From the Editor This issue's highlights include a glimpse into "Egyptian Jaffa," one of several administrative and military centers established by New Kingdom pharaohs in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Aaron Burke and Krystal Lords present previously unpublished evidence from Jacob Kaplan's 1955—1974 Jaffa excavations that shed new light on the initial Egyptian expansion into Canaan. Near Eastern Archaeology is especially pleased to showcase the preliminary results from this joint American-Israeli project, directed by Aaron Burke and Martin Peilstöcker, and one of many ASOR-affiliated archaeological projects working in the eastern Mediterranean. Dolmens are the topic of NEA's Forum. Numbering in the thousands, dolmens dominate Jordan's cultural landscape. Based on a GIS analysis of the distribution of dolmens, AbduUa Al-Shorman concludes that many of these served as tombs for the Early Bronze Age elite. In recent years, landscapes associated with these dolmens have been impacted by modern development. Stephen Savage brings much needed attention to the endangered Chalcolithic/Early Bronze ceremonial site at al-Murayghât—Hajr al-Mansûb. The Great Revolt in the Galilee, the topic of a new exhibit at the Hecht Museum (University of Haifa, Israel), and the New Acropolis Museum are reviewed in EieldNotes. I have viewed both exhibits and would encourage all who can to visit these two museums: the first a university-based museum that serves both the academic community and general public, the latter a magnificent tribute to the Athenian Acropolis and an absolute "must see" for all. I take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to Dr. Billie Jean Collins, who served as the managing editor of Near Eastern Archaeology from 2000 to 2009. With her unique combination of academic expertise in numerous fields relating to Near Eastern archaeology and languages, together with an uncanny ability to transform dry academic texts into engaging and readable essays, she was central to the production and success of NEA for over a decade. Her commitment and dedication to the journal, especially during the past few years, are deeply appreciated.
Ann E. Killebrew Editor, Near Eastern Archaeologj
NEAR EASTERN
RCHAEOLOGY Editor: Ann E. Killebrew Art Director: Susan L. Lingo Assistant Editors: Jennie Ebeling, Gabriele Fassbeck, Justin Lev-Tov, and Robert Schick Editorial Assistants: Ghristopher B. Gonlan and Heather D. Heidrich Editorial Committee Class of 2010 Steven Fine Beth Alpert-Nakhai Lynn Swartz Dodd Class of 2011 Marie-Henriette Gates Margreet Steiner Samuel Wolff
Class of 2012 Neil Asher Silberman Sharon Steadman Bethany Walker Class of 2013 Ann Marie Knoblauch Eric Cline K. Lawson Younger
Subscriptions Annual subscription rates are $35 for individuals and $125 for institutions. Near Eastern Archaeology is also available as a part of the benefits of some ASOR membership categories. For details, contact ASOR at (617) 358-4376. Postage for Canadian and other international addresses is an additional $20. Payments should be sent to ASOR Member/Subscriber Services, 656 Beacon St., 5th floor, Boston, MA 022152010. Fax (617) 353-6575. E-mail:
[email protected]. VISA/MG orders can be phoned in, or subscribe online atwww.asor.org/pubs/bowtoorder.html. Back issues Back issues can be ordered by contacting ASOR at the address listed above. Editor's Office All editorial correspondence should be addressed to the NEA editor: Ann E. Killebrew, e-mail: aekl 1 @psu.edu. All articles must follow NEA's instructions for contributors, available at bttp://www.asororg/ pubs/nea/back-issues/ins tructions.html. Advertising Gorrespondence should be addressed to ASOR Publications, 656 Beacon St., 5th floor, Boston, MA 02215-2010. Tel. (617) 353-6570. Fax (617) 3536575. E-mail:
[email protected]. Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. Permissions requests may be made according to the instructions provided on ASGR's web site at http://www.asor.org/pubs/ permissions.html. Postmaster Send address changes to Near Eastern Arc/iacology, ASOR Member/Subscriber Services, 656 Beacon St., 5th floor, Boston, MA 02215-2010. Periodicals class postage paid at Boston, MA and additional offices. Near Eastern Archaeology (ISSN 1094-2076) is published quarterly (March, June, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), 656 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02215-2010. Printed by The Sheridan Press, Hanover, Pennsylvania. Woman in the Window photo (cover) by Zev Radovan (www.BibleLandPictures.com) Gopyright©2010by the American Schools of Oriental Research www.asororg
Egyptians in Jaffa: A Portrait of Egyptian Presence in Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age
Aaron A. Burke and Krystal V. Lords
R
oughly forty-five miles to the northwest of Jerusalem lies one of the most important ports along the southern Levantine coast of the Mediterranean Sea: the site of Jaffa (Joppa), now surrounded by Tel Aviv's urban sprawl (fig. I ). Despite considerable excavation during the twentieth century, the excavations remained unpublished, and little was known of the types of finds from the extensive archaeological exploration of Late Brojize Age Jaffa. As a result of recent efforts to analyze and prepare the Bronze and Iron Age remaii\s of Jacob Kaplan's Jaffa excavations for publication, a rich corpus of Egyptian ceramics and other artifacts, many from LB IB contexts, have come to light.
This Egyptian ceramic assemblage provides a clearer picture of the character of the earliest Egyptian settlements in Canaan that are associated with the expansion of the hlew Kingdom empire. While much ink has beei\ spilled on the question of distinguishing Egyptian from Egyptianizing artifacts at Egyptian administrative and military sites in Late Bronze Age Canaan, evidence from Jaffa suggests that such disdiKtions are not easily made. In this context it is preferable to refer instead to Egyptian artifacts arid assemblages, noting simply whether they are imported or locally produced and stressing the importance of the context of the assemblage as defined by both textual and archaeolo^cal data.
Excavations at Jaffa Figure 1 (above), Jaffa's location made it an ideal location to serve maritime traffic up and down the Mediterranean coast and also as a conduit to trade throughout the central coastal plain and further inland. While much of the lower city is still occupied by buildings, the tell consists of a number of areas, indicated by the trees, where continued excavations remain possible. Photo by Sky View, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Jaffa has been nearly continuously inhabited since the Middle Bronze Age up to the present, thus preserving an important archaeological sequence for understanding cultural and historical developments in the southern Levantine coastal plain over the last four thousand years. In 1955, Jacob Kaplan, municipal archaeologist for the city of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, initiated long-term 1 •" II ' " i n i r i
2 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAHOLOGY 71:1 (2010)
Ill n i i i i i ' i i ' I I " mill I inMinrf iin'-iKLiiitiirifri-f»»-—
Figure 2, Aerial photographs of Jaffa like this one from 1964 reveal the extent of the absence of large structures on the tell following the British Operation Anchor in 1936. A limited interest in Jaffa by israeli immigrants as Tel Aviv grew after 1947 meant that by 1955 no new attempts to build on the tell were undertaken. Jacob Kaplan's main excavation areas, including Areas A and C, capitalized on the exposed areas of the tell in an effort to establish its stratigraphie sequence. Kaplan Archive photograph. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
excavations on the tell of ancient Jaffa with the goal of exploring its earliest phases of occupation, which are dated to the Bronze and Iron Ages (fig. 2). Kaplan could not have been more fortunate in his choice of excavation areas, and in 1956, during only the second season in Area A, he encountered stone fragments of the monumental ^ate façade inscribed with the name of Ramesses II (ca. 12641198 B.c.E.) that adorned the entrance to the Late Bronze Age Egyptian fortress {fig. 3). Remains of this inscription continued to be unearthed in 1958 (fig. 4), along with a suhstantial corpus
of Egyptian ceramics and artifacts that helong to earlier phases of Egypt's occtipation of Jaffa. Kaplan resumed excavations in Area A in 1970 in an effort to hroaden the exposure of the Late Bronze Age phases associated with Egyptian settlement; during these efforts he excavated the well-known "Lion Temple" of prohahle Iron I date, named after a lion's skull discovered on the floor
Figure 3, A view of Area A as it looks today. Excavations were begun in Area A, the largest excavation area opened by Jacob Kaplan in Jaffa, in 1955 and concluded in 1974. Kaplan's excavations in 1955, 1956, and 1958 here produced one of the largest Late Bronze Age assemblages of Egyptian ceramics excavated in Israel. In the 1990s, a re-creation of the Egyptian gate façade of Ramesses II was installed to illustrate the location of the original gate with its jambs inscribed with the royal titulary of Ramesses II, Photo by Aaron A. Burke,
•J
^íaMíiilin
Figure 4. Fragments of the Ramesses II façade were excavated by Jacob Kaplan from 1955 to 1958, with plaster still adhering to the carved portions of the inscription and decoration. Kaplan was fortunate to encounter such impressive early remains in just the first few seasons at Jaffa. In a strange twist of fate, despite fifteen years of additional work in Jaffa through 1974, he encountered few remains as early as those he excavated in the 1950s and certainly nothing as impressive. Photo by Aaron A. Burke.
Figure 5. Area A excavations continued into the 1970s under Jacob Kaplan. In addition to the various levels associated with the Egyptian occupation during the Late Bronze Age seen in the background, the excavations revealed a temple from the end of the Late Bronze Age and Iron I identified by Kaplan as the "Lion Temple." It is visible on the left side of the photo, with two column bases in the center. Photo from Kaplan Archive. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority Photographic Archive.
of the temple. Despite five more seasons in Area A, through 1974 (fig- 5), Kaplan never again reached the earliest phases he had encountered during the 1950s. After nearly two decades of work, which were accompanied by the publication of only preliminary reports, the results of Kaplan's excavations received little attention for nearly three decades.
4 N L A K l i A S T H K N A K C H A I - X M . l X i Y 7 î : i (2010)
University in Haifa. Out of a deep personal interest in archaeology, he started to participate in archaeological excavations, working first as an engineer and a draftsman. At the same time, he studied archaeology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and was granted a Ph.D. for his 1954 dissertation "The Chalcolithic and Neolithic Settlements in Tel Aviv and the Surrounding Vicinity." In addition to his excavation activities, he conducted an archaeological survey in Tel Aviv, concentrating in particular on the northern parts o{ the city, where development endangered cultural heritage sites (Kaplan 1953). Before excavating in Jaffa, Kaplan excavated various other sites in the greater Tel Aviv area and beyond, including, for example, Lod and Ramla. However, his main interest was Tel Aviv and Jaffa, and for his work he received the title and function oi "municipal archaeologist" (Bowman, Isserlin, and Rowe 1955; 231). It appears that Kaplan worked closely with the Leeds project, since a 1954 topographical map Jacob Kaplan, municipal archaeologist found in the archive of the archaeolt)gicat for Tel Aviv and Jaffa during the 19S05 museum oí Jaffa indicates how the ancient through the1970s, conducted excavations mound was to be divided. Isserlin's signature in Jaffa from 1955 to 1974. His work was on the northern portion and Kaplan's on continued by Haya Ritter-Kaplan through the early 1980s. Despite the challenges the southern half itidicate that the original of working ¡n Jaffa, Kaplan succeeded in idea was that of two expeditions working convincing the municipality to prohibit the side by side on the mound. The map was construction of buildings on the tell, a ban also signed by Yeivin, then the director of that has remained in effect until the present the Israel Department of Antiquities and day. Kaplan Archive photo. Courtesy of the Museums.
Jacob Kaplan in Jaffa Archaeological research of Jaffa starred as early as 1948, when the iiowly estabhshej Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM) issued its third excavation permit to P L. O. Guy fur his excavations in Jaffa. Guycotnpleted only two short seasons of excavations, wliose results were published in ;.^ brief report (Isserlin 1950). The main aim ot these early excavations was to locate I he remains of the Iron and Bronze Age settlements. To achieve this goal, Guy dug several long trenches and investigated an area measuring roughly 20 x 15 m, located opposite St. Peter's Church. In 1952, Bowman, Isserlin, and Rowe resumed the excavations on behalf of the University of Leeds (England) in the same excavation area (Bowman, Isserlin, and Rowe 1955). As early as 1955, Jacob Kaplan started to work in Jaffa, the site that was to become the center of his archaeological research. For the following twenty-two years, all archaeological excavations ill Jaffa were carried out solely by him, although he was later accompanied hy his wife Haya Ritter-Kaplan. Jacob Kaplan, born 1910 in Bialystok, Poland, grew up and lived in Tel Aviv before completing a degree in engineering at Technion
Israel Antiquities Authority.
Area A was the largest of Jacob Kaplan's exc areas. This area yielded the full stratigraphi sequence of the site, and it was here that he wa able to work from 1955 to 1974. Kaplan Archivi photo. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
KASTKRN ARCHAHOUXiY 71:1 (2010) 5
stratigraphy of Tel Yafo according to Jacob Kaplan Areas A, B, and Y
Level
Phases
Area
Period
Date
I
A
A
Hellenistic
2nd-Ist centur>'
B
A. Y
A
A, Y
B
A
A
A, B
Iron II
8th century
Area A east
B
A
Iron I
11th century
Area A west: Philistine sherds
A
A
LBIIB
13th century
A: Gate lintel, hinge; burned
B
A
II 111 IV
Persian
Notable Finds
(B.C.E.)
3rd-2nd century
A: "fortress"
5th century
A; Sidonian fortress
pre-5th century
A: Ramesses 11 gate; burned
V
A
LBIIA
14th century
A: silo; stone paving
VI
A
LBl
16th-15th cenEur>'
A: Egyptian kiln and ceramics; Bichrome ware; Y: küns
VII
A, B,Y
MBIIB-C
17th-16th century
Y: tombs, ovens
VIII
MB IIB?
unexcavated
Area J
Area C Stratigraphy Level
Period
Date (c.E.)
Level
Period
I
Byzantine
orh-/th cfnriir\'
1
Mt>dern
2
Byzantine
5th century
2
Roman
1st century c.t.
Roman/Byzantine
4th century
3
Rotiian
3rd century B.c.h.
4
Roman
3rd century
4
Persian
4th century B.C.E.
5
Roman
2nd centiir\'
5
IB
6
Roman
1st century
6
MB IIB
7
MBIIA
0 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAHOLOÜY 7Î: I (20!0)
Date
Although Kaplan dug at various locations in Jaffa, his main efforts were concentrated on three areas that were, as a result oi wars and riots, no longer covered by modern buildings. In Area A, located on the eastern part of the tell's summit, he exposed remains of the city's citadels and its gates, mainly dating to the Late Bronze A
3-D Scanning of Artifacts from Jaffa
In the fall of 2009, supported by a grant from the Faculty Senate of the University of California, Los Angeles, The Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project initiated a process of 3-D digitization of artifacts from Kaplan's excavations. While many 3-D scanners available on the market are complicated t(i use and expensive, for this project we employed a low-cost desktop scanner huilt by NextEngine® that operates with a reasonably priced desktop PC. The main goal of this project is As shown in the tables on page 6, Kaplan established a to increase the efficiency of data collection and dissemination stratigraphy for his main excavation areas and listed the local of artifact data by implementing a process of 3-D scanning that has the potential of extracting a number of data byproducts stratigraphy ot additional areas such as Area J. or derivatives with which high costs are often associated for He continued to dig in various areas until 1981 (for a list of excavation projects. his excavations, see Bar-Nathan 2002), assisted by his wife Haya Ritter-Kaplan, who was also an archaeologist. The Tel Aviv The most obvious byproduct is the actual 3-D model municipality's high regard for Kaplan's work and the archaeology of an object, which can be embedded and manipulated of Jaffa is indicated by the fact that he was provided with a facility within 3-D environments and, ultimately, displayed online. in Jaffa to serve as a laboratory and storage facility; since 1961, it Although widely acknowledged as the next generation of data has served as an archaeological museum. Here Kaplan established collection in archaeology, 3-D scanning has yet to be given an archaeological exhibit with numerous finds from his excavations real consideration by even well-established projects. It is not throughout greater Tel Aviv and Jaffa. These finds illustrate in difficult to see, however, that the collection of 3-D artifact data chronological t>rder the history of the region from late prehistory will be among the factors that distinguish "old" excavations thrtiugh the Byzantine period. Kaplan himself served as director of from "new," even more so than the years in which excavations I he museum, which belonged to the Eretz-Israel Museum, one of were conducted. The reason for this is simple: the collection of Tel Aviv's museums. 3-D data facilitates a process of repeated personal observation Despite the fact that Kaplan did not act on behalf of the IDAM, that, if properly implemented and made widely accessible, the body responsible for the implementation of the antiquities will extend the shelf life of excavated materials otherwise laws in Israel, it seems that his opinion was quite influential. He inaccessibly stuffed away in the howels of storerooms. While succeeded in entering a paragraph into the municipal regulations few projects may reach the point where it is possible to create tor development and ctmstruction work in the old city of Jaffa that 3-D environments in which these scanned artifacts can be prohibited any modern building activity in what was defined as an embedded or "re-situed," the useful life ot data stemming from the vast majority of projects will exponentially increase if it can "archaeological reserve," identified with the tell today. Jacob Kaplan, who passed away in 1989 (Anonymous 1990), be made available online. published a number of articles on specific archaeological and A second byproduct is also made possible by a 3D scanner: historical problems (e.g., Kaplan 1971; 1975) as well as general the illuscration of artifacts, particularly those requiring crossoverviews of Jaffa and Tel Aviv, of which Jaffa has heen a part section drawings, such as for ceramics. This is accomplished ^ince 1950. His publication oí The Archaeology and History of Tel by cutting through the scan of the object and digitizing its Aviv']uffa (Kaplan 1959; updated, summarized, and translated cross-section. Traditionally, this is undertaken by a professional into English in Kaplan 1972), illustrated to Tel Aviv residents in illustrator who makes choices about what constitutes a a semipopular manner that their city had a rich archaeological representative section through the vessel, while trying to [Xist. While other articles (e.g., Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993) adhere to the individual, often idiosyncratic, conventions of indicate his approach to publication, the crucial, comprehensive a given project's illustration needs. While the time and costs final report of his work has been, unfortunately, lacking and is thus associated with this process (otten requiring the redrawing of a main focus of The Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project. objects) vary from project to project, a cost can be ascribed to each object's illustration. In the end, projects usually opt for selective illustration, since it is often impossible to know in Martin Peilstöcker advance whether one or another or all of the exemplars of a Israel Antiquities Authority, Tel Aviv given type will be published in the final report. Because 3'D scanners now permit the capture of high
resolution, picture-quality data on top of the 3-D point data, a third byproduct emerges: artifact image capture, with the potential in some cases of replacing traditional photographs of artifacts. While no scanner currently available provides the type of images expected in published reports using traditional methods oí photography, due to lighting and the distortions inherent to the camera lens, the methodological and analytical value of rendering digital images from 3-D scans is clear. With 3-D scans, it is possible, for example, to extract color data from an image, which often distracts from observation of an artifact's shape. Illustrations are used largely with the hope of addressing this problem, but they are subject to artistic interpretation and require an enormous number of very precise measurements (made difficult by the size of objects) in order to be accurate. Unlike developing a traditional photo in black and white, the light source in a 3-D environment can be moved to achieve the optimal rendering of an object's surface. Anyone who has attempted to arrange optimal lighting conditions for photographing objects will appreciate this feature. In addition to the methodological value of implementing 3-D scanning of artifacts as a standard part ot the observation process, the financial savings are noteworthy, a fact of no small significance, considering the overall costs of archaeological research. Without calculating the precise dollar amount, one can appreciate the potential savings by considering a complete small ceramic bowl
(
.S N1-;.\R H A S l i i U N
•
•
like the Egyptian howls excavated by Kaplan. A 3-D scan of the bowl can be completed within two and a half htiurs, during which only half an hour of computer time is required of the "scanning engineer"; the remainder of the time is largely hands-off, as the scanner automates the 360-degree scans. With an additional hour of work, images (as screen captures) and a profile section of the object can be produced by exporting the 3'D data to other software packages. Thus, with approximately an hour and a halt of total work time, a complete or restored vessel can be rendered as a 3-D object, provided with a traditional profile drawing, and rendered from requisite angles. Best oí all, if the end product is found to be unsatisfactory (most likely the result of postscanning procedures), the artifact's derivatives can be rendered again even after the t)bject is no longer accessible. Although there is certainly a learning curve to the implementation of this process and perhaps a need to acquire additional software, the net value of this data-capture chain is the versatility of the data generated and confidence that an artifact's spatial dimensions have been captured as well as technology permits and, for all intents and purposes, at a level of detail that will be difficult to surpass. The average widescan setting achieves an accuracy of within .005 inch, and recent enhancements to the software permit even greater accuracy; scans can also be done in high definition and in macro, if necessary. As with all technologies, there are certain limitations to
3-D scanning of artifacts permits the retrieval of levels of data not permitted by conventional means such as photographs, which are limited by the control of lighting, and drawings, which are the visual interpretation of the artist. This is best illustrated with inscribed, especially incised, objects for which the control of the light source is vital to reading the inscription. With 3-D scans, a level of data that is often found missing after the fact is actually captured and can be studied further when the object has been stored away.
using a 3-D scanner. The size and weight of certain objects limit, of course, those that can be scanned. Although a cable extension permits scanning larger objects, because larger objects are further from the scanner, they will not be scanned at the same level of resolution. In this process and others, users will certainly face a learning curve when trying to decide how to scan certain objects. Bowls, for example, are not intuitively scanned sitting on their bases, since this complicates the attachment of scans of the hasc and interior to the tuU scan of the exterior wall of the howl, due to a lack of overlapping points between the separate scans. Additionally, tbe sloping walls of bowls mean that lighting across the exterior surface is uneven, with shadows around the sides farthest from the scanner, often leading to discoloration of the final fused scan. Instead, howls are best scanned like a radar disb, in two 360'degree rotations, providing the necessary overlapping scans while reducing the total number of scans needed. Still, users will learn that objects with sharp edges (e.g., thin bowls with flaring rims), where it is difficult to capture sufficient overlap between adjoining scans, may prove mtire time-consuming than the average vessel. Of course, the interior of closed vessels {e.g., jugs and jars) cannot be scanned and thus will not permit the creation of profile drawings from scanned data. For all tbe deficiencies that are certainly to be encountered during attempts to reconstruct the records of earlier excavations, like those of Jacob Kaplan, the
intensive collection of artifact data made possible with 3-D scanners encourages new avenues of research with such artifact collections. Consider, for example, an Egyptian inscription whose origin is likely Jaffa but that is as-ofyet unknown to the community of scholars interested in Egypt's LB presence in Canaan, This new technology will allow a firsthand opportunity to study the object and its inscription in a way not previously possible. By making it available in this manner, it ¡s hoped that further details ciïncerning the artitact's function and meaning in Late Bronze Age Canaan will come to light. As we continue to work through the publication of Kaplan's excavations to tbe fullest extent possible, we look forward to making this collection accessible to the public in ways not yet pursued by most excavations.
Aaron A. Burke University of California, Los Angeles
Figure 6. During the 1990s, Area C of Jacob Kaplan's excavations were incorporated within the subterranean Visitors' Center located in Qedumim Square adjacent to St. Peter's Church on the eastern side of the tell of Jaffa. Kaplan encountered considerable remains of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods during his soundings in the square. Recent renovations to the Visitors' Center permitted an opportunity to renew excavations within Area C and revisit Kaplan's stratigraphy. Photo by Sky View. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
In 2007, more than fifty years after the statt of Kaplan's excavations, Aaron Burke and Martin Peilstöcker, co-directors of the Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project, received permission from the Israel Antiquities Authority to publish the Bronze and Iron Age phases of Kaplan's excavations in Jaffa. The results of this publication project are in turn informing the research design of the renewed excavations. Excavations were also renewed at the site in 2008 within Kaplan's Area C (Hellenistic and Roman periods), culminating in 2009 with the exposure of impressive remains of a Hellenistic huilding preserved more than a story high (figs. 6, 7a-b). These excavations not only provide new insights into the history of the site during the Hellenistic and Roman periods hut also have contributed to our understanding of Kaplan's earlier excavations in this area.' Once conserved, the Area C architectural remains will he incorporated into the renovations of the Visitors' Center in Qedumim Square, which will also include an artifact display. Continued work on Kaplan's unpublished corpus has proved, above all, an irreplaceable
10 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010)
element for understanding Jaffa's archaeological sequence in advance of excavations by The Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project. One particular aspect illuminated by the unpublished records is Jaffa's central role in the Egyptian conquest and administration of Canaan during the Late Bronze Age; the records thus substantially expand and refine our understanding of the history and archaeology of this important port along the Canaanite coast during the late second millennium B.c.E. The archaeological evidence exposed by Jacob Kaplan for Egypt's imperial presence during the Late Bronze (LB) Age in Jaffa is little known beyond the fragments of the Egyptian gate. The bulk of the assemblage consists, however, of a large corpus of Egyptian ceramics dating from LB IB to the early Iron Age (ca. 1460-1150 B.C.E.), as well as considerable aegyptiaca (artifacts of Egyptian cultural provenience). As a whole, this collection points to a long-term (ca. 250 years) and effectively permanent Egyptian presence in Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age, which enables us to flesh out Jaffa's role during Egyptian domination of Canaan.
These items also allow us to address questions related to Egyptian settlement in Jaffa and the process of Egyptianization that has l>een the focus of many recent studies addressing Egypt in Canaan during the New Kingdom period. In this article, we review Jaffa's status during rhc Late Bronze Age and the light shed by our recent efforts to examine ceramics from Jaffa's earliest phase of Egyptian settlement, dated to the fifteenth century, as well as unique evidence for local production of Egyptian ceramics in Canaan during the early Late Bronze Age.
