The Manasseh Hill Country Survey: The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East)

The Manasseh Hill Country Survey

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Founding Editor

M.H.E. Weippert Editor-in-Chief

Thomas Schneider Editors

Eckart Frahm, W. Randall Garr, B. Halpern, Theo P.J. van den Hout, Irene J. Winter

VOLUME 21.2

The Manasseh Hill Country Survey Volume II: The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert

By

Adam Zertal

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available on http://catalog.loc.gov.

ISSN 1566-2055 ISBN 978 90 04 16369 0 © Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

THE STAFF

The Manasseh Survey staff in 2004. Standing, from left to right: Amit Shadman, Dror Ben-Yosef, Murad Tabar, Haim Winter, Shraga Hashman, Adam Zertal, Yael Leder, Maya Nissan, Daphna Ulman, Michal Oren-Demsky, Moshe Einav. Sitting, from left to right: David Eitam, Oren Cohen and Ron Be’eri. Not present: Gil Cooper and Shai Bar.

The Manasseh Survey staff in 1998, from left to right: Murad Tabar, Arad Haggi, Gil Cooper, Adam Zertal, Haim Cohen, Shraga Hashman, Nivi Mirkam and Moshe Einav.

The Area of the Manasseh Survey, divided into volumes of publication.

CONTENTS List of Abbreviations .............................................................................xii Preface.................................................................................................... 1 PART ONE: INTRODUCTIONS CHAPTER ONE

The Scientific Principles of the Manasseh Hill Country Survey ..............7 CHAPTER TWO

The Geography and Settlement History of East Manasseh ...................11 A. History of Research ..................................................................11 B. The Geography of East Manasseh ............................................15 1. Boundaries of the Region .............................................15 2. Geology and Relief .......................................................16 3. The Geology of East Manasseh.....................................17 4. Climate and Soils .........................................................19 5. Water and Vegetation ...................................................21 6. The Roads and Paths ....................................................25 a. Roman and Byzantine Roads ....................................25 b. Other Ancient Roads and paths ................................26 C. The Landscape Units ................................................................29 D. Notes on the Pottery of East Manasseh .....................................50 E. Outlines on the History of East Manasseh ................................56 F. The Settlement by Periods ........................................................68 CHAPTER THREE

The Geographical Historical Identifications .......................................103 PART TWO: DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES CHAPTER FOUR

Zebabdeh Valley - Landscape Unit 12 ................................................115

x

CONTENTS

CHAPTER FIVE

Ras es-Salmeh - Landscape Unit 13 ....................................................155 CHAPTER SIX

Tubas Valley - Landscape Unit 14 .......................................................199 CHAPTER SEVEN

Wadi Malih - Landscape Unit 15........................................................229 CHAPTER EIGHT

Ras Jadir - Landscape Unit 16 ............................................................312 CHAPTER NINE

The Buqei‘ah - Landscape Unit 17 .....................................................349 CHAPTER TEN

Jebel Tammun - Landscape Unit 18 ...................................................403 CHAPTER ELEVEN

Wadi el-Far‘ah - Landscape Unit 19 ....................................................417 CHAPTER TWELVE

Ras Humsah - Landscape Unit 20 ......................................................507 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

The Desert Fringes - Landscape Unit 21 ............................................553 GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................643

PART THREE: APPENDICES AND INDICES APPENDIX A

The Flint Finds, by Haim Winter ......................................................659 APPENDIX B

The Coins, by Ya‘akov Yannai ............................................................739 INDICES 1. List of Water Sources in the Territory of Vol. II..............................767 2. List of Geographical Names Collected during the Survey .............768

CONTENTS

3. 4. 5. 6.

xi

Partial List of Features ...................................................................772 List of Arabic Villages and Their Population ..................................783 Site Index .....................................................................................784 List of Sites by Period ....................................................................793

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED OVER THE BOOK a.s.a = above surrounding area a.s.l. = above sea level BCE, B. C. E. = Before Common Era b.s.a = below surrounding area b.s.l = below sea level bl = black br = brown Byz = Byzantine Period CE, C. E. = Common Era Chal = Chalcolithic Period CP = Cooking Pot Cu m = Cubic meter dec = decorated, decoration dk = dark EBA = Early Bronze Age EM = Early Moslem Period EP, E. P. = Elevation Point ER = Early Roman Period gr = gray Hel = Hellenistic Period HM = Hole mouth (jar) IrA = Iron Age

Kh. = Khirbeh (t) Km = kilometer LBA = Late Bronze Age LR = Late Roman Period Lt = light LU = Landscape Unit/s m = metre, metres MA = Middle Ages MBA = Middle Bronze Age Misc = miscellaneous Mod = modern No, nos = number, numbers Ott = Ottoman Period PEF = Palestine Exploration Fund Per = Persian Period pk = pink rd = red sq. km = square kilometer sq. m = square meter wh = white yel = yellow

PREFACE Three years have passed since the publication of the first volume of The Manasseh Hill Country Survey in English, and fifteen years since the first publication in Hebrew; we are honored to present the second volume in the English series to the public of researchers and readers. The eastern valleys and the des-ert fringe of Manasseh (henceforth - East Manasseh) are an extensive region, stretching over an area of 500 sq km and more. In character, the area resembles the other desert fringe regions of the Holy Land: the fringes of Ephraim and Benja-min, parts of the Judaean Desert and the Negev Highlands. As in the other open regions, here, too, precipitation is less frequent than in the Mediterranean region, and thus perennial sources of water are of such importance that settlements through the generations concen-trated around them; the population of East Manasseh can be divided, as in other places, into nomadic, semi-nomadic and permanent set-tlers. As in the Negev again, an im-portant characteristic is the chang-ing “waves” of settlement over the long periods of nomadism. In accordance with the pattern set for publication of the Manasseh Hill Country Survey (Zertal 1993b; 1997), in each of the volumes a dif-ferent, extensive region of the coun-try has been researched, the defini--

tion of which relies on geomorphic and historical principles rather than division into maps. The informa-tion on the site and its environs, di-vided into archaeological, historical, geographical and ecological-envi-ronmental characteristics, has been considerably broadened and revised in this volume. Attention was paid to illustrations as well, as was begun in the first volume. These illustra-tions – plans, photographs of the place and its environs, drawings of pottery and other finds, and photo-graphs of findings – shed light on many varied facets of the site. The interested reader will find the detailing of the principles of the Manasseh Hill Country Survey and its publications in the first chapter of this volume, and more extensive information in the introduction to the first volume. The second volume is published in a similar pattern, but with some alterations and additions. The in-novations are these: in the intro-duction a short historical survey has been added, which will offer the reader who is unfamiliar with the details of the area a broad his-torical picture of the settlement and geographic historical identification notes. Attention is paid, and much work has been invested, in measur-ing the sites and drafting plans; it became apparent that the architec-ture of the site is the foundation

2

PREFACE

stone for understanding the settle-ment and its historical and social characteristics. All plans were mea-sured by the survey staff, and their number was increased eight-fold: from 15 plans in the first volume, to 140 and more in the second one. This is due both to the expertise of the team and to the fact that the area was tranquil during the years of the first Intifada (1987-1993), making possible uninterrupted work. In ad-dition, the early architecture is bet-ter preserved in East Manasseh than in the Mediterranean zone. The supplement of features was greatly enlarged; in this volume, an exten-sive series of aerial photographs of the various sites was added. Each individual site is published, as in the first volume, in the follow-ing order: title, characteristics, de-scription, ceramic finds, informa-tion and supposition from literary sources, previous surveys and bibli-ography; here, too, a pottery plates and other findings are presented for most of the sites; the settlement was photographed from the air and the ground, in such a way as to create an “album” of the sites. The value of this photo album will rise in the future, as a large proportion of the places will become built-up mod-ern villages, towns, and cities. An important, significant ad-dition is the new appendices. The first, the processing and publishing of prehistoric material, was done by Haim Winter. He worked on the

flint tools and utensils collected dur-ing the survey, identifying, drawing and processing them scientifically; this action, lacking in the first vol-ume, is also absent from most of the other surveys of the Holy Land. Although a few flint tools had been found previously during the sur-vey, only with the inclusion of H. Winter in the staff could the pre-historic survey be based on meth-odological principles. While there is still a need for a comprehensive, complementary, prehistoric survey, Winter’s work for the first time illu-minates an entire, unknown region in a new “prehistoric light”. The coin appendix, the work of Ya‘akov Yanai, is published here in a form similar to that of the first volume, with the addition of pho-tographs of selected coins. The survey of East Manasseh was conducted over 14 years, beginning in 1980 and ending in 1994, to-gether with the process of revisiting along the years. Just as the Medi-terranean regions of the Manasseh Hill Country were largely unknown to research, so was East Manasseh; about 80 per cent of its sites are re-vealed here for the first time. Over the course of the years, the area was surveyed in its entirety, step by step. Over 500 days of field work were invested, with the participation of three to twelve staff members each time. The sites and their phenom-ena were recorded precisely, and the illustrative material was prepared.

PREFACE

Over the years we learned to love the region we were researching, one of the richest and most enthrall-ing of those in the Holy Land; the survey became, for the people involved, both a way of life and a second home. And finally, in these times of rapid political changes, the impor-tance of our research increases, and the urgency of completing the field work and publishing the findings of the entire series is compelling. A multi-annual archaeological survey requires full cooperation and team work. At the beginning of this second volume, I would like to thank once again all the partici-pants who worked on the survey, processed the material and prepared it for publication: My friend and colleague, the late Nivi Mirkam, participated con-tinually in all the work of the sur-vey from the beginning to the year 2000; Shraga Hashman also par-ticipated continually in the work and contributed his abilities and his good temper; Idan Shaked par-ticipated over a period of six years; David Eitam participated with regularity in the field work; Haim Winter processed the prehistoric material; and the following people, listed alphabetically, each worked for over a year: Yasmin Bar-Maor, Shai Bar, Ron Be’eri, Dror Ben-Yosef, Tam-ar Charpak, Haim Cohen, Oren

3

Cohen, Gil Cooper, Ilana Gonen, Tsach Horovitz, Per Jacobsen, Rafi Kimchi, Zvi Koenigsberg, Nirit Lavie-Alon, No‘ah Maestro, Nata-lie Masika, Rinat Nevo, Sarah (Ketti) Rafael, Yonathan Rand, Sh-lomo Sender, Michal Shelach, Liah Tremer and Adi Ziv. The following also participated: Alvaro, Miriam Belmaker, Pinchas Cohen, Oded Dagai, Tamir Dagan, Meirav Hofi, Yossi Mizrachi, Ronen and Gal Mirkam, Eldad Oren, Sari Pinkas, Mordechei Pozen, Dror Se-gal, Nurit Shacharon, Nati Tsamer-et, Amotz, Imri, Rotem and Navot Zertal. In this volume, I also wish to thank Kibbutz Ein-Shemer for the services it provided; The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, Haifa University, for being the scientific home and patron for both the field work and its publication; to the re-gional councils of Shomeron and the Jordan Valley for the aid they provided; to Nesher which per-formed the aerial photography and Nesher’s pilot, Mr. Benny Daniel; to Prof. Danny Kaufman, who identified some of the prehistoric sites; to Nati Tsameret of the Soci-ety for Preservation of Nature who accompanied several of the tours. Special, heartfelt thanks go to the Cooper family, Ziva and Gil of Moshav Argaman, and their chil-dren, who provided great help and their home was the principal work base for many years.

4

PREFACE

Special thanks to the Scandi-navian Church for Israel and the Bible, with Gru and Bruno Wenske and Dr. Magne Smith, who helped us a lot. Many people took part in prepar-ing, publishing and financing the present volume. Following is a list of the principal contributors, and all deserve cordial thanks: The aerial photographs were tak-en by Moshe Weinberg; The photo-graphs of the findings were taken by Arieh Ginaton; The photographs of the coins were taken by David Shk-lovski; The ceramics illustrations were drawn by Imri Zertal, Zarazah Friedman and Sapir Haad; The flint tools were drawn by Haim Winter, Zarazah Friedman and Sapir Haad; The sketches and maps were drawn by Sapir Haad and Yehudit Dekel; The computerized maps were prepared by Sapir Haad; the black and white printing of photographs was done by Malka Weinberg; Sapir Haad made also some of the draw-ings, redrew all the maps in Eng--

lish, paged the text and prepared it for print. And, finally, to the translator into English, Ruthie Ben-Mayor, who made an excellent translation in a field which was unknown to her. Many thanks to the following: To my friend, Atty. Avraham Ben Naphtali, and to the Leon David Asseo Fund. The scholarships that were awarded to the outstanding students aided the research work all along the way; Special thanks go to all the family members of the survey participants, without whose patience and sup-port we could not have maintained the survey work during this diffi-cult period. And last but not least, to my men-tor and friend, the late Benjamin Mazar, who despite the difficulties he withstood, was an important friend and consultant during all the work. Regretfully, he did not live to see the publication of this volume. A.Z., Fall 2006

PART ONE

INTRODUCTIONS

CHAPTER ONE

THE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES OF THE MANASSEH HILL COUNTRY SURVEY A full and detailed explanation of the above mentioned principles can be found in the first volume of this series (Zertal 2004, 13-23; Zertal and Greenberg 1983; Zertal and Mirkam 2000). We will briefly re-peat these six principles here, with a description of how each site is listed. 1. Choice of territory A relatively large territory was cho-sen, the boundaries of which have a geomorphologic and/or historical basis (such as the boundaries of the Biblical allotments). These bound-aries encompass a large area which is not divisible by arbitrary maps. 2. The division into landscape units Each volume is divided into land-scape units ranging in area from 10 to 70 sq km. This division is based on four factors: the great variety of the Manasseh Hill Country region; the existence of geographically “en-closed” landscape units, such as valleys; the fact that several small landscape units can easily be joined to form larger units for purposes of analysis; and the existence of a for-mer historical basis (e.g., the Bibli--

cal districts of Manasseh, the Hel-lenistic-Roman Period toparchies of Sebasteh, Neapolis and Caesarea, etc.). 3. The complete survey The survey was made on foot with no omissions. All sites and features were recorded. The surveyors were aided by aerial surveying and pho-tographs; for the present volume eight flights were carried out. 4. The separation of sites and features A distinction was drawn between sites and features. Sites are places where people dwelt in the past. Features are defined as man-made installations or structures: agricul-tural installations, cisterns, roads, terraces etc. Each of the two types was surveyed and published differ-ently. 5. Site recording Recording underwent a series of changes, in comparison to custom-ary recording. These are: a. Recording was by a system of computerized characteristics; b. Geographical names were cited

8

CHAPTER ONE

as part of the record; c. Ecological data of the site was recorded; d. The roads and water sources were noted; e. The potsherds were collected in a controlled way and recorded by periods and percentages. For field recording a special form was created. Each site was processed and registered according to the fol-lowing divisions: site numbers; names in Hebrew, English and Ara-bic; computerized characteristics in two columns; descriptive text; pot-tery finds; other finds; surveyors’ opinion of the site; previous surveys and bibliography. The registration of each site in-cludes the following: 1. Site number: including the serial number (consecutive num-bering for each landscape unit, from west to east and from north to south) and the scientific number (see Kochavi 1972, 13). 2. Site name: It is based upon the Arabic name as used today by the inhabitants, and the others are transliterations. In some cases other names (such as those derived from the Survey of Western Palestine – SWP) are added. 3. Reference point: both accord-ing to the Israel grid and UTM grid. 4. Elevation: a.s.l. and in relation to the surrounding area.

5. Type of name: including four types, depending on the extent of preservation of the original name. 6. Site type: nineteen types of sites were defined during the survey. These are according to size (small, medium and large ruin), architec-ture (enclosure, structure, etc.), and function (farm, fortress, tell, etc.). 7. Area of the site: the area (in dunams and acres) on which the structures stood. This is determined by shard scatter and surveyors’ esti-mation. 8. Topography: ten basic topo-graphical features where the site is located were determined. An indi-vidual site may be located on one or more of these. 9. Rock and soil type: rock types (period, formation or group) and soil type of the site and its sur-roundings. The data comes from geographical and soil maps. 10. Cultivation: the present situ-ation (orchard, etc.). 11. Water and roads: there were three divisions of this section: num-ber of cistern openings, the near-est perennial water source (spring, stream, etc.) and distance from it in km as the crow flies, and the near-est pathway and distance from it in km. 12. Visibility: measured on a scale from 1 to 10 in accordance with the principles detailed in the first volume.

THE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES OF THE SURVEY

In the second volume, date/s of visit/s by the surveyors to the site and number of potsherds collected are also recorded. The two columns of characteris-tics are followed by a verbal descrip-tion, including the location of the site and description of the visible remains on the surface. The pottery find includes the period and per-centage of indicative pottery.

9

The special finds includes coins, figurines, metal, etc. Following the text is a description either from his-torical sources or by earlier visitors, an evaluation by the surveyors of the general character of the site and suggestions for identification. The last items mentioned are of earlier surveyors, if there were any, and a bibliography.

CHAPTER TWO

THE GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH A. History of Research East Manasseh has been one of the lesser-known and lesser-researched areas of the central hill country in particular and of the Holy Land in general. The area lies outside of the usual realms of interest of explor-ers; it contains almost no famous historical sites; although it is fre-quently mentioned in the Bible, its conditions for exploration are dif-ficult (oppressive heat in summer, few water sources, etc.). Most of the explorers who vis-ited the Holy Land in the 19th and 20th centuries CE conducted jour-neys along set routes (Ben-Arieh 1970). Travelers tended to cross the Manasseh Hill Country along the line that led from Nablus-Shechem to Samaria-Sebasteh, Dothan, the Jezreel Valley, Nazareth and Haifa. This route brought the traveler to the few holy places in the Samaria region connected to the Old and New Testament traditions (Joseph’s tomb and Jacob’s well in Shechem; Mount Garizim of the Samaritan tradition; Samaria-Sebasteh; Do-than, etc.). The eastern section of the area did not offer additions to this set model.

Explorations and surveys: Some of the Medieval explorers (Burchard of Mount Zion [1971] and Marino Sanuto [1971]) men-tioned a few sites in the area. The Crusader sources also make note of several places, especially those near Nablus-Shechem. Moslem geogra-phers passed by on the road from Shechem to Beth Shean, as did the Jewish traveler Ashtory Haparhi, who visited there at the beginning of the 14th century and described several sites. In the second half of the 19th century, the “Golden Age” of ex-plorers in the Holy Land, three travelers visited this territory. The first was Edward Robinson, who conducted sporadic journeys in 1838 and 1853 and published his book detailing the finds (original publication of Robinson - 1857; reprint 1970). He descended from Shechem through Wadi Malih, vis-ited Burj el-Malih and esh-Shaqq Valley, and then crossed over into Transjordan. Victor Guérin, the noted French explorer, was the first to conduct a 19th century survey in the area. Guérin’s research meth-od (original publication - Guérin 1875; reprint 1969) was based on his visit to most of the sites and

12

CHAPTER TWO

places along which his route passed, and his reports comprise valuable material. Guérin visited the area a short time after the beginning of the British Survey (Survey of West-ern Palestine, henceforth SWP), but apparently without any connection with it. His first visit to our region lasted five days, taking place April 23-27, 1870. He visited the follow-ing places: April 23 – Wadi Far‘ah and its delta, Kh. Makhruq and additional sites in the area; April 24 – Qurn Sartabeh; April 25 – as-cended Wadi Far‘ah and departed from there to el-Buqei‘ah, the vil-lage of Tammun, Tel el-Far‘ah and back through Wadi Far‘ah; April 26 – through the Jordan Valley to Kh. es-Sakkut; April 27 – Wadi Malih until Burj el-Malih and back to Kh. es-Sakkut. Guérin returned to the area on 3-4 May, 1870. This time he ap-proached the region from the north and visited Zebabdeh and Tubas Valleys (the villages of Kfer, ‘Aqa-beh, Kh. Salhab, Taiyasir and Tu-bas). On May 4 he visited Kh. Yar-zah, Kh. ‘Eynun and Burj el-Far‘ah, and camped at ‘Ain Beidan. Guérin did not conduct a mod-ern survey, but rather a journey through several sites. The impor-tance of his work was in his short, verbal descriptions of the places and the several traditions he mentioned. In some cases, there is value in his place names and in his geographical historical discussions.

The members of the SWP, C.R. Conder and H.H. Kitchener (1879; 1882; Conder 1876a; 1876b; 1881), visited the area in 1874. As in other districts in the Holy Land, their survey was comprehensive re-garding the number of sites they discovered, but their laconic de-scriptions and lack of dating affect-ed the value of their work. Most of their descriptions consist of terms like “pile of stones”, “walls”, etc. Their illustrative material (photos and plans) is sparse. For example, they note that the elaborate Roman tomb in Taiyasir had already been photographed in 1866, but the photo was not published. Of the entire territory covered in their vol-ume, they published only one very small plan, that of Burj el-Malih. After Guérin and the SWP, few researchers returned to the area until the Emergency Israeli survey of 1967-1968, conducted after the Six-Day War. In 1940 Glueck (1951, 409-420) visited several sites at the delta of Wadi Far‘ah and in the wadi itself, but that visit was intended merely to complete his work in Transjordan. In the 1960’s the Germans Kappus (1966) and Knierim (1969) conducted brief, selective surveys of the valley of Wadi Far‘ah. In their two published reports 11 sites appear, comprising about one fifth of the sites discov-ered in the Manasseh Hill Country Survey. The 1967 Emergency Survey

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

(Porath 1968; Gophna and Porath 1972; Bar-Adon 1972; Kallai 1972) consisted of two stages: Gophna and Porath visited approximately 50 sites during the summer of 1967, within the area of East Manasseh. In the winter of 1968, in the framework of the second stage (unpublished), Porath (1968) added 26 sites. These 76 sites comprise nearly one quarter of all the sites in the area. The members of the Emergency Survey visited primarily the sites marked on the maps and those close to the roads and jeep paths. Their site descriptions are short and stereotypical, and in many cases do not mention the full extent of the site. The pottery dating in this work is accurate for the most part. The Emergency Survey opened a window to the area on the basis of a dated survey, but the settlement

13

conclusions are very general and there is no division into landscape units, climate or flora, etc. For example, no division between Mediterranean regions and fringes of the desert exists in their work. During the 13 years between the Emergency Survey and the beginning of our work in 1980, several visits were made to the area. Ilan (1973, 349-351) visited Kh. Jabaris, Wadi Malih, the Roman road from Shechem to Beth Shean (ibid, 354356), and the area of Tel el-Far‘ah and ‘Ain Beidan (ibid, 365-369). Zori (1977) visited several sites in the area of Kh. ‘Ibziq. Excavations: The primary excavation work in our area, between the years 1946 and 1962, was carried out by a French expedition headed by Father R. De Vaux at Tel el-Far‘ah (North – De

1. Two of the first explorers in East Manasseh: H.H. Kitchener of the SWP (left) and Edward Robinson (right).

CHAPTER TWO

14

Vaux and Steve 1947; 1948; 1951; 1952; 1955; 1957; 1961-1962). The excavations shed light on various archaeological and historical problems, and clarified the stratigraphy of the city and regional pottery inventory. They were published as interim reports in the Revue Biblique as well as in two final reports: on the Iron Age – Chambon (1984) and on the Middle Bronze Age - Mallet (1987, and see also De Vaux 1992). Minor excavations were carried Landscape unit

out at Kh. Muqeysimeh (Archaeological News 1973, 11-12) and at Tel Makhruq in 1974. These two excavations were published only in Archaeological News and in various articles (See also Yeivin 1992; Yeivin and Eisenberg 1992). In 1988 the Chalcolithic Period site of ‘Ain Hilu was excavated by our team, and the dig continued and was extended by S. Bar in 2006. Table I contains a summary of the previous surveys in comparison to our present survey:

of these published already by Emergency 4VSWFZ
‘72

Newly Found by Us

Percentage of newly found by us from Total

4JUFT (Manasseh)

481

Porath ‘68

Zebabdeh

23

8

-

6

17

74

Salmeh

21

3

-

3

18

85

Tubas

16

5

-

3

13

81

Malih

34

5

-

5

29

85

Jadir

22

4

-

-

22

100

Buqei‘ah

27

10

-

7

20

74

Tammun

5

1

1

-

4

80

Far‘ah

47

11

23

6

18

38

Humsah

28

-

-

2

26

93

Desert Fringes

38

1

-

4

34

89

Total and Average

261

48

24

36

201

78

Table 1: Number and percentage of new sites in East Manasseh. The Survey of Manasseh is compared to other modern surveys. Notes: 1. The same site may have been visited more than once; 2. The number of sites does not include the additions at ‘Iraq el-Hamam and Ras Kharubeh.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

B. The Geography of East Manasseh

1. Boundaries of the Region This area, encompassing almost 540 sq km, has clear, natural borders in the south and east; in the north and west we relied on the borders of the relief lines (geomorphologic lines) which require an explanation. The northern border: This border passes along a tributary of Wadi Shubash, beginning its course in Zebabdeh Valley, south of the vil-lage of Tilfit. The border between the territory surveyed in the first volume (the Shechem Syncline) and the second volume passes, at its inception, along the road from Zebabdeh to the village of el-Mu-ghair. One km to the east of the place at which the paved road to Kh. Tannin leaves the above road, the border returns to the course of Wadi Shubash. In the east the northern border ends at the place where this wadi exits to the plain of the Beth Shean Valley (Israel Grid 2002/1920), not far from the Qa‘un Springs. The eastern border: This border passes along the line where the mountainous ridges of the Desert Fringes meet the narrow plain of the Jordan Valley. In most places the border passes along the Beth Shean – Jericho road, but an excep-tion is the northern portion of the survey’s territory, for about 4 km,

15

where an ‘enclave’ near the village Bardaleh entered the area of the Fourth volume. Some of the wadis to the west of the Beth Shean – Jeri-cho road have been left out of the present volume and were included, also, in the next one. The southern border: This border is based on the most important for-mation of the area, the geological fault of Wadi Far‘ah. The begin-ning of the borderline, in the east, is at the Jordan River itself, near Jif-tliq Junction. From there it passes, along the contour line between Ras el-Kharubeh and the river delta, to the narrow crossing point of Bab en-Naqb. From there the border-line crosses the river southward and crosses the slopes of Jebel Kebir, up to the summit of Sheikh Bilan near Elon Moreh. From there the border turns north and ends at ‘Ain Beidan. The western border: This border is based on the inner, eastern mar-gins of the Shechem Syncline. The line goes along the road from ‘Ain Beidan to ez-Zebabdeh (our road B5). This landscape unit includes the villages of Sir, Kfer and ez-Ze-babdeh itself, and the border passes along the eastern margins of Sa-nur Valley. From there it ascends through Kh. ‘Anahum and joins up with the northern border near Tilfit.

CHAPTER TWO

16

2. Geology and Relief General: The main geomorpho-logic formation of the area is the Far‘ah Anticline, which borders the Shechem Syncline in the east (Cook, Roth and Meimaran 1970; 1980). The anticline is the north-ern continuation of the chain of anticlines of Judah and Ephraim (Picard and Golani 1965). It con-tains a broad, subterranean axis, with a relatively narrow upper axis. The slanted blocs of the Far‘ah An-ticline slope moderately west, while the eastern branch drops sharply toward the Jordan Valley. The length of the anticline is 30 km, and its width reaches about 15 km. It includes Jebel Kebir, Jebel Tammun, the northern Buqei‘ah, Ras Jadir and Ras el-Mubarah.

With the exception of the Buqei‘ah, all the blocs slope with their sum-mits facing southwest. The anticline is broken by faults which created river valleys and wide ravines. The longest of the faults is the valley of Wadi Far‘ah. To the north, along the southeast–north-west axis, stretch the Buqei‘ah and the valley of Wadi Malih. In all these areas, the soft, unstable rock formations aided the erosive pro-cesses. The special structure created a relatively isolated geomorphologic units in East Manasseh. The abso-lute elevation of the blocks of the Far‘ah Anticline is just 500-800 m a.s.l., but the breaking and transfer-ring processes caused their consid-erable elevation and strong erosion

2. A tri-dimensional geological section of East Manasseh. The figures are the following groups: 1 – Arad; 2 – Kurnub; 3 – Judah; 4 – Mount Scopus; 5 – Avdat; 6 – Tiberias; 7 – Dead Sea (after Meimaran 1992, 365).

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

eastward, to the base of erosion of the Jordan Valley. These processes greatly affected the creation of the Desert Fringes. The fringes of Manasseh, the plateau on the eastern edges of the anticline, form a triangular shape whose southern point is at el-Mah-ruq near Jiftliq, whose northern point is at the place where Wadi Shubash flows into the Jordan and whose eastern point is north of Sahl Ibziq. This plateau contains four large grabens or depressions, which point toward the Jordan Valley. These are the result of faults and folds which fractured the anticline and were later widened by erosion. From north to south are the follow-ing recesses: Wadi Shubash, Wadi Malih, the Buqei‘ah and Wadi

17

Far‘ah.

3. The Geology of East Manasseh (summary of the article by Y. Meimaran 1992) In East Manasseh an almost entire series of rock units has been ex-posed, from the Upper Jurassic Pe-riod to the present time. The rocks are divided into formations which are divisible into groups. The over-all depth of the seven rock groups is more than 2.5 km, and these are the main groups: Arad group: This group of the Ju-rassic Period is composed of lime-stone rocks with a few intermediate layers of Huwwar. Remains of shells and sea urchins indicate shallow sea conditions. The group, 200 m

3. A view to the west, to the Wadi Malih cliffs. The Chalcolithic site of ‘Ain Hilu is on the left slope. 1990.

18

CHAPTER TWO

deep, is exposed near Burj el-Malih. The layers are concentrated here in an elevated bloc. Kurnub group: This group, dated to the lower Cretaceous Period, is composed of sandstone with re-mains of wood, and chalky sand-stone with remains of shells. The wood and sandstone indicate strati-fication in land conditions, follow-ing sea withdrawal at the end of the Jurassic Period. The chalky sand-stone is the result of the next step: withdrawal of the sea, with the stratification of the Judah group. The Kurnub group, exposed close to the Arad group near Burj el-Ma-lih, is 200 m deep. Its layers were also detected to the south, at the edges of Jebel Tammun and Jebel Kebir. Volcanic rocks: The base of the Kurnub group is composed of the special “Taiyasir Volcanics”, made of magmatic rocks. Judah group: Dating to lower Cre-taceous-Turonnian periods, this group is 1000 m deep and built of carbonate rocks. These consist above all of limestone and Dolomites, with few Huwwars and chalks. These were stratified in a shallow sea. At the base of the group there is a “blanche” limestone cliff, identi-fied in the ranges of Ras Mubarah, Ras Jadir and Jebel Tammun and Jebel Kebir. Mount Scopus group: This chalky group is dated to the Sennonian-

Paleocene Periods. The microscopic fossils in the chalks indicate a sea hundreds of meters deep. The up-per side of the group consists of Taqiyeh formation, whereas its middle is composed of flint layers some centimeters to few meters deep (Meshash formation). The average depth of the group is 300 m, with points where it is only few meters. The exposures of the group are concentrated along the “seams” between the anticlines and the synclines. These, for instance, are found between the Far‘ah Anticline and the Shechem Syncline. Avdat group: This is dated to the Eocenian Period. It is built of lime-stone and chalk with some quarzo-lite, 350 m deep in East Manasseh to 600 m deep in the Gilboa. Its rocks contain microscopic fossils originating in a shallow sea. Tiberias and Dead Sea groups: These were stratified in the Neo-cene-Quartere Period, when the processes of breaking and fold-ing began. These young groups were stratified in the lower areas of Manasseh. The Tiberias group is based upon a rough conglomerate of pebbles that originated in the Av-dat-Kurnub groups, which moved through erosion. On top of it there are sandstone layers replaced by limestone, chalk and gypsum. The overall depth of the Tiberias group is 150 m and it extends along the Desert Fringes.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

4. Climate and Soils Of the four climatic types discussed here, three – Mediterranean fringes, semi-arid and tropical (SudaneseDecanese) – are typical only to East Manasseh. The fourth (Mediter-ranean) appears in the eastern val-leys. In the eastern valleys and the Far‘ah Anticline the climate is Med-iterranean (cf. Zertal 2004, 26), gradually becoming arid toward the east. East Manasseh is a typical transitional area between the Medi-terranean and the arid climates. East of the national watershed, pre-cipitation drops in the direction of the Jordan Valley (Goldreich 1977, 31 and fig. 2). The 600-mm isohite

19

(average rainfall) on the watershed falls to 300-mm in the Jordan Val-ley. This drop is gradual, due to the movement eastwards of the rain clouds through the passes of the Far‘ah ranges (Goldreich 1977, 30 and fig. 1). The overall result is an average rainfall of 350 mm in East Manasseh. Droughts are less frequent here than in the fringes of Ephraim and Judah. Like other arid regions, East Manasseh shows a high correlation between climatic and agricultural drought. The rain here is unequal-ly divided over seasons and years (Halpern 1966, 53 ff.). This phe-nomenon finds expression in the Buqei‘ah, where unequal rains lead to sowing every other year (oral

4.An air view of Kfer, a small village in the Zebabdeh Valley. Around the place the alluvial plains of the valley are seen. 1993.

