. 2018. The Central Timna Valley Project: Research Design and Preliminary Results. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Winona Lake and Tel Aviv: 28–63. Ben-Yosef, E., Langgut, D. and Sapir-Hen, L. 2017. Beyond Smelting: New Insights on Iron Age (10th c. BCE) Metalworkers Community from Excavations at a Gatehouse and Associated Livestock Pens in Timna, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11: 411–426. Ben-Yosef, E., Ron, H., Tauxe, L., Agnon, A., Genevey, A., Levy, T.E., Avner, U. and Najjar, M. 2008a. Application of Copper Slag in Geomagnetic Archaeointensity Research. Journal of Geophysical Research 113: 1–26. Ben-Yosef, E., Shaar, R., Tauxe, L. and Ron, H. 2012. A New Chronological Framework for Iron Age Copper Production at Timna (Israel). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 367: 31–71. Ben-Yosef, E., Tauxe, L. and Levy, T.E. 2010. Archaeomagnetic Dating of Copper Smelting Site F2 in the Timna Valley (Israel) and Its Implications for the Modelling of Ancient Technological Developments. Archaeometry 52: 1110–1121. Ben-Yosef, E., Tauxe, L., Ron, H., Agnon, A., Avner, A., Najjar, M. and Levy, T.E. 2008b. A New Approach for Geomagnetic Archaeointensity Research: Insights on Ancient Metallurgy in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2863–2879. Blomquist, T.H. 1999. Gates and Gods: Cult in the City Gate of Iron Age Palestine. An Investigation of the Archaeological and Biblical Sources. Stockholm. Brandl, B. 1992. Evidence for Egyptian Colonization in the Southern Coastal Plain and Lowlands of Canaan during the EB I Period. In: van der Brink, E.C.M., ed. The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium B.C. Tel Aviv: 441–477. Bruins, H.J. and van der Plicht, J. 2005. Desert Settlement through the Iron Age: Radiocarbon Dates from Sinai and the Negev Highlands. In: Levy, T.E. and Higham, T., eds. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science. London: 349−366. Bruins, H.J. and van der Plicht, J. 2007. Radiocarbon Dating the “Wilderness of Zin.” Radiocarbon 49: 481−497. Bruins, H.J., Segal, I. and van der Plicht, J. 2018. Bronze Chisel at Horvat Haluqim (Central Negev Highlands) in a Sequence of Radiocarbon Dated Late Bronze to Iron I Layers. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Winona Lake and Tel Aviv: 297–308. Cohen, R. and Cohen-Amin, R. 2004. Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands. The Iron Age and the Persian Period (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 20). Jerusalem (Hebrew). Emswiler, E.A. 2020. The Casemate Wall System of Khirbat Safra (M.A. thesis, Andrews University). Berrien Springs. Erickson-Gini, T. 2012. ʿEn Yotvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 124. http://www .hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_eng.aspx?print=all&id=1960&mag_id. Erickson-Gini, T. 2014. Timna Site 2 Revisited. In: Tebes, J.M., ed. Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 45). Leuven: 47–83. Finkelstein, I. and Lipschits, O. 2011. The Genesis of Moab: A Proposal. Levant 43: 139–152. Finkelstein, I. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2008. The Pottery of Edom: A Correction. Antiguo Oriente 6: 13–24. Finkelstein, I. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2009. The Pottery of Khirbet en-Nahas: A Rejoinder. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 141: 207–218. Frese, D.A. and Levy, T.E. 2010. The Four Pillars of the Iron Age Low Chronology. In: Levy, T.E., ed. Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future. The New Pragmatism. London: 187–202. Genz, H. 1997. Problems in Defining a Chalcolithic for Southern Jordan. In: Gebel, H.G.K., Kafafi, Z. and Rollefson, G.O., eds. The Prehistory of Jordan, II: Perspectives from 1997 (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4). Berlin: 441–448. Glueck, N. 1935. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, 2 (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 15). New Haven. 173

Yotvata.indb 173

03/08/2022 15:54

Lily Singer-Avitz

Glueck, N. 1957. The Fifth Season of Exploration in the Negeb. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 145: 11–25. Haiman, M. 1994. The Iron Age II Sites of the Western Negev Highlands. Israel Exploration Journal 44: 36–61. Hauptmann, A. 2007. The Archaeometallurgy of Copper: Evidence from Faynan, Jordan. Berlin. Hauptmann, A., Khalil, L. and Schmidt-Strecker, S. 2009. Evidence of Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age I Copper Production from Timna Ores at Tell al-Magass, ʿAqaba. In: Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K., eds. Prehistoric ʿAqaba I (Orient Archäologie 23). Rahden: 295–304. Hauptmann, A. and Wagner, I. 2007. Prehistoric Copper Production at Timna: TL-Dating and Evidence from the East. In: La Niece, D.H. and Craddock, P., eds. Metals and Mines: Studies in Archaeometallurgy. London: 67–75. Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2004. Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of Trade in Judah. Tel Aviv 31: 209–244. Ji, C.-H.C. 2019. The Ancient Road in Wādī Zarqāʾ–Māʿīn, North of Khirbat ʿAtarūz. Studies in History and Archaeology of Jordan 13: 143–157. Kerner, S. 2009. The Pottery of Tall Ḥujayrāt al-Ghuzlān 2000–2004. In: Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K., eds. Prehistoric ʿAqaba I (Orient-Archäologie 23). Rahden: 127–232. Kerner, S. 2011. The Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age Transition in the Southern Levant and Some Pottery from Hujeyrat al-Ghuzlan. In: Chesson, M., ed. Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant: Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub. Winona Lake: 153–172. Khalil, L. and Schmidt. K., eds. 2009. Prehistoric ʿAqaba I (Orient Archäologie 23). Rahden. Kleiman, S., Kleiman, A. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2017. Metalworkers’ Material Culture in the Early Iron Age Levant: The Ceramic Assemblage from Site 34 (Slaves’ Hill) in the Timna Valley. Tel Aviv 44: 232–264. Lev-Tov, J., Porter, B., and Routledge, B. 2011. Measuring Local Diversity in Early Iron Age Animal Economies: A View from Khirbat al-Mudayna al-ʿAliya (Jordan). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 361: 67–93. Levy, T.E. 2009. Pastoral Nomads and Iron Age Metal Production in Ancient Edom. In: Szuchman, J., ed. Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars 5). Chicago: 147–176. Levy, T.E., Adams, R.B. and Muniz, A. 2004. Archaeology and the Shasu Nomads: Recent Excavations in the Jabal Hamrat Fidan, Jordan. In: Freedman, R.E. and Propp, H.C., eds. Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute to David Noel Freedman. Winona Lake: 63–89. Levy, T.E., Najjar, M. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2014. New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan. Los Angeles. Liu, S., Rehren, T., Pernicka, E. and Hausleiter, A. 2015. Copper Processing in the Oases of Northwest Arabia: Technology, Alloys and Provenance. Journal of Archaeological Science 53: 492–503. MacDonald, B. 2014. The Chalcolithic Period (c. 4900–3800/3700 BCE): In the Southern Transjordan Plateau, the Southern Ghors, the Northeast ʿArabah, and the Faynan Region. Akkadica Supplementum: 27–41. Manning, S.W., Griggs, C., Lorentzen, B., Bronk Ramsey, C., Chivall, D., Jull, A.J.T. and Lange, T.E. 2018. Fluctuating Radiocarbon Offsets Observed in the Southern Levant and Implications for Archaeological Chronology Debates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 115: 6141–6146. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073 /pnas.1719420115. Mattingly, G.L. 1996. The King’s Highway, the Desert Highway, and Central Jordan’s Kerak Plateau. Aram 8: 89–99. Mattingly, G.L. 2015. Long-Distance Trade on the Karak Plateau (Central Jordan): The Case of Khirbat al-Mudaybiʿ and Fajj al-ʿUsaykir. Review and Expositor 112: 288–300. Meshel, Z. 1971. Southern Sinai. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1991. Yotvata Oasis—Its History, Landscapes and Sites. Ariel 78: 6–44 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Meshel, Z. 1994. The “Aharoni Fortress” near Quseima and the “Israelite Fortresses” in the Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 294: 39–67. 174

Yotvata.indb 174

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 21: Summary and Conclusions

Meshel, Z. and Sass, B. 1975. Yotvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 54–55: 34–35 (Hebrew). Muhly, J.D. 1984. Timna and King Solomon. Bibliotheca Orientalis 41: 275–292. Noll, H. 2015. The Fertile Desert: Agriculture and Copper Industry in Early Islamic Arava (Arabah). Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147: 49–68. Peters, I., Tauxe, L. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2018. Archaeomagnetic Dating of Pyrotechnological Contexts: A Case Study for Copper Smelting Sites in the Central Timna Valley, Israel. Archaeometry 60: 554–570. Porter, B.W. 2011. Feeding the Community: Objects, Scarcity and Commensality in the Early Iron Age Southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 24: 27–54 Porter, B.W. 2014. Toward a Socionatural Reconstruction of the Early Iron Age Settlement System in Jordan’s Wadi al-Mujib Canyon. Akkadica Supplementum 12: 133–150. Porter, B.W., Routledge, B.E., Simmons, E.M. and Lev-Tov, J.S.E. 2014. Extensification in a Mediterranean Semiarid Marginal Zone: An Archaeological Case Study from Early Iron Age Jordan’s Eastern Karak Plateau. Journal of Arid Environments 104: 132–148. Rademakers, F.W., Rehren, T. and Pernicka, E. 2017. Copper for the Pharaoh: Identifying Multiple Metal Sources for Ramesses’ Workshops from Bronze and Crucible Remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 80: 50–73. Renzi, M., Intilia, A., Hausleiter, A. and Rehren, T. 2016. Early Iron Age Metal Circulation in the Arabian Peninsula: The Oasis of Taymā as Part of a Dynamic Network (Poster). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 46: 237–246. Rothenberg, B. 1972. Were These King Solomon’s Mines? Excavations in the Timna Valley. New York. Rothenberg, B. 1978. Excavations at Timna Site 39—A Chalcolithic Copper Smelting Site and Furnace and Its Metallurgy. In: Rothenberg, B., Tylecote, R.F. and Boydell, P.J. Chalcolithic Copper Smelting. London: 1–15. Rothenberg, B. 1980. Die Archäologie des Verhüttungslagers Site 30. In: Conrad, H.G. and Rothenberg, B., eds. Antikes Kupfer im Timna-Tal. 4000 Jahre Bergbau und Verhüttung in der Arabah (Israel) (Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 1). Bochum: 187–214. Rothenberg, B. 1988. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the Arabah 1959–1984 1). London. Rothenberg, B. 1996–97. Researches in the Southern Arabah 1959–1990: Summary of Thirty Years of ArchaeoMetallurgical Field Work in the Timna Valley, the Wadi Amram and the Southern Arabah (Israel). Arx 2–3: 5–42. Rothenberg, B. 1998. Who Were the “Midianite” Copper Miners of the Arabah? About the “Midianite Enigma.” In: Rehren, T., Hauptmann, A. and Muhly, J., eds. Metallurgica Antiqua (Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 8). Bochum: 197–212. Rothenberg, B. 1999a. Archaeo-Metallurgical Researches in the Southern Arabah 1959–1990, Part 1: Late Pottery Neolithic to Early Bronze IV. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131: 68–89. Rothenberg, B. 1999b. Archaeo-Metallurgical Researches in the Southern Arabah 1959–1990, Part 2: Egyptian New Kingdom (Ramesside) to Early Islam. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131: 149–175. Rothenberg, B. and Merkel, J.F. 1998. Chalcolithic, 5th Millennium B.C., Copper Smelting at Timna. Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies Newsletter 20: 1–3. Rothenberg, B., Segal, I. and Khalaily, H. 2004. Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Copper Smelting at the Yotvata Oasis (South-West Arabah). Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies Newsletter 24: 17–28. Routledge, B. 2000. Seeing through Walls: Interpreting Iron Age I Architecture at Khirbat al-Mudayna al-Aliya. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 319: 37–70. Routledge, B. 2004. Moab in the Iron Age. Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology. Philadelphia: 86–113. Routledge, B. 2008. Thinking “Globally” and Analysing “Locally”: South-Central Jordan in Transition. In: Grabbe, L.L., ed. Israel in Transition. From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.). New York and London: 144–176. Routledge, B., Smith, S., Mullan, A., Porter, B. and Klassen, S. 2014. A Late Iron Age I Ceramic Assemblage from Central Jordan: Integrating Form, Technology and Distribution. In: van der Steen, E., Boertien, J. and MulderHymans, N., eds. Exploring the Narrative. Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Margreet Steiner. London: 82–107. 175

Yotvata.indb 175

03/08/2022 15:54

Lily Singer-Avitz

Sapir-Hen, L., Lernau, O. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2018. The Diet of Ancient Metal Workers: The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in the Arabah Valley (Timna and Faynan). In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Winona Lake and Tel Aviv: 64–80. Sebbane, M., Ilan, O., Avner, U. and Ilan, D. 1993. The Dating of Early Bronze Age Settlements in the Negev and Sinai. Tel Aviv 20: 41–54. Shaw, T. and Drenka, A. 2018. The Sinai-Arabah Copper Age Early Phase (Chalcolithic) Mine T Excavations. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Winona Lake and Tel Aviv: 81–108. Singer-Avitz, L. 2004. Section F: The Qurayyah Painted Ware. In: Ussishkin, D., ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 1280–1287. Singer-Avitz, L. 2008. The Earliest Settlement at Kadesh Barnea. Tel Aviv 35: 73–81. Somaglini, C. and Tallet, P. 2013. The Road to the Arabian Peninsula in the Reign of Ramesses III. In: Kuper, R., ed. Desert Road Archaeology (Africa Prehistorica 27). Cologne: 511–518. Steiner, M.L. 2013. The Iron I Pottery of Khirbat al-Lāhūn. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 53: 519–533. Stos-Gale, Z.A. 2006. Appendix A: Provenance of Metals from Tel Jatt Based on their Lead Isotope Analyses. In: Artzy, M., ed. The Jatt Metal Hoard in Northern Canaanite/Phoenician and Cypriote Context (Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 14) Barcelona: 115–120. Strobel, A. and Wimmer, S. 2003. Klilrrihoee (ʿEn ez-Zara) Dritte Grabungskampagne des Deutchen Evangelischen Instituts fuer Alterumwissenchaft des Heiligen Landes und Exkursionen in Sued-Parae (Abhandlungen des Deutchen Palaestine-Vereins 32). Wiesbaden. Sweeney, D. 2018. The Inscription of Ramessesempere in Context. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Winona Lake and Tel Aviv: 109–117. Swinnen, I.M. 2009. The Iron Age I Settlement and Its Residential Houses at al-Lahun in Moab, Jordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 354: 29–53. Vaelske, V., Bode, M. and Loeben, C.E. 2019. Early Iron Age Copper Trail between Wadi Arabah and Egypt during the 21st Dynasty: First Results from Tanis, ca. 1000 BC. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 12: 184–203. Wimmer, S. 2000. Zeret-Shahar on the Hill in the Valley—The Discovery of a New Moabite Site in Jordan. In: Matthiae, P., Enea, A., Peyronel, L. and Pinnock, F., eds. Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998. Rome: 1777–1779. Wright, K., Najjar, M., Last, J., Moloney, N., Flender, M., Gower, J., Jackson, N., Kennedy, A. and Shafiq, R. 1998. The Wadi Faynan Fourth and Third Millennia Project, 1997: Report on the First Season of Test Excavations at Wadi Faynan 100. Levant 30: 33–60. Yagel, O.A., Ben-Yosef, E. and Craddock, P.T. 2016. Late Bronze Age Copper Production in Timna: New Evidence from Site 3. Levant 48: 33–51. Yahalom-Mack, N. 2015. Egyptian Bronzeworking Practices in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 374: 103–114. Yahalom-Mack, N., Galili, E., Segal, I., Eliyahu-Behar, A., Boaretto, E., Shilstein, S. and Finkelstein, I. 2014. New Insights into Levantine Copper Trade: Analysis of Ingots from the Bronze and Iron Ages in Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 45: 159–177. Yahalom-Mack, N. and Segal, I. 2009. Provenancing Copper-Based Objects Using Lead Isotope Analysis. In: PanitzCohen, N. and Mazar, A., eds. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996: The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S, 3. Jerusalem: 589–596. Yahalom-Mack, N. and Segal, I. 2011. Provenancing Five Copper-Based Artifacts. In: Ben-Dov, R., ed. Dan III: Avraham Biran Excavations 1966–1999: The Late Bronze Age (Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology—Hebrew Union College 9). Jerusalem: 367–371. 176

Yotvata.indb 176

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 21: Summary and Conclusions

Yahalom-Mack, N. and Segal, I. 2018. The Origin of the Copper Used in Canaan during the Late Bronze/Iron Age Transition. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Winona Lake and Tel Aviv: 313–331.

177

Yotvata.indb 177

03/08/2022 15:54

Yotvata.indb 178

03/08/2022 15:54

ADDENDUM

LATER EXCAVATIONS IN THE NABATAEAN BUILT TOMB Uzi Avner

On the prominent point of the southern edge of the rampart, a stone square tomb structure with two rectangular cells was excavated by Meshel in 1974 (Chapter 3, Figs. 3.25–3.27). In the southeastern cell (L8) a wooden coffin made of cedar of Lebanon was found (Chapters 13, 15 and 17), while in the northwestern one (L9), an almost complete human skeleton was unearthed (Figs. 3.26 and 3.28). Several pieces of high-quality bleached linen found near its chest (Chapter 14) were most probably fragments of shrouds. The skeleton was drawn and photographed, but covered without being studied (for detailed description of the structure and its finds, see Chapters 3, 6, 13, 14 and 17). In December 2018, with the aim of studying the skeleton, the structure was reexcavated by U. Avner, G.D. Stiebel, I. Hershkowitz, S. Borgel and A. Pokhojaev and was studied by H. May and S. Borgel. The skeleton was found to be an adult male, 167 cm tall, who suffered from severe spine arthritis. Nevertheless, the points of muscular connection to the bones show that he was physically active until his final days (a full anthropological report will be published separately). Following the new excavation, four samples of organic materials were dated by 14C (Table 19.1:9–12).1 Sample PRI 6111 (Table 19.1:12) was measured on a tiny piece of unidentified fabric and showed two peaks in the calibration curves, ca. 320 and 180 BCE. The first is very early, whereas the second is close to that of the pottery sherds (Chapter 6). Sample PRI 6190 (Table 19.1:11; Fig. 19.11), measured on a piece of a cedar wood, showed a peak in the calibration curve, ca. 130 BCE. Samples PRI 6188 and PRI 6189 (Table 19.1:9–10; Figs. 19.9–19.10), measured on charcoals from both cells, ca. 4250, 4280 BCE. They are close to the dates retrieved from the nearby ash layers in the section of the earthen rampart (L5; Table 19.1:6–8; Figs. 19.6–19.8) and to the dates from the soundings in the courtyard (L26 and L30; Table 19.1:3–5; Figs. 19.3–19.5). Therefore, they do not belong to the tomb but to the Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I copper industry on the hill. The 14C dates and the few pottery sherds suggest that the tomb was built in the early 2nd century BCE or even earlier, with the interment of the adult male, while the wooden coffin was added later. If the full range of error of calibration of both dates is taken into consideration, they show some overlap. However, if the peaks of calibration curves are considered, the coffin appears to have been added to the tomb several decades later, since it is unknown from which part of the tree the dated fragment originated (certainly not a young twig) and how much time elapsed from the cutting of the tree, presumably in Lebanon, and the placement of the coffin in the built tomb. If the tomb was built in the early 2nd century BCE, or earlier, one cannot imagine a Greek or Roman population in the southern Arabah; a Nabataean affiliation of the tomb and the deceased is a more likely option. In fact, there are other important Nabataean remains in the Yotvata oasis. One is a farmhouse, 1.5 km south of the tomb and visible from it, partially excavated by Erikson-Gini (2012); others include an additional farm, a vast irrigation system and cultivated fields, 1. The samples were prepared in the PaleoResearch Institute, Golden, Colorado, by Linda Scott-Cummings and Peter Kováčik, and were measured in The Centre for Applied Isotope Studies in Athens (CAIS), Georgia, by AMS 14C dating.

Yotvata.indb 179

03/08/2022 15:54

Uzi Avner

a caravansary and a possible temple (Avner 2019; 2020). A 2nd-century BCE date for the tomb sheds new light on the beginning of Nabataean presence and trade activity in the Arabah, with implications for the history of Aila, in present-day ʿAqaba, where the earliest Nabataean remains were dated by the excavators to the late 1st century BCE or the early 1st century CE (e.g., Parker 2009). The new 14C dates from Yotvata, as well as Hellenistic pottery sherds and coins from several Nabataean posts along the Arabah, suggest that a port, a trade station and a settlement must have existed in Aila some 200 years earlier than previously believed—probably before the establishment of the Nabataean kingdom. To date, the built tomb at Yotvata is the only one known in the Arabah Valley. Its construction on a prominent point, its plastering, the use of cedar wood presumably from the Lebanon Mountains, some 600 km north of Yotvata, and the shrouding of the deceased in high-quality linen all indicate that the tomb must have been owned by a wealthy family. This family might have lived in the farmhouse to the south or in another farm (unexcavated), or might have been involved in trade. Due to its location, the tomb would have looked out over the entire oasis. Its white plaster cover made it visible from afar and certainly from the Arabah road running just below the hill. Its visibility is also similar to a small Nabataean temple on top of Mount Serbal, southern Sinai (Avner 2015: 402, Fig. 10).

References Avner, U. 2015. The Nabateans in Sinai. Aram 27: 399–432. Avner, U. 2019. Nabataeans in the Eilat Region, the Hinterland of Aila. Aram 30: 597–644. Avner, U. 2020. Nabataeans in the Yotvata Oasis. Negev, Dead Sea and Arava Studies 12: 97–108 (Hebrew). Erikson-Gini, T. 2012. ʿEn Yoṭvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 124. http://www .hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_eng.aspx?print=all&id=1960&mag_id. Parker, T. 2009. The Foundation of Aila: A Nabataean Port on the Red Sea. Studies in History and Archaeology of Jordan 10: 685–690.

180

Yotvata.indb 180

03/08/2022 15:54

LIST OF LOCI

Yotvata Hill—The Iron I “Fortress” and Other Remains

Yotvata.indb 181

Locus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18A 18B 19 20A 20B 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Period Iron I Iron I Early Islamic ? Chalcolithic/EB I Late Hellenistic Iron I Late Hellenistic Late Hellenistic Iron I Iron I Iron I Iron I Iron I Iron I Iron I Iron I ? Iron I Iron I Iron I Chalcolithic/EB I Iron I Iron I ? Iron I Iron I Chalcolithic/EB I ?

28A 28B 28C 29 30 31

Iron I Iron I Iron I Iron I Chalcolithic/EB I Iron I

Type Casemate room Casemate room Isolated structure Sounding outside the casemate wall near Casemate Room 1 Section in earthen rampart Surface finds associated with the Nabataean built tomb Casemate room Burial cell in Nabataean built tomb Burial cell in Nabataean built tomb Sounding in courtyard adjacent to Casemate Room 1 Casemate room Casemate room Casemate room Casemate room Casemate room Casemate room Casemate room Burial adjacent to Casemate Room 17 Sounding in courtyard adjacent to Casemate Room 17 Sounding in courtyard adjacent to Casemate Room 15 Casemate room Pit under wall Gateway Cell in northwestern corner of Casemate Room 13 Burial dug into Casemate Room 14 Cell in northeastern corner of Casemate Room 12 Cell in northwestern corner of Casemate Room 12 Sounding in the courtyard near Casemate Room 20 Sounding outside the casemate wall between gate and Casemate Room 14 Casemate room Cell in Casemate Room 28A Cell in Casemate Room 28A Casemate room Sounding in courtyard adjacent to Casemate Room 32 Cell in southeastern corner of Casemate Room 29

03/08/2022 15:54

List of Loci Locus 32 33 40

Period Iron I ? ?

Type Casemate room Sounding outside casemate wall near Casemate Room 28 Burial dug into Casemate Room 16

182

Yotvata.indb 182

03/08/2022 15:54

SECTION II THE EARLY ISLAMIC SETTLEMENT

Etan Ayalon

With contributions by Zohar Amar, Nitzan Amitai-Preiss, Ariel Berman, Shlomo Hellwing, David Iluz, Ruth E. Jackson-Tal, Vered Kishon, Nili Liphschitz, Zeʾev Meshel, Henk K. Mienis, Willie Ondricek, Orit Shamir, Naama Sukenik, Itamar Taxel and Paula Waiman-Barak

Yotvata.indb 183

03/08/2022 15:54

Yotvata.indb 184

03/08/2022 15:54

PART VI

ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS

Yotvata.indb 185

03/08/2022 15:54

Yotvata.indb 186

03/08/2022 15:54

CHAPTER 22

ARCHITECTURE AND STRATIGRAPHY Etan Ayalon

Introduction The complex of buildings from the Early Islamic period described here is situated east of the main road to Eilat and ca. 1,800 m northeast of ʿEn Yotvata (map ref. 4224/2057 ITM; Fig. 1.3 in Chapter 1; Fig. 22.1). It encompasses at least two hectares, not including the Roman fortress west of the modern road, which was also inhabited during part of the period under discussion, or the qanat water systems and their associated fields, extending to the south and east of the site. The Early Islamic complex was first discovered in 1952 by Yohanan Aharoni after several structures, including a plastered pool, were damaged in the course of preparation of land for cultivation and fish ponds, ca. 100 m west of the main structure. Aharoni erroneously dated the damaged structures to the RomanByzantine period and described the main structure as a stone-built fortress with corner towers from that period (Aharoni 1954: 12–14). Later in the 1950s, the site was surveyed by the Arabah expedition headed by Beno Rothenberg, who found Hellenistic/Nabataean pottery, a coin from the 2nd century BCE and a Nabataean (?) coin. Rothenberg published a schematic plan of the small mound within which the main building was buried, and defined the building as a Nabataean fortress (Rothenberg 1967: 144, Site 65; 2014: Site 17). The complex of structures was surveyed and excavated in 1975–1980 within the framework of a comprehensive research project, headed by Zeʾev Meshel, on the sites in the oasis.1 Even before the excavation, large patches of ash and the tops of a few stone walls were visible on the surface (Fig. 22.2). Mounds of earth covering the walls of the structure created a kind of large trapezoid that protruded onto the surface. Its center, which was lower, turned out to be the empty courtyard. A large shrub was growing in the center, apparently the result of water that had accumulated there over the years. The excavation was carried out in gradual steps. First, the surface was cleaned and a hard layer of salt, covering the ancient remains, was removed. Light sweeping then revealed the tops of walls, which were easily differentiated from the ash that filled the rooms (Fig. 22.3). Then limited probes were made in order to discern built elements and to determine the stratification of each locus (Fig. 22.4). Finally, the probes were expanded to fully expose rooms and loci of interest. The relatively easy identification of the layout of the rooms made it possible to excavate each one separately, and not by the usual method of squares and baulks, which usually relates schematically to the north and not to the lines of architecture. It also permitted the allocation of a single locus number, which remained unchanged throughout the excavation, to each room or part of room. This facilitated registration and management of the groups of young volunteers who excavated the site under harsh summer conditions (Fig. 22.5). The distinction between the layers and strata in each locus was expressed by a change in basket numbers. 1. A preliminary survey was conducted by Zeʾev Meshel and the author in 1975, followed by four brief excavation seasons (one to two weeks) in 1975 (License No. G-4/1975), 1977 (License No. G-41/1977), 1978 (License No. G-36/1978) and 1980 (License No. G-27/1980). In 1987, a small probe was conducted by Meshel in L108. For the results of our excavations, see the 1975, 1977, 1978 and 1980 reports in Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot and Meshel 1991; 1993. This chapter was translated by Miriam Feinberg Vamosh, to whom I am grateful.

Yotvata.indb 187

03/08/2022 15:54

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.1: The Yotvata oasis, looking east; Early Islamic central structure indicated by arrow

Fig. 22.2: Rooms in the eastern wing with a great deal of ash on the surface, looking north 188

Yotvata.indb 188

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.3: The corner of mudbrick W3 and W4 and a room (L103) found, after the surface was swept, filled with ash, looking northwest

Fig. 22.4: Etan Ayalon lecturing to volunteers in the 1975 season

189

Yotvata.indb 189

03/08/2022 15:54

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.5: Zeʾev Meshel explaining the work to a group of high-school volunteers in the 1975 season

In most of the loci, exposure reached the natural soil,2 but in some cases it was restricted to a limited area, in an effort to avoid damaging interesting parts of the structure and to permit re-excavation in the future. The close proximity of the ash layer of Stratum I to the floor of Stratum II in some of the loci precluded stratigraphic separation between the findings in the two strata. Nevertheless, the similarity among the findings from the three strata shows that all phases of the existence and use of the building were from the Umayyad and early Abbasid periods. In the main structure, all rooms and architectural units were uncovered or examined, either partially or completely. Parts of the auxiliary structures outside the main structure were also uncovered; however, it was not possible to reconstruct a complete plan of all these units. Limited examinations were made of the more distant structures, such as the bathhouse (L141), where Tali Erickson-Gini conducted another probe (in 2019) before it was completely demolished, as well as in the refuse dump (L136; Fig. 22.6).3 The three strata are described from earliest to latest. Within each stratum, the description begins with the main structure (with rooms and details described clockwise from the gate), followed by the auxiliary structures and culminating with the more distant ones, where relevant. Strata III and II have two phases, A and B, each. 2. In each locus or group of adjacent loci a local point 0 was determined on the highest wall, and from this point, the heights were measured downward. On February 11, 2020, two absolute heights were determined, with the assistance of Guy Bar-Oz and Yotam Tepper of the University of Haifa: the stone in the northeast corner of the eastern gate pilaster—69.65 m asl; the northeastern stone of the f lat “platform” in the southwestern corner of Room 114— 69.54  m asl. 3. A visit to the site on February 11, 2020 revealed that all of the structures and remains surrounding the main structure had been entirely destroyed by the construction of a regional school. The condition of the water irrigation systems and elements associated with them was not examined.

190

Yotvata.indb 190

03/08/2022 15:54

Fig. 22.6: The complex of structures from the Early Islamic period

#

#

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

191

Yotvata.indb 191

03/08/2022 15:54

etan aYaLon

The Early Structure, Stratum III (Fig. 22.7) Walls and floors of the early structure were found only sporadically in various places under the later, main, complex, and its plan can therefore be only partially reconstructed. It is almost square (maximum external dimensions 28.5 × 33.5 m), smaller than the later structure in terms of its total size and the width of its rooms, and in this early stratum the kitchen in the courtyard and the auxiliary structures outside the building had not yet been built. On the west, south and east, the outer walls (W2, W3 and W4) also served in the later structure. The original W4 was apparently built on a slightly more eastern line than the later wall: In the north (L104) remains of its lower courses were found (width 0.70 m), which survived after this part of the wall had been destroyed. In the south (L144) the eastern face can clearly be seen to have been destroyed at a later phase (see below). In the northern wing, the early outer wall, W6, became the inner wall in Stratum II and the structure was expanded ca. 7.5 m northward. The building’s walls and floors were built on the natural soil, consisting of gravelly wadi material, and were almost devoid of foundations or foundation trenches. The walls were built of mudbricks coated with mud or white plaster. The floors were made of beaten earth or coated with white plaster (in the western wing). The gate was apparently built in the south (in the wing shielded from the northern Arabah wind), and the large central courtyard (L111, 25 × 25 m) was surrounded on all sides by rooms (width 2.0–2.8 m). A second phase (B) was noted in this stratum, in which a few construction changes were made.

Bench Bench

White plaster White plaster

Fig. 22.7: Plan of Stratum III 192

Yotvata.indb 192

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

The Gate (L137) The gate, situated in the center of the southern wing, is mostly buried under the later gate. The eastern face of its eastern wall (W73) was discovered in L116. It is connected in the south to outer W3 (width 0.75 m) and in the north to W65 (width 0.50 m). A thick mudbrick pilaster (at least 1.30 × 1.60 m), constituting the inner end of the gate, apparently extends north of W73 (Fig. 22.8). West of the gate, mudbrick construction was discovered under the later floor of L140—perhaps a parallel wall to W73—and north of it a large block of bricks, perhaps an inner, western, pilaster. It is possible that unlike the later gate, the early gate featured no buttresses or benches, but only a wide passage (maximum ca. 5 m) between two parallel walls, with interior pilasters in the north. If there were doors, they did not survive; and it is unclear whether the passageway was roofed.

Loci 140, 119 and 149 Nothing is known about the rooms in the southwestern wing, but the mudbrick construction discovered in L140 on the natural soil allows for the supposition that there were indeed rooms there, enclosed in the north by a wall that continued the line of W65, unearthed east of the gate. This northern wall would have met W26 in the west at the point where an oval plastered pilaster was found (1.40 × 1.90 m; see Fig. 22.26 below), upon which W28 was built in Stratum II. This pilaster may have originated in Stratum III and was either connected to this northern wall or was free-standing in the room.

Room 113 This room (width ca. 2.80 m, length unknown due to the partial nature of its excavation) is situated in the southern part of the western wing. Room 113 may have continued to W31 in the north, taking up most of the wing. The floor and walls were coated with white plaster (Figs. 22.9–22.10). The room was

Fig. 22.8: L116, looking north: walls, floor and a pilaster from Stratum III; W21, to left, is gate wall of Stratum II 193

Yotvata.indb 193

03/08/2022 15:54

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.9: L113, looking north; to left: plastered W2 from Stratum III; flooring made of chunks of mud and fallen plaster from Stratum II; ash from Stratum I

Surface

W

E W2

113

Thick mud-plas ter floor

Plas ter floor

Brick Ash White plaster Plaster blocks Brown dirt and ash

0

1

m

Fig. 22.10: L113, northern section 194

Yotvata.indb 194

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

accessed from the courtyard via an entrance (width 0.90 m) in its eastern wall, the threshold of which was 0.35 m above the floor of the room. The floor of the courtyard in front of the entrance (L120) and two low “benches” flanking it (only the northern one, W43, definitely existed in this stratum) were also coated with white plaster. It is unclear why this special entrance complex was needed or what its significance was with regard to the room’s function. North of the northern bench (W43), a hearth (L146) was discovered. Another entrance led from L113 southward, in the direction of the corner room near W27, which was a pilaster or a bench. Opposite the eastern entrance and abutting the outer wall (W2), the plastered edges of an installation or a bench survived inside the room, which was built in Phase B and later destroyed. In the north there may have been a passage (L158) between two small pilasters (W51 and W60). Two phases of repair with white plaster were noted in the floor of the room (Fig. 22.11).

Rooms 139 and 134 Situated north of the previously mentioned locus, these two loci may have been connected. In both loci the floor, walls, benches and pilasters were coated with white plaster (Fig. 22.12). In L139 (width 2.60 m) a bench (0.50 × 1.00 m) situated in the west existed only in the first phase of the stratum. Several phases of repair were noted in the floor. The passage from locus to locus, between the pilasters, is 0.60 m wide. In L134, a kind of small side room or cell of L139 (1.45 × 3.00 m), the bench (1.20 × 1.45 m, height 0.47 m) abuts the eastern wall. Opposite the bench there is a plastered recess (width 1.10 m, depth 0.20 m) in the outer wall. The locus was enclosed in the east by W26 (which lies farther west here than its southern part; the point where it changes direction was not found) and in the north by W31 (width 0.75 m). The latter wall is coated with a thicker layer of plaster than usual in this structure. To the east, in L132, the beaten earth floor of the courtyard was discovered.

Fig. 22.11: L113, looking west: W2, W27 and a plaster floor with repairs from Stratum III overlaid by a mud floor from Stratum II 195

Yotvata.indb 195

03/08/2022 15:54

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.12: L134, looking east: plastered walls from Stratum III and ash from Stratum I

Rooms 160 and 172 These loci, which constitute the northwestern corner of the building, are enclosed on the north by external W6, of uncertain width in this stratum. Room 160 is enclosed in the south by narrow W59 (width 0.40 m) and in the east apparently by the northward continuation of W74. Room 160 is 2.60 m wide and apparently slightly over 3 m long. The floor and walls are coated with white plaster (Fig. 22.13), and in the northwestern corner, signs remain of a plastered bench or installation (0.22 m high), which was destroyed. The entrance to the room may have been in the southeastern corner. Room 172, east of Room 160, is larger (ca. 4 × 5 m), and its floor and walls are also coated in white plaster (Fig. 22.14). Only the western part of the room was excavated—and not contiguously. It is enclosed in the west by W74, hidden under the pilasters of the subsequent stratum, and in the south by narrow W69 (width 0.35 m), ending in the east with a robber trench of the wall that enclosed the room there. The floor in both rooms is identical in level, but it is unclear whether they were connected by a passage. It should be noted that the line of W74 does not correspond to that of W26 to its south, suggesting that the unexcavated area between them contained a partition wall on an east–west axis.

Room 159 The corner room in the northeast (width 3.70 m) is enclosed in the north by W68, which apparently connects in the west to W6 and in the east to external W4 (width 0.75 m). In the west the room was enclosed by narrow W66 (0.45 m), and in the south apparently by a wall along an east–west axis—which, much like in the northwestern corner described above— would have separated W66 from its southern “continuation,” W45. This room, like the room to its west, had a beaten earth floor; its walls too were not coated with white plaster (Fig. 22.15). 196

Yotvata.indb 196

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.13: L160, looking southwest: plastered W2 from Stratum III; a hearth and a large quantity of ash from Stratum I in sections

Fig. 22.14: L172, looking west: plaster floor from Stratum III; pilasters from Stratum II (in back); and a large quantity of ash from Stratum I (in L160) 197

Yotvata.indb 197

03/08/2022 15:54

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.15: L159, looking east: walls and beaten earth floor from Stratum III; walls, a pilaster, a beaten earth floor and a tabun from Stratum II; thick layer of ash from Stratum I in section and on the surface

Room 126 This room like the other rooms in the eastern wing, is 2.50 m wide, but its length and the position of its entrance are not known. It is enclosed in the west by W45 (width 0.75 m), its floor consists of beaten earth and it contained a hearth lined with stones, in which carbonized pieces of white saxaul (Haloxyon persicum) were discovered (Fig. 22.16; see also Table 31.1). West of Room 126, a portion of the courtyard was excavated (L129). In the original phase of the stratum, there was a beaten earth floor in the courtyard with a tabun (diameter 0.50 m), only the eastern half of which was preserved (Fig. 22.17). In Phase B, the tabun was destroyed, and to its west, a floor was laid (width 3 m), consisting of small field stones and enclosed in the east by a narrow mudbrick wall (width 0.30 m), W52. A thin occupation layer was found on the floor, overlying leveled brick material that filled the gaps between the stones. This layer contained, among other finds, remains of date palm, tamarisk and moringa wood.

Loci 155 and 152 These loci are also enclosed in the west by W45 (Fig. 22.18). The southern end of two plastered cells were found in L155, their floors and walls coated with white plaster, with mudbrick partitions (thickness 0.15 m) between them and to their west, abutting the wall. The western cell is 1.60 m wide, and the eastern cell is 0.50 m wide. They were enclosed in the south by W63, south of which (L152) was a beaten earth floor. In Phase B of the stratum, the western part of W63 was destroyed and the wall itself was lowered to allow an entrance (width 0.70 m) to be broken through it into the courtyard. The threshold of the entrance was the lower course of the original wall. A new wall, W57 (thickness 0.55 m), was then built 0.50 m south of and corresponding to the southern entrance jamb. It is not clear whether the plastered cells to the north continued in use in this phase. A beaten earth floor was uncovered in the courtyard (L156). It is possible that south of W57 there was a plaster floor, continuing a plaster floor discovered farther to the south. 198

Yotvata.indb 198

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.16: L126: beaten earth floor and hearth from Stratum III, looking north

Fig. 22.17: L126 and L129, looking east: fieldstone flooring, wall, tabun and beaten earth floor with a hearth from Stratum III; walls and pilasters from Stratum II; ash from Stratum I in sections and on the surface 199

Yotvata.indb 199

03/08/2022 15:54

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.18: L155, looking east: walls from Stratum III; walls and beaten earth floor from Stratum II; tabun and ash from Stratum I

Room 171 This room is enclosed in the west by W45, in the east by W4 and in the south by W70 (width 0.55 m), all coated with white plaster. A white plaster floor was found in two places in the room. The point of entry is unknown. The beaten earth floor of the courtyard was found to the west (L148).

Room 103 This corner room is enclosed in the west by a narrow partition wall, W71 (thickness 0.25 m). The room measures 3.00 × 3.30 m, and its floor consists of beaten earth. A white-plastered passage (width 0.75 m) at its northwestern corner opened onto the courtyard, with a kind of convex plastered threshold (Fig. 22.19). In its continuation southward the plastered floor of the passage ends in a straight eastern boundary line, without a partition between it and the beaten earth floor of the room.

Room 109 This room (ca. 3 × 6 m) is enclosed in the north by W65 (the westward continuation of W70), in the south by the external W3 and in the west by W72. The floor (uncovered only in the northeastern corner) and the walls of the room are coated with white plaster (Fig. 22.19). The entrance is unknown.

Room 116 Room 116 abuts the eastern side of the gate and is enclosed in the north by W65 and in the south by the external W3. The point of entry is unknown. It is small (2.80 × 3.00 m), with much of it taken up by a mudbrick white-plastered bench in the west, adjacent to W73. The western face of the bench constitutes the continuation of the line of the eastern face of the gate pilaster north of W65, and it is clear that they 200

Yotvata.indb 200

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.19: L103 (sign marked 171), looking north: walls, plastered passageway, beaten earth floor, earthen floor of the courtyard (L148) and corner of L109 from Stratum III; in section in L109, layers of ash from Strata II and I were built contemporaneously. The small size of the room suggests that it functioned as a side chamber of the gate complex.

The Courtyard (L111) In the places abutting the rooms that were examined, the courtyard was paved with a beaten earth or stone floor. In a mound of earth in the center, a large salt tree (Nitraria retusa) was found growing. A probe was undertaken here to determine whether there was a water pool or other installation in that spot, but no remnants of construction were found.

Locus 145 A deposit of handmade sherds was discovered ca. 5 m beyond the southeastern corner of the structure, under the walls of Stratum II. It is assumed that the vessels were placed or thrown there during Stratum III.

The Enlarged Structure, Stratum II (Fig. 22.20) This later structure was excavated more methodically, although not in its entirety, and its details are fairly clear. Its maximum size was 33.5 × 34.5 m. In this stratum, in which two phases were observed, the building underwent quite significant structural changes, although its general character, form and findings suggest that there was no time gap between the two strata. The main building was enlarged in four main aspects: an entire wing was added in the north; the width of the rooms was expanded in the eastern and southern wings at the expense of the courtyard; a kitchen was added in the southwestern part of the courtyard, as well as a staircase, pointing to the existence of a second floor or to use of the roof; 201

Yotvata.indb 201

03/08/2022 15:54

Yotvata.indb 202

Fig. 22.20: Plan of Stratum II

White plaster

Stone

.

.

etan aYaLon

202

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

and numerous rooms, installations and walls were built around the main structure on at least three sides. The gate was also renovated and well built. It is unclear why only the rooms of the western wing were left in their original dimensions. The external walls revealed incompatibilities (portions that do not constitute a direct continuation of one another)—abutting Pilaster W12 in the east (Room 159) and in L169 opposite it in the west, as well as the internal western wall, W26, abutting Pilaster W31 (L134). These inconsistencies probably occurred when the new northern wing was attached to the old building, perhaps due to an error in planning or measuring before construction. Another characteristic of the building in this stratum is the construction of numerous pilasters to support the roof in the large rooms—most of them made of mudbrick and a few made of stone. In the previous stratum there were only hints of the beginning of the use of pilasters (in the western wing), because the narrow rooms did not require them. In this stratum the floors in some of the rooms were also made of beaten earth; others were made of white plaster. As mentioned above, Stratum II also revealed a later sub-phase, in which slight changes were made to the structure, such as the laying of new floors (usually beaten earth), the blocking and opening of entrances and the cancellation of installations.

The Main Structure The Gate (L137) The gate (Figs. 22.21–22.23) was entirely rebuilt, with the previous walls demolished, as part of the reconstruction of the expanded southern wing. Consequently, the walls of the gate are not quite perpendicular to outer W3. The entrance from outside was between two pilasters—the ends of W3 that had been slightly thickened (at least on the eastern side) and built of mudbrick on a foundation of small stones. The slightly raised threshold was made of small stones. No socket stones were found. The two doors of Phase A of this stratum, which were placed right at the entrance, in the southern corners of the pilasters, were burned in situ while closed, as attested by the carbonized beams (of cedar of Lebanon, pine and date; see Table 31.1) and the iron nails discovered there. One beam was found inserted vertically in the western part of the threshold (Fig. 22.24). The bent nails indicate that the beams were 5–6 cm thick. The gate passage (2.6 × 6.5 m), with a beaten earth floor, is enclosed on both sides by mudbrick walls (W21 and W22) whose inner ends are stone pilasters (0.90 × 1.0 m) coated with mud plaster topped by a layer of white plaster. The upper part of each of these side walls was narrow (0.30 m) because most of their width was taken up by a white-plastered bench (length ca. 4 m, width 0.50–0.70 m). In the western bench, which was completely preserved, three rounded plastered armrests were installed—at both ends and in the middle. At the foot of each bench there was a kind of footrest at floor level (0.40–0.60 m wide), made of mud and plastered. The beaten earth floor continued inward to the courtyard. The coating of the benches with delicate plaster and the fallen mudbrick debris (found mainly in the northwest, possibly a pilaster of some kind) suggest that the gate passage might have been roofed, perhaps with a cover made of light material such as textile, as W21 and W22 were too narrow to carry a built roof. In Phase B of this stratum the gate was renovated after it had been damaged and its doors burned. The new doors were placed farther inside, near the northern corners of the outer pilasters. A new floor of beaten earth was then installed, 10 cm above the previous floor. This floor covered the mud footrests at the foot of the benches. The threshold stones, not preserved, were set upon a foundation of small stones. The benches themselves were covered with one course of mudbricks, either to raise them or to reinforce the side walls of the gate, which were quite narrow at the time the benches were in use. At the end of this phase, the two doors, made of pine and date palm, were burned as they stood wide open.

Loci 140, 119 and 149 The southwestern wing was now expanded into a long broad hall, which in Phase B also included corner Room 149. The hall was divided by stone pilaster W23 (extended in Phase B by a mudbrick construction), 203

Yotvata.indb 203

03/08/2022 15:54

etan aYaLon

A 69.65

W24

W20

W22

137

140

#

131

B

W21

# 116

130 B

W3

W3 A

0

2

W22

m

Stone Brick

131

White plaster

140

W

137

Beaten earth floor

E

Mud plaster

B-B

W24

W3

S

N A-A

Fig. 22.21: Plan and sections of the gate, L137 (surveyed by Benny Shalmon) 204

Yotvata.indb 204

03/08/2022 15:54

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.22: L137, looking north: the Stratum II gate

Fig. 22.23: L137, looking south: W65 from Stratum III (L116); the Stratum II gate with later beaten earth floor and at the entrance, threshold stones and burnt beams 205

Yotvata.indb 205

03/08/2022 15:55

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.24: L137, looking north: the Stratum II gate with the western bench and its footrest; in foreground, threshold with burnt beams (one vertical) and two superimposed beaten earth floors

by W35, and in Phase B by W28—all abutting the southern wall, W3. The space was enclosed in the north by W24 (width 0.75 m), which had been reinforced by stone construction. This wall was built diagonally, perhaps in order to connect to the corner of W26 from the previous stratum; thus, the width of the southern hall grew from 4.70 m to 5.30 m. All of its parts that were uncovered were coated with white plaster—floor and walls (Fig. 22.25). In Phase A, the entrance to the wing (width 0.90 m) was through the northern wall, opposite Pilaster W23, and had a stone threshold. Flanking the entrance, W24 was built of stones for reinforcement; in the courtyard to its north there was a beaten earth floor (L138). In Phase B the entrance was blocked with mudbricks, and it is unclear how the wing was accessed or whether it had gone completely out of use and was blocked. In Rooms 140 and 119, there was a thick layer of fallen mudbricks (some of them complete) and plaster, in which two layers of ash and remains of a date palm tree were found, 0.10 and 0.50 m above the floor. It seems that these were remains of a collapsed roof or second storey, rather than remains of the nomadic Stratum I (see below). In the northern part of Room 140 pieces of thick (2 cm) plaster were found, like those unearthed in the western wing (see below). Remains of mortar on the back of these pieces suggest that they had been attached in some way to W24. Among the finds in Room 140, a gold coin from 780–781 CE is noteworthy (Chapter 28, Coin No. 4). The western part of this locus was not excavated. L119 is built with oblique angles because of the above-mentioned discrepancies in construction (Fig. 22.26). The entrance was from the northeast. In Phase A there may have been a wide entrance (1.50 m) between this room and the corner room, L149, to its west, in the center of W28, on top of the oval pilaster—which, as mentioned above, may have survived from the earlier Stratum III—that protruded on both sides of the wall and served as a step. This can be seen from the three parallel “seams” in the wall, with mudbricks filling the spaces between them. Opposite the two southern seams, which were 1.10 m 206

Yotvata.indb 206

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.25: L140, looking north: walls and plaster floor from Stratum II, ash from Stratum I

Fig. 22.26: L149 and L119, looking north: rooms in Stratum II; in background, W24 staircase; fallen pieces of plaster are visible in section in L113; note the oval pilaster under W28 207

Yotvata.indb 207

03/08/2022 15:55

Etan Ayalon

apart, the external wall, W2, exhibits two similar seams. It is unclear whether at some stage there was an entrance here from the outside or a cross wall. In Phase B the wide entrance in the center of W28 was blocked and an entrance (0.70 m wide) was opened at its northern end. Room 149 also has an oblique wall. In Phase A it was coated with white plaster and had a plastered installation of some kind in its southeastern corner. The Stratum III entrance in W27 in the north was now blocked, so that the room was attached in Phase A of Stratum II to Room 119 to its east instead of to Room 113 to its north. In Phase B the installation in the corner was demolished, the point of entry in the east was changed as described, and a new floor of beaten earth was laid in the room.

The Steps and the Kitchen (L120) In Stratum II, a wide solid staircase was built abutting W24; the staircase ascended first to the south and then to the west (Fig. 22.27). It was built of external walls of stones (W25, W41 and W42) with a fill of mudbricks, narrowing from a width of 2.10 m to 1.40 m and preserved to a height of 1.70 m. A few stones discovered at the bottom of its northern end might be remains of the first step. From the end of the staircase in the courtyard a channel (width 15 cm, depth 10 cm) extends northward, flanked by a beaten earth floor. The purpose of this channel is unclear; and if it served as a drainage channel, it is unknown from where and to where. The steps show that use was made in the southwestern wing of a second storey or of the roof of the rooms. At the foot of the staircase, in the north, a kitchen was found with a beaten earth floor. It includes two hearths and a plastered depression (diameter 0.31 m, depth 0.13 m), in the bottom of which pottery sherds were uncovered, probably belonging to a vessel that had stood there (Fig. 22.28). The finds included stone cooking vessels (Chapter 25) and animal bones. Carbonized pieces of white saxaul wood were found in the hearths, and in the kitchen a date palm leaf, a tamarisk branch (used as fuel or remnants of roofing?) and a shell. West of the kitchen there was a plastered entrance to Room 113, with a southern “bench” (which may have been present in the previous stratum); the northern bench was demolished to allow passage into the room despite the installation of the kitchen. The location of the kitchen in this corner, fairly protected from wind by the staircase and undisrupted by the activity in the courtyard, is understandable.

Loci 113 and 139 This room was now shortened to a length of 9 m after having been cut off from L149 in the south and L134 in the north, but it remained narrow (width 2.60–2.90 m), perhaps to enable use of the second storey or the roof. In this stratum the quality of construction declined sharply in this room, along with its decrease in dimensions. Its narrow eastern wall, W26, is diagonal along its entire length due to changes in the layout of the building from one stratum to another. The entrance to Room 149 was quite carelessly blocked, without any effort to straighten W27. The installation in the corner of the room, present in Stratum III, was demolished. A layer of coarse mud plaster was now laid over the white plaster coating the walls, including in the blocked southern entrance. Over the white plaster floor, a new floor made of thick mud plaster was laid, and over time it split into polygonal slabs. A large heap of fallen bricks and slabs of thick plaster suggest the existence of a second storey above the room (Figs. 22.9–22.10). Alternatively, it is possible that the plaster slabs originated in a balustrade erected along the edges of the roof, each slab held in place between two wooden posts (like a chancel screen in a church).4 The central part of the room was not excavated, but it seems that Pilasters W51 and W60 still existed at this time. To their north, the room continued in L139, where a similar polygonal mud-plaster floor was found (thickness 5.5 cm). The small Room 134 was cut off from it, when the entrance between Pilasters W39 and W40 was blocked with a narrow mudbrick partition. 4. I wish to thank Itamar Taxel for this proposal.