Jaffa in the Late Bronze Age Oitr knowledge ahout Jaffa d u r i n g the Late Bronze Age begins in the wake of the subjugation of the central coast of Canaan and the Galilee during the reign of Thutmose III (ca. 1482-1428 B.C.E.), around 1460 B.C.E.: Jaffa Is listed as site 62 on Tbutmose Ill's topographical list. Although historical sources do not clarify precisely when Jaffa was developed as an Egyptian fortress, it appears likely rhat this took place in the aftermath of Thutmose Ill's conquest, when the site would have been turned into what Ellen Morris has identitied as a /jtm-base fortress, a type of fortress intended to make preparations for and to supply Egyptian forces campaigning throughout Canaan (2005: 138-39 n. 90). Regardless of the terminology that might be used to identify Jaffa, subsequent sources from the Late Bronze Age reveal Jaffa's strategic importance to the Eg>ptians. The next reference to Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age is found in the Egyptian tale The Capture of Joppa, which is preserved in Papyrus Harris 500 (see Pritcbard 1969: 22-23) and is accepted as set in the reign of Thutmose III. Although the first part of tbe document is not preserved, it is generally inferred that the Canaanite inbahitants of Jaffa had managed to rebel against rheir Egyptian overlord, leaving the Egyptian garrison and its commander outside the city. By employing a ruse that evokes
Figures 7a-b. In 2008 and 2009, the Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project, under the co-direction of Aaron Burke and Martin Peilstöcker, resumed excavations in Jaffa's Visitors' Center in Qedumim Square {Kaplan's Area C). The excavations encountered extensive building remains of a Hellenistic building preserved up to the second story, which it was revealed underlay the entire eastern half of the excavation area dug by Jacob Kaplan in 1961 and 1965 and during the 1990s by Etty Brand. Although the building's identification remains ambiguous, a doorway has been identified in every wall of the structure, suggesting that it played a largely public function. Photos by Aaron A. Burke, i
the later tradition of the Trojan horse, tbe Egyptians loaded two hundred men into haskets, which were tben delivered by another five hundred soldiers into the city, where they were given entry, surprisingly, without question. Springing from the baskets, the Egyptians retook the city; there is no report of a fight. While it is reasonable to question tbe historical veracity of this literary tradition, if it preserves a historical memory—and there is reason to believe tbat it may, which we shall discuss below—tben as early as the reign of Thutmiise 111, Jaffa had become home to a strategically located Egyptian garrison whose presence was still
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:t (2010) 11
Areas B, D, and G: The Eastern Fortification Line of Jaffa Between 1958 and 1964, Jacob Kaplan opened three small excavation areas (B, D, and G) in the northeastern part of Jaffa's tell. The initial excavation in Area B was a salvage operation in which two glacis—one mudbrick and one stone—from the late eighth or early seventh centuries B.C.E. were discovered. Following these excavations. Area D was opened just west of and further up the eastern slope of the tell ftom Area B; lastly. Area G was opened south of Area D. Kaplan hoped not only to better articulate the Iron Age defenses of Jaffa but to delineate the nature of the earlier Bronze Age ones. All three excavation areas were limited in their exposure; Area B was the largest, at just over 100 square meters, while Areas D and G were smaller: trenches 20 x 2 meters wide. These areas were highly disturbed by later building activities. Area B was actually within the Turkish bathhouse, OY hammam (the current Hammam Restaurant), and was limited to the floor area of two rooms—what Kaplan called the "Large" and "Small" rooms. The Iron Age glacis were cut by the foundations of the hammam and partially removed in order to lay the drains and floors for the building. Outside of the hammam, the disturbances in Areas D and G occurred much earlier, in the Hellenistic or Roman period, when a large portion of the tell appears to have been removed or leveled. This t)peration
cut into the earlier Iron and Bronze Age layers, all of which were fills devoid of architecture. The Middle Bronze II through Iron IIA periods are represented only by scattered pottery sherds in these areas. Kaplan's contention that there were MB II ramparts has not heen substantiated by the finds, as only one Middle Bronze Age sherd, a Cypriot Red-on-Black body fragment, has been found in Area G. Despite this fact, superposition oí the layers suggests that some of the sloping fill layers into which Kaplan excavated (and which yielded no datable finds) may he Bronze Age in date, as they run below the Iron IIB/C glacis. Considering that the construction of earthen ramparts is unknown in the Late Bronze Age in the southern Levant, it would stand to reason that any earlier purposefully deposited fill layers date to the MB II; it is possible but less likely that they date to the Iron IIA. At the end of the Iron IIB or perhaps the beginning of the Iron l i e , a mudbrick glacis was constructed that was at least 10 in high and covered the northeastern side of the tell. Whether this mudbrick glacis was constructed around the entire tell is unclear, as the only glacis discovered further to the south, in Area A, was of crushed chalk and has yet to be dated. Based on the line of the glacis in Areas B and G, however, this chalk glacis is a good candidate for the southern continuation of the Iron Age defenses. Shortly after the construction of this mudhrick glacis, a fill of over 1.5 meters was deposited over the bricks, and a second glacis was constructed, this time of large stone slabs. The ceramics found within both glacis and the fill between them suggest that the glacis were constructed, at the earliest, at the end of the eighth centur>' B.C.E. or perhaps the beginning oí the seventh century. They presumably mark the eastern boundary oí the upper town ot Jaffa
ANCIENT JAFFA
n p T » > ' n ID 8-8
"irin
I
Original illustration of excavated section from Areas B and D in Kaplan's notes. Although greater certainty exists concerning the identification of the Iron Age glacis exposed within the hammam, Kaplan's assertion, despite a limited quantity of artifacts, is likely correct that the earthen fills to the west and outside of the hammam, which are seen to lie below the later Iron Age layers of the rampart, belong to a Middle Bronze Age rampart.
By overlaying Kaplan's excavation grid and the locations of his excavation areas, it is possible to determine the precise locations of his probes with respect to the built environment. This permits, in turn, the projection of the line of fortifications around Jaffa and an estimate of the location of these defenses.
Jaffa Kaplan Exea valions Arcas B iind D
in the late Iron Age, though Iron IIB-C sherds have been found iurrhcr east below the remains oí Ottoman Jaffa's lower town. The next period of habitation represented in Areas B, D, or G is ihe Late Hellenistic or Early Roman period. At some point during ihese two periods, it appears that a portion of the tell was removed or leveled off. A massive fill layer was identified in both Areas D and G th;K cut through all the earlier layers. This fill was, in turn, cut into at some point in the Roman period, and a large faniiiir (oven) was constructed. The quantity of ceramics found in and auiund this lunnur, which was almost entirely preserved, suggests that it was part of a ceramic production center.
Scattered remains from the Early Islamic and Crusader period occupations of Jaffa overlay the massive Hellenistic-Roman layers. While there are few identifiable architectural features from any of these periods in the areas, there is a wide collection of Frankish ceramics (including Port St. Symeon polychrome Sgraffito, ProtoMaiolica, Cypriot Monochrome Sgrafïito, and Zeuxippus wares).
Kyle H. Keimer University of Califomiat Los Angeles
NEAR HASIBRN ARCHAHOLOCiY 7 i : l (2010) 1Î
being contested by a Canaanite insurgency. In light of the role that the town played as a port and a garrison in the coastal plain, the need for Egyptian troops poised to queli occasional rebellions and prepare tbe way for campaigning pharaohs is obvious. As it concerns the remainder of the population of Jaffa, references to both the 'apiru (outlaws, mercenaries) and maryannu (chariot warriors of noble rank) in The Capture of Joppa may also suggest the presence of well-known Late Bronze Age social elements in and around Jaffa during the fifteenth century B.C.E. Tbe 'apiru, who are otherwise unattested in the region until the fourteenthcentury letters from Tell el-Amarna, are characterized as a threat, with the express concern that the 'apiru might steal the maryannu s horses, if they are left outside the city. After The Capture of Joppa, the next references to Jaffa, found in the Amarna letters (mid-fourteenth century B.C.E.), indicate that the strategic value of Jaffa (identified as Yapu) included its granaries. These pharaonic granaries, which are identified by the Egyptian word ^nwty, are described in this Akkadian correspondence as the "¡unuti of tbe king" (EA 294:20). This important function tor Jaffa within the Egyptian New Kingdom empire is also attested in correspondence from Apbek dated ca. 1230 B.C.E. (Singer 1983; Horowitz, Oshima, and Sanders 2006: 3 5 - 3 7 ) . Together these references invite consideration of the relationship between Aphek and Jaffa and the unique role that each of these sites played within Egyptian
Bichrome sherds, Cypriot Base-Ring I and monochrome wares, as well as a collection of complete Egyptian vessels (1960; 122). Our initial work reveals ample dating criteria derived from Egyptian ceramic forms as well as Cypriot ceramics that corroborate Kaplan's dates for Jaffa's occupational phases during the Late Bronze Age and shed new light on an intensive Egyptian presence at the site during this period. As a result of recent publications of Egyptian ceramics from sites such as BethShean, Aphek, Tel Mor, Asbkelon, Tel Dan, and Deir el-Balah, Jaffa's corpus from Strata VI to IV is notahly one of the earliest and long-lived Egyptian ceramic assemblages in Canaan, with a contemporaneous LB I assemblage identified solely at BethShean (MuUins 2007). Furthermore, the combined textual and archaeological evidence suggests that the one phase of Stratum VI includes a large and distinctive assemblage of Egyptian ceramics that can be dated quite precisely to the Late Bronze IB, namely, to the period of Jaffa's conversion to an Egyptian base in the wake of Thutmose Ill's first campaign of ca. 1460 B.C.E. New Kingdom Egyptian pottery (including so-called Egyptianized pottery) constitutes tbe largest element of the artifact corpus, revealing the extent of Egyptian influence and ptesence in Jaffa during tbe Late Bronze Age. The range of forms includes nearly all those attested at other sites in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age, as well as a number of unique forms. Tbe vessels include an array of bowl types and sizes, small and large jars, r storage jars, imported carinated jars, so-called "flowt-rpots," and an enigmatic ceramic form often identified as part of a cult stand. Due in large part, no doubt, to the location from which the Level VI assemblage was excavated, which may be characterized as a large-scale food production area, it includes no fine wares such as Cypriot or Mycenaean vessels and certainly no ritual vessels but rather a large collection of utilitarian vessels associated first and foremost with food production and consumption.
Egyptian construction in Canaan is often noted for its lack of stone foundations.
administration of the region, which is one focus of our project's ongoing research. In addition to these texts, the only additional reference to Jaffa with possible assignment to the Late Bronze Age comes from Gezer. Jaffa is mentioned in a fragmentary letter from Gezer that may date to tbe early Late Bronze Age (see Gezer 2 in Horowitz, Oshima, and Sandets 2006; 53-55).
The Egyptian Ceramic Corpus Jacob Kaplan assigned the Late Bronze Age strata in Area A from Strata VI to IV. The fragments of Ramesses IPs gate from Stratum IV belting, of course, to tbe thirteenth century B.C.E., and their context is clearly associated with the eastern gateway leading into Jaffa. Below this, Kaplan exposed remains of Stratum V, a phase of fourteenth-century occupation consisting of limited architectural remains and what Kaplan identified as a small silo. But an even earlier sequence of at least four phases, which were grouped together as Stratum VI, represent the LB I settlement of the sixteenth to fifteenth centuries B.C.E. These phases consist of buildings that, according to Kaplan, were constructed of mudbrick on stone foundations (Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993: 657). This suggests that Egyptians adopted Canaanite construction techniques, since Egyptian construction in Canaan is usually identified by its lack of stone foundations, as was typical of mudhrick architecture in Egypt. While Kaplan described httle about tbe nature of Stratum VI, he noted that the ceramic evidence included
M NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010)
Bowls The most frequently occurring Egyptian ceramic type in the LB assemblage at Jaffa, with approximately fifty intact or complete profiles attested, consists of bowls of shallow to medium depth with rounded or straight walls, a rounded or flat base, and a plain or everted rim (fig. 8). In Eg>'pt and Nubia, similar bowls form the main component ot almost every New Kingdom ceramic assemblage. Like Jaffa, otber sites in Canaan with Egyptian and Egyptian-style pottery groups are also inundated with the same type of bowl, which is the most commonly occurring form in every Egyptian-style corpus. The majority of these vessels derive from LB II and early Iron Age I contexts at a number of sites. Although the bowls are of a simple design that can make them difficult to distinguish from local Canaanite bowl types, the fabric, clay preparation, surface treatment, production techniques, decoration, and base type of such bowls are easily distinguished from Canaanite types. Base type is one of the most recognizable
MHA 1930
MHA2148
MHA 1925
MHA 2200
MHA 1924
MHA 1812
WHA1934
MHA 1926
MHA 2211
MHA 2206
characteristics of Canaanite and Egyptian bowls. Bases on Egyptian bowls are generally flat, round, or, rarely, a very low disk, all of which are in marked contrast to the elevated ring and developed disk bases typical of Canaanite assemblages. Nearly all of the Egyptian bowls discovered in Canaanite sites have a flat base, which is in distinct contrast to New Kingdom Egypt, where flat bases are clearly outnumbered by rounded bases. Preliminary analysis reveals that the percentage of bowls with flat versus rounded bases, as well as the diameters of the bases, corresponds to those of other Canaanite sites, including Beth-Shean, Aphek. Oeir el-Balah, Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, and Tel Mor. Egyptian bowls are also distinguished by their specialized production techniques, indicated by the presence of strong wheel marks in the form of concentric circles on the bases, which were made during a secondary trimming or when the vessel was string-cut from the wheel (Martin and Barako 2007; 142). Modifications in the orientation of the bowls' rims can be systematically tracked throughout the New Kingdom, and these are
Figure 8. Simple bowls constitute the main component of every Late Bronze Egyptian assemblage in Canaan. The same holds true for Jaffa, where at least fifty of these bowls were discovered in Area A. The corpus of simple bowls in Jaffa includes the full assortment of sizes, wall types, rim orientations, base styles, and decorative elements. These bowls range from shallow to medium in depth, have straight or rounded waits, plain, everted, or flanged rims, and flat, or more rarely, rounded bases. Decorative elements consist of a red strip of paint circling the rim, which is sometimes combined with red paint splatters across the body of the vessel. All these stylistic characteristics are used to date the vessels, and they run parallel to simple bowls in Egypt, where they also form the backbone of every New Kinçjdom ceramic corpus.
typically used to divide the vessels into two groups: plain-rimmed and everted-rim bowls. Rim orientation is indicative of the period of production: plain rims are common from the end of the Second Intermediate period (ca. 1640-1530 R.C.E.) to the be^-inning of the Twenty-First Dynasty {ca. 1069-945 B.C.t.), while everted rims do not become widespread until the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty (ca. 1530-1293 B.c.E.) in Egypt and Nubia and in the thirteenth century B.C.E. in Canaan, where that type is most common during the twelfth century B.C.E. Both styles are represented in the corpus of Egyptian bowls at Jaffa, although plain-rim Kiwis are more common. Although the majority of these vessels are undecorated, the decorative techniques used on about 10 percent of the bowls— red slip, red-painted rims, and stimetimes red splashes—provide additional chronological hallmarks. While red slip and red paint on the rims are long-standing traditions for Egyptian bowls during the Late Bronze Age, red-splash decoration, which consists of the intentional splatter of red paint across the interior and/or
exterior sides of the vessels, is distinctive and usually occurs in combination with a red-painted rim, the so-called "lipstick" decoration. The chronological range of bowls with this type of decoration is incredibly narrow, with all examples deriving from contexts in Egypt, Nubia, northern Sinai, and the Levant suggesting dates within tbe reign of Thutmose III, with a possible extension into the reign of Amunhotep 11 (ca. 1428-1402 B.C.E.) and
thus to tbe LB IB (Aston 2006). Such a date for this bowl type is corroborated in Jaffa by an assemblage of vessels whose contexts also suggest an LB IB date, as discussed below. Ovoid'Shaped Jars Slender ovtiid-shaped jars with rounded bases and slightly thickened, everted rims Figure 10. At least one example of a also occur in the assemblage (fig. 9). In Egypt, neckless storejar was found in an LB IB Nubia, and nortbern Sinai, this well-known context in Jaffa. The size and shape of type appears most frequently in contexts dating MHA 2298 neckless storage jars from the Levant recall to the Hyksos period and the Egyptian "meat jars," a common marl and Eighteenth Dynasty, although Figure 9. A particularly fine example, this slender mixed-clay vessel type of the New Kingdom a few examples dating to tbe ovoid jar originates from the 1958 excavations that first appeared in the late Eighteenth Nineteenth Dynasty (ca. 1293in Area A. Although it is a rather common shape Dynasty. Photo by Krystal V. Lords. 1176 B.C.E.) have been discovered. among Egyptian jars, this particular form and its In Canaan, the appearance of this characteristics range from the Hyksos period to vessel type during the early part of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Numerous fragments of form one of the charadditional restorable examples of this vessel have also the Late Bronze Age (LB I-IIA) acteristic Nile-silt types of been Identified. Photo by Krystal V. Lords. is within tbe same chronological the Ramesside period, where they borizon. Tbe special ovoid shape first appear in the early Nineteenth Dynasty and peak in popularity during tbe Twentieth Dynasty (ca. of this jar clearly identifies it as an Egyptian form, but evidence 1176-1069 B.C.E.). Neckless storage jars are also found in Canaan also appears in the presence of concentric circles surrounding tbe body. These markings are similar to those around the bases of in thirteenth- and twelfth-century B.C.E. contexts at Ashkelon, Beth-Shean, Deir el-Balab, Megiddo, Tel Mor, Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, tbe Eg>'ptian bowls described above and probably result from the and Tel Sera', corresponding to their Egyptian counterparts. same production technique: , secondary trimming or The earliest exemplar from Jaffa derives from a clear LB IB the vessel being string-cut context (fig. 10), discussed further below, making it tbe earliest from tbe wheel. known occurrence of this form in Canaan. It was probably accompanied by the pot stand found in the same locus. The Storage Jars other neckless storage jar also belongs to the Late Bronze Age A third ceramic form Egyptian assemblage (fig. 11); although its stratigraphie context appearing in the Egyptian is at present unclear, it is likely contemporary with the LB IB assemblage at Jaffa are assemblage. The size and shape of neckless storage jars from large neckless storage jars, the Levant recall the so-called Egyptian "meat jars," a common which are characterized marl- and mixed-clay vessel type of the New Kingdom that first by an ovoid to bag-shaped appeared in the late Eighteenth Dynasty. Although "meat jars" body, a rounded base, have never actually been discovered containing meat, several and a rolled rim (fig. 10). vessels of this type at Tell el-Amarna were clearly marked with Unfortunately, because of hieratic dockets stating tbat tbe contents were various forms of the considerable size of processed meats (Rose 2007: 130). Due to tbese jars' similarity these jars, few completely in size and shape to the "meat jars," Martin and Barako have Figure 11. Neckless storejars are a intact examples of this hypothesized that these vessels might actually be local imitations large category of storejar types, with type have survived anyot Egyptian "meat jars" rather than neckless storage jars (2007: probably as many different roles as where. In Egypt, these jars 143-45). Thanks to the LB IB stratigraphie context of the Jaffa there are variations. Photo by Krystal V. Lords.
lö NHARHA.S'lliRN Ak('HAKt)[.(^(;Y 7i:l
(2010)
examples, the connection between neckless storage jars and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian "meat jars" appears even more concrete. Nevertheless, Egyptian marl-clay types were generally not imitated in Canaan, and there is little doubt, based on its i^eneral shape, that these vessels are an Egyptian form. Carinated Jars There is at least one form within the Egyptian assemblage in Jaffa that was clearly imported. This group includes carinated ¡ars characterized by a squat, carinated body, a straight neck with a shelf rim, and a slightly convex, round, flat, disc, or ring base (ñg. 12). Despite the somewhat soft cadnation, this form of vessel is readily associated with the Egyptian family of carinated jars, especially those of the broad-necked variet>'. In Egypt, catinated jars are common in the Second Intermediate period and the liijjhteenth Dynasty; the form decreases in popularity after the reign of Thutmose III and completely disappears by the end of the dynasty. Egyptian and Nubian sites with carinated jars include Tell el-Amarna, Aniba, Buhen, Hiu, Tell el-Daba, Fadrus, Deir elMedina, and Toschke. Egyptian carinated jars also appear in the .Hiuthern Levant, where, according to Bietak, the Upper Egyptian lorm was not likely to appear earlier than the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, therefore providing an important correlation between the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the New Kingdom in Egypt (Mazar 2003: 328 n. 4). These impt)rted vessels have been discovered in LB IA to LB IIA contexts in Canaan at Tell el'Ajjul, Yoqne'am, Megiddo, BethShe a n, a n d Te 1 Dan. Chronological indicators for carinated jars include the relative height of the neck and the style of decoralion on the body. !n terms of relative height, the jars are separated into two lypes; short-necked ;md broad-necked. While short-necked carinated vessels occur from the Second Intermediate period to the early Eighteenth Dynasty, broad-necked carinated vessels appear only from the late Second
„^Ü^-Í.
„.^^^^^^
Intermediate period and are most common in the early to midEighteenth Dynasty, with an apex during the reigns of Hatshepsut (1482-1461 B.C.E.) to Thutmose III. The majority of Egyptian carinated vessels in the Levant are of the broad-necked variety. Carinated jars can also be stylistically dated according to the motifs of painted decoration that commonly encircle the vessels. Almost all of the jars are burnished and covered in a cream slip. The earliest carinated jars carry no other decoration than the slip and burnishing and appear during the Hyksos period up to the beginning of Eighteenth Dynasty, whereas the painted specimens are found in later contexts dating from the reign of Hatshepsut to the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Decorative motifs are usually painted in a dark red or brown color encircling the body and/or neck of the jar. The designs are typically geometric line patterns: horizontal stripes; bundles of vertical lines; crisscross designs; wavy Unes; and ladders. The carinated jars with vertical line bundles and crisscross ornamentation seem to he earlier than those with only horizontal bands, the latter usually being found in the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty during the reign of Thutmose III or later. A cream-colored slip and brown-painted decoration have been preserved on all three of the carinated jars from Jaffa, including one complete example of the broadnecked variety (fig. 12). The painted designs on Jaffa exemplars include crisscross patterns alternating with vertical line bundles. The complete vessel has five parallel vertical strokes followed by -
• —
Figure 12. In Egypt, carinated jars are common in the Second Intermediate period and the Eighteenth Dynasty; the form decreases in popularity after the reign of Thutmose III and completely disappears by the end of the dynasty. Their decorative motifs styiisticaliy date the imported carinated jars from Jaffa no later than the reign of Thutmose III. Photo by Krystal V. Lords.
three lines that cross over another three lines, forming an X. T h e s e two motifs a l t e r n a t e with one another around the body and hang down from one horizontal band that surrounds the neck of the vessel. The same pattern decorates the partial jar from Jaffa, but only four lines make up the vertical bundle and only two lines cross each other. The four body sherds that make up the remaining carinated jar from Jaffa illustrate the crisscross design, using three strokes as on the complete example. These specific decorative motifs stylistically date the imported carinated jars at Jaffa no later than the reign of Thutmose III.
'Tlowerpot" Vessels and "Funnels" Perhaps the most impressive collection of vessels within the LB IB Egyptian assemblage consists of twenty restorable vessels of the "flowerpot" variety (Burke and Mandell forthcoming). So named because of their distinctive shape (fig. 13), the average "flowerpot" in the Jaffa assemblage is bell-shaped, is pierced at the bottom with a flat base, and has a beveled rim (figs. 14a-c). The mouths of several are clearly lopsided, which demonstrates that they were hastily produced; haste is also evident in the characteristic finger impressions left on the sides of the base of each of the vessels, which resulted from the manner in which they were removed from the wheel. The holes through the vessel bottoms suggest that these vessels were designed to drain or strain their contents; this clearly did not include products requiring fine straining, since the holes are quite large, approximately 2 cm in diameter. The Jaffa "flowerpots" were recovered from a single locus that is interpreted as an open-pit firing associated with the Egyptian garrison kitchen. While this context does not entirely clarify the function of this vessel type, it does suggest an association with food production (see further below). Accompanying the twenty "flowerpots" were a number of other examples of a unique vessel type resembling funnels, although it is unclear if they were pierced all the way through (figs. 15, 16). Kaplan identified them as cult stands, but a closer examination of their cross-section reveals that they are not comparable to Canaanite cult stands in their production, and mtwhere is there clear evidence of Egyptian use of these items as stands.
Figure 13. Twenty "flowerpots" and a so-called "stand" were recovered from a single locus during the 1958 Jaffa excavations. This assemblage of nearly complete vessels suggests that they experienced little to no use, which is corroborated by the discovery of photos revealing their discovery within an open-firing pit. Photo by Aaron A. Burke.
Figures 14a-c. "Flowerpots," so-called because of their basic shape, are a distinctive Egyptian form that may have been related to beer and bread production. The type attested at Jaffa is of a design unique to the Eighteenth Dynasty. Each vessel features a beveled rim. pierced base, and finger impressions around the base created when the vessel was removed from the wheel. Photos by Krystal V. Lords.