20

CHAPTER TWO

communication, Ali Abdallah of Tammun). The summer in East Manasseh is long and hot, with high tempera-tures and strong winds along the wadi-valleys. The Sudano-Deca-nese climate in Wadi Far‘ah and (to an extent) Wadi Malih is typified by high temperatures in summer, many hot days and low humidity. The winter is moderate, with low temperatures and few rains. There is also unequal division of rains between the months and the years (Halpern 1966, 51-61). According to Thorntwhite (Gold-reich 1977, 29-33), East Manasseh, Wadi Far‘ah and the Jordan Valley all belong to arid region E. Climatic conditions make agri-cultural cultivation difficult. Wheat and barley are sown only during rainy years, but even then, no more than 10%-20% of the area is cul-tivated. This raises the problem of agriculture in periods of prosperity in East Manasseh – MBA II, Iron Age II and Byzantine Period. Could agriculture have been the economic basis of these societies? The different soils of Manasseh have been reviewed thoroughly in the first volume of the survey (Zertal 2004, 26-27). Here we concentrate upon complementary details relevant to the soils of East Manasseh. Terra Rossa appears mainly on

the Far‘ah range - the upper plateaus of Ras Jadir and Ras es-Salmeh. However, the terra rossa areas here are not consecutive and appear in “patches”. This may evolve from the low quantity of precipitations which is involved in the creation of that kind of soil. Terra rossa, to-gether with brown grumosoles, is found also in parts of Wadi Far‘ah, the Buqei‘ah and the hills around it. Rendzina soils extend over large parts of the Desert Fringes (Dan 1977, 15): above all in the LU’s of Wadi Malih, Ras Jadir and the Des-ert Fringes. Similar areas are situat-ed near the outlet of Wadi Shubash to the Beth Shean Valley. There, eroded chalky areas are the basis to the rendzina soils. These are dark and light rendzina, which develop upon Nari rocks and are not very fertile. Brown Mediterranean forest soil is highly typical to East Manasseh. Most of the wide areas from Jebel Tammun to the Buqei‘ah and to the Jordan Valley are covered by this soil. Sometimes it is combined with rendzinas. Ravikovitz (1981, 76) claims that the brown soil is created above all in humid climate. Its existence in the arid areas of East Manasseh may indicate extreme rainy conditions in the past. Eroded alluvial soils (gru-mosoles) are located in the east-ern valleys, the Buqei‘ah and the

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

21

northwestern part of Wadi Far‘ah. These soils are deep, dark and with A-C section. The soils are relatively fertile, but low air capacity makes them suitable mainly for grow-ing cereals. In the valleys of Tubas and Zebabdeh there is a difference between their western and eastern edges. Olives are presently grown in the former, when cereals are sown in the latter. The limit for agricul-ture in East Manasseh, therefore, is climate and not soils. This, most probably, was the situation in the past, as well.

and dry, but their fertility depends upon their origins and the percent-age of organic material. Stony desert soils (desert litho-soles) are found in the regions close to the Jordan Valley, which typify the eastern parts of East Manasseh and the deltas of the wadis Malih, Far‘ah, Shubash and the other small wadis which open to the Jordan Valley. These soils occur in patches and have a high percentage of rocks and stones.

Colluvial-alluvial soils extend in the wadis and the margins of hills, neighboring the rendzinas and terra rossa areas. Most of them are deep

The water sources have been gen-erally reviewed in the first volume (Zertal 2004, 27-31); only those in East Manasseh (“the eastern water

5. Water and Vegetation

5. The delta of Wadi Far‘ah, looking south. The dark areas are irrigated soils, a typical phenomenon of the wadi along many periods. In the background the Sartaba hills are seen.

22

CHAPTER TWO

strip”) are discussed here. The eastern strip contains of the following springs: 1. The Ballatah Springs, no. 100 in the list (cf. Zertal 2004, 579581); 2. ‘Ain Kekub (no. 82 in the gen-eral list); 3. ‘Ain Beidan (no. 83 in the list); 4-5. The springs of Dilb and Far‘ah, nos. 84-85 in the list. The aquifers and aquiqluds (wa-ter-bearing layers) of the eastern strip are similar to those in the west (Zertal 2004, 28), so that springs evolve from the same geological features. But unlike the western strip, these springs do not continue to northeast, along the “seam” be-tween the Eocene and Sennonian areas. Northeast of ‘Ain Far‘ah there are no more springs, due to the in-clination of the geological strata. Under theoretical conditions of more precipitations, more springs along the “seam” can be proposed. This model can probably explain concentrations of sites, above all during the Middle Bronze Age II period. The few eastern springs are rela-tively strong, with a high water ca-pacity. The springs of Beidan, Dilb and Far‘ah, all sources feeding Wadi Far‘ah, are among the most power-ful in Manasseh. Two other groups of springs are situated near Wadi Far‘ah and Wadi Malih. Near the

springs south of Wadi Far‘ah (Ju-war, Dabbur, Za‘anuni, Miski and others) many sites developed, in spite of their low water capacity. In the lower part of Wadi Malih there are several springs (Meiyiteh, Ma-lih and Hilu) near which large sites were developed. The two following perennial wa-dis which cross East Manasseh had deep influence on the history of settlement: Wadi Far‘ah (Nahal Tirzah) is the longer and more important one. It is 37 km long, from ‘Ain Far‘ah to the Jordan River near Jisr Dami-yeh. Boneh and Baidah (1977, 46) state that its yearly capacity (of the springs Dilb and Far‘ah) was 8.5 millions cubic m. ‘Ain Beidan sup-plied 4 million more. The small springs south of the wadi do not add much more. The various characteristics of Wadi Far‘ah – length, moderate slope, stability of stream and fertile soil – made it the richest and best ir-rigated part of Manasseh. Irrigation is based, today as in the past, upon channels and aqueducts. Informa-tion on irrigation here exists from the 18th century onwards. Guérin (original 1875; reprint 1969, 233243) mentions an “ancient channel that leaves the river”. He describes, “… we crossed an ancient, manmade canal that took its waters from Wadi Far‘ah” (idem, 241). When exactly such irrigation

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

began is hard to ascertain, but the continuity of settlement in Wadi Far‘ah may indicate its long use. The wadi was also an important road, and see below. Wadi Malih is much shorter than Wadi Far‘ah and its water course is rather short. Its overall length is 16 km, of which 10 km bear water. It begins its stream near Burj el-Malih (Israel grid 1943/1923). The Meiy-iteh Springs are sweet, but not far from it the salty waters of ‘Ain Ma-lih enter the wadi. Ilan (1973, 348) mentions a built aqueduct from ‘Ain Meiyiteh to ‘Ain Malih, which we were not able to find. East of the Malih Springs the sweet Hilu Springs are located. Ir--

23

rigation here was possible in the small valley near Tel el-Hilu (no. 90). It seems that Wadi Malih was used above all to water the herds. Irrigation was negligible, due to the saline water and the small areas of land. Wadi Malih, like Far‘ah, was also an important road. The five vegetation groups of Manasseh, suggested by Zohari (1980, 186-190, and cf. Lipschitz 1987), extend over upon two phi-togeographic regions: Mediterra-nean and Irano-Turannian (arid). Dannin (1970, 5) defines three long strips of vegetation in East Manasseh, with four groups. On the basis of the different scholars’ opinions, East Manasseh is divided

6. Pistacia Atlantica tree east of Kh. Jabaris. These trees are a rare component in the veg-etation of the Desert Fringes.

24

CHAPTER TWO

into the following sections: A. The Eastern Valleys are part of the alluvial valleys’ strip. In the first volume of the survey we have suggested (Zertal 2004, 30-31) – following Zohari – that the climax (original plant group) in the valleys was forest park of the Thabor oak. Following the cutting down of the forest to make room for cultivation, a secondary group, typified by Pro-sopidion Farcta, took over the val-leys. B. On the Far‘ah Anticline, com-prising Jebel Kebir, Jebel Tammun, Ras Jadir and Ras Mubarah, there are Mediterranean fringe groups, with forest of carob and Pistacia. These groups stretch on the transi-tional strips between the Mediterra-nean and the arid zones, 3 to 15 km wide. Here again, the climax group is the forest park of carob and Pis-tacia. Among the trees grows yearly vegetation, providing good grazing for herds. C. East of the anticline (the Des-ert Fringes) is the realm of IranoTurannian vegetation. Here no trees are found (Sabah 1992, 50), and the only “tree” (or high bush) is the Sisyphus. Dannin (1970, 127) claims: “This bush is supposed to be an intruding plant, that has penetrated after the destruction of the original vegetation. In East Manasseh, there is no other tree to be “replaced” by the Sisyphus. Therefore we may assume that this bush is original here.”

The lack of trees is somehow strange. A yearly average of 350 mm rain can easily be the basis for tree growing, at least in the low areas and the wadis. In the Negev Highlands, for example, trees grow in areas more arid than ours. The complete lack of trees, therefore, needs further exploration. Traditional agriculture is seasonal and very limited today. No orchards cultivated by the local Arabs were found. However, the new Jewish settlers in the same region (cf. the vineyards of Beqa‘ot and Ro‘i) suc-cessfully grow fruit orchards. The finds of our survey indicate olives and grapes which were grown in the past (Iron Age II-III, Byzantine and Early Moslem Periods). The overall picture, though, is of negligence and over-grazing of the region. This process seems to have begun during the Middle Ages. D. Wadi Far‘ah is typified by a perennial water supply and high temperatures – a tropical climate. The vegetation here is SudanoDecanese in type (Zohari 1955, 254; 1980, 187). The groups are governed by the Egyptian Zaquum, the Sisyphus and the “apple of So-dom”. They stretch from the lower parts of the wadis of Far‘ah and Malih to the Jordan Valley. Under these conditions, cultivation and ir-rigation are possible, together with watering of flocks. Agriculture here seems to concentrate on palm or-chards and supply green pasture all

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

year round.

6. The Roads and Paths (Fig. 8) A. Roman and Byzantine Roads During the survey several Roman roads were recorded; some were al-ready known and others were newly found. “Roman road” is defined as a built road with rim stones. All of them are indicated by the letter R and are printed on our map. Here is their list: R1. The Neapolis - Scythopolis road (our roads B5-B7); R2. The road from Ma‘aleh Shai to the Jordan Valley. This is a built

25

road running east-west; crossing a moderate plateau north of Wadi Feiran. Its remains have been well preserved near Kh. Suwedeh (no. 239). The road connects Wadi Fau with B10 – the Jordan Valley road. It may have originated near Kh. Samrah (no. 129); R3. From Jabaris to Wadi eshShaqq. Its remains were found in Kh. Jabaris itself and near Kh. ejJadab (no. 72). This seems to be a local road, connecting Jabaris with the Jordan Valley; R4. From B8 (The Taiyasir – Meholah road) and B7 (Neapo-lis – Scythopolis) to Kh. Yarzah

7. A built road, presumably Roman (R7), leading to the Buqei‘ah along the eastern edges of Tubas Valley.

26

CHAPTER TWO

(no. 106). Its remains are found northwest of the latter; R5. From Kh. Yarzah southwards to the Buqei‘ah. Its remains are be-side Wadi Abu ‘Ali (grid 190/192) and Ras el-Ahmar (no. 126); R6. This approaches Jabaris from the southeast, probably beginning near Hamam el-Malih. Its remains are seen near er-Raqqeh (no. 70); R7. Coming from Taiyasir (be-gins at R1) and heading southeast, along the western edges of Ras Jadir. This road passes east of Kh. ‘Eynun and descends to the Buqei‘ah in a difficult pass. In most of its sections it is well preserved; R8. South of Beqa‘ot, between Umm Rkab and EP 170. It seems to have connected Wadi Far‘ah and Kh. Humsah (no. 143). Near EP 141 it splits; R9. Ascends from Kh. Bet Farr to Tel el-Fukhar (no. 176). This road presumably continued east-wards through the naqb near Tel Za‘anuni (no. 183) and to the val-ley of Shechem; R10. From the Buqei‘ah to Kh. Yusef and Kh. es-Samrah. Its re-mains, found near grid 1948/1870. may have connected roads nos. R5 and R2; R11. Agricultural roads in the fields of Ras Mubarah, ‘Iraq el-Hib and Ras el-Badd; R12. As above, found in the ‘Iraq el-Hamam mass.

In addition, the following roads have been positively defined, though their physical remains have not been found: a. From Shechem to Kh. Farweh (no. 156), and then to the Jordan Valley. This is our B3, whose re-mains were blurred due to intensive agricultural cultivation; b. From Beth Shean to Jericho (our B10). Its remains were detected in the southern Beth Shean Valley. According to the milestones found, it was built during Hadrian’s reign (Avi Yonah 1966, 91, and Zertal 1992c; 2005, 28-30).

B. Other Ancient Roads and Paths: East Manasseh was traversed by four national roads, which con-nected the Shechem Syncline to the Jordan Valley and/or pass along the syncline’s edges. The topography dictated the road lines until the modern era. It seems that most ancient roads, in-cluding the Roman ones, ran along the same lines. Of the national roads, the follow-ing pass through East Manasseh: 1. B2-B3. The Wadi Far‘ah road is divided into two parts: B2 – from Shechem to Tel el-Far‘ah and B3 – from the latter to Jiftlik. B2 begins in Tel Ballatah (ancient Shechem) and descends along Wadi Abrad to ‘Ain

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

Beidan. Along the road milestones were found, indicating the distanc-es in the Neapolis – Scythopolis road (Thomsen 1917, milestones no. 248-255; Abel 1967, II, 226). The road which succeeded the Ro-man period might have passed in

27

a higher level, as indicated by the location of Kh. ‘Uqud (site 282 in vol. I, Zertal 2004), where a pos-sible inn stood during the Middle Ages. At ‘Ain Beidan the road splits into two short roads. The first headed

8. The main roads of East Manasseh. B means national road while C – local road. The springs are numbered according to the list in this volume of the survey.

28

CHAPTER TWO

east to Wadi Far‘ah and the second north to Tel el-Far‘ah. B3 is the Wadi Far‘ah road. Today it passes north of the wadi, but according to the SWP map the road passed southwest of the wadi in its lower section, just to cross it near Kh. Ba-saliyeh (no. 194). It is hard to guess precisely where the road passed in ancient times. B3 is identified with the “road where the sun goes down” in Deu-teronomy 11:30 (cf. discussion in Zertal 1988, 316; 1991). 2. B5. From Tel el-Far‘ah to the Qa-batiyeh junction. This is the eastern parallel to B4 of the first volume. It begins at Tel el-Far‘ah and heads north toward Tubas. From there, and through Kh. Fuqahah (no. 47), Kfer and Zebabdeh (nos. 15, 6), it reaches the Qabatiyeh junction. The modern road along the same line crosses the narrow pass beside Kh. ‘Anahum, a pass which tends to be flooded in rainy years. Ancient B5 apparently climbed here toward the east to connect to B6, which sets out to the Jezreel Valley. 3. B7, from Kh. Salhab to Beth Shean. It leaves B5 between Fuqa-hah and ‘Aqaba (no. 22). From there, heading northeast, it comes to the Bezeq pass, with the two Kh. Ibziq sites (nos. 42, 44) located be-side the road. From there, it crossed Sahl Ibziq and turned toward Wadi Khashneh and the Beth Shean Val-ley. The Roman road here passed directly from Tubas to Taiyasir.

From there to the Bezeq pass it is marked C18. Upon reaching Beth Shean it passed near Kh. Qa‘un (site no. 3 in the fourth volume of the survey, Zertal 2005). Along B7 several milestones were found; the road was already recorded by the SWP. 4. B8 is the road along Wadi Ma-lih. It leaves B5 at Tubas and heads east toward upper Wadi Malih, called here Wadi el-Hari or, by the SWP, Wadi Sufi el-Khureibat. Then it connects to Wadi Malih near Burj el-Malih. Later on, it leaves the wadi and goes to the fortress at Kh. Umm Ghazal (no. 82) and then to the Jordan Valley. Of the local roads, the following were added here: C10 – Meithalun – Kfer: It cross-es the Sanur Valley and connects to B5 at Kfer; C18 – Taiyasir – Kh. Ibziq con-nects B5 and B7. Here, the remains of the Roman road are clearly vis-ible; C19 – Taiyasir – the Buqei‘ah junction: It leaves Taiyasir along the eastern edges of Tubas Valley. Then it descends to the Buqei‘ah and connects to C20 – Tammun junction – Beqa‘ot junction: This road leaves B5 at grid 1845/1905 and moves eastwards to the Buqei‘ah. Most of the road is now asphalted, and passes near Kh. ‘Atuf (no. 131) to connect to C23 near Kh. Sefireh

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

(no. 132). C21 – Buqei‘ah junction – Ar-gaman: It crosses the Buqei‘ah parallel to C20. After connecting to C23 beside Kh. Umm Qatan it reaches Umm Haraz and descends to the Jordan Valley. This descent is either through Naqb el-Matar (no. 222) or Naqb Umm Khubeza. In both cases it must have reached the valley west of Argaman and, from there, to B10. C23 – Wadi Far‘ah – Tel el-Hilu: This road passes along the mod-ern “Alon road”. Then it leaves B3 beside Tel Abu Rumh (no. 190) and ascends to the Buqei‘ah to Kh. Muqeysimah. Then it contin-ues northeast to Umm Qatan (no. 133), Kh. Samrah and Wadi Fau. In the PEF map it is indicated “An-cient Road”. C24 – A short branch connecting the eastern Buqei‘ah beside Umm Hajar (no. 212), through the Mu-taqallabat valley to Wadi Far‘ah.

C. The Landscape Units (Fig. 9) In accordance with the principles discussed in the first volume (Zertal 2004, 13-14) East Manasseh was divided into ten landscape units. This division is based on the geo-morphology and the history of the area. The order of the units, like or-der of sites, is from north to south and from west to east. The landscape units will be dis--

29

cussed according to two charac-teristics: their natural data and the settlement type. The first charac-teristic will be mentioned briefly. In the second section a settlement analysis by periods is presented. In addition, a discussion by periods is found in the recent chapter, section F. We recommend reading this sec-tion as a complementary part. The numbering of the landscape units continues from the first vol-ume. In order to find one’s way around, the reader may refer for aid to the borders of the landscape units in figure 9 as well as the at-tached map of the survey. 12. Zebabdeh Valley The Zebabdeh Valley covers about 40 sq. km. The valley is, geographi-cally, a highly heterogeneous geo-graphical unit, difficult to clearly determine its natural boundaries. In the north the unit’s boundary passes over the Dhahret Tawileh Range, and then to the north of Kh. ‘Anahum. From there it turns west to the rocky hills and passes over the upper edge of Sanur Val-ley, so that the small valley of Sahl Fuheis north of Sir is also included. The southern border passes over the northern edge of Ras el-Aqra‘ to the village of ‘Aqabah, and from there continues along road B5 until Is-rael Grid 1845/1933. From there it turns east and connects with Land-scape Unit no. 13 (Ras es-Salmeh) west of Taiyasir.

30

CHAPTER TWO

Zebabdeh Valley is bordered in the east by the ranges of Ras esSalmeh and Ras Mubarah (the Far‘ah Anticline) and in the west by the eastern edge of Sanur Valley. Its northern part is an easily cultivat-able plain, while in the south Wadi Suwed and its tributaries create an

area of low hills. In the western part of the valley is a range (the Zebab-deh Hills), with a small valley (Sahl Fuheis) to its west. The central part of Zebabdeh Valley is covered with deep alluvial soil, which makes it a fertile agricultural region where mostly field crops are grown. In the

9. Map of the landscape units of East Manasseh with their numbers.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

western part, near the village of Ze-babdeh, olive trees are cultivated. The ranges to the east of the valley, on which Mediterranean fringe un-dergrowth grows, are used primar-ily for grazing; apparently this was so in the past as well. Today the valley lacks sources of flowing water, but the discovery of Chalcolithic Period sites and the fact that the unit is on the “seam” between the Shechem Syncline and the area to its east, indicates that in the past there were springs there. In the western edge of the valley an important road (B5) runs length-wise, while the Shechem – Beth Shean road (B7) crosses the south-ern edge. Twenty three sites were found in the valley, at a density of 1.73 sq km per site. Both Mediterranean and arid elements are expressed in the valley. To the north are two Chal-colithic Period settlements, which were possibly based upon grazing. During the Early Bronze Age the valley was virtually uninhabited, while during Middle Bronze Age I and II it comprised an important center. Five sites of the former were discovered, including a very large one (Khallet Taleb, no. 11)1, next to which was an enclosure (er-Rah-weh – no. 7), whose function was possibly cultic. The settlements are scattered in a strip like shape along the edge of the valley. Six settle-1 All along this text numbers of sites indi-cate similar numbers in the book.

31

ments from Middle Bronze Age II are recorded, some developed into tells (Tilfit, Safiriyan, Zebabdeh and others). Between the two Mid-dle Bronze Ages there is continuity of about 30%, while in the Late Bronze Age only one site remained, highly important (Sheikh Safiriyan – no. 2). During Iron Age I there were four settlements in the valley. As in the other eastern valleys, this unit saw a transition from no-madism (Iron Age I, 13th–12th cen-turies BCE) in the Desert Fringe to later, permanent settlement in the Mediterranean regions. The valley was presumably been the area of the No‘ah clan of the Manasseh families (Joshua 17:3-7). This clan is men-tioned in the Samaria Ostraca, but only a few shipments of olive oil were recorded from there (cf. Zer-tal 1996a; for Samaria Ostraca see Noth 1932; Mazar 1960; Rainey 1962; Yadin 1959; 1968; Lemaire 1977, 23-85). The eight Iron Age II sites are relatively large in area; in three of them bowls with wedge decoration were recorded, evidence of a settlement also during Iron Age III and possibly of Cuthaean communities. The eight sites of the Persian Period belong to the Medi-terranean areas. During the later periods (Roman-Byzantine Periods, Early Moslem and Medieval Peri-ods) there were many settlements in the valley (10-12 per period). The settlements here tends to have a “Mediterranean” character, and

CHAPTER TWO

32

the Salmeh Range may have served as a “barrier” to the desert fringe to its east. 13. Ras es-Salmeh Ras es-Salmeh connects the eastern valleys with Beth Shean Valley. It is constructed, in its western part, of a high range of mountains. To its east is a wide expanse of hills descend-ing to the south of the Beth Shean Valley and to the Jordan Valley. The length of this landscape unit, from west to east, is 8 km. Its breadth, from north to south, is about 5 km and its area is about 40 sq. km. This unit contains natural boundaries: in the north the deep channel of Wadi Shubash; to the east the bor--

der passes along the line between the desert fringe and the Bardaleh Hills (the southern part of the Beth Shean Valley); in the south it passes along Wadi Khashneh which origi-nates near the village of Taiyasir and which spills into the Jordan Valley, and in the west it passes along the eastern edge of Zebabdeh Valley. The range of Ras es-Salmeh be-longs to the Far‘ah Anticline. It in-cludes three summits, the highest of which is Ras es-Salmeh itself (713 m a.s.l.). To the north of the range is an area of low hills, in which Wadi Shubash begins its journey. The area to the east of Ras es-Salmeh is composed of three mountainous blocs, high and isolated from each other by deep wadis: E.P. 506, E.P.

10. View to the northeast toward Bezeq Valley (Sahl ‘Ibziq). Mediterranean fringe un-dergrowth grows on the ranges surrounding the valley.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

556 and ‘Iraq el-Hamam. The wa-dis of Khashneh and Sherifeh and their tributaries separate the blocs and served as ancient passageways. East of Ras es-Salmehi is the small Sahl Ibziq, whose area is 1 sq. km and which serves as a crossroads. Most of unit no. 13 is composed of limestone rock of Avdat forma-tion. The soil is terra rossa with complexes of rendzinas and gru-mosoles in Sahl Ibziq and in the wadis. On the ranges grow Medi-terranean fringe botanical groups, such as carob trees, terebinth and pistacia. The annual shrubbery is abundant in winter, and the area is suitable for grazing, although it contains no water sources. The steep topography makes passage difficult, but an important road from Shechem-Nablus to Beth She-an passed through Wadi Khashneh, the fortress at el-Quleh (no. 43) having protected that road. This area is poor in sites, both today and in ancient times. Out of the 27 sites discovered (includ-ing the farms at ‘Iraq el-Hamam) there are virtually no tells; the settlement is composed of small farms or single-period settlements. The average characteristics for the area are long distances from water sources and from agricultural land, and steep topography. There was a certain prosperity during the Chal-colithic Period (four sites along Wadi Shubash), but during the rest of the Bronze and Iron Ages

33

the region was almost uninhabited. Beginning in the Late Roman Pe-riod farms were set up in the area, and even a central site (Kh. Ibziq [nos. 42, 44], founded during the Iron Age but more active during the later periods), which owes its existence to the main road nearby. A relative increase in the number of sites continued during the Byz-antine and Early Moslem Periods, but declined afterwards. With the exception of Rabbah (no. 34), the area is lacking in Arab villages, and most of the settlement there today is of Bedouins. Ras es-Salmeh contains an excep-tional wealth of remains of ancient agriculture from the Late Roman and Byzantine periods; these include not only hewn installations, roads and terraces, but also small farms and a type of “centers” for process-ing products. The concentration of sites is notable on the large range of ‘Iraq el-Hamam, where at least 13 such places were recorded. It can be viewed as an agricultural “hinter-land” region, with both grazing and orchards, filled up with settlements using the reserves of soil needed for the centers around it. 14. Tubas Valley This is the southernmost of the eastern valleys; its name comes from the large village on its west-ern edge. Tubas Valley is a small, enclosed unit, about 20 sq. km in

34

CHAPTER TWO

area. It is bordered in the north by the Tawileh Range (a topographi-cal step between it and Zebabdeh Valley), in the east by the high Ras Jadir, in the south by the ‘Asha-rin Ranges and in the west by the Mafqa‘ah Plateau above the village of Tubas. The valley is a plain rising from west to east, toward the steep range of Ras Jadir. Its western part is en-sconced in the Sennonian belt in the eastern edge of the anticline; no water sources are found there. Aside from the valley itself, included in this unit are the low ranges of ‘Ey-nun and ‘Asharin to its south, and those of Miqwaq and Tawileh to its north. The soil is fertile alluvium (grumosole), composed of com-plexes of Mediterranean brown for-est soil and rendzina, which drains to the southwest through Wadi Sabun. The two important roads of the valley are B5 (Tel el-Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction), which crosses the western edge of the valley, and B8, which departs from the former westward towards Taiyasir and Wadi Malih. Another road (C19) leads to the Buqei‘ah along the western edge of Ras Jadir. The fact that the valley is an important crossroads influ-enced the settlement in the region during all the periods. The 17 sites of the valley (an av-erage of one site for every 1.25 sq. km) comprised a rich complex, es-pecially in the Middle Bronze Age II and the Iron Age. Among the

sites are two large tells (Kh. Fuqa-hah and Kh. ‘Eynun), one small tell (ej-Jelameh) and single- and multi period ruins. The density of settle-ment is also emphasized because the central sites are located along the edge of the valley, with an aver-age area of 9.6 dunams (2.4 acres) per site. The Early Bronze Age sites, whose general dependency on wa-ter sources is about 90% (i.e. 90% of the sites are located upon wa-ter), are entirely missing from this landscape unit; but there is one Chalcolithic Period site. The nine sites from the Middle Bronze Age II (56% of the total!) comprise an exceptional concentration. Among them there are no tells, but rather “strip sites” along the valley edge, large and small unfortified sites and enclosures. These are mostly singleperiod, rural settlements, with ho-mogenous pottery. In the past we raised the hypothesis of the exis-tence of a strip of springs along the edges of the syncline under some-what rainier conditions (Zertal 1988, 180-185). This theory could explain the wealth of settlement. Two of the Middle Bronze Age II settlements continued into the Late Bronze Age, and then there is an increase in settlement in the Early Iron Age. Of the seven sites from this period (43% of the total), three are situated upon an ancient, Mid-dle Bronze Age site, while the other four were founded on virgin soil; among them are the two important

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

tells of the valley. The area appar-ently served as a political and settle-ment center during that period. It is connected with Shechem and its region, as also emerges from the re-petitive stories of Abimelech (The-bez; see chapter three for identifi-cations and also historical survey). Archaeologically, the valley played a role in the early stage of the Israel-ite settlement, the transition from semi-nomadism to permanent set-tlement. The wealth of sites during the Iron Age possibly stems from the fact that the valley is the link between Wadi Far‘ah which was the principal “entry conduit” of the Is-raelite tribes, and Wadi Malih, the secondary “entry conduit”. During Iron Age II a decrease is discernable (only three settlements), with an increase during the Byzantine and Early Moslem Periods. Apparently the village Tubas (known as Thopas during the Middle Ages) took over from Thebez as the most important city in the valley, from the Early Roman Period onwards, This phe-nomenon of “changeover” of lead-ing cities is known in other areas as well. 15. Wadi Malih The focus here is the wadi and the areas adjacent to it, with an exten-sive area of the hilly desert fringe and the hills to its north. The unit is about 10 km long (east-west) and 6 km wide on the average (northsouth); its area is about 60 sq km.