208

Yotvata.indb 208

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.27: L120, looking east: the kitchen from Stratum II with beaten earth floor with plastered depression and hearths, and Staircase W24; ash from Stratum I is visible in sections

Fig. 22.28: L120, looking east: plastered depression in the Stratum II kitchen, containing sherds 209

Yotvata.indb 209

03/08/2022 15:55

Etan Ayalon

Loci 134, 128 and 169 As described above, the eastern wall, W26, does not conform to the line of construction of its southern part. An entrance with a high threshold (0.35 m above the floor) leads from the courtyard into Room 128, which has a floor of beaten earth. In the southwestern part of the room, remains were found of a mudbrick wall or bench (W32; width 0.70 m), only the southern part of which was exposed. To the south, an entrance in W31 was opened (width 0.80 m) with a high threshold, 7 cm above the floors, to the small Room 134, which was probably used as a storeroom or pantry. In the corner of this small room, the bench from the earlier stratum was demolished and the entrance to the south was blocked. It is unclear whether the eastern bench continued in use. A beaten earth floor was laid in Room 134 and was covered with a thin layer of mud plaster. This layer also coated the bottom of the recess in the western wall, as well as W31 and its entrance and the blockage of the opening in the southern wall. In L169, in the northern part of the room, no juncture was found between the eastern W26 and the northern W59. There may have been an entrance there (0.40 m wide) in Phase A, blocked in Phase B by construction of the southern part of the southern pilaster in L160 (see below), which appears to have been a later addition. It is unclear why two entrances were needed to Room 128–169.

Room 160 This room, which had existed in the previous stratum, became a small corner room, now enclosed in the east by two square mudbrick pilasters (L150; northern pilaster: 1.20 × 1.60 m; southern pilaster: ca. 0.90 × 1.60 m; see Fig. 22.13), apparently intended to reinforce the inner corner of the structure now created. The entrance to this room had a high threshold (width 0.80 m) and a white plaster floor. A probe outside W2 (L162) revealed, among other things, an ostracon—a fragment of a bowl rim with an Arabic inscription, now lost.

Loci 170, 124, 151 and 108 This hall (5.30 × 22.50 m) takes up most of the area of the new northern wing built in Stratum II. It is enclosed in the north by the new external wall, W1 (width 0.90 m), in the south by narrow W6 and in the east by W7. The entrance to the hall was not found, and because it was not completely excavated there is no certainty that this was indeed one unit. Three mudbrick pilasters were found abutting the northern wall, and since they are equidistant from one another and similar in dimensions, it may be presumed that there was originally another pilaster to their west. All the walls and floors of the rooms were coated with white plaster. In the northwestern corner (L115), a pool (1 × 1 m) was built after the plastering of the walls and floor, with walls 0.35 m thick (L124; Fig. 22.29). It was coated on the interior with gray hydraulic plaster (thickness 3 cm), mixed with ash and tiny pieces of gravel. Another wall segment, coated on its western side with the same type of gray plaster, was uncovered in the southern part of L.170. These are the only places throughout the complex in which there was any indication for the use or storage of liquids. The findings in the pool included bones of Red Sea fish, sheep/goat bones and carbonized date palm and tamarisk wood. In the southern part of L.170, portions of white-plastered cells were found abutting W6. The southern one is a very narrow cell extending parallel to W6 and enclosed in the north by a wall of mudbricks. To its north is a plastered corner of a cell or a room, enclosed in the west by a wall, and farther west is the corner of the partly exposed pool described above (Fig. 22.30). In Phase B, the walls of the cells were broken through. Among the finds here was a copper-alloy rod-like implement (Chapter 25, Fig. 25.2:3). A probe outside the exterior wall, W2 (L122), revealed remains of mud plaster coating it from the outside, apparently to protect it from moisture. L151, in the center of the room, is white-plastered. Abutting the northern wall (preserved to a height of 1.10 m) and close to Pilaster W36, a kind of bench built of mudbricks was found (0.65 × 0.90 m, height 210

Yotvata.indb 210

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.29: L124, looking northwest: the western half of the Stratum II pool

Fig. 22.30: L170, looking north: W6, plaster floor and the southern plastered installation, Stratum II 211

Yotvata.indb 211

03/08/2022 15:55

Etan Ayalon

0.40 m; Fig. 22.31). Its edges were reinforced with small stones, and it was clearly built after W1 had been plastered. On the floor of the room a thin layer of beaten earth was found, but it is unclear whether this was a repair of the floor at a later stage or an occupation layer on the original floor. L108 is the eastern part of the hall (Fig. 22.32). In its northern part, between W7 and Pilaster W8, two small cells were built in Phase A (each 1.3 × 1.3 m, depth 0.40 m), enclosed with mudbrick partitions (thickness 0.25 m) and well coated with white plaster. They may have been used as silos. Identical cells were discovered in L105 to the east. South of the cells in L108, adjacent to the eastern wall, nine holes were discovered in the white plaster floor, arranged in three parallel rows of three (total dimensions 0.90 × 1.25 m). It seems that a wooden furnishing or installation had stood there, its legs inserted into these holes. At a later stage, the partitions between the cells were broken, and no effort was made to repair the signs of the breakage in the plaster of the walls and the floor. It is unclear whether this occurred in Phase B of this stratum or in Stratum I, the time of the nomadic settlement. Noteworthy was the find in L108 of a scapula bearing an Arabic inscription in ink (Chapter 27, Inscription I). Hearths and concentrations of ash were found outside the room and the structure, north of W1 (L106). In 1987, Z. Meshel found another small scapula there, with remnants of an Arabic inscription in ink (Chapter 27, Inscription II). It is not clear, however, in what stratum this scapula originated.

Loci 114 and 105 Room 114 and Room 105, annexed to it, constitute the northeastern corner of the structure, and they were both uncovered in their entirety (Fig. 22.33). Room 114 (5.0 × 5.5 m; the first probe made in its northeastern

Fig. 22.31: L151, looking north: walls with bench and plaster floor from Stratum II 212

Yotvata.indb 212

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.32: L108, looking north: walls, plaster floor containing nine small holes and destroyed cells from Stratum II

corner was numbered L101) is entirely coated with white plaster—floor and walls. The entrance was from the south, from the corner of the courtyard. A stone pilaster, W11 (1 × 2 m, preserved height ca. 1.30 m) abutted the center of the northern wall and facilitated the roofing of the room. The pilaster was built (in a technical phase) after the plastering of the wall and floor (Fig. 22.34). In the southwestern corner, a plastered installation (1.23 × 1.40 m) was found, raised 7 cm above the plaster floor. The floor of the installation was set on a kind of platform well built of ashlars (Fig. 22.35). In the north it was enclosed by a narrow row of small stones apparently set on their narrow side. On the southern edges (abutting W6) and in the southern part of the eastern edges, the platform is enclosed by a kind of raised step (7 cm and 0.14 m wide respectively and ca. 8 cm high). Among the finds uncovered in the room were remains of white saxaul and date wood, as well as date pits, Christ-thorn jujube pits and an acacia seed. Corner Room 105 (2.5 × 5.5 m, width of entrance 0.65 m, with a threshold 0.40 m wide and 0.15 m high) was entered from the southeastern corner of L114. The room is not plastered, and its floor, 10 cm lower than that of Room 114, is made of beaten earth. In the northern part of the room two plastered cells were built (1.10 × 1.10 m each, partition thickness 0.30–0.40 m), like those of Room 108. They may have served as silos, and the entire room may have been a storeroom annexed to the main plastered room. In Phase B of this stratum, a new beaten earth floor was laid, 6 cm above the earlier floor. During this phase the two cells were demolished (Fig. 22.36) and various artifacts and fallen mudbricks were found scattered on the destroyed partitions. Some of the finds from this phase are noteworthy: ceramic heads of animals (Fig. 23.14:8–10), pottery rings (Fig. 23.14:12), a complete lamp (Figs. 22.37, 23.14:5) and bowls of a special type (Fig. 23.5:3–5). 213

Yotvata.indb 213

03/08/2022 15:55

Etan Ayalon

114 105

W11

W5

W

E

Ash White plaster

Stone

Beaten earth floor

Brick

0

1

m

Fig. 22.33: L114 and L105, southern section, in the northeastern part

Fig. 22.34: L114, looking north: the northern part of the room, plastered walls and floor from Stratum II 214

Yotvata.indb 214

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.35: L114, looking southwest: plastered W7 and installation from Stratum II; ash from Stratum I in sections

Fig. 22.36: L105, looking north: walls, beaten earth floor and cells from Stratum II, Phase A (the cells were demolished in Phase B) 215

Yotvata.indb 215

03/08/2022 15:55

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.37: L105, complete lamp in situ on the beaten earth floor of Stratum II

The Eastern Wing This wing was expanded in the current stratum to 4.70 m, obviating the rooms and installations from the previous stratum. As with W2, the line of the northern third of exterior W4 does not conform in its direction to the rest of the wall, apparently as a result of the new construction (not shown on the plan, Fig. 22.20; the deviation in direction is indicated there by a line across W4, next to W12). In the north and the west, two narrow walls, W6 and W9, were built (width 0.5 m). All parts that were excavated revealed a beaten earth floor. Originally the entire wing was apparently one large hall (minimum length 21 m). Abutting the eastern wall, four mudbrick pilasters were discovered, measuring ca. 1 × 2 m each (W12, W13, W10 and W53; Fig. 22.17). The distance between them suggests that there was originally another pilaster to the north of W53 and perhaps another to its south. These pilasters would have made it possible to roof this long hall. At a certain stage (during this time period or in Phase B of the stratum) two partitions were built between the two central pilasters and western W9: diagonal W76 (width 0.75 m) was found as a continuation of Pilaster W10, and diagonal W56, which was only 0.25 m wide but quite solid, continues Pilaster W53 (Fig. 22.38). These walls may have facilitated the roofing of the hall and at the same time divided it into three rooms. Room 159 and 126 is in the north (length 9 m), with two pilasters and an entrance in the southwest (width 0.90 m; Fig. 22.15). In its northeastern corner a tabun was found (diameter ca. 0.60 m, preserved height 0.10 m; Fig. 22.39), and in the corner to its west, sherds were found embedded vertically in the floor in a row extending north to south—a phenomenon for which we have no explanation. A mudbrick was found here with a perforation, of unclear function. Another beaten earth floor was also discovered here, laid in Phase B. A special find in the room was a scapula bearing an Arabic inscription in ink, discovered on the upper floor adjacent to W9 (Fig. 22.40; see Chapter 27, Inscription III). Room 155, created in the center of the hall by means of the partitions, has an average length of 6 m, with an entrance 0.80 m wide with protruding doorjambs in the center of its western wall. Only the 216

Yotvata.indb 216

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.38: L156 and L157, looking east: W56 and beaten earth floor from Stratum II; ash from Stratum I is visible in sections

Fig. 22.39: L159, looking east: the tabun 217

Yotvata.indb 217

03/08/2022 15:55

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.40: L159: Bone Inscription III near W9, Stratum II southern part of the room was excavated; a layer of brown ash was discovered on its floor. Only a small portion of Room 152, L157 in the south, was uncovered. It is unclear whether there was an entrance to the room via the western wall, most of which was not excavated, or whether the entrance through W37 in the south had sufficed and the room was in fact annexed to corner Room 103.

Loci 103, 109 and 116 These rooms constitute the southeastern wing, now expanded with the construction of W20–W37 in the north and the wall of the new gate in the west. A large hall (ca. 5.0 × 13.5 m) was thus created, with three mudbrick pilasters (W14, W15 and W16; Fig. 22.19, foreground) abutting the southern wall. The spaces between them and between the pilasters and the side walls are irregular. The room’s main entrance (width 0.70 m), connecting it to the courtyard, was in the center of the northern wall. To its east there was another entrance (width 0.80 m), leading into Room 148 in the north. All parts of the room that were excavated revealed a beaten earth floor, except for L109, where an installation, coated with white plaster, was discovered abutting the southern wall W3 and Pilaster W15 (Figs. 22.41–22.42). Its floor had two layers (apparently two phases), ending toward the east with an upward curve—perhaps toward a wall that had been destroyed. Also discovered there was a small installation surrounded by a partition of mudbricks (width 0.20 m). An occupation layer was found on the floor, revealing a cooking pot and fish bones, among other artifacts. In L116 a partition was built, apparently in Phase B. The partition, W77 (width 0.50 m), continues Pilaster W16 northward, like the partitions added in the eastern wing (Fig. 22.8). It is unclear whether the partition continued all the way to W20 in the north—that is, whether the entrance to this locus was in W77 or in the northern wall. North of W20, the beaten earth floor of the courtyard was discovered (L121). 218

Yotvata.indb 218

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

West

W3

Fig. 22.41: L109, eastern, northern and western sections of the eastern part of the locus

Surface

North Fallen bricks Surface

Not excavated

East W14

W3

Brick Brown dirt and dung Ash White plaster floor Beaten earth floor Pottery

0

1

m

219

Yotvata.indb 219

03/08/2022 15:55

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.42: L109, looking northwest: plaster floor and installation from Stratum II; ash from Stratum I is visible in sections

The Auxiliary Rooms Around the outer walls of the main structure, walls, rooms and installations built in this stratum after its expansion were uncovered (Fig. 22.20). Their character as an auxiliary complex is evident not only from the fact that they were built outside the main structure and after its construction but also from the temporary and meager form of most of them. Only a few were partly uncovered, and it is difficult to determine their precise plan and use. Generally speaking, there is a difference between the nature of the construction in the north and that in the south.

Loci 161, 163 and 173 Outside the northern part of the building, walls of a similar width (ca. 1 m) extend northern W1 in either direction: W55 continues east for 9.30 m and ends there, but as the excavation did not continue eastward we do not know if it was not just an opening in the wall at that point. Near the eastern end of the wall it was reinforced with a stone-built portion (width 0.70 m). A lower course of mudbricks (0.70 m thick) was found abutting the wall on its southern side, possibly a thickening of the wall or a bench (L173; Fig. 22.43). Near it a fragment of an upper stone of a potter’s wheel was found on topsoil (see Chapter 25, Table 25.1, second line, registered in L100). To the west of the building, W62 was uncovered sporadically for a stretch of 19.5 m, extending westward beyond the boundaries of the excavation. The joints between the mudbricks in this wall were wider than in the rest of the walls and were filled with clay. Along the wall a few finds were discovered (in L161 and L163). The use of these two walls is unclear, because no remains of structures abutting them were found. They may have enclosed open-air encampment areas to their south, providing protection against the northern winds. 220

Yotvata.indb 220

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.43: L173, looking east: W1, W4 and W55 with bench, Stratum II

The Southeastern Complex This complex is more intricate and well organized than the rest of the auxiliary rooms. It was built flanking W17 (width 0.60 m), which continues W3, the external wall of the main structure, eastward for 18.5 m. There W17 ends at W49, a wall of the same width, which continues northward (it is unclear whether it continues all the way up to W55 in the north, enclosing a large area east of the main structure), and at W50 (width, beyond a kind of pilaster, 0.30 m), which continues to the south. Only a short segment of the two walls was uncovered, and it is unclear to what complexes they belong. The first room in the southeastern complex is L144 (1.5 × 3.0 m), enclosed by W4 in the west, W17 in the south, W51 in the east and W54, built perpendicular to W51, in the north (Figs. 22.44–22.45). The western part of this locus was built on the eastern edges of W4, which was narrowed in this stratum. The floor of the room was beaten earth, and in its southern part there was a stone-lined hearth. The room, which was entered via its northwestern corner, seems to have served as a kitchen or an annexed space, perhaps to Room 147. In Phase B, it underwent several changes: W17 was broken through along the entire width of the room, so that it now opened southward, and a new beaten earth floor was laid. In this phase, the locus was apparently a corridor for passage to L153–L154 to its north, constituting part of another room or space. In L153, two superimposed beaten earth floors were found. Numerous finds were discovered on the upper floor, including two flat round objects made of chalky white material, possibly lids for large pottery jars. An ostracon with a Greek inscription was found in L154 (Chapter 27, Inscription IV). Room 147 and 165 (length 7.30 m, width varying from 1.70 to 3.30 m) is enclosed in the east by W34 and in the north by W48 and W54, the connection between which is unclear because the area between 221

Yotvata.indb 221

03/08/2022 15:55

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.44: L144, 153 and 154, looking north: Stratum II walls; ash from Stratum I is visible in sections

Fig. 22.45: L147, looking west: walls from Stratum II, in center, L144, and entrance to L145 with large quantity of fallen debris and a socket from Stratum I 222

Yotvata.indb 222

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

them was not excavated. The room had a beaten earth floor and its entrance was from the south, from Room 145 (Fig. 22.45). In Phase B, a new beaten earth floor was laid in the room. East of W34 there was an entrance (width 0.60 m) in W17, which was blocked with a narrow mudbrick partition in Phase B. To the east of this entrance two “seams” can be seen in the wall—perhaps another blocked entrance. The finds in the room included a grindstone (Chapter 25, Table 25.1). Room 145 was built south of W17. It is rectangular (2.20 × 4.50 m), on a north–south axis, and only its northern part was excavated. In the northeastern corner an entrance leads northward, but there may also have been an entrance leading to the west. The room had a beaten earth floor, and in its eastern part, remains of an installation or a cell enclosed with a mudbrick partition were found. To the south of Room 145 there was another room (ca. 3 m long), enclosed by the continuation of Room 145’s eastern and western walls. Stones were inserted in the western wall, W44, to reinforce it. From this wall, a narrow wall, W19 (width 0.35 m), extended to the west. It was built alternately of mudbricks and stones, and its segments do not continue in a straight line. From its western end, a similar curving wall, W18, extends southward (length ca. 4.70 m). On either side of these walls there were beaten earth floors (L117, L118 and L125) with round depressions—perhaps in which to set jars (Fig. 22.46). Part of the large quantity of finds discovered here apparently belongs to Stratum I, the stratum of the nomads. East of L145, two small round cells were uncovered (L166: 1.10 × 1.40 m; L167: ca. 0.60 × 0.60 m), enclosed by narrow mudbrick walls. Beaten earth floors were found in these cells and in L168 to the east. These installations are situated in the corner of a larger room that may have been enclosed from the east by W50.

Fig. 22.46: L117 and L118, looking southwest: Strata II and I 223

Yotvata.indb 223

03/08/2022 15:55

Etan Ayalon

The Southwestern Unit (L164) From the southwestern corner of the main structure, W29 (thickness 0.75 m) continues the line of W3 westward for a length of 15.5 m. A segment (width 0.90 m) near the center of this length reinforces the wall with a course of stones placed on a mudbrick foundation. About 1.5 m west of the corner of the main structure, W30 extends southward from W29, with concentrations of ash found on both sides (L133). Its continuation was not excavated. W29 ends with a thickened pilaster (1 m wide), protruding to the south; it may have continued southward as a built wall, but the excavation was not expanded in this direction. The pilaster is built of soft mudbricks made of clay mixed with a great deal of straw. Two parallel walls continue to the north, creating a room (L164; width 2.30 m). The eastern wall, W75, is 0.75 m wide, and the western wall (W67, which apparently ran in a straight line in this phase) is 0.50 m wide. The floor and walls of the room were completely coated with white plaster. In Phase B, this room underwent changes. The western wall was rebuilt with its northern continuation curving eastward, reducing the size of the room (Fig. 22.47). A curving partition was made of hard soil (W78; thickness 0.15 m) between the western and the eastern walls, and installations were found in the resulting cell: in the northeast, a round installation (0.80 × 1.00 m), coated with thick, strong gray plaster, is enclosed in the west with a kind of short mudbrick partition, with a curving depression at its southern end and another depression of some sort to its south. West of these components, a triangular pit abutted the wall, and in the south there was an elliptical pit (0.60 × 0.90 m, depth 0.33 m). It is unclear what stood between the main structure and this complex.

Fig. 22.47: L164, looking north: Stratum II walls and installations 224

Yotvata.indb 224

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

The End of the Stratum At the end of Phase B of Stratum II, the main structure and the auxiliary rooms were abandoned, apparently in an organized manner. This is evident from the small quantity of finds on the floors of the rooms, suggesting that the inhabitants took with them anything they could carry. The scanty finds are in contrast to the major extent of the construction in both phases of this stratum—construction that attests to the means at the disposal of the inhabitants or the entity that initiated the establishment of the site. It cannot be ruled out, however, that objects and vessels that were left at the site were robbed by the nomads who settled in it at a later date.

The Nomadic Settlement, Stratum I (Fig. 22.48) The Main Structure On the thin occupation layer that had accumulated on the floors of Stratum II, most of the rooms revealed a layer of soil, fallen mudbricks and occasionally pieces of thick plaster, pointing to the passage of time from the abandonment of the structure and its use in the subsequent Stratum I. The similarity of the finds in all strata suggests that this gap was fairly brief. The nature of the Stratum I remains attests that nomads, who herded flocks (probably goats and sheep), settled in the rooms of the structure and its auxiliaries (the walls of which were still standing to an unknown height). With the exception of three places (L140, L113 and L147–L165), no signs of actual dwelling and construction were found; instead, layers of ash and hearths were stratified on the intermediate layer of earth and fallen debris. These layers were sometimes on quite an incline toward the walls and sometimes even passed through entrances, attesting that the nomads did not bother to expose the earlier floors or even level the debris. In certain cases, they opened or blocked an entrance, and in others they demolished installations that got in their way or built others, mainly hearths and tabuns. In a few rooms they did not settle at all, either due to heavy mounds of debris or for some other reason. The shape of the fallen heaps of debris in the southwestern portion of the main structure suggests that the nomads did not use the second storey or the roof at this stage. No remains from this phase were found in the courtyard either (except in L120), although one might have expected them to have used it to protect their f locks. The large quantity of dung found in the rooms shows that the animals were taken inside them. In some rooms, two phases of nomadic settlement were discerned in the form of separate layers of ash with a layer of soil between them pointing to a brief time interval. In these cases, the lower layer was usually brown ash and dung and the upper layer of shiny black “fatty” ash, containing numerous finds. In a few cases the structure underwent minor changes between one phase and the other. Two graves are dated to a later—perhaps even recent—date. The quantity and variety of finds discovered in the ash layers in this phase may be more than would be expected of nomads; it is possible that some of these finds had been robbed from this or other structures or from other sites in the vicinity that were abandoned at this time. The layers of ash in the rooms were sometimes so thick and contiguous that superficial cleaning of the surface easily revealed the lines of walls and entrances (Figs. 22.2–22.3). Concentrations of ash, hearths and dung were also discovered outside the main structure, especially in the south and east.

The Gate (L137) and the Courtyard (L111) These areas were not, in fact, inhabited. A thin layer (thickness 2 cm) of brown soil and dung was found in the gate, sloping toward and into the courtyard (Fig. 22.22, northern section). It attests that the nomads continued to use the gate for passage for themselves and their flocks, but did not live in it. 225

Yotvata.indb 225

03/08/2022 15:55

Fig. 22.48: Plan of Stratum I

Stone

.

etan aYaLon

226

Yotvata.indb 226

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Loci 140, 119 and 149 The entrance in W24 between L140 and the courtyard was closed off with a mudbrick partition (width 0.60 m). The three rooms composing this wing were only partially inhabited at that time, as can be seen by the blocking of their two entrances in the north and the meager layers of ash discovered in them. In Room 140 two layers of ash were uncovered, 0.10 m and 0.50 m above the Stratum II floor respectively (Fig. 22.25). A small concentration of black ash was found in the northeastern part of Room 149 near the blocked entrance. It contained sherds, including a fragment of an oil lamp decorated with a palm tree or menorah design (Chapter 23, Fig. 23.14:7). The limited occupation of these rooms may have stemmed from the collapse of the second storey or the roof, manifesting in thick layers of fallen mudbricks and particularly thick fragments of plaster found here.

Locus 120 This locus, in the corner of the courtyard, which had served as a kitchen in the previous stratum, first became a passage to Room 113, as attested by a layer of brown ash and dung discovered in it and in the entrance to the room. At a later stage this entrance was blocked with four courses of mudbrick fragments (preserved to a height of 0.36 m; see Fig. 22.10), and a thick layer of black ash accumulated in L120, sloping north and east and leaning against the blocked door (see Fig. 22.27, left section). The finds within the black ash included a copper-alloy needle (Chapter 25, Fig. 25.2:1), a fish bone, olive pits and a fragment of a date-palm beam.

Room 113 At first, nomads inhabited the room on top of the layer of fallen material, which included fragments of mudbricks, dust and thick slabs of plaster, apparently from the roof or second storey. Many of these slabs were found lying diagonally in the northwestern corner. A layer of brown ash and dung accumulated upon the fallen material in an eastward incline through the entrance to the courtyard (Fig. 22.9). In the second stage the entrance was blocked and thin layers of black ash were found in the room leaning against the blockage (Fig. 22.10). At this stage the room may still have been inhabited for brief periods (in which case the blockage of the entrance would have been intended to support the layers of fallen material and soil); alternatively, it may have been abandoned and the ash blown in by the wind.

Room 139 The situation in this room in this stratum is unclear.

Rooms 134 and 128 In Room 128, a layer of brown soil and dung was discovered overlying a layer of soil. In the annexed Room 134, a layer of ash covered the entire area (Fig. 22.12), including the bench in the eastern part, which had already been destroyed. In the space left by the partial blockage of the entrance in the south, a hearth was discovered. Within the ash layer, olive and date pits, remains of acacia and date palm beams and a reed stalk were found.

Room 160 This room revealed a thick layer of brown soil, ash and dung (Fig. 22.13), which covered the floor in the east and northwest, as well as the bench originally built in the western part of the room. This layer was also discovered in the entrance between the two pilasters and in the corner of the courtyard to the east (L172). In the southwestern corner, a hearth (not drawn on the plan) was surrounded by black ash. The variety of finds in this room included fragments of pottery and stone vessels (Chapter 25), a date-palm leaf, date fruits and numerous bones. 227

Yotvata.indb 227

03/08/2022 15:55

Etan Ayalon

Loci 170, 124 and 115 A thin layer of black ash was found overlying heaps of debris in two limited parts of the room, which constitutes the western part of the northern wing.

Room 151 A layer of ash and dung was discovered only in the southern half of the room up to the line of the ends of the pilasters. The northern part of the room apparently contained too much fallen debris to be comfortably inhabited.

Room 108 A thin (4 cm) layer of ash and hearths was discovered in the room, extending on an incline of 0.35 m above the floor and down to the floor itself, corresponding to the inclined accumulation of fallen debris. The partitions of the cells in the northern part of the room were now broken, and it cannot be ruled out that this was the work of the nomads.

Room 114 A layer of ash and dung was found throughout the room, as well as hearths (Fig. 22.49). The layer extended from floor level (in the north and the southwest) to 0.40 m above it in the area of the entrance to Room 105, but was not found in the northeastern corner of the room (Fig. 22.33).

Room 105 Since the inhabitants had not bothered to remove the fallen mudbricks and the soil that had accumulated along the walls (especially in the area of the destroyed cells), they lived only in the center of the room, and the ash does not reach the walls. Here, two layers (0.10–0.30 m thick) were discovered of black ash

Fig. 22.49: L114, looking south: plaster floor from Stratum II; ash from Stratum I is visible in section 228

Yotvata.indb 228

03/08/2022 15:55

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

and dung, as well as a stone hearth. A Byzantine coin was found in the ash layer (Chapter 28, No. 2).5 The nomads dismantled the northern row of mudbricks in the upper part of W6, and the layers of ash abut the new face of the narrower wall. It is unclear if this was perhaps done to create a recess or if it was due to earlier damage to the wall.

Room 159 and 126 In L159 a layer of ash was found, mainly in the center. In the southern part of the room, L126, a very thick layer of ash was noted. Between the pilasters, the ash overlies a layer of soil and contained numerous finds (Figs. 22.15 and 22.17). In the western part of the room the ash overlies a layer of salt and contained meager finds.

Room 155 and 156 In the southern part of the room a layer of black ash was found on the floor of the previous stratum, and in the northern part, brown soil containing dung and salt. In the eastern part there were fallen mudbricks without ash. At a later stage a tabun (diameter 0.55 m, depth 0.35 m) was built in the eastern part of the room, near W4. Coals and two stones were found at the bottom of the tabun and may have been used for heating. This phase left a layer of shiny black “fatty” ash north of the tabun and gray ash to its south; among other things, three joining bones of the right foreleg of a mature camel were found in this ash layer (Fig. 22.50).

Room 157 and 148 In L157 a layer of brown soil and dung was discovered, on top of which there were fallen mudbricks, south of Pilaster W53. South of W56 a similar layer was found, overlaid by a thick layer of shiny black “fatty” ash (Fig. 22.38).

Fig. 22.50: L155, looking west: walls, a tabun, a layer of ash and a camel foreleg, Stratum I 5. In a preliminary identification by Arie Kindler, when the coin was in better condition, he determined that it dated from the time of Heraclius (610 CE), and bore a countermark from 641.

229

Yotvata.indb 229

03/08/2022 15:56

Etan Ayalon

Room 103 and 109 On top of the layer of soil stratified on the floor of the room from the previous stratum, a thick layer of brown ash was found. After a time gap, in which another layer of soil accumulated, it was overlaid by a thick layer of shiny black “fatty” ash, with hearths sometimes dug down to floor level with layers of dung, ash and soot inside them. A variety of finds was discovered in this layer, including numerous fish bones and sheep/goat bones. This ash is covered by fallen mudbricks (Figs. 22.41–22.42) and was also found outside the structure, to the south of W3 (L107).6

Room 116 In this room, which may have been connected to the previous locus to its east, a layer of black ash contained large concentrations of wood and charcoal, many small nails and metal fragments.

The Auxiliary Rooms No finds that would indicate real settlement in this stratum were found in the area along the walls extending to the east and west from the northern corners of the main structure. Partial use was made of the rooms beyond its southeastern corner. In L144 a layer of brown soil and dung was found, revealing, among other finds, a complete cooking pot (Chapter 23, Fig. 23.13:4) and remains of a cedar of Lebanon. In L153 and L154, north of L144, sherds were found in a layer of black ash in the east and brown ash in the west (Fig. 22.44).

Loci 147 and L165 In these loci, remains testifying to the few construction operations made in this stratum were uncovered. A meager wall, W61, was built (width 0.45 m) between these loci. Two courses of mudbricks were preserved, built on a layer of soil that had accumulated in both rooms after the abandonment of the previous stratum. To the south there is an entrance in the wall (width 0.50 m), where in a later phase, thick layers of ash accumulated (Fig. 22.51). A beaten earth floor was laid in the rooms with a difference in levels of ca 0.20 m, and a phase of repair of the floor of Room 165 was discerned. The western part of W48 in the north was demolished, apparently in order to create an entrance. Mudbricks and a stone with a socket were placed in the entrance between Room 147 and Room 145 to its south; it is unclear, however, whether this intended to block the entrance (in which case the socket was in secondary use) or whether it was a high threshold containing a door socket (Fig. 22.45). A layer of ash and dung was found in the rooms, containing a variety of finds, including a boat-shaped stone oil lamp (Chapter 25, Fig. 25.1:15) and a fragment of a basalt millstone (Chapter 25, Table 25.1). A layer of ash was also found covering the small room to the south of Room 145. On either side of the narrow walls to its west (L117, L118 and L125), there was a layer of ash and brown soil with dung (thickness 0.15–0.20 m), mixed in disarray with numerous finds, including organic material and remains of food (Fig. 22.46). This might have been a refuse dump rather than a habitation layer. It is unclear what activities were carried out in this phase in the area to the east, along the continuation of W17.

Locus 164 West of the southwestern corner of the main structure, the small room from the previous stratum was reused. A tabun was now built in it (diameter ca. 0.50 m), and a layer of brown ash was found around it and covering W29. 6. A limited probe was conducted in 2020 by Guy Bar-Oz and Yotam Tepper, on behalf of the University of Haifa, in the ash layers in L107 and L109.

230

Yotvata.indb 230

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.51: L147, looking east: beaten earth floor from Stratum II; a large quantity of ash from Stratum I is visible in section, including in the opening in W61

Additional Complexes (Fig. 22.6) In the excavations described here, additional structures and remains from this period were partly uncovered. However, they are not associated with the main structure or its auxiliaries, and their stratigraphic attribution, therefore, cannot be securely determined.

Structure 135 This locus is situated ca. 30 m southeast of the main structure, in an elongated mound full of ash. A mudbrick wall was discovered on a north–south axis (located approximately opposite W50 in the southeastern auxiliary complex), along with finds similar to those found in the main structure.

Structure 143 In this locus, ca. 40 m south of the main structure, two rooms were examined, consisting of the southwestern part of a building. A segment at least 11 m long of a north–south wall was uncovered, as well as two stone walls (thickness 0.70 m) extending from it eastward; the southern of the two is at least 6 m long. A white plaster floor was found next to them, as well as pottery similar to that uncovered in the main structure (Fig. 22.52).

Locus 136 This locus is situated ca. 45 m southwest of the main structure, and it probably served at a certain stage as the inhabitants’ refuse dumps. A northwestern corner of a room with mudbrick walls was found here, with a tabun (diameter 0.60 m) abutting it to the west. These remains apparently predate the refuse dumps. 231

Yotvata.indb 231

03/08/2022 15:56

Etan Ayalon

Fig. 22.52: Structure 143, south of the main structure: plastered walls

In an extensive area (at least 10 × 20 m), large accumulations of ash were found, containing a great many and varied finds, including copper slag and half of an unidentifiable coin. These finds also resemble those known from the main structure.

Structure 141 Situated ca. 120 m west of the main structure, a stone structure was discovered in this locus and was only partially examined, as most of it was covered in the 1950s, during the construction of fish ponds. A wall was revealed, extending east and west for a length of at least 12 m. Another wall extends from its western end southward and a third from its eastern part northward. In the corner created by the two latter walls a white plaster floor was unearthed. A wall of square flat mudbricks was found 8 m to the south of the first wall and parallel to it; a 3 m long segment was unearthed. A wide stone wall was found south of this mudbrick wall and also parallel to it. Near the corner of the mudbrick wall, a segment of plaster floor was found. The narrow spaces between the walls were found full of fallen debris and a great deal of ash. The structure apparently served as a bathhouse, as attested by typical tiles and a clay pipe found there. Fragments of colored plaster were also uncovered, as well as Early Islamic pottery (cf. also Erickson-Gini 2019).

An Additional Structure Remains of another stone structure were found ca. 80 m west of the main structure (empty square in Fig. 22.6). This building was also destroyed during the construction of fish ponds at the site, as mentioned by 232

Yotvata.indb 232

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Aharoni (1954: 12–14). Remains of additional structures protrude from the ground to the east, south and west of the main structure; these were not examined.

Late Remains In L134 and L151 in the main structure, graves—apparently Bedouin—were discovered very close to the surface. In L134 in the western wing, a small individual was buried on an east–west axis, with the head to the west. In L151 in the north wing, skeletal remains were found at a depth of 0.20–0.30 m and above it, on the surface, mudbricks had been set to mark the grave. The deceased, ca. 1.80 m tall, was laid in an east–west direction on the right side, with the head in the west and facing south (Fig. 22.53). No finds were discovered in the graves. It should be noted that west of the site, near the Roman fortress, there is a large cemetery of the Aḥīwāt Bedouin, who inhabited the region until the establishment of the State of Israel (Rothenberg 1967: 139 and n. 158; Meshel 1991). Cylindrical green and black glass beads were found on the surface throughout the site (Chapter 26).

Discussion The Early Islamic structures uncovered at the Yotvata oasis cover an area of ca. two hectares, not including the remains of settlement from this period discovered in the Roman fortress and structures that have not been excavated or that were damaged over the years due to development. In addition, a pool was discovered in the village, as well as a bathhouse and other buildings, some made of stone. It should be noted that no mosque was found in this complex. Meshel (1993: 1518) mentions a small structure that he surveyed in the courtyard of the early Iron Age “fortress” (Chapters 3 and 21) that may have been a mosque or a sheikh’s tomb (but see also Chapter 34, where it is defined as a watchtower);

Fig. 22.53: L151, looking north: a recent Bedouin grave 233

Yotvata.indb 233

03/08/2022 15:56

Etan Ayalon

alternatively, this purpose may have been served by one of the stone buildings to the south or west of the main structure that has been only minimally uncovered. Scholars have noted that relatively few mosques have been discovered in the Arabah, compared to the Negev Highlands (Avner and Magness 1998: 40; Nol 2014: 29). The circumstances of the establishment of the village and various aspects of its history, economy and population, as well as its place among other Early Islamic sites in the Arabah and beyond it, are discussed in Chapter 34. The discussion below focuses on the main structure and the auxiliary rooms, described in this chapter.

Development of the General Plan Two strata, III and II, each with two sub-phases, were defined in the central structure, which was utilized as an architectural complex in the full sense of the word. The basic plan—rooms surrounding a central courtyard—was typical in this and other periods in various structures, such as palaces, fortresses and caravanserai (Helms 1990; Nol 2014: 15, 29–30). The basic plan already exists in Stratum III, although the rooms are small compared to the courtyard. The size and plan of the structure, as well as its association with the nearby agricultural areas and the ancient road that passed the site, suggest that it was guided and funded by the central government or perhaps by a rich aristocratic family (see Chapter 34). The Stratum III structure, to the extent that it was uncovered, was built of mudbrick only (Fig. 22.54), without foundation trenches or foundations (the gravelly natural soil was apparently sufficiently stable) and without the stone reinforcements that appear in the subsequent stratum. In the original phase, rooms can be seen throughout the structure with beaten earth floors and mud plaster on the walls, alongside finer rooms, the walls and floors of which were coated with white plaster (see below). Particularly noteworthy is Room 113, with a carefully designed entrance from the courtyard—flanked by two short pilasters and a coating of white plaster. This attests to the importance of the room, although its use is unknown. Stratum III already featured a small room, perhaps a storeroom or pantry, opening onto a larger room but without a separate entrance from the courtyard (L134), a hearth (inside a room, perhaps for heat or light; Porath 2016: 16*) and a tabun for cooking (in the open courtyard). The gate was apparently installed in the south, perhaps to avoid the northerly winds (cf. Helms 1990: Figs. 12–13), rather than in the east (toward the agricultural areas irrigated by qanat water systems) or the west (toward the aquifer water sources and perhaps also toward the road to Ayla). The findings show that at the end of Stratum III the rooms were emptied of most of their contents, to allow the construction operations conducted in Stratum II. The structure’s basic plan remained the same, although considerable changes were made: an entire wing was added in the north, the rooms in the south and the east were expanded (sometimes becoming relatively large halls) at the expense of the courtyard, a kitchen was installed and a solid staircase was built in the southwestern corner of the courtyard, attesting either to the existence of a second storey or to the use of the roof in this part of the structure. This is also suggested by heaps of mudbricks and pieces of very thick plaster that accumulated after abandonment in L140, L113, L139 and L134. Additional changes included the construction of a fine-looking gate in the southern wing, the thresholds and sockets of which have not survived. The plan of the gate, with plastered benches featuring armrests on either side, is reminiscent of the contemporaneous gate uncovered at Khirbet el-Mafjar (Hamilton 1993: 922–923), despite their obvious difference in size and grandeur. In aspects such as these, it is possible that the builders were imitating elements from large architectural complexes throughout the Islamic empire. Interestingly, the western wing was left in its original width, perhaps to allow use of the second storey or the roof—as it is easier to roof relatively narrow rooms. At the same time, L113, which was outstanding in the previous stratum in the quality of its entrance and in the plaster that coated its walls and floor, now became a smaller and simpler room. Its walls were now coated with mud plaster, and a 234

Yotvata.indb 234

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 22.54: A complete mudbrick (ca. 20 × 44 cm)

thick mud floor (5.5 cm)—which later split into polygonal slabs—was installed in it and in L139 to its north. This undoubtedly points to a change in the purpose of the room—although the later purpose is also unknown. Perhaps the increased size of the structure and the rooms led to the need to reinforce some of the walls with limestone blocks—both entire walls (for example, of the staircase or the pilaster in L114) or reinforcements at specific points (such as W29 and the northern ends of the gate walls). In this stratum, which was uncovered much more extensively than Stratum III, a variety of installations was unearthed in the rooms and the courtyard: silos (?) (see L105 and L108); a wooden installation with nine legs (?) (L108); “benches,” apparently on which to set equipment, the longest of which may have been used for sleeping (e.g., Israel, Nahlieli and Ben Michael 1995: 2*; Haiman 1995: 4); a niche, perhaps for storage (L134); depressions (L117 and L164—in which to set jars?); hearths, tabuns and a pool (L124; cf. Israel, Nahlieli and Ben Michael 1995: 4*). In contrast, no deep stone-lined pits, which have been identified elsewhere (e.g., at Elot) as food-storage installations (Avner 1998: 21*, Fig. 2), were discovered at Yotvata. It should also be noted that no layers of dung were found in the rooms (as in Stratum I); instead, only a thin occupation layer was uncovered, and it is clear that animals—which the inhabitants undoubtedly possessed (Chapter 32)—were not kept in the central building (as opposed, for example, to the village of Elot; Avner 1998: 37*). In addition to all these elements, in Stratum II, rooms were built in the south, abutting the structure from the outside, and unroofed but walled courtyards—perhaps encampment sites—were apparently built in the northern part. They are associated with new walls built in direct continuation of the original walls of the structure; thus, their architectural association to the main building is clear, even if they differ in their character and their quality of construction. These additions also attest to expanded use of the building and apparently to an increase in the number of its inhabitants and their occupations. 235

Yotvata.indb 235

03/08/2022 15:56

Etan Ayalon

These and other changes point not only to the need for a larger architectural complex for various uses, but also to a rise in the economic means of the builders/users. Further evidence of this may be the use of cedar of Lebanon and pine, which were brought from afar, incorporated in the doors of the gate from the early phase (and pine in its later phase). Significantly, a coffin made of cedar of Lebanon was discovered in the Nabataean built tomb near the Iron Age “fortress” on the hill west of the site (Chapters 13 and 15). This prestigious and expensive wood was also used, for example, in the monastery from the Byzantine–Early Islamic period at Tel Masos (Liphshitz and Waisel 1983), at Tel Beer-sheba and Arad in the Early Islamic period and in earlier sites in the Negev and Arabah (Liphshitz and Biger 1991).7 If the bathhouse from this period (L141) discovered west of the main building was built in this stratum, this too would attest to initiative, technical knowhow and economic means; among other discoveries in the bathhouse, remains of colored plaster and a stone bearing a painted decoration were uncovered. Interestingly, in Building B at ʿEn ʿAvrona, which is also in close proximity to qanat water systems, a methodical expansion from one phase to another was also noted, and in its eastern wing large rooms were apparently added—perhaps to accommodate travelers (Porath 2016: 15*–18*). Nevertheless, alongside the above-mentioned signs of economic prosperity at Yotvata (as well as a gold coin found in L140 and a mention of gold and silver coins in the inscriptions found here; Chapters 27 and 28), the large number of handmade vessels should be noted (Chapter 23). These are of much lower quality than the well-fired wheel-made vessels, but may indicate local preferences and regional material culture rather than meager economic abilities. The excavation suggests that the structure was apparently abandoned at the end of Stratum II, its inhabitants taking most of their possessions with them. The reasons for this are unknown—except for the burning of the gate doors in situ, no signs were found of violent destruction, a possible result of war or natural disaster. This phenomenon of abandonment is known from most of the contemporaneous sites in the Negev and Arabah, such as ʿEn ʿAvrona (Porath 2016: 18*), ʿEn Marzev (Porath 2016: 57*) and Naḥal Shaḥak (Israel, Nahlieli and Ben Michael 1995: 10*). After a brief period of abandonment, during which soil and fallen mudbricks and plaster accumulated in the rooms, some parts of the main building were used by nomadic or semi-nomadic herders, who housed their flocks in most of the rooms (Stratum I). They usually did not bother to remove the heaps of soil and debris that had accumulated on the floors. Except for very limited construction of meager walls, partitions and tabuns, the nomads did not make an effort to renovate the abandoned structure. They left layers of ash and dung containing a good many finds, some of which they may have found in the abandoned structures at the site, as their lifestyle and standard of living probably would not have permitted extensive accumulation of possessions. A similar phenomenon has been noted at sites in the Negev Highlands (e.g., Nahlieli 2007: 82, 84) and the Arabah (Porath 2016: 14*; Israel, Nahlieli and Ben Michael 1995: 4*–5*).

Construction Methods and Components A few of the construction elements have been discussed above within the description of the construction phases in the complex, such as the mud plaster coating the walls and floor or the white plaster coating them. It is not completely clear how these differences were associated with different uses of the rooms, although it may be assumed that rooms coated in white plaster were used for administrative activities, as dwellings for senior officials and even for food storage (requiring a certain level of hygiene), whereas the rooms with mud-plastered walls and earthen floors served as dwellings for regular people and for 7. In a recent study of wood remains and pollen from Byzantine Shivta and Nessana in the western Negev, it has been proposed that cedar trees were grown there, even though the climate and terrain do not theoretically fit that tree (Langgut et al. 2020: 5, Tables 1–3). It is possible that the builders of the Yotvata complex looted useable timbers or even cut down trees—if Langgut et al.’s proposal is accepted—in those already deserted sites and transported them to the Arabah. I wish to thank Itamar Taxel for this suggestion and reference.

236

Yotvata.indb 236

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

storage of equipment. An example of this is Room 105, with a beaten earth floor, annexed (without a separate entrance from the courtyard) to Room 114, which was meticulously plastered. Room 105 served as a storeroom for Room 114, as shown by the partitions into cells. Most of the mudbricks, the main construction material, were made of local clay, without any special additives, and were sun-dried (Fig. 22.55). A small quantity of mortar of the same material and color was inserted between them. Only in L164 and W43 were soft mudbricks found into which straw had been mixed, and a relatively thick layer of mud plaster was inserted between the mudbricks in W62. One of the characteristics of the structure, observed already in Stratum III, is the pilasters of various dimensions that were apparently intended as reinforcement, to facilitate roofing and division of space into cells. They were sometimes constructed as a technical phase after the walls and floors had been plastered. Most of these pilasters were made of mudbricks, and the rest were of roughly worked limestone (e.g., W11). Dressed stones were incorporated in the interior pilasters of the gate; one of these stones bears typical Nabataean diagonal dressing. The largest pilasters appear in the northern wing; in the western wing they are the smallest and appear in pairs (in Naḥal Shaḥak pairs of arched pilasters, similar in size to the smaller Yotvata pilasters, served as bases for roofing, but at Yotvata there is no evidence of arches; see Israel, Nahlieli and Ben Michael 1995: Fig. 5). Solid pilasters attached to one of the walls are known from various Islamic sites, both in simple structures in the Arabah (e.g., Israel, Nahlieli and Ben Michael 1995: Plans 3, 4; Porath 2016: Plans 8, 17) and in monumental structures in Syria, Transjordan and Israel (e.g., Creswell 1940: 124–126; Helms 1990: Fig. 42). In contrast, no evidence of the use of a column installed in the center of the room to support the roof was found in Yotvata, as, for example, in Building A at ʿEn Marzev (Porath 2016: Plan 16).

Fig. 22.55: Mudbrick construction in two perpendicular walls 237

Yotvata.indb 237

03/08/2022 15:56

Etan Ayalon

The roofs of the rooms were undoubtedly flat, and, as shown by the botanical finds (Chapter 31), they were made from local materials: tamarisk and acacia beams and perhaps also date-palm trunks. They were then covered with matting made of reeds and date-palm leaves, above which compacted soil was certainly applied. This method was also common at other sites in the Arabah (Israel, Nahlieli and Ben Michael 1995: 1*; Porath 2016: 57*). Only in the western part of the structure (L140, L113, L139 and L134), where a staircase was built in Stratum II, were very thick, solid plaster slabs discovered that had apparently come from a second storey, a special kind of roof, or (in L140) wall coating. They could have been part of a balustrade erected along the edges of the roof, held vertically between wooden poles. It should be noted that no signs of a staircase were found in Stratum III and if any use had been made of the flat roofs in this phase, the inhabitants perhaps used wooden ladders. It is very possible that parts of the courtyard, especially along the walls, were roofed with vegetal material or textiles as protection against the scorching sun (cf. Helms 1990: Fig. 24), but no evidence of this was found.

Metrology In an attempt to identify units of measurement used by the builders, measurements were taken of rooms, openings, walls, pilasters and partitions. The dimensions of the rooms did not reveal the consistent repetition of any unit of measurement. As for other measurements, the data are presented (Table 22.1) according to stratum (and it must be borne in mind that Stratum III was uncovered only to a limited extent and that Stratum I hardly revealed any construction). The data show that the measurement of 0.25 m and its multiples—0.50 m, 0.75 m and 1.0 m—was apparently the most common in both of the main construction strata. In the Roman fortress at Yotvata, for example, multiples of 0.49 m (= 0.50 m?) were employed (cf. Meshel 1989: 237). At Elot, the widths of the walls were multiples of 0.5 m and 0.75 m (Avner 1998: 21*). As for the mudbrick measurements, although they were not methodically documented, the excavation diaries noted the following dimensions: 20 × 43–45 cm and 20–25 × 50 cm and thicknesses of 10 and 15 cm (for example, the mudbricks in the walls of the gate, which were set on their narrow side). Many walls were built of one row of mudbricks lengthwise and a parallel row widthwise; their average width is therefore 0.75 m (cf. W3; Fig. 22.21). In contrast, the eastern part of W1 is 1.10 m wide and was built of two rows of slightly larger mudbricks widthwise. Other measurements were reported from Naḥal Shaḥak: 20 × 40 × 10 cm (Israel, Nahlieli and Ben Michael 1995: 1*), from ʿEn ʿAvrona: 24 × 48 × 12 cm (Porath 2016: 12*) and from ʿEn Marzev: 21 × 32 × 10.5 cm (Porath 2016: 55*). Thus, no common denominator in this regard was found among the sites in the Arabah in this period. Interestingly, one of the principles for dating the caravansary at Abu Ghosh to the Abbasid period was the use of a foot measuring 0.54 m (Avi-Yonah 1993: 6).

Water The village of Yotvata doubtless developed due to its proximity to natural springs that emerged from the high aquifer. Modern-day travelers and scholars described springs and “shallow, small depressions filled with water” (Meshel 1989: 228), albeit quite saline, which was drawn by the Bedouin with a water-hoist (shaduf ) (Chapter 1; Braslavi 1952: 75); the ancient inhabitants may have operated in a similar fashion. During the period in question, the largest and most sophisticated qanat system in Israel was established at Yotvata; this could have also provided drinking water for the inhabitants, although it was mostly exploited for agriculture. It is therefore clear why a few structures were found near the qanat at ʿEn ʿAvrona and ʿEn Marzev (one quite large structure at ʿEn ʿAvrona), but not at Yotvata: at the latter site, people lived in the village–either in the main structure or in others, and possibly even in tents (Avner and Magness 1998: 48). The proximity to water sources may also explain why no significant water reservoir was found in the 238

Yotvata.indb 238

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 22: A rchitecture and Stratigraphy

central structure (except for the small pool in L124), although west of it, remains were discovered in the 1950s of a pool, which has been destroyed. The water brought to the structure was apparently stored in jars, even though they are a relatively small component of the ceramic assemblage (Chapter 23). Leather water skins may have been extensively used and taken from the site when it was abandoned. As for the bathhouse, in its recent excavation, numerous melanopsis shells were found, attesting to the use of fresh water (Erickson-Gini 2019), similar to finds discovered in a reservoir at ʿEn ʿAvrona (Porath 2016: 11*).

Table 22.1: Measurements taken of various architectural elements Measurements 0.25 m and its multiples 0.30 m and its multiples

Walls, pilasters and partitions Benches Stratum III: 3 Stratum III: 6 Stratum II: 15 Stratum I: 1 Stratum II: 8 Stratum II: 1

0.40 m and its multiples

Stratum II: 4

Openings Stratum III: 2 Stratum III: 3 Stratum II: 2

References Aharoni, Y. 1954. The Roman Road to Aila (Elath). Israel Exploration Journal 4: 9–16. Avi-Yonah, M. 1993. Abu Ghosh, Later Periods. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1. Jerusalem: 5–7. Avner, R. 1998. Elat-Elot––An Early Islamic Village. ʿAtiqot 36: 21*–39* (Hebrew), 124–125 (English summary). Avner, U. and Magness, J. 1998. Early Islamic Settlement in the Southern Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310: 39–57. Braslavi, Y. 1952. Ha-yadaʿta et ha-ʾaretz 4. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Creswell, K.A.C. 1940. Early Muslim Architecture. Oxford. Erickson-Gini, T. 2019. Yotvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 131. http://www .hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25682&mag_id=127. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot publications on Yotvata: 54–55 (1975): 35; 63–64 (1977): 71; 67–68 (1978): 65; 74–75 (1980): 49–50. Haiman, M. 1995. An Early Islamic Period Farm at Naḥal Mitnan in the Negev Highlands. ʿAtiqot 26: 1–13. Hamilton, R.W. 1993. Mafjar, Khirbet el-. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 3. Jerusalem: 922–929. Helms, S. 1990. Early Islamic Architecture of the Desert, A Bedouin Station in Eastern Jordan. Edinburgh. Israel, Y., Nahlieli, D. and Ben Michael, Y. 1995. The Naḥal Shaḥaq Site: An Early Islamic Settlement in the Northern ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 26: 1*–14* (Hebrew), 113 (English summary). Langgut, D., Tepper, Y., Benzaquen, M., Erickson-Gini, T. and Bar-Oz, G. 2020. Environment and Horticulture in the Byzantine Negev Desert, Israel: Sustainability, Prosperity and Enigmatic Decline. Quaternary International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.08.056. Liphshitz, N. and Biger, G. 1991. Cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) in Israel during Antiquity. Israel Exploration Journal 41: 167–175. Liphshitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 1983. Analysis of the Botanical Material. In: Fritz, V. and Kempinski, A. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Ḫirbet el-Mšāš (Tel Māśōś) 1972–1975, I. Wiesbaden: 208–212. Meshel, Z. 1989. A Fort at Yotvata from the Time of Diocletian. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 228–238. Meshel, Z. 1991. Yotvata Oasis—Its History, Landscapes and Sites. Ariel 78: 6–44 (Hebrew). 239

Yotvata.indb 239

03/08/2022 15:56

Etan Ayalon

Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Nahlieli, D. 2007. Settlement Patterns in the Late Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods in the Negev, Israel. In: Saidel, B.A. and van der Steen, E., eds. On the Fringe of Society: Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives on Pastoral and Agricultural Societies (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1657). Oxford: 79–86. Nol, H. 2014. Settlement and Rule in the Eighth-Ninth Centuries: The Arava as a Case Study. Cathedra 153: 7–34 (Hebrew). Porath, Y. 2016. Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 86: 1*–81* (Hebrew), 113–116 (English summary). Rothenberg, B. 1967. Ṣefunot Negev—Archaeology in the Negev and the ʿArabah. Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Rothenberg, B. 2014. The Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Yotvata—255. http://survey.antiquities.org.il /index_Eng.html#/MapSurvey/1100.