UHA 22291
MHA2234
18 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAB0LÜtiY7í:l (2010)
Furthermore, for all of the pieces of these vessels recovered, no Oren (1987: 97-107). Rooms adjacent to the first kiln included part or vessel has been identified that would have functioned "large quantities ot industrial waste, as well as many fragments of as the bowl atop the stand. The two most complete examples pottery stands with a tall, trumpet-shaped foot, including unfired from Jaffa, the preserved porspecimens and chunks of unused tions of which are approxiclay land in] another room mately 30 cm in height, feanearby ... a group of especially ture thick walls and wete large flower p o t s " ( 1 0 2 ) . produced in an identical With regard to the repertory fashion and fabric as the of shapes produced by the "ñowerpots." They were Egyptian potters at A-345 {the also apparently hurriedly administrative center). Oren [hrowti on a wheel and finobserves that these included ished by hand through the "tall stands on a high, trumpetaddition of a spout. When shaped hase," which apparently they are placed in tbe same included "a small bowl on orientation as the "flowertop" (pi. I), as well as "flower pots," the upper portion or pots witb beavy, frequently howl of the vessel, includperforated bases bearing deep ing its body and rim, exhibit thumb i n d e n t a t i o n s . " T b e Figure 15. The type of vessel seen here, the shape of which resembles the same production charillustration reveals a perfect a trumpet, has been identified as a vessel "stand" by Eliezer Oren at acteristics as the body and match for the Jaffa assemblage Haruba in northern Sinai. In Canaan, this vessel type has been identified rim of the "flowerpots." even to the extent that at least only in Jaffa. Fired from the same fabric and in the same manner as the The only difference is three small Egyptian bowls were "flowerpots," they are hastily produced, clunky, and, due to the use of their size; the diameter of excavated near the Jaffa vessels. limited quantities of temper, quite fragile, despite having thick walls. the mouth of the restored Still, no parallels are yet attested Photo by Aaron A, Burke. example of the funnel is, for for Jaffa's funnel-shaped vessels instance, just over half tbe among Canaan's other Late size of the mouth diameter Bronze Age Egyptian sites. of the average flowerpot. The kiwest portions of both The Egyptian Ceramic exemplars have not been Corpus in Context preserved, having been broThe evidence ior the Egyptian ken off. ceramic corpus from Late Bronze While the vessel's Age Jaffa reveals the duration appearance is suggestive and intensive nature of the of a funnel of sorts, other Egyptian presence in Jaffa during fragments recovered from tbe New Kingdom, lasting from a locus adjacent to the the mid-fifteenth through the open-firing pit in which early twelfth century B.C.E. the "flowerpots" were While this is not surprising in tound suggest that the light of textual sources for this vessels were not pierced period, the context for many of Figure 16. A number of fragments of so-called "stands" have been through (fig. 16). While the exemplars within the corpus excavated from Jaffa. As indicated by the example on the left (and others it is uncertain how these described above sheds new not shown), the vessels are not pierced through and thus were not used vessels functioned, tbe light on the nature of Egypt's for straining or draining liquids. Still, their identification as stands is discovery in an open-firing earliest presence in Canaan. problematic, due to a lack of evidence for bowls or other receptacles that pit of a nearly complete Not only is it possible to identity' would have been placed atop these vessels. Photo by Aaron A. Burke. example with the twenty an assemblage oí vessels within "flowerpots" (fig. 13), which the Jaffa corpus dated to the LB features identical production characteristics, suggests that this IB, but their context also provides unequivocal evidence for vessel type was part of a single assemblage and, in our opinion, the local production of Egyptian ceramic forms using Egyptian functioned together with the so-called "flowerpots." Evidence techniques. The archaeological context in question, wbich was in support of this conclusion comes from the ceramic assemblage encountered in the southern end of Area A excavated during the associated with two potters' kilns from the administrative center 1958 season, consists of what we have identified as an Egyptian at Haruba in northern Sinai, which was excavated by Eliezer pottery-production and kitchen facility. Our identification is
ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010) 19
GIS and Jaffa^s Cultural Landscape The use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in archaeological investigations has become commonplace over the last fifteen years. No longer thought of as a "bandwagon" phenomenon, this powerful tool is used by archaeologists and cultural resource managers for both predictive and interpretive modehng, deemed "landscape-as-now" and "landscape-as-then" studies, respectively (Lock 2003: 164). This "then" attd "now" dichotomy also extends to the data used in GIS studies that combine excavated ancient features and artifacts with modern topographic, architectural, and civil information. Since its inception in 2007, the Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project (JCHP) has incorporated GIS into both its fieldwork and publication ctmiponents hy integrating data from older excavations by Jacob Kaplan and various historical maps with new data acquired from the Israel Antiquities Authtirity (IAA) and JCHP excavations into one geographical database, or geodatabase, that can be queried for a variety of analyses. Jaffa is one of the few sites on the Levantine coast with an almost continual occupation history from the Bronze Age through the modern era, with the result that little of the material culture and architecture has been preserved. The reuse of architectural materials, as well as construction projects that leveled previous buildings and layers to bedrock, such as those undertaken in the Persian and Hellenistic
periods, left few remains from the Bronze and Iron Ages in situ. Further, archaeological excavations have been limited to the area exposed by the Anchor Project conducted by the British in 1936 and salvage excavations in areas under development, such as streets, the city market, and potential building sites. Although excavations reveal a fragmentary picture of ancient and historical Jaffa below the modern street level, the layout and extent of the city as a whole can be proposed. GIS provides a digital environment to organize the various data from each period of Jaffa's history and presents windows into Jaffa's past expansion and contraction through the millennia of occupation. Before data relating to ancient or modern features could be integrated into the database, the project needed to assess the types of available spatial data that could provide useful information about Jaffa's extent, architecture, history, and various streets and paths within the city, as well as routes leading to other urban centers. Data for the JCHP geodatabase included aerial photographs taken since World War I, satellite imagery, a modern civil plan of Jaffa in computeraided drafting (CAD) format, and digital excavation data provided by the IAA. The 2009 JCHP excavations in the Visitors' Center at Qedumim Square utilized Total Station theodolite data combined with information from rectified photographs (i.e., photographs whose 3-D coordinates are used to orient the photo) and digital drawings of architectural features within the GIS software to produce new and accurate plans ot architecture exposed by Kaplan, Brand, and the JCHP (Burke and Peilstöcker 2009; in press). The bulk of the GIS data for Jaffa's urban plan since the
Area A constituted approximately 50 percent of the excavated area opened by Kaplan and contained nearly two-thirds of the site's finds. Efforts by the JCHP to locate each of the excavation areas and plot them accurately using GIS have revealed how these excavations capitalized on the abandonn^ent of Jaffa's tell along Operation Anchor, which was blasted through the site during the British Mandate in 1936. Produced by George A. Pierce
20 N t A R KASTERN A R C H A E O L O U Y 7 î : l (2010)
late eighteenth century consists of paper maps that have been oriented in the computer to their actual location, or georectified. The features of each historical map were traced digitally in GIS, then georectified based on the modern municipality layout of Tel Aviv-Yafo. Every attempt was made to align the historical maps according to landmarks and features common between each map and the modern civil layout of Jaffa. One of tbe most accurate nineteenth-century maps is a ground plan of Jaffa's fortifications prepared by British engineer Lt. Skyring in 1842 and published one year later. This map was also rectified using known points in the cityscape. It provides tbe identification of paths outside the ciry, such as a track that would later become Yefet Street (see below) and roads leading away from Jaffa to Acre, Ramla, Jerusalem, and Gaza. Another historical map, that was prepared by Jacotin for Napoleon in 1799, is inaccurate in terms of its city outline but still proves useful in illustrating the topography of Jaffa and its hinterland, including a swampy area to the south labeled "tlaque d'eau," which may have been the location of the ancient port (see Hanauer 1903). Kaplan's fieldwork was integrated with recent IAA excavations and historical maps by georectiiying his plans in GIS. Because Kaplan included known coordinate points on a pliin of the entire roll of Jaffa that included his excavation grid, digitally manipulating this map to real-world coordinates in the computer was straightforward. EoUowing this, the top plans of the excavated areas on the tell were aligned using the excavation grid of squares ( 5 x 5 m) drawn by Kaplan. The process of digitally tracing each feature on the top plans then began. Walls were traced stone for stone, while pits and floors were outlined. Heights recorded on tbe top plan were digitized as 3-D points, which enabled the numerous wails in the portion of Area A where the Egyptian vessels were discovered to be preliminarily phased according to height and relative position above or below other walls. Work is currently underway to represent the various architectural features with their respective heights in a 3-D environment much like the current GIS work being done at Tel Beth-Shemesh. As an illustration of combining "then" and "now" GIS data, an analysis integrating georectified historical maps, CAD plans of the modern city, and digitally recorded archaeological features was performed during the 2007 excavations ot the Ganor Compound on the south side of Yefet Street (Peilstöcker and Burke 2009). During the excavations, a question arose about the proximity of the Crusader-period architecture unearthed to the city's fortifications. To answer this question, project members examined the digital top plans ot Ganor in relation to the modern civil plan and the 1843 British map. The GIS indicated that a trackway along the southern boundary of the city ran along the outside of a ditch that, with the walls and faussebray, was part of tbe city's defenses. This path and ditch later became Yefet Street, as indicated by tbe modern city plans. If, as is likely, the location of the Ottoman walls roughly approximated
Building and road outlines supplied by the municipality of Tel Aviv-Yafo were overlaid on an 1842 British map by Skyring in order to determine how the features unearthed in the Ganor Compound excavations related to Jaffa's fortifications in the Ottoman period. This process revealed that the excavation area was indeed outside the line of the Ottoman defenses and that, as suspected, Yefet Street traces the line of the defensive ditch and adjacent
their earlier counterparts (and even reused elements from the earlier walls), then the Crusader fortifications were likely located on the northern side of Yefet Street, and the architecture exposed during the Ganor excavations lay outside the city walls. This strongly suggests that the city expanded beyond its fortifications during tbe Crusader period. Several advantages to the creation of the JCHP GIS geodatabase are evident based on tbe experiences of the 2007, 2008, and 2009 excavations and extensive work with Kaplan's data. The archaet)logical information represented on top plans will be preserved in a digital format available for future queries, both predictive and analytical. Overall plans for larger areas excavated by Kaplan, such as Area A, are possible by combining tbe top plans from the successive seasons on the site. Data from more recent excavations that already have a spatial reference can easily be incorporated into the geodatabase and permit more comprehensive analyses of Jaffa's past. Archaeologists may also use the results of this virtual mapping as a guideline in future excavations by indicating wbat periods or types of remains may be encountered during fieldwork. The ongoing creation of digital data, refinement of Jaffa's stratigraphy, and further integration of old and new excavations will surely provide more opportunities to combine "landscape-as-then" and "landscape-asnow" data, gain insight into Jaffa's cultural landscapes, and preserve and present that heritage to future generations.
George A. Pierce University of Califomiüj Los Angeles
N E A R E A S T E R N ARCHAFX")LOC¡Y 7 î:l (2010) 2 !
based upon the presence of an open-firing pit with vessels found in situ, ceramic wasters, a burnishing tool, a potter's wheel, and a large quantity of restorable vessels, including examples of each of the vessel types described above. Associated with this pottery-production complex, but not discussed with the Late Bronze Age Egyptian ceramic forms mentioned earlier, are a group of large straining bowls, most of
which are identified as wasters (figs. 17a-c), that is, ceramic forms discarded because they failed to produce the desired end product. Their intended form, as revealed by at least one undistorted example, is effectively the same as that of the smaller Egyptian bowls, only larger (ca. 30 cm in diameter) and pierced through the base prior to firing while the vessel was leather-hard. The coarse and gritty fabric of these bowls was poorly levigated and
T
Figures 17a-c. The restoration of more than four complete bowl wasters and fragments of a number of others aided in the recognition of the surrounding area, which included an open-firing pit with in situ vessels, as a pottery production facility associated with the kitchen complex. Despite the large quantity of vessels restored by the Jaffa Museum's staff, these wasters were conspicuously ignored. The bowls average 30 cm in diameter, and all feature holes punched through the bottom when the vessel was leatherhard, leading to their identification as sieving bowls. The unevenness of the temperatures in the pit firing led to considerable differentiation of color across many of the vessels. Photos by Aaron A. Burke.
II
NEAR EASTHRN ARCHAHOLOGY 7Î:1 (2010)
. / •
includes a considerable quantity of sand and limestone chunks (figs. 18a-b), indicating that the vessels were hastily produced. The wheel on which vessels within this facility were thrown was recovered durinj; excavation of the square (fig. 19), as was d burnishing sherd. That these and other pcirtions (including, strangely enough, entire halves and other large parts of a number of wasters) were found here suggests, of course, that ceramic
production took place nearby. The identification of an openfiring pit proves to be the final element needed to unequivocally demonstrate this fact. Due to the state of the records from Kaplan's excavations half a century ago and the limited information on excavation plans, which do not show every feature excavated, the existence and precise location of the open-firing pit mentioned above might very
V.
Figures 18a-b. Analysis of the sections of the bowl wasters reveals a hasty and poor selection of materials for use with these large straining bowls. Little chaff occurs, but great quantities of sand and chunks of limestone are found throughout, often having burst during the firing process. The firing appears to have been short but at a very high temperature, which may have contributed to the vessels' failures. Photo by Aaron A. Burke.
ill-RN ARCHAEOLOGY 73: t (2010) 23
Figure 19. This half of a potter's wheel was associated with several other elements indicating the existence of a ceramic workshop that was part of the Egyptian garrison kitchen complex. The intense compression of the halves of the wheel ground clay residues into the wheel's surface. Photo by Krystal V. Lords.
well have been permanently lost. Thankfully, however, photographs still exist showing a latge number of the so-called "flowerpots" within what appears to be an open-firing pit in an adjoining locus witbin the same excavation square (figs. 20, 21). One photograph shows a number ot ct)mplete "flowerpots" m situ that, although now broken, were stacked within the shallow pit and separated by what appear to be brick-shaped ceramic spacers. While twenty "flowerpots" and at least one "stand" were recovered from this locus (see above), none of the spacets pictured was retained. Nevertheless, this important evidence enables us to conclude that the area was clearly associated with Egyptian ceramic production and is thus a unique contribution to our knowledge of Egyptian New Kingdom settlement in Canaan «.luring the Late Bronze Age, since no comparable facility has
Figure 20. This photo of the openfiring pit during Kaplan's 1958 excavations reveals that the twenty "flowerpots" and one trumpetshaped "stand" recovered from the site were produced locally. This constitutes the first evidence for an Egyptian ceramic production area in Canaan during the New Kingdom and is the earliest evidence of such production, which occurred during the LB IB. Photo from Kaplan Archive. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority Photographic Archive.
24 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 7 i; I (2010)
MHA 2309
been recovered from excavations of any New Kingdom sites in Canaan. Further underscoring the significance of this discovery is the fact that Egyptian iconographie evidence for the production of "flowerpots" often associates the firing of "flííwerpots" with food production (Bourriau, Nicholson, and R(5se 2000: 136). The association between the firing of "flowerpots" and food
production finds support in the range of forms that have been recovered from the living surfaces around this open-firing pit, all of which relate to food production and its storage, two of the three main categories of Egyptian-style vessels in the Late Brtmze Age assemblage (Killebrew 2005: 68-77). This invites us to consider further the nature of food production in this area and the relationship of the various vessels to each other. In addition to ihe "flowerpots," which are associated either with bread or, more likely, beer production (or both; Burke and Mandell forthcoming), the appearance of the waster bowls with pierced bases indicates a substantial need for vessels used to strain foods or sieve liquids. Within the limits of the excavation, however, only one neckless storejat was recovered along with what was likely to have been the pot stand that supported it (fig. 22), suggesting that it is unlikely to have been associated with beer production, as was the probable Lise of the "flowerpots." Instead, the neckless jars, as indicated in Egypt, are sometimes associated with the storage of meat; since these jars were found as single exemplars, not occurring in ,L;roups, this seems as likely an explanation as any for their use in this area. Less ambiguous, perhaps, is the presence of several examples of carinated jars, the fabric of which suggests that they were imported from Egypt. Although the content of these jars in the Levant has yet to be investigated, residue analysis on Egyptian exports to Nubia show that the carinated jars held dom-fruits Lind honeycombs, both of which are integral in the production of Egyptian bread and beer (Holthoer 1977: 133). Because few of the small Egyptian bowls found in Area A, which are clearly associated with food consumption, were
uncovered during the 1958 excavations, the immediate context of the assemblage discussed above does not support its identification as a consumption area. Of all the vessels recovered from the area around the firing pit, the most difficult to explain are the so-called "stands," funneled in shape, which appear to be neither stands nor funnels. That these vessels lack a cultic function, despite previously suggested identifications, and are therefore not cult stands, is made clear by the complete absence of other cultic paraphernalia in this area and the absence of bowls (or other vessels) to sit atop the hase. Altogether, two nearly complete examples and fragments of no fewer than four other such vessels were recovered. Nothing, however, appears to explain their function alongside twenty beer jars of the "flowerpot" variety, six strainer bowls, a neckless storejar and stand, a small ovoid jar, and four examples of imported carinated jars. Despite the challenges associated with connecting the function of such a variety and quantity of vessels, all of which were found within 20 square meters, the sheer number of utilitarian vessels associated with this food production area are evocative of a substantial kitchen producing food for a large number of Egyptians, whom we may tentatively identify as the Egyptian garrison of the LB IB (ca. 1460 and 1400 B.C.K.). Thus we suggest that the earhest New Kingdom garrison kitchen was located on the leeward side of Jaffa, just inside the eastern gate, near the monumental gateway of Raniesses IL Because it appears that the kitchen and its firing pit were put out of use in a sudden event that caused the abandonment of vessels in the pit and a number of restorable examples to be found
Figure 21. A close-up photo of the Egyptian open-firing pit reveals the use of spacer bricks and other elements that separated the "flowerpots" when they were fired. The kiln's immediate proximity to a large collection of Egyptian ceramics of other forms, most of Vkfhich are thought to have been produced locally, suggests the direct association between the firing of the so-called "flowerpots" and food production. Photo from Kaplan Archive. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority Photographic Archive.
smashed on floors around the area, the circumstances associated with what we would identify as a destruction of Egyptian Jaffa during the LB IB merit comment. Despite royal monuments recording Eighteenth Dynasty conquests and the many later depictions ot Egyptians conquering towns in the Levant, which date largely to the LB IIB (thirteenth century B.C.E.), little is known of early Canaanite efforts to resist Egypt's conquests and maintenance of its empire (Burke 2009). The battle oí Megiddo between Thutmose III and a coalition of Canaanite kings appears
Figure 22. This pot stand, which belongs to the Egyptian LB IB assemblage from Jaffa, may have been used with the neckless storejar excavated from the same locus. Its cross-section reveals that it was made from both the same fabric and fired in a similar manner as the "flowerpots" and other locally produced Egyptian wares. Photo by Aaron A. Burke.
26 N E A R E A S T E R N A R C H A B O U X i Y 7 K Í (2010)
as but the largest single effort to resist Egypt at a rather early stage in tbe formation of its empire. Along with the evidence from the archaeological context of the LB IB Egyptian ceramic assemblage deriving from Jaffa's destruction and the tale of The Capture of Joppa, which relates a brief phase ot the Canaanite retaking oí Jaffa during the same period, Egyptian domination during the fifteenth centur>' R.C.H. can scarcely be portrayed as a fail accompli. If resistance persisted during Thutmose's reign and the reigns of his successors, we can only hope to learn about such events
from archaeological excavations, given the lack of historical documentation. Although no historical sources record the destruction of Jaffa while it was under Egyptian control, the well-known literary tale of The Capture of Joppa, the historicity of which has been debated, appears to illustrate the volatile circumstances surrounding Canaanite attempts to disrupt Egyptian rule during the fifteenth century.
Jaffa's Aegyptiaca Although the bulk of the evidence for Egyptian occupation of Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age consists of ceramics, a variety of New Kingdom Egyptian artifacts reveal that life in Jaffa was far from spartan for its Egyptian community. Ae^ptiaca include three scarabs and a faience lotus-style bowl (fig. 23), all dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty, and a fi-agment of an inscribed Ramessideperiod statue (fig. 24; see also pp. 7-9). Archaeological evidence oi possible relations between Egypt and Jaffa just prior to and during the Amarna period comes from the discovery of three scarabs of Amunhotep III (ca. 1392-1354 B.C.E.). Two of the scarabs, one with the king's prenomen (personal name) and the other commemorating a lion hunt of the king, come from a secondary-use context in the walls of the late Nineteenth Dynasty fortification in Area A (Sweeney 2003: 54). The third scarab, discovered in a small temple in the same area, was engraved with the name of Tiy, the great royal wife of Amunhotep III (Sweeney 2003: 59). Weinstein has suggested that commemorative scarabs were distributed as gifts to foreign rulers and Egyptian officials residing in the Levant at sites such as Jaffa (1998: 235).
the statue reliably date the piece to the Ramesside period. First, the clothing type, pose, and height of the hack pillar on the statue are typical of this era, and the beginning of the offering formula contains a dative n, which is first attested in the Ramesside period (Eranke 2003; 43). Based on the superior quality of the srone and inscription, we can safely conclude that the statue represents an Egyptian official who held a high-ranking position. Although it is probable that the statue was accidentally broken, the block as it now appears is probably the result of its reshaping for use as building material.
Another piece oí aegyptiaca consists of fragments of a small faience howl with a lotus-style decoration, also discovered in Area A (fig. 23). These shallow vessels, normally with a rounded base, are one of the most familiar vessel types of New Kingdom Egypt, with a peak in popularity during the reign of Thutmose III. The method of manufacture tor these bowls was relatively simple: a sheet of self-glazFigure 23. A faience lotus-style bowl of the Eighteenth Dynasty was found during the 1958 season. This style of bowl reached its peak in ing faience paste was laid over a hemipopularity during the reign of Thutmose Ml, to whom is attributed the spherical form, cut to shape, then fired initial Egyptian conquest of Jaffa. Although the use of these bowls (Nicholson and Peltenburg 2000: 182). remains uncertain, their decorative motifs, as with the Jaffa example, A design was then added in black paint often include marsh plants, animals, and fish, but most frequently the (usually manganese), often consisting of lotus-bud motif. Photo by Krystal V. Lords. marsh plants, animals, and fish, with the most frequently occurring motif heing the lotus bud, like those found decorating the example from Jaffa. Conclusion The precise use of faience lotus bowls remains uncertain; a purely The new findings from our efforts to publish Jacob Kaplan's domestic use has heen suggested, but since they are attested excavations in Jaffa, particularly with regard to locally produced mostly in temples and tombs in Egypt, others believe that faience Egyptian ceramics and the collection oí aegyptiaca, suggest a clear bowls were used to present votive offerings (Pinch 1993; 280). association with an Egyptian population, with limited evidence Another Egyptian object discovered at Jaffa is an inscribed tor Jaffa's Canaanite inhabitants. It is so clear, in fact, that we quartzite statue fragment (fig. 24)- The statue is of a man wearing suggest that using terms such as Egyptian and Egyptianizt^d, as is a tunic tied at the neck, with his left arm raised to his chest. A often done, in an attempt to qualify the uncertainty regarding the back pillar is positioned directly behind the man, ending just ethnic affiliations of those for whom such artifacts were produced below where the head would be situated; it is inscrihed with only obfuscates the apparent cultural and ethnic association that the typical Egyptian hip dj nswt, or offering formula. The exact existed between this assemblage, those who produced it, and the context of the statue has heen lost, but certain characteristics of
ERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010) 27
1
population for which it was intended. That Canaanites may or may not have been involved in the production of such vessels for Egyptians in Jaffa—and we see no clear evidence to associate the production of these vessels hy Canaanites for Canaanites at any site—is effectively irrelevant, especially in light of the clear association of such vessels with sites connected with Egyptian administration and military presence in Canaan, as in Egypt. The assemblage oi so-called Egyptianizing artifacts is not evenly distributed across sites in Canaan; it occurs essentially exclusively at sites in the coastal plain and along the major highway and its secondary corridors. Even if one could prove that Canaanites played a role in the production oí Egyptian-style artifacts, their role is unlikely to have been any different from that of Asiatics in Eg>'pt, who fulfilled a number of positions in Egyptian society. That these terms continue to play a role in the discussion of Egyptian ceramic forms in Canaan is, however, solely an effort to hedge bets against the remote possibility that Canaanites emulated Egyptian elites in their desire to associate themselves with Egyptian power, which would thus explain the quantity of aegyptiaca and Egyptian ceramic forms found at sites in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age (as asserted by Higginhotham 2000). As others have concluded, the evidence to date does not support this hypothesis (Hasel 1998: 116-17;Morris 2005: 9-17; Killebrew 2005: 54; Martin and Barako 2007: 152-53), and the evidence
20 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73; I (2010)
Figure 24. A fragment of a Ramesside Egyptian statue, made of imported quartzite and inscribed with a htp dj nswt formula, was identified in the Jaffa Museum storerooms. It was accessioned by museum staff as an artifact that had lost its provenance, but its relationship to Jaffa is suggested by the date of its discovery, which was during the spring of 1975, after the last season of excavation in Jaffa. We conclude that this object's provenance is likely Jaffa and that it was reused as a building stone and fell from an excavated section after the winter rain. Photo by Krystal V. Lords.
from Jaffa, a first-tier Egyptian administrative center and garrison, only further undermines any attempt to separate Egyptians from distinctive elements of Egyptian material culture, even when those items are produced locally. For this reason, terms such as Egyptianizing and Egyptianized should be abandoned in favor of the straightforward identification of Egyptian ceramic forms as either locally produced, imported, or imitated, as is regularly done with Cypriot and Mycenaean forms that also occur in the Late Bronze Age assemblages of Canaan. Jaffa's population during the Late Bronze Age was undoubtedly cosmopolitan, as might he expected for a major Egyptian fortress, frequented by ships bearing emissaries from lands ringing the eastern Mediterranean, and housing a Canaanite population who likely provided for many of the basic needs of the Egyptian garrison.