35

The border in the north and northwest is Wadi Khashneh, run-ning from Taiyasir to Bardaleh; in the east the border runs along the line between the Desert Fringes and the Jordan Valley, from Wadi Malih to the outlet of Wadi Khashneh. In the south the border runs along the line of ranges south of Wadi Ma-lih, while in the west the village of Taiyasir serves as the border. This landscape unit is comprised of two parts: a. Wadi Malih itself, a very nar-row strip around the channel. In the upper part it includes the small plain east of Taiyasir; from there it descends in a moderate slope of Wadi el-Heri until it reaches to the high point with the fortress of Burj el-Malih. Here, the wadi crosses a narrow bloc of hard rock (between the hill of the fortress and E.P. 174), and continues its way east, in a val-ley surrounded by cliffs, until Tel el-Hilu. Adjacent to this tell, at Is-rael grid 1982/1925, the wadi turns sharply east again and exits into the Jordan Valley. The main settlement here was concentrated in the channel of Wadi Malih and its springs. b. The hilly area to the north of Wadi Malih is based, like Ras es-Salmeh, on several blocs from which long slopes descend eastward to the Jordan Valley. Their peaks are Ras el-Badd (571 m a.s.l., here-after a.s.l..), ‘Iraq el-Mubarah (551 m) in the west, Ras Ramali (419 m)

36

CHAPTER TWO

and Ras Abu Shusheh (222 m) in the southwest. These blocs are con--

structed of ancient rock from the Lower Crateceous (Kurnub group)

11. View westward to the canyon of Wadi esh-Shaqq, near its outlet to the Jordan Valley. Similar places mark the transition from the Manasseh Fringes to the Jordan Valley.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

and upon it, respectively, limestone from the Judah group. Near Ras Ramali there is an enclave of vol-canic rocks. The entire area drains eastward in long wadis (Salmeh, Hamad, el-Lathm, Khallet el-Badd, Mhallal and esh-Shaqq). The soil in this region includes complexes of rendzina and brown forest soil, with pockets of brown basaltic soils. North of Wadi Malih the soil is very shallow and eroded, yet in several plateaus fertile soil is found (the neighborhoods of Kh. Mhallal [no. 78] and ‘Iraq ej-Jadab [no. 72]). Vegetation is composed of Mediterranean shrubs with few trees (in particular carobs, and sometimes Israeli terebinth trees) and many species of perennial and annual bushes (desert broom group and others). The remains of or-chard agriculture suggest intensive cultivation during the Roman-Byz-antine Periods and perhaps previ-ously. Except for the important road in Wadi Malih (B8), few real paths passed through the northern area. In this unit 34 sites were found (1.76 sq. km per site), a figure that can be misleading, since it concerns mainly tiny sites. Three groups of sites are discerned, to be discussed separately: Wadi Malih itself, the eastern edges and the hilly area. The Wadi Malih group encom-passes 12 sites, the majority of which (eight) are centered densely

37

along the lower part of the river, near the springs. The three sites to the east of Taiyasir are an extension of Tubas Valley (two of them were established during Middle Bronze Age II). Next to ‘Ain el-Meiyiteh are two large sites from Middle Bronze Age I (el-Bird [no. 91] and Kh. elMeiyiteh [no. 90]). Upon the for-mer are a site from Middle Bronze Age II and a fortress (?) from Iron Age I-II. The two multi period tells in the area are Kh. Mhallal and the small Tel el-Hilu (no. 96). The eastern edge group includes 14 sites, adjacent to the Jordan Val-ley. The major concentration here is the settlements of esh-Shaqq Valley, containing eight sites. They con-sists of sites from the Chalcolithic Period to the Early Moslem Period, based on the abundance of water, the road and the soil in the small valley. The fortresses along the road de-serve special mention. Among these are the Middle Bronze Age site at Jebel Khimyar (no. 74), the fortress at el-Bird (no. 91), the two Iron Age fortresses in esh-Shaqq Valley (nos. 81 and 83) and the Crusad-er/Moslem fortress at Burj el-Ma-lih (no. 89). This concentration is somewhat unusual, and indicates the importance of the road and the sensitivity of passage at the lower Wadi Malih. The third group, the hilly area, encompasses eight sites. With the exception of the two large ones

38

CHAPTER TWO

(Kh. Mhallal and Kh. Jabaris), the rest are farms or solitary structures, primarily from the Late Roman, Byzantine and Early Moslem Peri-ods. Kh. Mhallal is a tell founded during Middle Bronze Age I-II and flourished during Iron Age I. It can be assumed that the place was func-tioning, during the Iron Age, as a central site north of Wadi Malih; this position later passed to Kh. Jabaris (no. 69), a large ruin on a mountain in the center of the area. It appears that this unit served as an agricultural hinterland for the settlements in Wadi Malih and the Jordan Valley; computer data indicate approximately a 15% cor-relation to water, agricultural soil

and roads. The region was “filled” with farms during the Late Roman Period, when the overpopulation pushed the farmers to the less fer-tile areas. 16. Ras Jadir The unit of Ras Jadir “paralleling” in the south to that of Wadi Ma-lih; it is located between the above and the Buqei‘ah, and is similar in character to that of Ras es-Salmeh. It also includes a high range in the west and a hilly area in the east, and descends slowly toward the Jordan Valley. The unit is 10 km long, 5 km wide on the average, and 49 sq km in area. The shape of the area is trapezoidal, with its apex being

12. Flocks of sheep on the heights of Ras Jadir. Annual, exceptionally rich pastureland characterizes the transitional ranges between the Mediterranean region and the prairie, which served as pasture areas during all the periods.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

Taiyasir in the northwest and Kh. Umm el-Qatan (no. 133) in the southeast. It has natural boundar-ies: Wadi Malih in the north, the deep rift of Wadi el-Fau (with road C23) in the east, Tubas Valley in the west and the Buqei‘ah in the south. The length of Ras Jadir range (part of Far‘ah Anticline, 712 m a.s.l.) is about 5 km. This is a slanted bloc whose slopes are particularly steep and which has a thin “backbone” along the peak. This topography dictates the lack of settlement, while long ranges descend from Ras Jadir eastward. These are moderate extensions with wadis and small valleys between them: the wadis Abu ‘Ali, Khallet el-Asmar, Khal-let esh-Shardeh and others. West of the geological fault extends another range – Umm ‘Uqbeh, descending by steep slopes to Wadi el-Fau. As with the other parts of the Far‘ah Anticline, the Ras Jadir unit is composed of marine limestone from the Mount Scopus and Judah groups. Terra rossa soil and shrubby flora of the Mediterranean fringes are found on the range. The eastern slopes are covered with mountain-ous rendzina, brown forest soil and complexes of the two. The range of Umm ‘Uqbeh is composed of an-cient rock from the Lower Crate-ceous Period (Avdat Group). The shrubby vegetation prevalent on Ras Jadir, rapidly becomes sparse, being replaced by low vegetation (with the group of desert broom) in

39

the east. Moderate topography east of Ras Jadir made transport easy, with Ro-man roads as evidence. Between the important roads of Wadi Malih and the Buqei‘ah two connecting roads are recorded: one east of Burj elMalih and the other in Wadi el-Fau (C23). The entire area is lacking in water sources; however, proxim-ity to Wadi Malih was an assisting factor in the settlement during the various periods. The 22 sites here (2.2 sq. km for each site) can be categorized as follows: two multi period tells; two small towns from the RomanByzantine Periods; and the rest are small, mostly single-period sites. The tells are Kh. Yarzah (B – no. 104) in the foothills of Ras Jadir, and Kh. Yusef (no. 117) at the edge of the Buqei‘ah. The settlements concentration in the vicinity of Yarzah can possibly be explained by the water sources. We assume that it was a central place in the region, in the Bronze and Iron Ages, and perhaps afterwards as well. During Middle Bronze Age II settlement flourished in Ras Jadir (ten settle-ments, about 50% of all the sites!), and also during Iron Age I-II (seven sites in each). The next “wave” was during the Byzantine period (seven sites); settlement in the region prac-tically ended after this. The second multi period site, Kh. Yusef, was settled from the Chal-colithic Period until the Iron Age.

40

CHAPTER TWO

This is a large, important site, with settlement primarily during Middle Bronze Age I, and seems to have been connected to the Buqei‘ah. The small sites are extended farms or small villages, both prospered during Middle Bronze Age II and the Iron Age. They were based upon a combination of pasture and orchard agriculture. Evidence for the latter are the agricultural instal-lations. Middle Bronze Age I settle-ments, found in the adjacent areas (Wadi Malih and the Buqei‘ah) are missing here. Of the settlement factors, the roads are a possible characteristic in this unit. No fewer than 12 out of 22 sites are located on important

roads in all the periods. The influ-ence of water, soil and topography is less significant. During the later periods (Ro-man-Byzantine Periods and later) there are two small towns in the region (Kh. Yarzah (A – no. 106) and Kh. Umm el-‘Uqbeh (B – no. 100), built on the regular model of the period: central settlements sur-rounded by farms. It is unclear why the region was empty of sites dur-ing the later periods (Early Moslem onwards). The uniqueness of Ras Jadir, in summary, is due to two phenom-ena: flourishing of settlement dur-ing Middle Bronze Age II and Iron age I-II, and the high correlation

13. Lunch break of the surveying team in the desert fringe. Lacking a natural source of shade, we improvised, as the photo shows.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

between the two (as in Tubas Val-ley) and its emptiness following the Byzantine Period. 17. The Buqei‘ah This region, also called the “Northern Buqei‘ah” (as opposed to the southern Buqei‘ah in the Ju-daean Desert), is a large graben (a geomorphic depression) oriented from northwest to southeast; it runs parallel to the grabens of the Wadis Malih and Far‘ah and lies between the two. It is about 15 km long and 3 km wide on the average; together with its edges it reaches an area of about 55 sq. km. The Buqei‘ah has natural bound-aries: in the northwest the border extends from the village of Tam-mun to Ras Jadir; in the northeast its border is from the high fringes of the Buqei‘ah along the ranges of el-Mubarah, Ras esh-Sheikh Saleh and Ras Umm Hasan. In the area of Twel edh-Dhiyab the bound-ary turns north to include in the Buqei‘ah the extension of the valley in which Kh. as-Samrah (no. 129), the settlement of Ro‘i and the sites in their vicinity are located. In the southeast the Buqei‘ah narrows and borders, in the Desert Fringes unit, near Kh. Umm Kharaz (no. 144). Its southwestern border passes along the prominent edges of Ras Humsah and Jebel Tammun. The Buqei‘ah is an undulating plain that gently slants from the

41

area of Tammun (320 m a.s.l.) to Umm Kharaz (sea level), and drains into the Jordan Valley via Wadi Du-rah. The entire series of sedimen-tary rocks, from the lower Crate-ceous to the Senonnian, crosses the Buqei‘ah. It is covered with fertile alluvial soil with complexes of other soils, and comprises a sort of “gra-nary” of East Manasseh. During rainy years, good grain crops grow, but the land is utilized mainly for grazing, which supports large flocks of sheep to this day. The Buqei‘ah and its fringes lack water sources, but the area is not far from flowing rivers: the wadis Far‘ah and Malih. Being convenient for passage, it was crossed latitudi-nally by road C23 (the contempo-rary “Alon Road”) which connected the wadis Far‘ah and Malih, and longitudinally by roads C20-21 which connected Tubas Valley and the Jordan Valley. The considerable ecological agri-cultural advantage of the Buqei‘ah is its fertile plains. The 26 sites in it (about 2 sq. km per site in average) are arranged in relative density on the fringes, and an analysis of the settlements indicates certain dis-tinctive characteristics of this land-scape unit. Three settlement “waves” charac-terize the Buqei‘ah: Middle Bronze Age I, Iron Age II and the later periods (Byzantine-Early MoslemMedieval). Absent are sites from Middle Bronze Age II and Iron Age

42

CHAPTER TWO

I (the Israelite settlement period). From Middle Bronze Age I seven sites were found (26% of the to-tal), of which five are concentrated densely at the western tip of the Buqei‘ah and one is found on the northern extension (the enclosure of es-Samrah [no. 128]), to which the large Kh. Yusef (no. 117) should be added. The sites of this period are unfortified and have scattered structures and large quantities of potsherds. A wall of big stones sur-rounds the single enclosure that was found. The sites of the period are related to soil (as with other periods in the Buqei‘ah), and it can be as-sumed that this unit was an impor-tant center for sheep grazing, as it is today (the semi-nomadic popu-lation makes up the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants). Also prominent is the “cluster model” in which the sites are arranged, as well as the fact that the adjacent areas, Ras Jadir and Ras Humsah, lack sites from Middle Bronze Age I. The lack of Iron Age I settle-ments in the Buqei‘ah is difficult to explain, since most of the favorable conditions existed here, and it may be that unknown human factors were at play here. The second peri-od of prosperity (Iron Age II with its ten sites, 37% of the total) is char-acterized by a multitude of small farms at the edges of the Buqei‘ah and the absence of large sites. Here, too, the correlation to soil is promi-nent, and it seems that the econ--

omy was based mainly on grazing and farming of grains. The largest farm (Kh. Musheibik, no. 127) is situated in the hilly area at the high edges of the Buqei‘ah and does not make use of plains for grazing and farming. Also worthy of note is the fortress (?) at Kh. Umm Qatan (no. 133), which was evidently intended to guard the crossroads and fields of the Buqei‘ah. From the fact that five sites continued their existence into Iron Age III, it can possibly be concluded that the Iron Age farm-ing in the Buqei‘ah was founded at a late stage of Iron Age II (from the end of the 8th century to the 7th cen-tury BCE). During the third, later periods of prosperity (Byzantine Period – 16 sites; Early Moslem Period – 20 sites; Medieval – 12 sites), the re-gion achieved full realization of its economic possibilities. Aside from farms, agricultural courtyards and seasonal structures, relatively large settlements also appeared (Kh. esSamrah [no. 129], Kh. Muqeysimeh [no. 140] and Kh. ‘Atuf [no. 131); it may be assumed that in this pe-riod cultivation of orchards began, which made possible a growth in population. Worthy of note are the two courtyard fortresses of the cas-tellum type (Kh. Humsah [no. 143] and Kh. Umm Kharaz [no. 144]), which were established during the Late Roman Period and protected the important roads descending into the Jordan Valley and Wadi

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

Far‘ah. During and after the Byzan-tine Period, settlement diminished somewhat; the threshing floors in the farms provide additional evi-dence of the importance of grain growing in this unit. 18. Jebel Tammun Jebel Tammun is a small, enclosed landscape unit, well bordered on all sides. It encompasses only the Jebel Tammun range itself, 9 km long and an average of 2 km in width, and is about 18 sq. km in area. This is one of the panhandles of the Far‘ah Anticline, oriented northwest – southeast, parallel to the Buqei‘ah in the north and Wadi Far‘ah in the south.

43

Jebel Tammun is a high, raised, sloping range; at its highest summit it reaches an altitude of 590 m a.s.l., towering 500 m over Wadi Far‘ah and 450 m over the Buqei‘ah. It is composed of Judah group lime-stone, lacks any water sources, and no roads cross it due to its steep-ness. The areas suitable for settle-ment are the narrow strip along the summit, 100-200 m wide, and the northeast shoulder. Jebel Tammun is bordered on the north by the Buqei‘ah and in the south by Wadi Far‘ah; in the west it is bounded by a path near el-‘Ajjam (no. 146) and in the east by an ancient road that descends from the Buqei‘ah to Wadi Far‘ah through Bab en-Naqb.

14. A prominent enclosure (el-‘Ajjam) from the MBA I on a rocky hill on the western slopes of Jebel Tammun. These enclosures denote the concentration of settlements of this period in several places in the survey area.

CHAPTER TWO

44

Only five sites have been dis-covered in the entire Jebel Tam-mun unit (3.6 sq. km. per site) and just one of them is a settlement (a farm), while the others are “special sites” whose character is difficult to determine. The farm (Umm elKubesh, no. 149) is situated on the northeast shoulder, in a place where a small plateau has 200-300 dunams (50-75 acres) of cultivable land. The other sites include two enclosures (Abu Loz [no. 145] and el-‘Ajjam [no. 146]). The former, on a summit, is apparently con-nected with a complex of Far‘ah sites and has quite a bit of ceram-ics from the Chalcolithic Period and Middle Bronze Age; the latter is an enclosure of large stones on a high, rocky summit, which pos-sibly served as a center for Middle Bronze Age I sites in the vicinity. The other two sites apparently had a special function: the site of elKhelayel (no. 148) includes a pile of ash, dust and broken bones and various structures. In a moldy grave a tumulus was found, and it may be posited that the whole mountain served, in ancient times, as a holy place, possibly connected with the cemeteries and various ritual func-tions that apparently took place nearby along Wadi Far‘ah. 19. Wadi Far‘ah This landscape unit is the richest in settlements in East Manasseh. It is a long, wide valley with a flowing

river, an important road and much land. Wadi Far‘ah thus differs from the other units, and comprises a link between the Mediterranean zone and the Jordan Valley, and between western and eastern Palestine. The valley of Wadi Far‘ah is a geological fault that has widened with erosion, and fertile grumos-oles have formed in layers on its “shoulders”. The area of the unit is 60 sq. km, and it contains a num-ber of sub-units. In the northwest it encompasses the valley of Tel el-Far‘ah itself, with its sites and springs; there, a section of the val-ley that comes from ‘Ain Beidan connects to the channel of wadi Far‘ah. In the southwest the border of the unit passes along the steps of Jebel Kebir, which was a settlement center together with its steps. Forty-seven sites have been found within the unit of Wadi Far‘ah (1.2 sq. km per site), and most of them are concentrated close to the edges of the river valley. The sites’ char-acteristics differ slightly from those that we have seen in other landscape units: the sites are larger, the tells are multi-strata and all the periods are represented, primarily the more ancient ones. Although the prehistoric sur-vey was partial, it appears that the density of prehistoric sites here is significant. Five sites from the Pot-tery Neolithic Period, almost all continuing into the Chalcolithic Period, were found in Wadi Far‘ah.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

The eight Chalcolithic Period pres-ences were found mostly within multi period sites. The places from this period lacked any architecture, as opposed to the “enclosures” sites found in other landscape units. The “Far‘ah Family” of pottery has already been mentioned, and a con-tinuity of 80% between Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I is to be noted. The Eeary Bronze Age I appears virtually only in this unit, and is absent from the other units. The 19 sites from this period (40% of the total) create a Mediter-ranean “enclave” which emphasizes the close correlation between the sites and their water sources. The fortified tells from Early Bronze Age II appear only here within East Manasseh (Tel el-Far‘ah [no. 151], er-Rjjum [no. 187], Tel Za‘anuni [no. 183], Tel Shibli [no. 180] and others). Several principal cemeter-ies are to be noted, which are situ-ated on the edges of the river valley. This unit was a central cemetery throughout long periods, some-what similar to Bab edh-Dhra‘ in Transjordan. Middle Bronze Age I sites are relatively rare: unlike the concen-trations in nearby regions (e.g., the Buqei‘ah), there are only six such sites here. Of the ten Middle Bronze Age II sites, there are single-period tells and villages (Wa‘ar el-Quf [no. 159], ‘Ain Dabbur [no. 184], etc.), and there is a continuity of 50% to Late Bronze Age, an unusual phe--

45

nomenon when considering the sharp decline in settlement during this period. The number of Iron Age I sites (12) rises, representing an important stage in the settle-ment of the Israelite tribes (end of the 13th century and beginning of the 12th century BCE). The enclo-sure of el-‘Unuq (a gilgal – no. 160) is one of a group of similar enclo-sures in the Jordan Valley. During the Iron Age II there was an increase in the number and size of sites. The settlement reached a peak with 15 sites, of which five were tells. Apparently the forti-fied cities at the western entrance to Wadi Far‘ah and its outlet at Tel Simadi indicate the importance of the main road and the connection with Transjordan. Several fortresses which apparently guarded the road are to be ascribed to this period: elMakhruq (no. 269), Mrah el-‘Enab (no. 191) and perhaps Umm ej-Ju-ren (no. 200). During Iron Age III, the Per-sian and Hellenistic Periods, there is a clear decrease in the number of sites, a phenomenon that char-acterizes the entire East Manasseh. The Byzantine Period (20 sites) has a peak of settlement, both in this landscape unit and in the entire re-gion. 20. Ras Humsah Although Ras Humsah comprises a topographic and geological contin--

46

CHAPTER TWO

uation to Jebel Tammun, its defini-tion as a separate unit stems from its complexity and variety. The area of this unit is 35 sq. km and it is located between the Buqei‘ah and Wadi Far‘ah. In the south the unit takes on a triangular shape, and the border passes along the watershed of Ras el-Kharrubeh and descends southward to the delta of Wadi Far‘ah. The northwest part is a continua-tion of the panhandle of Jebel Tam-mun and contains the ranges of Ras Bil‘am ez-Zef, Umm Rkab and Ras Humsah, which tower over their surroundings. Between them is the modern road from Wadi Far‘ah to

Beqa‘ot and Meholah (C23), but the ancient road passed through Wadi en-Naqb, as its name indi-cates (naqb = “pass” in Arabic). Southeast of Ras Humsah is the Mutaqallabat, a small valley. To the east of the two valleys towers the bloc of Ras Kharrubeh, bordering Ras Humsah. Most of the rocks of Ras Humsah are composed of Judah group and the soil is mountainous rendzina and brown forest soil. Most of the region is mountainous or hilly, but there are small, flat areas of cultiva-tion in the Beqa‘ot and Umm Rkab areas and in the valleys of Mutaqal-labat and Mispah. There are no wa--

15. View of northern Buqei‘ah from Ras Humsah. Moshav Beqa‘ot is visible in midbackground and in distance is Ras Jadir. In rainy winters the Buqei‘ah is the “granary” of East Manasseh.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

ter sources in the region, but nearby Wadi Far‘ah and the accumulation of rainwater in cisterns met the needs of the small sites. Aside from road C23, road C24 descends di-rectly from Ras Humsah to Wadi Far‘ah via the Kh. Mutaqallabat road. Twenty eight sites were found on Ras Humsah (1.25 sq. km per site). Due to the characteristics of the area, most of them are small farms, courtyards or enclosures, season-al structures or small fortresses. Not many multi period tells were found, and not even a single village. The average size of a site is 1 du-nam (0.25 acre) or less, and in most cases a structure with a courtyard is the typical site. The reasons for this model are likely to be the proxim-ity to Wadi Far‘ah with its many multi period sites on the one hand, and the proximity to the Buqei‘ah on the other. There are two prin-cipal periods: Iron Age II (17 sites or 61% of the total “presences”)2 and Byzantine Period (17 sites, also 61%). There are almost no sites of other periods, apart from Late Roman and Medieval, which have seven sites each. Thus Ras Humsah appears as a hinterland of the sur-rounding landscape units, which was settled mainly during the peri-ods of increased population in the 2 “Presences” include the number of the total periods in the sites. In a tell, for ex-ample, can be five to 15 “presences”. Each “presence” symbolize one period within a given site.

47

neighboring areas. From an eco-nomic standpoint it again appears to be a marginal unit, whose popu-lation subsisted mainly on grain grown on small plots and flocks of sheep and goats. The Iron Age deserves note due to the profusion of settlement and the special, round towers, similar to the Ammonite ones, which were found at four sites. Their concen-tration here and their absence in the other areas suggest a possible Ammonite influence. In particular, many Iron Age II-III sites are con-centrated in Mutaqallabat Valley and these, too, may be ascribed to a particular group of settlers. Other multi period sites are the encamp-ments, which were found in other areas as well. These are for the most part round enclosures (e.g., in Wadi ‘Abd el-‘Al – site no. 211) or encampment areas in wadi beds, in which bases of tents or simple installations and ceramics of many periods were found. 21. The Desert Fringes The name derives from the arid-ity of the area and its having clear distinctive marks of a desert fringe. The Mediterranean climate and its other characteristics disappear, to be replaced by prairie like fea-tures, particularly in the realm of precipitation and flora. While most of the landscape units extend from east to west in accordance with the geomorphologic structures, the

48

CHAPTER TWO

desert fringe is a long strip from north to south, bordering on the Jordan Valley in the east and the lo-cal geological rift of Wadi Fau and the Buqei‘ah in the west. The area of this unit is about 80 sq. km and its natural borders are easy to plot: in the west it borders the MeholahBeqa‘ot road and the ranges of Ras Humsah and Mutaqallabat Valley; in the east the Jordan Valley road (B10); in the north Wadi Malih and in the south the narrow tip of el-Makhruq. The Desert Fringes is composed of marine limestone of the follow-ing geological variety of groups: Judah, Mount Scopus, Tiberias

and Avdat. It is characterized by long ranges which are generally ori-ented southwest-northeast. In their eastern part they descend in steep, rocky slopes toward the Jordan Val-ley. The high summits of the Desert Fringes are found in Umm Zoqah (257 m a.s.l.) and Ras el-Kharrubeh (216 m a.s.l.). The soil types include mountainous rendzina, brown ba-salt, desert and colluvial-alluvial. Due to its proximity to the Jordan Valley, the area is particularly hot in summer, and the flora is mostly annual garigues with a few bushes, mainly small (broombushes, etc.). Trees are few and include a vari-ety of Sisyphus, Pistachia etc. Water sources are lacking. The important

16. Some of the encampment sites are located in riverbeds protected from the winds. This enclosure in Wadi Abu Sidreh (center of photo, with figure inside) served for long periods of time.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

roads which cross the area are the one from the Buqei‘ah to the Jor-dan Valley in the south (C21), C23 in the west, and the Roman road ascending from Kh. es-Samrah (no. 129) to Kh. es-Suweideh (no. 239) and descending to the Jordan Val-ley (R2). The high bloc of Ras elKharrubeh in the southern part of the unit comprises an obstacle to passage. There is a variety of site types in the Desert Fringes. The main model here, too, is the farm with courtyard, a family unit whose area is small (about 1.5 dunams or 0.4 acre) and whose settlers subsisted on cultivation of grain and raising flocks. Such sites comprise about 75% of the total in all the periods. Alongside these are villages about 5 to 10 dunams (1.25-2.5 acres) in size, like Tabqet el-Hilweh (no. 232), small towns like Kh. Mufyeh (no. 251), enclosures and encamp-ments. The Desert Fringes are divisible into two longitudinal strips, from the east and west to the local water-shed of the unit. The western strip borders the relatively fertile areas, such as the Buqei‘ah and Ras Jadir. The larger sites of the unit, men-tioned above, are found in this strip. The eastern strip is particularly arid and almost completely unsettled. No site, except for army camps, is larger than one dunam (0.25 acre in size) and there are few perma-nent settlements. Aside from the

49

harsh conditions, there are the deep wadis that slice through the ridges and make passage difficult, and the steep slopes in the direction of the Jordan Valley. Of particular note, on this background, is the massive military presence from the Late Ro-man Period, including two camps (castrae) and two forts (castelae) along with everything they entail: roads, cemeteries and water instal-lations. The last include dams and pools in adjacent channels from which the water was brought up to the military installations. This unusual system is linked to a spe-cial historical circumstances and the proximity to the Jordan Val-ley road, and not necessarily to the environmental conditions. Around the Roman camps there are no agri-cultural remains, thus excluding the possibility of civilian settlement. A third group, smaller in scope, is the settlements near the Jordan Valley, primarily the groups of settlements north of Argaman and near Wadi Gharur. In these small settlements there is a considerable presence of Iron Age I-II periods, and although they are in the Desert Fringes it is preferable to attribute them to the Jordan Valley, and cf. volume four (LU 28, Zertal 2005, sites 36-74). An interesting sub unit is found on Ras el-Kharrubeh in the south. Here, in an area of about 12 sq. km, are many encampments that lack any architecture. These are small,

50

CHAPTER TWO

relatively flat areas, such as a saddle or plateau, on which evidence of nomads’ tents from numerous peri-ods was found. In some cases a few remnants of the tent bases were dis-covered, made of small stones, and almost always a shard and flint tool scatter. They provide evidence that the same spot was returned to time after time and had suitable condi-tions for an encampment. About 80% of the encampment sites date to Iron Age II and Late RomanByzantine Periods. In comparison to the other land-scape units and because of the ex-treme conditions, settlement in the Desert Fringes was not a preferred choice of the population. The sites, totaling 47 in number (1.7 sq. km per site) comprise a unique group, affected by the aridity of the region and proximity to the Jordan Valley. There are three Chalcolithic Period sites, the exception of which is the village at ‘Ain Hilu (B - no. 230), with no Early Bronze Age sites. The most prominent periods are Iron Age II (14 sites) and Byzantine Period (25 sites). Also found were Middle Bronze Age I (four sites) and Middle Bronze Age II (seven sites). The few Iron Age I settlements are concentrated mainly in the area of Argaman, Ras el-Kharrubeh and Kh. es-Suweideh. Iron Age II sites were mostly small family farms (e.g., the farm at Abu Sha‘areh, no. 246). During the Persian and Hel-lenistic Periods there was almost no

settlement, while in the Late Ro-man (ten sites), Early Moslem (four sites) and Medieval (11 sites) peri-ods, settlement was concentrated mainly in the western strip. The increase during the Byzantine pe-riod (25 sites) indicates the ability to adapt and exploit the land. D. Notes on the Pottery of East Manasseh This chapter presents several ceram-ic “families”, both those particular to the region and those that pres-ent a chronological or other prob-lem. The ceramic discussion in the previous volume (Zertal 2004, 4045) included most of the periods, while here we focus on the periods or ceramic “families” unique to the region or comprising a problem or innovation.

1. Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age I (“Far‘ah family” - fig. 17;1-4) In the upper part of Wadi Far‘ah, a special regional ceramic family is discerned whose date is difficult to determine and controversial. The vessels are light brown in color, are well fired and are outstanding in the profusion of rope decorations on the body and along the rim, loop handles, high ear handles, and protruding small decorations. Most of the vessels are hole mouth jars, sometimes with slit rims, together with bowls and especially very large basins with thickened rims. There

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

are also plain ledge handles, some of which bear a cogwheel design along the narrow side of the handle. These vessels, already published by De Vaux (1947, fig. 2; 1948, fig. 5) in his excavations at Tel el-

51

Far‘ah are termed by him as “Upper Neolithic” (eneolithique superieure). Parallels are found in Glueck’s survey of Transjordan (Umm Ha-mad esh-Sharqi), Beth Shean XIV, Jericho VII (Pottery Neolithic B)

17. Several ceramic types which characterize East Menasseh: 1. Hole mouth jar, red slip, “Far‘ah Family”; 2. Basin, rope decoration, “Far‘ah Family”; 3. Hole mouth jar, rope decoration on rim, “Far‘ah Family”; 4. “V saped” bowl, gray, “Far‘ah Family”; 5. Large bowl, brown-gray, thin rope decoration with impression, MBA I; 6-7. Hole mouth jar with split rim and curled ledge handle, yel, MBA I; 8. Type A cooking pot, dk brn, IrA IA; 9. Collared rim pythos with reed impression, brn, IrA I; 10-11. Handles decorated with indentations and “man faces”, brn, IrA IA-B; 12. “Manassite” bowl, brn, IrA IA; 13. Jug with stepped rim, lt brn, “‘Eynun Family”, IrA IA; 14. Large trumpet base of bowl, lt brn, “‘Eynun Family”, IrA IA.

52

CHAPTER TWO

and others. De Vaux notes (1947, 402) that some of these ceramic phenomena are similar to those of Early Bronze Age I, and that there is ceramic continuity between the two periods. This is expressed in the profusion of rope decoration, a common phenomenon in later periods as well (ibid 1948, fig. 6) and in the perforated handles, not characteristic in Early Bronze Age in other regions. De Vaux does not mention Chal-colithic Period ceramics in his dis-cussion, although it appears in his excavations. The Ghassulian Chal-colithic Period pottery includes loop handles as an important ele-ment, while many rope decorations on the body are rare, except on the giant pythoi. In the figures of the “Neolithic” vessels he presents, such as that of tomb 3 (ibid 1949, fig. 1) and tomb 5 (ibid, fig. 8) are vessels that clearly belong to Early Bronze Age I. Such are, e.g., the jugs with high “basket” handles, juglets with two loop handles where the neck is connected to the body, etc. From this it seems that the definition as “Upper Neolithic” is problematic. In the last years additional excava-tions in Tranjordan (Helms 1992) has shown stratigraphically that “Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age I” is practically Early Bronze Age I. The flint tool finds provide more evidence of this stage (and see Ap-pendix on flint, the discussion of Jellamet el-Ahmar). Due to the lim--

ited area in which it appears, Wadi Far‘ah and its environs, it was called “Far‘ah Family”, a term now much extended and joined into the Early Bronze Age I world.

2. Middle Bronze Age I (“Early Bronze Age IV”) Three phenomena are unique of this period in the region (fig. 17:57): a. Instead of the incised “pattern decoration” design on the neck, there is usually a thin, molded strip. It is 3-4 mm wide and is pasted on the neck before firing, with a deli-cate design of rope decoration. In some cases the decoration, a dis-tinctive mark of the joining of the neck and body, is barely visible. b. On the body of the vessel is a particularly special, impressed decoration. This impression is pro-duced by pressing the wide part of a comb’s teeth into the clay while it is still soft. The resultant design is somewhat similar to “pattern combing” of Early Bronze Age II (Amiran 1969, pl. 17:15), but it is formed by pressing and not by combing. Possible correlations in Transjordan occur in Palumbo (1991, figs. 55:1-3; 56:1-3). This type of decoration, very common in the area, possibly provides a link between Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age. c. Especially noticeable is the dark gray to almost black clay of

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

the “Umm Hamad el-Gharbi” type, which was first discovered in Transjordan by Glueck (1951, tables 17, 93). Gophna and Porath (1972, 197) noted that these were typical of the Wadi Far‘ah area, and our survey broadened their distri-bution. The proposal of Gophna and Porath (ibid, ibid) according to which these characterize “a certain wave of settlers from Middle Ca-naanite Period I” remains open. The vessels from this period are noteworthy for their great homo-geneity: among the prominent ones are jars with flaring rims, hole mouth jars with cut inner rim, large bowls with ledge rim and impressed decoration, and others. Distinc-tive marks in the survey were the folded, double and quadruple ledge handles, squashed loop handles of the jugs, and more. The local fam-ily is light while the dark one pos-sibly originates in Transjordan.