240

Yotvata.indb 240

03/08/2022 15:56

PART VII

ARTIFACTS

Yotvata.indb 241

03/08/2022 15:56

Yotvata.indb 242

03/08/2022 15:56

CHAPTER 23

THE POTTERY Itamar Taxel

This chapter discusses the pottery found in the main building, in contexts associated with its three major phases of occupation, in the auxiliary structures built outside the building, in the refuse dump to its south and, to a lesser extent, in the bathhouse to its southwest (Chapter 22).1 The ceramic assemblage from the site is quite sizeable and typologically varied, but the great majority of the finds is fragmentary and nonrestorable, with very little representation of complete or partially restorable vessels. In addition, many of the sherds have undergone progressive weathering due to the local soil conditions and had crumbled before being properly documented and studied. Since only selected ceramic items were chosen for publication, the pottery is discussed and illustrated according to a typo-chronological, rather than contextual/stratigraphic, order, though an indication for the stratigraphic or spatial affiliation of the finds is given in the descriptive tables accompanying the plates. This main part of the report is followed by a discussion and summary of the pottery with respect to the site’s chronology, material culture and economy and against the broader regional background.

Typology Nabataean Bowl The bowl in Fig. 23.1:1 is most probably a Nabataean bowl of the late 1st century BCE or the 1st century CE. Made of a fine reddish ware (with a dark gray core), fired at a high temperature, it has everted thin walls and a sharply incurved rim. Traces of whitish slip are visible on the bowl’s interior and exterior. Given the absence of painted decoration, it seems that this bowl belongs to the Nabataean unpainted ware (Bar-Nathan 2006: 293–294, Pl. 53:27–32). The presence of this bowl fragment, which is several hundred years earlier than the Early Islamic building from which it was retrieved, may be attributed to earlier activity at the site. Surveys conducted in the ʿEn Yotvata area yielded pottery sherds and coins dated as early as the Hellenistic period, including Nabataean vessels (Rothenberg 2014: Site 26). According to Uzi Avner (personal communication), Porath excavated a building of that period north of the local spring (Davies and Magness 2015: 4; Meshel 1991).

Late Roman D / Cypriot Red Slip Ware Bowls Only two secure examples of vessels imported from an overseas location—namely, Late Roman D (LRD) / Cypriot Red Slip (CRS) Ware bowls, which originated either in Cyprus or in western Asia Minor (Hayes 1972: 371−386; 1980: 528−529; Jackson et al. 2012)—were identified in the local assemblage. The first bowl fragment was found in a Stratum III context. The bowl, made of a fine reddish ware and covered on the interior and exterior with a 1. An initial, Hebrew, draft of the Yotvata pottery report was prepared by Lior Wexler in 1998. The present chapter is based on the outlines of this draft, with necessary amendments, additions and updates.

Yotvata.indb 243

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

3

2

1

4

5

6

7

Fig. 23.1: Nabataean, imported and glazed bowls No.

Vessel

Type

Stratum

Locus

Basket

1

Bowl

Nabataean

II

140

665

2

Bowl

LRD/CRS

III

116

790/1

3

Bowl

Egyptian

II

120

668

4

Bowl (body fragment) Egyptian

II

138

637/1

5

Bowl

II/I

117

560

Egyptian (?)

6

Bowl (base)

Egyptian (?)

II/I

102

502/1

7

Bowl

Glazed

II/I

164

795/1

burnished red slip, is characterized by everted walls and a rounded grooved rim, concave from the interior (Fig. 23.1:2). The second LRD/CRS Ware sherd belongs to a bowl’s base (not illustrated) and was found in a Stratum II/I context. The present type is dated to ca. 580/600 CE until the end of the 7th century (Hayes 1972: 379−383, Form 9C; 1980: 529), though recent revision of the chronology of LRD/CRS Ware Form 9 pushes its latest production date well into the 8th, if not the 9th, century (Armstrong 2009; see below). This chronology provides one of the more secure indications that the Yotvata building could have been built as early as the 7th century, though not before its middle or second half. The arrival of imported table wares from locations elsewhere in the Mediterranean to remote sites such as Yotvata was made via commercial contacts either with settlements in the northern and central Negev, which, in turn, were connected by trade routes to the Mediterranean harbor towns, or via closer contacts with the contemporaneous Red Sea harbor town of Ayla (modern ʿAqaba), located ca. 40 km to the south. Excavations of Umayyad-period (or otherwise 7th-century CE) remains at the site of Ayla revealed some imported table-ware types which continued from the Byzantine period, including LRD/CRS Ware bowls similar to the present example (Damgaard and Jennings 2013: 485, Fig. 9:D.079; Whitcomb 1989b: 169–170, Fig. 3:a).

Egyptian Bowls Another imported fine/semi-fine ware vessel is represented by an Egyptian bowl made of a reddish-gray ware (with a dark—gray or purplish?—core), with traces of “pale” slip on the interior.2 The bowl has everted straight walls and a vertical rim, triangular/knobbed in section and partially grooved (Fig. 23.1:3). The bowl’s 2. According to Wexler’s definition; unfortunately, she did not provide a more specific description of the color of this “pale” slip.

244

Yotvata.indb 244

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

ware and profile are familiar from variants of both the Egyptian Red Slip (ERS) Ware “A” and the Egyptian White Slip (EWS) Ware groups, which are dated to the 6th/7th–8th centuries CE and to the 7th–9th or 10th centuries CE, respectively (ERS “A” Ware: Hayes 1972: 387–391, Form J/M; Watson 1995: 305, Fig. 1:1–5; EWS Ware: e.g., Konstantinidou 2012: 81, Fig. 3.21:98–99). However, since the exact color of the slip on the present bowl is unknown, it is hard to determine to which of the two Egyptian wares it belongs; regardless, considering the general chronological context of the site, a date within the second half of the 7th century or within the 8th century CE is suggested. The body fragment in Fig. 23.1:4 apparently represents another ERS Ware bowl. It is made of reddish ware fired at a relatively high temperature, and has slightly carinated walls, rouletted decoration on the upper wall and oval impressions along its carination line. Egyptian bowls with carinated walls and rouletted decoration (and sometimes impressions on the carination line) are known from contexts dated to the 6th–9th centuries CE (Incordino 2020: 27, 81–82, No. 44; for local parallels [from Caesarea], see Arnon 2008a: 34, 97–98, Type 125), with the present example likely dated to not before the mid-7th century. Another possible Egyptian bowl (Fig. 23.1:5) is made of a coarse yellowish-gray ware that contains a few medium-sized black inclusions. It is small, with everted, slightly carinated walls and a plain pointed rim. According to Wexler’s description, the bowl was “painted” in brown-black from the interior and over the external rim, though it seems that this was slip (apparently relatively thick), rather than actual decorative painting. Egyptian bowls with a similar (though not identical) profile, made of red or pink ware and covered with red or paler slip, were published from Egypt (e.g., Danys-Lasek 2014: 576, Fig. 11B:11.066, dated to the late 7th–8th centuries CE) and Israel (e.g., Johnson 2008: 80, Nos. 244–245 [related to the ERS Ware “A” but not dated]). The trumpet base (Fig. 23.1:6) probably belonged to a bowl, made of a coarse gray ware with large black inclusions. It has brown slip on the exterior, and on the inner underside of the base there are soot remains and an attached charred limestone lump. The exact typological identification and origin of this vessel are unclear, though it may be an Egyptian import (cf. a similar bowl base from the monastery of Dayr al-Baramūs, dated to the 7th–8th centuries CE or later: Konstantinidou 2012: 96, Fig. 3.25:151). The soot and burnt limestone suggest that this base was reused as a lamp or incense burner, i.e., it was turned over to form a small bowl-like vessel, inside which the burning substance was placed. Interestingly, a similar reuse of deep vessel bases was identified at Dayr al-Baramūs, although the examples could not be properly dated (Konstantinidou 2012: 243, Fig. 3.80:631–632).

Glazed Vessels Four fragments of glazed vessels were reported to have been found in the excavations. Unfortunately, only one—a bowl base—was drawn; for the other three, all body sherds, only brief written descriptions are available, and it is therefore uncertain whether the latter also represent bowls or closed vessels (jugs or jars). At any rate, despite the absence of any illustration of the three glazed body fragments, they too are discussed below, due to the fact that glazed ceramics are very scarce in the Early Islamic sites of the Negev and the Arabah. The bowl is represented by a low wide ring base and the beginning of a rounded wall. No description of its ware is available, and its decoration is composed of alternating clusters of three or four parallel strokes and more haphazard clusters of darker irregular daubs, all of which were applied over a paler background (presumably white slip), apparently under a transparent glaze (Fig. 23.1:7). Based on the preserved fragment, the bowl’s external surface treatment included vertical painted strokes that apparently extended from the rim down to slightly above the base. Altogether, the bowl seems to belong to the under-glaze painted common lead ware group, which was produced in various locations in the Levant and elsewhere in the Middle East, starting in the late 8th or early 9th century CE (Avissar 1996: 75–77; Taxel 2014: 124). 245

Yotvata.indb 245

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

According to Wexler’s description of the bowl, its glazed decoration was in “red and black,” although there is no certainty that she actually saw the bowl (as indicated also by the absence of its ware color description); hence, this color determination cannot be fully credible. The “black” (or, more often, manganese) color was frequently used in the decoration of glazed bowls in Early Islamic times. It is, however, much harder to accept Wexler’s statement that the other color decorating this bowl was red, as this color was rarely used, especially in the Levant. It is much likelier that the other color was green, which—together with black/manganese and yellow—was among the most common colors used to decorate Early Islamic glazed pottery (for local finds of glazed bowls decorated with alternating clusters of green strokes and manganese strokes or daubs, see Arnon 2008a: 40, 186, Pl. 17:2 [No. 232e, dated to the late 9th–early 10th centuries CE]; Hoffman 2019: 256, 271, Fig. 51 [dated to the 9th–10th centuries CE]). Given the overall chronology of the finds from Yotvata, it would be reasonable to date the present bowl to no later than the 9th century. The first of the other three undrawn glazed fragments (from L126, B610; presumably Stratum I) had green glaze on both sides. The second sherd (from L128, B585; Strata II/I) had turquoise glaze on the exterior and dark green glaze on the interior. The third sherd (from L136, B605; the dump), which was apparently relatively thick, had crazed green glaze on the interior and exterior. These details are insufficient to determine whether these fragments belonged to bowls or jugs/jars. However, most classes of Early Islamic (monochrome or polychrome) glazed bowls were more often than not covered with glaze only from the interior, with the exterior left unglazed or covered with a very thin or transparent and sometimes uneven layer of glaze. On the contrary, small and medium-sized glazed containers usually had both external and internal glazing. Furthermore, the green and turquoise colors were commonly used in the glazing of closed vessels, as exampled by vessels from ʿAqaba, at least some of which are Iraqi and Egyptian imports, which were dated between the 9th/10th and 11th centuries CE (Whitcomb 1988: 212, Figs. 3, 7:o; 1991: 53, Figs. 7:b,d,e,f, 8). As noted above, glazed ceramics are rare finds in Early Islamic sites in the Negev (mainly its central and southern parts) and the Arabah, presumably because glazed pottery was considered too costly by these regions’ inhabitants rather than due to a lack of proper commercial contacts with remote markets (as indicated by the presence of other non-local ceramics; see Taxel 2014: 134–135, n. 7). As for the Arabah, a handful of open and closed glazed vessels, some possibly imports, have thus far been published or reported only from Eilat-Elot (Avner 1998: 31, Fig. 13:7 [mold-decorated bowl]; Rapuano 2013: 151–152, Fig. 21 [two bowls, jar and jug]), ʿEn ʿAvrona (Porath 2016: 32*, Fig. 29:20 [jug]), Wadi Tawaḥin (Avner and Magness 1998: 50 [two unillustrated fragments of Coptic glazed bowls]) and the Yotvata fort (Magness 2015: 77 [unillustrated body fragment]). This paucity is rather telling considering the highly rich and varied assemblage of glazed ceramics found at ʿAqaba (Whitcomb 1988; 1989a; 1991), with which the Arabah settlements were no doubt in contact. Rapuano (2013: 153), Magness (2015: 77) and Porath (2016: 32*) attributed the glazed sherds to the latest, presumably post-abandonment, phase of the associated sites, while Avner (1998: 36*) noted that the glazed fragment from her excavation was found between two floors, which means that it should be attributed to the second phase of the site’s occupation, if not to the end of the first phase. In the case of Yotvata, I intend to similarly interpret the glazed vessels, rather than to attribute them to semi-nomads or Bedouin or casual visitors, as suggested by Rapuano (2013: 153) and Magness (2015: 77) with respect to Eilat-Elot and the Yotvata fort, respectively (see further below).

Fine Byzantine Ware and Derivative Bowls Compared to the above-mentioned imported wares, the representation at the site of Palestinian fine open table wares is higher, though still quite negligible. It seems that all of these vessels either belong to the Fine Byzantine Ware (FBW) group, which was produced in Jerusalem or its vicinity starting in the 6th century CE (Magness 1993: 193−201), or to imitations that were produced elsewhere in the country’s southern region. The FBW vessels have a large distribution range, mostly in central and southern Palestine, though they are rarely 246

Yotvata.indb 246

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

found in sites to the south of the central Negev; in some of the Negev sites local imitations to certain (Early Islamic) FBW types were found. Four types were identified, based on Magness’ typology.

Form 1D This is a rounded bowl with a pointed rim (Fig. 23.2:1–2). Magness dated this type to the late 7th/early 8th to 9th/10th century CE (1993: 194–196). The present examples are made of a fine yellowish-gray ware that contains small black grits, which suggests that these bowls are imitations of the genuine FBW Form 1D bowls.

Form 1E This type, which represents the most common FBW form found in the site, is a deep bowl/cup with inturned walls and flat base (Fig. 23.2:3–7). The vessels are made of a fine, high-temperature-fired reddish or yellowishred ware (sometimes with a dark gray core), burnished on the exterior. Some of the examples (e.g., Fig. 23.2:4) are decorated on the exterior with red-painted designs over a white slip. This form dates from the 8th–9th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 194; for painted examples, see also Taxel, Lester and ʿAd 2018). The bowl with everted walls (Fig. 23.2:8) may be an open variant of Form 1E or a large version of another FBW type—a cup with straight everted walls (Form 1F)—which is dated to the 7th and 8th centuries or later (Magness 1993: 194–197).

Form 2B These are large open bowls with everted rims and sometimes slightly carinated walls. One of the two illustrated examples (Fig. 23.2:9) is made of a ware similar to that of the FBW Form 1D bowls (above), suggesting that this bowl too is an imitation. The second bowl (Fig. 23.2:10) is made of a finer reddish ware, indicating that this is a genuine FBW bowl. The type is dated to the mid-7th to the 9th/10th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 198).

Form 2C These FBW bowls are made of a fine reddish ware with gray core, fired at a high temperature, and have rounded walls and a narrow, horizontal or down-turned ledge rim (Fig. 23.2:11–13). The type is dated the same as Form 2B, above (Magness 1993: 198).

Mahesh Ware and Related Open and Closed Forms A large portion, if not the majority, of the wheel-made ceramics retrieved in the excavations may be attributed to the so-called “Mahesh Ware” group and related types. First identified in the ʿAqaba excavations (Whitcomb 1989c), this ware is named after a certain demon called ‫( מחש‬Māḥiš; transliterated to Mahesh in English), which appears in an Aramaic magic inscription written in ink on a juglet belonging to this group. Mahesh Ware was originally dated by Whitcomb (1989c) to ca. 750–800 CE or later, namely to the very end of the Umayyad period and mainly to the beginning of the ʿAbbasid period. According to Porath (2016: 70*), since the Arabah sites containing qanat water systems existed already in the Umayyad period, the dating of Mahesh Ware (which prevailed in these sites, including those published by Porath) can and should be dated to as early as the Umayyad period. Although this argument is seemingly based on indirect evidence (the dating of qanat systems) more than on stratigraphic data from the excavated sites, it nevertheless seems reasonable, given the ubiquity of Mahesh Ware and vessels that can be associated with it and are even considered its predecessors in the Arabah sites, including in Yotvata. These sites provided additional clear evidence (notably ceramic and numismatic) for being occupied in the Umayyad period, and there is good reason to believe that the local population consumed Mahesh Ware vessels and/or their predecessors already in the first half of the 8th century CE, if not earlier. The ware’s origin was attributed by Whitcomb (1989c) to ʿAqaba, based on its high frequency in that town and in other neighboring sites, on the compositional characteristics of the fabric, and on the discovery of what might be predecessors of certain Mahesh Ware types in kilns excavated in ʿAqaba and dated to the second half 247

Yotvata.indb 247

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

1

2

3

4

6

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Fig. 23.2: Local fine ware bowls No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Vessel Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

Form FBW Form 1D FBW Form 1D FBW Form 1E FBW Form 1E FBW Form 1E FBW Form 1E FBW Form 1E FBW Form 1E/1F FBW Form 2B FBW Form 2B FBW Form 2C FBW Form 2C FBW Form 2C

Stratum II/I III II/I III – II/I III I II II/I I II/I II/I

Locus 117 126 164 126 – 126 126 140 151 118 103 117 117

Basket 513 597 788 570 – 610 597 652 734 516 529/1 513 513

248

Yotvata.indb 248

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

of the 7th century (Melkawi, ʿAmr and Whitcomb 1994: 463). It should be noted that Porath (2016: 70*) suggested that the Mahesh Ware vessels may have been produced in southern locations other than ʿAqaba. Porath was presumably referring to Arabia, perhaps based on Whitcomb’s mention of parallels for some of the Mahesh Ware forms in sites in the Hijaz and Yemen (Whitcomb 1989c: 273, n. 7), although it seems less likely that the Mahesh Ware vessels from ʿAqaba and the Arabah represent actual imports. The ceramics from Yotvata include types with close or identical parallels among other published Mahesh Ware assemblages, in addition to types for which no secure affiliation with the known Mahesh Ware repertoire could have been made, though they still seem to be regional products. The Mahesh Ware and related vessels found at Yotvata are characterized by a pale-colored fabric, usually yellowish or yellowishgray and sometimes pale brown, reddish-brown, or gray (in the latter case the vessels were often fired to yellowish), with tiny or small white and/or black inclusions. According to Porath (2016: 20*), the inclusions visible in the Mahesh Ware vessels from ʿEn ʿAvrona (ca. 22 km to the south of Yotvata) can be identified as quartz, indicating that the vessels were produced in an area of granite or coarse sandstone formations. The present repertoire is composed mainly of open forms—cup-bowls, bowls and basins, in addition to some closed forms, such as jars and jugs.

Cup-Bowls This form seems to be the most common Mahesh Ware type represented in the assemblage. These are small cup-bowls characterized by rounded, usually incurved, walls with a slight carination at their middle part and a plain rim that either continues the line of the wall or is slightly everted. There is a slight variation in the cup-bowls’ diameter and wall thickness, and sometimes there is a band of ridges on the exterior below the rim (Fig. 23.3). Three of the cup-bowls (Fig. 23.3:1,2,15) have mending holes drilled into the wall; in two cases the fragment preserved was large enough to indicate that the holes were drilled from both sides of vertical cracks. Apparently related to this form are bowls or cup-bowls with more flaring walls and a ridge along the rim’s inner fringes (Fig. 23.3:16–17). These cup-bowls are morphologically related to the Jerusalem-area FBW Form 1E bowls (Magness 1993: 194–198, and see above), though they differ from the latter by their somewhat coarser ware, their lack of burnish and the ridged band that appears on some of the specimens. The lack of uniformity in the fabric of the Yotvata and other presumably Mahesh Ware equivalents suggests that such cup-bowls were produced in other locations. For instance, petrographic analyses conducted on similar, yet unpublished, cup-bowls found in Early Islamic contexts at Mishmar David and Yavneh point to the northern Negev or the southern Shephelah as the possible source regions of these vessels.3 In any event, close parallels to the present examples, which were identified as Mahesh Ware, were published from ʿAqaba (Whitcomb 1989c: 273, Fig. 4:a–o [although here some of the finer, including paint-decorated, examples may be genuine FBW vessels]) and from sites in the Arabah and the central Negev, such as upper Naḥal Besor (Ben-Michael, Israel and Nahlieli 2004: 114*, Fig. 11:2–3), Eilat/Eilot (e.g., Rapuano 2013: 149, Fig. 19:9–14), Yotvata (Magness 2015: 77, Fig. 2.23:1, Color Fig. 18:5),4 ʿEn ʿAvrona (Porath 2016: 20*, 22*, 23*, Fig. 25:4–17,19–21, with additional references),5 Naḥal ʿOmer (Ben-Michael, Israel and Nahlieli 2017: 12, Fig. 11:1) and Khirbat alManaʿiyya (Jones et al. 2017: 304, Fig. 9:2). 3. The IAA excavations at Mishmar David (License No. A-4883/2006) and Yavneh (License No. A-6025/2010) were directed by Eli Yannai, and the pottery from these excavations was studied for the final publications by Itamar Taxel. The petrographic analyses of selected vessels from both sites were carried out by Anat Cohen-Weinberger. 4. Although Magness did not identify the example from the Yotvata fort as belonging to Mahesh Ware, she suggested that “this (is) a local type with parallels from the Negev and Eilat-Eilot.” 5. Note that Porath also published very similar cup-bowls from ʿEn Marzev in the Arabah, which he did not identify as Mahesh Ware but as other imitations of the FBW Form 1E vessels, the source of production of which is unknown (2016: 58*, Fig. 55:9–10).

249

Yotvata.indb 249

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

1

2

5

3

4

6

8

7

9

12

11

10

14

13

16

15

17

Fig. 23.3: Mahesh Ware cup-bowls No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Vessel Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Cup-bowl Bowl/cup-bowl Bowl/cup-bowl

Stratum Dump Dump Dump II/I II/I II/I II/I II – Dump Dump II/I II/I I I II/I II

Locus 136 136 136 125 149 117 118 120 – 136 136 118 117 140 109 117 105

Basket 511 605/1 511 538 694/2 560 535 668 – 511 511 516/3 560 652 614 533 730/1

250

Yotvata.indb 250

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

Bowls and Basins Type 1 These are medium-sized to large bowls with rounded or near-straight walls and a triangular or outfolded rim that can be plain, ridged, or decorated with wavy combing using a three- to five-pronged comb (Fig. 23.4:1–11). In one case the combing appears on the wall below the rim, and the rim is decorated with piecrust impressions (Fig. 23.4:11). Related to these bowls are a medium-sized deep bowl or basin and a larger thick-walled basin, both with thickened everted rim (Fig. 23.4:12–13). This general type is one of the most common Mahesh Ware forms, with published parallels from ʿAqaba (Melkawi, ʿAmr and Whitcomb 1994: 456, Fig. 8:f–i [Mahesh Ware predecessors?]; Whitcomb 1989c: 273, Figs. 2:e, 3:a–n) and the Arabah (e.g., Ben-Michael, Israel and Nahlieli 2017: 12, Fig. 11:4–5; Jones et al. 2017: 303–304, Fig. 9:1; Porath 2016: 23*, Fig. 26:6–21; Rapuano 2013: 148, Fig. 19:3–5). It should be noted that bowls with a triangular or outfolded rim constitute a highly common Early Islamic form throughout the southern Levant, and it is possible that not all of the present examples are actual Mahesh Ware but originated in other (southern Palestinian?) production centers (cf. Porath 2016: 60*, Fig. 55:17).

Type 2 Related to the former type, these are large bowls with a ridged and slightly carinated upper wall and a triangular rim decorated with wavy combing (Fig. 23.5:1–2). No close parallels were found to this type among the published Mahesh Ware or other bowl types from ʿAqaba and the Arabah.

Type 3 These are small bowls with thin rounded walls, with an everted, slightly concave rim and a flattened (?) base. All of the three illustrated bowls were found together in the same locus; the first and third examples are made of pinkish ware and the second bowl is of dark brown ware (Fig. 23.5:3–5). No secure parallels were found for this type among the published assemblages of Mahesh Ware and other more or less contemporaneous ceramics from ʿAqaba and the Arabah, or among many other Early Islamic ceramic assemblages from more northern regions. A somewhat similar bowl, made of red ware, was published from an early Abbasid context at Khirbat Yajuz in central Jordan (Khalil and Kareem 2002: 117, 120, Fig. 9:8), though this single non-identical parallel cannot testify to the regional affiliation of the bowls under discussion.

Type 4 These are small to large bowls with carinated walls. The upper wall section is vertical or slightly everted and partially ridged, and the rim is plain and either continues the line of the wall or is slightly everted (Fig. 23.5:6–8). The only secure parallel for a Mahesh Ware bowl of this type was published from Naḥal ʿOmer (Ben-Michael, Israel and Nahlieli 2017: 12, Fig. 11:3). Another bowl, from ʿEn ʿAvrona, has a more mildly carinated wall and its upper section is decorated with wavy combing; this bowl was also attributed to the Mahesh Ware group (Porath 2016: 23*, Fig. 26:5). In addition, a carinated bowl from ʿAqaba made of “cream ware” with a vertical upper section and an everted flattened rim was published. It was identified as a local (?) imitation of an FBW type of the mid-7th to mid-8th century CE (Melkawi, ʿAmr and Whitcomb 1994: 456, Fig. 8:c).

Type 5 These are large bowls and basins, characterized by rounded or near-straight walls and a broad thickened rim— incurved or vertical—which is either ridged or decorated with wavy combing or incisions (Fig. 23.6). This form too is well represented in the published Mahesh Ware assemblages from ʿAqaba (Whitcomb 1989c: 273, Fig. 2:a–d,f–j) and the Arabah (e.g., Ben-Michael, Israel and Nahlieli 2017: 12, Fig. 11:6; Porath 2016: 23*, 66*, Figs. 27, 58:5–10; Rapuano 2013: 146, 148, Fig. 19:1–2). 251

Yotvata.indb 251

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

12

Fig. 23.4: Mahesh Ware bowls No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Vessel Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl/basin Basin

Type Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1

Stratum II/I II/I II II Surface I II/I Dump I I II/I II II

Locus 117 125 119 105 100 107 118 136 103 117 164 126 153

Basket 533/1 538 592 713/5 503 506 516/2 511 529/2 513 788/2 624 725

252

Yotvata.indb 252

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

1

2

3

5

4

7

6

8

Fig. 23.5: Mahesh Ware bowls No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vessel Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

Type Type 2 Type 2 Type 3 Type 3 Type 3 Type 4 Type 4 Type 4

Stratum II II II II II I II/I Dump

Locus 108 120 105 105 105 127 125 136

Basket 615 668 713/4 713/1 713/3 567/1 562 687

253

Yotvata.indb 253

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

Jars, Jugs and Juglets Type 1 These are either small storage jars or large jugs, with a high, slightly inturned neck, either plain or ridged, and a broad thickened rim slightly concave on the interior (Fig. 23.7:1–3). Similar vessels—at least some of which are large single-handled jugs—have been published from ʿAqaba (Whitcomb 1989c: 273, Fig. 5:g,h,j), Naḥal Shaḥaq (Israel, Nahlieli and Ben-Michael 1995: 5*, Fig. 6:13), Eilat/Eilot (Avner 1998: 29, Fig. 13:2; Rapuano 2013: 151, Fig. 20:7,9) and ʿEn ʿAvrona (Porath 2016: 23*, Fig. 28:5–8). The body (shoulder) fragment with horizontal and wavy combing (Fig. 23.7:4) may be tentatively attributed to this type too (cf. Porath 2016: 23*, Fig. 28:14).

Type 2 This is a jug with a slightly everted neck and a plain rim (Fig. 23.7:5). It may be compared with a Mahesh Ware jug from ʿAqaba (Whitcomb 1989c: 273, Fig. 5:a).

Type 3 This uncommon form seems to represent a jug with a broad vertical neck, carinated in the middle, a narrow ledge rim decorated with wavy combing and a handle emerging from the mid-neck carination (Fig. 23.7:6–7). These vessels lack published parallels, but their combed decoration ascribes them with high probability to the Mahesh Ware group.

Type 4 This is a juglet with a globular (?) body, a short neck, an everted trefoil rim and a handle extending from rim to shoulder (Fig. 23.7:8). No parallel has been found among the Mahesh Ware or other Early Islamic pottery published from the Arabah and the Negev.

Type 5 This vessel has a wider, flattened base and a rounded (?) body (Fig. 23.7:9). The base recalls that of a small jug or juglet with a squat body from ʿAqaba (Whitcomb 1989b: 273, Fig. 5:b; cf. Rapuano 2013: 151, Fig. 20:10). Related to it, albeit with a somewhat narrower body, is the jug/juglet in Fig. 23.7:10, for which a close parallel, attributed to the Mahesh Ware group, was published from Naḥal Mitnan in the central Negev (Haiman 1995: 8, Fig. 8:21).

Type 6 Represented by a thick flattened base with the beginning of a narrow conical body (Fig. 23.7:11), this type may be identified as a handleless bottle-shaped jug/juglet associated with the Mahesh Ware group, published from ʿAqaba (Whitcomb 1989b: 273, Fig. 5:e). The illustrated base bears soot traces on one side, apparently stemming from the object’s context (within an ashy layer) rather than from some reuse.

Type 7 Represented by a body fragment, this jug had a strainer with at least five round holes at the base of its neck and a ribbed shoulder (Fig. 23.7:12). Strainer jugs with ribbed shoulders and three holes in the strainer, albeit earlier than the Mahesh Ware group (mid-late 7th century CE), have been published from ʿAqaba (Melkawi, ʿAmr and Whitcomb 1994: 456, Fig. 10:b,c).

Crude Handmade Ware The second most common group of ceramics found at the site, after the Mahesh Ware and related vessels, is represented by open and closed handmade vessels—bowls, basins, cooking pots and possibly jars—both plain and decorated. Handmade vessels found in the Negev and Arabah regions (and in southwestern Transjordan/ Edom) are usually associated with the so-called “Negebite Ware,” a generic term related to crude locally made 254

Yotvata.indb 254

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

1

2

3

4

5

8

6

9

7

10

Fig. 23.6: Mahesh Ware bowls/basins No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Vessel Bowl/basin Bowl/basin Bowl/basin Bowl/basin Bowl/basin Bowl/basin Bowl/basin Bowl/basin Bowl/basin Bowl/basin

Type Type 5 Type 5 Type 5 Type 5 Type 5 Type 5 Type 5 Type 5 Type 5 Type 5

Stratum II II I II/I II/I II/I II/I II/I I –

Locus 105 105 134 114 117 117 117 117 128 –

Basket 713/6 713 619 552 520 513 533/2 513 585 –

255

Yotvata.indb 255

03/08/2022 15:56

I taMar taXeL

1

5

2

3

6

9

4

7

10

8

11

12

Fig. 23.7: Mahesh Ware jars, jugs and juglets No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Vessel Jar/jug Jar/jug Jar/jug Jar/jug (body fragment) Jug Jug (?) Jug (?) Juglet Jug/juglet (base) Jug/juglet (base) Jug/juglet (base) Jug (body fragment)

Type Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1? Type 2 Type 3 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 5 Type 6 Type 7

Stratum II/I II/I III I II/I Bathhouse II Dump II II/I I II/I

Locus 117 117 169 129 164 141 120 136 108 134 159 164

Basket 513 560/1 786 580 788 659 672/1 511 615 595 759 788

256

Yotvata.indb 256

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

vessels that characterized the material culture of southern Palestine since the Early Bronze Age II and mainly during the Iron Age until the Persian period, on either a centralized or a household level (see Dagan 2011, with references). Since there are obvious differences in form and function between the first-millennium BCE Negebite Ware and the later versions of it, a more pragmatic term is suggested here for the latter, namely “Crude Handmade Ware.” Although several studies have discussed the early (mainly first-millennium BCE) stage of “Negebite” Ware, its later appearance, dated to the later Byzantine period and mainly to the beginning of the Early Islamic period (6th–8th centuries CE), has been only briefly discussed (see Rosen and Avni 1997: 69–70), and no systematic typology of late Crude Handmade Ware vessels has yet been established. Obviously, in order to prove local production, petrographic analyses of relevant vessels should be carried out, as demonstrated by Iron Age “Negebite”-like handmade vessels from Ḥorvat Shimon in the Judean Shephelah, the petrographic analysis of which showed that they were produced locally (Dagan 2011). To the best of my knowledge, the first petrographic analysis on late Crude Handmade Ware was carried out on finds from the Yotvata excavations. This analysis indicates that the sampled vessels were produced locally, perhaps even at the site itself (see Chapter 24). In addition, the generally poor quality of the Yotvata Crude Handmade Ware vessels (including in terms of firing temperature) makes transportation over considerable distances unlikely. Indeed, a broken upper stone of a potter’s wheel has been found in the present excavation (Chapter 25). Interestingly, another regional group of Crude Handmade Ware vessels, nicknamed “Tupperware” by Whitcomb, was produced in ʿAqaba in the later part of the Early Islamic (Fatimid) period, i.e., between the mid-/late 10th–11th centuries CE, perhaps constituting one of the heralders of the strong tradition of handmade ceramics that spread across the Near East from the 12th century onward (Whitcomb 1988: 212, Fig. 5; 1994: 10; see also Damgaard 2013: 84, Fig. 4, upper left and upper right). Although ʿAqaba’s “Tupperware” apparently appeared a century or two after the abandonment of the Early Islamic settlement at Yotvata, the possibility that ʿAqaba-based potters produced handmade vessels as early as the 8th century— and that these vessels were distributed northward along the Arabah Valley—should not be ruled out. Handmade vessels (mainly open forms), both plain and paint decorated, were also published from Gharandal in southern Jordan, ca. 35 km north of Yotvata. These vessels, termed there “Early Plain Handmade Ware” and “Early Handmade Painted Ware,” were dated to not before 850/900 CE and probably only to the late 10th and the 11th centuries, i.e., more or less contemporaneously with the ʿAqaba “Tupperware.” They were interpreted as short-lived precursors of the highly widespread Late Islamic (Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman) plain and painted handmade wares (Walmsley and Grey 2001: 153, 158, Figs. 9:6–10, 10:1–9). Additional plain, punctate- and paint-decorated handmade vessels (mostly open forms) were published from Ḥumayma, also in southern Jordan, ca. 50 km northeast of Yotvata. At Ḥumayma, it has been suggested that handmade vessels may be dated to as early as the ʿAbbasid and Fatimid periods, mainly based on parallels from Gharandal and ʿAqaba (above), and up until the early Ottoman period (Oleson, ʿAmr and Holmqvist-Saukkonen 2013: 14). Some of the published handmade vessels from Ḥumayma were dated to the Middle and Late Islamic (i.e., Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman) periods, while others were ascribed either to the end of the Early Islamic (Fatimid) period or to the Fatimid or Late Islamic period, or else were given a very broad chronological range— from the 8th century CE to the Ottoman period (ʿAmr and Oleson 2013: Figs. 5.48, 5.49, 5.56, 5.59; Oleson 2013: Figs. 6.10, 6.28; see further below). It seems, however, that at least in some of the cases, the vessels’ dating was based mainly, if not exclusively, on parallels from other sites rather than on stratigraphic data, as the excavators admitted the mixed nature of the Ḥumayma deposits, which apparently prevented accurate dating of certain ceramic types. It should be noted, though, that in the conclusions chapter of the Ḥumayma report the handmade vessels were mentioned as “found in … Early Islamic contexts” and interpreted as likely local products (Oleson and Schick 2013: 547). This conclusion, however, should remain tentative until a comprehensive petrographic analysis of handmade vessels from Ḥumayma is carried out. At any rate, the single fragment of a handmade bowl 257

Yotvata.indb 257

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

from the site that was sampled (a surface find, hence poorly dated) was found to originate from ʿAqaba (Oleson, ʿAmr and Holmqvist-Saukkonen 2013: 17, 20, sample H17). Whatever the production source of the Crude Handmade Ware vessels found at Yotvata was, the local assemblage is the largest and most varied ever to be published from an Early Islamic site in southern Palestine, not to mention sites in more northern regions.6 These vessels are made of a coarse ware usually characterized by a gray, dark gray, or black core, fired to a pinkish, reddish, yellowish, greenish, or brown color. The fabric usually contains small white inclusions and sometimes voids of organic tempers (cf. the later ʿAqaba “Tupperware” vessels, which according to Whitcomb [2010: 169, n. 3] “were made with little or no vegetal temper”). More often than not, the vessels are crudely executed, and only seldom was the exterior wall roughly smoothed. Simple plastic, incised, impressed, or painted decorations appear on some of the vessels. An important detail testifying to the production technique and process of these vessels is the textile impressions appearing on more than 17 Crude Handmade Ware vessel fragments, all probably of closed vessels (Fig. 23.8, showing 16 of the sherds; for analysis of the textile impressions, see Chapter 29).7 In 15 of the 17 fragments that were physically examined, the impressions appear on the interior of the vessels; in two sherds the impressions are on the exterior. Consequently, it seems that in the case of the first group, the vessels were modeled (apparently using clay coils) around a textile bag full of wet sand, which provided the vessels their general rounded shape. This technique is familiar from later, Ayyubidto Ottoman-period, handmade vessels produced in the Near East, as indicated by textile impressions sometimes found on the interior of these vessels (Avissar and Stern 2005: 113; Gabrieli 2015: 138, Fig. 8:a),8 and it is not surprising to discover that this method was already used by earlier potters who produced Crude Handmade Ware and related ceramics. Regarding the later “Tupperware” from ʿAqaba, Whitcomb (2010: 169, n. 3) noted that they often bear “impressions of reed matting” on their base. As for the two sherds with external textile impressions, it seems that these vessels, while still relatively soft, were put to dry with a coverage of (wet?) cloth.

Bowls and Basins Type 1 These are medium-sized or large bowls,9 with relatively thick—everted or slightly incurved—walls, a plain rim and a flat base (Fig. 23.9:1–6). Similar bowls have been published thus far only from ʿEn ʿAvrona (Porath 2016: 32*, Fig. 29:21–22) and Naḥal ʿOmer (Ben-Michael, Israel and Nahlieli 2017: 12, Fig. 11:7). Another bowl (with straight everted walls) was published from Ḥumayma and dated—apparently tentatively—to the Late Islamic period (ʿAmr and Oleson 2013: Fig. 5.49: 1991.0105). Interestingly, a group of handmade open Early Islamic vessels published from Tiberias, likely of local production judging by the basalt grits they contain, included a bowl similar to our Type 1. It originated in a context dated to the late 10th–early 11th centuries CE (Stacey 2004: 101, 104, Fig. 5.16:4). 6. To be specific, a handful of Early Islamic Crude Handmade Ware vessels (all plain) have thus far been published from only a few excavated sites, notably Naḥal ʿOded (Rosen and Avni 1997: 69–70, Figs. 7.3:10, 7.4:1,8 [bowl and jar bases]), the Yotvata fort (Magness 2015: 78, Figs. 2.28:4–5, 2.29:2–3 [basin and cooking pots]) and bathhouse (Erickson-Gini 2019: Figs. 7, 12 [bowls]), ʿEn ʿAvrona (Porath 2016: 32*, Fig. 29:21–22 [bowls]), ʿEn Marzev (Porath 2016: 62*, Fig. 57:16 [jar base]) and Naḥal ʿOmer (Ben-Michael, Israel and Nahlieli 2017: 12, Fig. 11:7 [bowl]). 7. The excavation diary mentions more similar sherds found in L116 and L145, in addition to those mentioned in Chapter 29. 8. In the Ṣuḥār region in Oman, a certain locally-produced Late Islamic (19th–20th century) handmade ware with textile impressions on the exterior wall was defined. The researchers suggested that since the textile pattern is very fine, this indicates “modern manufacture techniques” (Biezeveld and Düring 2020: 210–212, Fig. 13). 9. This detail should be taken with caution, since the diameter of some of the bowls could not be estimated; still, judging by their wall thickness they seem to belong to the present type rather than to Type 2.

258

Yotvata.indb 258

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

Type 2 These are smaller bowls with rounded walls and a plain incurved rim (Fig. 23.9:7–8). A similar bowl was published from Erickson-Gini’s excavation in the Yotvata Early Islamic bathhouse (2019: Fig. 7:1) and another, small, though more open, Crude Handmade Ware bowl was published from Naḥal ʿOded (Rosen and Avni 1997: 69–70, Fig. 7.4:1).

Type 3 This type of small bowl has straight, slightly everted walls, a plain thin rim and a flat base (Fig. 23.9:9). It too lacks parallels, although similar (somewhat larger?) bowls belonging to the later “Tupperware” family were found in ʿAqaba (Damgaard 2013: Fig. 4: upper right [the two vessels at the bottom right]) and another bowl—ascribed to the Late Islamic period—was published from Ḥumayma (ʿAmr and Oleson 2013: Fig. 5.49: 1991.0302.01).

Type 4 This type represents deep large bowls and basins, with near-vertical or slightly everted walls, a plain or flattened rim and applied decoration of a rope-shaped clay band below the rim (Fig. 23.9:10–13). Two examples (Fig. 23.9:10,12) are also decorated with red painting/slip on the interior and on the exterior, with the exception of the applied clay band. No parallel to this type has been found in neighboring sites, not even among the later “Tupperware” vessels from ʿAqaba, though a large handmade bowl with a similar profile but with no decoration was published from Gharandal (Walmsley and Grey 2001: 158, Fig. 10:5). The rope-shaped clay band may be a local (?) version of the thumb-impressed clay band that sometimes decorated the upper walls or rims of large Early Islamic bowls and basins, especially types that were common in northern Palestine and Transjordan (e.g., Bar-Nathan 2011: 242, 282, Figs. 11.10:1, 11.34:1–4) but also in more southern regions (e.g., Cytryn-Silverman 2010: 100, Pls. 9.15:2, 9.23:2–3). It is possible that vessels that originated in regions such as the Judean Hill country and were transported to the Arabah inspired local potters, although the difference between the two decorative patterns (thumb impressions vs. a rope motif) may suggest that the latter was developed independently. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that three large handmade bowls/basins published from Tiberias were decorated with thumb-impressed clay bands rather than with rope-shaped bands, i.e., their decoration style was in accordance with the common regional style. The Tiberias vessels were found in contexts dated to the mid-8th–late 9th or to the late 9th–late 10th centuries, to the 11th century, and to the late 10th–early 11th centuries CE, respectively (Stacey 2004: 101, 104, Fig. 5.16:1,3,5).

Cooking Pots Type 1 These are small to medium-sized cooking pots with a globular body, a very short everted neck and a plain rim (Fig. 23.10:1–11). Two of the smallest examples have a flat base, and one of them (Fig. 23.10:1) also has two horizontal ledge handles on the shoulder. Two other, larger, pots have atrophied lug handles (Fig. 23.10:4) and horizontal loop handles (Fig. 23.10:11). Virtually all of the cooking pots bear soot remains on the exterior wall. A Crude Handmade Ware cooking pot (with pie-crust rim), apparently similar in size to the larger examples of the discussed type, was published from the Early Islamic phase of the Yotvata fort (Magness 2015: 78, Fig. 2.29:3). A later (presumably Fatimid-period) handmade cooking pot similar to the present ones was published from Gharandal (Walmsley and Grey 2001: 158, Fig. 9:7).

Type 2 These rather small pots have a rounded or bag-shaped (?) body, a holemouth opening with everted rim and a decoration of either a series of deep horizontal and/or wavy incisions or a single thin wavy incision under the rim and a line of dense narrow impressions underneath the incisions (Fig. 23.10:12–15). No parallels were found to these vessels, though it should be noted that several handmade bowls (open cooking pots?) with punctate/impressed decoration recalling the decoration on the Yotvata pots were published from 259

Yotvata.indb 259

03/08/2022 15:56

I taMar taXeL

1

2

3

6

8

7

9

5

4

10

11

14

12

13

15

16

Fig. 23.8: Crude Handmade Ware sherds with textile impressions (prepared by Yulia Gottlieb)

260

Yotvata.indb 260

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

Fig. 23.8: Crude Handmade Ware sherds with textile impressions No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Stratum I III III III III II II II–I II II–I II II II III–I III Unknown

Locus 103 116 116 116 116 120 120 137 137 137 145 145 145 149 155 Unknown

Basket 529/3 790/1,3,7 790/2 790/4 790/5,6 672 689 707/1 758a+b 707/2 740 777/1 777/2 757 781 Unknown

No. in Chapter 24 Table 24.1, No. 20 Table 24.1, No. 23 Table 24.1, No. 22 Table 24.1, No. 19 Table 24.1, No. 12 Table 24.1, No. 10 Table 24.1, No. 11 Table 24.1, No. 13 Table 24.1, No. 16 Table 24.1, No. 14 – Table 24.1, No. 17 Table 24.1, No. 21 Table 24.1, No. 15 Table 24.1, No. 18 –

Figure in Chapter 29 Fig. 29.7:1 Fig. 29.7:2 Fig. 29.7:3 Fig. 29.7:4 Fig. 29.7:5 Fig. 29.7:6 Fig. 29.7:7 Fig. 29.7:8 Fig. 29.7:9 Fig. 29.7:10 Fig. 29.7:11 Fig. 29.7:12 Fig. 29.7:13 Fig. 29.7:14 Fig. 29.7:15 Fig. 29.7:16

Ḥumayma, where they were dated to the Fatimid and/or Late Islamic period (ʿAmr and Oleson 2013: Figs. 5.48: 1991.0165.01, 1991.0302, 1991.0332, 5.49: 1991.0165.02, 1991.0361.01, 5.59: 1993.0178, 1995.0073).

Type 3 These are large pots characterized by a very low or medium-high, vertical or everted neck and plain or triangular rim (Fig. 23.11:1–6). One example has a thick, oval-sectioned and ridged handle emerging from the neck (Fig. 23.11:6). Handmade cooking pots with a similar rim-neck profile were published from the Early Islamic phase of the Yotvata fort (Magness 2015: 78, Figs. 2.28:5, 2.29:2; defined there as Negebite Ware), and from a later context at Gharandal (Walmsley and Grey 2001: 158, Fig. 9:8).

Painted Vessels A unique class of Crude Handmade Ware represented in the assemblage consists of open and closed vessels, i.e., bowls and jugs/small jars, decorated with a simple painting of brown or reddish-brown strips applied either directly over the clay or over a cream-colored slip. The painted motifs are composed of intersecting, attached, or parallel straight or curved strips (and sometimes spots) at times creating a more or less symmetric pattern, such as herringbone or a triangle with attached loops. Due to the small size of the preserved fragments, and because only some of them were available for examination by the present author, it was not always feasible to determine whether a given sherd represents an open or closed vessel (e.g., in the case of the fragments represented in Fig. 23.11:7–8). Other fragments can be more securely identified as bowls with straight or rounded walls and a plain rim (Fig. 23.11:9–10),10 as body fragments of bowls (?) (since the painted decoration appears on the exterior and interior walls; Fig. 23.11:11–12) or as body fragments of jugs/jars (Fig. 23.11:13–15) and a loop handle (Fig. 23.11:16). 10. Note that the two joining fragments of the bowl in Fig. 23.11:10 were found in two different loci, ca. 5 m apart, and each was attributed to a different phase of the building. This fact further confirms the overall disturbed nature of the excavated deposits.

261

Yotvata.indb 261

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

10

8

9

11

12

13

Fig. 23.9: Crude Handmade Ware bowls and basins No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Vessel Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Basin Basin Basin

Type Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 2 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 4 Type 4 Type 4

Stratum I II II/I II/I II/I II I Surface I I Surface II/I I

Locus 105 138 117 118 117 120 153 100 149 124 100 114 140

Basket 692/1 632/1 513 516 560 679 700 605 714 547/1 503/2 552/1 652

262

Yotvata.indb 262

03/08/2022 15:56

1

2

3

4

CHaPter 23: t He PotterY 1

2

1 1

2 5

1 1 5

5 5

9

3

2 2

3 3

4 7

4 4

7

8

7

8

6

7 10 7 7

8

6 6

8 8

10

9

9 9

11 13

10 10 10

12

11

11

10 12

8

4

6

9

9

4

3

6 2

6

5 5

3

14

11 11 11

13

14

12

13

14

12

13

14

12 12

13 13

14 14

15

15 15 Fig. 23.10: Crude Handmade Ware cooking pots

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Vessel Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot

15

Type 15 15 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Type 2

Stratum III Dump Dump III II Dump II/I Dump Dump – Surface Surface I III II/I

Locus 116 136 136 116 153 136 109 136 136 – 100 135 103 171 118

Basket 789 511/1 511 820 725 605 635 511/2 687 – 503/1 603/1 529/3 816/1 537/1

263

Yotvata.indb 263

03/08/2022 15:56

I taMar taXeL

1

2

4

7

3

5

8

6

9

10

11

12

14

13

15

16

Fig. 23.11: Crude Handmade Ware cooking pots and painted vessels

264

Yotvata.indb 264

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

Fig. 23.11: Crude Handmade Ware cooking pots and painted vessels No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Vessel Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Painted open/closed vessel Painted open/closed vessel Painted bowl Painted bowl

11 12 13 14 15 16

Painted bowl (?) (body fragment) Painted bowl (?) (body fragment) Painted jug/jar (body fragment) Painted jug/jar (body fragment) Painted jug/jar (body fragment) Painted jug/jar (handle)

Type Type 3 Type 3 Type 3 Type 3 Type 3 Type 3

Stratum II/I II/I II II/I I II/I II/I II/I I I II II – II/I III – II/I

Locus 117 119 122 125 148 164 125 117 140 140 120 153 – 165 116 – 165

Basket 560 588 527 538 661 788/1 562 520/1 652/2 652/1 668 725 – 811 790 – 811

No parallel for painted vessels has been found among the published Crude Handmade Ware examples from the Negev and the Arabah. However, a few of the later, Fatimid-period, “Tupperware” vessels from ʿAqaba, “Early Handmade Painted Ware” from Gharandal and handmade vessels from Ḥumayma were decorated with simple irregular reddish-brown- or black-painted motifs. These include two small bowls and a handled jar published by Whitcomb (1988: 212, Fig. 5:a,b,e), jars/jugs published by Walmsley and Grey (2001: 158, Fig. 10:6–9) and two bowls published by ʿAmr and Oleson (2013: Figs. 5.48: 1991.0182, 5.59: 1995.0085). Some of these decorations—especially those of the bowls—are very similar to the painted motifs on some of the Crude Handmade Ware vessels from Yotvata. According to Whitcomb (1988: 212), these decorations “may reflect the beginnings of the tradition of painted geometric decorations, a recognized characteristic of the following Ayyubid–Mamluk period,” a conclusion adopted by Walmsley and Grey (2001: 153, 158) as well. Given the latest possible date of the Yotvata finds, i.e., the 9th century CE (see below), the appearance of painted handmade ceramics in the southern Levant, or more accurately, at its very southern end, can be traced back to the ʿAbbasid period, if not to the late Umayyad period.11 Nonetheless, the marginality of these vessels within the Yotvata assemblage and the lack of contemporaneous parallels in other sites in the southern Negev and the Arabah suggest that the production of painted Crude Handmade Ware vessels was a one-time episode, perhaps even an independent initiation of a local (Yotvata-based?) potter. Furthermore, the apparent chronological gap of at least a century if not two centuries between the painted Crude Handmade Ware at Yotvata and the painted (and plain) handmade wares from ʿAqaba, Gharandal and probably also Ḥumayma12 11. Interestingly, handmade bowls with simple painted decoration were also produced in Early Islamic Egypt, at least since the 10th century CE but perhaps already in the 8th century (see Gascoigne 2005: 183–184, Fig. 17, with references). 12. The picture reflected from the Ḥumayma report regarding the chronology of handmade vessels is more ambiguous, and the possibility that most, if not all, of these vessels are Early rather than Late Islamic should not be excluded. Furthermore, the fact that occupation at Ḥumayma sharply declined after the ʿAbbasid period (Oleson and Schick 2013: 547–548, 553–554) reinforces the assumption that at least some of the local handmade vessels can be dated back to the late Umayyad or early ʿAbbasid period, similar to the situation at Yotvata.