Acknowledgements '1 he work tor this article was supported by a grant from the Shelby White-Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, the International Institute at tbe University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as the W. E Albright Institute for Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, where Aaron Burke was the Annual Professor in the fall of 2009. Lords's contribution to this work was supported by a Craduate Summer Research Mentorship from UCLA in 2009. The authors would like to thank the staff of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who made access to the materials ptissible, including Arieh Rochman-Halperin and Sylvia Krapiwko of the Rockefeller Museum archives, as well as Yael Barshak in the photographic archives. Additionally, we would like to thank Naama Meirovitz of the Old Jaffa Development Company for providing access to the materials at the Jaffa Museum of Antiquities and Orit Tsuf for her guidance in early stages of our orientation to the Kaplan collection.
Hasel, M. G. 1998. Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern Levant, ca. 13OO~1185 B.C. Probleme der Ägyptologie 10, Leiden: Brill. Higginbotham, C. R. 2000. Egyptianization and Hüte Emulation in Ramesside Palestine: Governance and AcconimodatJmi on the Imperial Periphery. Culture and History of the Ancient Near Ease 2. Leiden: Brill. Holthoer, R. 1977. New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites: The Pottery. With a contribution by H.-A. Nordstrom. The Scandinavian Joint Expedición to Sudanese Nubia 5:1. Stockholm: Scandinavian University Btmks. Horowitz, W, T. Oshima, and S. L. Sanders. 2006. Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the hand of Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Isserlin, B. S. J. 1950. Some Archaeological News from Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 82: 92-101. Kaplan, J. 1953. Archaeological Survey on [he Left Bank of the Yarkon River IHebrew]. Eretz-hrael 2: 157-60. . 1959. Tilt: Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa [HebrewL Tel Aviv: Masada. . 1960. Notes and News: Jaffa. Isrtiei Exploration Joumiil 10: 121-22. . 1971. The Yannai Lino. Pp. 201-5 in Roman Frontier Studies 1967:
Note
Proceedings of the 7th Iniernaiional Congress Held at Tet Aviv, ed. S.
I. Etforts CO publish Kaplan's excavations in Jaffa, notably the tiiids belonging from the Persian to Byzantine periods, are underway by Orit Tsuf, who is also funded by the White-Levy Program for Arcbacological Publications. Islamic iii;ucrials will be published by Katherine Strange Burke.
Applebaum. Tel Aviv: Students' Organization of Tel Aviv University. . 1972. The Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Biblical Archaeoh^st 35: 66-95. —
References Anonymous. 1990. Noces and News: Obituary for Jacob Kaplan, ¡srael
Exphrmion Journal 40: 228. Aston, D. A. 2006. Making a Splash: Cetamic Decoration in che Reigns of Thutmosis III and Amenophis ¡I. Pp. 65-74 in vol. 1 of Tmit;imes: .Stiitliiis in Honour of Manfred Bietak, ed. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab. Oriencalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149. Leuven: Peeters. B:ir-Nnthan, R. 2002. The Jacob Kaplan and Haya Ritcer-Kaplan Legacy. hladashoi Arkheubgiyoi 114: 104*-9*. Bourriau, J. D., P T. Nicholson, and P J. Rose. 2000. Pottery. Pp. 121-47 in Ancient Egyptian Maieriah and Technology, ed. P T. Nicholson and I. Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University' Press. Bowman, J., B. S. J. Isserlin, and K. R. Rowe. 1955. The University of Leeds, Department of Semirics Archaeological Expedition Co Jaffa 1952. Proceedings o/i/ie Leeds Philosophical Society 7: 231-50. Burke, A. A. 2009. More Light on Old Reliefs: New Kingdom Egyptian Siege Tactics and Asiatic Resistance. Pp. 57-68 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lau-rence E. Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Burke, A. A., and A. R. Mandell. Forthcoming. Egyptian "Flowerpots" from Kaplan's Area A Excavations: Cultural and Historical Implications in Sttííií'es on the History and Archaeology of Jaffa I, ed. M. Peilstöcker and A. A. Burke. The Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project 1; Monumenca Archaeologica. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Burke, A. A., and M. Peilscocker 2009. Notes and News: The Jaffa Visitors' Centre, 2008. Israel Expkmuion Jounuil 59: 220-27. Franke, D. 2003. The Middle Kingdom Offering Formulas: A Challenge. journal of Egyptian Archaeology 89: 39-57. Hanauer, J. E. 1903. The Traditional "Harbour of Solomon" at Jaffa. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 355-56.
. 1975. Further Aspects of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 91:II Fortifications 1-17.
Kaplan, J,, and H. Ritter-Kaplan. 1993. Jaffa. Pp. 655-59 in vol, 2 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeoh)^cal Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stem. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta; New York: Simon & Schuster. Killebrew, A. E. 2005. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Arc/iaeologicaí Study of Egyptians, Cunuiinites, P/iilistines, and Early Israel 1300-1 iOO B.C.E. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies 9. Aclama: Society of Biblical Literature, Lock, G. R. 2003. L'sing Computers in Archaeology: Towards V'irliííií Pasts. London: Routledge. Martin, M. A. S., and T. J. Barako. 2007. Egyptian and Egyptianiecd Pottery. Pp. 129-65 in Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959-1960, ed. T J. Barako. IAA Reports 32. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Auchority. Mazar, A. 2003. Beth Shean in the Second Millennium B.C.E, : From Canaanite Town to Egyptian Stronghold. Pp. 323-40 in The Sync/ironisation of Civilisations in the Eastern .Mediterranean in tiie Secojid Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000-EwroCon/erence, Haindorf, 2nd of May-7th of May 2001, ed. M, Bietak. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4; Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Morris, E. F. 2005. The Architt'ctwre o/Jmperiiiüsm; Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt's New Kingdom. Probleme der Ägyptologie 22. Leiden: Brill. Miillins, R. A. 2007. The Late Bronze Age Potter\. Pp. 390-547 in Excavatiom atTelBeth'Shean 1989-1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, ed. A. Mazar and R. A. Mullins. Bech-Shean Valley Archaeologica! Project Z. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Nicholson, P T., and E. J. Pelcenburg. 2000. Egyptian Faience. Pp. 177-94 in Ancient Eg;yfJtÍ£in Müteriíjís and ^èchl^olog^', cd. P T Nicholson and I. Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University' Press. Oren, E. D. 1987. The "Ways of Horus" in North Sinai. Pp. 69-119 in Egypt,
¡\ (2010) 29
Israel, Sinai: Arcliacological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period, ed. A. F Rainey. Tei Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Pritchard. J. B., ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. .3rd ed. with suppl. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Peilstöcker, M., and A. A. Burke. 2009. Yafo, Ganor Compound: Preliminary Report. Hadashol Arkheolo^yol 121. Online; hrtp://www.hadashüC-esi. org.U/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1049&mag_id = 115. Accessed on
Rose, F J. 2007. The Eighteent/i Dynasty Pottery Corpus from Amarmi. Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 83. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Singer, 1. 1983. Takuhlinu and Haya: Two Governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10: 3-25. Sweeney, D. 2003. A Lion-Hunt Scarab and Other Egyptian Objects from the Late Bronze Fortress at Jaffa. Tel Aviv 30: 54-65. Weinstein, J. M. 1998. Egypt and the Levant iti the Reign of Amenhotcp
February' 16, 2010. . Forthcoming. Preliminary Report for the 2007 Ganor Compound Excavations. In Studies on the History and Archaeology of Jaffa J, ed. M. Peilstöcker and A. A. Burke. The Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project 1; Monumenta Archaeotogica, Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Pinch, G. 1993. Votive Offerings to Hathor. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Ashmolean Museum.
III. Pp. 223-36 in Amenhotep HI: Perspectives on His Reign, ed. D. B. O'Cotmor and E. H, Cline. Ann Arhor: University of Michigan Press.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Aardn A. Burke is proiessor üt Near Eastern Archaeokigy in the Near Eastern Languages and Cultures Department at the University of California, Los Angeles. He earned his Ph.D. from The University' of Chicago in 2004, writing on fortifications and defensive strategies in the Levant during the Middle Briinze Age. Since 2007 he co-directs excavations and research ofThe Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project in Jaffa, Israel. His recent research addresses Late Bronze Age Jaffa through the study of Jacob Kaplan's unpublished excavation records and renewed excavations in Jaffa.
Krystal V. Lords is a Ph.D. candidate in tbe Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at UCLA. She earned a B.A. and M.A. in Egyptology from UC Berkeley and is currently an Editorial Assistant for the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology'. Her research interests include social and cultural identity, ceramic analysis, and interactions between Egypt and the Levant during the New Kingdom. She has surveyed and excavated at several sites in Egypt and Israel.
30 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2OiO)
m\m\
IIMII
Trends, Tools, Techniques, and
Jordan's Stonehenge: The Endangered Chalcolithic/ Early Bronze Age Site at al'Murayghat-Hajr al-Mansûb Stephen H. Savage
Following reports from these early travelers, especially Irby and Mangles (1817-1818) and Conder (1881), archaeologists have continued to examine many of these structures. Recent discussions include Dubis and Savage 2001; Herr 2002; Han 2002; Kafafi and Scheltema 2005; Mortensen and Thuesen 1998; and Palumbo 1998. Many dolmen fields have been mapped, and a few individual dolmens have been excavated. The function of dolmens is still a matter of discussion among archaeologists. Later in this issue ofNEA, Al-Shorman notes that dolmens are thought of as being "habitations, altars, or offering places..., winter camps for transhumant groups..., places for exploiting varied environmental zones..., or tombs" (2010, 46-47).
Introduction
New methods of archaeological analysis have been used to study the relationship between dolmens and their natural settinj^s, in rchaeologists define a "ceremonial landscape" as a group of hopes of helping to determine how these enigmatic structures stone and/or earthworks ccmstructed on a scale large enough functioned. Al-Shorman's spatial analysis of dolmen sites in Jordan to effectively create a landscape. Perhaps the best knoum indicates that they share some common traits: hillside terrace example is Stonehenge, with its great circle of standing stones sur- locations where large megalithic stones are readily available. rounded by earthworks. A ceremonial landscape effectively creates Enough dolmens contained skeletal remains to suggest to Prag that views from specific places toward other places that are considered "the dolmens of Jordan ... are the normal form for disposal of the to be important due to their natural location or associations with dead of a large part of the population over a long period" (1995, ritual activities, such as mortuary or sacrificial rites or astronomi- 83). However, Al-Shorman's study casts some doubt on Prag's cal functions. The ceremonial landscape of Chalcolithic and Early general conclusion, on the basis of the low number of Early Bronze Bro7\ze Age Jordan (table 1) is unique in the Near East, although I habitation sites (fifty-one in the Jordan Archaeological Database it bears a striking resemblance to tlrnt of Western Europe and the and Information System IJADIS)]) compared to dolmens (about twenty thousand). Al-Shorman suggests that a population of British Isles during a similar period. Perhaps, for that reason, early this size is beyond the carrying capacity of the region in the Early travelers to Jordan were impressed by the thousands of dolmens Bronze Age. However, twenty thousand dolmens built over a (prehistoric monuments of two or more upright stones supporting a period of four hundred years means only fifty a year, which does horizontal stone slab, which may have functioned as tombs or sites not seem to require a large population. Moreover, the JADIS of primary iruerment prior to secondary burial elsewhere), menhirs database underrepresents the number of habitation sites from the (standing stones), stone circles, and alignments. Early Bronze I period. Many sites are simply labeled Early Bronze Age on account of the difficulty of determining specific subperiods based on ceramic evidence, since diagnostic sherds from the Early Table 1. Approximate Chronology of the Chalcolithic Bronze I period were either not found or not recognized. There are Period and Early Bronze Age in Jordan many more sites in the later Early Bronze Age subperiods, so it is possible that the landscape could have supported a larger number Archaeological Period Duration (years B.C.E.) of people. It is also possible that dolmens were used as temporary burial places. The large, charnel house burial places at Bab edhharly Bronze IV 2300-2000 Dhra (Schaub and Rast 1989) contain many secondary burials: interments where the body is first buried elsewhere, with the bones Early Bronze III 2700-2300 being bundled together and placed in a secondary location for Early Bronze II permanent burial 3000-2700
A
Early Bronze I
3600-3000
Chalcolithic
4500-3600
Al-Shorman further notes that some of the other possible interpretations of dolmens may not be testable due to the lack of data and that further survey and excavation are needed. Thus, it is especially troubling that archaeologists are now faced with the rapid destruction of Jordan's megalithic heritage. Kafafi and • .>-r
Î2 NEAREASÏERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010)
'fik..^
Ifpll
Theories in Archaeology Today Scheltema have lamented that, "Whereas nineteenth-century visitors spoke about thousands of dolmens, suggesting that modernday Jordan was at that time still the most densely dolmen-covered part of the Mediterranean, considerably less than a thousand in all seem to remain fairly intact nowadays" (2005, 8). Rapid population expansion following the first and second Iraq wars have spurred an unprecedented pace of urban and infrastructure development in Jordan. Dolmen fields are under attack directly by urban expansion, as well as by stone and gravel quarries. Examples include the Damiyah dolmen field, which is currently endangered by a travertine quarry (Gerit van der Kooij, personal communication; Scheltema 2008, 115), Rawdah, Adehmeh and the dolmen field at al-Murayghât {Scheltema 2008, 115; Dubis and Savage 2001; Savage and Rollefson 2001). Dolmens that had stood in Tila' al-'Ali, in western Amman, along Sharra Street, have very recently been removed for construction of a multistory commercial and residential building.
two concentric circles of fallen menhirs are within line of sight of almost all the extant dolmens at the site. The larger site is spread across an area containing agricultural fields, which indicates some soil depth. Other, unplanted areas near the road from Ma'in reveal approximately 1.5 m of gray, midden-like soil containing numerous artifacts. The site is located partly within a large gravel quarry whose excavation is currently destroying the hills upon which the dolmen field is located and northeast of a more recent gravel quarry that threatens to expand into the western edge of the site. Ceramic evidence demonstrates that al-Murayghât was occupied during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, though there are indications that it was used over a much longer period of time. An Epipaleolithic component in the stone tools (Savage and Rollefson 2001) indicates when the site was first used; the dominant ceramic forms are from the EB I. Other researchers have indicated that a Chalcolithic component and possibly an EB III/IV component are present as well, although a surface collection I conducted in 2000 did not identify ceramics from these periods. A small Roman/Byzantine component is also present. The site is currently cultivated, and, in summer months, it is occupied by migratory pastoralists. It is therefore subject to damage from agriculture, erosion, vandalism, and, especially, by the expansion of gravel quarries located to the southwest and northeast of the site. This article will describe the discovery of the site, its configuration and artifact assemblage, and discuss the impact on the site of ongoing grave! quarrying in the vicinity.
This article focuses on the site of al-Murayghât (a.k.a. el-Megheirat, el-Mareighât, Mugheirat), which has been called "Jordan's Stonehenge" {Harrison, personal communication) because of the striking character of its dolmen field and configuration of menhirs and megalithic structures. Although unique, the site is currently in imminent danger of complete destruction from rapidly expanding gravel quarries. Al-Murayghât is a large site southwest of Ma'in consisting of a series of circles and rectangles of standing stones {menhirs) with cobblestone floors, an expansive menhir and dolmen field that extends over 80 ha (ca. 198 acres), and a sherdAithic scatter Early Reports from al-Murayghât that stretches across approximately 25 ha {ca. 62 acres; fig. 1). The first description of al-Murayghât comes from Charles Irby The dolmen field is concentrated mostly on hills to the west of and James Mangles, two commanders in the British Royal Navy the central knoll, but there are also dolmens on the hills to the who, in 1817 and 1818, were the first Westerners to openly visit south and north. The ceremonial center of the site occupies a the interior of the Levant since the Crusader period. Eollowing low denuded hill with very little soil between bedrock terraces; Nelson's defeat of Napoleon's naval forces at the Battle of the Nile (1798) and William Sidney Smith's successful defense of Acco in 1799, the Royal Navy had acquired such a level of prestige with the O t t o m a n Empire that Irby and Mangles were able to secure permission to tour the region. Like many Royal Navy officers of the time, they probably went to sea in
Al-Murayghat and the Hajr al-Mansub OuickBird image draped over ASTER 30m OEM inciuaes copyngrited matenai ol DigitalGioDe inc . Ai< Rights Reserved.
1 h n fH Uortt QÍ iiTirtur
Figure 1. Three-dimensional view of the al-Murayghât region showing distribution of dolmen field and active gravel quarries near the site.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010) 33
(Pill (PI their early teens, if not before, following a brief general education (see O'Brian 1995). Once at sea, as "young gentlemen," they were expertly trained in a specific set oí skills, including gunnery, ship handling, command, and celestial navigation. They learned to write good, detailed reports. Their ideas about ancient history, however, were infonned by the Old Testament, based on Ussher's six-thousand-year cbronology; their cultural outlook was framed by late Georgian and pre-Victorian mores and the indisputable supremacy of the Royal Navy. Although they had the permission of high Ottoman officials to travel in the region, the trip was full of incidents—as Irby and Mangles moved further into the interior, the fractious tribes paid less attention to Ottoman authorities. It was a dangerous journey, the adventure of a lifetime. Their report, published in a series of extended "letters," remains a fascinating read. On June 9, 1818, Irhy and Mangles crossed the Wadi Wala, moving northward, and noted the standing stones there. They camped that night near Ma'in and rode down toward the hot springs the following morning:
Pill lead to the ascertaining of the form of some of the weapons and warlike apparel mentioned in Scripture. It is worth noticing, that however remote may he the period to which these sepulchers are to be referred, the stature of those contained in them, is so far from gigantic, that it seems to have amounted to no more than the middle size of modern times. Not only this rocky eminence, upon which we first observed them, is covered over on all sides with these barbarous structures, hut some few are scattered in the fields upon a lower level, and a great many upon the sides of the surrounding hills, insomuch that not less than fifty were in sight at one time. (Irby and Mangles 1985,465-66)
Irby and Mangles apparently did not stop long at the site, and they did not record its name. Nevertheless, they observed several salient features about it that make it clear that it was al-Murayghât. First, they recognized the isolated menhir to the east of the site as marking its We engaged a guide from our tents, boundary. It is a famous stone named by the who undertook to carry us to the ' .., the Mareighât group local tribes and marked with tribal glyphs, sources of hot-water; our route was but that information was not recorded for is perhaps the most S. W.; in less than half an hour we another sixty-three years. They recorded reached another tall stone, set up extraordinary and the presence of many dolmens arranged apparently as a boundary mark, like on the hills surrounding a central hillock, suggestive monument yet those in the Wady-eï-Wale [Wadi although they did not seem to bave gone up Wala]. The direct track is continued described in Moab* onto it but traveled around it on the north from this first, round the southern side instead of taking the established track on side of a rocky knoll rising to some the south. Instead, attracted by the dolmens, they followed the narrow, dry watercourse that separates height, and in a great measure detached the central knoll of al-Murayghât from the taller hills where from the surrounding hills. Some remarkable most of the dolmens are located (this path can still be traced objects, of which we got a glimpse, induced us to pass today; fig. 1 clearly shows the road to the south of the central round on the other side of this knoll; they are rude knoll and the path Irby and Mangles took to the north of it). Their sepulchral monuments of the same nature with those ideas about the dolmens were quite speculative, including that we discovered on our road from Szalt [Salt] to the they contained burials under flat stones laid at the bottom. Our Jordan on our last tour; yet, as the former are rude 2000 and 2001 investigations (see further below) showed that throughout, without any mark whatever of the tool the dolmens rest primarily on bedrock. Irby and Mangles did not about them, whereas the others have universally a mention the structures on the central knoll. door in one of the smaller ends, it is possible that Claude Reignier Conder recorded a more extensive description they may date from a remoter period, or have of the site in 1881. Conder was a major (later colonel) in the belonged to a still ruder people. Their proportions British Army attached to the Survey of Western Palestine on vary considerably, as does their aspect, though the behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund. He was a keen observer, construction is uniform; one flat stone is laid in at the a skilled surveyor, and an artist; he spoke Arabic and wrote bottom, and this there can be little doubt covers the extensively on the archaeological sites of the southern Levant. He recorded the name of the site as "El Mareighât ... 'the things grave of the deceased; and, as there is no appearance smeared,' with oil, or blood, or other thick liquid" (Conder 1889, of the tombs ever having heen violated, it probably 184), which he connected to an ancient practice of anointing or protects them to this day. They would be a highly smearing menhirs, either with blood or with oil, the former being interesting object for excavation, as it might possibly a ceremonial custom of the pre-lslamic Arabs, the latter a very
ancient practice in connection with menhirs. Although he had already visited many dolmen fields in Jordan, Conder thought that "the Mareighât group is perhaps the most extraordinar\- and suggestive monument yet described in Moah" (Conder 1889, 189). His description of the site is worthy of extensive quotation: The site of el Mareighât includes rude-stone monuments extending over an area of about a mile east and west, and half a mile north and south, on the ground at the top of the steep bank north of the 'Ain ez Zerka [Zarqa Ma'in]. These include a large series of menhirs, surrounded on west, north, and east by dolmens, a single menhir further east called Hajr el Mansûb ("the erected stone"), and a winepress east again; while other dolmens occur north of the "erected stone," and hollow chamhers in the cliff, north of the principal menhir centre. ... The single menhir, Hajr el Mansûb, or "the erected stone," is the most evidently artificial of all the rude-stone monuments found as yet east of Jordan. Its rounded top and the groove cut in one side, show, as does its rectangular crosS'section, the handiwork of man. It is 8 feet high, 4'/2 feet wide at the base, and varies in thickness from 23 inches to 15 inches. The groove is 3 feet 9 inches from the ground, 9 inches wide, and 1 Vi deep. The bearing along one side of the stone is 48°, or about north-east. There are several tribe-marks on the stone, two on the southeast face, above the groove, being those of the 'Abbâd ('Adwân) and of the Khadir ('Anazeh), while the "raven's foot," or "trident" of the Jibbûr (Beni Sakhr), also occurs with others. These might be easily mistaken for some kind of letter or rune, but there is no doubt as to their meaning and origin, while close inspection shows the marks to be recent. West of the Hajr el Mansûb there are two low knolls at the top of the bank, which falls to the spring 1,000 feet beneath; from them, and from the Hajr, the spring can be seen. These knolls extend westwards about half a mile, and are covered with dolmens. On the south and west sides of the western knoll, and all round the eastern, these occur, and some are very fine examples. There are none on the north of the west knoll; the total number was counted to be about seventy. Immediately west of the west knoll there is a sort of little plateau about a quarter of a mile square, and rather lower than the plateau of the Hajr el Mansûb.
It is surrounded by a sort of amphitheatre of low spurs, on all sides but the south, where it reaches the brink of the great slope or bank of the ravine. In the middle of this little theatre rises another small and very rocky knoll, and its summit is crowned by a group of very conspicuous menhirs, while round the foot of the knoll runs a circle of smaller menhirs about 300 yards in diameter. The boundary of the plateau on the east is marked by a line of menhirs running approximately north and south, and there are traces of another line running westwards from this, along the brink of the valley bank at the south edge of the little plateau. East of the group on the knoll there are three or more alignments of menhirs running parallel, approximately north and south. The plateau on the south side of the knoll is strewn with other small menhirs without any order, and on the northwest side of the 300 yards circle, close to the menhirs, there is a dolmen standing alone. The hill spurs to the north, and to the west of the plateau, are also strewn with dolmens, and it was calculated that, including the seventy on the two knolls west of the Hajr el Mansûb, and those north of it, there are at least 150 dolmens at this site. The menhir groups, as above described, thus form a circle 300 yards diameter, and a square about 500 yards side, or more. Those on the top of the knoll are about 5 feet high, the tallest being 6 feet. They seem to have been arranged in a little circle 15 paces (40 feet) in diameter. The three alignments io the east are 12 paces apart, and 20 paces long north and south, and are about 50 yards from the group on the Mareighât knoll. The row on the south side of the plateau is traceable about 30 yards, the stones often touching each other. The tallest is 6 feet, and the average about 3 feet. North of the circle, in the side of the hill, is a little cliff pierced with three chambers well cut. The western was 3 feet wide, 4 feet to the back, the central one 6 feet by 7 feet, the eastern 2 feet by 3 feet. These resemble the chambers found elsewhere with dolmens. (See el Kurmiyeh, and el Kalûà.) This spur has about 40 dolmens on its west side, and 20 on the east, which are included in the former total estimate of 150 dolmens. There are, beside the dolmen adjoining the circle on the north-west, two hollows in the flat rock, each 1 Vz feet in diameter, and 6 inches deep. (Conder 1889, 185-89)
m
m
m m\
m
Later Observations at al-Murayghât
then, al-Murayghât bas been visited by several archaeologists in order to document tbe site's condition and further damage to it Nelstm Glueck considered the Hajr al-Mansûb and al-Murayghât by the quarry. In addition, satellite images from tbe 1960s onward as two distinct sites, assigning them site numbers 81 and 82 in have been acquired, wbich bave enabled the project to monitor the first volume of his Explorations in Eastern Palestine (1934, 33; 1939, 137). He spelled Conder's "el Mareighât "as "el-Megheirât." the expansion not just of the original quarry but of two others as Beyond mentioning the stone and the dolmen field, Glueck well. Below I will present a brief summary of our fieldwork, starting confined his observations to noting that Mallon, Koeppel, and with the Hajr al-Mansûb, then continuing to the central core at Neuville collected a number of Chalcolithic sherds (Mallon, al-Murayghât and tbe dolmens. Finally, I will discuss the ongoing Koeppel, and Neuville 1934, 155, pi. 63:4-9) and that de Vaux quarrying activity at tbe site. had collected "a large number of EB IV-MB I sherds" (Glueck 1939, 137-38). The next recorded visit to the site occurred in the early 1990s, when Harrison reported that Chalcolithic sherds were dominant, with a possible EB presence (1997, 29). In 1999, Savage, Harrison, Griffith, Elder, and Graham visited the site and confirmed Chalcolithic sherds (and one possible EB ledge handle) near the middle of the central knoll. The EB IV-MB I (now referred to as EB III-EB IV; see Harrison 1997, 29) sherds found in the region may be associated with the dolmen and menhir field, as these structures are sometimes associated with the EB IV period (although more often with the EB I, which was borne out by our subsequent work at tbe site). The reuse of an important Chalcolithic ceremonial site by people nearly two millennia later clearly points to the continuing significance of the place. Palumbo (1994, 2:58) gave "El Mugheirat" the site number 2111002 in the JADIS database; the "Hajar el-Mansub" was assigned number 2212012 (2:90). In both cases, Palumbo noted that the locations provided were only approximate. Georeferenced QuickBird imagery provided by Digital Globe for this study indicates that al-Murayghât was located in JADIS more than 3 km northeast of its real location, while che Hajr al-Mansûb was more than 5.5 km too far to the northeast, on the other side of Ma'in.