3. Middle Bronze Age II The absence of Middle Bronze Age IIA pottery is worthy of mention. Vessels with polished red slip that characterize this period were not found (although it should be noted that slip appears mostly on small vessels, which are difficult to find in a survey). The pottery vessels of the second stage (Middle Bronze Age IIA-B) are mostly similar to those of the Mediterranean region (Zertal 2004,

53

42) with certain differences: a. The profusion of bowls with rims folded inward, which also ap-peared in the Mediterranean region, is noteworthy. This type dominates in the eastern area, where other types of bowls are absent (in the survey), such as the carinated or open and rounded ones. This situ-ation is similar in Shechem and Tel el-Far‘ah (Cole 1984, type BP5152, table 4). It is possible that this bowl was particularly characteristic of East Manasseh (although it fre-quently appears in Ephraim and Benjamin as well, such as in Feld-stein et al. 1992, 150:2-3, etc.). In any case, it seems that this bowl was especially popular in the area to the east of the national water-shed. The type appears late in the period (toward Middle Bronze Age IIC – 1650-1550 BCE). b. In jars in East Manasseh, rope decorations on the shoulders, which frequently appear in the Mediterra-nean region, are absent. A few rope and fishbone decorations are found on bowl rims here; it is difficult to determine the significance of this phenomenon. c. The distribution of the types of cooking pots is very similar to the Mediterranean zone and here, too, about 80% of the inventory of cooking pots have folded rims. This reinforces the picture of “late” settlement in the period, since the perforated, hand-made cooking pot (absent in this area) is slightly ear--

CHAPTER TWO

54 lier.

4. Iron Age I (“Israelite settlement”) In the 250 years of the period, the pottery of the region bears special significance, although there is some similarity to the Mediterranean re-gion. The difference between the areas is mainly in quantity, but pot-tery here is closely related to the settlement process: a. Plastic decoration and inden-tations: some of the East Manasseh ceramics show relatively many indentation decorations on the handles and rims, before firing, in various models. These have been discussed widely in various works (e.g., Zertal 1986-87, 140-147, and especially fig. 20; 1988, 289294; Finkelstein 1986, 260-262 and lately Cohen 2005). Here we repeat only the characteristics rel-evant to this volume: 1. The decoration appears nei-ther in Late Bronze Age nor in Iron Age II; 2. It is restricted mainly to the Manasseh Hill Country and north-ern Mount Ephraim; 3. Its presence is concentrated mainly in the Shechem Syncline. According to the survey finds, the indented decoration characterizes mostly the “heart” of Manasseh, and its relative quantities, as col-lected from the surface of sites, grow smaller the farther west and

east the site is. In the excavations at Mount Ebal, indented decorations were discovered in two levels (II and IB), roughly representing the 13th and 12th centuries BCE, and it seems that the amount of vessels that were decorated grows smaller towards the 11th century BCE, although not disappearing completely. Thus, we have proposed that the indented decoration can be utilized, with certain reservation, as an additional guide for the relative chronology of Iron Age I sites. In Tel el-Far‘ah and in Taanach the above appears in the 11th century BCE, but this matter requires clarification (see also the discussion of Zertal 1988, 276279, 282-284). b. Distribution of cooking pots: Following A. Mazar (1981, 20-23) a division of types of cooking pots was suggested into type A (short rim, in Late Bronze Age tradition, mainly 13th century BCE), B (12th and early 11th century BCE) and C (11th and 10th centuries BCE)3. In counting cooking pot rims on the surface of the sites it turns out that the relative distribution of the earlier type A is far greater in the Jordan Valley and along the wadis Far‘ah and Malih. Type B “replaces” it more and more the farther west the sites are; thus the gradual foun-dation of sites from east to west is a 3 To these type D should be added, dat-ing to the Iron Age II (10th to 7th centuries BCE).

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

possible explanation. c. The “Manassite” bowl, with thickened rims folded inward, is relatively common in the eastern areas. The relative ceramic “purity” of the Iron Age I sites in the east, i.e., the absence of Late Bronze Age sites, is a further phenomenon, which ease the above analysis. These preliminary conclusions are based on a surface survey; their significance should not be overestimated and must be proven or refuted in stratigraphic excavations. d. “‘Eynun Family”: These are vessels with characteristics of Middle Bronze Age II and Late Bronze Age, that were first found in an Iron Age I site (Kh. ‘Eynun, no. 58), and later in other sites in the area (cf. also Mazar 1999; Zertal 2003). The features of the above are: 1. High, trumpet bases for the jugs and some of the jars; 2. “Stepped” rims for the jars, in the style of Middle Bronze Age II. These two phenomena are absent from the regular pottery of Iron Age I, but the ware is identical to that period, differing from that of the Middle Bronze Age. Also absent are other Middle Bronze Age vessels: bowls, jars, cooking pots, etc. In conclusion, The ware and vessels from Kh. ‘Eynun are only Iron Age I, with certain morphological characteristics of Middle Bronze Age II.

55

5. Iron Age III (Assyrian conquest) The bowl with wedge decoration has been discussed in several places (Zertal 1989b; 2004, 44). The Cuthaean settlement of the 8th-7th centuries BCE was quite intensive in the eastern valleys, and there are settlements in which most of the pottery is from this period. In 20 sites and more this special bowl was found; it is also represented, with less frequency, in Wadi Far‘ah and the desert fringe areas. The usual inventory is comprised of hole mouth jars with a wide ledge rim, ridged jars with sharp rims and “late” cooking pots. Once a connection is proven between the Cuthaean settlement and the above pottery, we will be able to draw an approximate map in which the exiles from Mesopotamia settled.

6. The Late Periods (from Early Moslem Period to the End of Ottoman Period) These periods have been the most “neglected” from the ceramic point of view, and it seems to us that their internal division is insufficient. In particular, it is worthwhile to note the lack of research within the Early Moslem Period (Umayyad, Fatimid and Abasside, etc.) as well as the necessity for a better division of the Mameluk Period until the Ottoman conquest and within the long Ottoman Period itself.

56

CHAPTER TWO

E. Outlines of the History of East Manasseh This review intends to sketch the role of the region in the general his-torical framework, in the Manasseh Hill Country as a whole and in re-lation to a description of the settle-ment. We have avoided attempting to encompass all of the historical events and to go into detail, and our purpose was, and remains, giv-ing general outlines instead. East Manasseh does not stand alone, but comprises an echo and a reflection of what is occurring around it. Such behavior, which can be termed a “settlement shadow” to the main events, typifies remote and arid regions. Only in a few pe-riods is the settlement here clearly unique; this is the situation, e.g., during Middle Bronze Age I and

Iron Age I. The area was influenced by three administrative and settle-ment centers surrounding it: the Mediterranean zone of Manasseh, the city of Beth Shean with its val-ley and Transjordan. The historical information con-cerning the ancient periods is lim-ited. Shechem and its environs are mentioned in the tomb of KhuSebek (from the days of Pharaoh Sesotris III, ca. 1880-1840 BCE, during the 12th Dynasty in Egypt), in the form of “the land of Skmm… which fell together with wretched r-t-n-u” (ANET 230). The name “the foreign land named Shechem” may indicate the importance of the city in the 19th century BCE. In the Execration Texts, Beth Shean and Shechem are mentioned (the for-mer is E3, in Sethe group, and the latter is E6). This again indicates the

18. Reconstruction of the tower temple from MBA and LBA in Shechem (Tel Ballatah, as reconstructed by the Drew/McCormick Expedition – from Wright 1965, 46).

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

significance of the cities and their regions (for a partial literature cf. Mazar 1947; Posener 1940; Goetze 1958; Mazar 1986d, 9 ff; Wein-stein 1975; Redford 1992; Hutton 1992). The mention of Shechem generally fits the excavation results, but the archaeological finds do not confirm settlement prosperity in the first quarter of the second mil-lennium BCE (Middle Bronze Age IIA, the period of the Middle King-dom in Egypt). Northern Trans-jordan, together with the regions of Bashan and the Jordan Valley, located opposite to East Manasseh, are also mentioned extensively in the Execration Texts. In the el-Amarnah letters, Shechem (al-Ili), the main city of Labayu, is mentioned in detail, but with no specific relationship to East Manasseh. In the stela of Seti I from Beth Shean, from the end of the 14th or the beginning of the 13th century BCE, an Egyptian military campaign to subjugate the “Apiru of Mount Yarimtu” is mentioned (Gradzeloff 1949; ANET 255). The Apiru attacked, together with certain “Tir”, another tribe called “Rem”. The location of Mount Yarimtu is unknown. On the basis of the name “Yarmuth” in Joshua 21:29, which was a satellite city in Issachar, Albright (1952, 24 ff.) proposed identifying Mount Yarim-tu as the highlands of Issachar. But the settlement in this area (north of Beth Shean) was very sparse in the

57

13th century BCE, and Gal (1980, 84) casting doubt on Albright’s identification. On the basis of the same document, it can be posited that this Mount Yarimtu is located to the south and not to the north of Beth Shean. The Jordan Valley and East Manasseh are relatively rich in settlements from the 13th century BCE. This proposal is preferable to Albright’s; in Seti’s stela there is no indication as of the location of the Apiru tribes. The detailed Biblical references to the area are noteworthy. The Valley of Succoth east of the Jordan played a crucial role in the crystal-lization of the Israelite tribes (Ma-zar 1986b), and was a link between Transjordan and Canaan, whose historical boundary passed along the Jordan River (De Vaux 1968). Goitein (1965) and Mazar (1986b, 170) emphasizes the traditions in Psalms (78:59-60) regarding the cultic centers near the Succoth Val-ley. The comparison between Shi-loh and Adam (the city, ibid., 170) and the traditions in Joshua (6:7-8; 22) and in Psalms (83:11; 78, 6061) regarding the ritual and tactical importance of the region, comprise part of the above traditions (see also the “sociological” discussion of Gottwald 1979, 573-577). In Joshua and Judges, East Manasseh is frequently mentioned as a focus of the tribal struggles and the wars between the Canaanites and the Is-raelites. The traditions of Bezeq in

58

CHAPTER TWO

Judges 1:1-10 and I Samuel 11:8, concerning the war between the Canaanites and the Israelites, and the journey of Saul to Yabesh Gil-ead, have been widely discussed by scholars, yet the location of Bezeq have not been positively identified (see especially Welten 1965). The proposals of identifying Bezeq as Kh. Ibziq (no. 44) or Kh. Salhab (no. 23, and see chapter three on identi-fications) may shed light upon the historical authenticity of the story. While the reality of Adonibezeq the King of Bezeq and his city is diffi-cult to determine, Saul’s campaign illuminates the very existence of Bezeq. In addition, the appearance of the tribes of Judah and Simeon in the heart of the Manassite allot--

ment poses another problem. It can be interpreted and understood, on the background of the concentra-tion of various Israelite proto tribes and families in Manasseh in the 13th-12th centuries (cf. discussion in Zertal 2000, 400-446), as a prima-ry stage in the settlement process. De Pury (1969), Lemaire (1978) and others have also suggested early settlement in the region of Wadi Far‘ah, even before the discoveries of the Manasseh Survey were pub-lished. Other important events relat-ing to the crystallization of early Israel, along with the intertribal relationships during the 12th-11th centuries BCE, occurred in East Manasseh (Lemaire 1972; 1982;

19. A typical encampment of nomads in Wadi Far‘ah. Similar sites are known in the IrA I and other periods.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

1984). This must have happened around Shechem, in the moun-tains of Garizim and Ebal, the eastern valleys (Tubas, Zebabdeh, and the Michmetath) and the sites of Bezeq, Thebez, Arumah and the Jordan Valley. The Mediterranean parts and West Manasseh are barely mentioned in this context, a fact which supports the notion that ear-ly Israel emerged in the east. This presumption is highly significant; our research shows that Shechem and Mount Ebal (Zertal 1993c) served as the earliest cult places of the Israelite families, where religion and nationalism were crystallized4. The movements of Abimelech oc-curred around Shechem, Arumah and Thebez (cf. also Malamat 1983, 104-110). Thebez was identified by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in the 4th century CE, as the village of Tubas (Eusebius Onomasticon – Freeman-Graneville, Chapman and Taylor 2003, no. 100, p. 160). This is a large village so named in the 13th mile from Neapolis, which may also suit “Thopas” of the Mid-dle Ages. Thebez is identified by us either as Kh. ‘Eynun (no. 58) or as Kh. Fuqahah (no. 47) – both in the Tubas Valley. The two sites, found-ed in the early Iron Age, have im-pressive fortifications (on the Tubas Valley as a link between the two 4 This opinion, already written back in 1995, has slightly changed now [2006], as the importance of the Jordan Valley has begun to emerge, and see Zertal 2005, 6469.

59

entrances of the Israelite tribes, see discussion on the landscape units, section no. 14 above). During the survey, the earliest pottery of the Iron Age was detected in the Jor-dan Valley and the valleys of Far‘ah (Tirzah) and Malih. Later on, the focus moves westwards and south-wards (Zertal 1991). The high place on Mt. Ebal (13th12th centuries BCE) highlights this notion. The site is located in East Manasseh and relates also to the an-cient cultic traditions of Canaanite Shechem (Mazar 1992b). It is not accidental, therefore, that the site was founded in east Ebal, overlook-ing Wadi Far‘ah and East Manasseh. On Mt. Ebal important cultic tradi-tions were concentrated, expressed in Deuteronomy and Joshua (Zer-tal 1985; 1986-1987; Kempinski 1986 vs. Zertal 1986b; Finkelstein 1988, 77-80; Dever 1992 vs. Zertal 1992b, etc.). The town of Tirzah (Tel el-Far‘ah) was also a significant center in the area (Mazar 1992a). It appears in the list of the conquered Canaanite cities in Joshua 12:24, yet the ex-cavations by the French expedition failed to detect a destruction level from that period. The town in the end of the Bronze Age was small and unfortified. De Vaux (1992, 1300), who di-rected the dig (and see also Cham-bon 1993, 439)5, dates the end of 5 In the Hebrew edition of the New En-cyclopaedia of Excavations it was De Vaux

60

CHAPTER TWO

the Canaanite town in the 14th cen-tury, with the meager possibility that it existed “also” into the 13th. According to the report, the earliest Iron Age pottery can be dated not before the 11th century (cf. analysis in Zertal 1988, 282-284), and dur-ing the 12th century the place was deserted. If so, the Israelites “con-quered” the city at a later date and its mention in Joshua 12 is etiologi-cal. Later on, Tirzah (the Biblical name of Tel Far‘ah) was the third capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, following Shechem and Penuel and preceding Samaria (I Kings 14:17). The fact that all the early capitals of Israel were located in East Manasseh, and east of the (1992, 1297-1320) who wrote the entry.

national watershed, should be not-ed, together with the significance of the Wadi Far‘ah road. This road is named in the Book of Deuterono-my (11:30) as “the road where the sun goes down”, having been a cen-tral link between the Israelite tribes in Transjordan and those in Cisjor-dan on one hand, and between the kingdom in the west and the Israel-ite regions in the east on the other. During the United Monarchy of David and Solomon (10th century BCE) Shechem continued to play a central role as a religious center, but not as a fortified city (cf. Ma-zar 1992b; Campbell 1993, 13521353). In that city the Monarchy disintegrated and, again, the strong ties with Transjordan and the Jor--

20. A typical nomads’ tent in East Mannaseh with the “Zir”, a large pythos for water.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

dan Valley are well expressed. During the United Monarchy the Jordan Valley saw intensive activ-ity related to copper processing, an activity not yet discovered archaeo-logically. These strong ties between east and west are testified to by the fort system on the three roads as-cending from east to west: Wadi Malih, Wadi Far‘ah and that of the Mejdel Bani Fadil (Yeivin 1992; Zertal 1995). These forts, of the “Malfuf ” type, are all identical in plan, measurements and, presum-ably, date of foundation. An additional aspect of the Iron Age is the district system of King Solomon (I Kings 4:7-10). It seems that a part of East Manasseh be-longed to the 5th District, together with the valleys of Jezreel and Beth Shean (idem, 12). “All Beth Shean” may include the terms “to Abel Meholah until beyond Yoqmeam” (and cf. the parallel – “all the land of Hepher” – I Kings 4:10). Abel Meholah seems well to be identi-fied now at Tel Abu Sus on the Jordan River (and cf. Zobel 1966; Zori 1977, site 56; Zertal 2005, site 33), and Yoqmeam – in Kh. Qa‘un or the like (Zertal 2005, site 3 and p. 96). It is, however, hard to de-termine the exact borders of the 5th District. Mazar’s (1992c, 139) opinion, according to which the border “stretched” southwards to Wadi Far‘ah, now seems difficult to accept. Alt (1953), loyal to his historical scheme about the Solo--

61

monic districts, has suggested that the 5th District was an ex-Canaanite region. To continue this notion, we may suppose that East Manasseh and the Jordan Valley were, during the LBA, part of the Canaanite territo-ries of Beth Shean, Rehob and prob-ably Hamath (Tel el-Hama, and cf. Zertal 2005, site 30). At the end of the United Mon-archy, around 925 BCE, Shishaq’s campaign to Palestine had great in-fluence on the area (Mazar 1986a). Following his conquest of the hill country, the pharaoh descended to the city of a-d-m-h (Adam Ha‘Ir – Damiyeh) in the Jordan Valley (Mazar 1986a, 145-148). If indeed the m-g-d-l of Shishaq (n. 58 in the list) is to be identified as Ru-jum Abu Muheir (Bar Adon 1972, site 10), then the fort can be dated to the end of the 10th century, yet such “historical” dating is very un-certain. During the later Israelite king-dom (10th-8th centuries BCE) the political focus moved westwards (Zertal 2001). The foundation of Samaria and the government of the House of Omri are indications of the growing influence of the Medi-terranean regions of Manasseh. This process appears together with the pacts with the Phoenician mer-cantile city of Tyre, undoubtedly on the account of the Transjordani-an tribes. However, East Manasseh continues to play a role: King Je--

62

CHAPTER TWO

roboam had a house in Tirzah (I Kings 14:17) and the above men-tioned roads were much in use dur-ing the Aramaean invasions west of the Jordan (I Kings 20:1-23). Yadin (1955) has suggested that the Val-ley of Succoth (facing Wadi Far‘ah, cf. Mazar 1986b) was used as a military basis by both King David and Ben Hadad the Aramaean; this is supported by our finds. The period of Iron Age II (the Kingdom of Israel) is signified by intensive settlement in East Manasseh, above all by villages and farms, while the Mediterranean regions enjoy the same prosperity. This prosperity, not directly men-tioned in the books of Kings, was registered during the survey in the

landscape units of Wadi Far‘ah (LU 19), Ras Humsah (LU 20) and the Fringes of the Desert (LU 21). In four of the sites, round towers were detected, similar to the “Malfuf ” type of Transjordan. Their diameter is 16-20 m and they are composed, in most cases, of three concentric circles. Glueck identified them as Ammonite in type (Macken-zie 1911; Glueck 1937). It can be suggested that they signify possible Ammonite penetration into these regions, as echoed by Amos (1:13). The decline in settlement dur-ing Iron Age III (7th-6th centuries BCE) is probably the product of the Assyrian occupation, followed by large, forced movements of populations. During this period

21. The delta of Wadi Far‘ah seen from Ras Kharrubeh.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

the development of the CuthaeanSamaritan community is recorded. It emerged from the Israeli popu-lace of the kingdom together with exiles brought from outside. They were composed of groups from Elam, the Habur region, southern Mesopotamia and Arabic elements, brought by the Assyrian kings: Sar-gon II and those who followed. The wedge-shaped bowls can now be offered as evidence of those sites where the exiles brought from Mesopotamia were settled by the Assyrians (for the bowls, cf. Zertal 1989b). Most of those settlements are located in East Manasseh – es-pecially in the valleys of Zebabdeh and Tubas. This can be explained by the existence of kings’ lands in these areas. Some bowls, however, are known in landscape units fur-ther to the east (Ras Jadir, Wadi Malih and the Desert Fringes). During the Persian and Hel-lenistic periods the area does not play an important role. The infor-mation is meager, and the focus moves westwards, to the Mediter-ranean regions. This can be seen by the development of the capital city of Samaria, the sites surround-ing it and the general importance of the pahwah of Samaria (Zertal 1989a; Lemaire 1994, 41-46). At the end of the Persian period East Manasseh seems to have become a “shelter region”, where fugitives could find asylum. The caves of Wadi Daliyeh, containing finds of

63

Samaritan fugitives, are an example of that process (Cross 1992; Lapp 1993). In this period the territory plays the same role as the Judaean Desert for Jerusalem. The Jordan Valley and the desert fortresses are quite significant dur-ing the Hasmonaean (Late Helle-nistic) period, but no direct infor-mation relating to East Manasseh exists. Bar Kochba (1980, 365-369) assumes that the Seleucid general Bacchides passed through the Jor-dan Valley during his second cam-paign to the battle of El‘asah (Nis-san 180 BCE). This road continued to play a role in the Early Roman Period (Hero-dian) period, but no events are known in our area of volume two. Upon meager data, Safrai (1986, 141-147) made a division between “the desert of Aqrabim” and “the desert of Tammun”, both within the same zone; but no new histori-cal information is provided. Unlike the Jewish region of Aqrabata to the south, the territory discussed here was settled by Samaritans and gen-tiles. John Hyrcanus annexed Aqra-bata to Judaea, followed by Gabin-ius after the conquest of Judaea by Pompey (63-62 BCE). When the first Jewish revolt against the Romans began in 66 CE, Yohanan Ben Hananiyah was nominated as commander of the regions of Gophna and Aqrabata (Wars II, 568), where Jews dwelt from the time of the Second Tem--

64

CHAPTER TWO

ple (Avi Yonah 1966, 122). The fact that Josephus (Wars I, 134) defines Coraea (Tel Simmadi, and cf. Zertal 2005, site 80) as “the beginning of Judaea” indicates that the area north of Wadi Far‘ah was not included in the region of Aqrabata. During the revolt, Vespasian descended to the Jordan Valley through Wadi Far‘ah: “and from there he (Vespasian) went to Qarawah and slept there… and in the morrow directed toward Jericho.” (Wars IV, 450). This is an additional indication that Wadi Far‘ah and its road were known as the border between two entities: East Samaria to the north, inhabit-ed by Samaritans and gentiles, and Jewish Judaea to the south. The newly discovered Roman military system in the Fringes of the Desert poses new problems. The system was composed of two large Roman camps, in Tel Shalem and Kh. Suweideh (no. 239, cf. Hash-man 1996), a smaller camp (Kh. Gharur, no. 259) and two forts: Kh. Khiraf (no. 266) and ‘Iraq Abu Hashish (no. 248). This system has no other example in the Holy land and the circumstances of its foun-dation and chronology are as yet unknown. In addition, the camps seem to have existed for a short time-span: 100-150 years. It is tempting to relate the system to the later stages of the Bar Kochba war (the second revolt against the Romans – 132-135 CE). The his-torical sources do not provide us

with information as to the Roman march toward the centers of Bar Kochba in Judaea and its desert, so it can be only assumed that the Ro-man high command chose to move along the Jordan Valley. The popu-lation here and in the Transjorda-nian Decapolis was most probably anti Jewish or, at least, indifferent. The Jordan Valley and the Desert Fringes offered good roads and neighboring gentile cities: Scythop-olis and Neapolis. The Roman road at Kh. es-Suweideh, which descends to the Jordan Valley road B10, was dated to Hadrian’s time through an inscribed milestone found close to B10 road (Isaac 1978, 49). The Byzantine period presents several new historical sources. The list of the “permitted towns” in the territory of Sebasteh, found in the synagogue of Rehob, include gentile sites within the Samaritan entity (Demsky 1979; Safrai 1980, 138141; Zussman 1981). Six out of the 17 sites mentioned in the list are located within our area: ‘Iqbin (‘Aqaba – no. 22); Sir (no. 20); Azilin (el-Khirbeh [Zard]? – no. 14); Shapirin (Safiriyan – no. 2); ‘Ananin (Kh. Anahum? – no. 1) and Palga d’Shalaf (Salhab? – no. 23). The territory thus created is enclosed in the north by the east-ern valleys, Zebabdeh and Sir. This poses the question of other regions in East Manasseh. Demsky’s opin-ion, according to which the sites are arranged along road lines, is hard

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

to accept, for not less important roads pass east of this region with-out such sites. Is it possible that the Samaritan populace was limited by the Christian population that dwelt to their east. Evidence of this is the monastery at Kh. Jabaris (no. 69) with its Byzantine Period church inscription, together with possible church remains in Kh. Yarzah (B – no. 104). On the other hand, the inscrip-tions from Kh. Ibziq (lower - no. 42) indicate the presence of Samar-itans (or Jews?) along the Scythopo-lis - Neapolis road (B7). Here, the milestones show the distance to Neapolis, a fact suggesting that the region belonged to this important city. It was Eusebius as well who noted the distances from the same city (but cf. Pekkari 1968, 138-148, and Isaac 1978, 57-59. They both argues against territories’ boundar-ies indicated by milestones). Safrai (1980, 145-147) suggested that this area belonged to either Sebasteh or functioned as an independent toparchy; yet neither theory seems to have factual evidence. To the sites along the B7 road Bethmeulah, south of Beth Shean (now Kh. Sakkut, Zertal 2005, no. 32) is added. In any case, the border between the territories of the two cities passed somewhere in East Manasseh. Fuchs (1983, 110113 and map in P. 112) has put forward the idea that the territory of Scythopolis penetrated into the

65

Neapolis region in the form of “en-claves” along the main roads. The territory undoubtedly suf-fered during the Samaritan upris-ings against the Byzantine Period government under the emperors Zenon and Justinian (in the years 484, 529 and 555 CE). When the Samaritan leader Baba Raba divided the country into districts, only Hai-fa and the Galilee were represented north of Samaria. This stands in contrast to the detailed adminis-trative division of Samaria and the coast (Avi Yonah 1956, 129). Dur-ing the uprising of 529 CE Malalas speaks of the burning of Christian houses at Scythopolis and the gov-ernment of Julianus, one of the revolt leaders. The Samaritan com-munity in Scythopolis is known from various texts (Di Segni 1988, 223). From there the uprising con-tinued to Neapolis where churches were burned, Christians were killed and a quasi-government of the Sa-maritans was founded. Another version speaks of the beginning of the uprising in Neapolis (Avi Yonah 1956; Di Segni 1988, 226; Fish-man Ducker 1988, 174-176). It can be concluded that the clashes between Samaritans and Christians took place in East Manasseh, within the toparchies (regions) of Neapolis and Scythopolis. Malalas speaks of the Samaritans’ flight, after their defeat, to Transjordan, to Trachonis and “the iron mountain” near Wadi Zerqa. Taking that route, they must

66

CHAPTER TWO

have passed through the region dis-cussed here, where they could prob-ably find allies. Avi Yonah (1956, 130) argues that the Samaritans did not attack Scythpolis due to the inability of the former to conduct warfare on two fronts. The Samari-tan leader of the 529 CE uprising, Julianus the son of Sabar, informs Malalas, retreated from Neapolis to the east “to better fight”. It can be concluded, therefore, that the population in East Manasseh was a mixture of Christians (majority) and Samaritans (minority). The lat-ter, consequently, was much weak-ened following the events. Information about the region during the Early Moslem Period dynasties (Umayyad, Abassides and Fatimids) and the Crusaders is par-tial. East Manasseh belonged ad-ministratively, during the Moslem government, to Jind el-Urdun with its capital in Tiberias (Gil 1981, map on p. 77). The territory of Nablus – Shechem was transferred later to Jind Filastin with Ramleh as capital. The thorough work of Beyer (1940) about the settlement around Nablus during the Crusad-er Period mentions only few sites in our area, mostly located in the east-ern valleys (Tubas) and the Jordan Valley. One of these, Bethphorum (Kh. Bet Farr (B), no. 168) is situ-ated in Wadi Far‘ah. The area is empty as well in the map of the Crusader castles (Shein 1981, map on p. 314). The two

medieval castles, Burj el-Far‘ah (no. 150) and Burj el-Malih (no. 89) are either not mentioned in the sources or are unidentified. This raises the problem of the communication with Crusader Transjordan. The connection to the Crusader cas-tles in the Gilead must have been through the roads of East Manasseh. Burj el-Malih stands at a strategic point overlooking the road along the wadi, but such a castle is absent at the entrance to Wadi Far‘ah. The late Middle Ages are not defined by a settlement decline, and the entire issue warrants further research. During the Mameluk Period the region was divided into villayas (dis-tricts) belonging to the territory of Damascus, and a network of roads was developed with road stations. At the end of the 13th century CE the Mameluk sultan Baibars built the Damiyeh bridge over the Jordan to ease the communication from es-Salt to Nablus (Drori 1981, 34). It can be assumed that one, at least, of those stations was located along Wadi Far‘ah. An additional Mam-eluk road passed along the road B7, from Beisan to Nablus. The 14th century is illuminated through the travel diary of Ashtori Ha Parhi, an Italian-Jewish traveler. He stayed in Beisan and went along the road to Nablus, passing by Ibziq and Tubas (Kaphtor va-Perah 1897, 287). Other information speaks of a Bedouin attack on the mail road east of Beisan in 1349 CE. This

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

road was a part of the Damascus – Cairo main road, and its section should have passed through the Jor-dan Valley. The products taken by the Bedouins (sugar and honey) are evidence of the local agriculture. The Moslem geographer Muqad-dasi speaks, already in the 10th cen-tury CE, of the sugar cane industry in the Jordan Valley. A different source speaks of a battle in Wadi Far‘ah between the Mameluk sultan Barquq, who set out from Kerak to Cairo with Transjordanian Bedou-ins, and the governor of Gaza, who left Nablus heading 5000 Bedouins and advanced toward Barquq. The second half of the Mameluk period (14th-15th centuries CE) is marked by a decline in settlement and a deterioration of government. To the rising power of the Bedou-ins – an important process of the period – there are echoes in Trans-jordan, the Jordan Valley and East Manasseh. In a large number of en-campment sites in East Manasseh pottery dating to the Mameluk and Early Ottoman periods was detect-ed, a fact related to the prosperity of the Bedouins in the area (Drori 1981, 28-29). The decline of the sedentary settlement seems to have contin-ued during the Ottoman period. Following the Ottoman conquest of the country (1516 CE) there is some local prosperity, yet the gen-eral decline continues. In the cen--

67

sus of 1596 CE published by Hut-teroth and Abd el-Fatah (1977) the Liwa (territory) of Nablus is divided into the Nahia (region) Jebel Shami – the hilly area with Nablus – and the Nahia of the Ghor (the Jordan Valley). The latter was joined to the Ajlun district in Transjordan. In the first Nahia the villages of Taiyasir, ‘Aqaba, Tammun, Tubas, Sir, Kfer and Miskeh (probably Bet Farr (B)) are mentioned as settled places. Of the present villages, Zebabdeh, Rab-bah and Tilfit are not mentioned. Conder and Kitchener of the PEF note that in the end of the 19th century most of the settlement was Bedouin. In 1874 (SWP II, 227-229) all the present villages are mentioned, along with Kh. ‘Atuf (no. 131) and Kh. Qa‘un (Zer-tal 2005, site 3), both unsettled today. They add that in the Wadi Malih region tribes of the Bal‘uni, Sardiyeh and Fuheilat are settled, all of Transjordanian origin. The Buqei‘ah and Wadi Malih were cul-tivated by fellahin from Tubas and Taiyasir, together with Bedouins from the Masa‘id tribe. The most important families in this period at Tubas are those of the Daragmeh, Sawafteh and Fuqahah. The SWP mentioned also some Christians (Greek Catholics).

CHAPTER TWO

68

F. The settlement by Periods A difficulty here is rooted in the difference in comparisons: in the Ephraim survey (Finkelstein and Lederman 1997) the work con-ducted in the fringes of the des-ert was very partial, and the same is true for the survey of Benjamin (Magen and Finkelstein 1993). The survey of Judah was not published. Comparison to the Beth Shean and Jezreel Valley survey (Zory 1962;

1977) is also difficult because of the differences in technique and inten-sity of the work. A more relevant comparison is with the Mediter-ranean region of Manasseh (Zertal 2004). The division into archaeological periods is based upon the chart in the 1975 edition of the Encyclopae-dia of Excavations (Avi Yonah and Stern 1975). This chart is brought here with slight variations:

Period

Years

Chalcolithic Period ca.