265

Yotvata.indb 265

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

does not permit the identification of a relation between the two groups, despite the general stylistic similarity of the decorations and the relative geographical proximity between these sites.

Miscellaneous Forms This category encompasses various body fragments of Crude Handmade Ware vessels that could not be securely ascribed to a specific functional or morphological category. The vessel represented in Fig. 23.12:1 is a small, apparently oval, shallow bowl with two upturned horizontal handles (another fragment, which represents the bowl’s opposite side with the second handle, was not drawn). Fig. 23.12:2–3 shows horizontal handles—one horseshoe-shaped—perhaps belonging to cooking vessels or jars, such as a later “Tupperware” holemouth jar/cooking pot with horseshoe-shaped handle from ʿAqaba (Whitcomb 1988: Fig. 5:f). The fragment in Fig. 23.12:4 is either a spout or a very short narrow neck, in either case of a closed vessel. The two fragments in Fig. 23.12:5–6 were drawn as narrow-bodied vessels, although there is no certainty that this reconstruction is accurate. The first fragment has thick carinated walls decorated along the carination line with crescent-like impressions, while the second vessel has thinner walls, a rounded profile and a decoration of two applied ridges with thumb (?) impressions. As noted, it is uncertain whether these were open or closed vessels, although regardless, they seem to be different from the above-mentioned Type 4 bowls and basins.

Wheel-Made Cooking Wares The cooking vessels found at the site, other than those belonging to the Crude Handmade Ware, are represented by a few wheel-made types of open and closed forms and by lids. Although it is possible that some of these cooking wares originated at neighboring production centers (notably ʿAqaba, and see below), it seems that the majority originated at more remote locations, presumably in central or southern Palestine.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fig. 23.12: Miscellaneous Crude Handmade Ware forms No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Vessel Bowl Cooking pot/jar (handle) Cooking pot/jar (handle) Jug/jar (spout/neck) Unidentified vessel Unidentified vessel

Stratum II II/I III I II II

Locus 105 164 116 153 120 105

Basket 717/2 788/1 790 700 686 730/1

266

Yotvata.indb 266

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

Casseroles Type 1 This is the most common type of casserole in the southern Levant. Made of a coarse reddish-brown cooking pot ware, it has everted—ribbed or plain—walls, a cut-away rim and horizontal (slightly upturned) handles (Fig. 23.13:1–2). The type is commonly dated to the 3rd–9th centuries CE (Magness 1993: 211–213, Form 1). These casseroles were likely manufactured at many production centers across the southern Levant. It is, therefore, difficult to conclude whether the Yotvata specimens were brought from a distance (e.g., from the Judean highlands or the southern Mediterranean coast, but apparently not from the Negev, where no secure evidence for cooking ware production was identified; see Holmqvist 2019: 114–116)13 or from a closer workshop, such as those that existed in ʿAqaba and produced similar casseroles (Melkawi, ʿAmr and Whitcomb 1994: 456, Fig. 9:b–d).

Type 2 This uncommon vessel, thought to be a casserole or open cooking pot, is described as made of a reddish-brown ware. It has rounded walls tapering towards the wide opening, a slightly everted rim and loop handles from rim to shoulder (Fig. 23.13:3). The form has no close equivalents among the local or regional cooking wares of the Early Islamic period. A similar vessel, found in the ʿAqaba excavations, was dated to the Late Roman period, although it originated from an unstratified context in an area that was occupied well into Early Islamic times, and was probably produced locally (Holmqvist 2019: 27, 60, 94, 97, 171 [No. A005]). Similar casseroles or open cooking pots, though sometimes with a more pronounced rim, were more prevalent in Egypt in contexts dated between the Late Roman/early Byzantine period (e.g., Mondin 2019: 113–114, Pl. 2.34:451–453 [dated to the 5th century CE]) until the Early Islamic period (e.g., Gayraud, Treglia and Vallauri 2009: 181, Fig. 5:4–6 [dated to the 9th–10th centuries CE]; cf. a smaller Egyptian cooking pot of this type from the Yotvata fort: Magness 2015: 77–78, Fig. 2.26:4). Since I could not personally examine the Yotvata example, it was impossible to determine whether it too was made of a micaceous Nile Valley fabric as the Egyptian vessels.

Cooking Pots Type 1 This is the main cooking-pot type found at the site, represented by one complete (intact) vessel and several fragments. It is characterized by a globular body ribbed almost throughout (excluding the base), a short to medium–high everted neck with ribbing covering its entire area or the lower half, thickened—round- or triangular-sectioned—rim, and relatively small loop handles from rim to shoulder (Fig. 23.13:4–11). This type of cooking pot is characteristic of central and southern Palestine and is dated to the late 7th/early 8th–9th centuries CE (for equivalents from the Arabah sites, see Avner 1998: 31, Fig. 13:8–10; Israel, Nahlieli and Ben-Michael 1995: 5*, Fig. 6:3; Ben-Michael, Israel and Nahlieli 2017: 12, Fig. 12:1–2; Porath 2016: 29*, 62*, Figs. 29:1–2, 57:3–4), though it is presumably not represented in ʿAqaba, as it is absent from published assemblages from that site (Melkawi, ʿAmr and Whitcomb 1994; Whitcomb 1989c).

Type 2 Related to the previous type, this cooking pot has a taller and more vertical ridged neck, a thicker (rounded) rim and longer handles extending from rim to shoulder (Fig. 23.13:12). Tall- and ridged-necked cooking pots, usually with a somewhat convex profile, have been published from ʿEn Marzev in the Arabah (Porath 2016: 62*, Fig. 57:1,5) and from Naḥal Mitnan in the Negev (where the vessel was identified as a storage jar made of a cooking-pot ware; Haiman 1995: 8, Fig. 8:15). 13. Holmqvist’s conclusion is based on petrographic analyses conducted on cooking vessels from Elusa and Abu Matar (near Beersheba), among them casseroles of the same type represented in Yotvata (Holmqvist 2019: 167 [Nos. E001–003], 169 [Nos. AM 001–003, 004]).

267

Yotvata.indb 267

03/08/2022 15:56

I taMar taXeL

2

1

3

4

5

10

6

7

11

13

8

9

12

14

15

Fig. 23.13: Cooking wares

268

Yotvata.indb 268

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

Fig. 23.13: Cooking wares No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Vessel Casserole Casserole Casserole Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking ware lid Cooking ware lid Cooking ware lid (?)

Type Casserole Type 1 Casserole Type 1 Casserole Type 2 Cooking pot Type 1 Cooking pot Type 1 Cooking pot Type 1 Cooking pot Type 1 Cooking pot Type 1 Cooking pot Type 1 Cooking pot Type 1 Cooking pot Type 1 Cooking pot Type 2

Stratum I III II/I I II/I Dump II II/I II/I II/I I I II II II

Locus 120 126 149 144 114 136 170 137 118 118 148 109 105 133 122

Basket 654/1 597 694/1 681/1 552 511 785 633 528 516 661 575 713/2 755/1 527

Cooking-Ware Lids The above-mentioned casseroles and probably some of the cooking pots as well were normally covered by matching lids. Although no description is available of the ware from which the three illustrated lids were made, the first two, presenting two size standards, belong to the common Levantine type with near-straight walls and an everted cutaway rim (Fig. 23.13:13–14), used from the Late Roman period until the 9th or 10th century CE (Magness 1993: 215). Such lids, which were produced in ʿAqaba (Melkawi, ʿAmr and Whitcomb 1994: 456, Fig. 9:a–b) as well as in more northern regions, are present in most of the excavated Early Islamic sites in the Negev and the Arabah (e.g., Israel, Nahlieli and Ben-Michael 1995: 5*, Fig. 6:7–11; Porath 2016: 29*, 62*, Figs. 29:5, 57:10–14). The assumed lid represented in Fig. 23.13:15 differs from the other lids in its more convex walls and plain pointed rim. It does not seem to belong to the Mahesh Ware lids, which have flaring rounded rims (e.g., Whitcomb 1989b: 273, Fig. 4:v–x), and for the time being, its typological and regional affiliation remains unclear.

Storage Jars Only a single type of storage jar (other than those related to the Mahesh Ware and Crude Handmade Ware groups) could be tentatively identified in the assemblage, represented by two fragments of what seem to be bag-shaped jars. For the first jar no ware description is available, although its drawing suggests a dark-colored (self?) slip on the interior and exterior. It has a short, slightly everted neck and plain rim (Fig. 23.14:1). It may be compared with storage jars found at Naḥal Shaḥaq (Israel, Nahlieli and Ben-Michael 1995: 6*, Fig. 6:16), Naḥal ʿOmer (Ben-Michael, Israel and Nahlieli 2017: 12, Fig. 12:5) and in the Early Islamic phase of the Yotvata fort (Magness 2015: 78, Figs. 2.27:2, 2.28:1). The second jar is made of a fine reddish ware and has a short vertical neck with a triangular-sectioned flattened rim (Fig. 23.14:2). Here too, a close equivalent, made of a “pink-orange cooking ware,” was found at the Yotvata fort (Magness 2015: 78, Fig. 2.27:1). The discussed jars seem to be local/regional, rather than imported (i.e., Egyptian) products, though it is difficult to conclude whether they originated in some neighboring production center (e.g., ʿAqaba) or are from a more remote (northern) region. 269

Yotvata.indb 269

03/08/2022 15:56

I taMar taXeL

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

11

7

10

12

Fig. 23.14: Storage jars, red-painted ware vessels, lamps, zoomorphic vessels/toys and a ring-shaped object 270

Yotvata.indb 270

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

Fig. 23.14: Storage jars, red-painted ware vessels, lamps, zoomorphic vessels/toys and a ring-shaped object No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Vessel Storage jar Storage jar Bowl Jug/jar (body fragment) Lamp Lamp Lamp Zoomorphic vessel/toy Zoomorphic vessel/toy Zoomorphic vessel/toy Zoomorphic vessel/toy (fragment) Ring-shaped object

Stratum II II/I II/I II II II/I I II II II III II

Locus 140 113 117 159 105 155 149 105 105 105 126 105

Basket 683/1 512/1 533/1 770 717/1 766/1 715 717/30 717/31 717/33 570/30 717/33

Red-Painted Ware (?) Vessels Two vessel fragments are tentatively attributed to a ceramic group known as Red-Painted Ware (RPW). The first vessel is a bowl made of a reddish ware, with everted, near-straight walls and plain rim, which is decorated on the exterior with brown painting (Fig. 23.14:3). The second vessel, apparently a jug or a small jar, is represented by a small body sherd. It is made of a reddish-orange ware which was fired to buff from the exterior and is decorated with brown painting (Fig. 23.14:4). The RPW, which includes open and small to medium-sized closed vessels, originated in northwestern Transjordan, where it was produced between the first half of the 8th until the 9th century CE (Walmsley 1995: 661, Ware 8; for RPW bowls with a profile similar to the present example, see Khalil and Kareem 2002: 118, 120, Figs. 8:5, 9:15). In Palestine and Jordan, these vessels are usually not found south of the Dead Sea (with their main distribution covering much northern regions). Therefore, and because there is no certainty as to the identification of the present fragments, their attribution to the RPW group is not secure.

Varia Lamps Only three lamps—one near-complete and the others fragmentary—were found in the excavations; all are moldmade. The first lamp (Fig. 23.14:5; see Chapter 22, Fig. 22.37) is made of a coarse yellowish-brown ware that contains quite a lot of small and medium-sized white inclusions. It has an oval pointed body, a low ring base, a round (somewhat asymmetrical) filling hole surrounded by a thick ridge and a round wick hole, similarly surrounded by a thick ridge; the lamp’s rear end is broken, and it may have had a small (likely atrophied) knob handle. The lamp’s molded decoration consists of two clusters of seven diagonal lines on the shoulder, a straight line from which two pairs of diagonal lines are split between the filling hole and the wick hole, two S-shaped motifs on either side of the latter motif, and a single curved line on the vessel’s rear part. Altogether, the lamp’s morphology and linear decoration ascribe it to the large candlestick type, which was produced in various locations of central Palestine (e.g., in the Jerusalem region and in the southern coastal plain). The type is commonly dated to the mid-6th to mid-8th centuries CE (Hadad 2002: 66–68, Type 28; Magness 1993: 251–255, Form 3A; for a recent summary of this type, see Sussman 2017: 96–102, Types III.B14.1, III.14.2.1, III.14.2.2). The relatively crude—or, more accurately, flimsy—craftmanship of the present lamp suggests that it represents the tail-end of 271

Yotvata.indb 271

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

the type’s production, likely in the early to mid-8th century CE. The curious linear pattern on the lamp’s front part, specifically the straight line with split ends, may reflect an influence of the motif of the split-ends cross that appears on some of the earlier and more elaborate candlestick lamps (cf. Sussman 2017: 90, 94, Figs. 63, 67). The fact that no evidence for the production of candlestick lamps was found in the Negev (neither in Byzantine nor in Early Islamic times), and the relative rarity of this type in contemporaneous sites in this region and especially in the Arabah, suggest that the present lamp originated somewhere in central Palestine. It could have been brought to Yotvata either as a commercial product, perhaps together with other ceramics such as the FBW bowls and cups, or as the personal belonging of an individual who traveled southward. Furthermore, virtually none of the published Early Islamic sites from the Arabah yielded candlestick-type lamps, making Yotvata the southernmost site. The second and third (fragmentary) lamps belong to the same mold-made type, though their decoration pattern is different. No details about the ware of which these lamps were made are available, but based on numerous parallels it may be assumed that it was a coarse or semi-fine pale brown, orange-brown, or buff ware. The basic characteristics of this lamp type include an almond-shaped body, a low ring base, a ridge surrounding the filling hole and forming a channel-nozzle, and a small conical handle. This type appeared toward the early 8th century CE and continued to be used into the 9th century (Hadad 2002: 82–95, Type 36; Stacey 2004: 149–150, Form 1). The first of the two fragments has a decoration of small conical protrusions on the shoulder (Fig. 23.14:6), which is the most common decorative pattern documented in this type. The second fragment bears a motif that appears very similar to a seven-branch menorah, although without a base (Fig. 23.14:7). Early Islamic lamps of this type with a menorah or menorah-like decoration are rare; to the best of my knowledge, only six other examples have been published from sites in central and southern Palestine, namely from Khirbet es-Suyyagh, Ḥorvat Birah and Jaffa (Taxel 2009: 109, Fig. 3.26:1, with references), Ramla (Torgë 2017: 111, left image), Caesarea (Arnon 2008b: 218, Fig. 14:59) and Khirbet Umm Deimine (Magen, Batz and Sharukh 2012: Pl. 5:6). Although the menorah is associated with the Jewish (and Samaritan) religion, there is no certainty that the discussed motif on the Early Islamic lamps indicates that these lamps were produced by or intended for Jews or Samaritans, let alone at a southern site like Yotvata, where no evidence for a Jewish or Samaritan presence exists. Furthermore, the somewhat stylized design of the menoroth on the Early Islamic lamps—compared to the often more elaborate depictions on Roman- and Byzantine-period lamps—suggests that these were merely decorative motifs carrying no symbolic/religious meaning, and hence could be produced and used by people of various religious groups (see Taxel 2009: 226).

Zoomorphic Vessels or Toys Three identical items (Fig. 23.14:8–10) were found in the same room (L105), alongside other pottery vessels (such as the three Type 4 Mahesh Ware bowls, the uncommon Crude Handmade Ware oval bowl and the complete candlestick-type lamp [Figs. 23.5:3–5, 23.12:1, 23.14:5]) and a peculiar ceramic ring (see below). The discussed items (their ware details are unknown) are shaped as hollow animal heads with short, round-sectioned necks (ca. 2 cm in diameter; 4.5 cm height). The necks widen at their base, and the heads are very schematically fashioned, to include only a 90°-angled conical nozzle with a narrow opening and two short conical ears or horns. The animal species that these heads were intended to represent is unidentified. If the two conical protrusions represent horns, the animals may be classified as bulls or goats, whereas if these are ears, horses seem a likely identification. At first glance, these animal-shaped spouts resemble the well-known class of Early Islamic zoomorphic vessels found virtually throughout the country in contexts dated to the 8th century CE onward. However, the animal heads in these zoomorphic vessels are usually characterized by a longer neck, long (often adjoint but sometimes separated) ears/horns, a narrow tubular nozzle and eyes depicted either with black paint or plastic applications. In addition, in most cases a loop handle emerges from the head-shaped spout and joins a vertical filling opening located at the rear of the animal’s body. These vessels, which also include four legs and a short tail, probably represent donkeys or horned animals, perhaps gazelles (see Bar-Nathan 2011: 272

Yotvata.indb 272

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

321–324, Fig. 11.56–11.58; Kohn-Tavor 2017: 47–48, Fig. 2.45, with additional references). More elaborate heads, which include at least a clear depiction of the eyes, also characterized earlier, Byzantine-period zoomorphic vessels found in Israel (Erlich and Foerster 2012). Alternatively, the discussed animal heads may belong to toys. Hollow ceramic toys in the shape of animals (horses?) with similar, schematic heads but longer necks were produced in one of the Umayyad-period pottery workshops excavated at Beth Shean (Bar-Nathan 2011: 325–326, Figs. 11.59–11.60). There is also a third possibility: that the Yotvata animal heads were originally attached as spouts to the wall of a relatively wide-diameter ceramic vessel (such as a jug or jar), not to a small zoomorphic vessel or toy (in which the head and body were made as a single piece), as can be deduced by the straight line of their neck-base. However, no example of an Early Islamic pottery vessel with zoomorphic spout(s) is known to me, at least not from the southern Levant or Egypt. Therefore, the possibility that these heads belonged to zoomorphic vessels or toys seem more likely. In the event that these were actual vessels, they probably contained some specific, perhaps precious, liquid or semi-liquid substances or functioned as oil-lamp fillers. Another ceramic find that may be tentatively attributed to a zoomorphic vessel or toy is a small fragment of what may be a curved horn or tail (Fig. 23.14:11).

Ring-Shaped Object This peculiar ceramic item (Fig. 23.14:12; ware characteristics are unknown), which was found together with the three zoomorphic vessels/toys and the other objects mentioned above, is shaped as an oval ring (5 × 6 cm in diameter) with a square cross-section (1.2 cm thickness). Its upper surface from one side is grooved. No satisfying identification can be suggested for this object, though it was most probably a decorative ring that was added through the handle of a vessel. A similar, though smaller, ring was attached to the handle of a brazier made in the Umayyad-period pottery workshop at Beth Shean (Bar-Nathan 2011: 332–334, Fig. 11.65:1,8). Other small plain rings were seldom attached to the handles of ʿAbbasid-period buff ware jugs decorated with other plastic applications (e.g., François and Shaddoud 2013: 30, Pl. 9:3–4; Torgë 2014: 10, Fig. 10:6).

Discussion and Conclusions The ceramic assemblage retrieved from the Early Islamic complex at Yotvata is one of the largest and most varied to be published thus far from a contemporaneous site in the Arabah (other substantial assemblages have been published from the Yotvata fort [Magness 2015] and ʿEn ʿAvrona [Porath 2016]), hence its importance for the study of the Early Islamic period in this remote and rather peripheral region of the southern Levant. This discussion considers the chronological, cultural and economic implications of the assemblage and its contribution to the spatial analysis of the complex.

Chronology Given the current state of knowledge about the chronology of late antique and Early Islamic pottery in the southern Levant and neighboring regions and about the nature of the Yotvata ceramics, it would be most secure to conclude that the assemblage under discussion spans the period between the 7th century—most probably its middle to later part—and the early 9th century CE. A few types represent a direct continuation of Byzantine-period forms, notably the LRD/CRS Ware Form 9 bowls, the Type 1 casseroles and cooking ware lids, and the candlestick lamp. However, while the casseroles and lids are long-lived forms, the LRD/ CRS Ware Form 9 bowls—even if they continued to be produced and circulated in other east Mediterranean regions throughout the 8th century, as argued by Armstrong (2009)—apparently were not exported in large quantities to the southern Levant after around 700 CE, and even these were probably distributed mainly along 273

Yotvata.indb 273

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

the Mediterranean coast and adjacent regions.14 The possibility that such bowls and other imports originating in overseas Mediterranean locations would arrive at a remote place like Yotvata as late as the 8th century seems to me rather unlikely. As for the candlestick lamp, it did not post-date the mid-8th century. Many, if not most, of the ceramic types or groups—including the FBW bowls and cups and derivative forms and the Mahesh Ware and related open and closed vessels—continued at least until the early 9th century. Ceramic groups that only appeared in the late 8th century and reached their heyday from the 9th century—notably, glazed vessels and (mostly closed) fine/semi-fine buff ware vessels—are very rare (glazed vessels) or absent altogether (buff ware) in the local assemblage. As noted, the rarity of glazed vessels characterizes the Arabah and most of the Negev Early Islamic-period sites, while buff ware vessels seem to be even scarcer, specifically in the Arabah (see the few published examples from ʿEn Marzev [Porath 2016: 60*, Fig. 56:1–4]). This situation is, of course, contradictory to the picture reflected from the port town of Ayla/ʿAqaba, where rich and diverse assemblages of glazed ceramics were retrieved alongside a more modest number of buff ware vessels. Hence, in theory the paucity or absence of these ceramics in a remote Arabah site such as Yotvata cannot support or undermine a claim for a substantial occupation during the 9th century CE. For the time being, it may be suggested that the final occupation phase at Yotvata terminated no later than in the early part of the 9th century CE, as suggested also for most other Early Islamic Arabah sites (see Avni 2014: 274–280; Nol 2014: 24–26; 2015: 53–55). In addition to the general chronology of the Early Islamic complex at Yotvata, some insights may be gleaned from pottery analysis regarding the relative chronology of the central building’s three phases of occupation. Only a few ceramic items were attributed to Phase III, among them one of the LRD/CRS Ware bowls, an FBW Form 1D bowl, Types 1 and 2 Mahesh Ware jugs, a Type 1 Crude Handmade Ware cooking pot, an unclassified Crude Handmade Ware vessel and a Type 1 casserole. The overwhelming majority of the pottery from the excavations was attributed to Phase II or II/I and—to a lesser degree—to Phase I. These ceramics include the Egyptian bowls, glazed vessels, storage jars, lamps and zoomorphic vessels and almost all of the FBW and derivative bowls and cups, Mahesh Ware and related vessels, Crude Handmade Ware vessels and cooking vessels. A few Mahesh Ware and related vessels, Crude Handmade Ware and cooking vessels were also found in the dump. A correlation between the various types permits a suggestion that the Mahesh Ware and related vessels were already produced in the first half of the 8th century, if not in the (late?) 7th century, and did not appear only around the mid-8th century as suggested by Whitcomb (1989c); the analogy between some of the associated types found at Yotvata and those found in Umayyad-period contexts in ʿAqaba (Melkawi, ʿAmr and Whitcomb 1994; Whitcomb 1989b) supports this assumption. Also noteworthy is the assumed relation identified between some of the plain and painted Crude Handmade Ware vessels and the later “Tupperware” and other handmade vessels from ʿAqaba, Gharandal and Ḥumayma. This suggests that the latter ware had Umayyad- and/or early ʿAbbasid-period predecessors which—given their frequency in Yotvata—may have been produced in or nearby the site.

Cultural and Economic Aspects The Yotvata ceramic repertoire is mostly composed of local, if not endemic, types, i.e., such which were produced and distributed within the central/southern Negev and Arabah regions, including in the port city of Ayla/ʿAqaba. The two major ceramic groups that fit this definition are the Mahesh Ware and related forms 14. It seems that Armstrong’s revision of the chronology of LRD/CRS Ware is accepted by quite a lot of researchers working in Cyprus, Asia Minor and the Aegean (see, e.g., Vionis 2020; Zavagno 2017). Although Armstrong cites a few publications which support (sometimes with no specific basis) a continuation of LRD/CRS Ware in the Levant, including Palestine, in the 8th century, to the best of my knowledge no secure evidence for complete, i.e., non-residual, LRD/CRS Ware bowls was published from well-dated 8th-century contexts (such as destruction layers of the 749 CE earthquake) in our region. It should be admitted, however, that a comprehensive review of the published and unpublished finds has not yet been carried out.

274

Yotvata.indb 274

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

and the Crude Handmade Ware. Other vessels, such as the Type 1 casseroles, the cooking-ware lids and the few storage jars, may also have been produced in regional workshops (notably at ʿAqaba), although they could equally be of a more northern origin. Pottery definitely brought from more remote areas of the southern Levant includes the FBW and related vessels (the Jerusalem region), the cooking pots (central–southern Palestine?), the RPW (?) vessels (northern Jordan), the lamps (central–southern Palestine?) and the zoomorphic vessels (also central–southern Palestine?). Finally, imports from regions beyond the Levant include the LRD/CRS Ware bowls and the few Egyptian bowls (as well as the assumed Egyptian casserole); the few glazed vessels could be either local/regional products or imports. At any rate, it seems that the Egyptian wares and presumably the glazed vessels as well were brought from ʿAqaba. Altogether, the discussed ceramic assemblage is functionally rather varied. It consists mainly of open serving and dining vessels and cooking wares, with a lesser representation of small, medium-sized and large table and storage containers, in addition to very few lamps and zoomorphic vessels. Interestingly, most of these functional categories can be found among the two dominant ceramic groups at the site, the Mahesh and Crude Handmade Wares, indicating that the site’s inhabitants could theoretically have relied on these local/regional ceramics, without recourse to other products from distant locations. Still, their regular contacts, apparently both direct and indirect, with regional and remote markets allowed them to consume a certain amount of table and cooking ware and some other vessels, including fine and semi-fine vessels, which may have even been considered modest luxuries. Finally, it is worth comparing the ceramic assemblages from the Yotvata Early Islamic complex and from the Early Islamic phase in the Yotvata Roman fort (Magness 2015). Magness (2015: 77) tended to date the latter assemblage to the 7th–early 8th centuries CE, i.e., several decades if not a century earlier than the latest types represented in the present assemblage. Indeed, the pottery from the fort presumably contained no Mahesh Ware, very few Crude Handmade Ware vessels (none painted), very few FBW bowls and only one body sherd of a glazed vessel. However, this assemblage apparently included more Egyptian bowls and basins and surely more Egyptian cooking pots, in addition to some Egyptian jugs and probable Egyptian storage jars. Perhaps the earlier phase of the Early Islamic occupation at Yotvata, which is more clearly represented by the assemblage from the fort, was characterized by stronger contacts with local markets (notably ʿAqaba) which marketed Egyptian ceramics or—perhaps more logically—by actual migration of Egyptians to the site (see Taxel 2019: 239, n. 31). If the latter scenario is correct, it is possible that these Egyptian migrants settled in the deserted Roman fort, while the Early Islamic central building, built more or less at the same time, was occupied by a different, apparently local, population. The latter people, who had no special reason to use Egyptian ceramics extensively, naturally preferred locally-produced pottery, a tendency that remained unchanged in the later 8th and early 9th century CE too, when the fort was no longer occupied. On the contrary, the apparent Egyptian settlers in the fort tended to use, even if for a limited time period, pottery brought with them from their homeland, rather than relying heavily on local products.

Aspects of Spatial Analysis Regrettably, this subject is the least tangible among the broader issues related to the ceramic finds from the Yotvata Early Islamic complex. With the exception of a restorable cooking pot from L144 and an intact lamp (albeit with a broken rear end) from L105, all the pottery retrieved from the building and its surroundings (including the dump) was fragmentary and presumably unrestorable. This recalls the reality reflected in almost all of the other Early Islamic sites excavated in the Arabah. For instance, when describing the pottery from ʿEn ʿAvrona, Porath (2016: 20*) noted: Few fragments of pottery vessels were found scattered over the surface throughout the site, and in high concentration in Buildings A–C. Despite the multiplicity of sherds in the accumulations over the buildings’ floors, not even one intact vessel was found. Only one cup-bowl was completely restored from fragments 275

Yotvata.indb 275

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

exposed … in Building B under the roof and wall debris. It seems that when abandoning the buildings and farmstead, the inhabitants took with them all the complete and even partially broken but still useable vessels. The sherds in the building were haphazardly scattered, and those found in the cultivated area were brought there as domestic refuse spread for fertilizing. (my translation—I.T.)

A similar description is also given to the finds from ʿEn Marzev (Porath 2016: 57*). It should be noted that some of the remains of the Early Islamic phase excavated at the Yotvata fort revealed a larger number of complete or near-complete (restorable) vessels (Davies and Magness 2015: 12; Magness 2015: 74), though here too most of the material seems to be fragmentary, as in the Early Islamic complex. As such, the great majority of the pottery (and other finds) from the Yotvata complex can be classified as part of primary or secondary refuse assemblages, namely, items left behind after an activity area had been cleaned up and material discarded from its location of use, respectively. It seems that only in the case of the complete cooking pot, found beside a hearth, may one speak about de facto refuse, i.e., an object discarded/ abandoned at its location of use (see Taxel 2018: 30, with references to additional literature on archaeological formation processes).15 This claim is supported by the evidence of the two joining parts of a painted Crude Handmade Ware bowl (Fig. 23.11:10) found ca. 5 m apart in loci (L120 and L140) associated with different phases (II and I) of the building (above, n. 10). This suggests that objects that may have been originally deposited/abandoned in L120 were later removed and discarded in L140 (an activity termed by Costello IV [2014: 100–103] as “waste stream”), while obviously blurring the local stratigraphic picture and preventing any reliable reconstruction of these rooms’ use based on their contents. According to Etan Ayalon (personal communication, February 2021), the excavators indeed kept mainly “diagnostic” sherds, such as rims, bases, a few handles and decorated body fragments, but there were certainly no restorable vessels.16 One way or another, the fact that the ceramic assemblages from the Yotvata complex are represented almost exclusively by fragments prevents any secure reconstruction of the functional nature of a given room/ unit within the building. Furthermore, despite the fairly good stratigraphic division between the three phases of the building, it is difficult to attribute isolated/sealed ceramic assemblages to different strata within the same unit and to reconstruct that unit’s functional evolution based on the pottery. Again, the complete cooking pot from L144 may indicate that this room was used, at least during Stratum I, for food preparation (or should it be at the very end of Stratum II, prior to the building’s occupation by a presumably nomadic/semi-nomadic population?). The discovery of the near-complete lamp and three heads of zoomorphic vessels in Room 105—if not the result of the intentional discard of a homogeneous assemblage originating elsewhere in the building (above, n. 15)—may also hint at some specific designation of this small corner backroom, perhaps a storage place for vessels with special contents or usage. In general terms, the ceramic repertoire from the Yotvata Early Islamic complex reflects a typical domestic assemblage consisting mainly of vessels for food preparation and consumption, a rather modest amount of storage vessels and some miscellaneous forms, such as lamps and zoomorphic vessels. The paucity of storage and transport containers suggests that foodstuffs and drinking water used by the local inhabitants were also kept in containers or objects made of perishable materials, such as sacks and baskets for dry produce (perhaps even local crops) and goatskins for liquids, notably water and oil (for the apparent increase, during Early Islamic times, in the use of goatskins in Middle Eastern inter-regional trade, 15. On the contrary, the near-complete lamp from L105 was not necessarily used for the last time in this room, since lamps are often found in intact or near-complete state in various archaeological contexts, indicating their relative durability to post-depositional agents compared to most other vessel forms, and possibly their higher resistance rate within activity contexts in antiquity as well (Taxel 2018: 67, n. 25). In other words, the discussed lamp could have been used elsewhere in the building, abandoned there and later discarded in a different room (L105). 16. With respect to the pottery found in his excavations at ʿEn ʿAvrona, Porath (2016: 76*, n. 25) noted that the porous nature of the fabric from which the Mahesh Ware vessels were made resulted in the crumbling of many sherds during or after their recovery, preventing their restoration. Hence, in theory, more pottery vessels from ʿEn ʿAvrona—and presumably from Yotvata as well—were originally restorable, i.e., represented in situ complete vessels and not only haphazard sherds.

276

Yotvata.indb 276

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

see Taxel 2013: 387; Walmsley 2000: 326–329, with references). Damgaard (2009: 91), who noted the paucity of Ayla-type amphorae in the Early Islamic sites of the Arabah, similarly suggested that “the [agricultural] yields from Wadi Araba and the Negev are much more likely to have been transported in lighter, more perishable containers such as basketry, hides and sacks.” The use of bags, including perhaps saddle bags, by the site’s inhabitants is also evidenced by the textile remains and maybe also indirectly by the textile impressions on the (locally produced?) Crude Handmade Ware vessels (Chapter 29).

References ʿAmr, K. and Oleson, J.P. 2013. Field F102: Nabataean Cistern, Byzantine Church, and Early Islamic House. In: Oleson, J.P. and Schick, R. Humayma Excavation Project, 2: Nabataean Campground and Necropolis, Byzantine Churches, and Early Islamic Domestic Structures. Boston: 93–159. Armstrong, P. 2009. Trade in the East Mediterranean in the 8th Century. In: Mango, M.M., ed. Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange. Papers of the Thirty-Eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St. John’s College, University of Oxford, March 2004 (Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 14). Farnham: 157–178. Arnon, Y.D. 2008a. Caesarea Maritima, the Late Periods (700–1291 CE) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1771). Oxford. Arnon, Y.D. 2008b. The Ceramic Oil Lamps of the Transitional and Medieval Periods (640–1300): A Chronological and Typological Study. In: Holum, K.G., Stabler, J.A. and Reinhardt, E.G., eds. Caesarea Reports and Studies. Excavations 1995–2007 within the Old City and the Ancient Harbor (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1784). Oxford: 213–269. Avissar, M. 1996. The Medieval Pottery. In: Ben-Tor, A., Avissar, M. and Portugali, Y. Yoqneʿam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3). Jerusalem: 75–172. Avissar, M. and Stern, E.J. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 26). Jerusalem. Avner, R. 1998. Elat–Elot––An Early Islamic Village. ʿAtiqot 36: 21*–39* (Hebrew), 124–125 (English summary). Avner, U. and Magness, J. 1998. Early Islamic Settlement in the Southern Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310: 39–57. Avni, G. 2014. The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach. Oxford. Bar-Nathan, R. 2006. Masada VII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports. The Pottery of Masada. Jerusalem. Bar-Nathan, R. 2011. The Pottery Corpus. In: Bar-Nathan, R. and Atrash, W. Bet Sheʾan II: Baysān. The Theater Pottery Workshop (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 48). Jerusalem: 229–343. Ben-Michael, J., Israel, Y. and Nahlieli, D. 2004. Upper Naḥal Besor: A Village from the Early Islamic Period in the Negev Highlands. ʿAtiqot 48: 105*−122* (Hebrew), 159–160 (English summary). Ben-Michael, J., Israel, Y. and Nahlieli, D. 2017. Naḥal ʿOmer: A Village from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail _Eng.aspx?id=25325&mag_id=125. Biezeveld, I. and Düring, B.S. 2020. Pre-oil Globalization in a Rural Community: The Late Islamic Village of Sahlāt in the Ṣuḥār Region. Journal of Islamic Archaeology 7/2: 199–219. Costello IV, B. 2014. Architecture and Material Culture from the Earthquake House at Kourion, Cyprus (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2635). Oxford. Cytryn-Silverman, K. 2010. The Ceramic Evidence. In: Gutfeld, O. Ramla. Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque (Qedem 51). Jerusalem: 97–211. Dagan, A. 2011. Negebite Pottery beyond the Negev. Tel Aviv 38: 208–219. 277

Yotvata.indb 277

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

Damgaard, K. 2009. A Palestinian Red Sea Port on the Egyptian Road to Arabia: Early Islamic Aqaba and Its Many Hinterlands. In: Blue, L., Cooper, J., Thomas, R. and Whitewright, J., eds. Connected Hinterlands: Proceedings of Red Sea Project IV Held at the University of Southampton, September 2008 (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2052). Oxford: 85–98. Damgaard, K. 2013. Finding Fatimid Jordan: A Reinterpretation of Aylah’s “Fatimid Residence.” In: Vermeulen, U., d’Hulster, K. and van Steenbergen, J., eds. Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VII. Proceedings of the 16th, 17th and 18th International Colloquium Organized at Ghent University in May 2007, 2008 and 2009. Leuven: 67–97. Damgaard, K. and Jennings, M.D. 2013. Once More unto the Beach: New Archaeological Research into Jordan’s Port on the China Sea. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 57: 477–502. Danys-Lasek, K. 2014. Pottery from Deir el-Naqlun (6th–12th Century). Preliminary Report from Polish Excavations in 2010 and 2011. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 23/1: 543–642. Davies, G. and Magness, J. 2015. The 2003–2007 Excavations in the Late Roman Fort at Yotvata. Winona Lake. Erickson-Gini, T. 2019. Yotvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 131. http://www .hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25682&mag_id=127. Erlich, A. and Foerster, G. 2012. Zoomorphic Vases of the Fourth–Sixth Centuries from the North of Palestine. In: Chrupcała, L.D., ed. Christ Is Here! Studies in Biblical and Christian Archaeology in Memory of Michele Piccirillo, OFM (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 52). Milan: 1–10. François, V. and Shaddoud, I. 2013. Nouvel atelier de potier d’époque abbasside au sud de Tell Abou Ali à Raqqa. Al-Rāfidān 34: 21–81. Gabrieli, R.S. 2015. Specialization and Development in the Handmade Pottery Industries of Cyprus and the Levant. In: Vroom, J., ed. Medieval and Post-Medieval Ceramics in the Eastern Mediterranean—Fact and Fiction. Proceedings of the First International Congress on Byzantine and Ottoman Archaeology, Amsterdam, 21–23 October 2011. Leuven: 131–153. Gascoigne, A.L. 2005. Dislocation and Continuity in Early Islamic Provincial Urban Centres: The Example of Tell Edfu. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 61: 153–189. Gayraud, R.P., Treglia, J.C. and Vallauri, L. 2009. Assemblages de céramiques égyptiennes et témoins de production, datés par les fouilles d’Istabl Antar, Fustat (IXe–Xe siècles). In: Zozaya, J., Reteurce, M., Hervás, M.Á. and de Juan, A., eds. Actes del VIII Congreso Internacional de Cerámica Medieval en el Mediterráneo. Ciudad RealAlmagro, del 27 de febreo al 3 de marzo de 2006. Ciudad Real: 171–192. Hadad, S. 2002. Bet Shean 1: The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean (Qedem Reports 4). Jerusalem. Haiman, M. 1995. An Early Islamic Period Farm at Naḥal Mitnan in the Negev Highlands. ʿAtiqot 26: 1–13. Hayes, J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London. Hayes, J.W. 1980. A Supplement to Late Roman Pottery. London. Hoffman, T. 2019. The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon: Ashkelon 8. The Islamic and Crusader Periods. University Park, PA. Holmqvist, E. 2019. Ceramics in Transition. Production and Exchange of Late Byzantine–Early Islamic Pottery in Southern Transjordan and the Negev. Oxford. Incordino, I. 2020. Pottery of Manqabad. A Selected Catalogue of the Ceramic Assemblage from the Monastery of “Abba Nefer” at Asyut (Egypt). Oxford. Israel, Y., Nahlieli, D. and Ben-Michael, Y. 1995. The Naḥal Shaḥaq Site: An Early Islamic Settlement in the Northern ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 26: 1*–14* (Hebrew), 113 (English summary). Jackson, M., Zelle, M., Vandeput, L. and Köse, V. 2012. Primary Evidence for Late Roman D Ware Production in Southern Asia Minor: A Challenge to “Cypriot Red Slip Ware.” Anatolian Studies 62: 89−114. Johnson, B.L. 2008. The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon: Ashkelon 2. Imported Pottery of the Roman and Late Roman Periods. Winona Lake. 278

Yotvata.indb 278

03/08/2022 15:56

Chapter 23: T he Pottery

Jones, W.N., Ben-Yosef, E., Lorentzen, B., Najjar, M. and Levy, T.E. 2017. Khirbat al-Manaʿiyya: An Early IslamicPeriod Copper-Smelting Site in South-Eastern Wadi ʿAraba, Jordan. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 28: 297–314. Khalil, L. and Kareem, J. 2002. Abbasid Pottery from Area E at Khirbat Yajuz, Jordan. Levant 34: 111–150. Kohn-Tavor, A. 2017. Excavations at Ramla (White Mosque Street): Ceramic Finds. NGSBA Archaeology 4: 23–129. Konstantinidou, A. 2012. Pots for Monks. Ceramics and Life in the Old Monastery of Baramūs in the Wādī al-Natrūn, Egypt (4th–9th c.) (Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University). Leiden. Magen, Y., Batz, S. and Sharukh, I. 2012. A Roman Military Compound and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Umm Deimine. In: Carmin, N., ed. Christians and Christianity, 4: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (Judea and Samaria Publications 16). Jerusalem: 435–482. Magness, J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology: Circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9). Sheffield. Magness, J. 2015. The Pottery. In: Davies, G. and Magness, J. The 2003–2007 Excavations in the Late Roman Fort at Yotvata. Winona Lake: 74–141. Melkawi, A., ʿAmr, K. and Whitcomb, D.S. 1994. The Excavation of Two Seventh Century Pottery Kilns at Aqaba. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38: 447–468. Meshel, Z. 1991. Yotvata Oasis—Its History, Landscapes and Sites. Ariel 78: 6–44 (Hebrew). Mondin, C. 2019. Late Roman and Early Islamic Pottery from Kom al-Ahmar. In: Asolati M., Crisafulli, C. and Mondin, C. Kom al-Ahmar—Kom Wasit II. Coin Finds 2012–2016; Late Roman and Early Islamic Pottery from Kom al-Ahmar. Oxford: 61–338. Nol, H. 2014. Settlement and Rule in the Eighth–Ninth Centuries: The Arava as a Case Study. Cathedra 153: 7–34 (Hebrew). Nol, H. 2015. The Fertile Desert: Agriculture and Copper Industry in Early Islamic Arava (Arabah). Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147: 49–68. Oleson, J.P. 2013. Field B100: Byzantine Church and Early Islamic House. In: Oleson, J.P. and Schick, R. Humayma Excavation Project, 2: Nabataean Campground and Necropolis, Byzantine Churches, and Early Islamic Domestic Structures. Boston: 161–219. Oleson, J.P., ʿAmr, K. and Holmqvist-Saukkonen, E. 2013. Ceramic Analysis. In: Oleson, J.P. and Schick, R. Humayma Excavation Project, 2: Nabataean Campground and Necropolis, Byzantine Churches, and Early Islamic Domestic Structures. Boston: 7–37. Oleson, J.P. and Schick, R. 2013. Analysis and Conclusions. In: Oleson, J.P. and Schick, R. Humayma Excavation Project, 2: Nabataean Campground and Necropolis, Byzantine Churches, and Early Islamic Domestic Structures. Boston: 547–554. Porath, Y. 2016. Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 86: 1*–81* (Hebrew), 113–116 (English summary). Rapuano, Y. 2013. An Early Islamic Settlement and a Possible Open-Air Mosque at Eilat. ʿAtiqot 75: 129–165. Rosen, S. and Avni, G. 1997. The ʿOded Sites. Investigations of Two Early Islamic Pastoral Camps South of the Ramon Crater (Beer-Sheva 11). Beer-Sheva. Rothenberg, B. 2014. The Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Yotvata—255. http://survey.antiquities.org.il /index_Eng.html#/MapSurvey/1100. Stacey, D. 2004. Excavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974: The Early Islamic Periods (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 21). Jerusalem. Sussman, V. 2017. Late Roman to Late Byzantine/Early Islamic Period Lamps in the Holy Land: The Collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Oxford. Taxel, I. 2009. Khirbet es-Suyyagh: A Byzantine Monastery in the Judaean Shephelah (Salvage Excavation Reports 6). Tel Aviv. Taxel, I. 2013. The Olive Oil Economy of Byzantine and Early Islamic Palestine: Some Critical Notes. Liber Annuus 63: 361–394. 279

Yotvata.indb 279

03/08/2022 15:56

I tamar Taxel

Taxel, I. 2014. Luxury and Common Wares: Socio-Economic Aspects of the Distribution of Glazed Pottery in Early Islamic Palestine. Levant 46/1: 118–139. Taxel, I. 2018. Fragile Biography: The Life Cycle of Ceramics and Refuse Disposal Patterns in Late Antique and Early Medieval Palestine (BABESCH Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 35). Leuven. Taxel, I. 2019. Migration to and within Palestine in the Early Islamic Period: Two Archaeological Paradigms. In: Yoo, J., Zerbini, A. and Barron, C., eds. Migration and Migrant Identities in the Near East from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. London: 222–243. Taxel, I., Lester, A. and ʿAd, U. 2018. Two Rare Early Abbasid Paint-Decorated Ceramic Bowls from El-Khirba/ Nes Ziyyona, Israel. Muqarnas 35: 273–280. Torgë, H. 2014. Ramla, Kokhav Ha-Zafon Neighborhood: The Finds. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/images//Ramla-5000.pdf. Torgë, H. 2017. The Development of Ramla during the Early Islamic Period in Light of the Archaeological Evidence (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Vionis, A.K. 2020. Bridging the Early Medieval “Ceramic Gap” in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean (7th–9th C.): Local and Global Phenomena. HEROM 9: 291–325. Walmsley, A. 1995. Tradition, Innovation, and Imitation in the Material Culture of Islamic Jordan: The First Four Centuries. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5: 657–668. Walmsley, A. 2000. Production, Exchange and Regional Trade in the Islamic East Mediterranean: Old Structures, New Systems? In: Hensen, I.L. and Wickham, C., eds. The Long Eighth Century: Production, Distribution and Demand (Transformation of the Roman World 11). Leiden: 265–343. Walmsley, A. and Grey, A.D. 2001. An Interim Report on the Pottery from Gharandal (Arindela), Jordan. Levant 33: 139–164. Watson, P.M. 1995. Ceramic Evidence for Egyptian Links with Northern Jordan in the 6th–8th Centuries AD. In: Bourke, S. and Descoeudres, J.-P., eds. Trade, Contact, and the Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy (Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 3). Sydney: 303–320. Whitcomb, D. 1988. A Fatimid Residence at Aqaba, Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 32: 207–224. Whitcomb, D. 1989a. Coptic Glazed Ceramics from the Excavations at Aqaba, Jordan. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 26: 167–182. Whitcomb, D. 1989b. Evidence of the Umayyad Period from the Aqaba Excavations. In: Bakhit, M.A. and Schick, R., eds. The IVth International Conference on Bilad al-Sham. Amman: 164–184. Whitcomb, D. 1989c. Mahesh Ware: Evidence of Early Abbasid Occupation from Southern Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33: 269–285. Whitcomb, D. 1991. Glazed Ceramics of the Abbasid Period from the Aqaba Excavations. Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 55: 43–65. Whitcomb, D. 1994. Ayla: Art and Industry in the Islamic Port of Aqaba. Chicago. Whitcomb, D. 2010. Ayla at the Millennia: Archaeology and History. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 54: 167–176. Zavagno, L. 2017. Cyprus between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ca. 600–800): An Island in Transition (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies 21). London.

280

Yotvata.indb 280

03/08/2022 15:56

CHAPTER 24

PERFECTING LOCAL PRODUCTION OF DESERT POTTERY: PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF EARLY ISLAMIC WARES Paula Waiman-Barak and Willie Ondricek

Ceramic petrography was conducted on 23 handmade ceramic fragments recovered from the Early Islamic site at Yotvata (Chapters 23 and 29). Samples include five vessels with red decoration, three cooking pots, one bowl and 14 sherds with fabric imprints, one of them of a cooking pot (Table 24.1). Ceramic petrography is a well-established analytical method for determining the mineralogical composition of clay artifacts, as well as identifying geographical provenance and production techniques (e.g., Whitbread 1989; Day et al. 1999; Goren, Finkelstein and Naʾaman 2004; Quinn 2013; Daszkiewicz 2014). All analyzed vessels were produced from the same petrofabric family, employing different technologies for a variety of applications. The fabric is typically non-calcareous green or reddish (plane-polarized light), rich in shale and iron oxides and occasionally with silt (up to 10%). The ferruginous shale temper in the fabric varies in quantities and size (10%–30%, up to 3 mm in length). Calcareous fragments are rare, coarse and partially detritus. Secondary minerals are visible in the voids (Figs. 24.1–24.2). Most samples also exhibit evaporite minerals, possibly anhydrite (Fig. 24.2).1

Technological Observation and Estimated Firing Temperature All sampled ceramics were handmade in molds, sometimes by way of slabs being pressed into the molds. In some examples, there is clear evidence for the intentional addition of grog, and cooking pots invariably had chaff included in the clay recipe (Table 24.1:3,6,8,9; Fig. 24.1). It has been pointed out by Haiman and Goren (1992) that coarse vegetal temper is only found in handmade pottery (especially cooking pots) and was never intentionally used when making wheel-made pottery because of its particular characteristics that hinder fast wheel production. Technically, the presence of coarse plant material reduces shrinkage and improves the workability of clays that are too plastic. Since most organic materials burn out while firing, it leaves large voids that interrupt cracks due to thermal stress (Riederer 2004). The textile imprints could be a result of the molding and/or drying process, depending on whether they are found on the interior or the exterior of the vessel. The practice of drying hand-formed pottery on old fabric by Arab villagers near Jerusalem has been observed at least up until the 20th century (Güthe 1908; Sheffer and Tidhar 1988). The color of the clay, the almost complete absence of calcareous fragments, and the formation of secondary minerals suggest very high firing temperatures of over 800 °C. In some cases, the samples were entirely vitrified (Table 24.1:6,8,9). Gypsum of the Ora Formation would have turned into anhydrite in the firing process (Cressey 2005; Alderton 2020). 1. For detailed information regarding each vessel, see https://www.levantineceramics.org/.

Yotvata.indb 281

03/08/2022 15:56

Paula Waiman-Barak and W illie Ondricek

Table 24.1: Analyzed vessels 1

Description Decorated vessel

Locus 125

Basket 562

Shape Bowl

2

Decorated bowl

140

652

Bowl

3

Decorated vessel

153

725

4

Decorated vessel

165

811

5

Decorated vessel

116

790

Body sherd Body sherd Body sherd

6

Cooking pot

136

511

7

Bowl

149

714

8

Cooking pot

136

511

9

Cooking pot?

150

709

10

Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint Body sherd with textile imprint

120

672

120

689

116

790/5,6

137

707/1

137

707/2

149

757

137

758a+b

145

777/1

155

781

116

790/4

103

529/3

145

777/2

116

790/2

116

790/1,3,7

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Technological observations Mold-made, textile imprint inside, tempered with grog Mold-made, elongated voids, visible slabs Mold-made

Illustration Figs. 23.11:7, 24.1

Mold-made, fine fabric, well sieved Mold-made, well sieved, visible slabs

Fig. 23.11:13

Cooking Mold-made, visible slabs, pot chaff-tempered Bowl Mold-made, visible slabs, well sieved Cooking Mold-made, visible slabs, pot chaff-tempered Cooking Mold-made, visible slabs, pot? chaff-tempered Body Mold-made, visible slabs, well sherd sieved, textile imprint inside Body Mold-made, visible slabs, well sherd sieved, textile imprint inside Body Mold-made, visible slabs, well sherd sieved, textile imprint inside Body Mold-made, visible slabs, well sherd sieved, textile imprint inside Body Mold-made, visible slabs, well sherd sieved, textile imprint inside Body Mold-made, coarse, textile sherd imprint Body Textile imprint sherd Body Textile imprint sherd Body Textile imprint sherd Body Textile imprint sherd Body Textile imprint sherd Body Textile imprint sherd Body Textile imprint sherd Body Textile imprint sherd

Fig. 23.11:11

Fig. 23.11:14

Fig. 23.11:9

Fig. 23.8:6 Fig. 23.8:7 Fig. 23.8:5 Fig. 23.8:8 Fig. 23.8:10 Fig. 23.8:14 Fig. 23.8:9 Fig. 23.8:12 Fig. 23.8:15 Figs. 23.8:4, 24.2 Fig. 23.8:1 Fig. 23.8:13 Fig. 23.8:3 Fig. 23.8:2

282

Yotvata.indb 282

03/08/2022 15:56

CHaPter 24: PerfeCtInG LoCaL ProDUCtIon of Desert PotterY

a

d

0

2 cm

b

×50

c

×50

×100

×100

Fig. 24.1: Decorated rim fragment with fabric composed of shale-tempered clay (Table 24.1:1) a) rim fragment b and c) freshly cut break d) photomicrographs of the thin section in XPL and PPL under ×50 and ×100 magnification

a

d

b

×50

c

×50

×100

×100

Fig. 24.2: Body sherd with textile impression, variant of shale tempered clay that also includes calcareous inclusions (Table 24.1:19) a) body sherd b and c) freshly cut break d) photomicrographs of the thin section in XPL and PPL under ×50 and ×100 magnification 283

Yotvata.indb 283

03/08/2022 15:57

Paula Waiman-Barak and W illie Ondricek

Interpretation and Suggested Provenance Yotvata is located in the hyper-arid Arabah Valley, which spans the southern region of Israel and Jordan. It is a portion of the Great Rift Valley, approximately 6,000 km long, running from northern Syria in Southwest Asia to East Africa (Mart and Horowitz 1981; Shamir 2006). Sediments rich in clay minerals suitable for pottery production are abundant in the region. Clay can be found nearby in geologic exposures of the Hazera and Gerofit Formations (Bartov et al. 1972; Beyth, Segev and Bartov 1993; Ginat 1994; Calvo and Bartov 2001), as well as the shale-rich Ora Formations of the Judea Group from the Turonian Age. The Ora Formation is known for its red and green shales with gypsum veins and thin beds of yellow nodular limestone (Ginat 1994; Beyth, Segev and Ginat 2018). Eroded clays derived from these geological formations can also be found in water reservoirs in the region (Yechieli, Starinsky and Rosenthal 1992). Ceramics with shale temper are frequently found at sites in the Negev and Arabah dating from a variety of different periods (e.g., Glass 1988; Goren 1990; Haiman and Goren 1992; Smith 2009; Holmqvist 2010; Cohen-Weinberger 2011; Martin and Finkelstein 2013; Burton et al. 2021). Petrographic examination of Iron Age ceramics found at the nearby Iron Age “fortress” were all interpreted as most likely having been locally produced (Chapter 5). Clays in the region continue to be used today as building materials, as well as for the cosmetic industry (Sagie et al. 2013). In conclusion, all analyzed ceramic vessels, representing a range of application-specific technologies, were probably produced from raw material sources found near the site and can be considered local to Yotvata.