Al-Murayghât and the Moab Archaeological Resource Survey The Moab Archaeological Resource Survey (MARS) project was established to collect settlement, archaeological, and environmental data from the western part of the Madaba Plain in the highlands of central Jordan. The field program for this long-term project includes detailed mapping, surface collections, and test excavations at known archaeological sites and pedestrian survey of the western Madaba Plain to discover additional sites. The project bas concentrated its research to date at Kbirbet Qarn al-Qubish, an EB I-IIl fortiiied agricultural village northwest oí Madaba, and at al-Murayghât. Investigations at al-Murayghât were carried out in 2000 and 2001. During tbe 2000 field season, we mapped the locations of the menhirs on the central knoll and conducted a controlled, random, stratified surface collection in 10 m squares. We recorded and photographed seventy-five dolmens. During the 2001 season we photographed tbe Hajr al-Mansûb, recorded an additional twenty-five dolmens and photographed tbe ongoing quarry operations to the northeast of the site. Since
Î6 N E A R ÎÎA.STERN A R C H A E O L O O Y 7 Î : 1
T h e Hajr al'Mansûb Although Conder describes an olive press of a later period as the eastern edge of al-Murayghât, the Hajr al-Mansûb is the probable boundary of the ceremonial complex, a fact recognized as early as Irby and Mangle's first description of tbe site. From the location of the Hajr one can see virtually all the dolmens still extant at tbe site. There is nothing at al-Murayghât to indicate any connection with olive processing, so Conder's olive press probably postdates al-Murayghât. The stone still stands in the middle of a wheat field south of the quarry near the intersection of two important tracks: tbe road from Madaba to tbe Ma'in hot springs and the road down to the floor of tbe Zarqa Ma'in. There has been considerable soil erosion near the base of the stone in the past century, which may have rendered it unstable (compare figs. 2-4). Conder's original drawing (fig. 2) and his description quoted above indicate that the groove in the stone was 3 ft by 9 in from the surface. Figure 3 shows tbe reverse side of tbe stone, but the groove can still be seen; it is now five or more feet above the surface. Figure 4. which was taken before February 2004, shows that the stone was leaning at that time. Figure 3 was taken in July 2007 and shows the stone in a more upright position. His Excellency Ambassador H. G. Scheltema (personal communication), formerly tbe Dutch Ambassador to Jordan, indicated that local farmers bad recently set the stone upright again. This is a clear indication of its continued importance to the local population (especially when compared to other areas, sucb as the Wadi Wala, where tbe menhirs near Khirbet Iskander that were mentioned by Irby and Mangles have been deliberately toppled in recent years). Scheltema notes that "Jaussen and Savignac pointed out tbe phallic form of the standing stone." But, he continues, "the clearly incised semi-circular groove on one side of tbe stone could, on the other hand, also have had an anthropomorphic meaning" (2008, 102).
The Central Core of the Site Tbe low bedrock hill that dominates the site was the focus of our research effort in 2000 (fig. 5). There are several structures tm the hill made up of outlines of megalithic rocks (probably columns or column bases), wirb cobblestone floors (figs. 6 and 7); some of the standing stones are more than 2 m high. The initial impression of tbe site is that the megaliths form a series of concentric circles focused on a central ring (now all knocked down) about 10 m in diameter at the top of tbe site. Conder's report is somewhat
Figure 2. Conder's (1998, 186) drawing of the Hajr al-Mansüb.
Figure 3. Tim Harrison at the Hajr al-MansCib in July 2007. Tlie groove on the other side is visible, but it is clearly higher from the present ground surface than it was in Conder's time. Photograph by Andrew Harrison; used by permission.
A Figure 4, The Hajr al-Mansûb in 2004 Photograph by H. G. Scheltema; used by permission.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 7Î;1 (lOiO)
Î7
[fHí ambiguous on this point, first describing a circle of smaller menhirs 300 yd. in diameter, then stating that the menhir groups he described form a circle 300 yd. in diameter. In 2000, the local farmers told us they had set up stones around a driveway they built up to the central core. The casual visitor to the site is struck by the stones set up along the driveway, leading to the interpretation that the other standing stones are part of a series of smaller concentric rings within the larger one; the clear presence of two concentric rings at the top of the knoll reinforces this impression. However, Conder does not seem to mean one circle 300 yd. in diameter but that there were groups of menhirs in an area of this size. Rather than a series of concentric circles of standing stones, there is a group of large structures on the central core of the site, which became more apparent as we examined and mapped the individual standing stones. Most are located on the top and tbe less steep western side of the central hill. The standing stones form a series of structures; at least eleven can be discerned. There were probably others, hut the area on the west side of the central hill that lies between a modern catchment basin and the discernable structures has been the location of a Bedouin encampment. It is
possible that evidence of additional structures was removed from this area when the surface was cleared for their tents. Outside the Bedouin encampment, where there is a wide area of relatively flat soil or bedrt)ck, the stones tend to be arranged in large ovals. However, because the bedrock is stepped, when structures were placed near one of the steps, they are frequently rectangular, with the long walls running parallel to the bedrock steps. The stones tend to be higher on the lower steps. Most of the structures have rough cobblestone pavements. At the highest part of the central hill there is evidence of a unique structure {fig. 8). Here two concentric circles appear to form a central "shrine" with a cobble pavement. These stones have fallen, but it is clear that they once supported a small circular structure. The outer ring of stones is approximately 8-10 m in diametet, the inner ring about 4 m across. Almost all of the dolmens mapped at the site are within line of sight of this central
Figure 5. The central core of al-Murayghât, with structures mapped in 2000 superimposed on a QuickBird 2 m resolution satellite image from March 200Ó.
gttaiGlobe, Inc., All Rights Reserved N E A R E A S T E R N A R C H A E O L O G Y 7^:1 (2010)
Figure 6. Structures on the central knoll at al-Murayghât. They have megalithic pillars and a rough floor of wadi cobbles laid on bedrock, Photograph by H. G. Scheltenna; used by permission.
Figure 7. One of the stone pillars at ai-Murayghât. The stones were pried from bedded limestone outcrops in the hills west of the central knoll. Photograph by H. G. Scheltema; used by permission.
feature, indicating its importance to the ceremonial/ritual regime at al-Murayghât. hi spite of the proximity oí the stones that make up the uprights on the central part of the site to the layered hedrock across the small wadi used by Irby and Mangles, it is clear that considerable effort must have been expended to pry them out of the bedrock terraces and to bring them down the western hill, across the wadi, and up onto the central hill of the site. Since the sherd and Iithic scatter is spread across an area of about 25 ha, but the megalithic structures themselves are restricted (excepting the Hajr al-Mansûb, a special boundary stone) to an area of about 1.6 ha (ca. 4 acres) on the central hill, it is clear that this part of the site represented a place of special meaning to the inhabitants of the atea. In conjunction with the large dolmen fields that face the central hill, it clearly appears to form a ceremonial precinct.
the south, and seven on or near the hill northeast of the central hill (placing them north of the Hajr al-Mansûb; see fig. 1). All but one of the dolmens are of the same type, with back and top stone slabs (see Dubis and Savage 2001). Most of the dolmens have rock-slab floors (in fact, bedrock), though a few have earthen floors, and one has a cobblestone floor. Most have open entrances, but one has a slab on the right side (looking in) that may have been a blocking stone. With few exceptions, the dolmens face east, northeast, or southeast, which can be explained by the side of the slope on which they were built: notie faces into the hill. Several have a stone "circle" that fences them offfromthe rest of the field, and Dolmen 17, shown in figure 9, has a double circle around it. Many of the dolmens are damaged. Some are in a state of complete ruin, while others have one side collapsed, and many are missing their capstones. We have found very few artifacts associated with the dolmens we have investigated to date. Dolmens Ceramics are especially rare. Lithic material in their vicinity tends The MARS survey has mapped approximately one hundred to be nondiagnostic, although there often were large chert cobble/ dolmens in the area around al-Murayghât (in 1881, Conder cores in association with the dolmens. Other lithic artifacts in the estimated there were 150). Most of them are located on the vicinity of some of the dolmens include flakes, scrapers, ad hoc slope of the hill immediately to the west of the central hill, across blades, and other manufacturing debris. Unfortunately, most of the small wadi. The exceptions include a single dolmen on the the dolmens were built on bedrock, and their floors were clean. southwest slope of the central hill itself, two on the hill further to We noted no human remains near them. The lack of diagnostic Í E A R E Á S T Í Í R N ARCHAEOLOGY 7Î:1 (2010) 19
Ipil
IMII
frill I
IHI
Figure 8. The ceremonial core of al-Murayghat; the two rings of concentric stones at the highest point are shown under the arrow. All of the dolmens are within line of sight of this feature. Photograph by H. G. Scheltema; used by permission.
artifacts makes estimating their age problematic. Based on the ceramic evidence from the rest of the site, an EB I date is likely; however, other researchers have reported EB IV material from al'Murayghât, so a later date cannot be ruled out. Ceramics As noted above, previous visits to al-Miirayghât by a number of archaeologists have resulted in the identification of several different ceramic components. These include sherds from the Chalcolithic, EB I, EB 111, and EB IV periods. Our controlled surface collection recovered ceramics from EB I, EB II/III (?), Roman/Byzantitie, Ottoman, and modern periods (fig. 10; Savage and Rollefson 2001, 225-28). The EB 1 period clearly dominates the ceramic assemblage. Most of the diagnostic pieces are from bowls/platters or jars. Bow! types include wide, shallow basin forms and small serving bowls of simple profile and deeper forms with a more complicated rim profile; some of these have finger or stick impressions below the rim. Diameters range between 15 cm and 30 cm for the EB 1 types. A single sherd from a bowl with a slightly outcurving rim may date to the EB 11/111 period. Jars include typical holemouth forms, some with finger impressions above the shoulder; these tend to have openings in the 25 cm range, which implies a relatively large jar. Other jar fonns include Figure 9. Two dolmens from al-Murayghât. Photograph by H. G. Scheltema; used by permission.
40 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 7Î: I (2010
smaller, restricted forms with slightly outcurving rims in the 15 to 20 cm diameter range and rolled rim storage jars. The ceramic assemblage at al-Murayghât is dominated by small jars and bowls, with the occasional storage vessel; "lime coated" sherds seem entirely lacking. Ledge-handled jars are well-represented at the site. According to Amiran (1970, 35-40), the plain type (also called "duck-billed" and sometimes "axe-blade") is most characteristic of the EB I period. Duck-billed forms are well-represented at al-Murayghât (fig. 10:1-4). Interestingly, several additional treatments on this form might suggest a developmental sequence during the EB 1 period. Figure 10:1 illustrates a plain duck-bill form. Figure 10:2 is also duck-billed in shape, but the edge of the handle has been incised with a series of shallow grooves, and the top has tingcrpinch marks where it was molded to the rest of the jar. The handle illustrated in figure 10:3 is also of duck-bill shape, with incised marks around the edge that are deeper and more pronounced than those from 10:2. Small finger-pinch marks are also visible on the top, near the body of the jar. In figure 10:4, the edge of the duckbill handle is decorated with shallow impressions, possibly made
m
m
m\
ml
with a finger, but more likely with a small stick; as with 10:2 and 3, there are small finger-pinch marks near the vessel wall. Tbe handle illustrated in 10:5 may represent a very late EB I form, as
AM '00 GSC/a/1 S.3 EB 1 Ledge Handle with Incised edge
AM '00 GSC/8/1 S.2 EB ! Ledge Hondte plain 'duck bill'
AM '00 GSC/e/1 S, 4 EB I Ledge Handle with shallow I n d e n t a t i o n s
the finger- or thumb-indented form is more typical of EB II. Amiran lumps all tbe incised and indented varieties into one type, her Type 2, the thumb-indented type, which she dates to tbe EB I period.
AM '00 GSC/8/1 S. 5 EB I Ledge Handle with deeply Incised edge
AM '00 GSC/8/1 S. 6 EB I Ledge Hondle with shallow finger Impressions
AM '00 410/9070 S.2 EB I J a r
c AM '00 470/8020 S.I EB I Snail J a r
\ AM '00 410/8070 S.I EB I Bo*l
7
AM '00 410/8100 S.I EB I Snail Jo,r
AM '00 380/7990 S.I EB 1 Bowl AM '00 440/7990 S.i EB I
V AM '00 GSC/8/1 S.I EB [ P l a t t e r / B o w l AM '00 330/8040 S.I EB I Bowl
7
AM 'CO 470/8020 S.g EB Snail Bowl
AM '00 400/7920 S.I EB I Deep Bowl
An '00 GSC/8/1 S, 7 EB 11/111(71 Bowl
AM '00 380/7990 S.2 EB I Bowl
5
10
15
20
25 en
Figure 10. Ceramics from al-Murayghât, 2000 season.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 7î:l (2010) 41
1ÎS However, the incised and stick-impressed forms seem more closely related to the plain form than to the finger-im pressed type. More recently, plain and indented types have been found in EBI contexts at 'Umayri. London (1991, 385-88) believed that the variations were the result of differential skill levels or stylistic choices of the potters, not chronological indicators within the EB I period. However, further excavation and analysis at 'Umayri suggest that chronological development may be the preferred explanation. Harrison reports that the duck-billed type showed up in Field Phase 7, Field D at 'Umayri (2000, fig. 5.15:18-22) and that the indented type was associated with the slightly later Field Phase 6 (2000, fig. 5.23:24-27); both field phases were EB I. A wide variety of edge treatments on ledge handles is present at Bâb edh-Dhrâ', and there is some development of the indented type during the occupation sequence at the site (Schaub and Rast 2003, 1:93-94. 148-49, 242-44, 382-84, figs. 7.2:17-19,9.5:6-12, 11.9:14). The only published example with a sharply indented edge, probably done with a thin stick, appears in Stratum II (Schaub and Rast 2003, l:pl. 22:6)—the authors call this a "notched" form. This type is rare at the site, while plain and pushed up types are common (Schaub and Rast 2003, 2:passim).
Lithics Prior to our fieldwork, no authors had discussed the lithics at al-Murayghât. In 1999, we collected a dozen unifacially retouched pieces and one small "Canaanean blade" from the central core of tbe site. In 2000, our controlled surface collection garnered many lithics from the site, including a Middle Paleolithic Levallois blade, a MiddleAJpper Paleolithic double side-scraper on a blade, one Upper/Epipaleolithic side-scraper-plus-burin on a blade, two Epipaleolithic bladelet cores, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B naviform blade, and a probable Pottery Neolithic truncation hurin. Five artifacts could not he dated confidently, and the remainder of the sample (671 total) appeared to be Chalcolithic/EB. We collected scrapers and informal knives, burins, cores, primary and secondary reduction flakes, preforms, retouched and utilized flakes, angular shatter, and other debitage. Although there are several examples of Canaanean blades, the informal blade made by unifacial retouch on a large flake is more common. Sixteen Canaanean blades were recovered, as opposed to 178 "ordinary" blades (Savage and Rollefson 2001, 228-32). The Canaanean blade is associated with plant-food harvesting in the EB (Rosen 1997, 44-50). The other blades may be associated with animal processing at ai-Murayghat. Their concentration near the center of the stone circles suggests a ceremonial connection, perhaps related to animal sacdflce. The blades do not seem to fit easily into Rosen's Canaanean typology, and they lack the sickle sheen characteristic of plant harvesting. Rosen (personal communication) suggests that these blades, knives, and scrapers might he related to the less-formal lithic assemblages found in regions of the southern Levant dominated by pastoralism rather than settled agriculture, but the presence of a few Canaanean blades suggests that both activities may
i: NHAR EA:^TKRN ARCI-iAEOLOCiY 7 i : l (2010)
I1Î1 \m have occurred at the site. This indicates a greater participation in the pastoral economy of the southern Levant than the cereal agriculture economy at al-Murayghât.
Ground Stone No complete ground-stone items were recovered from al-Murayghât. Twenty-six fragments of vesicular basalt were collected from sixteen of the surface collection units. Most were irregular chunks that could he from broken implements or from the manufacturing process. Two could be positively identified as grindsttine fragments, indicating that cereal grains were processed on the site.
Quarrying Activity at al-Murayghât As figure 1 clearly shows, there are two large quarries at al-Murayghât or in its immediate vicinity. The larger quarry to the northwest oí the central knoll has existed at least since the mid-1980s. It does not appear on circa 1967 CORONA satellite images of the region hut is present in Landsat 5 images acquired from 1987. SPOT satellite images from 1990-1992 show that the quarry had grown substantially. When our initial fieldwork was conducted in 2000 and 2001, the quarry had already expanded to the point where it threatened the site; this fact was brought to the attention of Jordanian government officials. Later we were assured that the quarry had ceased operations on any faces that threatened site features, but the 2006 QuickBird satellite image indicates that the quarry is still in operation and has encroached even closer to the dolmen field. In fact, the viewshed analysis descrihed below indicates that it is quite likely that many dolmens have already been destroyed by the main quarry. Figure 11 illustrates the growth of the main quarry by superimposing outlines digitized from several satellite images. The approximate size of the quarry at various points in time is shown in table 2. These figures were calculated from the outlines in Arc View GIS. Note that there are some discrepancies in the outlines because of the different resolutions of the satellite images used as sources, especially with the Landsat 5 image, which has 28 m pixels, compared to the QuickBird image, which has 2 m pixels. Nevertheless, figure 11 and table 2 show that the quarry has grown from a modest 2-3 ha (4.9-7-4 acres) in the late 1980s to nearly 35 ha (86.5 acres) in March 2006. The fact that the quarry is still active is clearly shown in the QuickBird image, where many large dump trucks are lined up waiting to receive their loads at the main quarry and the newer quarry to the southwest of the site; hy zooming in on the higher-resolution images east of the site in Google Earth, one can count a number of dump trucks on the road from the quarry to Ma'in. The expansion of the quarry has probably already consumed many dolmens and clearly threatens others. Figures 12 and 13 show the activity at the quarry in the summer of 2004.
Table 2. Growth of the Main Quarry at al-Murayghât, based on Satellite Imagery Satellite, Image Resolution, and Date(s)
Quarry Size*
Landsat 5, 28 m resolution, ca. 1987
2.8 ha
SPOT, 10 m resolution, ca. 1990-1994
3.8 ha
Landsat 7, 14 m resolution, ca. 2000-2002
26.7 ha
QuickBird, 2 m resolution, March 2006
34.6 ha
* Quan-y size calculated by digitizing quarry footprint from the indicated sateUite image. Since the image resolutions vary, the sizes are apí^roximatiom.
A second quarry was established southwest of al-Murayghât sometime between 2002, when the Landsat 7 satellite images were acquired, and 2006, when the QuickBird image was taken. During this period, a third quarry was located farther to the west. While these quarries are now fairly clear of the site, A close-up of the QuickBird image shows intense activity at hoth. Archaeological survey has not yet been completed west of a!-Murayghát, so it is quite possible that other features or sites will be destroyed by this activity. Elements of the Chalcolithic/ Early Bronze age ceremonial landscape are endangered by the ongoing activity. Additional fieldwork in the region is needed in the immediate future to document the remaining sites in the vicinity of al-Murayghât.
from each other or from a group of settlement sites. Christopherson and Guertin's 1996 visibility analysis of ancient settlements in the Tall 'Umayri region, on the northern Madaba Plain, illustrates tbe method and some potential results. Using settlement data and GIS applications of viewshed analysis, they showed that "[alltbough Tall al-Umayri suffered from a restricted viewshed, tbe judicious placement of watchtowers wt)uld have allowed tbe inbabitants of Umayri to increase the size of their viewshed and thereby their control of the region" (Christopherson and Guertin 1996). A viewshed analysis of the al-Muraygbât region was undertaken to determine which areas of the landscape potentially contained dolmens that would have been visible from tbe central sbrine at al-Muraygbât or the Hajr al-Mansub. In this case, tbe digital elevation model (DEM) was obtained from NASA's ASTER instrument, flying on tbe Terra Satellite (JPL 2006). Tbe DEM bas 30 m horizontal resolution, equivalent to digitizing from 1:50,000 scale maps. Elevation data is reported in 10 cm increments. Global Mapper software was used to overlay the DEM with QuickBird 2 m resolution imagery (donated by Digital Globe, Inc., for this study) and to produce a combined viewshed analysis based on the locations of tbe central sbrine at al-Murayghât and tbe Hajr al-MansLib. Tbe viewshed assumed observer and target heights of 1.8 m above the ground surface, highlighting all areas witbin three kilometers that are visible from these points. Tbe results are shown in figure 14. Yellow-shaded areas are visible from the central shrine, cyan-shaded areas from the Hajr al-Mansub, and green-shaded areas from both. These results indicate where additional dolmens were likely to
Viewshed Analysis As noted above, almost all the dolmens mapped at al-Murayghât ^ire within line of sight of the "shrine" on the central knoll. This is clearly an important feature of the site, as is the Hajr ai-Mansûb. These features probably played an important role in boundary demarcation, as well as in the ceremonial activities that occurred at the site. Furthermore, because so many of the dolmens artvisible from the central knoll (and many from the Hajr al-MansCib as well), we can examine other areas near the site to determine whether it is likely that dolmens may have been present in places that have already been impacted by the quarries. Viewshed analysis is an effective method for this investigation. A viewshed analysis is a line-of-sight examination of the rerrain from one or more points of view to discover what parts of the surrounding landscape are visible from the central points. Significant advances have been made in these techniques in recent years (see Gillings and Wheatly 2001 ; Wheatly and Gillings 2002). The method essentially uses a digital terrain model to determine which areas of the landscape are visible from one or more points, caking into account factors such as tbe observer's height above ground level and tbe elevation of target objects. One of the most familiar archaeological uses of this method is determining wbicb of a series of watchtowers or signaling stations in a region were visible
At-Murayghat and the Hajr al-Mansub Inug* SourcM' Background :auickeird Zm. March 20M. Quarry by ftW: Landtit Í, Qiurry by 1994: MIMA^POTIOm. Quarry by 2002 Landut 7.
Sites Dolmens Quarry by 1990 Quarry by 1994 I Quarry by 2002
Figure 11. The growth of the main quarry at al-Murayghât.
I b A R t A S T t i R N ARCMAlLOUXiY 7î:I (2010) 4Î
IfH
im
Figure 12. A photograph of the main quarry at al-Murayghât, taken July 24, 2004, by H. G. Scheltema; used by permission. The photo shows dolmens on top of the hill that is being worked by quarry operations. The dolmens are also visible ¡n figure 11.
V Figure 13. A collapsed dolmen near the edge of the quarry at al-Murayghât, taken July 24, 2004, by H. G. Scheltema; used by permission.
have been located, based on our mapping of one hundred dolmens over two field seasons. Conder estimated the total number ot dolmens at the site, stating that "including the seventy on the two knolls west of the Hajr el Mansúb, and the knolls north of it, there are at least 150 dolmens at this site" (1889, 187). He thus implies that as many as eighty ^^^^^^^^^^^^ dolmens were located north of the Hajr al-Mansûb, where the main quarry now lies; he explicitly stated that "other dolmens occur north of the 'erected stone' " (1889, 185). Irby and Mangles noted that at least fifty dolmens were visible at a time once the site was reached. Given Conder's observation and the significant overlap between the viewsheds and the location
• - * •
44 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 7}: I (2010)
of tbe quarries, it does not seem unreasonable to c o n c l u d e t h a t many ot tbe estimated fifty missing dolmens were located within the footprint of the quarries, especially the large one to the northnortheast of the site. The quarry has already destroyed a large area where dolmens were probably l o c a t e d , and it is clear that its ongoing operations threaten to destroy even more of the site. The newer quarry to the west of the site threatens to engulf this side of al-Murayghât, as well as the knolls immediately west of the main site, where we have noted stone structures and EB ceramics. The gravel quarries endanger the remaining dolmens in at least two ways. First, the dolmens are directly threatened by the expanding face of the quarry. Second, the ongoing quarry activities include periodic blasting to loosen stoties on the face of the quarry and the operation of heavy rockcrushing machinery to transform the bedrock Figure 14. Viewshed analysis from al-Murayghât and the Hajr al-Mansûb. Looking northwest, the yellowshaded areas are visible from the central shrine at al-Murayghât; the cyan-shaded areas are visible from the Hajr al-Mansûb; the light-green-shaded areas are visible from both. Note how almost all the extant dolmens (red squares) fall within these areas, and most of the quarry is visible from the Hajr al-Mansûb. (Viewshed analysis created in Global Mapper with ASTER 30 m digital elevation model, exported to Google Earth Pro for visualization.)
into gravel. The gravel is then loaded onto very large trucks for transport. All these activities generate significant vibrations that ;ire transmitted thnmgh the ground to help topple the remaining dolmens.