4500-3150

BCE

Early Bronze Age IA-C

3150-2850

“

Early Bronze Age II

2850-2650

“

Early Bronze Age III

2650-2350

“

Early Bronze Age IV

2350-2200

“

Middle Bronze Age I (IEB-MBA)

2200-2000

“

Middle Bronze Age IIA

2000-1750

“

Middle Bronze Age IIB

1750-1550

“

Late Bronze Age I

1500-1400

“

Late Bronze Age IIA

1400-1300

“

Late Bronze Age IIB

1300-1200

“

Iron Age IA

1200-1100

“

Iron Age IB

1100-1000

“

Iron Age II

1000-721

“

Iron Age III

721-586

“

Babylonian and Persian Period

586-332

“

Hellenistic Period

332-62

“

Early Roman Period

62 BCE –

73 CE

Late Roman Period

73-313

CE

Byzantine Period

313-632

“

Early Moslem

632-1099

“

Middle Ages

1099-1534

“

Ottoman Period

1534-1917

“

Modern

1917 on

“

Table 2. Chronological table of Archaeological Periods.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

1. Chalcolithic Period The 31 sites with Chalcolithic Pe-riod pottery are more than twice as many as those found in the Shechem Syncline (cf. Vol. I, Zer-tal 2004, 40-41). The area of the latter is only in 25% smaller than the present volume, a fact indicat-ing a clear preference of the Chal-colithic Period population for arid and semi-desert conditions. This is proven as well by the prosperity of the cultures in Beersheba, Ghassul and the Jordan Valley (Zertal 2005, 56-58). The Chalcolithic Period sites are concentrated in groups: eight are located at the Zebabdeh Valley and Ras es-Salmeh, above all along Wadi Shubash. This group con--

69

tinues into the Beth Shean Valley group, with a possible relationship between the two. Another group (eight sites) is situated along Wadi Far‘ah, and both groups create half of the overall number in the peri-od. In each of the other units one or two sites were registered, and the inner regions, Wadi Malih, Ras Jadir, the Buqei‘ah and the Desert Fringes, are very sparsely settled. We assume that the reasons for this special pattern relate, above all, to human factors – organization by tribes or families. A computerized analysis of the connection to natural elements showed dependency on water: the locations of the Wadi Shubash group suggests that a perennial stream in the wadi must have exist--

22. The number of sites in the Shechem Syncline compared to East Mannaseh.

70

CHAPTER TWO

ed during the period which is now dry. This model is supported by the dry springs with travertine found in East Manasseh, which bore wa-ter in the past (Zertal 1988, 183184), together with the crowded sites along Wadi Far‘ah and in the Jordan Valley. Those sites in the in--

ternal regions may have been tem-porary encampments. Soil seems not to have played a role, because of the wide areas of pasture around. The Mediterranean evergreen for-est was of low priority, and only few Chalcolithic Period sites penetrated into it.

23. Map of the Chalcolithic Period sites.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

The typical Chalcolithic Period site is small, 1-2 dunams of area on the average. About half of the sites contain preserved architecture and the others are concentrations of flint items and potsherds. Those of the first group contain primar-ily round or oval enclosures, with a few sites with scattered houses. The second group typically has dense concentration of items, like Mu-ghur Abu Rishy in the Zebabdeh Valley (no. 16). An additional division is between adze bearing places and the oth-ers. Many flint adzes were found along Wadi Shubash, the “north-ern” (Beth Shean) group and in the valleys of Zebabdeh and Tubas. In the inner regions and Wadi Far‘ah, on the other hand, only a few adzes were detected. If the adze was used for cultivation, as argued by some scholars, then cultivation was con-centrated in these territories, while others were above all used for pas-ture. The enclosure walls are built of relatively large rocks, with few building remains outside. In these settlements potsherds are limited in number and no adzes were found. The similar enclosures in the Jor-dan Valley near Masu’ah (cf. vol. IV, Zertal 2005, sites 80, 89, 91, etc.) suggest temporary pastoral settle-ments. Architectural sites with adzes do occur in several areas. One of these, ‘Ain Hilu (site 229), is being exca--

71

vated under the direction of S. Bar. There, a well-planned village is be-ing unearthed, with buildings, a wealth of pottery and at least four stratigraphical stages. Comparisons to regions neigh-boring to the area of vol. II are few. In the Beth Shean Valley, Zori (1962, 298) found 29 sites with Chalcolithic Period “presence”, mostly within tells. In Ramat Issa-char, especially suitable for grazing, Gal (1980) found only three Chal-colithic Period sites. This scarcity is explained by Gal (idem, 64-65) through the ecology of the basalt plateaus. South of Manasseh, in the Mediterranean area of Ephraim, no Chalcolithic Period sites are men-tioned, nor in Benjamin (Goldfuss and Golani 1993, 278.)

2. Early Bronze Age I (= EBA I) The nearly 300 years of this period indicate a settlement “boom” in the Mediterranean region, while East Manasseh remains stable. The Ear-ly Bronze Age culture is basically Mediterranean, based on orchard cultivation and much dependent upon water sources (Zertal 1993a). Potsherds of this period are reg-istered in 29 sites. Their definition depends on the “grain wash” slip of pottery, the “red painted” family, etc. Nineteen sites, 65 percent of the total, are situated in the valley of Wadi Far‘ah, which is only 18% of the total area.

72

CHAPTER TWO

Twelve of the sites, also concen-trated in Wadi Far‘ah, show conti-nuity from the Chalcolithic Period. However, the material culture of the two differ greatly. In compari-son, the 37 Early Bronze Age I sites in the Shechem Syncline are 20% more than in the territory dis--

cussed, and the existence of only few of the latter continue from the Chalcolithic Period. Most of the Early Bronze Age I sites in Wadi Far‘ah are grouped in its western part, around the springs of the northern cliffs of Jebel Ke-bir. Two other sites surround Tel el-

24. Map of the Early Bronze Age I sites.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

Far‘ah (no. 151) and several others, without architecture, are scattered along Wadi Fau, between Ras Jadir and the Desert Fringes. This last phenomenon is difficult to explain, unless there may have been a peren-nial water flow in the wadi during the 3rd millennium BCE. The excavations in Transjordan by Helms (1992) and others has clearly shown that the “Far‘ah fam-ily” belong to the Early Bronze Age I horizon. Connection to peren-nial water is crucial in Early Bronze Age I – 95% of the sites are within the circle of 200 m from a watersource. On the other hand, no sites were registered along perennial Wadi Malih, except the small tell el-Hilu (no. 96). Two of the sites, those of Abu Loz and el-Khelaiyel (nos. 145 and 148 respectively) presumably served for cult. Three others (nos. 161-163) are cemeteries in the Wadi Far‘ah Valley. The impressive site of Jella-met Ahmar (A – no. 178) was used for burial as well, and Wadi Far‘ah in general undoubtedly served as a central burial ground of the period, of the model already known from Bab edh-Dhra‘ in Transjordan. Again in Wadi Far‘ah, a group of pottery vessels (“the Far‘ah fam-ily”) typifies the region. These are large bowls and basins with wid-ened rims, shelf rims in many cases, and many rope decorations. There are also ledge handles together with loop handles. Most of the vessels

73

are light brown in color. De Vaux (1947, fig. 5: 1-18) isolated them in Tel el Far‘ah and named them en-eolithique superieure. For analysis cf. chapter Two, paragraph D. Most of the Early Bronze Age I sites are small and unfortified. ‘Ain Farr, for example (no. 169) is a con-centration of shards on a moderate slope beside a spring (‘Ain Farr). Others are at the bottom of tells, covered by the many upper layers. The Early Bronze Age I is the ba-sis to many Early Bronze Age II-III tells. However, only few of these tells have developed and are known in East Manasseh. We assume that most of the East Manasseh Early Bronze Age sites were but an off-shoot of the large Mediterranean cities. Comparison to the other neigh-boring areas is difficult. In the Beth Shean Valley, Zori (1962, 197) refers to 45 sites of the “early Ca-naanite period”, with no inner divi-sion. Gal (1980, 67-68) divides the period into “gray burnished” and “grain wash” pottery families. He argues that “Following the aban-donment of the large Chalcolithic Period settlements in the [Beth Shean] valley, a small and different system of Early Bronze Age I sites, much lower in number and intensi-ty, replaced them [in Issachar high-lands]” (idem, 67). Yet our finds indicate two different periods of Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, and comparison is hard or impos--

74

CHAPTER TWO

sible. Unlike Manasseh, in Ephraim no “settlement wave” was recorded, and the existing sites are not divid-ed into stages.

3. Early Bronze Age II–III (= EBA II-III, the “Urbanization Period”) This period is a time of change and decline by number of sites, together with a concentration of the popu-lation into fortified cities (Kem-pinski 1983). In only eight of the total number of sites in the present volume, pottery of that period was found. Four of them are large tells (Tel el-Far‘ah, er-Rjjum [no. 187], Tel Za‘anuni [no. 183] and elMakhruq [no. 269]). All these are situated upon high, isolated ridges. The fifth is a small one (Tel Shibley – no. 180). This decrease in number, with just one third out of the preceding Early Bronze Age I sites remaining, is quite significant. It indicates the abandonment of the semi-arid re-gions and the concentration in the Mediterranean ones (though in the latter also there is a decline). In this period, the nine most important cities in the Shechem Syncline are founded: the tells Muhaffar, Do-than, Beth Haggan, Yibleam, Kh. Najjar, Umm el-Hawa, el-Hawar-rah, es-Sunkur and es-Sirtassah. Two of the tells of East Manasseh have been excavated: Tel el-Far‘ah

and el-Makhruq. Both show an im-pressive, developed fortification sys-tem and urban planning (De Vaux 1992, 1298-1299; Miroscehdji 1993, 434-437; Yeivin 1993). The fortification of er-Rjjum is quite so-phisticated: it is disconnected from the ridge by a moat (?) and forti-fied by two city walls, a gate system and towers. The city of Za‘anuni is strategically situated, with wide city wall surrounding the lower city. Both the decrease in number of sites and the developed fortification suits the “external threats” theory (cf. Kempinski 1983). Roads and water are both important elements in site location choice: the five tells of Early Bronze Age II-III are all situated along the road of Wadi Far‘ah. It may be assumed that the Far‘ah group was related to the “Early Bronze Age entity” (chief-dom or kingdom) east of the Jor-dan River (Melaart 1962; Ibrahim, Sauer and Yassine 1976; Ibrahim 1992). It can be concluded as well that Wadi Far‘ah – with its tells, road, water supply and cemeter-ies – seems as the most important Early Bronze Age center in East Manasseh, in some aspects similar to Bab edh-Dhra‘ on the other side of the Jordan River. Gal (1980, 69-70) indicates that new prosperity begins already in the second stage of Early Bronze Age I. He argues that the passage into Early Bronze Age II was “a process without crisis” (idem). However, in

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

Manasseh this passage seems much sharper in character, and the decline continues in Early Bronze Age III. In Ephraim and Benjamin there is indication of several fortified tells near the national watershed (Fin-kelstein 1988-1989, 137), includ-ing the large tell of the ‘Ai (et-Tell).

75

4. Middle Bronze Age I (= MBA I, Kenyon’s “EBA-MBA Intermediate Period”). Following the decline of the Early Bronze Age culture the next period, Middle Bronze Age I, saw the foun-dation of a different society. Only

25. Map of the Early Bronze Age II-III sites.

76

CHAPTER TWO

five of the 39 Middle Bronze Age I sites are founded upon earlier sites; 34 of the sites, or 87% of the total, are newly founded on virgin soil. It is obvious, therefore, that the Mid-dle Bronze Age I populace was mo-tivated by new ecological and social considerations.

The number of sites is one third more than in Chalcolithic Pe-riod and Eeary Bronze Age I, and 80% more than in Eeary Bronze Age II-III. The new society seems better suited to the conditions of an arid region. In Mediterranean Manasseh, equal in area, there are

26. Map of the Middle Bronze Age I sites.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

only nine settlements of the period (Zertal 2004, 46). The Middle Bronze Age I sites are grouped or clustered together. The main groups are as follows: 1. Five settlements in the eastern Dothan Valley; 2. Five sites in the northern Ze-babdeh Valley; 3. In the area of Bardaleh – the biggest cluster, part of which ap-pears in vol. IV (Zertal 2005, 3742). 4. Six sites in west Buqei‘ah, near Tammun; 5. Six along Wadi Fau, from Peles to Wadi Malih; 6. Five in western Wadi Far‘ah, three of which are cemeteries; 7. Two large sites in Wadi Malih. Within these clusters, distances between individual sites are small (500 to 1000 meters), and it seems that each group functioned togeth-er. Between the clusters are large empty areas, which might have been used for grazing. As seen above, the sites of the pe-riod are “independent”, i.e. do not continue from Early Bronze Age. However, 38% of them continue into the second millennium BCE (the Middle Bronze Age II). All the rest are abandoned at the end of the period. Palumbo (1991, fig. 12) argues that 56% of the sites in the Jordan Valley have no continuation before and after, as well as 41% in

77

the “north of the central hill coun-try”.6 The typical site is small (1-2 du-nams, or 0.25-0.5 acres, in area) and unfortified. Several large ones (Kh. Yusef [no. 117] and el-Bird [no. 91]) were undoubtedly used as central places. The existence of such centers was suggested in the Negev (Kochavi 1967; Cohen 1999, 83299), a suggestion relevant also in our territory. Enclosure sites are rare, yet three enclosures seems to have been used for cult purposes. These are er-Rahweh (no. 7), el-‘Aj-jam (no. 146) and es-Samrah (no. 129). Inside them no settlement remains were detected, and two are surrounded by standing monoliths. All three are situated in the vicin-ity of clusters of sites, so the con-nection between the latter and the enclosures is obvious. Correlation of Middle Bronze Age I sites to water is low: about 15% (i.e., only 15% of the sites are located up to 500 m from a pe-rennial water source). This means that 85% were relatively far from water, a fact that drove the popu-lation to seek a solution for water storage. It is proposed here that this role was played by the large jars, a model similar to Iron Age I (Zertal 1986a). Most sites are surrounded by grazing areas, so that correlation to 6 The data used by Palumbo do not con-tain most of the new sites, and his picture is unbalanced.

78

CHAPTER TWO

plains and flat ground is 70% (i.e., there is no preference to hilly areas). On the same line, there is no pref-erence for roads. Most of the sites are located in the fringes of valleys and other low ground. The state of preservation of the period’s sites is fair to good, like in the Negev hills. Our area can be looked at as a continuation of the “settlement strip” of this period – from North Sinai through the Ne-gev and the Jordan Valley to Tran-sjordan and Syria (Palumbo 1991, fig. 1). Each site has a theoretical territory of 11.5 sq. km. The shard scatter on the surface is fairly large. In the Beth Shean Valley, Zori (1962, 197) found that 12% of the total number of sites belonged to the Middle Bronze Age I, a figure iden-tical to ours. Gal (1980, 75) argues that the Issachar plateau became “a wandering area for the Middle Bronze Age I people”. Most of the sites in his territory are tombs, and the population was “half nomads and sheep husbandries”. However, in this territory six sites of the pe-riod were detected, a large number for this kind of economy and terri-tory. Gal claims that “the plains and the plateaus were equal by settle-ment and economy.” In Ephraim (Finkelstein 1988-1989, 139) only six settlement sites (to be separated from cemeteries) were recorded, mostly “in the Desert Fringes.” This modest figure, within a terri-tory identical to ours by size, must

stem from incomplete field work. Our results support the view, shared by others, that Middle Bronze Age I is an intermediate age coming between two urban periods. This stands in contradiction to the opinions of Dever and others, who view the period as a continuation from Early Bronze Age III.

5. Middle Bronze Age IIA-B The “settlement wave” of the sec-ond quarter of the second mil-lennium BCE is well attested to in East Manasseh. Pottery of that period has been found in 63 sites, one third more than Middle Bronze Age I. Forty-three of them, or 72% of the total sites in vol. II, were founded upon virgin soil. This data again indicate new settlement considerations, relating to both the Mediterranean and the semiarid, eastern territories (Kempinski 1992). In the neighboring area, the Shechem Syncline, there are 72 sites of the period upon an area smaller by 100 sq. km. When the present research begun (Zertal 1988, 179) we were under the impression that East Manasseh was relatively empty in Middle Bronze Age II, an assumption that was soon negated. The population of the period settled in East Manasseh almost as much as in the Mediter-ranean zone, a fact indicating good adjustment to the semi-arid condi-tions. In East Manasseh itself, most

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

of the sites are concentrated in the fringes of the Eastern Valleys and the wadi valleys. There is a cluster-ing of settlements, though less than in the preceding period. In the val-leys of Zebabdeh and Tubas there are 15 sites; in Wadi Malih – nine; in the hills east of Ras Jadir – nine

79

and in Wadi Far‘ah – ten sites. On the other hand, a landscape unit like the Buqei‘ah (LU 17) and oth-ers are almost entirely unsettled. It seems that the differences between Middle Bronze Age I and Middle Bronze Age II are above all ex-pressed by their economy: while

27. Map of the Middle Bronze Age IIA-B sites.

80

CHAPTER TWO

the former is based on sheep raising and a grazing economy, the latter is a combination of cereal growing and animal husbandry. Assuming that the climate has re-mained unchanged, the population that settled in East Manasseh seems to be the outcome of a “population explosion” in the Mediterranean zone. This model repeats itself in Iron Age II, when people began to settle the fringes and semi-arid ter-ritories after complete cultivation of the better lands in the Mediter-ranean regions. Another section of the Middle Bronze Age II settlers may have originated in the Beth Shean area. However, these popu-lation movements should be exam-ined in the future, after the accu-mulation of more data. Most of the sites here are unforti-fied villages, 5-6 dunams (1.25-1.5 acres) in area. They differ from the Mediterranean zone to the west in the scarcity of sites here fortified by earthen ramps and fortified tells. The lack of rampart fortifications typical to the period precluded the creation of cone-shaped mounds, apart from a few sites (i.e. Kh. Yer-zah A [no. 106], Tel Miski [no. 171] etc.). These few examples are small in area, and their foundation date is unclear. The only large tell is again Tel el-Far‘ah, located on the “seam” between the Mediterranean and the semi arid zones. In conclusion, the two character-istics of Mediterranean Canaan of

the period – the “city state” system based upon fortified tells and the political model of a “town with its daughters” – are both nonexistent in East Manasseh. This in itself may support the view of the east as a slightly later offshoot of the settle-ment nucleus in central Manasseh. The first stage of the period, Mid-dle Bronze Age IIA (ca. 2000-1750 BCE) is barely represented, a phe-nomenon similar in the Shechem Syncline (Zertal 2004, 51). Both stages were detected in the excava-tions of Tel el-Far‘ah, yet the Mid-dle Bronze Age IIA settlement was “poor and modest, when its people used the remains of the Early Bronze Age city wall for themselves” (De Vaux 1992, 1299). The city grew much in area and was enclosed by a new city wall only around 1700 BCE – Middle Bronze Age IIB. A similar history was recorded in Shechem, when the city was forti-fied (city wall D) during Middle Bronze Age IIB (Campbell 1993, 1349-1352). The ceramic inven-tory of Middle Bronze Age IIB is quite homogeneous, and the most typical vessel is the round and flat bowl with slightly folded rims. This was found also in almost all the sur-vey sites. In neighboring Beth Shean Valley, Zori (1962, 197) registered 43 sites of this period, including important tells like Beth Shean and Rehob. Gal (1980, 76-78) claims a settlement pattern similar to Manasseh in the

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

highlands of Issachar, yet much smaller in number. First, he argues, there were small, unfortified sites, with the later addition of the “city and daughters” model. In the Jez-reel Valley and the Gilboa Hills, Zory (1977, 152) reports 40 sites of the period. Finkelstein (19881989, 142) reports about 14 sites in what he calls “fringes of the des-ert of Ephraim”. In our later work in these areas (Zertal forthcoming) this number has been more than doubled.

6. Late Bronze Age I-II (= LBA I-II) This period shows a sharp decline in settlement, similar to the crisis all over hilly Palestine. Only nine sites continue to exist from Middle Bronze Age II, a decline of more than four fifths compared to its predecessor. The pattern of settle-ment is difficult to understand. The local pottery is rather hard to identify, and imported wares (most typical in excavations) are rarely found on the surface. In most of the sites (e.g., Sheikh Safiriyan [no. 2], Kh. ed-Deir [no. 55], etc.) life continues from the Middle Bronze Age II period, but the population shrinks. This is also the situation in Tel el-Far‘ah (De Vaux 1992, 1300), whereas in the city of Shechem there is a relative prosperity, pre-sumably due to the role played by Labayu and his capital in the elAmarnah period (Naaman 1975;

81

Moran 1987). There is no foundation of new sites on virgin soil. Apart from a few sites in Wadi Far‘ah, East Manasseh is almost uninhabited. In the Tubas Valley and Ras Jadir (LU 14, 16) only two sites continue from Middle Bronze Age II, while in Wadi Far‘ah there are five con-tinuing sites. The lack of habitation is an im-portant argument against the “no-madization theory”, based on the assumption that the same popula-tion became nomadic in the Late Bronze Age. During the survey a fair archaeological definition of the encampments, enclosures and oth-er nomadic sites has been achieved, and none of these contained Late Bronze Age pottery. A somewhat similar decline, though less acute, is registered in the Shechem Syncline: only 18 out of the 72 Middle Bronze Age II settlements continue into the Late Bronze Age (Zertal 2004, 53-54). It has already been suggested that the crisis took shape through the aban-donment of the villages and unfor-tified sites and the entrance into the fortified tells, which were close to main roads and water sources. This process was most probably the outcome of the invasions by the Egyptian kings of the 18th dynasty (Weinstein 1975;1981). The picture in the neighboring areas is similar to ours. In Ephraim,

82

CHAPTER TWO

Finkelstein (1988-1989, 110) de-fines “a severe crisis, one of the toughest in the history of the re-gion”, when only five sites remained in the whole territory. In the high-lands of Issachar Gal (1980, 83) informs that “the number of sites

has much declined, and half of the unfortified settlements were desert-ed.” In the Beth Shean Valley, Zori (1962, 197) registered 21 sites with Late Bronze Age pottery, a figure testifying to the relative stability there.

28. Map of the Late Bronze Age sites.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

7. Iron Age I (= IrA I, the period of the Israelite settlement and the Judges) Here the number of sites “jumps”, like in the Mediterranean zone. In 47 sites in East Manasseh, Iron Age I pottery has been found, four and a half times more than Late Bronze Age and 77% out of the total Mid-dle Bronze Age II sites. The material culture of Iron Age I is rather homogeneous. It coin-cides closely with the same culture in West Manasseh and that of the cultic center at Mt. Ebal. This is explained by the presumed unified ethnic origin of the Israelite tribes, although other ethnic groups may be represented as well. Only a few of the sites (five) are located upon preceding Late Bronze Age places. The negative correlation between the two, together with the different material culture and the different settlement pattern, points toward a new ethnic group origi-nating outside of the country. The Iron Age I sites are founded either upon virgin soil (44%) or upon sites abandoned in the end of Mid-dle Bronze Age II. This again shows new considerations, different from both Middle Bronze Age II and Late Bronze Age. The typical Iron Age I site is small (1-4 dunams or 0.25-1.0 acre in area), with few buildings; most contain a cluster of houses (small village – Stager 1981). Architectur--

83

ally they may be divided into three categories: those that continued and later became the basis for an Iron Age II fortified tell; those that were preserved with their original plan and those where only a pot-tery scatter survived (e.g., Ras Jadir [no. 103], Khallet en-Nakhleh [no. 109], etc.). In 73% of the total (34 sites), which continued into Iron Age II, the original plan is blurred or unknown. On the other hand, the well preserved sites (mostly in remote areas) are almost always enclosures dating to the early part of the period (13th -12th centuries BCE). These are, for example, the sites at Khallet Makhul (no. 136), Wadi Abd el-‘Al [no. 211], ‘Iraq Matar [no. 265], etc. The latter can be used as a typical example: a round circle of large stones is built close to a low cliff, with founda-tions of simple houses outside the circle. The pottery includes the typ-ical vessels, mainly jugs and cook-ing pots. A special, remarkable kind of sites are the large enclosures, exem-plified by el-‘Unuq (no. 160). This “shoe shaped” enclosure located near Wadi Far‘ah is 14 dunams (3.5 acres) in area. It is enclosed by a low stone wall and divided by a low wall into two areas, one twice the size of the other. Several walls inside indicate possible inner archi-tecture. Most of the potsherds (ca. 90%) belong to the Iron Age Iron Age and the “‘Eynun family”.

84

CHAPTER TWO

The phenomenon of the large enclosures, three of which are in the Jordan Valley (cf. Zertal 2005, sites 65, 92 and 105), and two of them already excavated, was inter-preted as the biblical gilgal, a kind of sites not found archaeologically until now (Zertal 1991; 1998).

The Iron Age I sites are arranged in three main strips: Wadi Far‘ah (13 sites), Wadi Malih (12 sites) and the eastern valleys (ten sites), with an additional group in the Tu-bas Valley. These strips may be in-terpreted prudently as the “lines of entrance” of the new populace.

29. Map of the Iron Age I sites.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

Here chronological research should be involved: is there a chron-ological difference between the Mediterranean zone of Manasseh and the east? Unlike the Middle Bronze Age II sites, where the east is later than the Mediterranean set-tlements and began as an offshoot of them, in the Iron Age the eastern area seems to have preceded – dur-ing Iron Age I - the western one by at least one chronological stage. This conclusion is based upon the development of the three types of cooking pots, A-C. It has already been shown (Zertal 1988, 295-297; 1991) that the earliest cooking pot type A (14th-13th centuries BCE) is more widespread in the east, and the further the sites are located westwards, the later is the type of cooking pot. The logic explanation to this phenomenon is the slow, gradual movement of the settling elements from the east (Jordan Val-ley) to the west. It has been proposed (Zertal 2000, 400-425) that elements of the “proto tribes”, i.e., families that later organized as tribes (ManassehMachir, Ephraim, Judah, Levi, Issa-char, Asher, etc.), were crystallized in the Manassite allotment. They all are mentioned in different con-texts within this territory, and only then the settlement continued to the coast (where the “Sea Peoples” were already settling) and north (the Jezreel Valley). Our work, which has continued

85

since the publication of the Hebrew volume (1996), above all in the Jor-dan Valley, seems to fully support these finds.

8. Iron Age II (= IrA II, the northern kingdom of Israel) This is one of the settlement peaks in terms of number of sites. No fewer than 86 sites yielded Iron Age II pottery – twice as many as Iron Age I and one third more than Middle Bronze Age II. About half of these were newly founded on vir-gin soil, and the question arises for the reasons for such a “population explosion”. Iron Age II encompasses a wide variety of site types, from encamp-ments to fortified cities and tells. Twenty of the sites (23% of the total) are multi period tells, most of which were founded in that pe-riod; one quarter of the total are villages 2 to 10 dunams (0.5-2.5 acres) in area and the rest are small places: farmsteads, encampments and roadside fortresses. These small sites strongly typify East Manasseh in general. Most of the fortified tells (the ‘Ir Mivtzar of the Bible) are located in the eastern valleys and along Wadi Far‘ah. Kh. Fuqahah (no. 47) and Kh. ‘Eynun (no. 58), both in the fringes of Tubas Valley, are examples of this type. These typical mounds are built upon a natural hill and are enclosed by a stone-built city wall

86

CHAPTER TWO

(unlike the “Hyksosite” Middle Bronze Age II tells, based upon earth ramparts). In many cases, the wall remains are still seen today. On the summit and the slopes there are also remains of buildings. There is a close correlation between the loca-tion of each tell and its elevation,

view from the place, and nearby roads. The proximity to roads (more than 80% of the tells are less than 500 m away from roads of type B) suggests that the sites were devel-oped in accordance to the region as a passage area (from Transjordan to the heartland of the kingdom). Wa--

30. Map of the Iron Age II sites.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

ter proximity was a secondary ele-ment in choosing the site’s location, because water storage in cisterns was already developed and peren-nial sources of water had lost some of their importance. Around the cities, the villages (called “town” – ‘Ir in the bible, and cf. already Stager 1981) are scattered. Kh. Salhab (no. 23), for example, is located in the southern fringes of Zebabdeh Valley. It is a small site with crowded buildings lacking any defensive characteris-tics. It has only a loose correlation with view and elevation, and it re-lates above all to the cultivable plain around it and to road B7. The third section, small sites, of-fers evidence of population growth and the “coverage” of all kinds of lands and topography. Farms could utilize small patches of cultivable land and pasture land. The small sites are evidence of the relatively good security conditions of the Kingdom of Samaria, which was able to defend its periphery against enemies and marauding nomads. However, taking into account the invasions into East Manasseh of the Ammonites and Aramaeans from the 9th century BCE and on, this high level of security is somewhat surprising. Most of the farms have a “clas-sical” shape of the semi-arid zone: a central house, a courtyard and secondary buildings for animals.

87

The courtyard, which comprises 80% or more of the sites’ area, in-dicates the dual economy – animal husbandry and cereal growing. The average rainfall was enough to grow barley and wheat upon 10 to 50 dunams (2.5-12.5 acres) per site in the Buqei‘ah. Pasturage (green in wintertime and dry in the sum-mer) again sufficed for a small herd of sheep and goats. An example of a farm is Abu Sha‘areh (no. 246) lo-cated upon a wide hilltop, between the Buqei‘ah and the Desert Fring-es. It has a main building (now covered), a large oval courtyard, a gate construction and a small outer buidlings. The roadside fortresses defended the roads. From the 9th century BCE onward, the round towers of the “Malfuf ” type emerged as the main type (Zertal 1995), replacing the casemate fort of the end of Iron Age I (cf. Muntar esh-Shaqq – no. 83). Nevertheless, the casemate fort continued to be used in some cases (Ras Hamud, no. 91). Despite the variety of the land-scape units in the area, there is a pat-tern in the Iron Age II site scatter. Most of them are concentrated in the Landscape Units of Wadi Far‘ah, the Desert Fringes, Ras Humsah, the Buqei‘ah and east Wadi Malih. Ras es-Salmeh is almost empty, and the valleys of Zebabdeh and Tubas are sparsely settled, presumably for the existence of many tells there. Crowded groups of sites are also

88

CHAPTER TWO

found in the small Mutaqallabat Valley and in Ras el-Kharrubeh. The architecture of the round tow-ers in Mutaqallabat, already men-tioned, may indicate Ammonite elements there. Most of the Iron Age II sites seems to have been founded during the 8th century BCE, the most pros-perous period of northern Israel, yet some had already been founded in the time of the United Monarchy (Holladay 1966). Typical types of pottery are cooking pots of type D, the jars with ridges on the neck and the hole mouth jars with shelf rims. Typical 9th century vessels are rare. The situation in the neighbor-ing territories is somehow unclear.

The 44 sites dating to the “Israelite period, time of the kingdom” are just 13% of the total in the Beth Shean Valley (Zori 1962, 197). This low figure, compared to 31% in East Manasseh, is hard to ex-plain. In Zori’s (1977, 152) study of Issachar, there are 60 sites of Iron Age II, close to our figures. A prob-lem rises also in the results of Gal (1980, 104): only seven out of his 26 sites have Iron Age II pottery, and two of them are marked with parentheses indicating “very few finds”. This sharp decline requires an explanation. Ephraim (Finkel-stein 1988-1989, 151-152) records a settlement peak similar to ours.

31. A scenery in the Desert Fringes.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

9. Iron Age III (= IrA III, The Assyrian Province) The definition of Iron Age III, not thoroughly discussed by scholars so far, is based upon historical circum-stances and several pottery types. They consist of the “late” ridged-

89

necked jar, the hole mouth jar with the sharp shelf rim and, above all, the wedge-shaped decorated bowl (Zertal 1989b). The 150 years which followed the fall of Samaria in 722-721 BCE saw a sharp decline in the settlement of East Manasseh, and only in 25 sites

32. Map of the Iron Age III sites.

90

CHAPTER TWO

this period is represented. It seems that this decline evolved from the Assyrian exile policy, which deeply affected this territory. The villages and farms in the arid zones were the first to be abandoned, and the population moved to the richer and better defended Mediterranean zones. However, even in the latter area there is a 50% decline of settle-ment (Zertal 2004, 57-59). The desertion of the east was apparently not quick, and no evidence of de-struction or fire was found. Assyr-ian destruction is typical only of cities and tells (cf. Tel el-Far‘ah, de-stroyed and fired – De Vaux 1992, 1301). All the Iron Age III sites contin-ued from Iron Age II. There are no new foundations and the popula-tion that continued was undoubt-edly Israelite. On the other hand, the Assyrians settled the foreign populaces brought from Mesopota-mia in the eastern valleys, as testi-fied by the wedge-decorated bowls scatter. Four of the 25 sites are lo-cated in the Zebabdeh Valley and five in the Buqei‘ah. Tubas Valley, with few Iron Age II sites, has just one Iron Age III settlement. Hence, the two former valleys represent 40% of the total Iron Age III sites. It seems that these concentrations were produced by populaces close in language, origin and material culture, which later created the Cu-thaean community. The above concentrations are

prominent when compared to other landscape units, which were almost entirely vacated during Iron Age III. These are Ras es-Salmeh, Wadi Malih, the Desert Fringes, etc. In the neighboring areas no dis-tinction of Iron Age III has been found.