References Alderton, D. 2020. Sulfates of Ca, Ba and Sr. Encyclopedia of Geology. London: 413. Bartov, J., Eyal, Y., Garfunkel, Z. and Steinitz, G. 1972. Late Cretaceous and Tertiary Stratigraphy and Paleogeography of Southern Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 21: 69–97. Beyth, M., Segev, A. and Bartov, Y. 1993. Selected Stratigraphic and Structural Features in the Beʾer Ora Sheet. Geological Survey of Israel Current Research 8: 51–53. Beyth, M., Segev, A. and Ginat, H. 2018. Stratigraphy and Structure of the Timna Valley and Adjacent Ancient Mining Areas. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Winona Lake and Tel Aviv: 3–20. Burton, M.M., Quinn, P.S., Bennallack, K., Farahani, A., Howland, M.D., Najjar, M. and Levy, T.E. 2021. Ceramic Technology at Wadi Fidan 61, an Early Pottery Neolithic Site (ca. 6500 BCE) in the Faynan Region of Southern Jordan. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 38: 1–16. Calvo, R. and Bartov, Y. 2001. Hazeva Group, Southern Israel: New Observations and Their Implications for Its Stratigraphy, Paleogeography and Tectono-Sedimentary Regime. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 50: 71–99. Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2011. Provenance of the Clay Artifacts from the Favissa at ʿEn Hazeva. ʿAtiqot 68: 185. Cressey, G. 2005. Minerals / Sulphates. In: Selley, R., Robin, L., Cocks, M. and Plimer, I., eds. Encyclopedia of Geology. Melbourne: 572–573. Daszkiewicz, M. 2014. Ancient Pottery in the Laboratory—Principles of Archaeological Investigations of Provenance and Technology. Novensia 25: 177–197. Day, P.M., Kiriatzi, E., Tsolakidou, A. and Kilikoglou, V. 1999. Group Therapy in Crete: A Comparison between Analyses by NAA and Thin Section Petrography of Early Minoan Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 1025–1036. Ginat, H. 1994. Yotvata Sheet 25-II (Scale 1:50,000) (Israel Geological Survey). Jerusalem. Glass, J. 1988. Petrographic Investigations of the Pottery. In: Rothenberg, B., ed. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the Arabah 1959–1984 1). London: 96–113. 284

Yotvata.indb 284

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 24: Perfecting Local Production of Desert Pottery

Goren, Y. 1990. The “Qatifian Culture” in Southern Israel and Transjordan: Additional Aspects for Its Definition. Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23: 100–112. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Naʾaman, N. 2004. Inscribed in Clay, Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv.  Güthe, H. 1908. Palästina Land und Leute. Bielefeld and Leipzig. Haiman, M. and Goren, Y. 1992. “Negbite” Pottery: New Aspects and Interpretation and the Role of Pastoralism in Designating Ceramic Technology. In: Bar-Yosef, O. and Khazanov, A., eds. Pastoralism in the Levant (Monographs in World Archaeology 10). Madison: 143–151. Holmqvist, V.E. 2010. Ceramics in Transition: A Comparative Analytical Study of Late Byzantine–Early Islamic Pottery in Southern Transjordan and the Negev (Ph.D. dissertation, University College). London. Mart, Y. and Horowitz, A. 1981. The Tectonics of the Timna Region in Southern Israel and the Evolution of the Dead Sea Rift. Tectonophysics 79: 165–199. Martin, M.A.S. and Finkelstein, I. 2013. Iron IIA Pottery from the Negev Highlands: Petrographic Investigation and Historical Implications. Tel Aviv 40: 6–45. Quinn, P.S. 2013. Ceramic Petrography. The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery and Related Artefacts in Thin Section. Oxford. Riederer, J. 2004. Thin Section Microscopy Applied to the Study of Archaeological Ceramics. Hyperfine Interactions 154: 143–158. Sagie, H., Morris, A., Rofè, Y., Orenstein, D.E. and Groner, E. 2013. Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Ecosystem Services: A Social Inquiry on Both Sides of the Israeli–Jordanian Border of the Southern Arava Valley Desert. Journal of Arid Environments 97: 38–48. Shamir, G. 2006. The Active Structure of the Dead Sea Depression. In: Enzel, Y., Agnon, A. and Stein M., eds. New Frontiers in Dead Sea Paleoenvironmental Research (Geological Society of America, Special Paper 401). Boulder: 15–32. Sheffer, A. and Tidhar, A. 1988. Textiles and Textile Impressions on Pottery. In: Rothenberg, B., ed. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the Arabah 1959–1984 1). London: 224–232. Smith, N.G. 2009. Social Boundaries and State Formation in Ancient Edom: A Comparative Ceramic Approach (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California). San Diego. Whitbread, I. 1989. A Proposal for the Systematic Description of Thin Sections towards the Study of Ancient Ceramic Technology. In: Maniatis, Y., ed. Archaeometry: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium. Amsterdam: 127–138. Yechieli, Y., Starinsky, A. and Rosenthal, E. 1992. Evolution of Brackish Groundwater in a Typical Arid Region: Northern Arava Rift Valley, Southern Israel. Applied Geochemistry 7: 361–374.

285

Yotvata.indb 285

03/08/2022 15:57

Yotvata.indb 286

03/08/2022 15:57

CHAPTER 25

STONE AND METAL OBJECTS Itamar Taxel

A few dozen mostly fragmentary stone vessels and implements and metal objects were found in the excavations. Of these, several items were selected for publication; the other reported stone and metal finds are listed in Table 25.1 below.

Stone Objects Limestone Vessel This is a very small (ca. 5 cm long) irregular vessel made of soft limestone. It is shaped as an oval cup with a concave base and vertical, slightly tapering walls (Fig. 25.1:1). This may have been a makeshift lamp or a vessel for mixing/grinding medicinal materials.

Steatite/Chlorite-Schist Bowls and Cooking Pots The most abundant group of stone vessels found at the site is represented by bowls and cooking pots made of greenish-gray steatite/chlorite-schist softstone. Steatite/chlorite-schist vessels (notably bowls, cooking pots, lamps and incense burners) were imported from the Arabian Peninsula from the beginning of the Early Islamic period and are quite common in contemporaneous assemblages in Palestine and Jordan. Steatite/chloriteschist vessels found in Arabah—or at least southern Arabah—sites, were likely traded by middlemen based in ʿAqaba, the regional commercial hub, to which these items were exported from Arabia (see Whitcomb 1994). Regarding the present assemblage, it seems that most of the illustrated vessels represent open cooking pots (see below). The body fragment in Fig. 25.1:2 belonged to a vessel with rounded walls decorated on the exterior with incised horizontal lines and concentric circles. Similar decoration patterns are mostly familiar from bowls, often with straighter walls. Though they are also known on vessels identified as cooking pots, both classes are quite common in many Middle Eastern contexts (e.g., Simpson 2018: 183, 196–197, Figs. 9:3,4; 13; 14; 17:3–6), including at other sites in the Arabah and central/southern Negev (e.g., Ben Michael, Israel and Nahlieli 2017: 15, Fig. 12:10; Porath 2016: 32*, Fig. 30:6). What was probably a plain (undecorated) bowl—or, alternatively, a casserole (cf. Simpson 2018: 183, Fig. 9:1)—is a shallow vessel with everted walls, plain rim and flat base (Fig. 25.1:3). Two other vessels that can be identified as bowls have everted straight walls and an incurved rim (Fig. 25.1:4,5), though it should be noted that No. 4 is externally covered with soot, a feature typical of chlorite-schist cooking vessels. It is therefore possible that these were some kind of casserole or frying pan, though no parallels to chlorite-schist vessels with a similar profile have been found. The majority of the steatite/chlorite-schist vessels can be securely identified as cooking pots. They are relatively deep, with rounded bases (though some may have had flat bases instead), vertical, everted or slightly inturned, straight or slightly rounded walls, a plain rim and usually narrow, elongated horizontal ledge handles (Fig. 25.1:6–13). The wall and rim are sometimes roughly polished, and traces of soot often cover the vessel’s exterior. This is a very common type of steatite/chlorite-schist cooking pot, with parallels from the entire Early Islamic Middle East (in other regions, such as Iran and Afghanistan, similar pots were in use in medieval times

Yotvata.indb 287

03/08/2022 15:57

I tamar Taxel

3

1

1

1

2

2

5

2 4

1

3

3

4

4

1

3

5

2

2

4 6

7

6

6

5 1

1

9

1

9

2

1 8 6

6

6

4

4 10

12

12

7

9

9

9

9

12

9 12

13

8

12

15

12

15

14

14

11 11

15

15 13

11

13

14

13

12

13

8 11

13

12

11

14

14

13

8

15

10

11

8

7

10

9

14

13

10

14

11

5

13

7 10 15

5 5

4

6 10

11

10

10

48

12

8

5 11

7

9

13

5

8

3

6

11

7

3 10

10

7

6

8

4

2

12

4 8

7

3

2

1

6

3

8

7

7

2

2 9

3

5

5

3

13

14

11 14 14 14

15 15 15 15

Fig. 25.1: Stone vessels 288

Yotvata.indb 288

03/08/2022 15:57

5

Chapter 25: Stone and M etal Objects

Fig. 25.1: Stone vessels No.

Vessel

Stratum

Locus

Basket

1

Limestone vessel

II/I

164

796

2

Chlorite-schist bowl/cooking pot

Dump

136

605/50

3

Chlorite-schist bowl/cooking vessel

Surface

100

641

4

Chlorite-schist bowl/cooking vessel

I

133

591

5

Chlorite-schist bowl/cooking vessel

III

116

812

6

Chlorite-schist cooking pot

I

126

578

7

Chlorite-schist cooking pot

II/I

125

562

8

Chlorite-schist cooking pot

II

120

656/50

9

Chlorite-schist cooking pot

II

120

671

10

Chlorite-schist cooking pot

Dump

136

511

11

Chlorite-schist cooking pot

Outside the building

142

649/10

12

Chlorite-schist cooking pot

I

126

578

13

Chlorite-schist cooking pot

I

144

681

14

Stopper (?)

I

140

652

15

Chlorite-schist lamp

I

147

739

too; see Gascoigne 2013; Simpson 2018: 183, 194 [Table 9], Figs. 10–12), and they are also well-represented in the Negev and Arabah sites (e.g., Avner 1998: 33*, Fig. 15:1; Ben Michael, Israel and Nahlieli 2004: 114*, Fig. 14:1–5; 2017: 15, Fig. 12:9; Figueras 2004: 301, 303, Fig. 68:2,5,6; Fischer and Tal 1999: 421, Fig. 10.1:1,2; Haiman 1995: 9, Fig. 8:23; Porath 2016: 32*, 66*, Figs. 30:1–6, 59:1–3) as far south as ʿAqaba (Whitcomb 1988: illustration on p. 25:b; 1994: 27, and illustration on p. 28:e,f). Interestingly, the most complete parallel for such cooking pots comes from Yotvata itself, from Meshel’s 1975–1976 excavations within the Roman fort. In one of the trenches an intact steatite/chlorite-schist cooking pot (termed “krater” by the excavator) was unearthed, lying upside-down within a debris layer (Meshel 1989: 231, Fig. 2, Pl. 28:B–C). Although Meshel did not date this pot and he presumably attributed it to the Late Roman period, there should be very little doubt that the pot is in fact from the Early Islamic period, given its resemblance to other contemporaneous vessels and the lack of evidence for the presence of steatite/chloriteschist vessels in the region prior to this period. Strikingly, no finds of steatite/chlorite-schist vessels are reported from the recent excavations at the fort by Davies and Magness, despite the discovery of an Early Islamic-period occupation phase there (Davies and Magness 2015). This is not the only difference between the Early Islamic building and the Early Islamic phase within the fort; see the discussion on the ceramic assemblage in Chapter 23.

Stopper (?) This complete small object (ca. 6 cm in diameter), made of an undetermined stone (either limestone or chloriteschist), is shaped like a shallow thick-walled bowl with a flat base and everted walls with a deep external groove below the rim (Fig. 25.1:14). The solidity and size of this item permit its identification as a stopper, presumably for a narrow-mouthed (ceramic?) vessel such as a jug.

Steatite/Chlorite-Schist Lamp The most unique stone object—and perhaps the most outstanding small find retrieved in the excavations—is a complete lamp made of steatite/chlorite-schist (Fig. 25.1:15). It is shaped like a boat with narrow ends and a 289

Yotvata.indb 289

03/08/2022 15:57

I tamar Taxel

convex bottom. One of the ends is grooved to hold a wick. Soot traces cover the lamp’s interior and part of its exterior. In addition, clear traces of red paint were visible on the lamp’s exterior. Steatite/chlorite-schist lamps are well known from Early Islamic and early medieval contexts across the Middle East, including Palestine. They are rounded with a protruding nozzle and a loop handle, star-shaped with multiple nozzles, or boat-shaped. The overwhelming majority of the boat-shaped lamps have a triangular layout, with one (rear) straight or slightly convex end, usually with a horizontal lug handle, and one pointed end. The lamps of all types usually bear an incised decoration, though there are also undecorated examples (Simpson 2018: 183, 191–192, 197, Figs. 5, 6, 17:1, Tables 1–4; for local finds of lamps see Fischer and Tal 1999: 421, Fig. 10.1:3,4; Torgë 2017: 124–125). No examples of red-painted lamps (or other steatite/chlorite-schist vessels) are known to me. Steatite/chlorite-schist lamp fragments have thus far been published from only one other site in the Arabah, namely ʿEn ʿAvrona, and the lamps seem to belong to the conventional boat-shaped type (Porath 2016: 32*, Fig. 30:7–9). Additional lamps, including elaborate multiple-nozzle ones, have been published from ʿAqaba (Whitcomb 1988: illustration on p. 25:a,c,d; 1994: 27, and illustration on p. 28:a,g). The rarity of the present lamp and its relative simplicity make it possible to suggest that it was made by a less skilled, perhaps even amateur, artisan or that the lamp represents a special order by an individual who wished to have an uncommon or unique lamp.

Metal Objects Copper-Alloy Objects The three metal objects chosen for publication are all made of copper alloy. The first item is a needle (ca. 11 cm long) with a round cross-section and a flattened rear-end with an oval eye (Fig. 25.2:1). Two parallel slots decorate the needle below the eye. Laboratory analysis has identified the needle as made of tombac, a kind of brass alloy with high copper content. A similar, Early Islamic-period, needle was published from Yoqneʿam (Khamis 1996: 223–224, Fig. XVIII.5:4, Photo XVIII.13:1). The second object is a simple rod-like implement (ca. 7.5 cm long) with a round cross-section and two rounded ends (Fig. 25.2:2). Similar (and more elaborate and/or decorated) objects are commonly identified as kohl sticks, surgical instruments or pins, although each of them could fulfill a multifunctional designation (see Eger 2017), also as stirring or fine pounding implements. Similar plain implements, dated to the Early Islamic (and perhaps also the Crusader) period, have been published from Ramla (Tal and Taxel 2008: 197, Fig. 6.133:3) and Ashkelon (Buckingham 2019: 633–634, Nos. 22, 23). The third item is a relatively thick and slightly curved metal rod (ca. 17 cm long), with a rectangular cross-section and one rounded end (Fig. 25.2:3). The function of this article is uncertain: it may have been an implement such as a pestle or an ingot designated for smelting, within the site or elsewhere.

Additional Stone and Metal Objects The list provided in Table 25.1 is based on the excavation field diaries and basket list. In the case of stone objects, the type of stone was usually not given. Metal nails were most likely made of iron. Other noteworthy stone objects are seven fragments of basalt rotary hand mills, found (in 2019 and 2020) in the unexcavated area to the east of the central Early Islamic building. These fragments represent at least three different millstones (Fig. 25.3). Their details are as follows: 1) upper stone: 48 cm in diameter, 1.1–1.5 cm in thickness, central hole 6 cm in diameter, with a slot in the upper surface, perhaps for fastening the handle with a wooden piece, lower surface worn from use; 2) upper stone: 31 cm in diameter, 3 cm in thickness, central hole 4–5 cm in diameter, surrounded by a thick ridge, handle hole 2.5 cm in diameter; 3) upper stone: at least 40 cm in diameter, 5.5 cm in thickness; 4) upper or lower stone: 11 cm in thickness; 5) upper or lower stone: 7 cm in thickness; 6) small thin fragment; 7) small thick fragment.

290

Yotvata.indb 290

03/08/2022 15:57

CHaPter 25: stone anD M etaL oBJeCts

1

2

3

Fig. 25.2: Metal objects No.

Vessel

Stratum

Locus

Basket

1

Copper-alloy needle

I

120

670/60

2

Copper-alloy rod-like implement

I (?)

140

690/60

3

Copper-alloy implement/ingot

II

170

784/60

Fig. 25.3: Fragments of basalt millstones (photograph: Yotam Tepper)

291

Yotvata.indb 291

03/08/2022 15:57

I tamar Taxel

Table 25.1: Additional stone and metal objects

Stone Objects

Metal Objects

Locus 100 100 113 114 116 116 120 125 126 126 126 132 137 141 147 157 158 160 164 164 166–168 128 135 109 113 116 118 120 126 126 136 134 137 137 137 149 153 164

Basket 641 691 708 552 799 812 546 603 597 636 639 613 633 657 741 722 724 751 813 814 775 585 604 600 708 791 522 669 610 624 647 621 642 662 818 694 700 794

Description Polished vessel Upper part of a potter’s wheel Bowl fragment (rim) Bowl fragment Bowl fragment with ledge handle Basalt fragment (a millstone?) Bowl fragment Vessel Bowl fragment Bowl fragment Bowl fragment Pestle Two fragments of a marble/alabaster vessel Pestle Grinding stone fragment Marble slab fragment Marble slab fragment Ledge handle fragment Pestle Bowl fragment (wide base) and shiny stone fragment Vessel fragment Whetstone (?) Bowl fragment Bronze vessel fragment Nail Many nails and metal fragments Iron slag and piece of iron Nail and tombac brass fragment Tombac brass vessel fragment Copper fragment Copper slag (?) Nail Nail Two or three nails Two or three nails Copper fragment Nail Nail

292

Yotvata.indb 292

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 25: Stone and M etal Objects

References Avner, R. 1998. Elat-Elot––An Early Islamic Village. ʿAtiqot 36: 21*–39* (Hebrew), 124–125 (English summary). Ben Michael, J., Israel, Y. and Nahlieli, D. 2004. Upper Naḥal Besor: A Village from the Early Islamic Period in the Negev Highlands. ʿAtiqot 48: 105*−122* (Hebrew), 159−160 (English summary). Ben Michael, J., Israel, Y. and Nahlieli, D. 2017. Naḥal ʿOmer: A Village from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_ Eng.aspx?id=25325&mag_id=125 Buckingham, H. 2019. Metals. In: Hoffman, T. Ashkelon 8: The Islamic and Crusader Periods. University Park, PA: 629–642. Davies, G. and Magness, J. 2015. The 2003–2007 Excavations in the Late Roman Fort at Yotvata. Winona Lake. Eger, A. 2017. Bronze Surgical Instruments from Tüpraş Field and the Islamic-Byzantine Medical Trade. In: Kozal, E., Akar, M., Heffron, Y., Çilingiroğlu, Ç., Şerifoğlu, T.E., Çakırlar, C., Ünlüsoy, S. and Jean, E., eds., Questions, Approaches, and Dialogues in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology: Studies in Honor of Marie-Henriette and Charles Gates. Münster: 735–760. Figueras, P. 2004. Stone Implements. In: Figueras, P., ed., Ḥorvat Karkur ʿIllit (Beer-Sheva 16/Beer-Sheva Archaeological Monographs 1). Beersheba: 297–304. Fischer, M. and Tal, O. 1999. Stone Artefacts from the Byzantine Period. In: Beit-Arieh, I., ed. Tel ʿIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 15). Tel Aviv: 421–427. Gascoigne, A.L. 2013. Cooking Pots and Choices in the Medieval Middle East. In: Bintliff, J. and Caroscio, M., eds. Pottery and Social Dynamics in the Mediterranean and Beyond in Medieval and Post-Medieval Times (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 2557). Oxford: 1–10. Haiman, M. 1995. An Early Islamic Period Farm at Naḥal Mitnan in the Negev Highlands. ʿAtiqot 26: 1–13. Khamis, E. 1996. The Metal Objects. In: Ben-Tor, A., Avissar, M. and Portugali, Y. Yoqneʿam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3). Jerusalem: 218–235. Meshel, Z. 1989. A Fort at Yotvata from the Time of Diocletian. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 228–238. Porath, Y. 2016. Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 86: 1*–81* (Hebrew), 113–116 (English summary). Simpson, St. J. 2018. “Of Cooking Pots Let Him Choose Those Made of Stone”: The Manufacture, Circulation and Function of Chlorite Cooking Pots and Other Objects in the Middle East and Central Asia during the Sasanian and Medieval Periods. In: Phillips, C.S. and Simpson, St. J., eds. Softstone. Approaches to the Study of Chlorite and Calcite Vessels in the Middle East and Central Asia from Prehistory to the Present (British Foundation for the Study of Arabia Monographs 20). Oxford: 180–206. Tal, O. and Taxel, I. 2008. Ramla (South): An Early Islamic Industrial Site and Remains of Previous Periods (Salvage Excavation Reports 5). Tel Aviv. Torgë, H. 2017. The Development of Ramla during the Early Islamic Period in Light of the Archaeological Evidence (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Whitcomb, D. 1988. Aqaba: “Port of Palestine in the China Sea.” Chicago. Whitcomb, D. 1994. Ayla: Art and Industry in the Islamic Port of Aqaba. Chicago.

293

Yotvata.indb 293

03/08/2022 15:57

Yotvata.indb 294

03/08/2022 15:57

CHAPTER 26

GLASS FINDS Ruth E. Jackson-Tal

A few glass vessels and beads were found at the site, mainly in Stratum II, but also in Stratum I. They are dated to the late 7th, the 8th and the early 9th century CE (Chapters 22 and 23). Most of the glass finds were lost after excavation; consequently, they are presented in this short report on the basis of their drawings. Despite this limitation, we hope that these finds will be used as a chronological-typological tool to reconstruct the activity at the site.

Bowl with Tonged Design A bowl with tonged design was found in Stratum II, in the room adjacent to the building from the west (Fig. 26.1:1). The tonged decoration was very common during the Abbasid–Fatimid periods, but is also known in Umayyad contexts (Pollak 2003: 165, Fig. 1:15). A pair of tongs was used to decorate open vessels, creating a pattern on both sides of the wall. The bowl was decorated with an oval concentric pattern, very common in the region. Vessels with tonged decoration were uncovered in Abbasid–Fatimid contexts at many sites in Israel, especially Bet Sheʾan (Hadad 2005: 37, Pls. 31:608–622, 32:623–644, 33:645–648, with further references), Ramla (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2005: 101, 103, Fig. 1:2; Gorin-Rosen 2010: 242–243, Pl. 10.8:1–5), Ramla South (Jackson-Tal 2008: 167, Fig. 6.113:4) and Tiberias (Hadad 2008: 168, Pl. 5.3:33,34).

Bottles with Infolded Rim Two bottles with infolded rims were found in Stratum I, in L126 and L164 (Fig. 26.1:2–3). This type of bottle, with flattened and infolded rim and a rounded body, is especially characteristic of the Umayyad period, although it is also known from later periods (Hadad 2005: 23). Similar bottles were found in Umayyad contexts at Tel ʿIra (Lehrer-Jacobson 1999: 442−444, Fig. 13.1:1,2), Khirbat el-Thahiriya (Jackson-Tal 2012: 61, Fig. 2:17−21), Ramla (Gorin-Rosen 2010: 223, Pl. 10.1:13), Ḥorvat Ḥermeshit (Winter 1998: 176, Fig. 2:14,15), Bet Sheʾan (Hadad 2005: 23, Pls. 9:182–184; 10:185–190; 11:194,195) and Hammat Gader (Cohen 1997: 427−428, Pl. IX:1−8).

Bottle with Ridged Rim and Neck A bottle with a short ridged rim and neck was found in Stratum I, in L126 in the eastern wing of the building (Fig. 26.1:4). This bottle type is well known throughout the country, beginning in the Umayyad period and becoming very common in the Abbasid–Fatimid periods. Similar bottles were uncovered in Umayyad, and particularly Abbasid–Fatimid, contexts at Tel ʿIra (Lehrer-Jacobson 1999: 442−444, Fig. 13.1:3), Khirbat elThahiriya (Jackson-Tal 2012: 61*, Fig. 2:28−30), Ramla (Gorin-Rosen 2010: 233, 235, Pl. 10.6:7–10, with further parallels), Ramla South (Jackson-Tal 2008: 175, Fig. 6.117:8–10) and Bet Sheʾan (Hadad 2005: 24–25, 40–41, Pls. 11:204, 13:269, 38:62–779).

Jar/Bottle A glass fragment was found in Stratum I, in L137, in the northern part of the gate (Fig. 26.1:5). On the basis of its shape and context, it appears to be a small jar or bottle, dated to the Early Islamic period. No exact parallel has been found.

Yotvata.indb 295

03/08/2022 15:57

Ruth E. Jackson-Tal

1

2

3

6

7

4

8

5

9

10

Fig. 26.1: Glass objects No. 1

Object Bowl

Find spot L164, B793/20

2

Bottle

L126, B610/21

3

Bottle

L164, B792/20

4

Bottle

L126, B610/20

5

Jar/bottle

L137, B758/20

6 7 8 9 10

Bead Bead Bead Bead Bead

L137, B617/20 L161, B753/20 L164, B797/20 L164, B806/20 L133, B756/20

Description Rim, wall and base fragment; unknown color and weathering; flaring rounded rim, tapering wall with exterior tonged concentric oval patterns below the rim and concave base; rim D: 16 cm; base D: 9 cm Rim and neck fragment; unknown color and weathering; infolded flattened rim and cylindrical neck; rim D: 2 cm Rim, neck and shoulder fragment; unknown color and weathering; infolded flattened rim and cylindrical neck widening towards the shoulder; rim D: 3 cm Rim and neck fragment; unknown color and weathering; straight rim, cylindrical ridged neck; rim D: 1.7 cm Rim and wall fragment; unknown color and weathering; flaring thick rim and incurving wall; rim D: 3.2 cm Rounded flattened bead; horizontal perforation Rounded bead; horizontal perforation Rounded bead; horizontal perforation Rounded bead; horizontal perforation Cylindrical bead; horizontal perforation

296

Yotvata.indb 296

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 26: Glass F inds

Beads Five beads (Fig. 26.1:6–10) were found in Strata II–I in several locations: in the northern part of the gate (L137), in the auxiliary rooms to the northwest (L161) and southwest (L133, L164) of the main building, and in a small pit within L164. The beads are plain and mostly rounded, with one flattened bead (Fig. 26.1:6) and one cylindrical bead (Fig. 26.1:10). Such plain beads were used throughout many periods and can be assigned to the Early Islamic period according to their contexts.

Summary The small assemblage of glass finds discovered at the site may be dated, on the basis of their context and parallels, to the Umayyad and Abbasid–Fatimid periods. The assemblage consists of a single bowl, three bottles, a small jar and beads. They are of types well known in the region, used as everyday tableware and personal ornaments. Their main contribution lies in the expansion of the distribution of such finds in the area during the Early Islamic period.

References Cohen, E. 1997. Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad Glass. In: Hirschfeld, Y. The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader. Jerusalem: 396−431. Gorin-Rosen, Y. 2010. The Islamic Glass Vessels. In: Gutfeld, O. Ramla: Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque (Qedem 51). Jerusalem: 213–264. Gorin-Rosen, Y. and Katsnelson N. 2005. Glass Finds from the Salvage Excavations at Ramla. ʿAtiqot 49: 101–114. Hadad, S. 2005. Islamic Glass Vessels from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Sheʾan (Qedem Reports 8). Jerusalem. Hadad, S. 2008. Glass Vessels. In: Hirschfeld, Y. and Gutfeld, O. Tiberias: Excavations in the House of the Bronzes; Final Report I: Architecture, Stratigraphy and Small Finds (Qedem 48). Jerusalem: 167–189. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2008. Glass Vessels. In: Tal, O. and Taxel, I. Ramla (South): An Early Islamic Industrial Site and Remains of Previous Periods (Salvage Excavation Reports 5). Tel Aviv: 166–184. Jackson-Tal, R.E. 2012. Early Islamic Glass Finds from Khirbat el-Thahiriya. ʿAtiqot 71: 57*–72*. Lehrer-Jacobson, G. 1999. Glass Bottles of the Early Islamic Period. In: Beit-Arieh, I., ed. Tel ʿIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 15). Tel Aviv: 441−444. Pollak, R. 2003. Early Islamic Glass from Caesarea: A Chronological and Typological Study. Annales du 15e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre. Corning, NY: 165–170. Winter, T. 1998. The Glass Vessels from Ḥorbat Ḥermeshit (1988–1990). ʿAtiqot 34: 173−177 (Hebrew), 10* (English summary).

297

Yotvata.indb 297

03/08/2022 15:57

Yotvata.indb 298

03/08/2022 15:57

CHAPTER 27

THE OSTRACA Nitzan Amitai-Preiss

During the excavations at the oasis of Yotvata (Arabic: ʿEin Ghadian), five ostraca were unearthed.1 Three (Nos. I–III) are written in Arabic, on camel and sheep/goat scapulae, and one (No. IV) is written in Greek on a ceramic sherd. Ostracon II was lost, and all that remains is a low-quality photograph. The fifth ostracon, written in Arabic in ink, on the rim of a bowl (L162, B764), was also lost and is not discussed here. The three Arabic ostraca described below (Nos. I, II and III) may have been delivery notes, receipts, instructions, or even an amulet (see below). The Greek ostracon carries only a partial inscription nowadays. It may contain a name or the name of a gold or silver coin.

Ostracon I (Fig. 27.1) This ostracon was written in Arabic in black ink on a camel’s scapula. The text is written in several directions, possibly by three or four different writers. The ostracon was published by Meshel, including a short note on the inscription and a photograph (1993: 1520). The inscriptions appearing on the ostracon are as follows: No. 1: No. 2: No. 3: No. 4:

A seven-line inscription extending from the middle of the bone towards its end; A single word written upside-down on top of the direction of Inscription No. 1; Two lines found just below inscription No. 1, on the right margin of the bone; Three separate diagonal lines—two to the left of Inscription No. 1 and one to its right.

Inscription No. 1 Te xt 1. ‫ي عمر‬ 2. )?( ‫ مدين ريصا‬... 3. )?( ‫ ك‬... 4. )?( ‫ سك ومدين‬... 5. ‫مدين برمة‬ Traces of two additional lines in Arabic are visible.

Transliteration 1. [min Ban]ī ʿOmar (or ʿAmr) 2. ... muddain riṣan (?) 3. ... k (?) 4. … (sk) wa-muddain (?) 5. muddain baramah Traces of two additional lines in Arabic are visible. 1. Two ostraca were unearthed very close to one another, one (No. I) in L108 and the other (No. II) beyond its northern wall, in L106. The only thing we know about Ostracon II is that it was found in a small probe in 1987.

Yotvata.indb 299

03/08/2022 15:57

n ItZan a MItaI-PreIss

Commentary Line 1: This line may contain the name of a tribe: [Ban]i ʿOmar or ʿAmr. Local Arab tribes from this period are known from the Nessana papyri (Kraemer 1958: 340–341; Stroumsa 2008: 166–184). In one of the papyri (from the Byzantine period), the lender was said to have hailed from the Banu Zamzam tribe (P.Ness. 89.40). A tribe is also known from the Shivta dedication inscription from the beginning of the 8th century (Moor 2013: 80, l. 4), which reads: Banū ʿUb(b)ād (although the ba in the name could be nun or ya, since there are no diacritical dots on the letters in the inscription, as noted by Moor on p. 80). The name ʿOmar or ʿAmr does not appear in either of these mentions. Lines 2, 4 and 5: The word muddīn or muddain, found three times in this inscription, is a dual form of the volume measure muddī. The nominative form of this word in literary Arabic is muddyᾱn, and the accusative form is muddīyayn. The version at hand, which differs from these two forms, may have been influenced by the ʿAmiyah, the Arabic dialect spoken by the inhabitants of the region at the time. Line 5: The word after muddīn or mudain is baramah, which denotes a fruit of the Arāk tree—a thorny tree on which camels feed—before it ripens. The Arāk fruit grows in vine-like clusters, and parts of the tree were fashioned into tooth picks (Lane 1877: s.v. Arāk, ‫)اراك‬. Baramah is also the fruit of the ʿiḍāh (Accacia gummifera) tree in its final stage, termed ballah then baramah.

Fig. 27.1: Ostracon I (L108, B507)

300

Yotvata.indb 300

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 27: T he Ostraca

Inscription No. 2

Te xt ‫الينا‬

Transliteration ilaynā

Translation “To us”

Inscription No. 3 Traces are visible of two words, each in a separate line. No letters can be identified.

Inscription No. 4 As aforementioned, this inscription consists of three diagonal lines: 1) to the far left from inscriptions Nos. 1–3; 2) one word underneath it; and 3) on the far right.

Te xt 1.

‫ زيدهم‬... ‫ ا‬... ‫على يدى يزيد (?) رسمه‬

2.

)?( ‫[ح]ساب‬

3.

... ‫] شكر ندير اله‬...[

Transliteration 1.

ʿala yadai Yazīd (?) rasamhu ... a ... zayadahum

2.

[ḥi]sāb (?)

3.

shukr nadhīr ilaha (sic; should be Allāh?)

Translation Line 1: “By the hand of Yazīd (?) he wrote it ... a ... and added them”

Commentary Line 2: This word (ḥisab), if correct, denotes the calculation in a transaction Line 3: Under nadhara, Lane (1893: 2781–2782) translated nadhartu lillāh kadha as: “I vowed of my own free will to do or to give such a thing to God.” The three words should therefore mean: “Thanks One who vows to Allāh.”

Ostracon II (Fig. 27.2) This is a scapula of a young ovis/capra written in Arabic script in ink. Unfortunately, the bone was lost, and therefore we must make do with the photograph, which is of low quality. Traces of five lines of Arabic script are visible. It is not clear whether there is a framed part in the middle of the bone or whether the “frame” is in fact traces of words and perhaps digits. At the far-left end of each line there is a short horizontal stroke—possibly intended to indicate where the line should be. The content of the letters or digits suggest that this may be an amulet with the addition of the shape of the frame as a triangle. The repetition of isolated letters and digits is a phenomenon known on amulets. For such an amulet from Nes Ziyyona, see Amitai-Preiss, forthcoming (a). 301

Yotvata.indb 301

03/08/2022 15:57

n ItZan a MItaI-PreIss

Fig. 27.2: Ostracon II (L106, B821)

The Inscription Line 1: This line may contain a dot or the letter hā (indicating the digit 5) or perhaps the letters alīf and hā (indicating the digits 1 and 5). Alternatively, the alif may perhaps be a lām. Line 2: This line contains a ṣād or dād, followed by a dot, or a rā or zāy, followed by a dot or the letter hā. Line 3: The line contains traces of unclear letters or perhaps a word or two, a circle or the letter hā and a final mīm. Line 4: This line contains a few letters or digits, perhaps a word starting with mīm and ending with tā. Line 5: The only decipherable word may be fils—denoting a bronze coin—at the beginning of the line. If, indeed, there are digits in lines 1 and 2 and the reading of [ f ]ils in line 5 is correct, this ostracon may be a delivery note or a receipt. However, the fact that this ostracon contains only one combination of two letters and the rest are isolated letters and digits written within a special frame (a triangle) may suggest that this is an amulet instead.

Ostracon III (Fig. 27.3) This ostracon consists of Arabic script written in black ink on a camel’s scapula. The bone comprises three parts. On the upper part, traces of three or four lines of letters are visible. The last word is more legible than the other lines, and may be the name ʿUbaid. The middle part is square in shape, and the third is elongated. Eighteen lines of text are visible here (see below). Only a few words from the inscription have been published in the past, along with a photograph (Meshel 1991: 32).

The Inscription on the Middle and Lower Parts of the Scapula Te xt 1.

...

2.

(?) ‫ ذهب‬...

3.

(?) ‫ﺗصررنا‬

302

Yotvata.indb 302

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 27: T he Ostraca

4.

... ‫[ا]مول را‬

5.

... ‫ ركب‬...

6.

‫ عمر كتب‬/ )?( ‫دحل يدب‬

7.

‫ ثمان‬or ‫عمال‬

8.

)?( ‫عند ت‬

9.

‫فضة‬

10.

‫حسبه‬

11.

... ‫دة‬...

12.

‫[ع]شرين‬

13.

)?( ]‫الحمد مد[ي‬

14.

‫لعبد الملك‬

15.

... ‫وعند نبيل‬

16.

‫رطب‬

17.

]‫صلى [الله عليه‬

18.

]‫[و]س [لم‬

Transliteration 1.

...

2.

... dhahab

3.

... taṣararnā (?)

4.

... [a]mwāl rā...

5.

... rakiba...

6.

daḥala ydb (?) (or ʿomar kataba)

7.

ʿummāl (or thamān)

8.

ʿinda t (?)

9.

fiḍḍah...

10. ḥasabahu 11. ...dah... 12. [ʿi]shrīn (?) 13. li-Ahmad mudd[ī] 14. li-ʿAbd al-Malik 15. wa-ʿinda Nabīl 16. raṭab 17. ṣala (?) [Allāh ʾalayhi] 18. [wa]-s[alam]

Translation 1.

...

2.

gold [coin]

3.

unclear

4.

money / property 303

Yotvata.indb 303

03/08/2022 15:57

n ItZan a MItaI-PreIss

5.

rode

6.

ydb (?) entered / ʿOmar wrote

7.

workers / eight (as an amount of …)

8.

at (and a name)

9.

silver coin (dirham)

10.

he calculated it

11.

?

12.

twenty (?)

13.

to Ahmad a mudd[ī] (?)

14.

to ʿAbd al-Malik

15.

at Nabīl‘s [hands]...

16.

dates

17+18. PBUH (peace be upon him) 18.

sal[ām]

Fig. 27.3: Ostracon III (L159, B763)

304

Yotvata.indb 304

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 27: T he Ostraca

Commentary Line 7: The word ʿumāl could refer either to laborers—builders or diggers—or to agents who manage affairs and property of others. Both options seem possible here at ʿEin Ghadian: the building unearthed at the oasis could have been a major place compared to other, smaller-scale, settlements in its vicinity, which would account for the presence of agents; alternatively, builders or diggers may have worked on the qanāt (the agricultural water tunnels), which were nearby. Line 8: This should be a name; there is a break of the bone. Line 9: The word fiḍḍah denotes a “silver coin” and is another term for dirham. The same word was found on Ostracon 5 from Shivta (Amitai-Preiss, Tepper and Linn 2019). The three lines following Line 9 were written and then erased. Line 15: The preposition ʿinda (“at the hands of”) alongside a private name, Nabīl, is a formula found also on ostraca from Isṭabl ʿAntar in Egypt. Ostracon 100 contains a list of names of people following this preposition, along with a monetary sum (Denoix 1986: 28, Pl. XV, No. 102). Lines 17–18: One of two possibilities are written here: either ṣalā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-salam = ‫وسلم‬, or salām salām. In both Inscription 1 on Ostracon I (lines 2, 4 and 5) and Ostracon III (line 13) from Yotvata, the term muddī, i.e., a measurement for dry goods, is mentioned. The word muddī denoting volume measurements appears on two lead objects from the Umayyad period found in Palestine (Amitai-Preiss 2017: 197–198). These items are part of a collection, and their provenances are unknown. One mentions the city of Iliya (Jerusalem), and the other refers to the jund (county or province) Filastīn. If this is the case, the muddī would have been the same for the entire jund at one point, while at a different stage—in 101 AH (719–720 CE)—the city of Jerusalem may have had its own muddī measure for a different quantity. Muddī is also the measurement used for wheat in the 7th century, during the Umayyad period, as was recorded on papyri from the southern village of Nessana in the Negev (Kraemer 1958). In P.Ness. 60–69, called the entagia by Kraemer, some taxes, which appear to have been imposed on the population every two months for payment of equal quantities of olive oil and wheat, were measured in muddī. The term muddī appears in two of the papyri (P.Ness. 26–27), found at Khirbet el-Mird in the Judean Desert (Grohmann 1963). In another papyrus (P.Ness. 28) Nuʿman, who was the Al-kayyāl (a measurer of corn and the like; cf. Lane 1885: 3005), is mentioned. He was responsible for the wheat of the county, in this case Filastīn (Grohmann 1963). The use of a different measurement in various places in Filastīn is attested in al-Muqqadasī’s Aḥsan al-Taqāsīm f ī Maʿrifat al-Aqālīm, written in 985 CE (al-Muqqadasī 1877: 181–182). When referring to Ramla and Iliya, the author notes that in the former the volume measurement qaf īz was used, while in the latter, the term was muddī. Both these volume measurements are used for dry goods—which is in keeping with the use of the term in the Nessana papyri for measuring wheat. We do not know the actual amount of wheat referred to as muddī. Another measurement, mentioned on a jug sherd unearthed in Caesarea, is kayl Shāmī (“the measurement of Bilād al-Shām”). It may have been used to measure wheat (Sharon 1999: 294–295). The jug is dated to the 9th century. Ostraca from the Early Islamic period written in Arabic are a rare find in the Negev. To date, they have been uncovered in the northern Negev near Beersheba: one each in two villages located on either side of Naḥal Shoval (Paran 2016; Abadi-Reiss 2017; Amitai-Preiss, forthcoming [a]; forthcoming [b]), and three written on sherds in an agricultural farm at Khirbet ʿAmra (Tahel 1998: 167; Amitai-Preiss, forthcoming [c]). Nine ostraca were unearthed at Shivta: one written on limestone, two on a single marble 305

Yotvata.indb 305

03/08/2022 15:57

n ItZan a MItaI-PreIss

slab and six on ceramic sherds (Amitai-Preiss, Tepper and Linn 2019). In addition, three ceramic ostraca and one ostracon on a scapula were unearthed at ʿEn ʿAvrona in the Arabah (Porath 2016: 4*–37*; Sharon 2016: 37*). An ostracon written in Greek on a scapula, which bears another inscription probably written in Arabic was unearthed during the excavations at Nessana conducted by the late Prof. Daniel Urman (Sharon, forthcoming).

Ostracon IV: A Greek Ostracon (Fig. 27.4) Only a few letters on this ceramic sherd are legible. They must be part of a word or a name.

Te xt ... PYIO ...

Transliteration ... ρυιο ... No useful examples of names or words with this string of letters were found in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) or in epigraphical or onomastic databases. However, my colleague Dr. Avner Ecker found a possible completion in this papyrological database TLG: χρυ(ιου) νο(μισμάτον), meaning “gold,” or άργ(ρυιυ) δραχμάς, meaning “silver.” The terms for gold and silver in this database are in the genitive and are accompanied by a word denoting a coin, lit., “drachmas of silver” and “coin of gold.”2 None of these elements are evident on our ostracon. One should consider this possible completion with caution, however, since these are linguistic parallels from a different medium—papyri—and are not necessarily directly applicable to a pottery vessel or an ostracon.

Fig. 27.4: Ostracon IV (L154, B704)

2. I would like to thank Prof. Jonathan Price (Tel Aviv University) for his help in deciphering this Greek ostracon.

306

Yotvata.indb 306

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 27: T he Ostraca

It is unclear whether the ostracon was written on a large container or on a sherd of the original vessel and whether it was written at Yotvata itself or brought there from elsewhere (see Appendix 27.1).

Conclusions In addition to the three scapulae bearing Arabic inscriptions and the Greek ostracon on a pottery sherd, several coins of different periods—Late Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad coins, all of bronze, and a gold ʿAbbasid coin—were unearthed in different areas of the excavation (Chapter 28). The presence of the inscriptions may suggest that the site was a hub of tax collection, trade, or distribution of salaries. The three Arabic ostraca shed light on the role of the site as an agricultural and/or administrative center. They include the following: three denominations of Islamic coins—gold (coin), silver coin, and probably a bronze coin; a measurement of volume (muddī); what is probably the name of a tribe; a product/crop (dates); figures (digits in two ostraca); and names of individuals (Arab names, most likely of Muslims). Ostracon I mentions a vow for Allāh in its final sentence, and Ostracon III mentions an Islamic invocation either ṣalʾam or salam twice, also in its last line. Both point to a Muslim presence. The three ostraca written in Arabic are concerned with orders or the transportation of goods, and one of them might have been an amulet. The text on the Greek ostracon may contain part of a name or part of the letters of a gold (coin) or a silver (coin). The Yotvata oasis was an agricultural center and probably also an administrative center for the region, with smaller-scale settlements in its immediate vicinity. Two other such centers were ʿEn Marzev and ʿEn ʿAvrona, also in the Arabah. All three were sites of chain tunnels (qanāt; Porath 2016), as well as other agricultural elements (Nol 2008: 79). The central building at Yotvata is shaped like a small-scale Umayyad palace or a khan, known from other Umayyad sites. Yotvata existed between the late 7th and the early 9th centuries—from the Umayyad period to the early ʿAbbasid period (Chapters 23 and 34).

307

Yotvata.indb 307

03/08/2022 15:57

Appendix 27.1: The Greek Ostracon from Yotvata: Remarks on the Sherd’s Identification Itamar Taxel

The letters were written on the external face of a body sherd of a large ceramic container. The vessel is made of coarse yellowish-brown ware, fired at a relatively high temperature, and containing some small white inclusions and an abundance of fine mica flakes. It is covered on the exterior by a buff-colored slip. The vessel seems to have a broad, probably globular, profile, and its shoulder (represented by the present sherd) was decorated with at least two broad (ca. 2.5 cm) bands of dense combing (the Greek inscription was written on the plain area between these bands). A densely-combed shoulder is a feature characteristic of bag-shaped storage jars produced along the southern Mediterranean coast of Palestine from the 6th or 7th until the 8th centuries CE and of Egyptian bag-shaped jars (imitations of Palestinian prototypes) of the 7th–9th centuries, though in these jars the combing is usually in the form of a continuous broad area covering the entire shoulder. In addition, the presence of mica precludes the possibility that this is a Palestinian jar. Separated bands of horizontal combing are known, however, from some examples of Late Roman Amphora 2 (LRA 2), a globular amphora type produced in Cyprus and the Aegean in the 5th–7th centuries CE. This type has derivatives and imitations (including Egyptian ones) that date from as late as the 8th and 9th centuries, although the combed bands on the LRA 2 and its later versions are usually narrower (ca. 1–1.5 cm) than those on the present sherd (for recent discussions on late antique and early medieval east Mediterranean, Levantine and Egyptian amphorae and storage jars, see Creisher et al. 2019; Taxel and Cohen-Weinberger 2019, with references). As mentioned above, the presence of mica precludes the possibility that this sherd represents a Palestinian jar, though the latter’s fabric seems to be closer to Cypriot or Aegean than to Egyptian material. Hence, this sherd is tentatively identified as belonging to an LRA 2 or derivative amphora, apparently of a 7th- or 8th-century date. It remains unknown, however, whether the Greek inscription was written on a reused sherd of an amphora that was broken elsewhere or whether it was written on site.3

3. Interestingly, Porath’s excavation at ʿEn ʿAvrona in the Arabah yielded a large fragment of globular amphora, the shoulder of which is decorated with alternating narrow bands of horizontal and wavy combing (Porath 2016: 32*, Fig. 29:16). According to Porath, the ware of this vessel, which is red-colored with numerous voids of organic temper, indicates that this is a North African amphora of the 7th century CE. In my view, however, there is greater plausibility that this is an Egyptian amphora, which can be dated to as late as the 8th century.

308

Yotvata.indb 308

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 27: T he Ostraca

References Abadi-Reiss, Y. 2017. Nahal Shoval (North). Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129. http:// www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail.aspx?id=25177&mag_id=125 (Hebrew). Amitai-Preiss, N. 2017. Early Islamic Volume Measurements. In: Goodwin, T., ed. Coinage and History in the Seventh Century Near East 5, Proceedings of the 15th Seventh Century Syrian Numismatic Round Table Held at Corpus Christi College, Oxford on 17th and 18th September 2016. London: 197–198. Amitai-Preiss, N. Forthcoming (a). An Ostracon from Nahal Shoval. ʿAtiqot. Amitai-Preiss, N. Forthcoming (b). Two Ostraca from Nahal Shoval. ʿAtiqot. Amitai-Preiss, N. Forthcoming (c). Three Arabic Written Ostraca from Khirbet ʿAmra. ʿAtiqot. Amitai-Preiss, N., Tepper, Y. and Linn, R. 2019. Deciphering Early Arabic Texts on Eighth-and Ninth-Century CE Ostraca from the Colt Expedition Findings in Shivta. Michmanim 28: 85–100 (Hebrew), 63* (English summary). Creisher, M., Goren, Y., Artzy, M. and Cvikel, D. 2019. The Amphorae of the Maʿagan Mikhael B Shipwreck: Preliminary Report. Levant 51: 105–120. Denoix, S. 1986. Les ostraca de Isṭabl ʿAntar, 1985. Annales Islamologiques 22: 27–33. Grohmann, A. 1963. Arabic Papyri from Hirbet el Mird (Bibliothèque du Muséon 52). Leuven. Kraemer, C.J. 1958. Excavations at Nessana, III: Non Literary Papyri. Princeton. Lane, E.W. 1863–1893. Arabic-English Lexicon (6 vols.). London. Meshel, Z. 1991. Yotvata Oasis—Its History, Landscapes and Sites. Ariel 78: 6–44 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Moor, B. 2013. Mosque and Church: Arabic Inscriptions at Shivta in the Early Islamic Period. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 40: 73–141. al-Muqqadasī (al-Maqdisī), 1877. Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh, Aḥsan al-Taqāsīm fī Ma‘rifat al-Aqālīm (ed. M.J. de Goeje), Leiden. Nol, H. 2008. Settlement, Economy and State during the Early Islamic Period from the Archaeological Data (unpublished M.A. thesis, Ben Gurion University of the Negev). Beersheba (Hebrew). Paran, N.S. 2016. Nahal Shoval. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 128. http://www .hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail.aspx?id=25156&mag_id=124 (Hebrew). Porath, Y. 2016. Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 86: 1–81 (Hebrew), 113*–116* (English summary). Sharon, M. 1999. Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, II: B–C. Leiden. Sharon, M. 2016. An Ostracon with an Arabic Inscription. In: Porath, Y. 2016. Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 86: 37 (Hebrew). Sharon, M. Forthcoming. An Ostracon from Nessana. Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae. Stroumsa, R. 2008. People and Identities in Nessana (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University). Durham. Taxel, I. and Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2019. A Newly-Identified Type of Late Antique Palestinian Amphora: Production, Evolution and Use of the Mediterranean Globular Amphora. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 32: 3–31.