Summary Al-Murayghât is a unique Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age ceremonial site and thus a particularly important and significant archaeological site from this period. Together with the stone-circle .site being investigated by Danish archaeologists, the site forms part of a sacred landscape on the western edge of the Madaba Plain. Its unique character and broader cultural significance mean that al-Murayghât needs to be preserved and protected. Unfortunately, ihe site is endangered by the continued operation of large gravel quarries located immediately north, northeast, and west of the site. During our fieldwork, dump trucks moved out of the older quarry north-northeast oí the site at the rate of about one every three minutes. We have noted with increasing concern that the quarrying continues, in spite of efforts to stop it, even up to the present. Most of the dolmens surveyed in 2001 are located on hills rhat are being rapidly destroyed by the quarry, and the viewshed analysis presented here suggests that many of the fifty "missing" dolmens have probably already been destroyed. If something is not done to stop the quarry operations in this area soon, the rest of the dolmens will be destroyed as well. Furthermore, since there are menhirs located m)rth of the site, it is entirely possible that a portion of the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age sacred landscape of rfiL' region has already been destroyed.
Acknowledgments 1 ho tieldwork described here was conducted with the permission .uid support of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan; I am especially thankful to Dr. Fawwaz AI-Khraysheh, DirectorGeneral, and to our Department Representatives, Rheem Shghour (2000) and Musa Malkawy (2001). The field crews included Dayle Elder and Tim Griffin (2000) and Monique Blom, Mohammad Malkawy, Caroline Puzinas, and Sidney Rempel (2001). The digital elevation model was provided by NASA as part of a grant Lo the Geo-Archaeological Information Applications Lab for the Digital Archaeological Atlas of the Holy Land project. Digital Cilohe, Inc., donated the high-resolution QuickBird image to the Moab Archaeological Resource Survey's effort to help save the site at al-Murayghât. There has been an ongoing effort by several archaeologists to monitor the expansion of the quarries since the danger they represent to the site became known. I am grateful for the photographs sent to me by Ambassador H. G. Scheltema, Dr. Zeidiin Kefafi, and Dr. Timothy Harrison and especially for their pemiission to use some of them in this article. Dr. Gary Rollefson Lind Ambassador Scheltema confirmed the location of the site and rhc Hajr with GPS readings. Finally, 1 would like to thank Tim Harrison for reviewing an earlier version of this paper.
References . A. 2010. Testing the Function of Early Bronze Age I Dolmens: A GIS Investigation. Near Eastern Archaeoiogy 73:46-49. Amiran, R. 1970. Ancient Pnttery of the H
lí:, Ljiibljuiui, ¡8-20 December J998. ed. B. SlapSak. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publicarions of the European Communities. Glueck, N. 1934. Explorations in Eastern Palestine 1. Annual of tho American Schools of Oriental Research 14. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. . 1939. Expiorations in Eastern Palestine IÍ]. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 18-19. New Haven: American Schools of Oriontal Re.search. Harrison, T. P 1997. Shifting Patterns of Settlement in the Highlands of Central Jordan during the Early Bronze Age. BidleUn of the American Schools ofOriciual Research 306:1-37. . 2000. "Field D: The Lower Southern Terrace." Pp. 95-154 in Mudaba Plains Project 4: The 1992 Seasim at Tall al-Vnuiyri and Subséquent StiuUns, ed. L. G. Herr, D. R. Clark, L. T Geraty, R. W. Younker. and 0 . S. LaBianca. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press. Herr, L.G. 2002. 5,000-Year-Old Burials Discovered in Jordan. Near Eastern Arcliaeobgy 65:282-83. Ilan, D. 2002. Mortuary Practices in Early Bronze Age Canaan. Near Easiem Arclweulogy 65:92-104. Irby, C. L.. and j . Mangles. 1985. Travels in Egypt and Nuhia, Syria and Asia Minor during the Years ¡817 & IS18. London; Darf JPL. 2006. ASTER Digital Elevation Model. Online: htrp://astenveh.ipi.nasa. gov/gdem.asp. Kafafi, Z., and H. G. Scheltema. 2005. Megalithic Structures in Jordan. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5.2:5-22. London, G. 1991. Aspects of Early Bronze and Late Iron Age Ceramic Technology at Tell el-'Umeiri. Pp. 383-428 in Madaba Plaim Project 2: The ¡987 Season at Tell e/-'Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequeui Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, L. T Geraty, 0 . S. LaBianca, and R. W Younker. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press. Mallon, A., R. Koeppel, and R. Neuville. 1934. Teleilat Ghassul I Compte
HIHllHlIÎM rendu des fouilles de ¡'Imitiur biblique pontifical. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute. Mortensen, E, and I. Thuesen. 1998. The Prehistoric Periods. Pp. S5-99 in Mount Nebo: New Arctiaeological Excavations, l967-¡997, ed. M. Bccirillo and E. AUiata. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum.
Testing the Function of Early Bronze Age I Dolmens: A GIS Investigation
O'Brian, R 1995. Men-of-War. Life in Neiscn\'s Navy. New York: Norton. Paiumbo, G. 1994. JortitiJi Antiquities Database and information System. Amman; T~he Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the American Center for Oriental Research. . 1998. T h e Bronze Age. Pp. 1 0 0 - 1 0 9 in Mounc Neho: New Archaeolo^cal Excavations 1967-1997, ed. M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Prag. K. 1995. The Dead Sea Dolmens: Death and the Landscape. Pp. 75-84 in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and A- Green. Oxbow Monograph 51. Oxford: Oxbow. Rosen, S. A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook ofSlone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Altamira. Savage, S. H., and G. RoUefson. 2001. The Moab Archaeological Resource Survey: Some Results from the 2000 Field Season. Annual of the Department of Antiijuities of Jordan 45:217-36. Schaub, R. T, and W. E. Rast. 1989. Bâb edh-Dhä': Excavatitnis in ihe Cemeterv Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965-67). Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
,
Abdulla Al'Shorman
J
ordan has more than twenty thousand Early Bronze Age I dobncns, often found in groups ranging between three hundred and a thousand. Conder was the first to survey these enigmatic structures northeast of the Dead Sea, defining them as "stone structures, with a capstone supported on upright stones" (¡889, 302; see fig. ¡). Following this identification, dolmens became the subject of specific typological and archaeological investigations (e.g.. Hemp ¡935; Lewis 1910; Neuville ¡930; Swauger ¡97¡; Belmonte ¡997; hoh andji 2000). Archaeological surveys everitually revealed tiuit dolmens are found throughout the Levant (Stékélis i960; Talbn 1958; Hermens ¡976) and Europe (Wells and Geddes ¡986; Walker ¡983).
. 2003. Bàh-edh-uhrâ': Excavations at the Town Site (¡975-1981). I vols. Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 2. Winona Lake, Ind.; Eisenbrauns. Scheltema, H. G. ZOOS. Mega/it/tic Jordan. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research. Wheatly, D., and M. Gillings. 2002. S/)ati¿i¡ Tech-nolo^ and Archaeology: The Archaeoio^al AppUcalions of GIS. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Figure 1. Drawing of dolmen from al-Murayghât. For additional details, see Conder 1889, 188-89.
In spite of their abundance across the Jordanian landscape and the wide scholarly attention they have received, dolmens remain enigmatic structures. Many were constructed during the Early Bronze Age 1 (Yasslne 1985; Hanbury-Tenison 1986) and reused during the later Middle and Late Bronze Ages, as well as the Iron Age (Prag 1995). Their functions are even more mysterious, in large part due to the scarcity of recovered artifacts from the structures. Since their discovery, scholars have debated
46 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 75:1 (2010)
HIHllHlIÎM rendu des fouilles de ¡'Imitiur biblique pontifical. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute. Mortensen, E, and I. Thuesen. 1998. The Prehistoric Periods. Pp. S5-99 in Mount Nebo: New Arctiaeological Excavations, l967-¡997, ed. M. Bccirillo and E. AUiata. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum.
Testing the Function of Early Bronze Age I Dolmens: A GIS Investigation
O'Brian, R 1995. Men-of-War. Life in Neiscn\'s Navy. New York: Norton. Paiumbo, G. 1994. JortitiJi Antiquities Database and information System. Amman; T~he Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the American Center for Oriental Research. . 1998. T h e Bronze Age. Pp. 1 0 0 - 1 0 9 in Mounc Neho: New Archaeolo^cal Excavations 1967-1997, ed. M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Prag. K. 1995. The Dead Sea Dolmens: Death and the Landscape. Pp. 75-84 in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and A- Green. Oxbow Monograph 51. Oxford: Oxbow. Rosen, S. A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook ofSlone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Altamira. Savage, S. H., and G. RoUefson. 2001. The Moab Archaeological Resource Survey: Some Results from the 2000 Field Season. Annual of the Department of Antiijuities of Jordan 45:217-36. Schaub, R. T, and W. E. Rast. 1989. Bâb edh-Dhä': Excavatitnis in ihe Cemeterv Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965-67). Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
,
Abdulla Al'Shorman
J
ordan has more than twenty thousand Early Bronze Age I dobncns, often found in groups ranging between three hundred and a thousand. Conder was the first to survey these enigmatic structures northeast of the Dead Sea, defining them as "stone structures, with a capstone supported on upright stones" (¡889, 302; see fig. ¡). Following this identification, dolmens became the subject of specific typological and archaeological investigations (e.g.. Hemp ¡935; Lewis 1910; Neuville ¡930; Swauger ¡97¡; Belmonte ¡997; hoh andji 2000). Archaeological surveys everitually revealed tiuit dolmens are found throughout the Levant (Stékélis i960; Talbn 1958; Hermens ¡976) and Europe (Wells and Geddes ¡986; Walker ¡983).
. 2003. Bàh-edh-uhrâ': Excavations at the Town Site (¡975-1981). I vols. Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 2. Winona Lake, Ind.; Eisenbrauns. Scheltema, H. G. ZOOS. Mega/it/tic Jordan. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research. Wheatly, D., and M. Gillings. 2002. S/)ati¿i¡ Tech-nolo^ and Archaeology: The Archaeoio^al AppUcalions of GIS. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Figure 1. Drawing of dolmen from al-Murayghât. For additional details, see Conder 1889, 188-89.
In spite of their abundance across the Jordanian landscape and the wide scholarly attention they have received, dolmens remain enigmatic structures. Many were constructed during the Early Bronze Age 1 (Yasslne 1985; Hanbury-Tenison 1986) and reused during the later Middle and Late Bronze Ages, as well as the Iron Age (Prag 1995). Their functions are even more mysterious, in large part due to the scarcity of recovered artifacts from the structures. Since their discovery, scholars have debated
46 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 75:1 (2010)
\m\
m their purpose, presenting answers as varied as habitations, altars, or offering places (Conder 1889), winter camps for transhumant groups (Hemp 1935; Zohar 1989), places for exploiting varied environmental zones (Finkelstein 1991), or tombs (Smith 1913; Broome 1940; Negev 1972; Joussaume 1988; Piccirillo 2001; Prag ¡995). The dolmens' geographic positions in the landscape, however, have yet to he considered when evaluating these various hypotheses. Using only the registered dolmens in Jordan's Antiquities Database and Information System (JADIS), the east and north coordinates of dolmen fields, the elevation above sea level, the size of the archaeological sites to which they are associated, and the topographic zone of the sampled dolmens were all entered into a relational database that was managed using Geographic Information System (GIS) software. These data were examined using a suite of tests tound in Lee's statistical analysis, an extension of Arcview GIS Software 3.2 (Lee and Wong 2001). The dolmens' spatial patterns were estimated using Quadrat analysis, a method that examines how the density ot points changes over space. Next, a KolmogorovSimirnov (K-S) test examined the dolmen's distribution pattern as clustered or dispersed. The indices of a Moran and Geary test examined the spatial autocorrelation coefficients of weighted factors that included elevation, size, and topographic zone. Finally, the spatial statistics of the Mean Center and the Deviational Ellipse were used to discover the directional bias in the dolmens' distribution. Quadrat analysis was performed using complete coverage and a square quad shape. The result of deviational ellipse is supported hy the trend analysis of the location of dolmens, where it has a strong Y-coordinate trend (see table 1 and figs 2-3).
Table 1 Quadrat length
24.68km
Vari;incc
1 Î.08
Vertical step
8
Variance/Mean ratio
42.33
Horizontal step
7
K'S D statistics
0.5
X
2
a
0.05
trcqucncy
40
K'S critical value
0.13
Although Quadrat analysis detects the distribution pattern of dolmens, it ignores other factors that determined the pattern. To test it the dolmens share the same characteristics of elevation, size, and
Figure 2. Deviational ellipse of the location of dolmens.
Figure 3. The trend in the location of dolmens.
YZ irend
topographic zone, we used a statistical measure known as spatial autocorrelation coefficient, or Moran's Index and Geary's Ratio. Moran's Index measures feature similarity based not only on feature locations or attribute values alone but on both feature locations ;ind feature values simultaneously. Given a set of features and an associated attribute, it evaluates whether the pattern expressed is clustered, dispersed, or random. In general, a Moran's Index value near +1.0 indicates clustering, while an index value near -1.0 indicates dispersion. The values of Geary's Ratio tend to range between 0 and 2; values approaching 0 imply that similar values of a variable tend to cluster (positive spatial autocorrelation), and values approaching 2 indicate that dissimilar values tend to cluster. The tests were run with site size and elevation. It turns out that size is not significantly clustered (Moran Index = .05, probability = .6064; Geary Ratio = .04, probability = .758; table 2),
\m
m\
\m\
\m
IfH
Moriin Expected Moran
0.05
0.009
0.04
ÜL'iiry
1
Expected Geary
V;iri,uii.c i i i u l c r n o n i u l i i A
0.05
Víiri^tncc linder tiormíility
0.18
z-value
0.27
Z'Value
-2.25
0.041
Varhmcc under randomization
1.85
z-value
0.32
2-value
-0.7
Moran
2.07
üear\'
0.01
Viiriiincc UIKILT randümizLitiun
Expected Moran
-0.009
1
Expected Geary
Variance under noinialiiv
0.05
Variance under normality
O.US
2-value
8.7Ö
z-value
-2.32
Variance under rani^lniiuzaiion
0.05
Variance untlcr randomization
0,15
z-vaiue
8.86
z-value
-2.52
but elevation is (Moran Index = 2.07, probability =.0192; Geary Ratio = .01, probability = .0059; table 3). These studies indicate rhat dolmens are found in statistically significant clusters located in a roughly north-south distribution on hillside terraces, primarily along the north and central Jordan Valley escarpment; a second series of dolmen clusters is scattered further to the east, again on a roughly northsouth line (fig. 2). Dolmen clusters share a relatively common elevation above sea level (fig. 3). The best method to test the territoriality of dolmens is through using a Voroni map (fig. 4), which constructs a Thiessen polygon around each dolmen site. This method is very popular in archaeology and has been widely used (Savage 1990). These statistical analyses of Jordan's Figure 4. A Voroni map of dolmens shed new light the dolmens.
on the scholarly investigation of their original function in the Early Bronze Age I period. Spatial analysis indicates that the stone features are found at similar e l e v a t i o n s and in the same hillside terrace topographic zone. Because the dolmens are located in a single ecological zone, the likelihood is low that dolmens were used as bases for exploiting varied ecological zones. The possibility that dolmens were winter camps is alsci low, since most dolmens were built at higher elevations; winter centers would appear at lower elevations, such as in the Jordan Valley, where winter temperatures were milder. Territory marker was also an unlikely function, since the Voroni map in figure 4 shows that the area around each dolmen site varied. A single
standing slab or even a pillar of stones like the ones agriculturalists still use in Jordan today would be sufficient to mark a territory. The scarcity of recovered artifacts associated with dolmens prevents the testing of other possible functions, such as altars and offering places. What little associated materials (e.g., skeletons) have heen discovered suggests that at least some dolmens were used as tombs during the Early Bronze Age. Indeed, this time period witnessed a diversification in burial types that include tumuli (Schaub and Rast 1989; Nicolle, Steimer, and Humbert 1999), dolmens (Herr, Clark, and Trenchard 2001), artificial caves (Hanbury-Tenison 1989), natural caves (Mabry 1989), and cist graves surrounded by circular stones (Politis 1995). Many of these tomhs exhibit signs that Early Bronze Age society was hierarchically organized (Saxe 1970), especially when compared to the preceding transhumance society of the Chalcolithic period. If dolmens were used as tomhs, they would have likely been reserved for prestigious individuals. Constructing a dolmen consumes a lot of time and effort, especially the quarrying of the large, heavy slabs. This brief study has tested a variety of hypotheses about the function of dolmens using spatial statistics and GIS. The results indicate that the majority of dolmens were constructed at the same elevation and topography, leading to the conclusion that dolmens were not constructed to help exploit a variety of ecological zones or as winter centers for transhumant groups. Most likely is the possibility that the dolmens served as tombs for high-ranking members of Early Bronze Age I society.
IMIi
ífÜll
lílíl ÍÜl
References Bchiuiíuc, J. 1997. MeJicerrancan Archaeotypology and Archaeoastronomy: Two Examples oí Dolmenic Necropolises in the Jordan Valley. Arclxaeoasironamy 22:37-4.Î. Bmume, E. C , Jr. 1940. The Dolmens of Palestine and TransJordania. Journal of Biblical Literature 59.-479-97. Conder, C. R. 1889. T/ie Swrvej of Eastern Palestine. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, . 1890. Exhibitions of Drawings of Rude Stone Monuments East of Jordan. The Journal of the Royal Anthropolo^cal Imiitute of Great Britain and Ireland 19:65-66. Finkelsrein, 1. 1991. The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Brome Age. Israel Exploratimt juunud 41:19-45. ilanliur>'-Teni.son, J. 1989. Jabal Miitawwaq !986. Annual of the Departmeni of Antiquities Jordan 3}: 137-44. Helms. S. and D. McCreery. 1988. Rescue Excavations at Umm el-Bighal, the
Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965-67). Reports of tbe Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Hisenbrauns. Smitb,G.E. 1913. Tbe Origin of the Dolmen. Mdn 13:193-95. Stékélis, M. 1960. Las Necropohs mégalithique de Ala-Safa, TransJordania. Ampurim 22.3:49-128. Swauger. J. 1971. The Three Dolmen Sites iii Jordan. Almogaren 2:239-51. Talion, M. 1958. Mt^numents mégalithique de Syria et du Liban. Melanges l'Université Saint-Joseph 35:21-34. Walker, M. Í98Í. Laying a Mega-Myth: Dolmens and Drovers in Prehistoric Spain. Workl Archaeology 15:37-50. Wells. P, and D. Geddes. 1986. Neolithic, Cbalcnlithic and Early Bronze in West Mediterranean Europe. American Aiiti^it^i 51:763-78. Yassine, K. 1985. Tbe Dolmens and Drovers in Prehistoric Spain. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 259:63-69. Zohar, M. 1989 Rogem Hiri: A Megalithic Monument in the Golan. Israel Exploration Journal 39:18-31.
Pottery. Annual of ihe Deparimeiu of Antiquities af Jordan 32:319-41. Hemp, W. J. 1935. Review of M. Stékélis, Les Mmmmems mégalithiques de Palestine. Aiitiijiiil^ 10:237-38. Hermens, R. 1976. Première Mission de Recherches Préhistoriques en République Arabe du Yémen. LAnthropologie 8O;5-Î7. Mcrr. L. G., D. R. Clark, and W C. TrencKard. 2001. Mâdabâ Plains Project: Excavations at Tall Al-'Umayri, 2000. Annual of the Department of AntitjHities of Jordan 45:237-52. loussaume, R. 1988. Do/mem for the Dead: Megalithic-Building throughout the World. Ithaca. N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Lee, J. and D. W. S. Wong. 2001. Statistical Analysis with Arcview GIS. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lewis, A. L. 1910. O n Some Dolmens of Peculiar Types in France and Elsewhere. The Journal of the Royal Anthrapological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 40:336-48, Loh, C. M., and C.-H. C. Ji. 2000. A Preliminary Report on the Human Remains from a Roek-Cut Chamber Tomb Near 'Iraq AI-'Amir. Annual of tlie Department fif Antiquities of Jordan 44:201-9. Mabry, J. 1989. Investigations at Tell El-Handaquq, Jordan (1987-88). Annud of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33:59-95. Megev, A., ed. 1972. Dolmens. P 92 in Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Lajul. New York: J. R Putnam's Sons. Neuville, R. 1930. La Nécropole mégalithique de'el-Adeimeh (TransJordanie}. Bíblica 2:249-65. Nicolle, C , T. Steimer, und J.-B. Humbert. 1999. Almaräjim, Implemetation Rurale du Illème Millaníiire en Jordanie du Norde. Anmial of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 43:91-98. Piccirillü, M. 2001. Ricerca Storico-Archaeologica in Gioradnia XXI-2001. LiW-rAnntfUS 51:359-94. Politis, K. D. 1995. Excavations and Restorations at Dayr Äyn Äbära 1994. AiiTiHíi/o/tk' Departynent of Antiquities of Jordan 39:477-9!. Frag, K. 1995. The Dead Sea Dolmens: Death and the Landscape. Pp. 75-84
Reflections of Empire Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on the Pottery of the Ottoman Levant edited by Bethany Walker
Ottoman archaeology in the last decade has progressed to a multi-faceted investigation of the history and societies of the longest-lived Muslim empire of the early modern era. Missing, however, have been technical studies of Ottoman-period ceramics that identify assemblages, define typologies, and posit chronologies for specific wares across entire regions. This volume assembles such technical studies for the region of the Ottoman Levant: Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. American Schools of Oriental Research Annuals, Volume 64:, Series Editor Joseph A. Greene, ASOR 2009, 176 pages, 59 b/ir fissures. 7 table, ISBN 97S-0~89757-0Sl-7. SS9.95.
in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and A. Green. Oxbow Monograph 51. Oxford: Oxbow. Saxe, A. 1970. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practice. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. Schaub, R.T, and W E. Rast. 1989. B<îi> edh-Dhrà': Excavations m
Available from The David Brown Book Company www..oxbow books.com
Copyright of Near Eastern Archaeology is the property of American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Discoveries, Displays, and The Great Revolt in the Galilee
temporary exhibit, the Great Revolt in the Galilee, a sense of the weight of the Roman impact and of the doomed Jewish Revolt of 66-73 c.E.,a rebellion popularly associated with the fall of Masada in Ti C.E. but in fact first successfully suppressed in Jewish towns
C
limbing to the crest ofGamla, the rocky camelback tlmt
far to Masada's north.
symbolizes Rome's iron hmid in t}^ Galilee, pausing to rest
As Ofra Guri-Rinion, museum director and curator (and exhibit curator) expresses in her preface to the catalogue (composed of nearly a dozen or so excellent essays that can stand independently of the exhibit), the exhibition presents finds "testifying to the
on her synagogue's süll-smooth seats, noting the hng-dry
miqvah (ritual bath) nearby and the ivall breach where excavators uncovered hundreds of arrowheads and bullista balls (grapefruitsized stone "cannon" balls) : such an experience no museum would dare pretend to replicate or even evoke. Nevertheless, through an assemblage of key objects and, especially, through a deft hand at design. University of Haifa's Hecht Museum gives visitors to its
NEAR EASTERN .ARCHAHOLOGY 71:1 (2010)
View of the Exhibit. A stark black Roman "road" on vi/hich three soldiers stand and the "breached" stone walls representing Jewish communities effectively evoke the strength and determination on both sides of the conflict, the Romans and the Jews. Courtesy of the Hecht Museum.
Exhibitions of Special Note material culture of Galilean settlements, Jewish and Gentile. in the 1st century CE; finds representing the presence vf Roman legions whose mission was to put down the rebellion; and finds—presented to the public for the first time—that bear living testimony to preparations made hy the Jews of the Galilee in advance of the revolt" (Guri-Rimon 2008, 1-2). Predictably, finds from the two large excavation sites, Gamla and Yodefat make up the bulk of displayed items, but other sites, especially Ktar Kanna, are represented and given fair attention in the catalogue. Kudos are due the designer who conceived the exhibit's central element; a black swath to represent the Roman road. Just as it cut through the Galilee, the road here cuts diagonally to and through the heart of the exhibit, that relatively small but airy area familiar to Hecht regulars as the place most temporary shows are held, beside the open stairs and broad two-story windows. In such a setting—light, glassy, modern—the heavy black line of "road," although barely a meter wide (certainly not wide enough for a column that marched six abreast) dominates and almost protrudes but is not threatening. It provides counterpoint to the airiness through which, overhead, "fly" arrows and spears of various types, suspended from the ceiling and perhaps intended to .simulate siege. They look terrific, lifelike, lifted out of typical showcase environments. (Believe it or not. the overhead arrows escape some visitors' notice.) But back to the black road, our designer's artful route through history. The section closest to the entrance is rubber, lor walking, but the section in the center of the room is metal on which are written, in Hebrew, several lines from Josephus's description of the Roman order of march as Vespasian's army moved out from Ptolemais (Akko) into the Gahlee. The lengthy quotation (Josephus enumerates and describes at least eighteen contingents from the advance archers to the rearguard) begins, naturally, near the top of the metal slab, beyond the center oí the room, so if you want to read more chan the last few lines and the citation (Jewish War 3.6.2), you must locate yourself at the very center of the exhibit. You must actually do more than that. You must duck under or dodge or at least walk around three life-size, laser-cut, sheetmetal Roman s
Gamla Coins. Only nine of tbese crudely made (indicating quick improvisation) bronze coins are known, seven from the western quarter of Gamla. Tbe obverse shows a cup and is similar to the contemporaneous Jerusalem silver shekel that appeared in 66 C.E. and also featured an Omer cup on its obverse. (Jerusalem coins were dated by the year of the war; I.e., an aleph represented the first year.) The Gamla corns were probably produced immediately prior to the siege or even during it. The inscription has been read by some as "For the Redemption of Jerusalem the Holy," thus underscoring the probable reference to Jerusalem, where such an Omer cup would have been a temple utensil. Courtesy Danny Syon.