10. Persian Period (the Jewish return to Zion) The Persian period continues its predecessor in some characteristics, but in the Mediterranean area (the Shechem Syncline) there is unprec-edented prosperity (Zertal 1989a). This is the result of the important status of Samaria as capital of north-ern Palestine, the accumulation of wealth resulting from the prosper-ous trade with the Phoenician ports and the entrance into the land of various populations: Israelites, Cu-thaeans, Ammonites, Moabites, etc. (cf. Lemaire 1994b). Yet East Manasseh does not take part in that prosperity, and its de-cline, brought about by the Assyr-ian rule, continues. Of the overall 23 sites from the Persian period, the 11 sites in the Zebabdeh Valley belong to the Mediterranean zone rather than to our semi arid lands. These relate, it seems, to the Do-than Valley and the region of Qa-batiyeh, where crowded settlement is found in this period. In the rest of East Manasseh, set-tlement is sporadic. A phenomenon

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

difficult to explain is the lack even of nomads and semi nomads, who were present in all other periods. Almost no Persian Period pottery was recorded in the nomadic en-campments. In the units of Tubas Valley, the Buqei‘ah, and the Desert Fringes there is no Persian Period

91

sites. There is, however, a presence in Kh. Yerzah as well as several sites in Wadi Malih. As for the neighbors, in the Beth Shean Valley, 44 sites were regis-tered (out of the total 321 sites in the survey - Zori 1962, 197), a fig-ure equal to Iron Age II. In the Is--

33. Map of the Persian Period sites.

92

CHAPTER TWO

sachar area of Zori (1977,152) the number rises to 73 sites. Ephraim shows a dramatic decline, though an analysis of its reasons is difficult to conduct due to lack of data.

11. Hellenistic Period (The rule of the Seleucids and Hasmonaeans) During the Hellenistic period set-tlement remains sparse, with its 24 sites. The Shechem Syncline suffers severe events, related to the actions of Alexander the Great against the

34. Map of the Hellenistic Period sites.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

Samaritans following his conquest (Zertal 2004, 60-61). This is based, among other reasons, on the as-sumption that in the end of the 4th century BCE the process of the “Samaritanization” of the popula-tion has been almost completed. Israelites, Judaeans, Cuthaeans and other populaces have assimilated and fused into the new Samaritan nation. The settlement of the Per-sian period in East Manasseh seems not to have been adversely affected by the Greeks, and 46% of the Per-sian Period sites continue into the Hellenistic period. These sites seem to be the basis for the ever growing settlement numbers from this point on and into the Roman and Byzan-tine periods. It is suggested, as well, that East Manasseh did not suffer much from the campaigns of the Hasmonaean kings against Samaria in the end of the 2nd century BCE, either. John Hyrcanus I directed his campaign against the Samaritans around the capital of Samaria and the Samaritan cultic center that was built on top of the Samaritan Mount Garizim (ca. 112-108 BCE). The conquest of Samaria paved the way to the north and the Galilee, and the east was not crucial for these plans. The fortress on the high summit of Kh. Quleh (no. 43) indicates fortifica-tion of the road from Scythpoplis to Neapolis and Samaria. A similar decline is registered in the Beth Shean Valley and the Is--

93

sachar territory. In the former, Zori (1962, 197) records a decline of 41% vis-à-vis the Persian period, while in the latter (Zori 1977, 154) the number of sites declined by 45%. This, therefore, can be re-garded as a general phenomenon. In Ephraim the surveyors have scarcely made a division between the Persian and Hellenistic periods, and the whole period is regarded as “problematic” (Finkelstein 19881989, 155).

12. Early Roman Period (= ER, Herodian to the First Revolt) Here the re-settlement of East Manasseh begins. The 35 sites of the period show a rise of 45% in comparison with the Hellenistic Period. Only 14 of the sites (40% of the total) continued from the above period, and the other 21 are newly founded. Moreover, all the Early Roman Period sites continue from now on. As for clusters, the Zebabdeh Valley has nine sites, seven of which are new; in Ras es-Salmeh, Tubas Valley and Ras Jadir the settlement is sparse (one or two sites per unit), and in the Buqei‘ah, Wadi Malih and Ras Humsah there are three or four sites per unit. Most of the set-tlements are farms or small villages. A comparison with the Mediter-ranean zone shows different direc-tions: while in the former the settle--

94

CHAPTER TWO

ment is stable, in East Manasseh it grows, presumably due to the fact that the area did not suffer during the Hellenistic Period. In all the territory east of the city of Samaria, not a single new Greek polis developed. The territory was divided among Scythopolis, Sa--

maria and the cities of the Decapo-lis east of the Jordan. In the Beth Shean Valley, Zori reports on seven “Roman” sites, an impossible figure, probably related to the difficulty of identifying the pottery. In the Issachar territory 71 “Roman” sites were identified,

35. Map of the Early Roman Period sites.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

77% more than in the Hellenistic Period. In Ephraim no distinction exists between Early and Late Ro-man Periods.

13. Late Roman Period (= LR, from the First Revolt to the Constantines)

95

This period saw the real “jump” in the number of settlements. The 70 Late Roman Period sites are almost equal in number to Iron Age II, and large sections of the landscape units were resettled. This is especially at-tested to in Ras es-Salmeh, Wadi Malih, the Buqei‘ah and the Desert

36. Map of the Late Roman Period sites.

96

CHAPTER TWO

Fringes. More than half of the sites are new farms and villages. Unlike Juadea, severely damaged after the two Jewish revolts against the Ro-mans, the Samaritan territories en-joyed a prospering economy and security. This is the possible back-ground for the Roman military sys-tem here, founded with the support of the local population, which was sympathetic to the Romans. In this period the first towns were founded, including Yerzah (A – no. 106), Umm el-‘Uqbeh (B – no. 114), Jabaris (no. 69), esSamrah (no. 129), etc. They are all located east of the national water-shed, in the hilly area of Ras Jadir and Wadi Malih. These were the relatively vacant areas in the former periods, where much unoccupied land awaited the settler. Cultivation became possible, as terracing and building of roads and dams created an impressive agricultural system. These systems are found in Ras es-Salmeh (especially in ‘Iraq elHamam – no. 36), east of Ras Jadir and the Buqei‘ah. These new towns are not built in Wadi Far‘ah and the eastern valleys, because there water and land had been fully employed before. In conclusion, the Late Roman Period period is the time of develop-ment and growth in East Manasseh. The two roadside fortresses in the Buqei‘ah, Kh. Humsah (no. 143) and Kh. Umm Kharaz (no. 144) were both built in this period.

14. Byzantine Period (from the Constantines to the Arab Conquest) This is the peak of settlement of all the periods. Byzantine Period pot-tery is registered in 144 sites, twice as many as in the preceding period. There are several aspects to this process: farms and villages grew up and became towns, and many new farms and villages founded. This pattern enabled the exploitation of each parcel of land: for grow-ing grains, orchards (mainly olives) and animal husbandry. The pace of growth is equal here to that of the other regions, indicating organic development without external in-terference. The ethnicity of the population here is not always certain, with the lack of historical texts, but some assumptions can be made. On the winepress in Kh. Ibziq (lower – no. 42) there are names of Jews or Sa-maritans, and most of the popula-tion must have been Christians, as is shown by the churches and mon-asteries. In that period the Roman mili-tary system in the east seems to have been abandoned. Eusebius in his Onomasticon refers to four sites in the area (Asher, Thebez, Be-zeq and Beth Meulah), and the Map of Madabah does not refer to the area. The towns and townlets here are at their maximal size: 10 to 60 du--

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

nams (2.5-15 acres) each, with 400 to 2500 inhabitants. These were the “backbone” of the territory, with the necessary services: markets, dwellings, inns, administration and religious places available to the population. It can be compared to the prosperous towns of the Negev

97

highlands (Shivta, Avdat, Haluzah, etc.), which were bigger in size and more closely related to trade and pilgrimage. Most of the 13 towns (i.e., Ibziq A-B, Jabaris, Haddad, Yarzah, Samrah, Mufiyeh, Muqey-simeh, Smeit, Farhan, ‘Uqbeh (A), Fukhar and Shaqq) are located in a

37. Map of the Byzantine Period sites.

98

CHAPTER TWO

long strip between Ras Jadir and the Desert Fringes. The 320 dunams (80 acres) of built up area of these towns and townlets were easily able to hold some 10.000 inhabitants. The 50 villages (unfortified sites 2-10 dunams or 0.5-2.5 acres in area) seem to have developed from farmsteads. Together with the latter, these are the majority of the sites by number. Encampments are 10% of the total and a new feature is the square, well constructed courtyards, presumably built for cattle. In the Shechem Syncline the Byz-antine Period settlement is 47% of the total number of sites, vs. 53% in the east. The former was gov-erned by the two large cities – Se-basteh and Neapolis. In Issachar, Zori (1977, 154) found Byzantine Period pottery in 70% of the total, while in Beth Shean it was 55%. In Ephraim 267 of the sites had this pottery, with only 5% of them in his “fringes of the desert”.

15. Early Moslem Period (= EM, the Ummayyad, Fatimid and Abasside dynasties to the Crusader conquest) The Early Moslem period, which lasted 460 years, saw a sharp de-crease in settlement compared to the Byzantine period. Only in 55 sites pottery of the period was reg-istered, a decline of two thirds com-pared to the previous period. This decline relates to the lower status

of Palestine in the imperial admin-istration and the general neglect of the country. The wars between the new conquerors added to the overall decline, which can be deter-mined through six points: A. no foundation of new sites is registered; B. the area of the remaining sites shrinks, which indicates shrinking of the population; C. several regions are slowly aban-doned, mostly the remote ones; D. the towns are either aban-doned or their area shrinks, while the farms are less abandoned than the towns (a phenomenon that needs further explanation); E. the Jordan Valley becomes a center of economy, a development related to the entrance of the sugar cane as industrial agriculture (and cf. Zertal 2005, 79); F. this seems to be the period when the present Arabic villages begin their existence (Tilfit, Zebab-deh, Kfer, Sir, ‘Aqabah, Rabbah, Taiyasir, Tubas and Tammun); cor-responding phenomenon appears in the Shechem Syncline. It can be assumed that the gen-eral decline is connected, as well, to the fact that the capitals – Tiberias, capital of Jind Urdun, and Ramleh, capital of Jind Filastin – are both relatively far away from our region. In the neighboring regions the picture is not very clear. In Issa--

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

char, Zori (1977, 154) reports 68 sites from the “early Arab period”. This figure is 32% of the total, vs. 18% in East Manasseh. In the Beth Shean Valley there were 85 sites, or 48% of the total. Finkelstein (1988-1989, 161-163) indicates the problematic division between

99

the periods.

16. Middle Ages (= MA, the Crusader and Mameluk periods). During this long period the settle-ment rises. The 69 sites of the pe-riod are 20% more in number than

38. Map of the Early Moslem Period sites.

100

CHAPTER TWO

those of the preceding period. Thirteen Early Moslem Peri-od sites cease to exist, and 33 are newly founded. This addition is hard to explain, and one has to dif-ferentiate between the Crusader and Mameluk sites, an almost im-possible task. This differentiation

should be based upon architecture and historical sources. Pottery plays a less important role. The following points are to be discussed: A. During the Crusader Period two fortresses are built – Burj elMalih and Burj el-Far‘ah. Their style and period coincide with the

39. Map of the Middle Ages sites.

GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF EAST MANASSEH

Crusaders, but no clear evidence ex-ists as to their builders. Ellenblum (1991, 298-301) argued that Burj el-Malih was a senioric Crusader center, but the background for this claim is not clear. He found several Christian sites in central Samaria, including Zebabdeh and Rabbah. This argumentation is based upon Conder and Kitchener, who them-selves hesitated, and finally based their definition upon the stone ma-sonry. To the Crusader site list one can add Bethphorum (Beth Farr [B] – no. 168), Thopas (Tubas) and pos-sibly Taiyasir. The population con-sisted of Christians and Moslems, with slight Crusader (European) influences. B. during the Mameluk Period several sites are founded. In eastern Buqei‘ah there is a group of farms (Sunah [no. 139], Hadidiyeh [no. 136], Butmeh [no. 141], etc.), with newly cultivated lands. A paral-lel phenomenon, i.e. the founda-tion of farms, is also found north of Wadi Malih and in Wadi Far‘ah, but above all new encampments with Mameluk material are found in East Buqei‘ah, Mutaqallabat and Ras Kharrubeh. This is probably due to the rise of Bedouin power. In the Shechem Syncline the number of sites rises moderately (Zertal 2004, 66-67). In Issachar, Zori found ten (!) “Crusader” sites. In Ephraim, Finkelstein (19881989, 163-164) reports about 153

101

sites from the Middle Ages, a figure parallel to ours.

17. Ottoman Period (= Ott, from the Ottoman conquest to the British Conquest) This period sees a sharp settlement crisis, with only 26 sites clearly de-fined as Ottoman Period. Nine of these are villages, six are encamp-ments and one is a cave. This find raises the issue of the accuracy of our pottery definition. It is simply hard to conceive of such a popula-tion vacuum. In the 1596 CE Ot-toman census (Hutterorh and Abd el-Fatah 1977), only today’s villages appear, with Bedouin tribes. This is also the situation during the Brit-ish Survey (SWP, the 1870’s) and in the map of Grossman (1986, fig. 5 in p. 340). Grossman, who literally explored the Ottoman period, pre-sented a map particularly vacant of settlements. Not only were no new sites founded, but many of the preced-ing farms ceased to exist. This situ-ation may have evolved with the deterioration of the administration and the security situation, so that the “line of settlement” withdrew to the large villages of Tammun – Tu-bas – Zebabdeh. A somewhat simi-lar picture was registered in other parts of the country in the 19th-20th centuries CE. This deterioration is expressed through the following: A. the population is sparse, con--

102

CHAPTER TWO

taining almost only Bedouins; B. only few permanent villages or farms are known; C. There is a large variety of Bed-ouins: true ones (arab in Arabic) with grazing rights but no lands; vassals (harath), who cultivate own--

ers’ lands and pay with a portion of the crops; those coming from other regions (Judaea, Hebron), having grazing rights or others, and pro-fessional shepherds who handle the herds of the owners from the vil-lages.

40. Map of the Ottoman Period sites.

CHAPTER THREE

THE GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORICAL IDENTIFICATIONS In the identifications, use has been made of the new archaeological material found during the survey. Previous proposals have also been either supported or disproved. East Manasseh has relatively few multi period sites, tells, geographi-cal historical texts and identifica-tion options. Effort was made to use the available sources. The iden-tifications are based, as usual, on the similarity and preservation of names, on the archaeological finds and on the geographical historical contexts. Next to each site is a short discussion, bibliography and, if rel-evant, our new proposal for identi-fication. The identifications from the On-omasticon of Eusebius are based on the new edition by Freeman-Gren-ville, Chapman and Taylor 2003. Site no. 1:

Khirbet ‘Anahum Lemaire (1977, 63) has suggested identifying this site as No‘ah of the Daughters of Zelophohad (Joshua 17:3; Samaria Ostraca, no. 50, 52, 64). This identification, supported by Taylor and Taylor (1992), is based upon the preservation of the

name and the context. The pres-ence of Iron Age I pottery does not add or detract, since the date of division into Manasseh’s family al-lotments has not been thoroughly researched. This identification, however, “stretches” the borders of the “Land of Hepher” (I Kings 4:10), to which the Daughters of Zelophohad belong (and see dis-cussion in Zertal 1984, 50-58). In the Zebabdeh Valley four Iron Age I sites adjacent to the large Late Bronze Age site (Sheikh Safiriyan, no. 2) were found, and it seems that the entire valley was called No‘ah. The site was also identified by Zussman and Demsky as ‘Ananin (‫ )עננין‬of the “Permitted Villages” of the territory of Sebasteh in the Re-hov Mosaic Inscription. This identi-fication is based on the similarity in name and the archaeological finds. ‘Ananin is located between Shapirin (Kh. ash-Sheikh Safiriyan, no. 2) and Bil‘am ‘Aliata (‫בלעם עלייתה‬, Kh. Bel‘ameh; see Zertal 2004, site no. 26). Thus, a logical sequence exists for the location of Kh. ‘Anahum and the identification is reasonable. Bibliography: Lemaire 1977, 63; Demsky 1979, 189; Zussman 1981, 166.

CHAPTER THREE

104 Site no. 2:

Khirbet esh-Sheikh Safiriyan It is suggested that Canaanite Be-zeq, mentioned in Judges 1:4-5 as the city of Adonibezeq, might have been at this site. His name, which means “Ruler of the city [Bezeq]” correlates with Adonizedeq of Jeru-salem (Joshua 10:1-3) and Adoni-yah (II Samuel 3:4). However, a Canaanite god named Bezeq is unknown (although the meaning of the name Bezeq – “flash, light-ening, swift” is close to Hadad, the god of the storm, rain, thunder and lightening (Maier 1992). The iden-tity proposed by Wright (1946) of Adonibezeq with Adonizedeq seems to be unfounded. The Bezeq traditions echo the Ca-naanite Israelite conflicts during the early Iron Age, and the existence of Judah and Simeon inside Manasseh (Zertal 2000, 280-285). The geographic proximity of Safiriyan to Kh. Ibziq (no. 44) and Kh. Salhab (no. 23, the candidate for the other Bezeq) supports the identification of the former with Canaanite Bezeq. The place name may have been transferred about 5 km (from Safiriyan to Salhab) and then again to Kh. Ibziq. Such transferal is reasonable, and may echo the Israelite Canaanite con-flict within the boundaries of the eastern valleys. The site was also identified by Zussman as Shapirin (‫)שפירין‬, line

27 of the Rehov Inscription, of the “Permitted Villages”. The finds, lo-cation and context make this iden-tification possible. Bibliography: for Adonibezeq, Schlei 1992; Zertal 1992b; for Sha-pirin, Demsky 1979, 189; Zertal 1992a; Zussman 1981, 166. Site no. 14:

el-Khirbeh (ez-Zard) Two options have been considered for this site: 1. The village of Kfar Zir (‫)כפר ציר‬, line 27 of the Rehov Inscription. Zussman has proposed identifying Kfar Zir as the nearby village Sir (no. 20). However, the Byzantine Period site there is small. el-Kh-irbeh (ez-Zard), in contrast, was a large town 24 dunams (6 acres) in area, and thus appears to be a better candidate, although the finds and location fit both of them. 2. In a discussion of Kfar Casdia (‫ )כפר כשדיה‬from the Rehov Inscrip-tion, the argument was raised (Zer-tal 2004, 71) that the finds there are insufficient for identification. Thus we proposed identifying Kfar Casdia as el-Khirbeh (ez-Zard). If so, Kfar Zir would remain in near-by Sir. Bibliography: Demsky 1979, 189; Zussman 1981, 167; Zertal 2004, 76, 349-350.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Site no. 20:

Sir During the Middle Ages a fortress named Casale Syrorum stood here. The name and the finds support the identification of Sir with ‫כפר‬ ‫ ציר‬from the Rehov Inscription (line 27); see previous site. Bibliography: Beyer 1940, 175; Demsky 1979, 189; Zussman 1981, 167. Site no. 22:

‘Aqabah The identification with Iqbin (‫)אקבין‬ of the “Permitted Villages” is sup-ported by the location, geographi-cal historical context and findings; and see discussion of site no. 84, Kh. el-‘Aqabah. Bibliography: Demsky 1979, 189; Zussman 1981, 166. Site no. 23:

Khirbet Salhab This site is identified with bibli-cal Bezeq (I Samuel 11:8), instead of the identification at nearby Kh. Ibziq. This Bezeq is mentioned with relation to King Saul’s campaign. He gathers the people and com-mands them in Bezeq. From there, overnight, he reaches Yabesh Gilead and rescues its people. Kh. Salhab is situated on the road to Beth Shean and the Jordan Valley, and thus fits as a place of tactical assembly. The

105

distances to the Jordan and Yabesh Gilead may fit a one night’s march. For Canaanite Bezeq see site no. 2, Safiriyan. Kh. Salhab has also been identi-fied as Palga deShalaf (‫ )פלגא דשלאף‬of the Rehov Inscription. The identi-fication is reasonable regarding lo-cation and finds, but the site from the Byzantine Period is extremely small. Bibliography: For an extensive dis-cussion on Biblical identification see Welten 1965; Zertal 1990, 9192; 1992a, 717-718. contra: Zaha-roni 1991. For Palga Deshalaf see Zussman 1981, 167. Site No. 34:

Rabbah Conder and Kitchener proposed identifying this place as Harabit in the allotment of Issachar (Joshua 19:20), mentioned only once in the Bible near Kishion. In the Sep-tuagint and the Vulgata, Dovrat appears instead of Harabit. Dovrat also appears in Joshua 21:28 and in I Chronicles 6:57 as a Levite city. Dovrat/Harabit is usually identi-fied south of Mt. Tabor. However, the identification at Rabbah, sug-gested by Pere F.-M. Abel, is sup-ported by the proximity to Nebi Rubin in Kh. Abu Farhan (Rabit = Rubin). The presence of groups from Issachar in Manasseh is rea-sonable (see also Mazar 1992a, 119ff). Yet in both sites, Rabbah

CHAPTER THREE

106

and Kh. Abu Farhan, no Iron Age shards were found, and there is no archaeological basis for this identi-fication. On the other hand, name preservation may indicate an Iron Age site in the vicinity; see also Ras es-Salmeh. Bibliography: Armstrong 1889, 146; Alt 1928, 37; Abel 1967b, 425; Baker 1992, 604-605. Site no. 41:

Ras es-Salmeh This is a candidate for Harabit in Issachar (Joshua 19:20). The name has been presumably preserved in the nearby village of Rabbah, and the pottery suits the settlement period of Issachar families within Manasseh. The borders of Issachar in Joshua 19 may be interpreted either in the region of Issachar Heights north of Beth Shean (Al-bright 1926; Kallai 1967, 164173; Aharoni 1979, 250-256) or, according to the extended school (Yeivin 1958, 948-951), who in-clude the Jezreel Valley, the Gilboa Range and the northern part of Do-than Valley. The well-known verse (Joshua 17:11) “And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher…” may fit the latter. It is possible that Rabbah, about 10 km away from Yibleam (mentioned also in Joshua 17:11) was included in this region. A cer-tain difficulty arises in that Harabit is a Levite city in Issachar, while Ras es-Salmeh is a small site at the top of a mountain.

Bibliography: See above (Rabbah), and Albright 1926; Kallai 1967, 164-173; Gal 1980, with detailed discussion pp. 95-96 (which does not give a clear opinion regarding Harabit). Sites no. 42, 44:

Khirbet Ibziq-Lower and Khirbet Ibziq The ancient name Bezeq (Judges 1:4; I Samuel 11:8) has been pre-served in these two places, and the similarity of the name induced all of the 19th century scholars (Cond-er and Kitchener, Guérin and oth-ers) to identify the Biblical site here (see also Aharoni 1979 , 57, 122, 214, 287, 433; Zaharoni 1991, who still proposes this identifica-tion, vs. Gophna and Porath 1972, 201, who suggest reconsidering the identification). However, according to the finds the site was founded during Iron Age II, and the name Bezeq was transferred to this place during a later period (apparently at the end of the Iron Age) from the original site at Kh. Salhab. Then, it was preserved from the Byzan-tine period onwards. The evidence of Eusebius’ Onomasticon: “Be-zeq. A city of Adonibezeq. Today there are two neighboring villages called Bezeq 17 milestones away from Neapolis on the way down to Scythopolis”, shows that in the 4th century CE the place was called by this name or something close to it. It can be suggested with high prob--

THE GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

107

ability that Eusebius’ two villages are both sites no. 42 and no. 44. See also discussion of site no. 23, Kh. Salhab. Bibliography: Eusebius Onomasti-con, 36; Conder 1876, 69; 1881, 44; Mazar 1973; Welten 1965; Zertal 1992a.

that point of view, we propose to transfer the place of Asher to nearby Kh. Yarzah. Bibliography: Eusebius Onomas-ticon, 23; Guérin 1969, I, 356357; Sejourne 1895, 617; Edelman 1992; Zertal 1990, 93-94 with dis-cussion.

Site no. 45:

Site no. 47:

Taiyasir

Khirbet Fuqahah

This site was identified by Euse-bius as Asher of the Manassite ter-ritory. Its definition is “Aser [IV], (Joshua 17:7). City of the tribe of Manasseh. Now there is a village so called on the way down from Ne-apolis to Scythopolis, 15 milestones along the highway” (Eusebius On-omasticon, 23). The identification is based on the border description of Manasseh: “and the border of Manasseh was from Asher to Mich-methath, that lieth before Shechem” (Joshua 17:7). Germer Durand and Sejourne found milestones there in-scribed “14”, which may fit the de-scription of Eusebius. The existence of Asherite families in Manasseh at the beginning of the Iron Age I period is well accepted (cf. Kallai 1967, 128; Aharoni 1979, 242ff; Avi Yonah 1972, column 786, which supports the Asher Taiyasir identification), as well as the name preservation in the area. However, Iron Age pottery is needed to sup-port the identification at Taiyasir. This village is small and has almost no finds from this period. From

This is a candidate for the identifi-cation of Thebez (Judges 9:51-57). The biblical account provides no precise location of the city, but ac-cording to the context it must be in the Shechem region. A strong tower is described there (ibid, 51) in which the people of the town fortified themselves against Abim-elech. Eusebius in his Onomasticon (Eusebius Onomasticon, 58) notes: “Today it is still a village called Thebes on the borders of Neapo-lis about 13 milestones on the way to Scythopolis”. The name has been preserved in the large village of Tubas, in which no ancient tell has been discovered; possibly it was made indistinct due to modern construction. In Tubas Valley, with-in the borders of the village, two tells with Iron Age I pottery were discovered that may be candidates for Thebez. The size, location and fortification of Kh. Fuqahah make identification there possible. In the lower part of the place there is also

CHAPTER THREE

108

a good sized Byzantine Period site, which may fit Eusebius’ descrip-tion. Yet the data do not permit a definite decision between this site and Kh. ‘Eynun. See also site no. 58. Bibliography (for Thebez): Se-journe 1895, 617; Abel 1967II, 477; Guérin 1969, I, 356-359; Mi-lik 1966. Site no. 52:

Tubas A candidate for Thebez of the Ono-masticon, as mentioned by Eusebius (cf. above), and perhaps also Thopas of the Crusader Period. The general tradition of Thebez is known from the Byzantine period onwards, but Biblical Thebez was presumably ei-ther in site no. 47 or in no. 58, with the ancient name moving to Byz-antine Period Tubas. In addition, the Samaritans ascribe the tomb of Nebi Tubah, located in the village, to Asher the son of Ya‘akov. Bibliography: See Kh. Fuqahah (site no. 47), Beyer 1940, 172 ff., 189, 202 ff. and Ben-Zvi 1976, 7374. Site no. 58:

Khirbet ‘Eynun The second candidate for Bibli-cal Thebez (cf. above). The large, fortified tell is located within the boundary of contemporary Tubas, about 2.5 km southeast of the town center. A wall of big stones, a large

shard scatter and rich finds from Iron Age I-II were all found there. The site is situated on the Roman road from the Tubas Valley to the Buqei‘ah, and through location, geographical historical context and archaeological finds it is a suitable candidate for Thebez. Conder and Kitchener proposed that this site was Aenon from the New Testament (John 3:23), an unreasonable proposition in con-sidering the archaeological finds and geographical context. Bibliography: SWP II, 230; Guérin 1969, I, 356-359; see additional bibliography in site no. 46. Site no. 68:

Qasr esh-Sheikh Ghazal This site may be identified as Mu-tatis in Medio, a road station be-tween Neapolis and Scythopolis, as proposed by Neef. However, Qasr esh-Sheikh Ghazal is located on a secondary branch of the road, while the primary one apparently passed through Kh. Ibziq. Bibliography: Neef 1982. Site no. 69: Khirbet Jabaris This site was identified as the sec-ond village of Bezeq of the Ono-masticon (Eusebius Onomasticon, 58, and cf. above, no. 44), Yet Kh. Jabaris is too far east and has no geographical connection with Kh. Ibziq. The two settlements next to

THE GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

each other, Upper and Lower Kh. Ibziq (sites 42 and 44), suffice to comprehend the Eusebius defini-tion. Bibliography: see the literature on Kh. Ibziq, site no. 44. Site no. 78:

Khirbet Mhallal A new identification as Mahlah, a daughter of Zelophohad from the Manassite families (Joshua 17:3), is proposed. Lemaire (1977, 63) pro-posed locating Mahlah in the region of Wadi Malih. Zertal (2004, 74) suggested that each “daughter” rep-resented a territory and a city (e.g., Tirzah). The large site of Kh. Mhal-lal fits the conditions for Mahlah well regarding period, name and geographical historical context. Bibliography: Lemaire 1977, 83; Zertal 2004, 74. Sites 81-83:

The esh-Shaqq sites There may be a connection to Suc-coth (I Kings 7:46), where a metal-lurgical project was carried out by King Solomon. The name has prob-ably been preserved in neighboring Kh. es-Sakkut (volume IV, see Zertal 2005, site 32). The concentration of Iron Age sites in the esh-Shaqq Valley, together with the similarity of the name (Shaqq=Succoth) make the Shaqq Valley a possible candi-date for Succoth. Bibliography: Guérin 1969, I, 204;

109

Abel 1967II, 450, 470. Site No. 84:

Khirbet el-‘Aqqabah This is the second candidate for Iqbin from the Rehov Inscription, together with the village of ‘Aqaba (site 22). Here was a small village, about 6 dunams (1.5 acres) in area, and about 50% of the pottery is Byzantine. Both the preservation of the name and the location are suitable to Iqbin; see discussion and bibliography of site no. 22. Site No. 96:

Tel el-Hilu The usually accepted identification, was Abel Meholah (Judges 7:22; I Kings 4:12; 19:16), is rendered doubtful by the results of the sur-vey. This is due to the small area of the tell and the paucity of cultivat-able areas in its environs. The identification of Tel Abu Sus as Abel Meholah (Zobel 1966; Zer-tal 2005, site 33) seems to be much more logical and plausible. Bibliography: SWP II, 231; Albright 1925, 32; Alt 1928, 42; 1932, 39; Abel 1967, II, 234; Glueck 1943, 9; Zobel 1966; Gophna and Porath 1972, 201; Zori 1977, 38-39; Edel-man 1992a.

CHAPTER THREE

110 Site No. 104:

Khirbet Yarzah (B) This site is identified as Asher from the Byzantine Period, as noted by Eusebius in his Onomasticon (cf. above, site no. 45). Many scholars has identified it at Taiyasir, but that place is small (the ancient core is only 2-3 dunams or 0.5-0.75 acre), with only sparse structural, pottery and other remains. Asher, therefore, should be transferred to Kh. Yarzah (B), 4 km southeast of Tayasir. Kh. Yarzah is connected to the Nepaolis - Scythopolis Roman road. Thus, Eusebius’ description can be inter-preted as “by” the King’s Road. The name Asher also suggests that Tel Yarzah (A), close to the former, kept the Biblical name Asher; see discussion of site no. 106 below. Bibliography: SWP II, 169; Abel 1967II, 254; Guérin 1969,I, 355357; Zertal 1990, 93-94. Site No. 106:

Khirbet Yarzah (A) The main allotment of the tribe of Asher was in the Western Gali-lee (Edelman 1992a), but families from the tribe are known to have resided in Ephraim (Aharoni 1979, 250-259), and Manasseh (Joshua 17:7, 11). During the period of the Israelite settlement families from several tribes, including Asher, are mentioned in Manasseh (see also Noth 1953, 127; Kallai 1967, 128; Avi Yonah 1972, col. 786).