309

Yotvata.indb 309

03/08/2022 15:57

Yotvata.indb 310

03/08/2022 15:57

CHAPTER 28

THE COINS Nitzan Amitai-Preiss and Ariel Berman

During the excavations at Yotvata, six coins were unearthed, only four of which are described in this chapter. One coin (L100, B503, topsoil) could not be located,1 and one is half a coin that could not be identified (L136, B607, found in the refuse dump). Of the coins published here, three are bronze coins—one (No. 1) probably Late Roman, one (No. 2) Byzantine and one (No. 3) Umayyad—and the other (No. 4) is a gold coin, from the ʿAbbasid period. Sometime after it was unearthed, Coin No. 2 was identified by the late Dr. Arye Kindler as Byzantine—a coin of Heraclius from 610 CE, with a countermark from 641 CE. Other bronze coins of Heraclius with various kinds of countermarks have been published (Schulze, Schulze and Leimenstoll 2006: 9–12, Nos. 46–173, showing a monogram of Heraclius; and Schulze 2009: esp. 117–119, bearing eagle countermarks). The only observation that can be made regarding this coin is that it is Byzantine, bearing the letter K, and therefore is a half follis. Coin No. 3 has a square frame engraved on its obverse in bold. The die of Coin No. 3 was larger than the coin’s flan. It may bear an inscription in its margins, but if so, it is illegible. Only three other types of coins with a square frame are known to scholars today: 1) a type with a square frame on both obverse and reverse and a fish in the center of the obverse; a coin of this type is said to have been minted at Baysān (Amitai-Preiss, Berman and Qedar 1999: Pl. 22, E4); 2) a coin of Dimashq with a square frame on both obverse and reverse, reading “minted / at Dimashq / year” and “six / twenty / and a hundred” on the reverse (Walker 1956: 254, No. 841); and 3) coins with intersecting squares creating an octagon; these coins can be further divided into two subtypes, each bearing the name of a different governor (Walker 1956: 283, Nos. 931–932; Nicol 2009: Nos. 1271–1272 [and No. 1274, albeit with the name of another governor]). The coin under discussion does not resemble any of these three types. Coin No. 4, the gold coin (a dinār), is dated 164 AH/780–781 CE, within the reign of the ʿAbbasid caliph al-Mahdī (26 April 764–14 September 786 CE). On that coin, the word for the digit four (arbaʿa in Arabic) on the reverse has a diacritical dot under the letter ba. None of the other letters—either on the obverse or the reverse—have diacritical dots. The dot under the ba may be some sign of the mint. All the Umayyad dinārs were minted in Dimashq, the capital of the Umayyad empire (unless otherwise stated, the only other mint of rare gold coins in the Umayyad period is Mʿadan Amīr al-Muminīn, the gold mine of the caliph, which was somewhere in the Arab Peninsula). The mint for the ʿAbbasid dinārs in the days of al-Mahdī was Baghdad. Two such coins of this caliph, from the same year, were unearthed at Khirbet Ibreica in the southeastern Sharon. They are part of a hoard that included two additional dinārs and one (indecipherable) dirham coin, dated at least to 189 AH/804–805 CE (Amitai-Preiss 2006). 1. Sometime after the excavation, the coin was examined by the late Dr. Arye Kindler, who dated it to 630–660 CE.

Yotvata.indb 311

03/08/2022 15:57

n ItZan a MItaI-PreIss anD a rIeL BerMan

Catalogue Coin No. 1 (Fig. 28.1) Period: Late Roman? Obverse: Worn, traces of a Latin inscription in the margin of the coin, only X can be seen and is legible. Reverse: Worn AE, 0.5 gr, 14 mm Two other types of coins bear the letter X in their inscription. On one, it appears on the obverse, where the diademed bust of an emperor is accompanied by the inscription: CONSTANTI NVSMAXAVG (Bruck 1961: 25). On the other type, it appears on the reverse in the inscription VIRTVS EXERCITI (Bruck 1961: 85–87, Pl. XX).

Fig. 28.1: Late Roman (?) coin (L100, B641, topsoil)

Coin No. 2 (Fig. 28.2) Period: Byzantine Obverse: The image, which is invisible, should be a bust Reverse: K on its top cross, l. [AN]NO, below I AE, 2.9 gr, 20 × 21.6 mm Half follis Cf. Grierson 1968: 303, No. 119

Fig. 28.2: Byzantine coin (L105, B699)

Coin No. 3 (Fig. 28.3) Period: Umayyad Date: From 696–697 until 750 CE Obverse: Marginal circle, an inscription appears within a square: [‫]ال اله‬ ‫اال ﷲ‬ ‫وحده‬ Translation: [There is no god] / but Allāh / alone Reverse:

[‫]مﺤمد‬ ‫رسول‬ ‫ﷲ‬ Translation: [Muḥammad] / the messenger / of Allāh

Fig. 28.3: Umayyad coin (L100, B509, topsoil)

AE, 0.79 gr, 15 mm Cf. Walker 1956: 283, Nos. 931–932, a coin of Mūṣul; Nicol 2009: Pl. 61, Nos. 1271–1273, one governor, or another governor No. 1274, all from Mūṣul 312

Yotvata.indb 312

03/08/2022 15:57

CHaPter 28: t He CoIns

Coin No. 4 (Fig. 28.4) Period: ʿAbbasid Date: 164 AH/780–781 CE, the days of al-Mahdī Obverse: The following inscription appears in the center: ‫ال اله اال‬ ‫ﷲ وحده‬ ‫ال شريك له‬ Translation: There is no god / but Allāh alone / He has no associate

Fig. 28.4: ʿAbbasid gold coin (L140, B638)

Inscription around the margins: ‫مﺤمد رسول ﷲ ارسله بالﮭدى ودين الﺤﻖ ليﻈﮭره على الدين‬ ‫كله‬ Translation: Muḥammad the messenger of Allāh was sent [by Allāh] with the guidance and the true religion to make it overcome all religions [a paraphrase of Quran 61:9] Reverse: The following inscription appears in the center: ‫مﺤمد‬ ‫رسول‬ ‫ﷲ‬ Translation: Muḥammad is the messenger of Allāh Inscription around the margins: ‫بسم ﷲ ﺿرب هﺬا الدينر سنة اربﻊ وستين وماﺋة‬ Translation: In the name of Allāh this dinār was struck [in the] year 164 AH AV, 3.99 gr, 17 mm, 3 Cf. Amitai-Preiss 2006: 64, Nos. 2 and 3

Conclusions The coins were unearthed in different parts of the excavation. Each of the four identified coins belongs to a different period, ranging from Late Roman to the ʿAbbasid period. The Yotvata excavation yielded two or three Early Islamic coins, as well as three camel bones bearing Arabic inscriptions (Chapter 27, Ostraca I–III) and a Greek ostracon on a pottery sherd (Ostracon IV). Both the coins and the inscriptions suggest that the site served as a center of collecting taxes, trade, or distribution of salaries. The Yotvata oasis was an agricultural center and probably also an administrative center for the region, with other, smaller, settlements in its immediate vicinity. Two such centers were ʿEn Marzev and ʿEn ʿAvrona, also in the Arabah. All contained chain-wells (qanat; Porath 2016) as well as other agricultural elements (Nol 2008: 79). The central building at Yotvata is shaped like a small-scale Umayyad palace or a khan, known from other Umayyad sites. The Early Islamic site at Yotvata existed from the late 7th to the early 9th century (the Umayyad to ʿAbbasid periods). Umayyad palaces are known to have served as centers for agricultural activity: in Palestine, Jund al-Urdunn, Khirbet Minya and Sinabra around the Sea of Galilee. Others are known from the northern ajnad (counties) of Greater Syria: Qasr Kheir al-Sharqi and 313

Yotvata.indb 313

03/08/2022 15:57

N itzan A mitai-Preiss and A riel Berman

al-Gharbi, and a few palaces in Jordan, and Ukhaidir in Iraq. It is possible that the three sites of Yotvata, ʿEn Marzev and ʿEn ʿAvrona were owned by the same patron or by different owners imitating the same style of building and agricultural and administrative activity (Nol 2008: 80).

References Amitai-Preiss, N. 2006. Appendix B: An ʿAbbasid Coin Hoard. In: Taxel, I. and Feldstein, A. Khirbet Ibreica: A Rural Settlement in the Southestern Sharon Plain. Salvage Excavation Reports 3: 64–65. Amitai-Preiss, N., Berman, A. and Qedar, S. 1999. The Coinage of Scythopolis-Baysan and Gerasa-Jerash. Israel Numismatic Journal 13: 133–155. Bruck, G. 1961. Die spätrömische Kupferprägung: Ein Bestimmungsbuch für schlecht erhaltene Münzen. Graz. Grierson, P. 1968. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, 2: Part I, Phocas and Heraclius (602–641). Washington. Nicol, N.D. 2009. Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean, 2: Early Post-Reform Coinage. Oxford. Nol, H. 2008. Settlement, Economy and State during the Early Islamic Period from the Archaeological Data (M.A. thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev). Beersheba (Hebrew). Porath, Y. 2016. Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 86: 1*–81* (Hebrew), 113–116 (English summary). Schulze, W. 2009. The Byzantine “Eagle” Countermark: Re-Attributed from Egypt to Palestine. Israel Numismatic Research 4: 113–120. Schulze, W., Schulze, I. and Leimenstoll, W. 2006. Heraclian Countermarks on Byzantine Copper Coins in Seventh Century Syria. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 30/1: 1–27. Walker, J. 1956. A Catalogue of the Arab-Byzantine and Post-Reform Umaiyad Coins. London.

314

Yotvata.indb 314

03/08/2022 15:57

CHAPTER 29

TEXTILES, TEXTILE IMPRESSIONS AND A PLAIT Orit Shamir

Introduction The textiles, textile impressions and a plait presented below were discovered in the course of excavations conducted between 1975–1980 by Z. Meshel and E. Ayalon at the Early Islamic complex (late 7th–early 9th centuries CE) in Yotvata (Meshel 1991; 1993).1 This chapter discusses 28 wool textiles and 17 textile impressions on Crude Handmade Ware found in the main building and its auxiliary structures. The complex may have been a center for agricultural activity, a khan (a way station), or a regional administrative center, or may have served all three functions (Chapter 34).

The Textiles All the wool textiles except one (Table 29.1) were found in the auxiliary structures southeast of the main building, in layers of ash belonging to nomads who settled in the complex after its abandonment (Stratum I; see Chapter 22). They probably collected at least some of the textiles from the abandoned settlement. The other piece was found in L126, a room in the eastern wing of the main building. The largest textile measures 18 × 18.5 cm (Table 29.1, No. 8). The warp of all the textiles was spun very tight, and the weft was loose to medium spun. The threads are S-spun or Z-spun in different variations. S-spun wool is usually a local trait, while Z-spun woolen textiles are rare, both in Israel and in Egypt. The breakdown of the spin direction is given in Table 29.2. Seventeen pieces are tabby weave (Table 29.1, Nos. 3–9, 13–14, 18–24, 27), ten are weft-faced (Nos. 1, 10–12, 15–17, 25–26, 28) and one is balanced tabby (No. 2). The number of warp threads per cm is 2–10 and of weft threads is 4–30. Most of the textiles are undyed cream or beige. Five are dyed blue in various shades (Nos. 19, 21–22, 24–25; Fig 29.1); two (Nos. 10, 27) are light red; No. 10 has the highest number of threads (10/30) per cm. All are dyed in the threads in very good quality. The blue dyes are very shiny. Six (Nos. 1, 13, 16–17, 20, 26) have alternating bands—all in natural colors (Figs. 29.2–29.3) except one (No. 13) which has bands of light red and undyed cream (Chapter 30, Table 30.1, No. 8). Notably, blue was in common use in the Islamic period, and the Indigofera plant that was used to produce the blue color was a common agricultural plant in Jericho and the Jordan Valley (Amar 1998a: 53). One piece has a plain selvedge (No. 15; Fig. 29.4) and one (No. 5; Fig. 29.5) has a reinforced selvedge made of two groups of two warp threads. Five textiles reveal remains of sewing threads made of linen, wool and goat hair, used for mending (No. 27), patching (No. 5; Fig. 29.5), joining (Nos. 21–22; Fig. 29.6) and hemming (Table 29.1, No. 21). 1. The textiles were photographed by Clara Amit (IAA) and the textile impressions by Yoram Weinberg (independent photographer) and Sasha Flit (Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University).

Yotvata.indb 315

03/08/2022 15:57

Orit Shamir

Table 29.1: Wool textiles No. Locus

Basket

IAA No.

Preservation Size (cm)

Threads per cm

Weaving

Warp Weft 4 4.5

Spinning Spinning tightness direction Warp Weft Warp Weft S S Tight Loose

1

117

521/ 1

1996-9138 Medium

Warp 5

Weft 17

Weft-faced

2

117

521/ 2

1996-9139 Medium

26

8

S

Z

Tight

Loose

8

8

Balanced

3

117

521/ 3

2017-9140 Medium

6

5.5

S

Z

Tight

Loose

6

8

Tabby

4

117

521/ 4a

2017-9141 Medium

16

12

Z2S

Z2S

Tight

Tight

4

9

Tabby

5 6 7

117 117 117

521/ 4b 521/ 4c 521/ 4d

2017-9141 Medium 2017-9141 Medium 2017-9141 Medium

5 6 18

3.5 5 9

Z Z S

Z Z S

Tight Tight Tight

Loose Loose Medium

6 7 7

11 10 5

Tabby Tabby Tabby

8

117

521/ 4e

2017-9141 Medium

18

18.5

S

Z

Tight

Loose

7

8

Tabby

9

117

521/ 6

812691

Medium

9.5

3

S

S

Tight

Medium

6

9

Tabby

10 11 12

117 117 117

521/ 7 521/ 8 521/ 9

812694 812695 812686

Poor Poor Poor

2.7 6 5.3

1 3.4 1.6

S Z2S Z2S

S Z Z

Tight Tight Tight

Loose Medium Loose

10 2 3

30 10 10

Weft-faced Weft-faced Weft-faced

13

117

521/10

812688

Medium

2

5

S

S

Tight

Loose

8

12

Tabby

14

117

521/11

812689

Poor

2

3

S

Z

Tight

Loose

5

6

Tabby

15 16

117 117

521/12 521/13

812687 812690

Medium Medium

4.2 6.5

4 5.5

Z2S S

Z2S S

Tight Tight

Tight Medium

2 4

10 12

Weft-faced Weft-faced

17

117

521/14

812692

Medium

3.5

4.5

S

S

Tight

Medium

5

16

Weft-faced

18 19 20

117 118 118

521/15 518/ 1 518/ 2

812693 Medium 1996-9142 Medium 1996-9143 Medium

4.5 6 7.5

5.8 3 9.5

S S Z

Z Z Z

Tight Tight Tight

Medium Loose Medium

4 10 5

4 14 7

Tabby Tabby Tabby

21 22

118 118

518/ 3a 518/ 3b

1996-9144 Medium 1996-9144 Medium

12.2 9

6 4.7

S S

S Z

Tight Tight

Loose Loose

7 7

10 10

Tabby Tabby

23

118

518/ 4

1996-9145 Medium

8.5

8.5

S

S

Tight

Tight

5

6

Tabby

24 25 26

118 118 125

518/ 5 518/ 6 540/ 1

1996-9146 Good 1996-9147 Medium 1996-9148 Medium

12.5 10.5 10

9.5 11.5 12

S S Z

Z Z Z

Tight Tight Tight

Loose Loose Loose

8 8 4

14 18 10

Tabby Weft-faced Weft-faced

27

126

611/ 1

1996-9149 Poor

4.3

5.3

S

Z

Tight

Loose

6

10

Tabby

28

144

729/ 1

812697

1.7

2

Z

Z

Tight

Loose

4

12

Weft-faced

Medium

316

Yotvata.indb 316

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 29: T extiles, T extile I mpressions and a Plait

Weaving Color density Warp Tight Undyed cream

Edge

Tight

Weft Undyed cream, natural brown and black Pigmented light Pigmented light brown brown Undyed cream Undyed cream

Tight

Undyed cream

Undyed cream

Tight Medium Medium

Undyed cream Undyed beige Undyed beige

Undyed cream Undyed beige Undyed beige

Medium

Pigmented light brown Pigmented light brown Light red Undyed cream Undyed light brown Undyed cream

Pigmented light brown Undyed light brown Light red Undyed cream Undyed light brown Undyed cream, light red Pigmented brown Undyed cream Undyed cream, pigmented brown Undyed cream, pigmented light brown Undyed cream Dark blue Undyed cream, natural brown

Tight

Tight Tight Tight Tight Tight Tight Tight Tight

Pigmented brown Undyed cream Undyed cream

Tight

Undyed cream

Tight Tight Medium Tight Tight

Undyed cream Dark blue Undyed cream, pigmented brown Dark blue Blue

Medium

Undyed cream

Tight Tight Tight

Dark blue Dark blue Undyed cream

Tight

Light red

Undyed cream, pigmented light brown Dark blue Dark blue Undyed cream, pigmented light brown Light red

Tight

Undyed cream

Undyed cream

Dark blue Blue

Decoration Sewing

Other fragments Description (cm)

Band

Alternating threads

3.5 × 4 + + Selvedge

+ +

+

Many small pieces 5×3

Selvedge

Folded along warp and sewn 2(2-2)

Fig. 29.5 Fig. 29.5 Fig. 29.5 Fig. 29.5 Fig. 29.5

Alternating

Band

5.5 × 4.5

Band

Alternating

Fig. 29.4

Alternating, 0.8 cm each 3.5 × 3 4.5 × 6.5, 3.5 × 2 6.5 × 8.5

Band Hem

Figs. 29.2, 30.1:6–7 Fig. 30.1:3

Many small e–b are patches on a pieces Many small pieces Three more pieces

Band

Illustrations

+ +

Warp threads thinner Alternating UC and pigmented bands, 0.8 cm each

Three more pieces Five more pieces a and b stitched together

Band

Alternating bands, 1.1 cm each +

Fig. 30.1:2 Figs. 29.3, 30.1:5 Fig. 29.6 Fig. 29.6

Fig. 30.1:1 Fig. 29.1 Fig. 30.1:4

Many small pieces

317

Yotvata.indb 317

03/08/2022 15:57

Orit Shamir

Table 29.2: Spin direction of the textiles Spin direction S-spun Z-spun S/Z Z2S Z2S/Z

Number of textiles 9 5 10 2 2

Fig. 29.1: Wool textile dyed dark blue (Table 29.1, No. 25)

Fig. 29.2: Wool textile, alternating bands in natural colors (Table 29.1, No. 1)

318

Yotvata.indb 318

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 29: T extiles, T extile I mpressions and a Plait

Fig. 29.3: Wool textile, alternating bands in natural colors (Table 29.1, No. 20)

Fig. 29.4: Wool textile, a plain selvedge (Table 29.1, No. 15)

319

Yotvata.indb 319

03/08/2022 15:57

Orit Shamir

Fig. 29.5: Wool textile with patches, reinforced selvedge (Table 29.1, No. 5)

Fig. 29.6: Wool textile with joining linen stitches (Table 29.1, Nos. 21–22)

The stitches were running, overcast and hemming. All the sewing threads are Z2S, except for one, which is made of two S-spun threads, unplied (No. 27). The sewing threads do not necessarily correspond to the material of the fabric (Table 29.3). Most of the textiles have very low thread density and were probably used for sacks, floor covering, or some similar function. The blue and red textiles were probably used for clothing.

Textile Impressions on Handmade Pottery Textile impressions on pottery sherds are very important for the information they may provide about the perishable materials that left them (Alipour, Gleba and Thilo 2011). They reveal different weaves, cloth densities and thread thicknesses. It seems that textiles played an important role in ceramic production (Schaefer-Di Maida and Kneisel 2019: 207; see also Chapter 23). The spinning direction on the imprints is the opposite of that in the original material. Molds of imprints were made on DAS, a technique described in detail by A. Sheffer (1976). The molds were examined under ×40 enlargement. 320

Yotvata.indb 320

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 29: T extiles, T extile I mpressions and a Plait

Table 29.3: Sewing No.

Locus

Basket

Color

521/ 3

Sewing threads Wool

3

117

4

117

521/ 4a

Goat hair

Z2S

5

117

521/ 4b

Wool

Pigmented brown Cream

9

117

521/ 6

Goat hair

Z2S

21 22 27

118 118 126

518/ 3a 518/ 3b 611/ 1

Wool Linen Wool

Pigmented brown Cream White Cream

Cream

Spin direction Z2S

Z2S

Z2S Z2S SS

Stitches

Function

Comments

Overcast

Sewing edge Patch

Folded and sewn along the warp Remains

Overcast, running stitch

Patch

Unskilled sewing Remains

Hemming Overcast

Hem Seam Repair

Original stitches Remains

The disadvantages are that these impressions do not reveal color and cannot be turned over to see the reverse side in order to confirm structural intricacies. In addition, because the ceramics on which the yarns and fabrics are impressed would have shrunk as they dried, the impressions will never exhibit the exact dimensions of the original (Drooker 2000: 60). The dimensions of the impressed elements must have been altered due to the shrinkage of wet clay and its further potential deformation in the drying and firing processes (Mazǎre 2014; Ulanowska 2020: 414–415). Ceramic shrinks by 10–20% during the firing process (Botwid 2016: 47; Schaefer-Di Maida and Kneisel 2019: 202). Seventeen textile impressions on handmade pottery from Yotvata were examined (Fig. 29.7; see also Chapters 23 and 24).2 All are deep and detailed textile impressions. Fifteen are on the interior of the vessels (Fig. 29.7:1–8,10–16), among them one near the rim (No. 10, Fig. 29.7:10). One sherd (No. 9a–b, Fig. 29.7:9) bears two different impressions on the exterior. Ten impressions have a fine texture with thin or thicker threads 1–5,7,9b,11,13,15); six have a coarse texture of thick threads (Fig. 29.7:6,8,9a,10,12,14). The threads are S-spun, and the thread thickness varies considerably. Most of the textiles are balanced or tabby weave (5–14 threads per cm in each direction), while one is weft-faced tabby (8/16 threads per cm). The number of threads per cm and the weaving technique are similar to the textiles that were found at the site, so in this case too, the material is wool. Although no torn areas or patches are visible in the impressions, these textiles were probably in secondary use. Textiles were too costly to throw away even during the Early Islamic period. When patching was no longer possible, the garment was cut into pieces and used for other purposes (Mannering 2000: 15). Worn and torn textiles were probably exploited in secondary use and represent a practice of recycling (Schaefer-Di Maida and Kneisel 2019: 203) as it would not make economic sense to use pristine or newly manufactured cloth for potting. A good supply of old cloths seems to have been part of the potters’ equipment, and some were used several times (Doumani and Frachetti 2012: 368, 375; Grömer 2017: 82). Indeed, the textiles found at the site reveal patching and mending. Textile impressions on handmade pottery were found at Timna in the Late Bronze Age (Sheffer and Tidhar 1988; Shamir and Baginski 1993) and at Tel Mashosh (Sheffer 1976) and Kadesh Barnea (Shamir 2007) in the Iron Age. Textile impressions on the internal side of Mamluk pottery were discovered at Beth Shean, Tiberias, Safed and St. Mary of Carmel (Gabrieli, Ben-Shlomo and Walker 2014; Gabrieli 2015). 2. The excavation diary mentions more such sherds found in L116 and L145.

321

Yotvata.indb 321

03/08/2022 15:57

orIt sHaMIr

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9b

8

9a 9

10

Fig. 29.7: Sherds with textile impressions (prepared by Yulia Gottlieb) 322

Yotvata.indb 322

03/08/2022 15:57

CHaPter 29: t eXtILes, t eXtILe I MPressIons anD a PLaIt

11

12

14

13

15

16

Fig. 29.7 (continued) 323

Yotvata.indb 323

03/08/2022 15:57

Orit Shamir

Fig. 29.7: Sherds with textile impressions Weaving Fine/ technique coarse textile

Thread Interior/ thickness exterior of vessel

Weft face

Fine Fine

12

Balanced tabby Balanced tabby Balanced tabby Tabby Balanced tabby Balanced tabby Balanced tabby Tabby

Interior Thick warp, thin weft Very thin Interior threads Medium Interior

Coarse

Exterior Thick warp, thin weft

11

13

Tabby

Fine

Very thin Exterior threads

S

7

11

Tabby

Coarse

Medium

Interior

S

S

6

6

Tabby

Fine

Thin threads

Interior

777/1

S

S

5

5

Balanced tabby

Coarse

Interior

145

777/2

S

S

5

4

Tabby

Fine

14

149

757

S

S

4

4

Coarse

15

155

781

S

S

9

13

Balanced tabby Tabby

Thick warp, medium weft Thin threads Medium

16

?

?

S

S

7

7

Balanced tabby

Medium

No. Locus

Basket

Spinning direction Warp Weft S S

Spinning direction Warp Weft 8 16

1

103

529/3

2

116

790/1,3,7 S

S

8

8

3

116

790/2

S

S

8

8

4

116

790/4

S

S

9

9

5 6

116 120

790/5,6 672

S S

S S

8 8

10 8

7

120

689

S

S

14

14

8

137

707/1

S

S

7

7

9a

137

758a

S

S

7

9b

137

758b

S

S

10

137

707/2

S

11

145

740

12

145

13

Fine Fine Fine Coarse Fine Coarse

Fine

Very thin Interior threads Medium Interior Medium Interior

Comments

Stressed textile Low density

Very thin Interior threads Medium Interior

Interior Interior

Thin Interior threads Interior Thick warp, thin weft

Impressions of two different textiles, some threads are missing Low density, torn textile Impression near the rim. Different thickness of threads

Low density On the inner base Medium density Medium density

324

Yotvata.indb 324

03/08/2022 15:57

Chapter 29: T extiles, T extile I mpressions and a Plait

A Plait A wool plait (Fig. 29.8) was found in the central building. It is 9 cm in length and 0.9 cm in diameter and is very tight. Each part of the plait consists of three threads, Z-spun, medium and faded red. It was probably used for decoration.

Discussion and Summary The textiles of the Early Islamic period were apparently locally made with the most readily available material— wool. They are very simple, like those at other contemporaneous sites in the region, such as Naḥal Shaḥaq (Shamir 1995), ʿEn Marzev (Shamir 2016b) and ʿEn ʿAvrona (Shamir 2016a), in contrast with the rich and varied textiles of the same period discovered in Naḥal ʿOmer. The finds at the latter site included a substantial number of largely imported Z-spun textiles, most of cotton and some of silk, which were produced in complex weaving techniques and decorated in a variety of colors (Baginski and Shamir 1995; Shamir and Baginski 2014). Linen at Yotvata was found only as sewing thread in one textile (Table 29.1, No. 22; Fig. 29.6). It was found at the above-mentioned Islamic sites in low percentage compared to wool. Linen cultivation declined in Palestine after the Islamic conquest and stopped almost entirely in the medieval period (Amar 1998a; 1998b: 114; Shamir 2019: 49). The existence of only simple wool textiles in the buildings at Yotvata could be explained by abandonment of the site in an orderly fashion, the inhabitants taking their goods with them.

Fig. 29.8: Wool plait (L126, B611; IAA No. 1996-9149)

References Alipour, R., Gleba, M. and Thilo, R. 2011. Textile Templates for Ceramic Crucibles in Early Islamic Akhsiket, Uzbekistan. Archaelogical Textiles Newsletter 53: 15–27. Amar, Z. 1998a. The Revolution in Textiles in Eretz Israel and Syria in the Middle Ages. Cathedra 87: 37–60 (Hebrew), 188–189 (English abstract). Amar, Z. 1998b. Written Sources Regarding the Jazirat Faraʿun (Coral Island) Textiles. ʿAtiqot 36: 114–119. Baginski, A. and Shamir, O. 1995. Early Islamic Textiles, Basketry, and Cordage from Naḥal ʿOmer. ʿAtiqot 26: 21–42. Botwid, K. 2016. The Artisanal Perspective in Action: An Archaeology in Practice (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8° 66). Lund. 325

Yotvata.indb 325

03/08/2022 15:57

Orit Shamir

Doumani, P.N. and Frachetti, M.D. 2012. Bronze Age Textile Evidence in Ceramic Impressions: Weaving and Pottery Technology among Mobile Pastoralists of Central Eurasia. Antiquity 86: 368–382. Drooker, P.B. 2000. Approaching Fabrics through Impressions on Pottery. Textile Society of America Symposium Proceedings 773: 59–68. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tsaconf/773. Gabrieli, R.S. 2015. Specialization and Development in the Handmade Pottery Industries of Cyprus and the Levant. In: Vroom, J., ed. Medieval and Post-Medieval Ceramics in the Eastern Mediterranean—Fact and Fiction: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Byzantine and Ottoman Archaeology, Amsterdam, 21–23 October 2011 (Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series 1). Turnhout: 131–154. Gabrieli, R.S., Ben-Shlomo, D. and Walker, B.J. 2014. Production and Distribution of Geometrical-Painted (HMGP) and Plain Hand-Made Wares of the Mamluk Period: A Case Study from Northern Israel, Jerusalem and Tall Hisban. Journal of Islamic Archaeology 1: 193–229. Grömer, K. 2017. Recycling of Textiles in Historic Contexts in Europe: Case Studies from 1500 BC till 1500 AD. In: Miloglav, I., Kudelić, A. and Balen, J., eds. Recikliraj, ideje iz prošlosti. Zagreb: 75–97. Mannering, U. 2000. The Roman Tradition of Weaving and Sewing: A Guide to Function? Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 30: 10–16. Mazǎre, P. 2014. Investigating Neolithic and Copper Age Textile Production in Transylvania (Romania): Applied Methods and Results. In: Harlow, M.C., Michel, C. and Nosch, M.-L., eds. Prehistoric, Ancient Near Eastern and Aegean Textiles and Dress: An Interdisciplinary Anthology (Ancient Textiles Series 18). Oxford: 1–42. Meshel, Z. 1991. Yotvata Oasis: Its History, Landscapes and Sites. Ariel 78: 6–44 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Schaefer-Di Maida, S. and Kneisel, J. 2019. Textile Ceramics as a Complement to Textile Research. In: Sabatini, S. and Bergerbrant, S., eds. The Textile Revolution in Bronze Age Europe: Production, Specialization, Consumption. Cambridge, U.K.: 197–216. Shamir, O. 1995. Textiles from the Naḥal Shaḥaq Site. ʿAtiqot 26: 43–48. Shamir, O. 2007. Textiles, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls. In: Cohen, R. and Bernick-Greenberg, H., eds. Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 1976–1982: Part 1: Text (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 34). Jerusalem: 255–268. Shamir, O. 2016a. Textiles, Cordage and Fleece from ʿEn ʿAvrona. ʿAtiqot 86: 3–9. Shamir, O. 2016b. Textiles and Fleece from ʿEn Marzev. ʿAtiqot 86: 11–19. Shamir O. 2019. Cotton Textiles from the Byzantine Period to the Medieval Period in Ancient Palestine. In: Bouchaud, C. and Yvanez, E., eds. Cotton in the Old World: Domestication, Cultivation, Use and Trade. Revue d’ethnocologie 15. https://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/4176. Shamir, O. and Baginski, A. 1993. Textiles from the Mining Camps at Timna. Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 16: 9–10. Shamir, O. and Baginski, A. 2014. The Earliest Cotton Ikat Textiles from Nahal ʿOmer, Israel 650–810 CE. In: Nosch, M.-L., Feng, Z. and Varadarajan, L., eds. Global Textile Encounters (Ancient Textiles Series 20). Oxford: 65–73. Sheffer, A. 1976. Comparative Analysis of a “Negev Ware” Textile Impression from Tel Masos. Tel Aviv 3: 81–88. Sheffer, A. and Tidhar, A. 1988. Textiles and Textile Impressions on Pottery. In: Rothenberg, B., ed. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the Arabah 1959–1984 1). London: 232–241. Ulanowska, A. 2020. Textile Uses in Administrative Practices in Bronze Age Greece. New Evidence of Textile Impressions from the Undersides of Clay Sealings. In: Bustamante-Álvarez, M., Sánchez López, E.H. and Jiménez Ávila, J., eds. Purpureae Vestes VII: Textiles and Dyes in Antiquity: Redefining Ancient Textile Handcraft: Structures, Tools and Production Processes: Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on Textiles and Dyes in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Granada, Spain 2–4 October 2019). Granada: 413–424.

326

Yotvata.indb 326

03/08/2022 15:57

PART VIII

ECOFACTS

Yotvata.indb 327

03/08/2022 15:57

Yotvata.indb 328

03/08/2022 15:57

CHAPTER 30

IDENTIFICATION OF DYES Naama Sukenik, Zohar Amar and David Iluz

Introduction In the framework of extensive studies on identification of dyes in archaeological textiles from various sites and different periods, we collected eight textile samples from the Early Islamic site at Yotvata with a variety of hues of brown, black, blue and red. Textile color offers an important window into various aspects in the study of the early culture of materials, including the dye industry, technological ability, fashion, trade connections and reconstruction of the agriculture, as well as the social and economic status of the site. In this chapter we present the results of the analysis of the color fiber in Yotvata.

Material and Methods In the current study we identified the dyes by means of HPLC (High-Performance Liquid Chromatography), which has been widely used since 1985 for the identification of dyes found in archaeological artifacts (Wouters 1985). Although the HPLC-analysis method itself is destructive, it can identify components that are present in minute amounts—thus, only very small quantities of the tested substance are required, ensuring minimal damage. This method is, therefore, considered the most appropriate one for archaeological textiles and, at the same time, is reliable with a high degree of accuracy and separation capability and qualities that are crucial in the identification of minor compounds in archeological textiles (Hofenk de Graaff 2004: 35–41). With every sample analyzed in this work, a characteristic chromatogram was obtained, and the color compounds were identified by the particulars of their retention time (Rt) and their characteristic absorbance spectra, including the wavelengths of the absorbance peak in the UV-visible spectrum (λ max). The dye substances were then detected by their comparison with the known chemical standards (Sukenik et al. 2017a: Appendix A).

Samples Eight samples were taken from six different textiles and hues (Table 30.1; Fig. 30.1) in minute amounts (about 3 mg that is appropriate for two analyses) in order to avoid damage to the textile. In four cases we took samples from the decoration area of the textile (Samples Nos. 3–6), and in three other cases we sampled from the ground area (Samples Nos. 1–2 and 7). One sample (No. 8) was taken from red string. All the fibers were made from wool and are dated to the Early Islamic period (Chapters 22–23).

Extraction Methods Two different dye-extraction methods were used to achieve optimal results. The first method, applied on Samples Nos. 3–7, involved mild extraction using formic acid, a weak acid that preserves the glycosidic

Yotvata.indb 329

03/08/2022 15:57

Naama Sukenik , Zohar A mar and David I luz

Table 30.1: Description of textile samples (see Fig. 30.1) No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

IAA No. 1996-9146 1996-9142 1996-9139 1996-9148 1996-9143 1996-9138 1996-9138 1996-9149

Locus and basket L118, B518/5 L118, B518/1 L117, B521/2 L125, B540/1 L118, B518/2 L117, B521/1 L117, B521/1 L126, B611/1

Hue of sample Dark blue Dark blue Light brown Light brown Brown Black Brown Pale red

Photo in Dino Lite microscope Fig. 30.1:1 Fig. 30.1:2 Fig. 30.1:3 Fig. 30.1:4 Fig. 30.1:5 Fig. 30.1:6 Fig. 30.1:7 Fig. 30.1:8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Correlation Table 29.1, No. 24 Table 29.1, No. 19 Table 29.1, No. 2 Table 29.1, No. 26 Table 29.1, No. 20 Table 29.1, No. 1 Table 29.1, No. 1 Table 29.1, No. 27

8

Fig. 30.1: Photographs of textile samples in Dino Lite microscope (see Table 30.1) 330

Yotvata.indb 330

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 30: I dentification of Dyes

linkages and provides good extracting ability. This method is appropriate for the identification of yellow dyes (mainly flavonoid dyes), which are easily decomposed (Zhang and Laursen 2005; Vanden Berghe, Gleba and Mannering 2009). A mixture of formic acid and methanol (5:95, v/v) was heated up for 60 minutes at 50 ºC with the dyed wool samples. Then the dissolved color solution was separated from the wool fiber and transferred to a sterile 1.5 mL eppendorf tube. The sample was then dried in a SpeedVac™ (Savant™, Thermo Scientific), causing evaporation of the acid and concentration of the dyes. The residues were then dissolved in 50 µL of methanol/water (1:1, v/v) solvent to produce a clear solution suitable for injection into HPLC. The second method, applied on all the samples, used dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), a strong organic solvent that enables the complete solubilization of non-flavonoid dyes, which is more effective in the detection of the indigoids dyes than formic acid (Karapanagiotis et al. 2013; Mantzouris, Karapanagiotis and Panayiotou 2014). Minute samples from the archaeological textiles were soaked in 150 µL DMSO and were heated up for 10 minutes at 95 ºC. The resulting color solution was then separated from the leftover fiber via centrifugation (5600 × g) and transferred to a new Eppendorf 1.5 mL tube to be analyzed by HPLC. An amount of 20 ml of the sample was injected.

HPLC-Analysis Protocol Extracts of dyed textiles were analyzed by the HPLC-DAD (High-Performance Liquid Chromatography with Diode Array Detector) system (Hitachi LaChrom Elite Chromatography), at the HPLC Unit of the Mina and Everard Goodman Faculty of Life Sciences at Bar-Ilan University. The HPLC system (running EZ Chrom Elite v. 3.2.1 software) consisted of an L-2130 binary pump, an L-2200 autosampler, an L-2300 column oven (column temperature of 30 ºC was used for all analyses), and an L-2455 Diode Array Detector, set to obtain chromatogram spectra in the range of 200–700 nm. The chromatographic column was a GraceSmart RP18, 5 µm, 250 mm × 4.6 mm ID. Two analytical protocols were used: Protocol A for analysis of red-brown-black dyes and Protocol B for analysis of blue dyes. The mobile phase for Protocol A consisted of a linear gradient of acetonitrile and 100 mM ammonium acetate pH4: acetonitrile (9:1 v/v), with the flow rate of 1mL/min and injection volume of 25 µL. The mobile phase for Protocol B was made up of A) phosphoric acid 0.5% (w/v), B) methanol, and C) H 2O. The flow rate was held at 1 ml/min and 10 µL injections were made (for more details on the gradient elution conditions, see Sukenik et al. 2017a).

Results and Discussion The analysis of blue fibers (Samples Nos. 1 and 2) confirms the presence of indigotin at 9.53 min retention time (Rt) with a typical absorbance spectra at 242 nm, 286 nm and 816 nm λ max, and indirubin at 10.75 Rt with a typical absorbance spectra at 289 nm, 352 nm and 541 nm (Fig. 30.2). The predominant component in the chromatogram was indigotin, whereas the indirubin component appeared in relatively small quantities. These two components were found in many indigoid plants in the world (Cardon 2007: 335–408) but in particular from two different species that were known in the ancient world in the Mediterranean area: woad (Isatis tinctoria L.) and indigo (Indigofera tinctoria L.) (Hofenk de Graaff 2004: 248, 256; Cardon 2007: 335–408). They can also be found in species of murex snails that were used to produce the purple dye (Koren 2006; Sukenik et al. 2015: 567; Sukenik et al. 2017b). However, since the results of analysis using Protocol B, which was identical for the elution of the indigoid dyes that may be present in molluskan purple pigments, showed no compounds that are unique to the murex species such as monobromoindigotin or dibromoindigotin (Koren 2006; Sukenik et al. 2015; Sukenik et al. 2021), it is possible to conclude that Yotvata blue textiles were dyed with plant-sourced indigotin. As of now, the two possible plants (woad and indigo) cannot be distinguished in modern samples using HPLC, and this is all the more true in 331

Yotvata.indb 331

03/08/2022 15:58

Naama Sukenik , Zohar A mar and David I luz

Fig. 30.2: Chromatogram of textile No. 1996-9142 (Sample No. 2; Table 30.1, No. 2; Table 29.1, No. 19) at 545 nm with the typical spectrum of indigotin and indirubin

archaeological materials, where the percentage of these components is typically much lower (Koren 1996: 303; Hofenk de Graaff 2004: 257; Zhang et al. 2008: 1100). Nonetheless and despite the limitation of the analytical instruments, the choice seems to point to Indigo plant (Indigofera tinctoria L.) (Fig. 30.3), which was well known in the Early Islamic period and contained a higher percentage of indigotin than woad (Forbes 1964: 110). After the Islamic conquest, the indigo plant that originated from India (Cardon 2007: 355) became a common agricultural crop in the Arab world and was used for dyeing textiles (Balfour-Paul 1997: 19–20). The expansion of the indigo plant in the Arab world was linked with the expansion of the textile industry as a whole in the Islamic world (Balfour-Paul 1997: 48), as well as to the expansion of the cotton fiber (Amar 1998: 40–41). Nevertheless, one should take into consideration that the diffusion process of the indigo plant and replacement of the Isatis tinctoria in the Middle East was long. Hence, there is still a possibility that in the Early Islamic period the Isatis tinctoria was used. Blue dye played an important role in the Islamic period and was widely used in garment and furnishing textiles, including kinds of carpet and covering (Balfour-Paul 1997: 142–144, 153). According to the Geniza, between the 10th and the 13th centuries, despite a wide range of possible colors in these records, blue has been a favorite color for female clothing and furnishing (Balfour-Paul 1997: 123; for example, Gil 1992: Nos. 394, 395, 485, 503, 508). The indigoid plants (woad and indigo) do not require a mordant, a chemical salt that enables the dye to bond to the fiber, as required in most of the dyestuff, but belong to the vat dyes that do not dissolve in water and require a special dyeing method involving biochemical and photochemical reactions, as well as complex reduction and oxidation processes that require the use of various additives (BalfourPaul 1997; Cardon 2007: 347–351). In the dyeing process, which took several days in ancient times, an alkaline solution of leuco-indigo with a greenish-yellow shade was produced (in a soluble reduced form) by cooking all parts of the plant in warm water (30–40 ºC) for several days and then alkaline materials were added, e.g., potassium carbonate, lime, wood ash, or by adding a certain plant, such as Anabasis setifera or Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum that were used as alkaline material. Afterwards, a reduced form of indigotin of yellow-color water was produced, which was a soluble compound carried on by means of natural ingredients, such as dates, figs, henna, or suited wine (Balfour-Paul 1997: 84–116; Cardon 2007: 347–348). Only after these serial steps was the wool fleece dipped into the dye solution. However, the blue color did not appear until the fiber was subsequently exposed to air to be oxidized. 332

Yotvata.indb 332

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 30: I dentification of Dyes

Fig. 30.3: Indigo plant (Indigofera tinctoria L.) (Dinesh Valke from Thane, India, via Wikimedia Commons)

A microscopic examination (using a Dino Lite microscope under ×60–×170 magnifications) shows that the sample fibers from Yotvata textiles were dyed before being spun into threads, a standard procedure in dyeing wool (Fig. 30.4; Yadin 1963: 182; Cardon 2007: 6). The dark blue hue in these examined fibers indicates that the wool was probably immersed in the dying solution and oxidized several times during the process (Balfour-Paul 1997: 91). Black and brown hues were obtained from tannins, from many different plant sources (Sukenik 2013: 79–86). If aluminum is used as a mordant with a tannin, a brown color is obtained; if iron is used, the result is a black color (Laursen 2020: 59). The brown-black hue could also be prepared from the green shells of walnut (Juglans regia), for example (Forbes 1964: 126), or by double- or triple-dyeing by three different dye immersions from madder solution, indigoid plant and yellow dye, usually obtained from weld or any other yellow plant (Sukenik et al. 2016: 269). The HPLC did not detect any peak of natural dyestuff components in the brown-black Yotvata samples (Nos. 3–7), indicating that the textiles were not dyed with natural dyestuffs, including Gallic acid and Ellagic acid that belong to the tannins. Moreover, we used a portable X-ray florescence instrument (Bruker Tracer 5i) to investigate whether or not these samples contain metal components (as an indication for the presence or absence of mordants). The results show no significant difference to the control group, including uncolored fiber from the Yotvata site; this, therefore, leads to the conclusion that the amount of resultant iron or other metal is negligible. It is important to mention here that in both extraction methods (by DMSO or formic acid) no dyes were observed during the extraction process. Hence, we can assume that the brown-black color could be from natural pigments of the wool fiber (Fig. 30.5). The information about the sheep breed is very limited in the Early Islamic period (Gootwine 2018). Although most of the Awassi sheep have a white-fleece head, the neck and leg edges are usually brown (Gootwine 2018: 7) and some individuals of many other sheep breeds have pigmented patches, whereas some have brown wool (Gootwine 2018: 5). There is also a possibility that some of the brown fibers, like in Sample No. 5, were made from camel hair that has a similar diameter fiber like sheep wool and usually has a brown-reddish tan color that was used for making textiles (Whitcomb and Johnson 1982: 288; Bender Jørgensen 2019: 14). It is noteworthy that the diameter of the black fiber in Sample No. 6 is much coarser, ranging between 62–75 µm, compared with the brown fiber (Sample No. 7) and the uncolored fiber in the same textile range (between 30–33 µm). This data raises the speculation that different breeds of sheep or even fine hair from black goats were used in the Yotvata textiles. 333

Yotvata.indb 333

03/08/2022 15:58

Naama Sukenik , Zohar A mar and David I luz

Fig 30.4: Blue wool fiber under microscope (photo by Naama Sukenik)

Fig. 30.5: Part of textile No. 19969138 (Sample No. 7; Table 30.1, No. 7; Table 29.1, No. 1) decorated with natural pigments of the wool fiber (photo by Dino Lite: Naama Sukenik)

According to the result of Sample No. 8 with the red hue, remains of the following components were identified: alizarin at 34.62 Rt and purpurin at 37.26 Rt; these are typical of the madder species (Wouters 1985; Sukenik 2013) from the Rubiaceae family. At the same time, it is hard to determine the particular madder species (Rubia spp.) because of the minute quantity of the substance. Madder is one of the mordant dyes (Koren 1996: 272–273), which enable a relatively simple process of dyeing by cooking it in water and then adding the wool to the dye solution. Madder played a central role in the textile-dyeing industry to produce red hues until the 19th century (Brunello 1973: 15–16; Chenciner 2000) and was found in other sites dating to the Early Islamic period—for example, the red textiles from Naḥal Shaḥak (Koren 1995). 334

Yotvata.indb 334

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 30: I dentification of Dyes

Conclusion Our data indicate that only two different dyes were used in the Yotvata textiles sourced from indigoid plant and madder plant, yet indigo was the most dominant dye and may also be found in other untested blue textiles in Yotvata (Table 29.1 in Chapter 29). The popularity of blue textiles in the Islamic period is not surprising, as it was an important color during that time (Abaza 2017: 31, 85), as mentioned above, contrary to the Classical period (see, for example, Sukenik et al. 2016: 266, 268). Nevertheless, many of the decorated textiles are made from natural pigmented wool fiber, without any dyes. This method was a much cheaper way to decorate textiles in ancient times, and this may offer insight regarding the economic status of the population in Yotvata during this period. We should take in consideration that some of the brown-black fibers were found in relatively coarse textiles (for example, Table 30.1, Nos. 4–6), which were probably not used as garments but as furnishing textiles, such as floor coverings, and the use of simple material for such purposes is reasonable. Nevertheless, the results of the dye analysis in combination with the textile investigation indicate relatively simple textiles that were made locally.

References Abaza, I.M.S. 2017. Color Symbolism in Islamic Book Painting (M.A. thesis, The American University in Cairo). Cairo. Amar, Z. 1998. The Revolution in Textiles in Eretz Israel and Syria in the Middle Ages. Cathedra 87: 37–60 (Hebrew), 188–189 (English abstract). Balfour-Paul, J. 1997. Indigo in the Arab World. Richmond, Surrey. Bender Jørgensen, L. 2019. North African Relationship: Textiles from the Nile Valley and the Sahara. In: De Moor, A., Fluck, C. and Linscheid, P., eds. Egypt as a Textile Hub: Textile Interrelationships in the 1st Millennium AD. Tielt, Belgium: 13–23. Brunello, F. 1973. The Art of Dyeing in the History of Mankind. Vicenza. Cardon, D. 2007. Natural Dyes: Sources, Tradition, Technology and Science. London. Chenciner, R. 2000. Madder Red: A History of Luxury and Trade. Richmond, Surrey. Forbes, R.J. 1964. Studies in Ancient Technology IV. Leiden. Gil, M. 1992. A History of Palestine, 634–1099, Cambridge, U.K. Gootwine, E. 2018. Physical Appearance of Sheep in Ancient Times in Israel and Its Neighboring Countries, Mesopotamia and Mediterranean Countries, Based on Archaeological Evidence. Rishon Lezion. Hofenk de Graaff, J.H. 2004. The Colourful Past: Origins, Chemistry and Identification of Natural Dyestuffs. London. Karapanagiotis, I., Mantzouris, D., Cooksey, C., Mubarak, M.S. and Tsiamyrtzis, P. 2013. An Improved HPLC Method Coupled to PCA for the Identification of Tyrian Purple in Archaeological and Historical Samples. Microchemical Journal 110: 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2013.02.008. Koren, Z.C. 1995. Analysis of the Naḥal Shaḥaq Site Textile Fibers and Dyes. ʿAtiqot 26: 49–53. Koren, Z.C. 1996. Historico-Chemical Analysis of Plant Dyestuffs Used in Textiles from Ancient Israel. In: Orna, M.V., ed. Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis (American Chemical Society Symposium Series 625). Washington, D.C.: 269–310. Koren, Z.C. 2006. HPLC-PDA Analysis of Brominated Indirubinoid, Indigoid, and Isatinoid Dyes. In: Meijer, L., Guyard, N., Skaltsounis, L. and Eisenbrand G., eds. Indirubin, the Red Shade of Indigo. Roscoff, France: 45–53. Laursen, R. 2020. The Analysis of Dyes in Textiles. The Textile Museum Journal 47: 55–69. Mantzouris, D., Karapanagiotis, I. and Panayiotou, C. 2014. Comparison of Extraction Methods for the Analysis of Indigofera Tinctoria and Carthamus Tinctorius in Textiles by High Performance Liquid Chromatography. Microchemical Journal 115: 78–86.

335

Yotvata.indb 335

03/08/2022 15:58

Naama Sukenik , Zohar A mar and David I luz

Sukenik, N. 2013. Dyes in Textiles from the Early Roman Period Found in the Judean Desert Caves: Chemical, Historical and Archaeological Aspects (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Sukenik, N., Amar, Z., Varvak, A. and Iluz, D. 2016. A Re-Evaluation of the Textile Dyes in the Cave of Letters. In: Ortiz, J., Alfaro, C., Turell, L. and Martínez, M.J., eds. Textiles, Basketry and Dyes in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Proceedings of the Vth International Symposium on Textiles and Dyes in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Montserrat, 19–22 March, 2014). Valencia: 263–273. Sukenik, N., Iluz, D., Amar, Z., Varvak, A. and Bar, S. 2017b. New Evidence of the Purple-Dye Industry at Tel Shiqmona, Israel. Archaeometry 59: 775–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12290. Sukenik, N., Iluz, D., Amar, Z., Varvak, A., Shamir, O. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2021. Early Evidence of Royal Purple Dyed Textile from Timna Valley (Israel). PLoS ONE 16(1): e0245897. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245897. Sukenik, N., Iluz, D., Amar, Z., Varvak, A., Workman, V., Shamir, O. and Ben-Yosef, E. 2017a. Early Evidence (Late 2nd Millennium BCE) of Plant-Based Dyeing of Textiles from Timna, Israel. PLoS One 12(6): e0179014. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179014. Sukenik, N., Varvak, A., Amar, Z. and Iluz, D. 2015. Chemical Analysis of Murex-Dyed Textiles from Wadi Murabbaʿat, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3: 565–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.08.003. Vanden Berghe, I., Gleba, M. and Mannering, U. 2009. Towards the Identification of Dyestuffs in Early Iron Age Scandinavian Peat Bog Textiles. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1910–1921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .jas.2009.04.019. Whitcomb, D.S. and Johnson, J.H. 1982. Quseir al-Qadim 1980: Preliminary Report (American Research Center in Egypt Reports 7). Malibu. Wouters, J. 1985. High Performance Liquid Chromatography of Anthraquinones: Analysis of Plant and Insect Extracts and Dyed Textiles. Studies in Conservation 30: 119–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1505927. Yadin, Y. 1963. The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of the Letters (Judean Desert Studies). Jerusalem. Zhang, X., Good, I. and Laursen, R. 2008. Characterization of Dyestuffs in Ancient Textiles from Xinjiang. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1095–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.08.001. Zhang, X. and Laursen, R.A. 2005. Development of Mild Extraction Methods for the Analysis of Natural Dyes in Textiles of Historical Interest Using LC-Diode Array Detector-MS. Analytical Chemistry 77: 2022–2025. https:// doi.org/10.1021/ac048380k.