¡EAR EASTIERN A R C H A E O L O G Y 73:1 (2010) 51
m\\ the Judean rebellion, beginning with the Galilee. The dedication stone is significant because it was down this road that Vespasian marched to Akko, where he was joined by his son Titus and the Fifteenth Legion; from there the Roman army—eventually some sixty thousand soldiers, including auxilia—set out. Along the "road" and beyond the three "soldiers," even to the periphery of tbe room, stand a variety of installations and showcases, including at least three stone walls. In fact, if there is a Jewish counterpoint to the Roman road, the walls would he it. T h e walls, none more than 2 m higb Is any visual sign of and each 3-4 m long, the religious passion that effectively underscore drove the zealots missing the failed fortification here because the designers system as well as they assumed all visitors would delineate display areas, already know and underp a r t i c u l a r l y since stand? The near absence two of the walls are is even harder to reconcile "hreached"—low, with when one remembers that major stones missing. the citizens of Gamla were The first wall, to the so religiously circumspect immediate right of that they maintained a the entrance, behind miqvah at their oil press or the dedication stone, when the stirring words of blocks off a small, Guri-Rimon's preface are minor section t h a t considered. Guri-Rimon T h e . ' ' p , i-'-(-"y s i d e s o f t h i s s i t e p r e s e n t a seTT r : g r . ' M t m a t c h e s shows nonmilitary quotes Joseph Klausner, Josephus's description of Gamta, a pivotal battle site for the Great Revolt. first-century C.E. life a scholar o( the Second throughout the Galilee, Temple period who explored
generally^—a wepraving loom and weights, an amphora to represent the olive-oil industry, perfume bottles, oil lamps, a miscellany of pottery, a superb assortment of coins, and even a reconstituted comer of a frescoed room from a mansion (and more than a mind can absorb about the Roman military)—but, except for a oneline written reference to miqva'ot and the prominent position given the Gamla coin, which some numismatists read as "For the redemption of holy Jerusalem," there is precious little about the ritualistic religiosities that led the Jewish zealots to their doomed, desperate struggle.
and tried to explain the motivations for the rebellions, liberally sprinkling his lines with language full of ardor and spirit, concluding that a Judea resigned to its fate might, yes, have for awhile remained occupied with Torah—until soon trampled "like clay." Guri-Rimon (rightly) bemoans the fact that Klausner's style of personal, passionate history-telling has passed. Perhaps the dominant Roman road motif and simultaneous invisibility of Jewish religious life are somehow related to Klausner's words and her remembrance of them. So with the otherwise excellent exhibit not providing the "why," we look to the road for "how." The road directs the dramatic narrative hy means of layout and artifact, beginning at the entrance. Planted there, like gateposts, are a Roman road milestone you can walk around and a Roman road dedication stone, the former found near Afula and the latter near Naharia beside the road running between Antioch and Akko. (Both belong to the Israel Antiquities Authority, which lent many items.) The milestone is dated to 69 c.E. (the earliest ever found here) and the dedication stone to circa 56 c.E., shortly after the accession of Nero Caesar, whom it honors and who, ten years later, selected Vespasian to suppress
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOííY 7Î;1 (2010)
not necessarily from siege sites: two ossuaries (Kefar Hittin and Sepphoris); a sizeable showcase of a variety of oil lamps; two showcases devoted to Jewish and non-Jewish burial finds; and some stone vessel fragments that whisper of ritual use. The other two walls, the lower, "breached" ones, are not far from the center of the room, within the soldiers' eyesight. Besides heing aesthetically effective—mass near the middle, bringing outdoors i:i—these walls represent Gamla and Yodefat. A pile of two dozen basalt ballista balls, typical of the Golan's black rock, sits in front of the Gamla wall, representing the two thousand ballistae recovered there so far. A pile of slightly smaller white balls sits in front ot the wall that is Yodefat, where white stones would be typical. Facing the walls is a hands-on catapult (reconstruction). It is here that the arrows seem to whiz overhead. Showcased beautifully nearby, arranged almost as if one composed of many {in the glass, especially in this room, looking like a school offish), is a collection of iron arrowheads, including variants of trilobate and fíat and pyramid types, as well as spear points and catapult bolts (Kfar Kanna) and limestone slingshots (Yodefat). Here is also located an assortment of fibulae (for keeping
clothes closed), hobnails from the Roman soldiers' boots (shown on a to-scale drawing), a metal eagle maybe 10 cm in length (the symbol of Rome and always worn or carried), and, taking pride of place, a Roman ownership/identification tag of sheet bronze, found at Gamla. The inscription is still readable: >MVSI .LMAGI GALLI Apparently it helonged to one Lucius Magius Gallus of the Fifth Legion. This is not like the "dogtag" worn hy American soldiers but was attached to military equipment. Most of the Roman military equipment, as well as a showcase of roof tiles and bricks bearing the Tenth Legion stamp, which u ould be considered part of that army's material culture, is displayed in a relatively straight line along one side of the "road," just past the menacing mien of Vespasian's marble bust (only the head; ca. 70 C.E.), part of the Hecht's collection. Only an amphora tound at Gamla's oil press is not related to the Roman military. A highlight o( this area is (part oO the contents of an unusual concentration found in a narrow alley at Gamla. There a Roman officer (fleeing?) apparently discarded several pieces of equipment. Found together were a helmet handle, a cheek guard, a scabbard chape, all exhibited here, as well as an umbo (center boss ot a shield) and parts of strip armor {lorica segméntala) and some other items not exhibited. Two rare pieces of armor found elsewhere—-a piece of iron armor from Sepphoris and a piece of bronze armor from the Megiddo area (Horvat Betzalit)—are exhibited but cannot be shown in this review because they are not yet published. Also from Gamla, found at the main breach, is a siege hook (falx muralis). It was used for stabbing as well as grabbing the wall to make climbing possible. Showcased with the Gamla finds is a beautiful umbo similar to the Gamla umbo, although not from there. In his catalogue essay, Danny Syon makes the point that although these finds are "Roman," we cannot necessarily assign them to the Romans because the Jews used essentially the same kinds of weapons and equipment. One important piece that is inarguably Roman, although only indirectly related to the Galilean role in the Revolt, is a "military
diploma" dated 160 c.E. The diploma, a bronze tablet (10 cm wide by 12.5 cm long) is a personalized copy of an imperial grant (conslítutío) that grants legal privileges, not the least of which is citizenship to children of a non-Roman wife, to soldiers who have served twenty-five years in auxiliary units stationed in Rome's provinces. The rare tablet is actually two tied together, although the Hecht (for safety reasons) is displaying only one. The text was
Siege Hook. This piece of Roman military equipment, found at the breach of Gamla's wall, is believed by excavator Danny Syon to be the only one of its type in Israel. It would have been used both for stabbing the wall and for hooking onto it for climbing. Usually it is kept in the Qazrin Museum. Courtesy Danny Syon.
N l i A R H A S T Ü R N A R C H A I i O L C X i V 7 î ; l ( 2 0 1 0 ) 5.Î
m\ m
m
Chape and Cheekguard. Found together in a narrow alley at Gamla were several items of military equipment that excavators surmise may have been discarded by a trapped or fleeing Roman officer. Among the items were this scabbard chape and helmet cheekguard. Courtesy Danny Syon.
written twice, once inside (for safekeeping) and once outside, then tied together with twisted wire. On the back, the seals of seven witnesses were attached to wire binding. This constitutio was granted by Emperor Antoninus Pius in 160 C.E. to auxiliary soldiers in Syria Palestina (formerly Judea) under Governor Maximus Lucilianus. Only four copies of this grant have been found until now, all issued to veterans from Lycia Pamphilia (south of modern Turkey). The dating of this piece indicates that recruiting for auxilia was necessary some twenty-five years earlier, the time of Bar Kokhba. Although not directly part of the Galilean Revolt, the need to replenish recruits is still a testimony to the resistance the Romans faced, says the display's legend. The tablet is not shown here because it is unpublished, although Hannah Cotton and Werner Eck plan to publish it in the Hecht Museum's annual journal, according to the museum. Perhaps the most intriguing ot the nonmilitary items is the display of an underground hideaway system representing the twenty-seven discovered thus far in the Galilee, specifically those at Kfar Kanna (actually Karm er-Ras, at the western edge of Kfar Kanna) and Yodefat. When the excavators of Karm er-Ras went 54 N E A R EASTERN ARCH.AF.OLOGY 7ÎH (2CI0)
beneath Roman-period partition walls (which seemed intriguingly odd in their placement and height), they discovered that these walls, between two Hellenistic walls, camouflaged three partially stone-built, partially rock-cut underground units, all within some 25 square meters and connected by underground corridors. Those of Area T and those of Area W, with Early Roman built directly on Iron Age debris, are thoroughly described and illustrated in the catalogue essay "The Archaeological Evidence of the Great Revolt at Karm er-Ras (Kfar Kanna) in the Lower Galilee," hy Yardenna Alexandre (worth the price of the book). The exhibit explanation is, of course, less thorough, but an excellent drawing of one hideaway system, a stone "manhole" cover set in a stone floor pavement (like tlie excavators found), and several of the eleven (some counts say thirteen) storage jars (ribbed-body, bag-shape) found piled on their sides in pristine condition in one chamber of Area W's hideaway together demonstrate the measures of defensive preparedness, even if the houses above showed no destruction. (It must be remembered that nearby Sepphoris was the first town to capitulate.) Several of the Galilean hideaways cannot be so closely dated as this one, which is confidently dated by a coin; two bronze
ffiïll
m\
\m
coins minted in the second year of the Great Revolt were found in another chamber oí che multichamber, multilevel hideaway. The lengthy legend for "Hiding Complexes" is typical of the interesting, able treatment given various displays for those visitors willing to read the tine print. Poster-size legends include "The Jewish Population in the Galilee on the Eve of the Great Revolt Luid Its Attitude"; "The Siege of Yodefat and Gamla"; and "Coins." Furthermore, several appropriately placed copies of segments trom Trajan's Column (Rome) illustrate in detail the life of the army: medical care in the field; proportion of the umbo to shield, tor instance; and height ot the standard. (1 particularly love the catalogue's figure 65, which includes an apparently terrified standard bearer peeking over his shoulder at the assault, his own sbield tucked under his arm, as he must use two hands to hold the standard high.) Also, many of the showcases make sense of what would otherwise be, for example, mere pieces of helmet hardware; simple black-and-white tine drawings show where each pin and nail belong.
Dr. Danny Syon, and Dr. Mordechai Aviam); the Tav Group for its exhibition design; Noga Mizrachi for her catalogue design; and A. M. Goldstein for English editing of the catalogue; and, lastly, the Gesteht Haifa Ltd for printing. The exhibition is an education as well as a pleasure. Let's hope many students take advantage of the opportunity during the indefinite period, maybe two years, that the exhibit lives. (The Cirecu Revolt in the Galilee, Heche Mutieum, University of Haifa, Israel. Available on the museum website at httpV/mushecht.haifa.ac.il/michmanim/ CataloHMenu_eng.aspx.'id —35.)
Camilla Luckey Reference Guri-Rimon, O. 2008. The Great Revolt in the Galikc. Hefah: Muie'on Helcht, Universität Hefah,
To be commended are Guri-Rimon and her assistant curator, Shunit Netter-Marmelstein, and Peri Livne; the rest of the museum staff; the science advisers (Prof. Uriel Rappaport, Dr. Jack Pastor,
Umbo. An umbo is the raised center, or boss, of a shield. This bronze one, found at Gamla, closely resembles one displayed in the exhibit. Others like it can be identified on shields in the many illustrations drawn after Trajan's Column (Rome) used throughout both the exhibit and its catalogue. Courtesy Danny Syon.
m\
m
The New Acropolis Museum: Where the Visual Feast Trumps Education
T
he glittering new Acropolis Museum opened on June 20, 2009, amidst a ßurry of international attention and press coverage. The need for a new museum was already apparent in the ¡ 970s, but it took the intervening thirty years to become a reality. The new structure, designed by New York's Bernard Tschumi and curated by Dimitrios Pandermalis, replaces a predecessor that first opened its doors in i 874 and welcomed travelers, families, and archaeological superstars for more than a hundred years.
m\
m\
The new incarnation is a far cry from its dark and crowded ancestor. Located to the south of the Acropolis on Dicinysiou AreopagitoLi, it rests on huge pylons above a recently excavated portion of the ancient city. Visitors, after passing through a TSAworthy security apparatus, move up a wide ramp lined with artifacts from the Acropolis's slopes. The second floor is shaped like a colonnaded temple and contains the Archaic sculpture room, several displays that highlight the Periklean building program, and glowing niches set into the walls for smaller finds. The space is organized both thematically and chronologically, beginning in the Bronze Age and ending with a gleaming display of seventh-century C.E. gold coins. The escalators, placed within the central "celta," glide up to the topfloor,where one can walk among the Parthenon marbles while enjoying a spectacular view. The museum has two gift shops, a well-priced café, and a balcony whose bold lunge
The Erechtheion's caryatids on display, now visible from all angles. Courtesy of the Acropolis Museum.
56 NEAR Ü.ASTERN ARt;HAliOUXiY 7Î:1 (2010)
The Parthenon Gallery interacts with the Athenian Acropolis. Courtesy of Bernard Tschumi Architects.
toward the Acropolis provides an undisturbed view of hoth the Parthenon and the meticulously coiffed olive grove included in the museum's grounds. Most striking about the artifacts on display are their sheer luimber: about four thousand, too many to have ever graced the older and much smaller museum. New visitors will he enthralled by the veritable forest of Archaic sculptures. Any questions can be answered by the discreetly hovering docents, employed specifically to wander the museum and engage people in conversation. Th(5se not troubled by vertigo will be thrilled to walk on glass floors above the newly excavated remains of the Late Antique city; walkways are planned that will allow guests to climb down among tbe ancient streets. Those long familiar with the previous Acropolis Museum will see well-known, old friends—the Kritios Boy, the Bluebeard Pediment, the Rampin Rider—but will also be delighted hy the newer additions; the Seated Scribes, the painted votive plaques, the hordes of wedding vessels (kmtrophoroi). Expect to be pleasantly surprised by details not normally visible in a display of this sort, such as the chisel marks on the hack oí the Parthenon's frieze blocks or the elaborate and lush braids trailing past the shoulders of the Garyatids. Especially charming is the Hellenistic foundation pyre that greets visitors upon entering; in a modern foundation rite, a last pot was interred in the pyre and the deposit symbolically sealed in the glass floor during the televised opening ceremony. The objects themselves are gorgeously illuminated by the natural light. The purified "low iron" glass used to make up the walls eliminates the hot summer's glare and adds instead a soft, .silvery- texture to the light. Thanks to the spacious 150,000 square ieet, the sculptures and architectural fragments stand away from walls and corners and can be minutely examined from all angles. Other artifacts, such as metal attachments, votive terracottas, and pottery, are displayed in recessed cases in the east and west walls; the handful of free-standing cases are small and serve as accents to display tine or two particular artifacts. JÏ.0
ȕi:
As a whole, the building is a spectacular example of a sitespecific museum. The dialogue between the museum and the adjacent Acropolis is at once subtle and unmistakable, already evident as one takes in the exterior of the building. Towering above visitors, its size and shape are akin to the huge limestone outcrop that it celebrates. The wide ramp in the interior, lined with artifacts from the slopes, recalls the entrance ramp that once led supplicants upward to the sanctuary; present-day crowds make the pilgrimage much like the ancient Athenians. In the Archaic sculpture room, the white luster of marble contrasts with the slate grey of the concrete piers and walls, recalling the interaction of the white Pentelic marble and grey Eleusinian limestone on the Acropolis, so heloved of architecture aficionados. The topmost floor, aligned at an off-kilter angle that directly mirrors the neighboring Parthenon, is a breath-taking achievement. A magnificent, panoramic vista greets the visitor upon exiting the central "celia." The concrete buildings of the modern city stretch to the south, while to the north the green hills of Lykabittos, Philopappos, and the Acropolis stand close enough to touch, as if artfully arranged by long.-ago geological forces for our viewing pleasure. The sight is so impressive that one has to wrench one's gaze back toward the display, to what many consider the entire ideological underpinning of the museum: the Parthenon Marbles (Elgin Marbles), both the originals that remained in Athens and the casts of those still in the British Museum. The room's form abstractly replicates the sculptured façade of the Parthenon, making it possible to wander along the temple's faux colonnade, looking in toward the famed marble figures. With their original, fifth-centur>' B.C.E. resting place visible beyond the glass walls, the sculptures of the frieze, the metopes and the pediments have been arranged around the central celia and hung at several heights and planes, creating a segmented surface through which the visitor can walk. This spatial partitioning encourages viewers to zigzag in and out oí the Parthenon's external layers in a way
ÎIHIT
m m never before possible. The design has, in fact, created an entirely new way to experience the temple; it adds a distinct, schematic, and original labyrinth that visitors can explore mere minutes after gazing at, photographing, but never entering, the temple on the Acropolis itself. The casts of the missing pedimental sculptures, the center of so much media attention, stand at either end of the Parthenon Gallery, facing east and west, as they did in antiquity; now, however, the modern viewer stands practically nose to nose with the classical Greek gods of the pediments. One could not imagine a more remarkable and intimate way to see and experience the Parthenon Marbles, a point made abundantly clear in the international media blitz surrounding the museum's opening. Particularly characteristic of the Parthenon Gallery, and the museum at large, is the extensive use of glass, which floods the interior with natural light. As anyone who visits will notice, there is a particular character to the light that beats down on the Acropolis, something that the museum's architect has exploited to great effect. Glass is everywhere. Not only are the walls composed of it, but so also are sections of the floor and ceiling. With its three levels and a basement housing an excavation, the glass building becomes a symbolic manifestation of an archaeological site, a threedimensional embodiment of stratigraphy. Looking down is a reminder of the many ancient strata that lie beneath the modern city streets. Looking up, one sees a living palimpsest with the surreal scampering of children on the floor above. Of course, as eye-popping as the effect may be, the designers were clearly not women wearing skirts on a hot Athenian day. Visitors are strongly advised to dress accordingly! Perhaps because of its modern sensibilities, the The Archaic Gallery on the second floor of the Acropolis Museum. Courtesy of the Acropolis Museum.
8
NEAR K.-XSTHRN AUCHAÍíOUKiV 7Î:1 (20101
\m museum's design seems to celebrate the nineteenth-century view of ancient Greece, highlighting rationality and simplicity. The lines are clean and the fonns basic. Even the muted color palette serves to create a mood reflecting the idealized classical Acropolis—no gaudy ancient color-clashing or Byzantine ochres here. Instead, the shades are cool; the hard grey of limestone, the dusky blue of the afternoon sky, the cream-colored marble of the temples. Yet, for some, the color palette, combined with the museum's concrete, metal, and glass, might have a cold and sterile feel; the architectonic lines, the industrial girders, the metallic lining of the artifact cases—these may more readily bring to mind the skeletal cranes and hardware of the Parthenon's reconstruction project than any classical past. While the aesthetic experience is stunning, it seems to have dictated and controlled the role of pedagogy in the museum's design. The press pamphlet mentions that "Signage has been developed to be both visible and yet to be as discrete as possible, recognizing that signage and wayfinding must not compete with the artifacts" {Acropolis Museum Media Kit, 2009, 4). The signs and labels are easy to miss, because they fade into the background and bear only regular, black text. The lack of photographs, illustrated reconstructions, and t)ther drawings is conspicuous, especially given the rich photographic tradition a v a i l a b l e from t h e excavations, as well as the hundreds of drawings and paintings showing the later life of the Acropolis. T h e re a r e very few maps to aid orientation, although three charming and delicate models of the Acropolis are a pleasure to see; one can only wish that they had been larger, so as to compete with the more massive, beautifislly
I
üül IM
Pli articulated, and gleaming-whitc poorly represented, both in objects and models of the fifth-century Periklean labeling, so that visitors will have no idea buildings. The information provided rhat a temple to Roma and Augustus by the signs is generally too vague >-tood among the Classical structures and elementary, lacking in detail or that Herodes Atticus once built a and with little attention given I heater there in honor of his murdered to chronology or disagreements wife. A beautifully filmed short video in interpretation. For example, I m the top floor is the only concession the function and contents of the to the p o s t - R o m a n A c r o p o l i s ; Periklean buildings ate ignored in computerized reconstructions give a favor of their architectural and Jelightful but extremely brief synopsis sculptural details—there is no oí the Parthenon's histoty up until discussion of the altars beneath the Elgin's departure. Unfortunately, the Nike Temple, no mention of the video is too short to address the later scholarly kerfuffle over whether the history of the building in any depth, and it does not address the rest of the Parthenon was a temple, and no Acropolis. Most interested visitors exhibit dedicated to the cult statues, will nevL'r know that the Parthenon not even that most famous produci became a sacred site for the Byzantine of Phidias, the Athena Parthenon worship of the Theotokos (Mother of Fortunately, the objects from the God); that in the medieval period the sanctuaries on the slopes highlight .Acropolis was a fortified site, with a last daily life and the social function of remaining tower still standing to this the slope sanctuaries. These displays day; that a mosque and minaret stood Lire especially strong on ancient there in the midst of an Ottoman-era marriage customs, gender roles, ; or that the Acropolis become a and the domestic experience. The of resistance during the Nazi slim discussion of ancient ritual, occupation. The entire account of the however, notably the Panathenaic archaeological excavation is summed The entrance to the Acropolis Museum prtïcession, the sacrifices to includes a view of the recent excavations. up in one sentence. Ultimately, the Athena, and the various altars and Courtesy of Bernard Tschumi Architects. museum's presentation of the history cult statues on the Acropolis, is of the Acropolis effectively terminates cause for disappointment. In short, with the Roman period, all but ignoring its subsequent life. the museum's approach to signage reflects a larger philosophy evident throughout: the artifacts are central, while historical and The museum's architecture, though it has its detractors, archaeological contexts pass to the wayside. mirrors and reinterprets the limestone rock and its buildings in Melina Mcrcouri's campaign to retrieve the Parthenon Marbles, an enthralling and constantly surprising way. Moving through begun in 1983, continues in the Parthenon Gallery, where dull the building and among its artifacts is an encounter that is to be white plaster casts stand in place of the missing sculptures, Yet the highly recommended. That experience, however, subsumed the sculptures removed hy Elgin are not the only glaring omission fiom didactic function of the museum. Those interested in exploring the the Museum; t)ne likely to receive more attention as time passes is archaeological history of the Acropolis, rather than just its art, will ihe absence of entire periods of history. The displays officially cover likely be disappointed. In the end, as an aesthetic experience, the the Mycenaean through Roman periods, although the emphasis of new Acropolis Museum is a resounding triumph, but as a place to the collection and its educational literature rests on the Archaic learn about the long, complex, and fascinating history of Athens's ;md Classical periods, a fact, one might argue, that was dictated most important cultural landmark, it is a missed opportunity. more hy the interests of the nineteenth-century excavators than by anything else. Still, even the geological history of the limestone Katie Rask outcrop and its position in the topography of the Mesogeion plain The Ohio State University is not explored, so that the Acropolis is presented as having no connection at all to its wider landscape (a trend continued by the failure to connect the Acropolis's history in any way to the Agora or other parts of the ancient city). The Roman period is very
m m
m
m\
\m\ \m Book Reviews of Interest
Ancient Jordan from the Air By David Kennedy and Robert Bewley. London: Council for the British Research in the Levant, 2004. Pp. 282. Cloth, $68.00, ISBN 0-95391-022-9.