Bibliography: Abel 1967II, 254; Zertal 1990, 93-94 (and see lit-erature of previous site); Edelman 1992b. Site No. 131:

Khirbet ‘Atuf The identification proposed by Robinson (1870) and Guérin (1969, I-II), that Kh. ‘Atuf may be Tappuah of the Ephraim-Manasseh boundary (Joshua 17:7-8), is unac-ceptable in light of the results of the survey and the geographical histori-cal analysis. Tappuah is located on Wadi Qana (Joshua 17:8-9), the southwest boundary of Manasseh, which descended from the Mich-methath directly to the Mediterra-nean Sea. The Buqei‘ah can not be located on that boundary. Conder and Kitchener rejected Robinson’s identification, based on mistaken identifications from the Middle Ages (Tammun = Tampne = Tapuah; see also Burchard of Mount Zion 1971, 52). Bibliography: Guérin 1969, I, 255256; SWP II, 237; Abel 1967II, 475-476. Site No. 151:

Tel el-Far‘ah (North) Albright was the first to propose identifying this tell as the city of Tirzah, a Canaanite city state and the third capital of the Kingdom of Israel (Joshua 12:24; I Kings 12:17; 15:21; 15:33; 16:6; 16:8-9; 16:17;

THE GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

16:23; II Kings 15:14; 15:16; Song of Songs 6:4). The French excava-tions headed by Pere R. De Vaux supported this identification, which now seems highly likely. The last attempt of Sapir (1991) to transfer Tirzah to the Lower Galilee is to-tally rejected. Bibliography: SWP II, 284; Al-bright 1931; Abel 1967II, 485; Sa-pir 1991. Site No. 155:

Khirbet esh-Sheikh Smett (B) Guérin informs that the name ‘Asir was preserved near the tomb of Sheikh Smett. This may be the Arabic form of Asher (both have an equivalent ‘a). The place is not far from Taiyasir Yarzah, the candidates for Asher. Yet the value of the name is limited due to the etymology of the Arabic ‘Asir (“fruit juice”). Bibliography: Guérin 1969, I, 261. Site No. 156:

Khirbet Farweh This site is identified as Bedan (‫בדן‬, Mishnah Orlah 3:7; Kelim 17:5), renowned for its splendid pome-granates. The place is also known in the Samaritan traditions. Accord-ing to the Samaritan manuscript Astir Moshe (1:23) Adam, the first man, lived here, and the Samaritan Book of Joshua mentions that Josh-ua gathered the people here before ascending to Mount Garizim.

111

Bibliography: Avi Yonah 1966, 124; Ben-Zvi 1976, 73. Site No. 160:

el-‘Unuq The large, elliptically-shaped site, enclosed by a low stone wall, con-tains Iron Age I pottery (and a few shards from Iron Age II). This was possibly the gilgal (Deuteronomy 11:30), that appears in the topo-graphical description of the en-trance into Canaan. According to the above, Ebal and Garizim are located “beyond the Jordan after the road where the sun goes down, in the land of the Canaanites who dwell in the plain over against Gil-gal beside Elonei Moreh.” Our interpretation posits that “the road where the sun goes down” is the Shechem – Jordan road B3, along Wadi Far‘ah; “ the land of the Canaanites who dwell in the plain” refers to Wadi Far‘ah Valley (see also Numbers 13:29: “and the Ca-naanites dwell by the sea and by the coast of Jordan”). el-‘Unuq is locat-ed next to the road of Wadi Far‘ah facing the hilltop of Sheikh Billal, possibly Elonei Moreh. At Sheikh Billal, potshards of Iron Age I were found. In this Deuteronomistic tra-dition a possible memory of the site has been preserved. The tradition is difficult to date, but an Iron Age I basis is highly probable. Thus, an archaeological interpretation can be proposed for the biblical gilgal.

CHAPTER THREE

112

Bibliography: Sellin 1917; Zertal 1991, 42-44; 1998, 246-247.

Bibliography: Beyer 1940, 173 ff; Kappus 1966, 79-80; Porath 1968, no. 72.

Site No. 166:

Khirbet Beit Farr (A) Porath (1968, no. 72) proposed identifying the site as Tiphsah (I Kings 5:4; II Kings 15:16). There are two Tiphsah: the first (I Kings 5:4), which is irrelevant here, marks the border of Solomon’s kingdom (Hull 1992, no. 1). The second Tiphsah (II Kings 15:16) may relate to our area: “Then Menahem smote Tiphsah and all that were therein, and its borders from Tirzah because they opened not to him…”. This reference denotes a border point opposite Tirzah. If, as appears in the Septuagint, this is a corruption of the name Tappuah - no site in Wadi Far‘ah fits it. The mention of the name is puzzling and unclear, and the basis for the identification is associated only with Tirzah (see also the discussion of Hull 1992, 571). Bibliography: Porath 1968, no. 72; Hull 1992. Site No. 168:

Khirbet Beit Farr (B) The later ruin of Beit Farr (B) is identified as Bethaphorum, men-tioned in the Crusader inscriptions from the 12th century CE. This identification is logical, based on preservation of the name and the findings.

Site No. 194:

Khirbet Basaliyeh Guérin correctly showed that there was no basis for identifying the site as Archelais of Josephus (Antiquities 18:2:2) Bibliography: Guérin 1969, I, 251253. Site No. 248:

‘Iraq Abu Hashish (A) The site is a Roman castellum (mili-tary camp) whose construction was never completed. It is situated about 24 km south of Beth Shean and 1 km west of the Beth Shean – Jeri-cho road. In light of these data, the site may be identifiable as Coabis, a road station on the Peutinger map from the 2nd century CE. The road station is located 12 Roman miles south of Beth Shean. Since this site is not mentioned afterwards, it seems that it was in use for only a short period. However, an unfin-ished building on an official map as a road station is problematic. Bibliography: for the Peutinger map, Miller 1916; for the site, Zer-tal 1992c, 8-15.

PART TWO

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES

CHAPTER FOUR

ZEBABDEH VALLEY LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

A valley in northern Samaria, etching by W. H. Bartlett From: Footsteps of Our Lord, London 1841

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

117

Site 1: 17 – 20/90/1

Khirbet ‘Anahum (SWP map: Kh. en-Nahm) Israel grid: 1799 2009 UTM grid:7180 5877 Elevation: 345 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: on map as historical site Site type: medium-sized site Area: 8 dunams (2 acres) Topography: ridge edge, valley edge and slope Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 8 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 3 Nearest water source: well (Bir elHaffireh, no. 40), 5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), passes by site Visibility: 4 Dec. 30, 1982, 82 shards

*** A ruin on the edge of a low ridge, Foundations of buildings dat-overlooking Zebabdeh Valley from ing to the Middle Ages are in the the north. It is near both a large western portion of the site. The quarry and the ancient pass from ruin is cultivated and cleared of Zebabdeh Valley to Dothan Valley. stones, with building stones con-centrated in the terrace walls. Most

41. Kh. ‘Anahum, looking northeast.

118

CHAPTER FOUR

of the shards from the early periods (Bronze and Iron Ages) were col-lected in a plowed field south of the site. Pottery: MBA IIB – 5%; IrA IB – 10%; IrA II – 2%; IrA III – 3%; Per – 8%; Hel– 2%; ER – 5%; LR – 5%; Byz – 20%; EM – 10%; MA – 30%. Coin find: Byzantine and Modern, and see appendix.

Identification: Identified as ‘Ananin, a “permitted” town in the Sebasti-yeh region. A possible identifica-tion with No‘ah of the Manasseh families (Joshua 17:3-7), and see chapter on identifications. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 36. Bibliography: SWP II, 240; Dem-sky 1979, 189 (regarding identifi-cation).

42. Shards from Kh. ‘Anahum: nos. 1, 3, 16 – IrA I; 4, 9, 14 – IrA II. 1. Pythos, gray; 2. Jug, lt br, Rom; 3. CP, dk br; 4. Jar, dk; 5. Jar, gray, LR; 6. CP, br, ER; 7. Bowl, pk, red slip, LR; 8. Jug, bl, MA; 9. Jar, br/bl; 10. Bowl, yel, Per; 11. Jar, lt, Hel; 12. Bowl, yel, Per; 13. Bowl, br, EM-MA; 14. Bowl, br; 15. Bowl, basalt; 16. Handle with indented dec, br.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

119

Site 2: 18 – 20/10/1

Khirbet esh-Sheikh Safiriyan (PEF map: Kh. Safiriyeh) Israel grid: 1815 2007 UTM grid: 7195 5874 Elevation: 360 m a.s.l., 7 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: large ruin and sheikh‘s tomb Area: 20 dunams (5 acres) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 9

Cultivation: uncultivated and field crops Cisterns: 30 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Ginai, no. 35), 6 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 3 km distant Visibility: 3 Nov. 5; 1980, 142 shards

*** A large ruin on the low, northern Abu Mar‘ai (east). The ruin extends edge of Zebabdeh Valley, west of over both sides of Khallet eshTilfit Range. It is located between Sheikh Ravine. Khallet esh-Sheikh (west) and Wadi Over almost 10 dunams (2.5

43. The large site of Sheikh Safiriyan on the edge of Zebabdeh Valley, viewed southward. At the center the small tomb of Sheikh Safiriyan is visible, surrounded by remains of structures from the later village (Roman to Medieval periods). Bottom right, towards the valley, stretched the ancient site (Bronze and Iron Ages). Behind the site the Khallet eshSheikh Ravine can be seen. Winter 1993.

120

CHAPTER FOUR

acres) in the higher part of the ruin are many crowded structures, dated by pottery from the Late Ro-man Period onwards; the construc-tions seems to be medieval. Most of the buildings here are houses and courtyards built of large, hewn stones, with installations and cis-terns. In the center of this section stands the ruined tomb of Sheikh Safiriyan. About 150 m east of the tomb are two stone sarcophagi, one decorated. The earlier settlement (Middle Bronze Age to Roman pe-riod) is located in cultivated fields on the lower part of the site, with a large quantity of shards there. Pottery: MBA IIB – 20%; LBA I – 5%; LBA II – 5%; LBA III – 10%;

IrA IA-B – 10%; IrA II – 5%; IrA III – 5%; Per – 10%; Hel – 5%; ER – 5%; LR – 5%; Byz – 5%; EM – 5%; MA – 5%. Special finds: Fragments of bowl with wedge decoration and one coin, and see appendix. Identification: Probably Bezeq (Judges 1: 4-7), a Canaanite town. It is also identified as Shapirin of the Rehov inscription (line 27), and see chapter on identifications. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no.37. Bibliography: SWP II, 240; Zuss-man 1981, 166; Zertal 2000, 282285 (regarding identification).

44. Shards from Kh. esh-Sheikh Safiriyan: 1-2. Handles, IrA and MBA II; 3. ‘Milk bowl’, Cypriot, LBA; 4. Crater, MBA II; 5-6. Plastic dec, MBA; 7. Oil lamp, Hel.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

121

45. Shards from Kh. esh-Sheikh Safiriyan: 1, 6. Collared rim pythoi, IrA I; 2. Jar, MBA II; 3. Indented dec, IrA I; 4. Jar, MBA; 5. Bowl base, LBA.

46. Pottery from Kh. esh-Sheikh Safiriyan: 1. Pythos, dk, IrA I; 2. Crater, bl/gray, LBAIrA I; 3. Crater, yel, MBA II; 4. Jar, yel, MBA II; 5. Bowl, lt, LBA; 6. Incised dec on handle, MA; 7 ‘Milk bowl’ Cypriot, lt, LBA; 8. Dec handle, red on yel, LBA; 9. Handle with indented dec, IrA I; 10. "Fishbone" dec on jar, yel, MBA II.

122

CHAPTER FOUR

Site 3: 18 – 20/20/1

Tilfit Israel grid: 1823 2008 UTM grid: 7180 5877 Elevation: 390 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: on map, but not as his-torical site Site type: large ruin and Arab village Area: 15 dunams (3.75 acres) Topography: ridge edge, valley edge and hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation

Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium; quality: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 35 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Ginai, no. 35), 6 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 3 km distant Visibility: 6 Dec. 18, 1980; 1984-1986; 31 shards ***

A small Arab village on a tell locat-ed upon the high, eastern edges of Zebabdeh Valley. It is isolated from the north and the west by slopes de-scending to Wadi Khalil. To its east

are a ridge and a saddle, through which the road to Jalkamus passes. From the village is a fine view of Zebabdeh Valley. In the upper part of the village

47. The tell and the small village of Tilfit from a bird’s eye view, looking east. The tell’s slopes descend to Wadi Khalil (left); remnants of the city wall (?) can be seen on the high part of the slope. Behind the village is the road to Jalkamus. Winter 1993.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

are ancient buildings and wall foundations, apparently dating to the Byzantine and Early Moslem Periods. On the northern and west-ern slopes are three earthen steps 34 m high each, the middle one of which seems to be a city wall, possi-bly dating to the Byzantine or Early Moslem Period. Ancient building stones are interwoven in the houseand terrace walls. The village is not mentioned in

123

the 1596 Ottoman census. Pottery: MBA IIB – 2%; IrA II – 5%; Per – 3%; ER – 10%; LR – 10%; Byz – 30%; EM – 10%; MA – 30%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 38, where three pe-riods are attributed to the site (Byz-antine, Medieval and Ottoman). Bibliography: SWP II, 240 (the site appears as Kh. Tilfit).

48. Pottery from Tilfit: 1-2. Folded CP and jar, br and lt, MBA II; 3-4. Craters, dk br, IrA II; 5. Bowl, lt, ER; 6. Jar, gray, Per; 7. Jar, br, Byz; 8. Jar, lt br, LR; 9. Jar, gray, EM.

124

CHAPTER FOUR

Site 4: 18 – 20/30/1

el-Habayel (A) Israel grid: 1834 2001 UTM grid: 7215 5867 Elevation: 365 m a.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: medium sized ruin Area: 6 dunams (1.5 acres) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Ginai, no. 35), 7 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 2 km distant Visibility: 5 Nov. 5, 1980; 72 shards and 69 flint items ***

A site on the high, eastern edges of Zebabdeh Valley, about 1 km north of the Zebabdeh – Rabbah road. A dirt road along the valley edge passes nearby, and a path from Til-fit to Rabbah crosses the site, from which there is a fine view of Zebab-deh Valley.

The site extends over a slope, with well preserved structures on its upper part. These are built of field stones, rectangular in shape and measuring 8x5 m in size. At the lower slope is an artificial ramp in a cultivated field, presumably in-dicating a wall. Most of the shards

49. The village of Tilfit with the Chalcolithic Period sites of el-Habayel to its right.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

and flint finds were collected in this field next to the ramp. A spring, that has since dried up, was possibly existent in Wadi Khudrah. Pottery: Chal – 100%.

125

Flint find: Ghassulian Chalcolithic and Wadi Rabbah Periods; see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

50. Flint adzes and stone tools from the Chalcolithic Period site of el-Habayel (A).

 Site 5: 18 – 20/30/3

el-Habayel (B) Israel grid: 1835 2002 UTM grid: 7214 5870 Elevation: 375 m a.s.l., 5 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site and shard scatter Area: 0.5 dunam (0.125 acre) Topography: slope and ravine Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Ginai, no. 35), 7 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 2 km distant Visibility: 2 Nov. 5, 1980; 77 shards and flint items

126

CHAPTER FOUR

A site on a slope which descends moderately westwards into Zebab-deh Valley, some 0.4 km northeast of el-Habayel (A). The structural remains here con-sists of a semi-circular wall delin-eating a small area whose center is sunken. In addition, there are three

caves, with openings blocked by stones, in the western part of the site. The place is located within rich agricultural land. Pottery and flint find: Chal – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 6: 18 – 19/09/1

ez-Zebabdeh (PEF map: Zebabdeh) Israel grid: 1807 1992 UTM grid: 7187 5858 Elevation: 330 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: on map, but not as his-torical site Site type: large ruin and Arab village Area: 30 dunams (7.5 acres) Topography: valley edge and hilltop Rock type: alluvium cover

Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 35 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Ginai, no. 35), 6 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), passes by site Visibility: 5 Nov. 2, 1985, 48 shards ***

A large village on the northwest-ern part and margins of Zebabdeh Valley, on a natural hill protrud-ing slightly from the valley plain. Nearby is a crossroads: the east-ern branch of the main road from Shechem to Dothan, via Tubas, crosses the village, while the roads to Sanur Valley and the villages of Tilfit and Jalkamus branch off from the main road. The village is located on a large tell, with many potsherds at its edges. In the center of the village several structures from the Middle Ages and the Ottoman Periods are

located, among them some church-es. Many ancient building stones are in secondary use throughout the village. Pottery: MBA IIB – 10%; IrA IB – 10%; IrA II – 10%; ER – 10%; LR – 10%; Byz – 10%; EM – 10%; MA – 20%; Ott – 10%. Until recent past, many of the inhabitants were Christians. The village does not appear in the Ot-toman census of 1596. According to Grossman the place was settled only in the 18th century, by shep-herds from Ramallah.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 44.

127

Bibliography: SWP II, 229; Beyer 1940, 203; Grossman 1986, 350.

51. The large village of ez-Zebabdeh from a bird’s eye view, looking north. Churches, which served the Christian population of the village until recently, are visible on the an-cient tell, in the center of the village. The road crossing the village comes from Tubas (at right) and leads to Dothan Valley (left). Winter 1994.

128

CHAPTER FOUR

Site 7: 18 – 19/49/1

er-Rahweh Israel grid: 1848 1993 UTM grid: 7227 5860 Elevation: 470 m a.s.l., 70 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure Area: 7 dunams (1.75 acres) Topography: ridge edge and hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 4 Cultivation: orchards Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Ginai, no. 35), 9 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 2 km distant Visibility: 6 Oct. 30, 1980, 17 shards ***

An enclosure on a low summit, lo-cated on a range sloping to the Ze-babdeh Valley from Ras es-Salmeh. The Zebabdeh – Rabbah road passes north of the site, which of-fers a good view to the valley and

the plains. The summit is surrounded by an enclosure almost 80 m in diameter, built of megalithic stones. These are mostly in upright position, 1-

52. The MBA I enclosure in er-Rahweh. The elliptic-shaped enclosure, surrounded by a wall of large boulders, is on a low summit descending into the valley. Behind it is the Khallet Taleb Ravine. 1993.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

2 m high. The enclosure is oval yet slightly irregular in shape, with a sharpened point in the south. In three spots and between upright stones assumed entrances were de-tected. In the eastern section the wall was covered by cleared stones, and near the wall are many rock surfaces with cup marks. The num--

129

ber of shards is minimal. During the Middle Bronze Age I the site was used probably as a cul-tic site for the nearby valley. There is a resemblance to el-‘Ajjam (site no. 146), dated to the same period. Pottery: MBA I – 98%; Byz – 2%. Previous surveys: none.

53. Plan of er-Rahweh enclosure. Three similar sites, apparently cultic, are close to clus-ters of settlements in this volume.

130

CHAPTER FOUR

Site 8: 17 – 19/98/1

Khallet ‘Abhar Israel grid: 1793 1987 UTM grid: 7173 5854 Elevation: 422 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure and shard scatter Area: 0.3 dunam (0.08 acre) Topography: plateau and ridge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa

Soil quality: 8 Cultivation: orchards Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Ginai, no. 35), 6 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 3 km distant Visibility: 6 July 11, 1979, 19 shards ***

A structure on the upper, western slope of Jebel ‘Abhar, a hilly mass with olive trees between the vil-lages of Zebabdeh, Meseliyeh and Sir. West of it is Jebel Kheir and to the north passes the Zebabdeh - Meseliyeh asphalt road. There is a structure of large field

stones, about 5x30 m in size. The plan is not clear due to the stones covering it. Only few shards were collected. Pottery and flint find: Chal – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 9: 18 - 19/08/1

Khallet Feyaz Israel grid: 1800 1989 UTM grid: 7179 5855 Elevation: 375 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: concentration of installa-tions Area: 2.8 dunams (0.7 acre) Topography: slope and plateau Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 5 Cultivation: orchards Cisterns: 18 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Jerbah, no. 49), 6 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 2 km distant Visibility: 5 July 11, 1979, 38 shards ***

A site with installations on a mod-- from Feyaz Ridge to the village of erate slope, descending eastwards Zebabdeh, about 0.5 km west of

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

that village. Nearby is a built path from Zebabdeh to Sir. Large rock surfaces, used for quarrying building stones during the Late Roman and Byzantine Pe-riods, are located on the site. Simi-lar quarries are found in the entire area, which excels in high quality stone for building. Nearby there are many large hewn cisterns, with

131

a hewn channel leading to them. This channels is 15 m long and 20 cm wide. The character of the place, a settlement or a concentra-tion of installations, is difficult to determine. Pottery: ER – 20%; LR – 20%; Byz – 60%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 10: 18 - 19/08/2

Khallet ej-Ja‘ar Israel grid: 1804 1987 UTM grid: 7182 5851 Elevation: 420 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: slope and plateau Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 8 Cultivation: orchards Cisterns: 4 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Jerbah, no. 49), 6 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 2 km distant Visibility: 5 July 11, 1979, 33 shards ***

A small site at the top of the eastern slope of the Khallet Ja‘ar mass, 0.5 km south of the Zebabdeh village. A structure of large stones, two courses high and 6 m long (façade), was found at the site. To its western side a courtyard, 15x30 m in size, is attached with hewn cisterns and a hewn installation nearby. The latter is rectangular in shape, 1x1.5 m in

size and 0.4 m in depth. The site was originally an Iron Age farm, while the present struc-ture was apparently built in the Ro-man–Byzantine period. Pottery: IrA II – 40%; ER – 10%; LR – 10%; Byz – 20%; EM – 10%; MA – 10%. Previous surveys: none.

132

CHAPTER FOUR

54. Shards from Khallet ej-Ja‘ar: 1. Bowl, red, lt, LR; 2. Jar, br, IrA II; 3-4, 6-7. Jars, lt br, ER; 5. Jar, bl/orange, IrA II.

 Site 11: 18 - 19/48/1

Khallet Taleb Israel grid: 1848 1986 UTM grid: 7226 5857 Elevation: 440 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large ruin Area: 60 dunams (15 acres) Topography: valley edge, slope and valley Rock type: ‘Avdat formation

Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Ginai, no. 35), 8 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 2 km distant Visibility: 5 Oct. 15, 1980, 86 shards ***

A large, scattered site on the low, eastern edges of Zebabdeh Valley. North of it the Zebabdeh – Rabbah road enters the hilly area east of the valley. The site extends over a strip some 1 km long and 60 m wide, which begins near the Zebabdeh – Rabbah road in the north. Several groups of square building foundations, each 6x8 m in size, were located along the strip. The constructions are built of walls of very large, aligned

stones. Many structures are marked by cairns of cleared stones. Dis-mantled structures seem to have ex-isted in the past where no remains are found today. A large quantity of potsherds is scattered around the buildings and in the surrounding fields. The scattered settlement is one of the largest in this area. Pottery: MBA I – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

133

55. Khallet Taleb at the edge of Zebabdeh Valley, looking eastward. To the right the sum-mit of Ras es-Salmeh is seen; beyond the low ridge at left is the er-Rahweh enclosure. Summer 1982.

56. Pottery from the MBA I site of Khallet Taleb, all from this period: 1-2. Big bowls, yel; 3. Jar, gray, incised dec; 4. Bowl, br; 5-6. Flat bases of jars, yel; 7. Incised dec on jar; 8-11. Ledge handles, indentation, rope dec, jars and HM jars, gray and yel.

134

CHAPTER FOUR

Site 12: 17- 19/87/1

Khirbet Mgharet el-Kih Israel grid: 1782 1978 UTM grid: 7163 5844 Elevation: 430 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: ancient, but not on map Site type: medium-sized ruin Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: valley and plateau Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 8

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Jerbah, no. 49), 3.5 km distant Nearest road: Jab‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (C7), 2 km distant Visibility: 3 Ap. 13, 1979; Nov. 18, 1981, 59 shards ***

A ruin on a plateau, above the east-ern margins of Sanur Valley and be-tween the villages of Meseliyeh in the northwest and Sir in the south-east. Several paths and roads pass

near the ruin, connecting the two villages. Others descend into Sanur Valley. The site, slightly elevated above

57. The Iron Age and Persian Period fortified site of Kh. Mgharet el-Kih in a bird’s eye view, looking east. Remnants of the wall and the courtyard are seen left of center. Inside the structures can be seen cairns. The road in the upper side leads from Sir (to the right) to Meseliyeh (to the left). 1993.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

the plain, is enclosed by a wall pre-served in the south and east. It in-cludes rooms built of field stones and measuring 6x5 m. The sur-rounding wall apparently encom-passed the entire site in the past, but clearing of stones has damaged its western and northern sides. A tower of large field stones is located at the southeastern corner, while another one – square in shape and

135

built upon a semicircular base – has a square projection on the eastern side. The area inside the wall is cul-tivated, with two solitary structures (5x5 m each). All the buildings are preserved to 2-3 m of hight. West of the site there are cisterns. Pottery: IrA II – 10%; IrA III – 15%; Per – 75%. Previous surveys: none.

58. Pottery from Kh. Mgharet el-Kih, all Per except 3 and 7: 1-2. Bowls, gray; 3, Crater, brown, IrA II; 4-6. Bowls, yel and gray; 7-11. Jars, br and yel (no. 7 – IrA II).

CHAPTER FOUR

136 Site 13: 17 – 19/97/1

Abu el-‘Ubed Israel grid: 1792 1977 UTM grid: 7191 5842 Elevation: 440 m a.s.l., 2 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: shard scatter and cave Area: 0.5 dunam (0.125 acre) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 8

Cultivation: orchards Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Jerbah, no. 49), 6 km distant Nearest road: Jab‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (C5), 4 km distant Visibility: 2 May 27, 1979, 18 shards ***

A tiny site on the northeastern part of Sahl Fuheis, a plateau north of Sanur Valley. The site is a shard scatter covering two steps on the south of Jebel Abu el-‘Ubed, near

Sahl Fuheis. East of the place there is a large cave. Pottery: Per – 100%. Previous surveys: None.

59. Shards from Abu el-‘Ubed, all Per: 1-2. Jars, gray; 3. Bowl, yel.

 Site 14: 18 – 19/07/1

el-Khirbeh (ez-Zard) Israel grid: 1801 1971 UTM grid: 7181 5837 Elevation: 440 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient, but not on map Site type: large ruin Area: 24 dunams (6 acres) Topography: ridge edge and plateau Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa, alluvium and Mediterranean brown forest soil;

quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops and orchards Cisterns: 30 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 9 km distant Nearest road: Meithalun – Kfer (C10), 1 km distant Visibility: 4 July 8, 1979, Feb. 9, 1985, 78 shards

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

A large ruin on an elongated ridge, some 0.6 km northeast of the vil-lage of Sir. Steep slopes descend from the site downward into Wadi Suweid. The higher part of the ruin is flat, with four steps descending from it to the north. Most of the settlement houses are located on these steps, with five well-preserved structures on the top. These are built of large, hewn stones, and their measure-ments are 5x8 m. The walls stand to five courses of stones, and a limestone pillar section was found Nearby. Caves, cisterns and quar-ries are nearby. Some of the cisterns had two or more openings.

137

The site is a large village from the Roman-Byzantine period, presum-ably Azilin, a town from the Rehov inscription. Pottery: ER – 20%; LR – 20%; Byz – 50%; EM – 10%. Coin find: Nine, from the Roman and Byzantine periods, and see ap-pendix. Identification: Probably Azilin, line 27 of Rehov inscription, and see chapter three. Previous surveys: None. Bibliography: Zussman 1981, 167; Zertal 1992, 71 (regarding identi-fication).

60. The Roman-Byzantine village of el-Khirbeh (ez-Zard) from a bird’s eye view, looking east. The village is on the ridge, where light-colored sections are seen. The outer houses of Sir are at right. 1993.

138

CHAPTER FOUR

61. Pottery from el-Khirbeh (ez-Zard), nos. 4, 9 – LR; 2-3, 5, 7 – Byz; 1 – EM. 1. Jar, Wh on bl dec; 2. ‘Frying pan’, lt br; 3. Dec, br on wh; 4. Bowl, Eastern Sigilata, red slip and burnish; 5. Bowl, br with gray dec; 6. Bowl, lt pk, Rom; 7. CP, bl; 8. Bowl, pk/bl, Rom; 9. Small bowl, pk/gray.

 Site 15: 18 – 19/27/1

Kfer (SWP map: El-Kufeir) Israel grid: 1823 1977 UTM grid: 7202 5849 Elevation: 426 m a.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: on map, but not as his-torical site Site type: small Arab village Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: valley and ridge Rock type: alluvium cover

Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 11 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Ginai, no. 35), 8 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), passes by site Visibility: 5 Jan. 19, 1985, 22 shards ***

A village on a low ridge on the western Zebabdeh Valley. The road from Shechem to the Dothan Val-ley passes through the village, where the road to Sir branches off from it to the west.

The small village, with five in-habited houses now, is on top of an ancient ruin. Remains of walls, cis-terns and hewn installations marks this site. Pottery: Byz – 20%; EM – 50%;

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

MA – 20%; Ott – 10%. In 1596 15 families and six sin-gle people were in the village, all Moslems. Guérin (1870) notes the Thabor oak tree reserve in the area. During the visit of the SWP (1874) the place was deserted. During our

139

visit the village, with its poorly built buildings, was still deserted (except the mosque). Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 243; Guérin 1969 (IV), 353-354; Hutteroth and Abd el-Fatah 1977, 127.

 Site 16: 18 – 19/47/1

Mughur Abu Rishi Israel grid: 1842 1975 UTM grid: 7222 5841 Elevation: 370 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 2.4 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: valley and ravine Rock type: alluvium cover Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 10 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 1 Oct. 26, 1980, 60 shards and 24 flint items ***

A site in a small inner valley, in the center of Zebabdeh Valley. There is here an elevated low range descending into the plain, with terraces on it, 6-8 m high. No remnants of buildings were de-tected, but a small mound indicates ruined houses. A large cave west

of the site may have been used for dwelling. Pottery: Chal – 100%. Special finds: Many flint finds (adz-es, etc.) and basalt vessels from the Ghassulian Chalcolithic Period; for flint find see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

140

CHAPTER FOUR

62. Flint adzes and loop handle (no. 2) from the Chalcolithic Period site of Mughur Abu Rishi (no. 3 – a jaw and teeth).

63. Pottery from Mughur Abu Rishi, all Chal: 1-4. Bowls and HM jars, br and yel; 5. Bowl, br; 6. Bowl base, lt; 7-10. Rope and pierced dec, loop handles, yel.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

141

Site 17: 18 – 19/47/2

Khirbet Hamdun Israel grid: 1849 1975 UTM grid: 7226 5841 Elevation: 420 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: ancient, but not on map Site type: shard scatter Area: 2.5 dunams (0.6 acre) Topography: valley and ridge Rock type: alluvium cover Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: orchards Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 10 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 3 Oct. 15, 1980, 33 shards ***

A small site on a wide ridge in Ze-babdeh Valley, 1 km west of Kh. Qrud. On the ridge is a medium sized shard scatter, without building rem-nants. It appears that the structures

were dismantled and their stones transported to Kh. Qrud, nearby. Pottery: MBA I – 5%; MBA IIB – 95%. Previous surveys: none.

64. Pottery from Kh. Hamdun in the Zebabdeh Valley, nos. 3, 6 – MBA I; the rest from MBA IIB: 1-2. Jars, yel; 3. Jar, lt; 4. CP, dk br; 5. Jar, yel; 6. Jar base, yel; 7. Bowl base, gray.