336

Yotvata.indb 336

03/08/2022 15:58

CHAPTER 31

ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS FROM THE EARLY ISLAMIC SITE Nili Liphschitz

Introduction The archaeological site at Yotvata is located in an oasis on the western edge of the southern Arabah, ca. 40 km north of Eilat, at an elevation of 65 m above sea level. The mean annual rainfall is low (30 mm), but it can be erratic and unpredictable (Bruins 2006: 29–32). The mean annual temperature is high, reaching 24 °C. The local high table of ground water results in the formation of a saline. The center of the saline, of about 3 km 2, is sterile and devoid of vegetation. Around the sterile center, in an area of about 20 km 2, the vegetation appears in belts, corresponding to a definite range of salt. The high table of ground water exists in the center of the saline. Cappilar upward movement of water and immediate evaporation result in the formation of a salt layer on the soil surface. Some of the water resources exhibit moderate salinities, with 500–1500 ppm of chloride (Gat and Naor 1979). In the periphery the ground water exists at a depth of 4–5 m, and deep-rooted plants enjoy water with relatively low salt concentration. The soluble salts in the center of the saline comprise 5–8%, and in the periphery only 1–2%. The area to the south (Timna) and north (Grofit) of Yotvata is covered with sands. This sand, originating from Nubian sandstone, is brought from the east and west by water streams. Around the sterile center the vegetation is arranged in three main belts, each characterized by a specific plant community. The innermost zone, adjacent to the sterile center, is a belt of Tamarix mannifera— Tamarix tetragyna community. The second zone, a wet inundated soil, is characterized by a belt of Acacia raddiana. Plants of Phragmites communis, Tamarix mannifera, Phoenix dactylifera, Junceum maritimus and Cressa cretica also inhabit this belt. The dates are part of the dense grove that once covered the region. This was undoubtedly the place of the natural and cultivated dates. The outermost peripheral zone is of lateral ravines, reaching the saline from east and west. The soil is not saline and consists of sand, gravel and stones. It is characterized by a belt of Acacia raddiana and Hammada. On the sands in the vicinity of Yotvata, near Grofit, there is Haloxylon persicum—Retama roetam community. Haloxylon persicum forms a special type of forest or scrub. The Arabic name of Yotvata is ʿEin Ghadian, which most probably originates from “Ghada,” the Arabic name of Haloxylon persicum. In the ravines the leading species is Acacia raddiana, accompanied by Acacia tortilis. South of Yotvata another saline appears: ʿEn ʿAvrona. There one finds stands of Hyphaene thebaica, as well as trees of Phoenix dactylifera and bushes of Suaeda. In the area between Yotvata and ʿEn ʿAvrona the Acacia—Hammada community prevails in wadi beds, while Haloxylon persicum, Hammada and Zygophyllum occupy the other regions. Two additional tree species appear in the oases of the Arabah Valley: Moringa peregrina and Salvadora persica (Zohary 1962; 1980; Waisel 1984; Waisel and Alon 1980). * This chapter was prepared for publication posthumously, and various new references were added by the editors.

Yotvata.indb 337

03/08/2022 15:58

N ili Liphschitz

Material and Methods In excavations carried out in the Early Islamic site at Yotvata (dated to the late 7th–early 9th centuries CE; Chapters 22 and 23) numerous wood remains, mostly not carbonized, as well as remnants of fruits and seeds were found. The large main structure is a square of 33.5 × 34.5 m, consisting of rows of rooms on all four sides of an open courtyard and a wide gate in the south. Partially burned remains of wooden beams were found on the floors of both two sub-phases of the Stratum II gate (Chapter 22). Pieces of 0.5–1 cm3 of wood were taken from each sample for botanical identification. Samples were aspirated in absolute ethyl alcohol and dipped in Celloidin solution for 24 hours. Excess solution was rinsed in absolute ethyl alcohol and transferred to 55 °C paraffin in the oven. Blocks were made in paraffin and 12 μm thick cross sections, and longitudinal tangential as well as longitudinal radial sections were made with a rotary microtome. Identification of the trees up to the species level, based on the three-dimensional structure of the wood, was made microscopically from these sections. Comparison was made with reference to sections prepared from systematically identified live trees and shrubs and with anatomical atlases (Liphschitz 2007: 12). The identification of fruits and seeds was based on their morphology, by comparison with references to fruits and seeds of today.

Results and Discussion As can be seen from the results (Table 31.1), the wood remains found at Yotvata originated from seven species of trees and shrubs: Phoenix dactylifera (date palm), Haloxylon persicum, Tamarix (×5), Acacia raddiana (acacia), Moringa peregrina, Pinus halepensis (Aleppo pine) and Cedrus libani (cedar of Lebanon). Leaves and reeds of Phragmites communis were also found. The largest number of samples (38%) were made of Phoenix dactylifera, and a great percentage (29%) was of Haloxylon persicum. Six of the above-mentioned species are local: Phoenix dactylifera, Haloxylon persicum, Moringa peregrina, Acacia raddiana, Tamarix (×5) and Phragmites communis. All these species grow today in the environs of Yotvata, and this was undoubtedly true of the Early Islamic period too. Pinus halepensis is a Mediterranean tree species, growing most closely to Yotvata in the Judean Hills. It can therefore be assumed that the timber was brought to the site from there. Cedrus libani is a tree of temperate regions and high mountain ridges. Nowadays, it appears in our region in Lebanon, Turkey and Cyprus. The cedar timber was most probably imported to Yotvata from the Lebanese Mountains.1 The fruits and seeds found in the excavation (Table 31.2) include stones of Olea europaea (olives), Persica vulgaris (= Prunus persica; peach) and of Ziziphus spina Christi (Christ thorn), seeds of Phoenix dactylifera (date palm) and Acacia raddiana, and shells of Amygdalus communis (almond). While remnants of edible fruits and seeds can represent the local dietary habits during antiquity, they cannot point to their origin, since food was transported from site to site since very early days. On the other hand, it is obvious that the origin of the seeds of Phoenix dactylifera and Acacia raddiiana, as well as the stones of Ziziphus spina christi, is local. The fact that archaeobotanical remains were collected at Yotvata from other sites dating from several periods (Meshel 1993) makes it possible to compare the botanical findings along the archaeological profile. Wood remains of Acacia tortilis were identified at the Early Bronze Age site, and remnants of Haloxylon persicum, Phoenix dactylifera, Moringa peregrina, Salvadora persica, Tamarix (×4) and Populus euphratica were collected in the early Iron Age “fortress” (end of the 12th and first half of the 11th centuries BCE) (Chapter 15). Shells of Juglans regia were found there too. In the Nabataean built tomb a wooden coffin made of Cedrus libani was discovered (Chapters 13 and 17). For the archaeobotanical finds at Yotvata, see Tables 31.3–31.4. 1. But see recently Langgut et al. 2020: 5, Tables 1–3 on the possibility of raising cedar trees at Byzantine Shivta and Nessana.

338

Yotvata.indb 338

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 31: A rchaeobotanical R emains from the Early Islamic Site

Table 31.1: Location of wood remains Locus 103 105 114 116 117 120 126 128 137 137 144 144 147 147 149 154 154 155 155 155 155 156 159 159 160 103 103 114 115 117 120 120 120 126 128 134 137 137 140 140 140 141 142

Basket 532 731 555 801 561 672 677+685 584 808 819 728 774 742 780 695 702 704 746 747 768 782 721 760 770 750 530 532 555 551 561 674 667 678 599 584 627 633 651 652 663 665 658 650

No. of specimens 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 2 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Tree species Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Haloxylon persicum Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera

339

Yotvata.indb 339

03/08/2022 15:58

N ili Liphschitz

Table 31.1 (continued) Locus 144 145 147 147 155 155 157 159 160 166/8 105 134 144 147 103 126 105 105 115 120 124 126 128 147 149 152 155 134 137 137 137 154 154 137 137 137 137 137 137 142 144 147

Basket 774 740 742 780 746 767 723 762 750 776 731 620 676 742 530 599 711 716 551 674 549 599 584 742 695 706 768 627 618 651 817 702 727 651 807 808 809 810 819 650 675 742

No. of specimens 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 log 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 gate log 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Tree species Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Phoenix dactylifera Acacia raddiana Acacia raddiana Acacia raddiana Acacia raddiana Moringa peregrina Moringa peregrina Tamarix (×5) Tamarix (×5) Tamarix (×5) Tamarix (×5) Tamarix (×5) Tamarix (×5) Tamarix (×5) Tamarix (×5) Tamarix (×5) Tamarix (×5) Tamarix (×5) Phragmites communis Pinus halepensis Pinus halepensis Pinus halepensis Pinus halepensis Pinus halepensis Cedrus libani Cedrus libani Cedrus libani Cedrus libani Cedrus libani Cedrus libani Cedrus libani Cedrus libani Cedrus libani

340

Yotvata.indb 340

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 31: A rchaeobotanical R emains from the Early Islamic Site

Table 31.2: Location of fruits and seeds Locus 103 120 134 103 117 117 118 128 134 120 140 118 144 118 116

Basket 532 667 628 532 515 561 559 584 628 678 683 522 676 559 559

Identification Olea europaea stones Olea europaea stones Olea europaea stones Phoenix dactylifera seeds Phoenix dactylifera seeds Phoenix dactylifera seeds Phoenix dactylifera seeds Phoenix dactylifera seeds Phoenix dactylifera seeds Amygdalus communis shells Amygdalus communis shells Persica vulgaris stone Persica vulgaris stone Ziziphus spina christi stone Acacia raddiana seed

Table 31.3: Summary of the wood remains Tree species Phoenix dactylifera Haloxylon persicum Acacia raddiana Moringa peregrina Tamarix (×5) Pinus halepensis Cedrus libani Total

Number of samples 43 28 4 2 16 5 9 107

Percentage of the total number 40.2 26.2 3.7 1.8 15.0 4.7 8.4

Table 31.4: The wood remains at Yotvata and ʿEn ʿAvrona, broken down according to periods and sites Species

Yotvata Early Bronze Age

Haloxylon persicum Phoenix dactylifera Tamarix (×5) Tamarix (×4) Phragmites communis Salvadora persica Acacia raddiana 1 Acacia tortilis Moringa peregrina Populous euphratica Hyphaene thebaica Zygophyllum Pinus halepensis Cedrus libani Total number of finds 1

Iron Age Roman period 6 6 1

1

1

4

1 1

16

Early Islamic period 28 43 16

2

1 1

5 9 107

ʿEn ʿAvrona Early Islamic period

Not counted

8 2 7 1

18

341

Yotvata.indb 341

03/08/2022 15:58

N ili Liphschitz

In archaeological excavations at ʿEn ʿAvrona, near Yotvata, an agricultural farmhouse of the Early Islamic period (7th–8th centuries CE) was revealed (Porath 2016). Remains of wood, as well as seeds and fruits, were collected and identified (Liphschitz and Waisel 1983; 2016). The similarity between the two sites—i.e., in the type of construction, their location at an oasis and the archaeological period represented (Early Islamic)—enabled a comparison of the archaeobotanical finds at both sites. The wood remains found at ʿEn ʿAvrona are of Acacia tortilis, Hyphaene thebaica, Moringa peregrina and Zygophyllum. Leaves and reeds of Hyphaene thebaica and Phragmites communis were also identified. The fruit and seed remains included stones of Olea europaea and Ziziphus spina Christi, seeds of Phoenix dactylifera and Ceratonia siliquae (carob), shells of Amygdalus communis and grains of cultivated varieties of Triticum (wheat) and Hordeum (barley). In summary, the vegetation that characterizes the oases today has inhabited the region since at least the early Iron Age, testifying to the stability of the macroclimate that has prevailed in the region for the past 5,000 years. The stability of the vegetation and the macroclimate is also evident from the archaeobotanical finds collected at various sites in the Uvda Valley dating from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, where remains of local trees and shrubs, including mainly Haloxylon persicum, Phoenix dactylifera, Retama roetam, Tamarix (×5) and Acacia tortilis, were found (Liphschitz 1987; 1988; 1990a; 1990b).

References Bruins, H.J. 2006. Desert Environment and Geoarchaeology of the Wadi Arabah. In: Bienkowski, P. and Galor, K., eds. Crossing the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arabah. Oxford: 29–43. Gat, J.R. and Naor, H. 1979. The Relationship Between Salinity and the Recharge/Discharge Mechanism in Arid Lowlands. In: The Hydrology of Areas of Low Precipitation Symposium: Proceedings of the Canberra Symposium, December 1979 (International Association of Hydrological Sciences International Association of Hydrological Sciences 128). Washington, D.C.: 307–312. Langgut, D., Tepper, Y., Benzaquen, M., Erickson-Gini, T. and Bar-Oz, G. 2020. Environment and Horticulture in the Byzantine Negev Desert, Israel: Sustainability, Prosperity and Enigmatic Decline. Quatenary International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.08.056. Liphschitz, N. 1987. Dendroarchaeological Investigations: ʿUvda (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Mimeographed Report No. 157). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz, N. 1988. Dendroarchaeological Investigations: ʿUvda (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Mimeographed Report No. 166). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz, N. 1990a. Dendroarchaeological Investigations: ʿUvda (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Mimeographed Report No. 193). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz, N. 1990b. Dendroarchaeological Investigations: ʿUvda (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Mimeographed Report No. 194). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz, N. 2007. Timber in Ancient Israel: Dendroarchaeology and Dendrochronology (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 26). Tel Aviv. Liphschitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 1983. Dendroarchaeological Investigations: ʿEn ʿAvrona (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Mimeographed Report No. 23). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 2016. Dendroarchaeological Investigation. In: Porath, Y. Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 86: 34*–37* (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. 342

Yotvata.indb 342

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 31: A rchaeobotanical R emains from the Early Islamic Site

Porath, Y. 2016. Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 86: 1*–81* (Hebrew), 113–116 (English summary). Waisel, Y. 1984. Vegetation of Israel. In: Alon, A., ed. Plants and Animals of the Land of Israel; An Illustrated Encyclopedia 8. Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Waisel, Y. and Alon, A. 1980. Trees of the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv. Zohary, M. 1962. Plant Life of Palestine (Israel and Jordan). New York. Zohary, M. 1980. Vegetal Landscape of Israel. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

343

Yotvata.indb 343

03/08/2022 15:58

Yotvata.indb 344

03/08/2022 15:58

CHAPTER 32

FAUNAL REMAINS Vered Kishon and Shlomo Hellwing

Introduction Animal bones and bone fragments were unearthed at Yotvata, a site situated in the southern Arabah north of Eilat. The material belongs to the Early Islamic period—late 7th–early 9th centuries CE. The bones were excavated from a central building (33.5 × 34.5 m), several auxiliary structures and a refuse dump (Meshel 1993; see Chapter 22).

Material and Methods The sample analyzed comprises 1,688 faunal remains, 1,333 of which could be identified to the species level.1 Identification of bones was undertaken based upon comparison with recent material from the osteological collection at the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Fragment counts were calculated according to Watson (1979) and age estimations according to the criteria of Silver (1969) and Habermehl (1975). Standard measurements, as well as right and left bone differentiation, were carried out according to von den Driesch (1976). An attempt was made to distinguish between sheep/goat bones according to Boessneck (1969) and Prummel and Frisch (1986). Most of the bones recovered were fragments, and very few were complete. All the bone material was weighed. Much of the material was burnt.2

Results The faunal assemblage and the distribution frequency of various species are given in Table 32.l. It appears that most of the bones belong to mammals (about 12 species), and only a few remnants are birds and fish. Most of the 1,271 mammalian bone fragments belonged to sheep and goat (68.5% of total NISP). These small ruminants were followed by cattle, which accounted for about 20% of the total of identified bones. Camel remains made up ca. 5.2% of the total identified assemblage. All other mammals, domestic or wild, were poorly represented in the sample. Fish and bird bones made up over 3.6% and 1% respectively. * Vered Kishon would like to dedicate this paper to the late Dr. Shlomo Hellwing who guided and supervised her work in archaeozoology. This paper was submitted in 1996 and was partially edited and updated by Lidar Sapir-Hen (LSH) and Etan Ayalon (EA) in 2021. 1. While preparing the paper for publication it became clear that several bones (e.g., those bearing inscriptions discussed in Chapter 27) were not included in this chapter. However, as it is possible that the ostraca were brought to the site from elsewhere, it was decided not to change the database provided here (EA). 2. For mollusc remains, see Chapter 33.

Yotvata.indb 345

03/08/2022 15:58

V ered K ishon and Shlomo H ellwing

Table 32.2 gives the numerical relationship between domesticated and wild animals. Most of the bone fragments (N = 1,266 out of 1,333 specimens) belong to domestic animals, which are about 95% of the total number of identified bones, while wild animals contributed only 5% to the diet of the site’s inhabitants. The minimum number of individuals (MNI) of the various animal species is shown in Table 32.3. It may be seen that 27 individuals are involved in this study. Caprovines were represented by some 17 individuals3 (about 63%), cattle by four individuals (about 15%), gazelles and camels by two individuals each, and dogs and donkeys by one animal each.

Description of Species Sheep and Goat (Ovis aries, Capra hircus) Caprovines were represented by 913 identifiable bone fragments (Table 32.1), representing an MNI count of 17 individuals (Table 32.3). The age of the caprovines was estimated according to fused and unfused bones (Tables 32.4–32.5) and dentition (see summary of data in Table 32.6). Most of the caprovine bones (95.7%) were completely fused and only 4.3% of the bones belonged to immature animals. The age distribution of the young culled caprovines (N = 40) shows that 40% of them were killed aged 18–30 months. Another group (30%) ranges between ages 30–42 months. According to Silver (1969), at the age of 3.5−5 years (42−60 months) all the bones are fused in sheep and goats (i.e., there is complete ossification). Mature animals were consequently at least 4−6 years old when killed. Considering the state of the dentition, it appears that 66.6% of the immature (young) caprovines died aged 3–18 months (see Table 32.6). The relatively small number of measurable caprovine metapodials does not permit a definite conclusion concerning their taxonomic status. However, as shown in Table 32.7, based on the condylar index of nine metapodials, sheep were more common (67%) than goats (33%), although the sample is too small to be conclusive. The distribution of the skeletal elements in sheep/goats is listed in Table 32.8 and Fig. 32.1. The most common bones were ribs (NISP = 176, 19.3%), metapodial fragments (NISP = 155, 17%) and vertebral remains (NISP = 97, 10.6%). The rarest bones were the phalanx III and astragalus (two and four respectively). This skeletal-element distribution reflects a certain process of selection, possibly caused by the wellknown “Schlepp Effect” (Perkins and Daly 1968). There were clearly fewer bones belonging to the hind part of the animals (31%) and a numerical predominance of bones from the forepart of the skeleton (69%; Table 32.9). This forepart predominance in caprovines is also confirmed by the body-part breakdown (Table 32.10), showing that about 18% of the skeletal elements belong to the forelimbs and only about 13% to the hind limbs. The highest percentage of body parts were those of the trunk (vertebrae and ribs; 36%) and the cranium (29%). The lowest percentage was found in the foot category (4%). Counting separately several diagnostic bones from the right and left body sides of caprovines shows a relatively equal representation of both sides (Table 32.11). Evidence of carcass-dressing procedures based on different frequencies of proximal and distal parts of bones is given in Table 32.12. It can be seen that most of the bone fragments recovered were distal parts, i.e., people were cutting the bones at their proximal parts. The only exceptions are the radius and metacarpus, where it seems that chopping these bones was equally done both at the proximal and distal parts (Tables 32.12–32.13). In an attempt to establish which skeletal elements were the most widely represented as slaughter offal or consumption refuse, bones were categorized as in Table 32.13. It can be seen that there was a clear-cut dominance of consumption refuse (71%) and only 29% belong to slaughter offal. This means that slaughtering of sheep/ goats occurred mostly in a place outside the excavation site and that the meat was later brought to the settlement for consumption. 3. This calculation may be impacted by the fact that sheep and goat were not identified to species, but were calculated as a single group (LSH).

346

Yotvata.indb 346

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 32: Faunal R emains

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Ribs

Metapodial

Vertebra

Mandible

Molars

Scapula

Radius

Pelvis

Skull

Premolars

Tibia

Phalanx I

Teeth

Humerus

Metacarpal

Femur

Ulna

Horn core

Maxilla

Metatarsal

Ossa centrale

Calcaneus

Phalanx II

Astragalus

Phalanx III

Tympanic bone

0

Fig. 32.1: Frequency of bone fragments in Capra/Ovis by skeletal elements (N = 913)

The measurements of 16 diagnostic sheep/goat bones are given in Appendix 32.1. Size comparisons with sheep/goat bones from Anatolia and Jordan are presented in Appendix 32.2. Generally speaking, the sheep and goats from Yotvata are slightly smaller than those from Anatolia, and they are clearly smaller than the animals from Tel Hesban in Jordan (Weiler 1981). In the Early Islamic settlement of Naḥal Shaḥaq (northern Arabah) only 18 faunal fragments were found— half of them (50%) belonging to sheep/goats (Israel, Nahlieli and Ben Michael 1995: 10*). In ʿEn Marzev (central Arabah), in contrast, only 50 out of 530 identified bones (9.43%) belonged to sheep/goat (Hellwing and Feig 2016). In Eilat, 138 out of 216 bones (64%) belonged to sheep/goat (Horwitz 1998: 35). Based on the data from Yotvata, Naḥal Shaḥaq and Eilat, it is obvious that the animal economy of the Early Islamic settlements in the Arabah, as well as in the Negev highlands (Horwitz 1998: Fig. 4a–b), was primarily based on herding of domestic sheep and goats.

Cattle (Bos taurus) Cattle were represented by 267 identifiable bone fragments (20% of the total; Table 32.1) with a MNI of four individuals (Table 32.3). The slaughter age of the cattle is based on proportions of unfused and fused bones (Tables 32.4–32.5). Most of the cattle bones (97%) belonged to mature animals with fully ossified (fused) bones. The number of young cattle killed was very low—only 3% of all the cattle bones excavated. It may be concluded, therefore, that the people of Yotvata valued powerful adult animals and slaughtered only very few from the younger groups. Since cattle reach full adulthood at about 4.5−5 years, according to Silver (1969) and Habermehl (1975), it may be concluded that the cattle of advanced age (fused) was at least 5 347

Yotvata.indb 347

03/08/2022 15:58

V ered K ishon and Shlomo H ellwing

years old and even older when killed. The relatively high number of cattle, considering the rough climate conditions at this site, and the high percentage of mature animals may lead to the conclusion that some of the cattle was used for work and transportation. The abundance of water in the oasis, much of it gained from the qanat, probably enabled cattle husbandry (Horwitz 1998: 36). The distribution of skeletal elements of cattle is presented in Table 32.14 and Fig. 32.2. The most frequent bones were the metapodials and rib fragments (36% and 32%, respectively). Remarkable is the absence of certain skeletal elements, such as phalanx I, phalanx II, ulna, astragalus and metatarsals. Table 32.9 presents the division of the skeleton into foreparts and hind parts. It can be seen that, similar to the sheep/goat category, there was a numerical predominance of forepart bones (61.6%) in cattle. The forepart dominance is also reflected in the body-part categories presented in Table 32.15. There were slightly more forelimb bones (9%) compared to hind limbs (7%), although this difference is not significant. The bestrepresented body part at the site was the trunk skeleton—63% of all cattle bones analyzed (Table 32.15). Unlike the small ruminants, in cattle there was a numerical predominance of bones from the right side (82%), but the sample is too small to draw any conclusion concerning the significance of this (Table 32.16). The distribution pattern of proximal and distal fragments is given in Table 32.17. A similar procedure of carcass dressing is found in cattle and small ruminants. Diagnostic bones of cattle were measured (Appendix 32.3) and compared to measurements of animals from other sites (Appendix 32.4).

120

100

80

60

40

20

III

0

Fig. 32.2: Frequency of bone fragments in Bos taurus by skeletal elements (N = 267) 348

Yotvata.indb 348

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 32: Faunal R emains

Camel (Camelus dromedarius) The number of identified camel bones was 69 (5.2% of the total bone sample; see Table 32.1). We tried to estimate the age of the camels using the ratio between fused to unfused bones. The results are given in Table 32.4. About 77% of the bones were fused and consequently belonged to adult individuals. The unfused bones belong to a young camel, although it is not known at what age the different epiphyses of the camel fuse. The breakdown of skeletal elements is given in Table 32.18 and Fig. 32.3. Best represented were the bones of the mandible, phalanges, vertebrae, metapodials and ossa centrale. Some indicative bones from the hind part of the skeleton, such as the long bones, were absent. This phenomenon becomes clearer if we divide the skeleton to hind parts and foreparts (Table 32.9). This suggests that these body parts were transported or sold outside Yotvata. In order to check this assumption, we present the body-part breakdown for the camel (Table 32.19). It can be seen that most fragments belong to the forelimbs. The distinction of proximal and distal bone fragments in the camel shows that the carcass-dressing procedures were quite different from those of sheep/goat and cattle (Table 32.20). The ratio of right to left bones shows a preference for the right side of the skeleton.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

I

II

III

0

Fig. 32.3: Frequency of bone fragments in Camelus dromedarius by skeletal element (N = 69) 349

Yotvata.indb 349

03/08/2022 15:58

V ered K ishon and Shlomo H ellwing

It may be concluded that the excavation at Yotvata revealed mostly the right foreparts of the animal body. Appendices 32.5–32.6 provide the standard measurements of some indicative bones in the camel and pertinent comparisons. The percentage of camel bones in Yotvata (5.2%) is similar to that from ʿEn Marzev (4.5%; Hellwing and Feig 2016: 23) and Naḥal Shaḥaq (5.5%; Israel, Nahlieli and Ben Michael 1995: 10*), but much smaller than that from Eilat (18%; Horwitz 1998: 28). Indeed, in such a site, situated at a junction of roads and possibly also serving as a way station, a larger number should be expected (EA).

Cervids Only three bones of cervids could be identified at the site (Table 32.1): one metatarsal and three first phalange, based on standard measurements. The two first phalanges seem to belong to Dama mesopotamica (GL = 35.1 and 38.8, mean = 36.9 mm) and one to roe deer, Capreolus capreolus (GL = 33.0 mm). It is not clear how these cervid species reached such a southern distribution locality in the Arabah as Yotvata, but trade seems the most likely explanation.

Equids Only eight fragments of equid bone were found (Table 32.1). Four of them were first phalanges that appear to belong to a single donkey. The greatest length of one of the first phalanges was 67.8 mm, Bd = 32.1 and 34.6, Bp = 33.1. The measurements are consistent with the size of the donkey identified at Tell Hesban (Weiler 1981). As in the case of camels, the small number of bones of donkey, which was used both for work and transportation, and the total absence of horses are surprising for a site situated on a junction of roads. In ʿEn Marzev almost 26% of the bones belonged to horses (Hellwing and Feig 2016: 23).

Sus scrofa Two lumbar vertebra fragments were attributed to pig (Table 32.1).

Gazella sp. Two metacarpals of gazelle, possibly G. dorcas, were found (Table 32.1). The complete metacarpal measured: GL = 177.0 mm, Bp = 194.0 mm, Bd = 195.0 mm. As in most sites of the late periods, in Yotvata too, hunting played a very small role in the food consumption. The finds from ʿEn Marzev in the central Arabah are exceptional: The wild Gazella dorcas consists of 52% of the assemblage (Hellwing and Feig 2016: 23). We have no explanation for this phenomenon (EA).

Other Species Three bone fragments belonged to Lepus (probably Lepus capensis): a scapula, a humerus and a skull fragment. Dog was represented by an ulna, a skull fragment and a tarsal bone. Some 40 fish vertebrae and some skull fragments were found but not identified to species. This relatively small number, compared, for instance, with the large number of fish bones in Eilat (408 – ca. 65.4%; Horwitz 1998: 28) can be partly explained by the fact that most of the dirt at Yotvata has not been sieved. Fourteen bird bones were found; four were identified as chicken and one as that of partridge, probably the Chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar). The other nine bird bone fragments could not be identified to species.

Conclusions From the faunal assemblage we can infer the following conclusions about the economy of Yotvata. The animal economy of the site was mainly based on sheep and goats. Cattle breeding took second place and camels took third place. All other mammals, domestic or wild, are poorly represented in the sample. It is evident that hunting was a minor occupation for the inhabitants of the site. 350

Yotvata.indb 350

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 32: Faunal R emains

Most of the bones belonged to mature caprovines and cattle. This means that the inhabitants valued adult animals. The caprines were probably exploited for their milk, wool and hair, while the cattle served as a means of traction and perhaps transportation. It appears that sheep were slightly more common than goats, perhaps because they provide more milk as well as wool. However, sheep, unlike goats and camels, cannot live entirely on the natural vegetation in this terrain. There was a clear dominance of consumption refuse. The highest percentage of sheep/goat body parts belonged to the trunk, whereas only a small number of bones belonged to the foot category.4 Likewise, most cattle skeletal elements belonged to the trunk, whereas only a few bones belonged to the foot category. The ratio between right- and left-bone fragments in the camel shows a preference for the right side of the skeleton. The carcass-dressing procedure of the camel is quite different from those of sheep/goat and cattle. This can be seen from the ratio between proximal and distal bone fragments and the ratio between forelimb and hind-limb bone fragments. There are many burnt bones in a few loci. L120, which contains many burnt bones, was in fact a kitchen (Chapter 22). Two hearths were found here. Examination of other loci containing many burnt bones showed evidence of tabuns and hearths. It may be concluded that the faunal remains from Yotvata represent a single main economic system. The inhabitants knew how to make use of the animals. They raised and exploited them for their meat, milk, wool and hair and used them as means of traction and transportation.

Table 32.1: Distribution of identified bone fragments according to species Species Ovis/Capra Bos taurus Camelus dromedarius Equus asinus Canis familiaris Lepus capensis Dama mesopotamica Sus scrofa Gazella sp. Cervidae Capreolus capreolus Mammal total Fish total Unidentified birds Gallus domesticus Alectoris chukar Bird total Total

NISP 913 267 69 8 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1271 48 9 4 1 14 1333

% 68.5 20 5.2 0.6 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.075 0.075 95.34 3.6 0.7 0.3 0.075 1.05 100

Identified bones Unidentified bones Total remains

Number 1333 305 1638

% 81.4 18.6 100

4. This observation should be considered with caution, however, as the data is based on NISP and rib fragments may bias this calculation (LSH).

351

Yotvata.indb 351

03/08/2022 15:58

V ered K ishon and Shlomo H ellwing

Table 32.2: Numerical relationship between domesticated and wild species (N = 1333) Species

Domestic

Wild

Ovis/Capra

913

–

Bos taurus

267

–

Equus asinus

8

–

Sus scrofa

2

–

Gazella sp.

–

2

Camelus dromedarius

69

–

Cervidae

–

1

Dama mesopotamica

–

2

Canis familiaris

3

–

Aves (undetermined)

–

9

Gallus domesticus

4

–

Alectoris chukar

–

1

Fish

–

48

Capreolus capreolus

–

1

Lepus capensis

–

3

Total

1266 (95%)

67 (5%)

Table 32.3: Minimum number of individuals (MNI) Species

MNI

%

Ovis/Capra

17

63

Bos taurus

4

14.8

Gazella sp.

2

7.4

Camelus dromedarius

2

7.4

Equus asinus

1

3.7

Canis familiaris

1

3.7

Total

27

100

Table 32.4: Number and percentage of fused/unfused bones

Unfused bones Fused bones Total number of bones

Ovis/Capra NISP (%) 40 (4.3) 873 (95.7) 913 (100)

Bos taurus NISP (%) 7 (2.6) 260 (97.4) 267 (100)

Camelus dromedarius NISP (%) 16 (23.1) 53 (76.9) 69 (100)

Table 32.5: Age distribution at death based on unfused bones in ovis/capra and Bos taurus (in months)

Ovis/Capra Bos taurus

12–18 NISP (%) 2 (5) –

18–30 NISP (%) 16 (40.0) 1 (14.28)

30–42 NISP (%) 12 (30.0) –

42–54i NISP (%) 10 (25.0) 4 (57.1)

> 54 NISP (%) – 2 (28.6)

Total NISP (%) 40 (100.0) 7 (100.0)

i. According to Silver (1969), there is complete ossification in Ovis after 42 months. According to Habermehl (1975), the ossification is completed after 60 months in Capra and after 72 months in Ovis.

352

Yotvata.indb 352

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 32: Faunal R emains

Table 32.6: Age groups (months) in Ovis/Capra based on mandibular and maxillar teeth (N = 27) Months Teeth (mandibular and maxillary)

3–9 NISP (%) 11 (40.7)

9–18 NISP (%) 7 (25.9)

18–24 NISP (%) 6 (22.2)

>24 NISP (%) 3 (11.1)

Table 32.7: Ratio between Ovis and Capra based on metapodial condylar index Ovis Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 Capra Index 1 2 3

N=6 70.1 71 67.5 67.6 68 67.4 N=3 60 59.3 54.1

Table 32.8: Distribution of Ovis/Capra bone fragments Bone Mandible Maxilla Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpal Pelvis Femur Tibia Calcaneum Astragalus Metatarsal Phalanx I Phalanx II Phalanx III Horn core Premolars Molars Ossa centrale Metapodial fragments Vertebrae Ribs Skull fragments Tooth fragments Tympanic bone Total

No. 79 8 40 21 15 37 20 35 18 24 6 4 7 23 5 2 13 25 43 6 155 97 176 31 22 1 913

% 8.65 0.87 4.38 2.30 1.64 4.05 2.19 3.83 1.97 2.62 0.65 0.43 0.76 2.51 0.54 0.21 1.42 2.73 4.70 0.65 16.97 10.62 19.27 3.39 2.40 0.10 100

353

Yotvata.indb 353

03/08/2022 15:58

V ered K ishon and Shlomo H ellwing

Table 32.9: Distribution of Ovis/Capra, Bos taurus and Camelus dromedarius bones into foreparts and hind parts of the skeleton Forepart Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Mandible Metacarpal Total (%)

Ovis/Capra 40 21 15 37 79 20 212 (69.2)

Bos taurus 5 6 – 1 8 1 21 (61.6)

Camelus dromedarius 1 2 2 2 6 4 17 (100.0)

Hind part Pelvis Femur Tibia Calcaneum Astragalus Metatarsal Total (%)

Ovis/Capra 35 18 24 6 4 7 94 (30.8)

Bos taurus 3 5 2 1 – – 11 (34.4)

Camelus dromedarius – – – – – – 0 (0)

Table 32.10: Body-part breakdown of Ovis/Capra (N = 758) Cranial Skull fragments Horncores Maxilla Mandible Loose teeth Tympanic bone

NISP 31 13 8 79 90 1

Total

222

Forelimb Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Carpals Metacarpals

NISP 40 21 37 15 3 20

Hind limb Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Tarsals Calcaneum Astragalus Metatarsal

136

NISP 35 18 24 – 3 6 4 7 97

Trunk Vertebrae Ribs

NISP Foot 97 Phalanx I 176 Phalanx II Phalanx III

NISP 23 5 2

273

30

Table 32.11: Ratio of right/left skeletal parts in Ovis/Capra (N = 152) Bone Mandible Maxilla Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpal Pelvis Femur Tibia Calcaneum Metatarsal Total

Left 17 3 8 9 5 9 8 1 5 12 3 1 81 (53.3%)

Right 7 4 13 5 3 10 7 3 4 7 3 5 71 (46.7%)

354

Yotvata.indb 354

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 32: Faunal R emains

Table 32.12: Numerical relationship between distal and proximal parts of bones in Ovis/Capra (N = 107) Ovis/Capra Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpal Femur Tibia Metatarsal Total

Proximal – 1 4 9 10 5 ? 5 34

Distal 21 13 – 10 5 4 14 1 68

Table 32.13: Ratios of bones constituting primary and secondary refuse of ovis/capra Slaughter refuse (primary refuse) Mandible 79 Maxilla 8 Skull fragments 31 Teeth 90 Horncore 13 Phalanges 30 Ossa centrale 6 Astragalus 4 Calcaneum 6

Total

267 (29.3%)

Consumption offal (secondary refuse) Scapula 40 Humerus 21 Radius 37 Ulna 15 Metacarpal 20 Pelvis 35 Femur 18 Metatarsal 7 Vertebrae 97 Ribs 176 Metapodial 155 621 (70.7%)

Table 32.14: Distribution of Bos taurus bone fragments Bone Mandible Scapula Humerus Radius Metacarpal Pelvis Femur Tibia Calcaneum Phalanx III Molars Ossa centrale Metapodial Vertebrae Ribs Skull fragments Teeth fragments Total

No. 8 5 6 1 1 3 5 2 1 1 1 3 97 21 86 25 1 267

% 3 1.9 2.2 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.9 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.1 36.3 7.9 32.2 9.4 0.4 100.0

355

Yotvata.indb 355

03/08/2022 15:58

V ered K ishon and Shlomo H ellwing

Table 32.15: Body-part breakdown of Bos taurus (N = 170) Cranial Skull fragments Horncores Maxilla Mandible Loose teeth

NISP 25 – 8 2

Total

35

Forelimb Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Carpals Metacarpus

NISP 5 6 1 – 2 1

Hind limb Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Tarsals Calcaneus Astragalus Metatarsus

15

NISP 3 5 2 – 1 1 – – 12

Trunk Vertebrae Ribs

NISP 21 86

Foot Phalanx I Phalanx II Phalanx III

107

NISP – – 1

1

Table 32.16: Ratio of right/left skeletal parts in Bos taurus Bone Scapula Humerus Metacarpal Femur Tibia Calcaneum Total

Left 1 – – – – 1 2 (18.2%)

Right 1 4 1 1 2 – 9 (81.8%)

Table 32.17: Numerical relationship between distal and proximal parts of bones in Bos taurus (N = 97)i Bos taurus Scapula Humerus Metacarpal Femur Tibia Total

Proximal – – 1 1 – 2 (20.0%)

Distal 2 4 – – 2 8 (80.0%)

i. Metapodials were not included.

356

Yotvata.indb 356

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 32: Faunal R emains

Table 32.18: Distribution of Camelus dromedarius bone fragments Bones Mandible Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Metacarpal Pelvis Phalanx I Phalanx II Phalanx III Phalanx fragment Ossa centrale Metapodial frag. Vertebrae Ribs Skull fragments Total

NISP 6 1 2 2 2 4 1 7 5 1 1 9 9 8 5 6 69

% 8.7 1.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 5.8 1.4 10.1 7.2 1.4 1.4 13.0 13.0 11.6 7.2 8.7 100.0

Table 32.19: Body-part breakdown in Camelus dromedarius (N = 59) Cranial Skull fragments Maxilla Mandible Loose teeth

NISP 6 – 6 –

Total

12

Forelimb Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Carpals Metacarpal

NISP 1 2 2 2 5 4

16

Hind limb Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Tarsal Astragalus Calcaneus Metatarsal

NISP Trunk 1 Vertebrae – Ribs – – 4 – – – 5

NISP Foot 8 Phalanx I 5 Phalanx II Phalanx III

NISP 7 5 1

13

13

Table 32.20: Numerical relationship between distal and proximal parts of bones in Camelus dromedarius (N = 8) Bones Mandible Scapula Humerus Metacarpal Ulna Radius Total

Left – – – – 1 1 2 (22.2%)

Right 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 (77.7%)

357

Yotvata.indb 357

03/08/2022 15:58

V ered K ishon and Shlomo H ellwing

Appendix 32.1: Measurements of ovis/capra (in cm)i Bone Astragalus Calcaneum Phalanx I

Phalanx II Phalanx III Humerus Radius Ulna Radius + ulna Scapula Acetabulum Femur Metacarpal Metatarsal Metapodial Tibia

Measurement Bd Bp GLH GI GB Bd Bp GI Bd Bp GL Ld Dls Bd Bd Bp Bp Bd BG GLP LA ILfo Bd DCF Bd Bp GL Bp Bd Bd Bp

No. 4 l 4 2 1 16 15 15 3 3 2 2 2 10 7 10 1 3 15 10 7 1 1 4 3 9 3 G 2 12 1

Min. 1.67

Max. 2.06

2.63 5.08

3.44 5.69

1.00 1.01 3.13 0.87 1.08 2.12 2.60 3.20 2.20 2.59 2.48

1.35 1.70 3.86 1.00 1.24 2.13 2.76 3.34 3.25 3.17 3.62

2.86 1.65 2.51 2.05

2.90 2.41 3.80 2.97

2.04 2.55 2.18 10.30 1.75 2.36 2.44

4.45 2.93 3.07 11.61 2.27 2.63 2.85

Mean 1.91 1.85 3.14 5.38 1.22 1.13 1.24 3.57 0.95 1.15 2.125 2.68 3.27 2.82 2.96 3.10 3.52 2.87 2.04 3.04 2.19 3.60 3.83 3.10 2.71 2.45 10.9 2.08 2.49 2.63 2.26

i. The following abbreviations are used: GLH = greatest length of the lateral half; Dls = diagonal length of the sole; LA = length of the acetabulum; ILfo = inner length of the foramen obturatum; DCF = depth of the caput femoris. Measurements are based on von den Driesch 1976.

358

Yotvata.indb 358

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 32: Faunal R emains

Appendix 32.2: Mean value comparisons of ovis/capra in several sites Bone Astragalus Calcaneum Phalanx I

Phalanx II Humerus Radius Scapula Metacarpal Metatarsal Tibia

Measurement GLH Bd GL Bp Bd GL Bp Bd GL Bd Bp Bd BG Bp Bd GL Bp Bd Bd

Yotvata 31.4 19.1 53.8 12.4 11.3 35.7 11.5 9.5 21.2 38.5 31.0 28.0 20.4 24.5 27.1 109.0 20.8 24.9 26.3

Hesban 31.2 19.8 60.2 13.1 12.6 38.5 12.9 10.5 20.0 32.6 33.2 31.6 21.4 25.3 27.7 121.0 21.9 25.7 27.9

Demircihuyuk 31.2 18.7 58.3 12.2 12.0 36.7 12.3 10.0 23.2 31.1 31.5 29.9 21.0 23.8 26.1 109.0 20.8 24.3 25.3

Appendix 32.3: Measurements of Bos taurus (in cm) Bone Humerus Scapula

Femur Metacarpus Tibia

Measurement Bd BG GLP GL Bp Bp Bd

N 2 1 1 1 1 1 2

Min. 7.85

Max 8.11

8.10

12.39

Mean 7.98 6.00 10.50 37.00 4.99 6.43 10.24

Appendix 32.4: Comparative measurements of Bos taurus in several sites (in cm): data for Tel Hesban from Weiler (1981); data for Demircihuyuk from Rauh (1981) Bone Humerus Tibia Metacarpus

Measurement Bd Bd Bp

Yotvata 7.85–8.11 (8.0) 8.10–12.39 (10.2) 6.43

Hesban – 5.83 6.40

Demircihuyuk – 5.50–6.90 (6.2) 5.10–6.90 (5.9)

359

Yotvata.indb 359

03/08/2022 15:58

V ered K ishon and Shlomo H ellwing

Appendix 32.5: Measurements of Camelus dromedarius (in cm) Bone Humerus Scapula Radius Metacarpal Metapodial Phalanx I

Phalanx II

Measurement Bd Bp BG GLP Bp Bd Bp GL Bd Bd Bp GL Bd Bp GL

N 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 7 7 7 5 5 5

Min.

Max.

8.87 6.92

8.88 7.27

2.31 2.55 6.43 3.28 3.00 6.43

4.11 4.42 10.64 3.50 3.50 6.90

Mean 8.21 12.00 6.22 10.88 9.40 8.875 7.04 36.00 9.84 3.56 3.90 9.37 3.41 3.26 6.60

Appendix 32.6: Mean value comparisons of Camelus dromedarius from Yotvata and Tel Hesban, Jordan (from Weiler 1981) Bone Phalanx I

Phalanx II Humerus Radius Scapula Metacarpus

Measurement Bp Bd GL Bp Bd GL Bd Bp BG GLP Bp Bd

Yotvata 39.0 35.6 93.7 – – – – – – – – –

Hesban 38.68 34.19 92.91 31.86 34.00 59.50 89.00 90.00 60.5 107.17 69 88.5

360

Yotvata.indb 360

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 32: Faunal R emains

References Boessneck, J. 1969. Osteological Differences between Sheep (Ovis aries Linne) and Goats (Capra hircus Linne). In: Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E.S., eds. Science in Archaeology. London: 331–358. von den Driesch, A. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Cambridge, MA. Habermehl, K.H. 1975. Die Altersbestimmung bei Haus- und Labortieren 2. Berlin. Hellwing, S. and Feig, N. 2016. Animal Bones from ʿEn Marzev. ʿAtiqot 86: 23–25. Horwitz, L.K. 1998. Animal Exploitation during the Early Islamic Period in the Negev: The Fauna from Elat-Elot. ʿAtiqot 36: 27–38. Israel, Y., Nahlieli, D. and Ben Michael, Y. 1995. The Naḥal Shaḥaq Site: An Early Islamic Settlement in the Northern ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 26: 1*–14* (Hebrew), 113 (English summary). Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Perkins, D. and Daly, P. 1968. A Hunter’s Village in Neolithic Turkey. Scientific American 219: 96–106. Prummel, W. and Frisch, H.T. 1986. A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex and Body Side in Bones of Sheep and Goat. Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 564–574. Rauh, H. 1981. Knochenfunde von Saugetieren aus dem Demircihuyuk (Nordwestanatolien). Munich. Silver, L.A. 1969. The Ageing of Domestic Animals. In: Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E.S., eds. Science in Archaeology. London: 283–302. Watson, J.P.N. 1979. The Estimation of the Relative Frequencies of Mammalian Species: Khirokitia 1972. Journal of Archaeological Science 6: 127–137. Weiler, D. 1981. Säugetier Knochenfunde vom Tell Hesbân in Jordanien (Ph.D. dissertation, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversität München). Munich.

361

Yotvata.indb 361

03/08/2022 15:58

Yotvata.indb 362

03/08/2022 15:58

CHAPTER 33

MOLLUSCS Henk K. Mienis

The excavation of the Early Islamic site of Yotvata, conducted by Zeʾev Meshel and Etan Ayalon intermittently from 1975–1980, produced quite a few faunal remains. While the vertebrates are discussed by Vered Kishon and Shlomo Hellwing in Chapter 32, the molluscs are discussed in this report.

Material and Methods According to the size and number of specimens, the mollusc material was apparently handpicked during the various excavation seasons. The material is generally in good condition, and its identification caused no particular problems. In a few cases we used the extensive mollusc collection in the National Natural History Collections of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem as a reference tool. In the nomenclature of the marine molluscs we mainly followed Abbott and Dance (1982), Sharabati (1984) and Tornaritis (1987), because these works are quite up-to-date and, moreover, easily accessible to the layperson.

Systematic Part Gastropoda Family Nacellidae 1.

Cellana rota (Gmelin, 1791) L117, B534: one complete specimen. This is a common limpet living abundantly on rocks in the intertidal zone all over the Red Sea. It is an edible species.

Family Strombidae 2. Tricornis tricornis (Lightfoot, 1786) L126, B598: one top fragment. It is a common sand-dwelling species from the Red Sea. It is edible. 3.

Lambis truncata sebae (Kiener, 1843) L119, B593: one piece of the columella. L164, B802: one piece of the lower part of the columella. It is a common species living in sandy areas all over the Red Sea. It is edible.

Family Naticidae 4. Polinices tumidus (Swainson, 1840) L147, B743: one complete specimen. It is a common sand-dwelling species from the Red Sea. * I would like to thank Z. Meshel and S. Hellwing for allowing me to study the material under discussion.

Yotvata.indb 363

03/08/2022 15:58

H enk K. M ienis

Family Muricidae 5. Bolinus brandaris (Linnaeus, 1758) L119, B525: one specimen with a man-made hole in the body whorl. It is a common Mediterranean species.

Bivalvia Family Pteriidae 6. Pinctada margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758) L103, B530: one small fragment. This is the common Pearl Oyster, the “Mother-of-Pearl,” from the Red Sea.

Family Cardiidae 7.

Tridacna maxima (Röding, 1798) L151, B693: one fragment. This is the Elongated Giant Clam from the Red Sea. Its meat is edible.

8. Tridacna squamosa (Lamarck, 1819) L166–168, B775: one umbonal fragment. The Fluted Giant Clam is also a common edible species from the Red Sea.

Discussion The nine molluscs, mainly fragments, recovered during the excavation belong to eight different taxa. They had their origin in the following areas: Red Sea (8)

Cellana rota Tricornis tricornis Lambis truncata sebae Polinices tumidus Pinctada margaritifera Tridacna maxima Tridacna squamosa

Mediterranean Sea (1)

Bolinus brandaris

Clearly dominating is the material of Erythraean origin. This may be explained by the fact that Yotvata is situated only 40 km from the nearest point in the Gulf of ʿAqaba. Remarkably, the single representative from the Mediterranean Sea among the material is the only one showing traces of manipulation—i.e., it has a man-made hole in the body whorl. All other shell material is either still in a natural state (Cellana and Polinices) or is broken up in small pieces without showing any trace of manipulation (Tricornis, Lambis, Pinctada and both Tridacna species).

Conclusions The small number of mollusc remains and the almost complete absence of any form of manipulation on the shell material suggest that the Early Islamic population of Yotvata was not particularly interested in shells. This, however, confirms a similar situation encountered at the 7th–8th-century CE Early Islamic site of Sde Boqer (Nevo 1985), where Heller and Bar-Yosef (1985) and Mienis (1986) found few specimens and hardly any manipulated shells. The question now arises as to whether there was any form of a “shell culture” during the Early Islamic period. Excavations of other Islamic sites dating from the 7th–9th centuries CE may provide answers to this question. 364

Yotvata.indb 364

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 33: Molluscs

References Abbott, T.R. and Dance, P.S. 1982. Compendium of Seashells. New York. Heller, J. and Bar-Yosef, D. 1985. Molluscs from the Excavation at Sde Boqer. In: Nevo, Y.D. Sde Boqer and the Central Negev, 7th–8th Century AD: Papers Presented to the 3rd International Colloquium: From Jahiliyya to Islam, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June 30 to July 6, 1985. Jerusalem: 33. Mienis, H.K. 1986. The Molluscs of the Excavation of the Early Arabic Site of Sde Boqer: Some Further Remarks. Levantina 60: 657–662. Nevo, Y.D. 1985. Sde Boqer and the Central Negev, 7th–8th Century AD: Papers Presented to the 3rd International Colloquium: From Jahiliyya to Islam, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June 30 to July 6, 1985. Jerusalem. Sharabati, D. 1984. Red Sea Shells. London. Tornaritis, G. 1987. Mediterranean Sea Shells: Cyprus. Nicosia.

365

Yotvata.indb 365

03/08/2022 15:58

Yotvata.indb 366

03/08/2022 15:58

PART IX

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Yotvata.indb 367

03/08/2022 15:58

Yotvata.indb 368

03/08/2022 15:58

CHAPTER 34

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Itamar Taxel, Zeʾev Meshel and Etan Ayalon

The Tel Aviv University excavations at the Yotvata oasis have revealed much new evidence on human activity here in the Early Islamic period, evidence that—when combined with the results of previous and later archaeological research in the site—contributes considerably to the study of Early Islamic settlement history and material culture in the greater Arabah region. In the present chapter we present a holistic analysis of Yotvata in the Early Islamic period against the broader regional background.

The Chronological and Regional Context The chronology of the Early Islamic settlement at Yotvata, including the central building and the auxiliary structures discussed in the present study, can be reconstructed first and foremost based on the artifactual evidence. As noted in Chapter 23, it is possible that one of the locations within the Yotvata oasis where the initial Early Islamic occupation took place is the abandoned Roman fort, which may have been settled by Egyptian migrants (see further below). The Early Islamic pottery from the fort dates, according to Magness (2015: 77), from the 7th to the early 8th century CE. To be more specific, given the fact that the Byzantine-period phase at the fort was scant and apparently did not post-date the 5th century, the Early Islamic ceramic assemblage found there could be no earlier than the mid-7th century. At about the same time, but perhaps closer to the end of the 7th century, the central Early Islamic building was established (Stratum III). This dating is supported by the earliest ceramic types represented in the assemblage from the building, notably the LRD/CRS Ware bowls and the candlestick lamp. As for the meager numismatic finds from the building (Chapter 28), the possible Late Roman coin might have been found by one of the Early Islamic-period residents of the site within or near the Roman fort, while the Byzantine coin could theoretically have remained in circulation as low-value change, at least during the 7th century. There is no doubt, however, that the building under discussion functioned primarily during the 8th century until sometime in the 9th century, in an expanded layout (Stratum II). To this time period one should attribute the vast majority of the pottery, the glass finds (Chapter 26), the Arabic ostraca (Chapter 27) and the two late Umayyad and early ʿAbbasid coins (Chapter 28). The building’s final stage of existence (Stratum I, after a short period of abandonment) was an occupation by a nomadic or semi-nomadic population that reused most of the abandoned rooms and the courtyard, notably for keeping its herds within the building. Although the floor levels and deposits attributed to Stratum I contained a large number of artifacts—almost all fragmentary—in most likelihood very few of these finds can in fact be associated with the Stratum I inhabitants. Rather, they seem to represent remnants of Strata III and II, including objects dug up by the Stratum I inhabitants and even moved from one architectural unit to another, hence representing secondary, if not tertiary, refuse (see Taxel 2018b: 132–133). In other words, there is no reliable parameter that can aid in dating the Stratum I occupation, other than to conclude that it took place not before the beginning of the 9th century CE—the terminus post quem for the end of Stratum II. Still, this phase likely occurred within the time frame of the Early Islamic period, namely, no later than the 11th century CE and probably before that (see below).