A;
rchaeology in an age of satellite imagery has prompted a new chapter in the investigation of the Near Eastern landscape. Like the survey equipment of early European explorers, satellite technologies and Global Information Systems (GIS) software have together become a robust, high-resolution lens through which humans' relationship with the landscape are discerned. Despite the imagery's and software's high expense, these technologies have changed the nature of archaeological practice: no need to purchase an expensive plane ticket to the region; no need to apply for an excavation license from the national antiquities authority; and for archaeologists who work in areas plagued by conflict or occupied by foreign armies, they may continue their exploration from the comfort of their office computers. Indeed, these methods seem poised to surpass field archaeology in popularity, especially as scholars lose access to particular comers of the Middle East and funding sources dry up. But can pixilated spy photos and abstract settlement pattern models help archaeologists grasp the nuances of everyday life or the stratigraphie details of history that field archaeology provides? Must archaeologists abandon their trowels for comfortable office chairs? A compromise between the office-bound and the field-bound is David Kennedy and Robert Bewley's Ancient Jordan/rom the Air. This book of breathtaking aerial photography picks readers up out of their desk chairs and flies them across the Jordanian landscape. A volume designed both for the scholar and layperson (25-26), Ancient Jordan from the Air's chronological coverage is thorough, documenting sites and features from prehistory through the British Mandate period. The book includes an essay on Jordan's environment (ch. 2), a summary of tbe kingdom's culture history (ch. 3), and a discussion of methods in aerial archaeology (ch. 4). The remaining ten chapters treat each cultural horizon separately, combining half- and full-page colur images of key sites. The accompanying text discusses the site's cultural and social significance. Rarely is an impiirtant site overlooked. My strongest critique is that a compact disk containing digital versions of the images was not included with the book. It is worth admiring this book for tbe unusual aerial perspective
that the authors have worked so hard to produce. Between 1997 and 2003, Kennedy and Bewley, in collaboration with the Jordanian Air Eorce, conducted several helicopter and small plane flights over Jordan. They used a 35 mm camera along with a variety of lenses and film to produce the book's images (53). These authors encountered tbe usual problems that photographers face in arid environments. Multiple complicating factors such as vegetation, time of day, and angle and intensity of the sun—never mind shouting directions to the pilot over the loud engine—-made getting the perfect shot difficult. Capturing the right ratios of shadow to light matter in this art, and in most instances the authors have managed to produce crisp images that illustrate the features of each site in great detail. A collective examination of these images reveals how different Jordan's ancient settlements are compared to those found elsewhere in the Levant. Rural Jordan has experienced relatively limited population growth compared to other areas of the Levant (e.g., Lebanon). As a result, many sites stand apart from modern settlements, making them easy to photograph. As one travels from north to south, the large, deeply stratified sites like Tall el-Husn (90-91) that are typical of ancient Near Eastern settlements give way to smaller single-period settlements like Khirbat al-Mudayna al-Aliya (108-9) whose architecture is often still visible on the surface. Chapter 12, on Early Islamic Jordan, is by far the book's most successful chapter. After a one-page introduction to the time period, images of the so-called "Desert Castles"—Qasr al-Mshatta, Qasr Mushash, Qasr al-Kharaneh, Qusayr Amra, Qasr al-Tuba—as well as other notable Umayyad and Ayyubid settlements such as al-Qastal, Umm al-Walid, Ayla (Aqaba), al-Fedein, Khirbat al-Makhul, and the pools and mansions of the Azraq Oasis follow. In several instances, two images of each site are presented from different distances and angles in order to illustrate the site's broader context as well as a close-up of its features. The image caption helpfully reports the film reference and the date the photo was taken. Each site and its historical significance are discussed in a four- or five-paragraph description alongside the image. But it is chapter 14, on the Ottoman and British Mandate periods, that is the book's unique contribution. These two periods often go overlooked in culture history surveys, but thanks to the work of archaeologists and historians these recent periods are witnessing more scholarly attention. Kennedy and Bewley provide aerial photographs of tbe Ottoman pilgrimage forts that offered water and protection to weary pilgrims as well as the road that was worn into the landscape through centuries of traffic. Other images include the late Ottoman-period towns of Dana and Salt, the Hijaz Railway, and the few remaining military trenches the Ottoman military constructed during World War I. Most
surprising are images of the few remaining features still visible from the British Mandate period: police forts and airports, as well as the circular airmail route markers that pilots followed from Amman to the Iraqi town of Ramadi. Readers who quickly flip through this book may conclude that Ancienl Jordaji/ro7n the Air is a mere coffee-table book with pretty pictures and that aerial archaeology is only adventure tourism in disguise, generating results more suitable for National Geographic enthusiasts than serious scholars. I would disagree on both counts. The book is more than archaeological eye-candy, and the book's images will prove useful in classroom and public lectures. This book also serves as an exciting, albeit brief, introduction to the archaeology of Jordan that complements more detailed surveys of Jordan's archaeology such as MacDonald, Adams, and Bienkowski's Arc/iíimíog^ of Jordan (2001). Best of all, some of these images are useful for analysis. Upon receiving the book, I hurriedly flipped to page 103, where images of Dhiban, the site at which I currently work, were published. A near-vertical image of the site (fig. 7.2B) revealed visible architectural features that sit on or just below the surface. I quickly scanned the image at a high resolution and imported it into Adobe Illustrator. Using the program's vector drawing tool, I traced the complicated building outline on the settlement's western half, all from the convenience of my home computer! In their description oí Dhiban's history, the authors point out these visible features and suggest that fragments of a possible casemate wall may be seen on the image's extreme right-hand side, Dhiban's western edge. This is a reasonable observation to make from an airplane's cockpit, but it also reveals how these conjectures must be followed up with on-the-ground inspection. The Dhiban Project's recent excavations and architectural survey reveal that the suggested casemate system as well as the partially submerged architecture date to Jordan's Mamluk and possibly Ottoman occupation between the thirteenth and nineteenth centuries c.E. Ancient Jordan/rom the Air, like all aerial and satellite imagery, provides archaeologists with a perspective that past societies probably never imagined possible. Even today, this perspective is a convenience in which only the select few may indulge— most ordinary Jordanians and tourists to the kingdom experience rhe landscape horizontally, while walking or driving. Realizing this privileged position leads one to wonder the extent to which this bird's-eye view oi' the landscape can satisfy archaeological research goals. No doubt these technologies help begin the search, identifying sites and piecing together the agricultural strategies of ancient societies, but it does not readily lend itself to reconstructing the very minute details of daily life in antiquity or recovering the ancient documents that historians value as primary sources. So long as these aspects of the discipline are
valued, archaeologists will need to get their boots dirty in the field. For archaeologists working in Jordan, Kennedy and Bewley take them part way there.
Benjamin W. Porter University of California, Berkeley
The Persian Empire By Lindsay Allen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Pp. 208; plates, maps. Cloth, $39.95, ISBN 0-226-01447-9.
L
indsay Allen's volume was printed initially as the historical accompaniment to the British Museum's lauded "Forgotten Empire" exhibition of over 450 works of Achaemenid art and its _ catalogue edited by curator J. E. Curtis and N. Tallis (published by the British Museum and University oí California Press). The British Museum's edition of Allen's text was entitled specifically as a history; Chicago's version drops that line, presumably to promote the book as a cultural-political treatment written for a general audience, as the dust jacket describes. The connection between Allen's book and the exhibition is not explicit, but the high quality of some of tbe illustrations—seventy-five of which are color—hints at the relationship. Allen has held numerous research and teaching positions in England and tbe U.S. and has worked in the Ancient Near Eastern departments of the British and Metropolitan Museums, poising her to write a well-researched narrative that speaks to nonspecialists. The text is divided into seven chapters presented in moreor-less chronological order from the Neo-Assyrian roots o{ the empire to the reception of Achaemenid history and material culture in modern Iran. (Presumably this interest justifies the publisher's choice of Neo-Babylonian and nineteenth-century objects on the front of the jacket, reserving a tiled lion relief from Susa for the back cover.) Chapter 1 is concerned especially with origins and the ties the Achaemenid Empire had to the Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian traditions. The remainder of the chapter offers an event-driven history of Cyrus II to the end of Cambyses' reign. Chapter 2 picks up with Darius I, whom Allen credits with tbe formation of a true "Persian identity," and leads us to the Ionian Revolt and its ramifications. The
3:1 {ZOIC) 01
surprising are images of the few remaining features still visible from the British Mandate period: police forts and airports, as well as the circular airmail route markers that pilots followed from Amman to the Iraqi town of Ramadi. Readers who quickly flip through this book may conclude that Ancienl Jordaji/ro7n the Air is a mere coffee-table book with pretty pictures and that aerial archaeology is only adventure tourism in disguise, generating results more suitable for National Geographic enthusiasts than serious scholars. I would disagree on both counts. The book is more than archaeological eye-candy, and the book's images will prove useful in classroom and public lectures. This book also serves as an exciting, albeit brief, introduction to the archaeology of Jordan that complements more detailed surveys of Jordan's archaeology such as MacDonald, Adams, and Bienkowski's Arc/iíimíog^ of Jordan (2001). Best of all, some of these images are useful for analysis. Upon receiving the book, I hurriedly flipped to page 103, where images of Dhiban, the site at which I currently work, were published. A near-vertical image of the site (fig. 7.2B) revealed visible architectural features that sit on or just below the surface. I quickly scanned the image at a high resolution and imported it into Adobe Illustrator. Using the program's vector drawing tool, I traced the complicated building outline on the settlement's western half, all from the convenience of my home computer! In their description oí Dhiban's history, the authors point out these visible features and suggest that fragments of a possible casemate wall may be seen on the image's extreme right-hand side, Dhiban's western edge. This is a reasonable observation to make from an airplane's cockpit, but it also reveals how these conjectures must be followed up with on-the-ground inspection. The Dhiban Project's recent excavations and architectural survey reveal that the suggested casemate system as well as the partially submerged architecture date to Jordan's Mamluk and possibly Ottoman occupation between the thirteenth and nineteenth centuries c.E. Ancient Jordan/rom the Air, like all aerial and satellite imagery, provides archaeologists with a perspective that past societies probably never imagined possible. Even today, this perspective is a convenience in which only the select few may indulge— most ordinary Jordanians and tourists to the kingdom experience rhe landscape horizontally, while walking or driving. Realizing this privileged position leads one to wonder the extent to which this bird's-eye view oi' the landscape can satisfy archaeological research goals. No doubt these technologies help begin the search, identifying sites and piecing together the agricultural strategies of ancient societies, but it does not readily lend itself to reconstructing the very minute details of daily life in antiquity or recovering the ancient documents that historians value as primary sources. So long as these aspects of the discipline are
valued, archaeologists will need to get their boots dirty in the field. For archaeologists working in Jordan, Kennedy and Bewley take them part way there.
Benjamin W. Porter University of California, Berkeley
The Persian Empire By Lindsay Allen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Pp. 208; plates, maps. Cloth, $39.95, ISBN 0-226-01447-9.
L
indsay Allen's volume was printed initially as the historical accompaniment to the British Museum's lauded "Forgotten Empire" exhibition of over 450 works of Achaemenid art and its _ catalogue edited by curator J. E. Curtis and N. Tallis (published by the British Museum and University oí California Press). The British Museum's edition of Allen's text was entitled specifically as a history; Chicago's version drops that line, presumably to promote the book as a cultural-political treatment written for a general audience, as the dust jacket describes. The connection between Allen's book and the exhibition is not explicit, but the high quality of some of tbe illustrations—seventy-five of which are color—hints at the relationship. Allen has held numerous research and teaching positions in England and tbe U.S. and has worked in the Ancient Near Eastern departments of the British and Metropolitan Museums, poising her to write a well-researched narrative that speaks to nonspecialists. The text is divided into seven chapters presented in moreor-less chronological order from the Neo-Assyrian roots o{ the empire to the reception of Achaemenid history and material culture in modern Iran. (Presumably this interest justifies the publisher's choice of Neo-Babylonian and nineteenth-century objects on the front of the jacket, reserving a tiled lion relief from Susa for the back cover.) Chapter 1 is concerned especially with origins and the ties the Achaemenid Empire had to the Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian traditions. The remainder of the chapter offers an event-driven history of Cyrus II to the end of Cambyses' reign. Chapter 2 picks up with Darius I, whom Allen credits with tbe formation of a true "Persian identity," and leads us to the Ionian Revolt and its ramifications. The
3:1 {ZOIC) 01
book (particularly its publisher) chooses to promote the Persian invasion of mainland Greece as the watershed moment in Greek identity-formation, emphasizing the Greeks' discovery through this confrontation that they "were distinct from the peoples of Asia" (49). While this notion is hardly controversial for a general text, it is disappointing to see the author promote a facile notion of Greek social history here when elsewhere she suggests with more subtlety that Greeks had mixed responses to the Persians. Having brought the story through the death of Xerxes and rise of Artaxerxes I, the book abandons its chronological approach in chapter 3, which focuses on royal capitals. The discussion of archaeological material is neither complete nor particularly satisfying. Chapter 4 begins as art history. Here the use of figures is uneven, some being ignored entirely in the main discussion. The text manages to work its way hack to history, bringing the narrative down to the fourth century. Chapter 5 breaks rhythm again with a sociocultural address to tbe makeup, administration, and religious traditions of the empire. Chapter 6 recounts Alexander's Eastern campaigns and their consequences. Allen presents Alexander as the "last of the Achaemenids," allowing her to recount, sometimes in detail excessive for a general audience, his conquests and how they were perceived by contemporary and later audiences. Chapter 7 continues the intermittent style of the other "culture" chapters, discussing various interesting topics of the post-Alexander age. It offers some idea of how various Western groups came to be involved in and contributed to Iranian archaeology and how the Achaemenid past was treated before and after the revolution. More attention to the state of archaeology in post-1979 Iran would have heen illuminating. The decision to present the material thematically, however laudable, yields a sometimes disjointed text. Descriptions of objects and sites, although occasionally insightful, seem generally no more informative than good museum wall text. Tbe purpose of the illustrations is not always evident. Figure captions are uneven and inconsistent; dates are offered sporadically, as are dimensions and material. It is nearly impossible to learn more about the illustrations because of the choice to list the figure credits alphabetically according to source and to omit all bibliography from this section. The images themselves are sometimes breathtaking, sometimes prosaic, and selected seemingly at whim. While the landscapes and other views offer an important sense of place, the illustration of several objects lacking provenance is troublesome. The notes and bibliography are more solid. Allen's text can offer a nice overview of events and is, at times, rather insightful. Its strengths are its eagerness to highlight lesser-known aspects and achievements of one of the lesser.known-—even "forgotten"—great empires and its willingness and ability to handle postantique source material to investigate the lasting impact of the Achaemenids. But the presentation seems sometimes at odds with Chicago's promotion of an "accessible" i>2 NkAli LA^ilbRN ARCMALOLOGV ï J : l (2010)
text. For example, in an otherwise interesting section on perceptions of Alexander in the Near Eastern literary tradition, the mythological character "Iskander" is introduced visually and in a figure caption on pages 144-45 (fig. 6.9) without sufficient explanation of his identity. Not until page 156 is his association with Alexander explained clearly; later still, on page 159 (fig. 6.17), "Iskander" is glossed as "Alexander." Such editorial oversights and confusing typos (e.g., "Iranian" for "Ionian") would surely frustrate a nonspecialist reader, whereas the text may only occasionally add enough to the general picture for a scholar to choose it over others released recently that were written with an academic audience in mind.
S. Rebecca Martin Southeast Missouri State University
Studying the Ancient Israelites: A Guide to Sources and Methods By Victor H. Matthews. Grand Rapids: Baker; Nottingham, U.K.: Apollos, 2007. Pp. 232, including insets, charts, illustrations, and photos. Paper, $21.99. ISBN: 978-0-80103197-7.
Studying the Ancient Israelites
T:
'his is a helpful, easy-to-read volume that introduces students and interested nonspecialists to important issues in understanding and re-creating the culture of, and select historical events that took place within, Israel and Judah. It is neatly arranged into an introduction and five thematic chapters dealing, in order, with historical geography, archaet)Iogy, literary approaches, social sciences, and history and historiography. Terms are well-defined for the beginner, and many present-day analogies are used to help show both continuity and discontinuity with twenty-first-century Western culture. Matthews follows the tripartite division of changes over time developed by the Annales historical school, although this is not acknowledged and may be sheer coincidence. Still, it is a logical way to move from the big picture to specific events; historical geography shows how the slowest rate of change, long duration, which reflects changes that take pliice over millennia, still impacts on human decisions about where to live and how to support oneself in that environment;
book (particularly its publisher) chooses to promote the Persian text. For example, in an otherwise interesting section on invasion of mainland Greece as the watershed moment in Greek perceptions of Alexander in the Near Eastern literary tradition, identity-formation, emphasizing the Greeks' discovery through the mythological character "Iskander" is introduced visually and this confrontation that they "were distinct from the peoples in a figure caption on pages 144-45 (fig. 6.9) without sufficient of Asia" (49). While this notion is hardly controversial for a explanation of his identity. Not until page 156 is his association general text, it is disappointing to see the author promote a with Alexander explained clearly; later still, on page 159 (fig. facile notion of Greek social history here when elsewhere she 6.17), "Iskander" is glossed as "Alexander." Such editorial suggests with more subtlety that Greeks had mixed responses to oversights and confusing typos (e.g., "Iranian" for "Ionian") would surely frustrate a nonspecialist reader, whereas the text may only the Persians. Having brought the story through the death of Xerxes and occasionally add enough to the general picture for a scholar to rise of Artaxerxes I, the book abandons its chronological choose it over others released recently that were written with an approach in chapter 3, which focuses on royal capitals. The academic audience in mind. discussion of archaeological material is neither complete nor particularly satisfying. Ghapter 4 begins as art history, fiere S. Rebecca Martin the use of figures is uneven, some being ignored entirely in Southeast Missouri State University the main discussion. The text manages to work its way back to history, bringing the narrative down to the fourth century. Chapter 5 breaks rhythm again with a sociocultural address to the makeup, administration, and religious traditions of the empire. Ghapter 6 recounts Alexander's Eastern campaigns and their consequences. Allen presents Alexander as the "last of the Achaemenids," allowing her to recount, sometimes in detail excessive for a general audience, his conquests and how they were perceived by contemporary and later audiences. Ghapter 7 continues the intermittent style of the other "culture" chapters, discussing various interesting topics of the post-Alexander age. It offers some idea of how various Western groups came to be By Victor H. Matthews. Grand Rapinvolved in and contributed to Iranian archaeology and how the ids: Baker; Nottingham, U.K.: ApolAchaemenid past was treated before and after the revolution. los, 2007. Pp. 232, including insets, More attention to the state of archaeology in post-1979 Iran charts, illustrations, and photos. would have been illuminating. Paper, $21.99. ISBN: 978-0-80103197-7. The decision to present the material thematically, however laudable, yields a sometimes disjointed text. Descriptions of objects and sites, although occasionally insightful, seem generally s is a helpful, easy-to-read volno more informative than good museum wall text. The purpose of ume that introduces students and the illustrations is not always evident. Figure captions are uneven interested nonspecialists to important and inconsistent; dates are offered sporadically, as are dimensions issues in understanding and re-creatand material. It is nearly impossible to learn more about the illustrations because of the choice to list the figure credits ing the culture of, and select historical events that took place within, alphabetically according to source and to omit all bibliography Israel and Judah. It is neatly arranged into an introduction and from this section. The images themselves are sometimes five thematic chapters dealing, in order, with historical geography, breathtaking, sometimes prosaic, and selected seemingly at whim. archaeology, literary approaches, social sciences, and history and While the landscapes and other views offer an important sense historiography. Terms are well-defined for the beginner, and many of place, the illustration of several objects lacking provenance is present-day analogies are used to help show both continuity and discontinuity with twenty-first-century Western culture. Matthews troublesome. The notes and bibliography are more solid. Allen's text can offer a nice overview of events and is, at times, follows the tripartite division of changes over time developed by the rather insightful. Its strengths are its eagerness to highlight Annales historical school, although this is not acknowledged and lesser-known aspects and achievements of one of the lesser- may be sheer coincidence. Still, it is a logical way to move from the known—even "forgotten"—great empires and its willingness and big picture to specific events: historical geography shows how the ability to handle postantique source material to investigate the slowest rate of change, long duration, which reflects changes that lasting impact of the Achaemenids. But the presentation seems take place over millennia, still impacts on human decisions about sometimes at odds with Chicago's promotion of an "accessible" where to live and how to support oneself in that environment;
Studying the Ancient Israelites: A Guide to Sources and Methods
Studying the Ancient Israelites
archaeology then demonstrates changes that take place at the rate records under this heading and to deal with the Bible in the of multiple decades to centuries, or conjunction, documenting ensuing chapter. Matthews does begin the subsection by saying trends within a given culture; texts give access to the fastest rate the Bible is also an ancient artifact (84), but this order of of change, days to years, the level of event, providing names and presentation psychologically separates the biblical and nonbiblical particulars about specific occurrences. written material in a way I think is unhelpful and potentially The introduction needs not only a discussion of the multiple misleading. Most of the literary methods outlined under "Literary meanings of Israel but also a discussion of ]udahites/}udeans. I Approaches" need to be applied to any ancient text, whatever its suspect the term "ancient Israelites" was chosen for the title nature and country of origin. More importantly, although ostraca, because it has a certain level of popular recognition for marketing inscriptions, clay tablets, and papyri can come to light through purposes. However, I was surprised not to find a subsequent excavation, they provide direct evidence for the level of event nuancing of its meaning, especially since the point of the book is and so are distinguishable from other cultural remains recovered to help beginners understand the "real" world inhabited by "real" in the same way, which only illuminate the level of conjunction. people. Those of us who teach undergraduates are well aware The chapter on literary approaches gives a succinct description of the confusion in their minds that leads them to interchange of an array of critical approaches: just enough basic information "Israelite" and "Israeli" and to call the people who were citizens to be useful but not overwhelming. I agree with Matthews, of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah "Jews" indiscriminately. Thus, however, that the cumulative effect for the beginner might be in such a primer as this, it is crucial to reinforce distinctions and despair, due to the complexity of the analytical task and so many make students aware that "Israel" was once the name of a small possible approaches (121). There is no easy way to avoid this Iron Age kingdom but also came to be the emic designation of sense under the circumstances. However, I think limited rehef the emerging Jewish community in the Persian period, embraced could have been provided by grouping approaches into synthetic by inhabitants of Samerina, Yehud, and the Judean diaspora; the or diachronic categories, beginning with the synthetic, final-form possible influence within the Israelite diaspora cannot be gauged. readings. This is logically where all analysis begins, and only after This book focuses on Israelites and Judahites who inhabited the the text has been understood at this level does the historian then kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It would be worthwhile to stress move on to diachronic methods such as source criticism, form that most of the Hebrew Bible was produced in southern circles, criticism, and tradition criticism, which need not be addressed by Judahite/Judean, depending on when you date the first drafts of a literary critic. Matthews's claim that "scholars who concentrate individual books, and so is testimony to the culture of Judah more their efforts on the literary and historical aspects of the biblical so than of Israel. narrative are known as literary critics" is outdated (107). Over The chapter on archaeology is generally well-balanced, but it the past twenty-five to thirty years, with the rise of synthetic does not explain the basic reason why archaeology cannot prove approaches, there has been a parting of the ways between literary or disprove the Bible. It is not only because of "the destructive critics and historians, who share the synthetic set of methods but nature of time, the elements, and successive inhabitants of the no longer the diachronic ones. region who systematically reused building materials and dug The chapter on social sciences provides a good guide for the through ancient occupation layers" (60). These things are taken need to be aware of differences in culture between "us" and into consideration when excavating, and the last two, one hopes, "them" and to realize that the Hebrew Bible, like all literature, are caught in the process of recording and phasing an area. encodes its society's customs, practices, and views of reality. The Students need to understand that archaeology illuminates the scribes who composed each book assumed their audience would level of conjunction, which is the backdrop against which events share all sorts of common presuppositions and knowledge. Thus, take place. Remains of the material culture of a given group, readers from another culture and different time can deduce and which primarily are datable by changes in pottery and shifts in infer aspects of their social world, cultural values, and institutions handwriting, give access to trends that tend to change at the rate through careful attention to story details. But is this to be done as of a century or more. Thus, nonwritten artifacts do not provide a synthetic task or as a diachronic one? Matthews says that taking direct evidence for the level of event. A stratum cannot be dated into account cultural layering must precede the identification on archaeological criteria alone to the reign of a specific king. of separate layers and their editing (128). I do not understand Students would also have benefited here from a discussion of what he means in practical terms. Similarly (or contrarily?), I find absolute and relative dating so they see how even small objects baffling the statement that "[t]he social context presented in these such as scarabs or coins with specific historical information texts is revealed as its layers are stripped away in much the same cannot absolutely date a given layer, due to the heirloom factor way that an archaeologist strips away the soil in an excavation" and animal activity. (126). To what method is he referring? Ancient Judahite and While I understand the logic of saying that texts are artifacts Judean cultural dimensions are embedded in Matthews's use of a sort and so can be included in a discussion of archaeology, it of language to convey his message and so are operative on the was somewhat artificial to include inscriptions and extrabiblical synthetic level. Conflicting/competing ideologies, practices, and
beliefs found within a passage are the main means of identifying editorial work so as to recognize diachronic layers present in an account. More clarity about these two aspects is needed. This volume has a number of strengths that would make it quite useful as a primary or supplementary text for an introductorylevel course or module. Eor this reason, I would like to see the points raised above addressed to enhance a second edition even further. As it stands, the book can be used by a wide audience, from both faith and nonfaith backgrounds, and it gives a helpful emphasis to reading texts of the Hebrew Bible within their ancientcontexts, which differ from our modern Western one dramatically and from more traditional societies less so but still in important ways that need to be acknowledged. If the trends in final-form
and reader-response approaches to biblical texts continue, the process of creating meaning can still be enhanced by making the reader aware that she or he is far from being a member of the author's ideal narrative audience or from targeted actual ancient audiences. In choosing to bridge this gap by learning more about the ancient Judahite, Judean, and Jewish worldviews and literary conventions, a reader can become more self-aware and better attuned to the contributions made by the authors who created the texts and the reader who is responding to it by drawing on his or her own experience and current worldview.
Diana Edelman University of Sheffield
Andrews University Press SMALL FINDS: STUDIES OF BONE, IRON, GLASS, FIGURINES, AND STONE OBJECTS FROM TELL HESBAN AND VICINITY
Small Finds: Studies of Bone, Iron, Glass, Figurines, and Stone Objects from Tell llesban and Vicinity
Edited by Paul J. Ray, Jr. Hesban 12 coordinates the reports of a spectrum of specialists dealing with Arab, Greek, Latin and Ammonite inscriptions, bone, iron samples, glass fragments, domestic stone objects, ceramic figurines, scarabs, textile tools, cosmetic objects, jewelry, coins and other objects recovered during the excavations at Tell Hesban, its cemeteries, probes and regional-survey sites from 1968-76. ISBN 978-0-943872-28-5 2009 xxi + 414 pp. cloth: 8.5 x 11" $74.99 Phone:269-471-6134
*
Toll Free: 1-800-467-6369 * Fax 269-471-6224 website: universitypress.andrews.edu
*
Email: [email protected]