Yotvata.indb 369

03/08/2022 15:58

I tamar Taxel , Z eʾev M eshel and Etan Ayalon

The chronology of the Early Islamic settlement in the Arabah has been discussed by several scholars. Avner and Magness (1998: 50–52) dated the Arabah (and southern Negev) sites to the 8th and 9th centuries, namely, to the late Umayyad and mainly ʿAbbasid periods, and claimed that at least some—notably those sites that are located in the Eilat region—continued to exist as late as the 10th or 11th century (see also Avner 2016b: 32–33). Avner and Magness (1998: 50–51) noted what they identified as the absence of 7th-century types such as certain FBW variants and large candlestick lamps, and saw only a slight resemblance between the Early Islamic ceramic repertoire in the Arabah and that of the 7th-century ʿAqaba kilns (Melkawi, ʿAmr and Whitcomb 1994). Damgaard (2009: 90–91) appears to agree with Avner and Magness’ chronology, namely, that the material culture (notably pottery) of the Arabah sites is predominantly 8th–9th centuries, though there is no reason to exclude activity in this region in the 7th century as well. Similarly, Nol (2008: 57–61, 81, 84–85; 2014: 23–25, 30–31; 2015: 53–55) tended to date the main phase of the Arabah Early Islamic sites to the 8th, and more precisely the mid-8th, to the 9th centuries, i.e., identifying the Arabah settlements as a predominantly ʿAbbasid-period phenomenon. However, she did not entirely dismiss the possibility that some of the settlements existed already in the mid- to late 7th century. Jones et al. (2017: 304–305, 310–311) basically agreed with Nol’s dating of the Arabah’s Early Islamic sites to the mid-8th to 9th centuries, though they too admitted that it is likely that at least some of these sites existed already in the late 7th/early 8th century. Avni (2014: 274–280) also appears to identify the 8th century as the beginning of the main stage of Early Islamic settlement in the Arabah. As opposed to the above-mentioned scholars, Porath (2016: 71*–72*, 75*) claimed that the Early Islamic settlement in the Arabah began in the late 7th century, in the days of the Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik, and ended towards the late 8th century due to a decline in the economic importance of the Arabah following the shift from Umayyad to ʿAbbasid rule and the unwillingness of the latter to continue to maintain the expensive agricultural systems in the region’s “artificial oases.” In other words, Porath identified the Arabah settlements—especially those that were associated with complex qanat systems—as an Umayyad-period enterprise initiated and supported by the government. Similarly, Nahlieli (2007: 82–84) interpreted the Early Islamic sites in the Negev and the Arabah largely as an Umayyad-period phenomenon and maintained that under the ʿAbbasid administration these settlements were soon abandoned due to economic decline and deterioration of security conditions. Nol (2008: 84; 2014: 26) rightly criticized what she called “the ʿAbbasid decline paradigm,” namely, the notion that the Arabah settlements were abandoned following the shift from Umayyad to ʿAbbasid rule, as suggested, for instance, by Porath and Nahlieli (see above). As demonstrated by the finds retrieved from those Early Islamic sites in the Arabah that were excavated (and properly published), including Porath’s own excavations at ʿEn ʿAvrona and ʿEn Marzev1 and the excavations at Yotvata presently under discussion, these sites continued to be inhabited until at least the late 8th century and in most, if not all, cases, during part of the 9th century as well. Nonetheless, it seems that the determination by Nol and other scholars of the 8th— sometimes the mid-8th—century as the beginning of intensive Early Islamic settlement in the Arabah was largely based on Whitcomb’s (1989) statement that the chronology of the Mahesh Ware—which is ubiquitous in the Arabah sites—begins around 750 CE. However, as the analysis of the ceramic assemblage from the Yotvata Early Islamic site has shown (Chapter 23), some of the Mahesh Ware types may have appeared, or at least have had morphologically similar predecessors, already in the early 8th, if not the late 7th, century. Furthermore, Magness’ (2015) dating of the Early Islamic pottery from the Yotvata fort to the 7th–early 8th centuries clearly constitutes an update of the former above-mentioned chronology of the Arabah sites suggested by Avner and Magness (1998). The Yotvata fort yielded some early forms of FBW bowls (Magness 2015: 77, Fig. 2.22:1–3), while a candlestick lamp was found in the Yotvata Early Islamic building (Chapter 23, Fig. 23.14:5); as noted, these ceramic types were previously mentioned by Avner and Magness (1998) as being absent from the Arabah 1. In publications prior to Porath’s 2016 report, the site of ʿEn Marzev was referred to as ʿEn Yahav (or “ʿEn Yahav khan”), after the nearby kibbutz.

370

Yotvata.indb 370

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 34: Discussion and Conclusions

sites. Further possible evidence for the existence of the Yotvata settlement and agricultural systems already in the Umayyad period is a (complete?) wheel-made “slipper” lamp found inside one of the local qanat tunnels in the 1950s by M. Evenari and his team, during their investigation of these irrigation systems (Porath 2016: 76*, n. 6 [unfortunately, no illustration is available because Porath could not locate the lamp; however, for a similar lamp from ‘En Marzev, see Porath 2016: 62*, Fig. 17:57]). This lamp type is dated between the 6th and the 8th centuries (see also Magness 2003: 139, n. 54), although it is uncertain how late in the 8th century this type continued; therefore, the possibility that the lamp found in the Yotvata qanat tunnel represents a late 7th- or early 8th-century activity should not be excluded. In addition, an ostracon from ʿEn ʿAvrona, bearing an Arabic text of an administrative nature, was dated by Sharon (2016), on the basis of palaeographic considerations, to the late 7th–8th centuries. Yet further support for an Umayyad date for the Yotvata settlement is adduced from the nature of the site. As discussed in detail below, we suggest attributing the Early Islamic building and related elements to the group of nearly 40 sites that Genequand (2020) terms “Umayyad aristocratic settlements.” Since all of these sites were founded during the Umayyad period and no new ones appeared under ʿAbbasid rule (Genequand 2020: 262), there is no justification for the possibility that the settlement at Yotvata constitutes an exception. It can safely be concluded, therefore, that the initial Early Islamic occupation at Yotvata, and likely in some other Arabah sites, occurred during the Umayyad period—presumably between the second half of the 7th century and the early 8th century. This assumption does not contradict the suggestion promoted by most of the above-mentioned scholars that the Arabah’s Early Islamic settlement and economic systems reached their heyday from the early/mid-8th century onward and that this stage continued into the 9th century. In terms of intra-site evolution, it is impossible to fully evaluate the development of Early Islamic Yotvata since not all of the remains were excavated (some areas were demolished in the 1950s and in recent years and therefore are not available for future excavation). However, the excavated parts, namely the Roman fort (Meshel 1989; Davies and Magness 2015), the Early Islamic building and its immediate environs (excavated by Tel Aviv University and published in this volume) and the bathhouse (excavated by Tel Aviv University and published in this volume, and by the Israel Antiquities Authority; Erickson-Gini 2019), allow for a partial chronological reconstruction. As suggested in Chapter 23, a comparison between the ceramic assemblages from the Early Islamic stratum in the Roman fort (Magness 2015) and from the Early Islamic building and its environs indicates that the Early Islamic reoccupation of the abandoned fort begun sometime before the construction of the main Early Islamic building, apparently between the mid- to late 7th century. It is possible that this early stage was characterized by the settlement of Egyptian migrants—notably, if not solely, within the abandoned Roman fort (Taxel 2019: 239, n. 31). Shortly afterwards, in the late 7th or early 8th century, the Early Islamic building was established ca. 1.5 km to the northeast, apparently simultaneously to the construction of the bathhouse. The dating of the bathhouse to the 8th century may be supported by the neck of an 8th-century glass bottle found embedded in the plastered stone floor of one of the bathhouse’s units (Erickson-Gini 2019: Fig. 5). Interestingly, the fort’s occupation terminated in the first half, and maybe even at the very beginning, of the 8th century, while the Early Islamic building, the structures built around it and the bathhouse continued to exist throughout the 8th and into the 9th century. To this stage the construction of the local qanat systems is attributed, as well as the intensive investment in agricultural development of the Yotvata area. Following the site’s abandonment in the 9th century, not all of its area was reused for temporary occupation by nomadic/semi-nomadic groups. For instance, the latter favored the large, multi-space main building and its surroundings, while the Roman fort presumably remained desolate between the 8th century and early modern times, when its area was partially reused by Bedouin (Davies and Magness 2015: 11, 18–19, 21, 35, 38, 43, 46, 48, 50–51, 64; Meshel 1989: 237). Evidence for a temporary post-abandonment occupation of Early Islamic structures was identified at other sites in the Arabah (Fig. 34.1), where this phase was commonly dated between the 9th and 11th centuries and sometimes to as late as the Ottoman period (e.g., Nahlieli 2007: 84; Porath 2016: 18*, 57*; Rapuano 2013: 161–162). Those sites that continued to exist until the 10th or 11th century were mostly, 371

Yotvata.indb 371

03/08/2022 15:58

I taMar taXeL , Z eʾeV M esHeL anD etan aYaLon D

170 000

E

190 000

210 000

F

G

230 000

H

250 000

I

270 000

290 000

560 000

560 000

Dea d S e a

C

13

13

540 000

540 000

Sughar/Zughar

14

14

N

E

G

E

520 000

520 000

Naúal Shaúaq

V

Gharandal >En Marzev

15

500 000

500 000

15

Naúal >Omer 16

17 460 000

M

460 000

A r a b a h

17

480 000

480 000

V a l l e y

16

18 440 000

E

D

440 000

O

18

19

420 000

420 000

Yotvata Khirbat al-Mana>iyya

20

400 000

400 000

20

>En >Avrona 21

Eilat-Elot

C

170 000

D

190 000

Gulf of >AqabaE

0

>Aqaba/Ayla 210 000

F

230 000

G

5

250 000

0

10

H

20

270 000

30 km

I

290

380 000

21 380 000

19

îumayma

Fig. 34.1: Early Islamic sites in the Arabah and southern Transjordan 372

Yotvata.indb 372

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 34: Discussion and Conclusions

if not exclusively, sites associated with copper (and rarely gold) production, specifically in the southern end of the Arabah, i.e, in the immediate hinterland of ʿAqaba (Avner and Magness 1998; Jones, Najjar and Levy 2018: 337–338; Nol 2014: 26; 2015: 55–58). Yotvata and most of the Early Islamic settlements in the Arabah do not belong to this group. Yotvata, like the rest of the southern and central Arabah settlements, formed part of ʿAqaba’s greater hinterland. This was already emphasized in previous detailed studies on the region, notably by Avner and Magness (1998), Whitcomb (2006; see also Morriss and Whitcomb 2020: 277–278), Damgaard (2009) and Nol (2008; 2014; 2015). According to Walmsley (1987: 87, Map 3), in the first three centuries of Muslim rule (7th to 10th centuries) Ayla/ʿAqaba and the southern Arabah were governed by Egypt (Miṣr), with the Ghadhian/Yotvata oasis marking the meeting point between the border of Egypt and that of the junds (districts of) Filasṭīn (centered in Ramla) and Dimashq (centered in Damascus); the line of the Arabah Valley marked the border between jund Filasṭīn and jund Dimashq. In the late 10th century, however, it is possible that Ayla (and consequently the entire Arabah) belonged to jund Filasṭīn, as can be judged by the description of Ayla by Muqaddasi, the Jerusalemite geographer, as “port of Palestine” (Walmsley 1987: 173, Map 7; see also Gil 1992: 110–114). However, as noted by Damgaard (2009: 92), Muqaddasi’s saying “may well reflect personal preferences rather than actual reality,” and Ayla’s strong ties to Egypt were “more than political or administrative,” namely, first and foremost social, economic and material. At any rate, in Muqaddasi’s times the settlement at Yotvata (and other sites in the Arabah) had already been deserted for more than a century, whereas contacts between the site and Egypt were maintained—as demonstrated by the ceramic evidence—already before then. There is no evidence that Yotvata’s name in the Late Roman and early Byzantine periods—Osia/ Costia2—continued to be used, even in a different version, in Early Islamic times too. However, a very important clue as to the place’s name as early as the 9th century, if not before that, is found in a 10th-century Arabic source known as The Martyrdom of ʿAbd al-Masiḥ. ʿAbd al-Masiḥ, officially named Qays al-Ghassani, was a 9th-century Arab Christian who converted to Islam and several years later resumed his Christian faith. He then became a monk and during his last years served as a superior in Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai. When traveling to Ramla, he was arrested, refused to return to Islam and was executed. According to his biography, on his way to Ramla, ʿAbd al-Masiḥ and his monk companions “reached a place called Ghaḍyān, [where] they discovered companies of pilgrims coming from their pilgrimage [i.e., the Ḥajj to Mecca and Medina]” (Swanson 2008). It can be safely assumed that Ghaḍyān of ʿAbd al-Masiḥ’s time is the Arabic name of the Yotvata oasis, which is also transliterated as Ghadhian. In that case, this is the earliest mention of that name, as already noted by Avner (2016a: 31). It is, however, still uncertain whether Ghaḍyān/Ghadhian was the general name of the oasis (or even of the spring only) or also of the Early Islamic settlement that existed there. It is also unknown if at the time of ʿAbd al-Masiḥ’s arrival at the place (in an unknown year in the 9th century) the settlement was still inhabited.

The Intra- and Inter-Site Spatial Context As noted, the Early Islamic-period settlement of Yotvata covered about two hectares (Porath 2016: 46*–47*), and as such, was the largest contemporaneous site in the Arabah.3 Although it seems that the area was not densely built, instead featuring only sparse buildings (possibly with tents and pens between them), settlements 2. See Roll and Avner 2008: 271, 274. This is probably the correct name, rather than Ad Dianam, as noted by Davies and Magness (2015: 1). 3. For an updated review and description of many (apparently most) of the Early Islamic sites in the Arabah, see the introduction to the ʿArabah Survey Project on the Archaeological Survey of Israel website, with links to the relevant survey maps, at http://survey.antiquities.org.il/#/Arava (Hebrew).

373

Yotvata.indb 373

03/08/2022 15:58

I tamar Taxel , Z eʾev M eshel and Etan Ayalon

of that size can be characterized as medium-sized villages, a category almost unknown from the country’s desert regions, specifically in the Early Islamic period. The initial occupation within the abandoned Roman fort, whether it was a settlement of (Egyptian?) migrants or a local population, perhaps functioned as a small farmstead not yet related to a wide-scale agriculture. At some stage, these people deserted the fort/farm and either moved elsewhere or joined the community that founded the village to the northeast. Obviously, given the partial excavation and the damage caused to some of the remains in the site due to modern development activities, a satisfactory understanding of the site’s architectural components and their hierarchy and interrelations is impossible. It is clear, though, that the large building excavated by the TAU expedition was a major—and perhaps even the main—element in the settlement. The presence of a bathhouse not far from this building is also noteworthy, as bathhouses are extremely rare in rural Early Islamic contexts (as opposed to the situation in the Byzantine period), especially in remote, peripheral desert regions (see below). Several scholars have briefly discussed the nature of the Early Islamic-period building at Yotvata and/ or the settlement as a whole. Meshel, in his preliminary publications of the site, suggested that the building functioned as a local administrative center for the extensive agricultural array in the oasis, as a road inn (a khan), or as a regional administrative center, or perhaps even fulfilled all these purposes together (Meshel 1991; 1993: 1520). Avner and Magness (1998: 49–50) identified the Yotvata Early Islamic-period building as a fortress, similarly to the earlier, Iron Age and Roman-period, fortresses that existed in other locations within the oasis (see also Avner 2016b: 20). However, Avner and Magness (1998: 49–50) also mixed various different and unrelated designations of the building, while claiming that “The fortress and adjacent remains … were probably part of a larger complex related to the vast water and agricultural systems described above. It apparently functioned as a military and administrative center, and as a caravan outpost.” They further noted (Avner and Magness 1998: 50) that “the location of the villages [at ʿEn ʿAvrona and Yotvata] and the Yotvata fortress along the roads reflects their connection to trade.” Porath (2016: 18*) repeated Meshel’s above-mentioned suggestion that the Yotvata building served as a khan, and suggested a similar function also for the large Early Islamic-period courtyard buildings that he excavated at ʿEn ʿAvrona and ʿEn Marzev (Building C). As shown by Porath (2016: 70*, Fig. 18), the three buildings share similar dimensions, building techniques and plan, i.e., a square building with a central courtyard surrounded by rooms on two, three, or four sides; the Yotvata building is the largest of these and the only one whose courtyard was surrounded by rooms on all sides (in Stratum II). The building exhibits a clear functional division into residential or otherwise “private” rooms (with floors and walls coated with white plaster), simpler “service” rooms (with beaten earth floors and walls coated with mud plaster) and areas and installations designated for storage, food preparation and perhaps minor industry. The building’s water supply was probably based on the local qanat system, since the local groundwater was less appropriate for drinking. Cytryn-Silverman (2010: 70, 75) also identified the Yotvata building as a khan, like other assumed Early Islamic-period khans, such as those excavated at Abu Ghosh (near Jerusalem) and Tell Qasile (in the central Coastal Plain). Although it is much more likely that the Yotvata and similar Early Islamic buildings in the Arabah sites were residential-administrative edifices related to the management of agricultural enterprises (below), one cannot preclude the possibility that these structures also functioned as road stations. At any rate, the ancient road that passed along the Arabah Valley and led from ʿAqaba to the Dead Sea and the Negev (Avner 2016a: 31–39 see also Chapter 2) did not function as a major Muslim pilgrimage road—at least not as its main designation. Since Early Islamic times, the Levantine pilgrimage route that connected Damascus and the Ḥijaz (Darb al-Ḥajj al-Shami) ran to the east of the Arabah, along the Jordanian Mountain Plateau (Petersen 2012: 9).4 Hence, it is somewhat hard to accept the suggestion made by Jones et al. (2017: 305) that 4. Naturally, pilgrims arriving from or returning to southern Palestine most probably used local roads, such as the Darb Ghazza (Gaza), which departed from the Arabah road at the Yotvata oasis and crossed the Negev towards the Mediterranean (Avner 2016a: 30–32, 34).

374

Yotvata.indb 374

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 34: Discussion and Conclusions

the initiation of the Early Islamic “industrial settlements” in the Arabah was connected to the development of the Ḥajj routes. These settlements were established independently of the Ḥajj routes, most probably out of purely economic reasons. Nol (2014: 22–23, 29–30, 32) accepted Porath’s above-mentioned suggestion that the courtyard buildings at Yotvata, ʿEn ʿAvrona and ʿEn Marzev (“ʿEn Yahav khan”) fulfilled a similar function, but suggested that they were administrative centers for agricultural and industrial activities on behalf of local estate owners or a central government. She compared these buildings with structures similar in general plan but at least two or three times larger in size, known as palatial complexes from Syria-Palestine, such as Khirbat al-Minya on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee and Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī in Jordan. This general architectural resemblance supports, in Nol’s view, the administrative function suggested for the Arabah buildings, though she did not dismiss the possibility that the latter constituted only local imitations of administrative or governmental motifs. There is no doubt that the raison d’être of the Early Islamic-period settlement at Yotvata was the extensive agricultural development of the oasis area. The impressive enterprise of qanat-system construction in the Arabah—at ʿEn ʿAvrona, ʿEn Marzev and Yotvata—has already been discussed at length in previous studies, mainly by Avner (2016b: 20–25, 32) and Porath (2016: 37*–47*), while more recent publications by Avni (2018; 2020: 116–117, 122–123) summarize the qanat technology and its representation in the Arabah. Qanat systems involve extraction of water from shallow aquifers in loose and rocky sediment (alluvial fans) and downhill transport via tunnels and channels to farmlands and settlements. The qanat system at Yotvata was the largest and most complex and elaborate documented in the country. According to Porath (2016: 46*), it irrigated an area of 70–90 hectares, while Avner (2016b: 26) claims that it could have cultivated a much larger area—up to 400 hectares, although this estimation seems too large given the extensive inarable salt lands to the south of Yotvata. This area was probably used for year-round cultivation of palm trees, as well as for seasonal (winter) crops (Porath 2016: 46*; see also Nol 2014: 33; 2015: 60–61). In alignment with the idea that most of the Arabah Early Islamic settlements were first and foremost agricultural (or agricultural-industrial) entities, Damgaard (2009) identified the sites of Yotvata, ʿEn ʿAvrona and Khirbat ash-Shaykh ʿIsa (in Jordan, to the south of the Dead Sea) as “vast estates” (see also Morriss and Whitcomb 2020: 278, who adopted this idea). Damgaard (2009: 90) summarized this issue as follows: Around these large estates, an array of satellite villages and agricultural cooperatives were identified, it is likely that these … were home to some of the many people employed at the mega-farms. Based on their artefactual yield many of these sites were purpose-built and highly specialized communities, working either with the mining and processing of copper (e.g., as smelting camps) or the cultivation, treatment and packaging of agricultural produce (indicated for example by the ample presence of large millstones and the predominance of bones from large domesticated stocks). The larger estates were huge enterprises that would have demanded the mobilisation of a substantial workforce to execute and maintain. They applied complex technology to store and use the water and fertile silt coming from the surrounding wadis; technology which would have required the expertise of skilled engineers to conceive and construct. Most impressive are the extensive qanat that irrigated the fields of both [Yotvata and ʿEn ʿAvrona] estates.

Damgaard (2009: 92) further noted the that the hadith scholar Abu Bakr al-Zuhri (671–742 CE) owned a large estate near Ayla (cf. Morriss and Whitcomb 2020: 278). Here too some of Damgaard’s words are worthy of citation: We can only speculate at the location of this estate, just as the role of men like al-Zuhri in the creation of the large estates of Wadi Araba and the Negev remains elusive. The construction of enormous qanat systems would tend to suggest a patronage of considerable power and wealth, perhaps slightly overshadowing the capacities of an average landowner. But al-Zuhri should perhaps rather be seen as representing the emergence of a new Muslim elite sometime in the 8th century; a group that 375

Yotvata.indb 375

03/08/2022 15:58

I tamar Taxel , Z eʾev M eshel and Etan Ayalon

often consisted of prominent public figures, but doubled as private entrepreneurs. These industrious people retained massive landholdings, exploited natural (and human) resources and dominated transregional trade through mercantile alliances with agents positioned at strategic localities. Doing so, they paved the road for the intensification of production and exchange in the Fatimid period. But the 9th century belonged to them.

Continuing this line of thought, it is logical to interpret Yotvata as the home of a Muslim elite family, either local or foreign (Arabian?; see Whitcomb 2006: 241), who may have owned the entire settlement/village and its extensive agricultural lands and who apparently resided in the building under discussion. It is therefore reasonable to discuss this building and its spatial setting within the context of Umayyad-period countryside elite residences known collectively as “desert castles” or qusur (Arabic; sing. qasr). As mentioned above, Nol (2014: 29–30) already compared the Yotvata building with other Early Islamic palatial complexes in the Levant. The most useful study in this regard, however, is Genequand’s recent synthesis (2020) of the Umayyad “desert castles” from economic and sociopolitical viewpoints. He suggested the alternative, neutral, term “Umayyad aristocratic settlements”, enumerating 38 such settlements in the Levant, the majority of which were located in modern-day Syria and Jordan; the only Palestinian examples included in Genequand’s study are Khirbat al-Mafjar, Khirbat al-Minya and al-Ṣinnabra (Khirbat al-Karak/Beth Yeraḥ) (Genequand 2020: 240, Fig. 12.1). He emphasized the fact that most of these residences or palaces form part of much larger compounds containing other buildings (such as mosques, baths and smaller residential structures), various agricultural facilities (including complex irrigation systems) and cropprocessing installations; hence, these settlements may be considered agricultural estates (Genequand 2020: 240, 252–255). These settlements are interpreted as the consequence of political interests and investments in landed property of both dynastic and more modest elites. This landed property was often granted by the state as unoccupied or abandoned lands. Genequand also noted that the continuation of some of these settlements into the ʿAbbasid period (i.e., until the 9th and sometimes the 10th century) is proof of their economic viability (Genequand 2020: 255–257). Virtually all of these characteristics of the “Umayyad aristocratic settlements” may be identified at the Early Islamic site at Yotvata, with its large courtyard building, its nearby bathhouse and other structures, and its sophisticated irrigation systems. It can only be assumed that Yotvata was not included in Genequand’s list of these sites since most of the publications on its Early Islamic remains were preliminary and, moreover, written in Hebrew. Indeed, the Early Islamic courtyard building at Yotvata was relatively modest in size (33.5 × 34.5 m) and its preserved remains hardly exhibit any special luxurious elements. The wooden doors of the building’s gate in Stratum II constitute the main exception in this regard: they were made of cedar of Lebanon and Aleppo pine timbers (Chapter 31), which apparently originated in the Lebanon mountains and the Judean Hills, respectively. The use of “imported” wood indicates a certain degree of affluence for the building’s residents.5 Genequand, who differentiated between aristocratic settlements related to dynastic/caliphal elites and those related to medium- and low-ranking elites, attributed the sites of Ḥumayma, Maʿan, Umm al-Walid and Khan az-Zabib in Jordan to the latter group (Genequand 2020: 258). While indeed, some of the aristocratic buildings/qusur in these sites were nearly twice the size of the Yotvata building or even larger, others were not much larger than the latter. These include two of the three qusur in Maʿan (46.5 × 47 m and 50.5 × 51 m; Genequand 2003), the western and central qusur at Umm al-Walid (46 × 46 m and 48 × 48 m, respectively; Bujard, Genequand and Trillen 2001: 195–198) and the eastern qasr at Khan az-Zabib (48 × 51 m; Bujard, Genequand and Trillen 2001: 201). If we consider the relatively modest dimensions and construction methods of the Yotvata building, we may agree with 5. However, as architectural wooden beams preserve well in dry desert conditions, one should not exclude the possibility that the beams used for the construction of the doors of the Yotvata building were old—perhaps Roman- or Byzantineperiod—elements dismantled in the Early Islamic period from abandoned sites in the Negev or the Arabah.

376

Yotvata.indb 376

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 34: Discussion and Conclusions

Nol’s (2014: 30) suggestion that this structure reflects a local imitation of administrative or governmental motifs. Neverthless, this local elite must have been supported, at least initially, by the state or the regional (ʿAqaba-based?) administration, in order to develop and maintain the extensive agricultural plots across the oasis, which eventually formed part of the hinterland that fed ʿAqaba’s population. Furthermore, the revenues from these lands allowed the owners of the Yotvata aristocratic settlement/estate to possess luxury facilities, such as a bathhouse—the only one known from the Early Islamic settlements in the Arabah. In addition, the profitability of the Yotvata estate resulted, following Genequand’s observation (2020: 257), in its continued existence well into the ʿAbbasid period, despite the political shift of the mid-8th century. The identification of Early Islamic Yotvata as a major estate and of the courtyard building as its center is further supported by the four ostraca (three Arabic and one Greek) uncovered in that building (Chapter 27). Ostracon I mentions the name of a tribe, a volume measure for dry goods called muddī, the name of a fruit used as camel food, a calculation made by a certain person in some transaction, and a vow to Allāh. Ostracon II consists of letters and/or digits and possibly the name of a bronze coin—fils. Ostracon III mentions gold and silver coins, names of laborers or agents associated with the local estate, an Islamic invocation, the muddī measure and date-palm fruits. Ostracon IV mentions gold or silver. The Muslim identity of the place is clearly indicated by the names of the individuals and by the vow and invocation mentioned in Ostraca I and III. Another key element that was probably common to most, if not all, of the Early Islamic agricultural settlements in the Arabah is that they were established on uninhabited, inter-settlement, lands, as noted by Nol (2014: 12, n. 21) and by Avni (2020: 123) and as suggested by Genequand (2020: 256) with relation to the “Umayyad aristocratic settlements” in general. This model, also identified in the country’s Mediterranean coastal region, recalls the term of mawāt (dead) land, known from Early Islamic (Muslim) juristic documents relating to land property and taxation. The category of mawāt land refers to uncultivated wasteland that was not owned or possessed by anyone or to long-abandoned land, which was granted to a qualified cultivator. Some jurists also prescribed that uncultivated abandoned land may be considered mawāt if it is located far from any human settlement (Taxel 2018a: 163–169; Taxel et al. 2018, with references). This condition too is reflected, of course, in the Early Islamic settlements of the Arabah, as well as in many of the “Umayyad aristocratic settlements” noted by Genequand. In the case of Yotvata and perhaps also ʿEn ʿAvrona and ʿEn Marzev, which represent a similar settlement and land-use pattern, the arable lands in and around the oasis were presumably granted by the regime to a member of the newcomer Arabian migrants (a military officer) or to an otherwise trustworthy individual among the local Muslim elite centered in ʿAqaba or in another major settlement in southern Palestine or Jordan. As for the bathhouse built a short distance from the courtyard building, it undoubtedly represents an exceptional element in the Early Islamic settlements of the Arabah and likely constituted a status symbol for the local estate owners. Given the nature of the Early Islamic settlement at Yotvata, discussed above, it is legitimate to consider the local bathhouse as another characteristic of the Umayyad-period aristocratic landscape, which—especially in the countryside—is only rarely present in regular settlements or nonelite contexts (Arce 2015: 164–168; Maréchal 2020: 176–177, 179–182). This is contrary to the situation in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, when bathhouses could be found in many villages and other forms of rural settlements (Hoss 2005; Maréchal 2020, passim). Even though the Yotvata bathhouse was not fully excavated, it seems that in terms of size, complexity and quality of construction (including the use—or more precisely, the non-use—of decorative building materials and techniques, such as marble tiles, mosaics and stucco), it was inferior compared to most other known Umayyad-period bathhouses in the Levant. Still, this apparent simplicity may also have been a matter of preservation or the result of later looting, as, indeed, the bathhouse excavation revealed pieces of painted plaster that hint at a certain degree of internal decoration. Perhaps this bathhouse was similar in size and planning to the humble bathhouses of Qasr ʿAyn al-Sil and Qasr al-Mshash in Jordan—namely, a compact structure with one or two parallel 377

Yotvata.indb 377

03/08/2022 15:58

I tamar Taxel , Z eʾev M eshel and Etan Ayalon

rows of rooms, composed of a dressing/resting room (apodyterium, following the classical terminology), cold, warm and hot rooms ( frigidarium, tepidarium and caldarium) and a furnace (see Arce 2015: 137, 166, Fig. 23). The size and nature of the settlement and the Muslim identity of its inhabitants most probably justified the existence of a mosque—either open-air or roofed—somewhere near the courtyard building, as was the case in some other “Umayyad aristocratic settlements” (Genequand 2020; see also Raphael 2016: 216–218).6 However, such a building has not yet been identified at the site and, given the severe damage suffered by the area around the courtyard building in recent decades, it is highly unlikely that a mosque will be discovered there in the future. Also noteworthy within the context of the site’s nature as an agricultural entity is the small, isolated oneroom structure found within the area of the Iron Age “fortress” (Chapters 3, 21). This structure, dated to the Early Islamic period on the basis of ceramic evidence (the illustrated large bowl or basin in Fig. 3.33 seems to be Mahesh Ware or some related form), had a doorway facing southeast, overlooking the entire oasis area. The absence of a mihrab or burial remains precludes the possibility that this was a mosque or burial structure (such as a sheikh’s tomb) as suggested by Meshel (1993: 1518). The fact that the structure’s walls and floor were plastered, along with its location, suggest that this was a watchtower/booth designed to control and guard the nearby agricultural areas. Similar structures are known from numerous locations in many parts of the country, including the Negev, although most of these are earlier than the Early Islamic period. They were occupied by a few individuals, usually during daylight hours only (given the near-total absence of oil lamps in the ceramic assemblages associated with these structures) and—at least in some regions—only during harvest seasons (Taxel 2018b: 32–34). Such a functional identification for the structure under discussion is therefore highly plausible. It is possible though that the structure functioned also as a security watchtower, from which fire or smoke signals could be delivered to the settlement’s community in the topographically inferior oasis.

The Material Culture and Socio-Economic Aspects The varied and relatively rich artifactual evidence from the excavation sheds much light on the daily life and economic activities and preferences of the people who lived in or were otherwise associated with the courtyard building and its surroundings. The most abundant class of objects is, not surprisingly, pottery. As described in detail in Chapter 23, the local ceramic repertoire consists mainly of two major groups: Mahesh Ware and related forms, originating in ʿAqaba and its vicinity, and Crude Handmade Ware, which was produced locally in the Arabah, including at Yotvata itself, as evidenced by petrographic analysis (Chapter 24). The amount of pottery originating in more remote southern Levantine locations and neighboring regions (notably Egypt) is relatively small. The site’s inhabitants in Early Islamic times were materially oriented (at least from the ceramic perspective) towards localized products distributed by ʿAqaba-based markets and southern Negev/Arabah small (perhaps even household) producers; these ceramics could in theory fulfill all or most of their daily needs. The other Levantine and Egyptian wares and the few imports from more distant locations (Cyprus/Western Asia Minor [LRD/CRS Ware], Iraq? [some of the glazed vessels?]) arrived at the site via direct and indirect contacts with urban and semi-urban commercial hubs. These most probably included ʿAqaba, Beersheba in the northern Negev (which absorbed and could have redistributed local goods coming from the central hill country and the southern Mediterranean coast, as well as imports arriving from the coastal harbor towns of Gaza and Ashkelon), and Sughar/Zughar (classical-period Zoara/Ẓoʿar), to the south of the Dead Sea (in which objects 6. Raphael’s map of the distribution of 7th–9th-century mosques in the southern Levant (2016: 246) shows three sites on the Israeli side of the Arabah Valley in which mosques were found: Beʾer Ora (where, according to Raphael, four mosques were found), ʿEn ʿAvrona and Elat/Elot. To the best of our knowledge, however, only two (open-air) mosques were identified in the copper-production site of Beʾer Ora (Avni 2014: 278). Another possible open-air mosque was found at Elat/Elot (Rapuano 2013: 160). As for ʿEn ʿAvrona, Porath’s (2016) final report of the excavation at the site does not mention the identification of a mosque there.

378

Yotvata.indb 378

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 34: Discussion and Conclusions

produced in Jordan could be obtained; for the place in Early Islamic times and its connection to the Arabah, see Politis 2020: 25–26, 223–250; Whitcomb 2006: 241–242). The local production of crude though varied handmade vessels may also be interpreted from the perspective of the monetary value of pottery. Although the evidence from the ancient world is uneven and often ambiguous, it is clear that ceramics, including in the Early Islamic Near East and the greater medieval Mediterranean world, could be quite costly, even in the case of simple crockery such as cooking pots and storage containers, which often required special production skills (Sanders 2016: 9–16; Taxel 2018b: 18–30). Regarding these two ceramic classes—closed and relatively sizeable vessels—in particular, one should also bear in mind that their transportation from a remote production or commercial center such as ʿAqaba, Sughar/Zughar, or Beersheba would also increase their price. These reasons alone could make the local production of handmade cooking pots, storage jars and other open and closed vessels economically worthwhile, even though these ceramics were technologically (and esthetically) inferior to their wheel-made counterparts. The quite widespread use of steatite/chlorite-schist cooking pots (and other vessels; Chapter 25), despite the likelihood of their high price, being imports from Arabia, may also be seen as economically calculated. This is because stone vessels were more durable than ceramics, especially in the case of clay cooking pots the average lifespan of which was rather short (in other words, one stone pot could span the lifetime of several ceramic pots), and because cooking in stone pots was probably believed to produce better results (in culinary terms) than cooking in ceramic or metal pots (Gascoigne 2013). Despite these hints about the apparent frugal and economically calculated lifestyle of Yotvata’s population in Early Islamic times, one should bear in mind that the excavated finds cannot under any circumstances be considered fully reliable evidence for reconstructing the site’s material culture and economic status. The great majority of these finds were fragmentary and composed mainly of pottery sherds, with a telling paucity of metal and glass finds (Chapters 25 and 26). This can be explained by what was probably a planned abandonment of the site (at the end of Stratum II), during which the inhabitants took with them most of the complete pottery, glass and stone vessels, their best or most complete textiles (Chapter 29) and the most valuable metal objects, such as tools, vessels and personal items. The relatively well-to-do status of at least some of Yotvata’s population, notably those who lived in the courtyard building, is indicated by the vast qanat-irrigated agricultural lands that belonged to this settlement, as well as by the epigraphic and numismatic evidence for the daily use of gold and silver coins at the site (Chapters 27 and 28). The local population’s dietary habits can be partially reconstructed on the basis of the botanical and faunal remains found at the site. The archaeobotanical remains include edible fruits—dates, olives, peaches, Christ thorn and almonds (Chapter 31). The dates and Christ thorn fruits were most probably local, while the olives, peaches and almonds apparently originated elsewhere, either in less arid desert regions or in regions with a Mediterranean climate, such as the Judean Hills. The centrality of the date-palm crop in the economy and diet of the population of the Arabah in Early Islamic times has already been emphasized by Nol (2015: 60–62) and is also indicated by the mention of date fruits in Ostracon III (Chapter 27 and see above). Grains, which were processed at the site, as evidenced by the millstones uncovered (Chapter 25),7 could have been brought from the northern Negev/southern Judean Hills or from the Ghor as-Safi region south of the Dead Sea (the area of Sughar/Zughar; see above) (for Fatimid-period textual evidence for grain cultivation in the latter region, see Politis 2020: 26). The archaeozoological remains from Early Islamic Yotvata are dominated by sheep and goat bones, with a lesser representation of cattle and only a few remains of camels and other domestic and wild animals (at any rate, hunting was very marginal at Yotvata as a source of meat; Chapter 32). Judging from their age, 7. No traces of grain were found in the excavation; however, this may be because very little sifting of the sediments was carried out. This is in contrast to the botanical finds from ʿEn ʿAvrona, which included grains (see Chapter 31 for an archaeobotanical comparison between Yotvata and ʿEn ʿAvrona).

379

Yotvata.indb 379

03/08/2022 15:58

I tamar Taxel , Z eʾev M eshel and Etan Ayalon

sheep and goats were mainly utilized as a source of milk, wool and hair, and only secondarily for meat, while the cattle and camels were primarily working animals, as testified by their age. Cattle would have been used for plowing, and camels and donkeys for riding and carrying loads, and upon becoming useless for these tasks, they could have been slaughtered and eaten. These animals were apparently kept in designated areas within the settlement or on its periphery, as opposed to the situation in the post-abandonment phase (Stratum I), when herds were kept within the courtyard building. Noteworthy in this regard is one of the Arabic ostraca found at the site (Ostracon I; Chapter 27 and see above), which mentions the name of a fruit used as camel food. Nevertheless, the low representation of camels in the local faunal assemblage and the absence of horses and donkeys (except for one bone of the latter) is surprising, given the site’s location next to a major road (cf. the disproportionately high representation of horse bones in the finds from ʿEn Marzev; Porath 2016: 69*). The discovery of two pig bones (possibly of the same animal) raises the question of pig consumption in a community believed to be predominantly, if not exclusively, Muslim. The presence of pig bones in Early (and Late) Islamic-period contexts is documented from other sites in the region and elsewhere, which is not unexpected given the fact that in most parts of the southern Levant Christians constituted a demographic majority during most of the Early Islamic period. In addition, one should not dismiss the possibility that pig was also consumed—albeit infrequently—by less observant Muslims, throughout Islamic times. For instance, numerous pig bones found in 9th-century contexts at Apollonia-Arsuf (Roll and Ayalon 1987: 73) and a butchered wild boar skeleton discovered in a late 8th–late 9th-century context in Hebron (Tel Roumeida; Ben-Shlomo 2018: 52*–53*; Bouchnick 2018) were interpreted as evidence either for the Christian identity of the local population or for the lack of enforcement of the Muslim “pig taboo” at that time.8 In the present case, it may be cautiously concluded that the negligible consumption of pig at Yotvata was made by a Christian passerby or worker or by a less orthodox Muslim. Despite the discovery at Yotvata of a few pieces of copper slag and a possible copper ingot (Chapter 25), the site did not reveal any evidence for copper processing, such as the small furnace used for secondary smelting of copper scrap found at ʿEn ʿAvrona (Porath 2016: 20*). Still, the possibility that a similar activity took place at Yotvata too should not be dismissed. At any rate, the only non-agricultural economic branch that can be securely identified at the site is pottery production, mostly, if not exclusively, handmade, as indicated by the high frequency of Crude Handmade Ware (Chapter 23), its petrographic analysis (Chapter 24) and the discovery of a potter’s wheel (Chapter 25). Just how intensive this handicraft was and how widespread was the distribution of its products—whether restricted to Yotvata and its environs or extending throughout the Arabah—are still unknown. The Early Islamic-period remains excavated within the Yotvata oasis—notably those associated with the settlement under discussion (the other major location with contemporaneous remains is the Roman fort; Davies and Magness 2015)—constitute a considerable contribution to the study of settlement patterns, land use and material culture in the Arabah between the 7th and the 9th centuries. Indeed, one should bear in mind that the insights derived from the analysis of the site are based on the excavation of only a small— albeit important—portion of the local settlement; hence, they should be taken with caution as long as other parts of the settlement remain undocumented. Nonetheless, given the data presented above, it can be quite safely concluded that Yotvata functioned as an agricultural estate with extensive arable, including irrigated, lands—an estate probably owned by a low-ranking elite family of local/Levantine or Arabian origin. The estate—the largest in the Arabah in this period—maintained organized economic activity that was at least partially documented in writing. Furthermore, it could furnish itself with locally-produced ceramics and 8. Cf. MacLean and Insoll 2003: 563, 567–568 for a similar interpretation of a pig bone discovered in an 11th–12th-century context in Bahrain. For the attitude towards pig consumption in Early Islamic and medieval Egypt, see Lewicka 2011: 177–178.

380

Yotvata.indb 380

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 34: Discussion and Conclusions

was even capable of maintaining a kind of luxurious, albeit still modest, lifestyle (the bathhouse being its most prominent representation). This settlement was founded sometime in the Umayyad period and was abandoned in the early part of the ʿAbbasid period, like other sites in the Arabah, although even its postabandonment phase, characterized by the presence of a nomadic/semi-nomadic population, terminated before the end of the Early Islamic period.

References Arce, I. 2015. The Umayyad Baths at Amman Citadel and Hammam al-Sarah Analysis and Interpretation: The Social and Political Value of the Umayyad Baths. Syria 92: 133–168. Avner, U. 2016a. Ancient Roads in the ʿArabah Valley. Negev, Dead Sea and Arava Studies 8(1): 25–44 (Hebrew). Avner, U. 2016b. Desert Farming in the Southern ʿAraba Valley, Israel, 2nd Century B.C. to 11th Century A.D. In: Retamero, F., Schjellerup, I. and Davies, A., eds. Agriculture and Pastoral Landscapes in Pre-Industrial Societies: Choices, Stability and Change. Oxford: 19–36. Avner, U. and Magness, J. 1998. Early Islamic Settlement in the Southern Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310: 39–57. Avni, G. 2014. The Byzantine–Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach. Oxford. Avni, G. 2018. Early Islamic Irrigated Farmsteads and the Spread of qanats in Eurasia. Water History 10: 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12685-018-0225-6. Avni, G. 2020. Terraced Fields, Irrigation Systems and Agricultural Production in Early Islamic Palestine and Jordan: Continuity and Innovation. Journal of Islamic Archaeology 7(2): 111–137. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2018. Excavations at Tel Ḥevron, 2017: Ritual Baths and Early Islamic Remains. Judea and Samaria Research Studies 27(1): 5*–58*. Bouchnick, R. 2018. Stocking or Abandonment: Wild Boar Remains Deposited in an Early Islamic Context (Accumulation 2626) at Tel Ḥevron. Judea and Samaria Research Studies 27(1): 59*–75*. Bujard, J., Genequand, D. and Trillen, W. 2001. Umm al-Walid et Khan az-Zabib, deux établissements omeyyades en limite du désert jordanien. In: Geyer, B., ed. Conquete de la steppe et appropriation des terres sur les marges arides du Croissant fertile (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen 36). Lyon: 189–218. Cytryn-Silverman, K. 2010. The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2130). Oxford. Damgaard, K. 2009. A Palestinian Red Sea Port on the Egyptian Road to Arabia: Early Islamic Aqaba and Its Many Hinterlands. In: Blue, L., Cooper, J., Thomas, R. and Whitewright, J., eds. Connected Hinterlands: Proceedings of Red Sea Project IV Held at the University of Southampton, September 2008 (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2052). Oxford: 85–98. Davies, G. and Magness, J. 2015. The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy. In: Davies, G. and Magness, J. The 2003–2007 Excavations in the Late Roman Fort at Yotvata. Winona Lake: 1–73. Erickson-Gini, T. 2019. Yotvata. Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel 131. http://www .hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25682&mag_id=127. Gascoigne, A.L. 2013. Cooking Pots and Choices in the Medieval Middle East. In: Bintliff, J. and Caroscio, M., eds. Pottery and Social Dynamics in the Mediterranean and Beyond in Medieval and Post-Medieval Times (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2557). Oxford: 1–10. Genequand, D. 2003. Maʿān, an Early Islamic Settlement in Southern Jordan: Preliminary Report on a Survey in 2002. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 47: 25–35. Genequand, D. 2020. Elites in the Countryside. The Economic and Political Factors behind the Umayyad “Desert Castles.” In: Marsham, A., ed. The Umayyad World. London: 240–266. Gil, M. 1992. A History of Palestine, 634–1099. Cambridge, U.K.

381

Yotvata.indb 381

03/08/2022 15:58

I tamar Taxel , Z eʾev M eshel and Etan Ayalon

Hoss, S. 2005. Baths and Bathing. The Culture of Bathing and the Baths and Thermae in Palestine from the Hasmoneans to the Moslem Conquest (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1346). Oxford. Jones, I.W.N., Ben-Yosef, E., Lorentzen, B., Najjar, M. and Levy, T.E. 2017. Khirbat al-Manaʿiyya: An Early IslamicPeriod Copper-Smelting Site in South-Eastern Wadi ʿAraba, Jordan. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 28: 297–314. Jones, I.W.N., Najjar, M. and Levy, T.E. 2018. The Arabah Copper Industry in the Islamic Period: Views from Faynan and Timna. In: Ben-Yosef, E., ed. Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37). Tel Aviv and Winona Lake: 332–342. Lewicka, P.B. 2011. Food and Foodways of Medieval Cairenes. Aspects of Life in an Islamic Metropolis of the Eastern Mediterranean (Islamic History and Civilization: Studies and Texts 88). Leiden and Boston. MacLean, R. and Insoll, T. 2003. Archaeology, Luxury and the Exotic: The Examples of Islamic Gao (Mali) and Bahrain. World Archaeology 34(3): 558–570. Magness, J. 2003. The Archaeology of the Early Islamic Settlement in Palestine. Winona Lake. Magness, J. 2015. The Pottery. In: Davies, G. and Magness, J. The 2003–2007 Excavations in the Late Roman Fort at Yotvata. Winona Lake: 74–141. Maréchal, S. 2020. Public Baths and Bathing Habits in Late Antiquity: A Study of the Evidence from Italy, North Africa and Palestine A.D. 285–700 (Late Antique Archaeology Supplementary Series 6). Leiden and Boston. Melkawi, A., ʿAmr, K. and Whitcomb, D.S. 1994. The Excavation of Two Seventh Century Pottery Kilns at Aqaba. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38: 447–468. Meshel, Z. 1989. A Fort at Yotvata from the Time of Diocletian. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 228–238. Meshel, Z. 1991. Yotvata Oasis—Its History, Landscapes and Sites. Ariel 78: 6–44 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1993. Yotvata. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1517–1520. Morriss, V. and Whitcomb, D. 2020. The Umayyad Red Sea as an Islamic Mare Nostrum. In: Marsham, A., ed. The Umayyad World. London: 267–292. Nahlieli, D. 2007. Settlement Patterns in the Late Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods in the Negev, Israel. In: Saidel, B.A. and van der Steen, E.J., eds. On the Fringe of Society: Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives on Pastoral and Agricultural Societies (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1657). Oxford: 79–86. Nol, H. 2008. Settlement, Economy and State in the Arava during the Early Islamic Period from the Archaeological Data (M.A. thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev). Beersheba (Hebrew). Nol, H. 2014. Settlement and Rule in the Eighth–Ninth Centuries: The Arava as a Case Study. Cathedra 153: 7–34 (Hebrew). Nol, H. 2015. The Fertile Desert: Agriculture and Copper Industry in Early Islamic Arava (Arabah). Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147: 49–68. Petersen, A. 2012. The Medieval and Ottoman Hajj Route in Jordan: An Archaeological and Historical Study (Levant Supplementary Series 12). Oxford. Politis, K.D. 2020. Ancient Landscapes of Zoara I: Surveys and Excavations at the Ghor as-Safi in Jordan, 1997–2018 (Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 27). London and New York. Porath, Y. 2016. Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 86: 1*–81* (Hebrew), 113–116 (English summary). Raphael, K. 2016. Mosques East and West of the Jordan Valley: From the Arab Conquest to the End of the Mamluk Period. In: Conermann, S., ed. History and Society during the Mamluk Period (1250–1517). Studies of the Annemarie Schimmel Institute for Advanced Study II (Mamluk Studies 12). Bonn: 199–248. Rapuano, Y. 2013. An Early Islamic Settlement and a Possible Open-Air Mosque at Eilat. ʿAtiqot 75: 129–165. Roll, I. and Avner, U. 2008. Tetrachic Milestones found near Yahel in the Southern Aravah. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 165: 267–286. Roll, I. and Ayalon, E. 1987. The Market Street at Apollonia-Arsuf. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 267: 61–76. 382

Yotvata.indb 382

03/08/2022 15:58

Chapter 34: Discussion and Conclusions

Sanders, G. 2016. Recent Finds from Ancient Corinth: How Little Things Make Big Differences (Tenth BABESCH Byvanck Lecture). Leiden. Sharon, M. 2016. An Ostracon with an Arabic Inscription. In: Porath, Y. Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava. ʿAtiqot 86: 37* (Hebrew). Swanson, M.N. 2008. Obscure Text, Illuminating Conversation: The Martyrdom of Qays al-Ghassani (ʿAbd al-Masih). Currents in Theology in Mission 35: 374–381. Taxel, I. 2018a. Early Islamic Palestine: Toward a More Fine-Tuned Recognition of Settlement Patterns and Land Uses in Town and Country. Journal of Islamic Archaeology 5(2): 153–180. Taxel, I. 2018b. Fragile Biography: The Life Cycle of Ceramics and Refuse Disposal Patterns in Late Antique and Early Medieval Palestine (BABESCH Supplements 35). Leuven. Taxel, I. 2019. Migration to and within Palestine in the Early Islamic Period: Two Archaeological Paradigms. In: Yoo, J., Zerbini, A. and Barron, C., eds. Migration and Migrant Identities in the Near East from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. London: 222–243. Taxel, I., Sivan, D., Bookman, R. and Roskin, J. 2018. An Early Islamic Inter-Settlement Agroecosystem in the Coastal Sand of the Yavneh Dunefield, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 43(7): 551–569. Walmsley, A. 1987. The Administrative Structure and Urban Geography of the Jund of Filasṭīn and the Jund of al-Urdun: The Cities and Districts of Palestine and East Jordan during the Early Islamic, ʿAbbasid and Early Faṭimid Periods (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sydney). Sydney. Whitcomb, D. 1989. Mahesh Ware: Evidence of Early Abbasid Occupation from Southern Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33: 269–285. Whitcomb, D. 2006. Land Behind Aqaba: The Wadi Arabah during the Early Islamic Period. In: Bienkowski, P. and Galor, K., eds. Crossing the Rift. Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arabah. Oxford: 239–242.

383

Yotvata.indb 383

03/08/2022 15:58

Yotvata.indb 384

03/08/2022 15:58

LIST OF LOCI

The Early Islamic Settlement at Yotvata Locus 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

Yotvata.indb 385

Location Main building and auxiliary structures Northern wing of main building Southern wing of main building, gate Southern wing of main building Eastern wing of main building Northern wing of main building Northern wing of main building Southern wing of main building Northern wing of main building Southern wing of main building Northern wing of main building Courtyard Western wing of main building Western wing of main building Northern wing of main building Northern wing of main building Southern wing of main building Southeastern auxiliary structures Southeastern auxiliary structures Southern wing of main building Courtyard Southern wing of main building Northern wing of main building Northern wing of main building Northern wing of main building Southeastern auxiliary structures Eastern wing of main building Southeastern auxiliary structures Western wing of main building Eastern wing of main building Southern wing of main building Southern wing of main building Western wing of main building Southwestern auxiliary structures

Type Topsoil Room Room and courtyard W3 W4 Room W1 W3 Room Room Room – – Room Room Room Room Room Room? Room Kitchen, staircase Courtyard, gate Outside main building Outside main building Pool Room? Refuse dump? Room Rooms Room Courtyard Gate Gate Courtyard W3, W29, W30

Remarks All over Part of L114 – Topsoil cleaning Probe – Probe Probe

Part of L105 Probe Probe – – Part of L170 – – – – – – – – Part of L170 – Topsoil cleaning – – Part of L137 Part of L137 – Topsoil cleaning

03/08/2022 15:58

List of Loci

Locus 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171

Location Western wing of main building Southeast of main building South of main building Southern wing of main building Southern wing of main building Western wing of main building Southern wing of main building Southwest of main building Southern wing of main building South of main building Southeast auxiliary structures Southeast auxiliary structures Western wing of main building Southeast auxiliary structures Eastern wing of main building Southern wing of main building Western wing of main building Northern wing of main building Eastern wing of main building Southeast auxiliary structures Southeast auxiliary structures Eastern wing of main building Eastern wing of main building Eastern wing of main building Western wing of main building Eastern wing of main building Western wing of main building Northwestern auxiliary structures Western wing of main building Northwestern auxiliary structures Southwestern auxiliary structures Southeast auxiliary structures Southeast auxiliary structures Southeast auxiliary structures Southeast auxiliary structures Western wing of main building Northern wing of main building Southern wing of main building

Type Room Rooms Room; refuse dump Gate Courtyard Room Room Bathhouse Entrance to gate Rooms Room, passage Room Courtyard Room Courtyard, room Room W6 Room Room Room? Room? Room Room Room W51 Room Room W62 Outside main building W62 Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room

Remarks Bedouin grave – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Topsoil cleaning – – – – – – – Topsoil cleaning – – – – – – – – – – – – –

386

Yotvata.indb 386

03/08/2022 15:58