142

CHAPTER FOUR

Site 18: 18 – 19/57/1

Khirbet Qrud (also named by locals Kh. Bismillah er-Rahman er-Rahim) Israel grid: 1857 1973 UTM grid: 7238 5843 Elevation: 480 m a.s.l., 3 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient, but not on map Site type: small ruin Area: 2.5 dunams (0.6 acre) Topography: valley Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 8 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 10 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 1 km distant Visibility: 5 Oct. 15, 1980; Nov. 30, 1980, 77 shards ***

A site on the lower, eastern margins of Zebabdeh Valley. Slightly elevat-ed, it is a part of a low, rocky ridge in the foothills of Ras es-Salmeh. There is a fine view of Zebabdeh

Valley from here. The core of the site is a rectangu-lar courtyard some 15x25 m in size, now a large depression surrounded by built-up walls. The wall, which

65. Kh. Qrud on the edge of Zebabdeh Valley, seen from the west. Remains of the for-tification are seen behind the jeep, with Ras es-Salmeh in the background. Winter 1988.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

resembles a rampart, was preserved in the south and east but not in the north. The possible entrance seems to be in the western wall. West of the site are three especially large, hewn cisterns, with hewn instal-lations nearby. One of them may have once been a spring that has dried up. Judging by its shape, the place

143

might have been a fortress or forti-fied place during Iron Age III (As-syrian Period). Pottery: MBA I – 10%; MBA IIB – 10%; IrA II – 5%; IrA III – 65%; Hel – 5%; MA – 5%. Special find: Six fragments of bowls with wedge decoration. Previous surveys: none.

66. Plan of the fortified site at Kh. Qrud. Note the depression, which is the site’s center.

144

CHAPTER FOUR

67. Pottery from Kh. Qrud: nos. 1-4, 7-8, 10-11 – IrA III; 5-6 – Per: 1. HM jar, br; 2. Bowl, br; 3. Crater-HM jar, dk; 4. Bowl, yel; 5. Bowl, yel; 6. ‘Mortaria’ base, yel; 7-8. Jars, orange/gray; 9. Dec bowl, basalt; 10-11. Bowls with wedge dec, orange/bl.

68. Photos of pottery from the site: 1-4. Wedge dec on bowls; 5. ‘Mortaria’ rim; 6-7. HM jar rims; 8. Bowl.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

145

Site 19: 17 – 19/96/1

ed-Der Israel grid: 1796 1969 UTM grid: 7177 5835 Elevation: 445 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: shard scatter Area: 0.5 dunam (0.125 acre) Topography: ridge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 8

Cultivation: orchards Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Jerbah, no. 49), 5 km distant Nearest road: Meithalun – Kfer (C10), 1 km distant Visibility: 3 July 8, 1979, 24 shards ***

A small site on a ridge, about 0.2 km north of the village of Sir. Concentrations of Iron Age I pot-sherds were found with no building remnants. Nearby various quarried places and two caves are located.

Local traditions mention a mon-astery there, the possible origin of the name (Arabic – ‘deir’ = monas-tery). Pottery: IrA IA-B – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

69. Pottery from ed-Der, from IrA I: 1. Jar base, br; 2-3. Pythos rim and base, dk br; 4. Bowl base, br.

146

CHAPTER FOUR

Site 20: 17 – 19/96/3

Sir (same on SWP map) Israel grid: 1798 1966 UTM grid: 7179 5833 Elevation: 470 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: on map but not as his-torical site Site type: Arab village Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: ridge edge, valley edge and hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation

Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 35 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Jerbah, no. 49), 5 km distant Nearest road: Meithalun – Kfer (C10), passes by site Visibility: 5 July 8, 1979, 40 shards ***

A small village on a flat hilltop in the western part of Zebabdeh Val-ley (also known as Sahl Sir), near and above the eastern edges of Sa-nur Valley. A good road leads east--

wards to Kfer, a dirt road goes west to Meithalun, and a path goes north to Meseliyeh. Steep slopes descend to the north and the east from the village, which

70. An aerial photo of Sir, looking northeast. The tell is in the center of the picture. East of the village are the plains of en-Nkhelat and north, along the ridge, is el-Khirbeh (ezZard). Winter 1993.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

is connected to the southeast by a saddle. In the center of the village a large, fortified structure marks the core of the Medieval site. Most of the pottery was collected on the northern slope. Pottery: Per – 5%; ER – 10%; LR – 10%; Byz – 25%; EM – 10%; MA – 20%; Ott – 10%; Mod – 10%. A Crusader estate named Casale Syrorum, whose rights were affirmed in 1165 by Amalrich I, the Crusader king of Jerusalem, was once located here. In 1596 there were 31 fam-ily households and four single peo--

147

ple there, all Moslems. The SWP speaks of a fortified structure, while Guérin mentions a “tomb hewn in rock” and a mosque. Identification: Presumably identi-fied with Sir (line 27 in the Rehov inscription); this is confirmed by the findings, and see chapter three. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 58. Bibliography: SWP II, 228; Guérin 1969 (IV), 353; Beyer 1940, 175; Hutteroth and Abd el-Fatah 1977, 125.

 Site 21: 18-19/06/1

en-Nkhelat Israel grid: 1806 1965 UTM grid: 7185 5833 Elevation: 435 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large ruin Area: 40 dunams (10 acres) Topography: ridge edge and valley edge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 8 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 10 km distant Nearest road: Meithalun – Kfer (C10), passes by site Visibility: 4 July 8, 1979; Feb. 5, 1986, 31 shards ***

A site on a broad slope in Sahl Sir, 1 km east of the village of Sir. The Kfer - Sir asphalt road passes nearby and south of the site. At the upper part of the site four large ‘courtyards’ are located, sepa-rated from each other by stone ram-parts, 5 m wide and 2 m high. At

the top of the slope, in the west, are several large cairns. On the surface is a sparse shard scatter from the Middle Bronze Age I. We were un-able to determine the relationship between the ramparts and court-yards and the original site. Pottery: MBA I – 100%.

148

CHAPTER FOUR

Previous surveys: none.

71. Pottery from en-Nkhelat (all MBA I): 1, 4. Jars, yel; 2, 6. Folded edge handles, yel; 3. HM jar with ‘stepped’ rim, yel; 5. Rope dec.

72. Aerial view of en-Nkhelat, looking northeast. The site is in the ‘courtyards’, in the center of the photo; the connection between the site and the stone ramparts is unclear. Winter 1993.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

149

73. View to the west of the MBA I site of en-Nkhelat, located in the flat ‘courtyards’ on the horizontal range shown in the photo. At left is the road to Sir. 1984.

 Site 22: 18-19/35/1

‘Aqabah (on SWP map: Aqabeh) Israel grid: 1831 1952 UTM grid: 7209 5819 Elevation: 517 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: on map, but not as his-torical site Site type: Arab village Area: 25 dunams (6.25 acres) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 35 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 8 km distant Nearest road: Fa‘rah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), passes by site Visibility: 4 July 26, 1979, 39 shards ***

A village in the southwestern part of Zebabdeh Valley, in the foothills of Ras Aqr‘ah. A shallow ravine separates the village from the valley

plain. The ancient core of the village is located above this ravine, through

150

CHAPTER FOUR

which passes the main Qabatiyeh – Tubas – Shechem road. In the center of the village is a small, ancient core with a mosque and a number of old houses. Most of the ancient shards were collected in this area and the central ravine. Pottery: Per – 20%; Hel – 10%; Byz – 30%; EM – 10%; MA – 10%; Ott – 10%; Mod – 10%. In the 1596 census, 22 families and five single people lived in the village, all Moslems. Guérin visited

the site and noted the dilapidated houses and the mosque to their east. Possible identification with Iqbin, a ‘permitted’ town in the region of Sebastiyeh (Rehov inscription), and see chapter three (But see also site no. 84 – Kh. ‘Aqabeh.) Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 227; Guérin 1969 (IV), 354; Hutteroth and Abd el-Fatah 1977, 125; Zussman 1981, 166 (regarding identification).

74. Shards from the village of ‘Aqabah: 1. Bowl, yel, Byz; 2. Jug, br slip, MA; 3-4. Jars, gray, Per; 5. Jug, lt, Hel.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

151

Site 23: 18-19/55/1

Khirbet Salhab (SWP map: Kh. es-Selhab) Israel grid: 1853 1957 UTM grid: 7233 5824 Elevation: 430 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: on map as historical site Site type: tell Area: 15 dunams (3.75 acres) Topography: hilltop and valley Rock type: alluvium cover Soil type: alluvium; quality: 9

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 30 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 10 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), passes by site Visibility: 4 Nov. 30, 1980; Feb. 2, 1987; 46 shards ***

A small tell in the southeastern part of Zebabdeh Valley, near the road from Tubas to Kh. Ibziq. It is lo-cated on a low, natural hill with a good view of the southern valley. Three modern houses stand on the western part of the tell, with a considerable concentration of cis--

terns and quarried places nearby. The northern slopes are relatively steep, with large scatters of shards dating up to the Roman period. There are also foundations and walls from the Roman-Byzantine period all over the tell, with few cis-terns and quarried places.

75.The tell of Kh. Salhab, looking north. The tell rises up from the plain of Zebabdeh Valley. In front of the tell is the Jordanian anti tank barrier of 1967. Apparently the Bibli-cal Bezeq of I Samuel 11:8 can be identified here. 1987.

152

CHAPTER FOUR

Pottery: IrA IA – 3%; IrA II – 2%; Per – 5%; ER – 15%; LR – 15%; Byz – 20%; EM – 10%; MA – 15%; Ott – 15%. Special finds: Pottery handles with indentations and ‘face’ decorations, all dated to Iron Age I. In 1596 eight families and two single people, all Moslems, lived here. Identification: With Biblical Bezeq (I Samuel 11:8), where Saul has

gathered his army to save Jabesh Gilead. Another possible identifica-tion is with Palga Deshlaf from the Rehov inscription, and see chapter three. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 65. Bibliography: SWP II, 240; Guérin 1969 (IV), 354-355; Avi-Yonah 1966, 152; 1976, 92; Hutteroth and Abd el-Fatah 1977, 129; Zuss-man 1981, 167.

76. The south Zebabdeh Valley, Ras es-Salmeh and Kh. Salhab, looking north-east. The tell is in the heart of the valley, with anti-tank barrier (left). Bezeq (Ibziq) Pass is in the right side. The area coincide the traditions of I Samuel 11:8 (Saul campaign to Jabesh Gilead). Winter 1987.

ZEBABDEH VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 12

153

77. Shards from Kh. Salhab: 1-2. Handles with indentation dec, IrA I; 3-4. Dec bowls, violet on wh, MA (Mameluk); 5. Bowl with wedge dec, IrA III; 6. Base, Hel; 7. Handle with indentation dec, IrA I; 8. ‘Stepped’ jar, “‘Eynun family”, IrA I.

78. Shards from Kh. Salhab: 1. Bowl, yel; 2. Bowl, br, IrA II; 3. Jar, dk br, IrA IA (‘Ey-nun); 4. Bowl, yel; 5. Pythos, br, IrA I; 6. Bowl, lt, ER; 7. Bowl, lt br, Rom; 8. Handle with ‘human face’, IrA I; 9. Handle with indentation dec, IrA I.

CHAPTER FIVE

RAS ES-SALMEH LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

A ruined tower near the village of Rabbah From: The second volume of the Survey of Western Palestine, p. 244

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

157

Site 24: 18 – 20/71/1

Abu Tahah Israel grid: 1876 2015 UTM grid: 7254 5883 Elevation: 190 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small farm Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: slope and ravine Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Colluvial Alluvial; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: springs (Q‘aun Springs, no. 132), 6 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 3 km distant Visibility: 6 Feb. 21, 1986; 81 shards

***

A small site in Wadi Shubash, where Wadi Tahah connects with the for-mer. There is a courtyard here, about 10x25 m in size. Above on the slope there is a structure 4x8 m in

size, with a cistern nearby. This is a small farm with its various installations. Pottery: Byz – 50%; EM – 40%; MA – 10%. Previous surveys: none.

79. Shards from Abu Tahah: 1. Crater, dk, EM; 2. Jar, dk, Byz; 3. Bowl, yel, EM; 4-5. Jar and jug, Byz; 6. Bowl, bl, MA; 7. Jug, Byz; 8. ‘Frying pan’, br, Byz.

158

CHAPTER FIVE

Site 25: 19 – 20/01/1

el-Beyaz (A) Israel grid: 1902 2015 UTM grid: 7280 5884 Elevation: 220 m a.s.l.; 80 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small settlement with struc-tural remnants Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Colluvial Alluvial; quality: 3

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (Q‘aun Springs, no. 132), 2 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), passes by site Visibility: 6 Feb. 28, 1986; 66 shards

***

A site on a high slope, about 2 km west of the exit of Wadi Shubash to the Beth Shean Valley. The place is located on a moun--

tain range called Ras el-Ahmar, north of Wadi Shubash. Three long terraces are built along the top of the slope. Nearby are patches of

80. The Middle Bronze Age I site of el-Beyaz (A), looking west. It is located on the top of the light-colored ridge, where the structures are located (photo – center). At left, beyond the ridge, deep Wadi Shubash is visible. Winter 1986.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

cultivated land and remains of buildings, with shards and flint tools. The building stones are con-centrated in two large piles with a large amount of potshards in their

159

vicinity. The relatively good preser-vation is due to the remoteness and high location of the site. Pottery: MBA I – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 26: 19 – 20/01/2

el-Beyaz (B) Israel grid: 1903 2011 UTM grid: 7281 5884 Elevation: 100 m a.s.l.; 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small farm Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: ridge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 4

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (Q‘aun Springs, no. 132), 2 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 1 km distant Visibility: 6 Feb. 28, 1986; 39 shards ***

A farm complex on a broad ridge, descending from ‘Iraq el-Hamam into Wadi Shubash. The farm includes a large court-yard (about 8x25 m), with a sur-rounding wall 1 m wide, built of large, hewn stones. In this yard

there is a small construction about 3x5 m in size with a cistern near-by. The latter is also built of hewn stones. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: None.

CHAPTER FIVE

160 Site 27: 19 – 20/21/1

Jelamet Hamul Israel grid: 1922 2018 UTM grid: 7301 5885 Elevation: 65 m a.s.l.; l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 0.3 dunam (0.12 acre) Topography: ridge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Colluvia Alluvial; quality: 3

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (Q‘aun Springs, no. 132), 2 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 5 Mar. 13, 1986; 20 shards ***

A site on a broad, rocky hillock on the southwestern edge of Beth She-an Valley, east of the hilly mass of ‘Iraq el-Hamam. In the center of the site there is a rectangular structure measuring 7x9 m in size and divided into rooms. Only one course of the foundations

has survived, built of large and me-dium sized field stones. This build-ing was probably of the ‘four room house’ type, with few shards scat-tered around. A grinding stone was also found. Pottery: IrA I – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

81. CP from IrA I, dk br, Jelamet Hamul.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

161

Site 28: 18 – 20/30/2

en-Naqb Israel grid: 1839 2005 UTM grid: 7218 5872 Elevation: 380 m a.s.l.; 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: medium sized ruin Area: 7 dunams (1.75 acres) Topography: slope and ravine Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium; quality: 6

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (Q‘aun Springs, no. 132), 11 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 5 km distant Visibility: 1 Dec. 28, 1980; 75 shards and flint tools ***

A large site on a steep slope de-scending into Wadi Shubash. It is located near the sharp twists of the wadi, where it joins Wadi Khudei-rat. In the spot where the wadis join there is a small internal valley. The place was founded over ter-races built on the steep slope. In the upper part there are a few potshards

and piles of cleared stones. No structures were found, but building stones are scattered along the ter-races. A large number of adzes from the Chalcolithic period was discerned. Pottery and flint: Chal – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

82. Pottery from en-Naqb, all Chal: 1. Crater, br; 2, 5. Basalt vessels; 3. Dec HM jar, br; 4. Rope dec, lt br.

162

CHAPTER FIVE

83. Flint tools, stone tools and pottery fragments from the Chalcolithic Period site of en-Naqb.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

163

Site 29: 18 – 20/40/1

el-Mabhashiyyeh Israel grid: 1847 2005 UTM grid: 7228 5870 Elevation: 315 m a.s.l.; 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 4.9 dunams (1.2 acres) Topography: slope Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (Q‘aun Springs, no. 132), 9 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 3.5 km distant Visibility: 1 Jan. 18, 1985; 40 shards and 43 flint items ***

A small site on a steep slope north of Wadi el-Balad, about 2 km east of Tilfit. There are several walls in situ, on the slope and on the plain and steps. In the cultivated area on the slope many flint tools and shards were collected, with six or seven cave openings on the upper slope, some artificial.

This site is located in a wind pro-tected ravine, apparently connected with the en-Naqb site (site 28). Pottery and flint find: Ghassulian Chal – 100%. Special find: especially well made flint tools and axes, and see appen-dix. Previous surveys: none.

84. Loop handles (1-2) and flint adzes (3-6) from the Chalcolithic site of el-Mabhashi-yyeh.

164

CHAPTER FIVE

Site 30: 18 – 20/50/1

Wadi el-Balad Israel grid: 1858 2004 UTM grid: 7238 5872 Elevation: 410 m a.s.l.; l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 1.5 dunams (0.4 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Colluvia Alluvial; quality: 8

Cultivation: orchards Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (Q‘aun Springs, no. 132), 8 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 3.5 km distant Visibility: 1 Jan. 25, 1986; 71 shards

A small site in a ravine, 1 km north ***

of the village of Rabbah. Here is the meeting point of Wadi el-Balad with a ravine descending from Merah el-Kharrubeh. The site is located at the bot-tom of a rocky ridge, close to a broad ravine with good agricultural land nearby. An olive orchard now stands there, where two cleared courtyards, terraces, large building stones and piles of cleared stones are found. In the orchard there is

light colored, chalky material with a wealth of shards. A farm or small village, founded in the Iron Age II-III and existing primarily in the Persian Period, was here. Pottery: IrA II – 5%; IrA III – 10%; Per – 85%. Special find: Two fragments of bowls with wedge decoration. Previous surveys: none.

85. Pottery from Wadi el-Balad: 1. ‘Mortaria’ bowl, Per; 2. Bowl with wedge dec, IrA III; 3. Jar, Per.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

165

86. Pottery from Wadi el-Balad: 1. Bowl, gray, Per; 2. HM jar, gray/orange, IrA III; 3. Jar-HM jar, gray, IrA II-III; 4. Crater, slip inside, IrA II-III; 5. Bowl, yel, Per; 6-7. Jars, yel, IrA III – Per; 8. Bowl, gray, Per; 9. Bowl with wedge dec, gray/orange, IrA III.

 Site 31: 18 – 20/90/1

‘Iraq el-Hamam (Lower) Israel grid: 1897 2007 UTM grid: 7273 5874 Elevation: 428 m a.s.l., 60 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: high ridge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 4

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (Q‘aun Springs, no. 132), 4 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), passes by site Visibility: 4 Feb. 21, 1986; Jul. 15, 2006; 41 shards and 51 flint items ***

A small site on a high ridge west of ‘Iraq el-Hamam. It is close to a crossroads, with roads leading

to Bezeq Valley (Sahl Ibziq), Wadi Shubash and the Beth Shean Val-ley.

166

CHAPTER FIVE

87. The Chalcolithic Period site of ‘Iraq el-Hamam, looking southwest from Wadi Shu-bash. The remains are on the hilltop, right hand of the solitary tree. Winter 1986.

88. Flint and stone tools from the Chalcolithic Period site of ‘Iraq el-Hamam.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

Several stone piles are in the area, with two structure walls and terrac-es. Medium sized amounts of shards and flint tools, especially adzes, are scattered around. Above the hilltop, some 0.2 km

167

to the west, there is a small farm dated to the Byzantine period. Pottery and flint: Chal – 50%; Byz – 50%. For flint find see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

89. Plan of the site at ‘Iraq el-Hamam (lower).

168

CHAPTER FIVE

90. The upper courtyard from the Byzantine period at ‘Iraq el-Hamam (lower).

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

169

Site 32: 19 – 20/00/1

Mrah es-Sbeh Israel grid: 1905 2008 UTM grid: 7283 5877 Elevation: 196 m a.s.l.; 60 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large site Area: 12 dunams (3 acres) Topography: ridge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 5

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (Q‘aun Springs, no. 132), 4 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 0.3 km distant Visibility: 4 Feb. 28, 1986; Jul. 15, 2006; 49 shards and 29 flint tools ***

A site on a saddle, a part of a high ridge and south of the road Wadi Shubash - Beth Shean - Bezeq Val-ley. It extends across a flat field with three low terraces, bordered by a rock cliff and a stony hilltop and isolated by deep ravines (east and west). There are a few wall remains

built of small field stones, the date of which is unclear. There is also a cave in the eastern slope and some shards and flint tools on the sur-face. Pottery and flint find: Chal – 100%. For the flint tools see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

91. Shards from the Chalcolithic Period site at Mrah es-Sbeh: 1. HM jar with rope dec, yel; 2-4. Jars, br; 5. ‘V shaped’ bowl, basalt; 6. Jar base, br; 7. Bowl, yel; 8. HM jar, br.

170

CHAPTER FIVE

92. The Chalcolithic Period site at Mrah es-Sbeh is seen on the long, low ridge in the foreground, looking east. Behind are ‘Iraq el-Hamam ranges. Winter 1988.

 Site 33: 18 – 19/69/2

Khirbet Abu Farhan (Nebi Rubin) Israel grid: 1861 1996 UTM grid: 7240 5864 Elevation: 440 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: ancient, but does not ap-pear on map Site type: large ruin Area: 14.8 dunams (3.7 acres) Topography: slope Rock type: ‘Avdat formation

Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 19 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 13 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 3 km distant Visibility: 2 Dec. 16, 1982; 74 shards ***

A site on a slope descending into broad Wadi Rabbah, 0.8 km north-west of the village of Rabbah. On the higher part the tomb of

the Moslem saint, Nebi Rubin, is located, with a room and a ruined dome. On the slope, near the tomb, are many building stones, walls in

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

situ, cisterns and caves. Most of the building stones are large, hewn ones. This appears to be the ancient, secondary core of the modern vil-lage of Rabbah. The settlement was here at least during the Byzantine period. Later, during the Middle Ages, it returned to the tell where the present village is now. This site may have been founded when the

171

settlement expanded from the an-cient tell, itself abandoned due to deterioration of settlement in the Middle Ages (See the similar case of Kh. Ibziq). Pottery: Byz – 90%; EM – 10%. Coin find: 13 coins from Late Ro-man up to Modern periods; see ap-pendix. Previous surveys: none.

93. The Sheikh’s tomb of Kh. Abu Farhan, looking north. The tomb of Nebi Rubin is in the center, with ancient structures scattered about. At right is Wadi el-Balad. 1987.

172

CHAPTER FIVE

94. Shards from Kh. Abu Farhan: 1. Crater with dark slip, EM; 2-3. Dec rims, Byz-EM.

95. Pottery from Kh. Abu Farhan: 1. Crater, dk, comb dec, EM; 2-3. Bowls, br, Byz; 4. Jar ,dk, EM; 5. Jug, Byz; 6. Dec on Handle, yel, EM; 7. Twisted handle, Byz.

 Site 34: 18 – 19/69/1

Rabbah (on SWP map: Raba) Israel grid: 1865 1995 UTM grid: 7244 5860 Elevation: 470 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: on map, but not as his-torical site Site type: Arab village Area: 15 dunams (3.75 acres) Topography: ridge edge, valley edge and hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 7 Cultivation: uncultivated and field crops Cisterns: 30 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 10 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 3 km distant Visibility: 4 Dec. 6, 1982; 43 shards

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

A small village on a ridge edge, overlooking a small, fertile valley east of Zebabdeh Valley. Many ancient building stones are interwoven in the house walls and fences, mostly in secondary use. The ancient core is small, with quarried places and agricultural in-stallations in the entire area. Pottery: Per – 15%; Hel – 20%; ER – 10%; LR – 5%; Byz – 20%; EM

173

– 10%; MA – 10%; Ott – 10%. In the 1596 census 23 house holds, all Moslem, lived here. Identification: Possibly with Har-abbit of Issachar (Joshua 19:19), and see chapter three. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: Guérin 1969 (IV), 336; SWP II, 227; Vilnai 1968, 366; Hutteroth and Abd el-Fatah 1977, 129.

96. Potshards from Rabbah: 1. Bowl, yel, EM; 2-3. Jars, gray, Per; 4. Jar, yel, Hel; 5-6. Jars, lt br, ER.

97. Two jar rims (nos.1, 3) and a decorated shard from Rabbah (Byzantine and Early Moslem Periods).

174

CHAPTER FIVE

98. Rabbah from a bird’s view, looking east. The ancient core is on a slope descending into Wadi el-Balad. Winter 1993.

99. The village of Rabbah, looking north. The ancient tell is above Wadi el-Balad. 1982.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

175

Site 35: 18 – 19/79/1

Mrah Sanur Israel grid: 1872 1991 UTM grid: 7251 5859 Elevation: 538 m a.s.l., 35 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin and farm Area: 0.5 dunam (0.125 acre) Topography: ridge and plateau Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns:1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 10 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 3 km distant Visibility: 5 Oct. 30, 1980; Nov. 1, 1989; 22 shards ***

A small site on a saddle, 1 km east of the village of Rabbah. A pass, pre-sumably ancient, with a road from Rabbah to Ibziq is located nearby. There is a structure here, 6x8 m in size and built of large, well hewn

stones. Adjoining it is a courtyard (12x25 m), surrounded by a wall of small, hewn stones. In its cen-ter there is a depression with a cis-tern opening and two stone pillars, 40 cm in diameter and 1.5 m tall; these were apparently used for ol--

100. The farm of Mrah Sanur, looking southwest. The crushing stone is in the center, next to the courtyard; behind it, near the jeep, is the entrance into the site. 1989.

176

CHAPTER FIVE

ive crushing. At the entrance of the structure is a doorpost with square latch holes. An ancient built road leads to the site, with a crushing stone for olives in situ in its center. There was an agricultural farm

here in a remarkable state of pres-ervation, including all the normal, relevant installations. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Flint finds: Two undefined tools. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 36: 19 – 19/19/1

‘Iraq el-Hamam Israel grid: 1911 1991 (Central) UTM grid: 7290 5863 Elevation: 457 m a.s.l., (highest peak) Name type: name of mountainous mass (also Jebel Abu Leben) Site type: farms, vineyards and olive presses Topography: high mountainous mass Rock type: Mount Scopus formation

Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 3-5 Cultivation: none Nearest water source: springs (Q‘aun Springs, no. 132), 2 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), passes by site Visibility: 9 ***

A large, high mountainous mass in the northeast Manasseh Hill Coun-try. It is bordered by the Wadis Khashneh and Shubash (south and north), Bezeq Valley (southwest) and Beth Shean Valley (northeast). The mountain, isolated by deep gorges, covers an area of about 11 sq. km. Several farmsteads and installations were found on the mountain, not-ed here in the order of their record-ing:

1. 19 – 19/08/1, Israel grid: 1905 1989

A farm about 0.5 km west of the summit (E.P. 457), located on a

small saddle between two steep ra-vines descending into Wadi Shu-bash. The farm consists of an ellipti-cal courtyard 18x34 m in size, sur-rounded by a wall of large stones 1.1 m wide. The courtyard is di-vided by a curved wall into two halves: the western one is empty of structures, but has two cisterns with stone covers and a cave. In the eastern half there is a rounded inner wall and a house with three rooms, which opens onto the courtyard. The wide surrounding wall seems to be of an older stage, while the eastern courtyard and the house are

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

probably of the later stage. In the entire area there are hewn installa-tions. Pottery: LR – 7%; Byz – 71%; EM

177

– 2%; MA – 7%; Mod – 13%. Previous surveys: none. May 28, 1993; 41 shards.

101. Plan of the Byzantine Period farm of ‘Iraq el-Hamam (1). Note the house (left) with rooms and the two courtyards, probably representing two stages.

178

CHAPTER FIVE

102. The farm at ‘Iraq el-Hamam (1), looking east. The Byzantine Period courtyard is seen with modern repairs. Spring 1993.

103. The farm at ‘Iraq el-Hamam (2), looking west. The courtyard is to the right of the jeep. In the background is the summit of elevation point 550. 1993.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

2. 19 – 19/08/2, Israel grid: 1903 1986

A farm on an elevated ridge at the southwestern summit of ‘Iraq elHamam. There is a fine view from here of Bezeq Valley and Mount Gilboa. A square courtyard, 12x12 m

179

in dimensions and built of large stones, is the core of the site. A rect-angular three room structure, part-ly destroyed by looters, adjoins it from the south. In the courtyard is a square, quarried and built depres-sion, measuring 3x3 m, with a roll-ing stone and a round stone with a hole in its center inside. Three oth--

104. Plan of ‘Iraq el-Hamam (2). The central courtyard with the crushing stones seems to be a center of wine production.

180

CHAPTER FIVE

er crushing stones lie nearby. The place is surrounded by terraces and other walls. Twenty m east of it are two circles of stone, not necessarily connected to the farm complex. Pottery: LR – 30%; Byz – 70%. In proximity to the farm and the agricultural areas Iron Age shards were collected, among them a bowl with wedge decoration (Iron Age III). Previous surveys: none. May 28, 1993; 32 shards.

3. 19 – 19/08/3, Israel grid: 1907 1983

A farm complex on a saddle, in ‘Iraq el-Hamam and south and be-low E.P. 431. The central complex consists of a structure and a courtyard. The courtyard (15x20 m) is surrounded by a wall of large stones. Attached to the courtyard and west of it is a small building with a square room and an elongated unit. In the court-yard there is a cistern and a cave opening. About 30 m south of the courtyard are a semicircular thresh--

ing floor, a cistern and remains of a Bedouin encampment. Fifty m to the north, on the slope, another small and rhomboid courtyard was found. Pottery: LR – 100%. Previous surveys: none. June 4, 1993; 29 shards.

4. 19 – 19/08/4, Israel grid: 1902 1988

A farm and installations on the northern edge of the western ridge of ‘Iraq el-Hamam. The farm consists of the follow-ing: 1. A long, narrow courtyard (10x20 m), built of large stones, with a small structure in its south-east. Inside it a short rolling stone was detected, and stone walls extend from it to the south and north. 2. A small, rounded courtyard surrounding a cave opening is found 30 m north of no. 1. 3. Two hewn winepresses are west of no. 2, one of which has a collec-tion basin for grape juice.

105. Pottery from ‘Iraq el-Hamam (3), all dated to LR: 1-3. Jars, lt br; 4. Jug, yel.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

181

4. Various hewn installations are marked by numbers on the plan. Pottery: In the large courtyard: LR – 100%; in the installation area: LR – 30%; Byz – 40%; EM – 20%; MA – 10%. Previous surveys: none. June 4, 1993; 47 shards.

5. 19 – 19/19/1, Israel grid: 1910 1991

A complex of winepresses on the northern slope of the summit (E.P. 457). The complex is composed of a courtyard (12.5x12x5 m), sur-rounded by a wide wall of large stones. In its center is a small struc-ture, 4x4 m in size, surrounding a hewn winepress with traces of plas-ter. There is also a step and a hewn collection basin (1x1.4 m and 1.6 m deep), plastered with thick, gray plaster. This is a fine and complete com-plex of a winepress with its intact plaster. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none. June 4, 1993; 22 shards.

6. 19 – 20/10/1, Israel grid: 1912 2000

A complex on the eastern ridge of ‘Iraq el-Hamam, descending north-ward to Wadi Shubash from the summit of E.P. 457.

106. The plan of ‘Iraq el-Hamam (3). The northern small courtyard possibly served for animals; the threshing floor seems to be modern.

The complex is located in a small, broad ravine on the eastern ridge. A built courtyard, 20x20 m in size and surrounded by a wall of large stones, is in the southern side of the complex. Nearby, not in situ, there is a round, hewn stone basin (1.7 m

182

CHAPTER FIVE

107. The winepress complex of ‘Iraq el-Hamam (5). The structure is on the northern slope of ‘Iraq el-Hamam, with the eastern part of Mount Gilboa in the background. 1993.

108. The plan of the installation at ‘Iraq el-Hamam (5).

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

in diameter) with a hewn hole. Its original place seems to be above the courtyard. North of the complex a

183

large cave with three openings was found, with many shards and soot on the ceiling. This appears to have

109. At left, the plan of ‘Iraq el-Hamam (4). The installations (cistern, cave and wine-presses), marked by letters and numbers, are north of the central structure and the court-yard adjoining it. At right: the complex at ‘Iraq el-Hamam (6).

184

CHAPTER FIVE

been a dwelling place during some period of the site’s history. West of the cave another courtyard, sur-rounded by a built wall and a hewn cistern, was found. Pottery: MBA IIB – 5%; LR – 50%; Byz – 30%; MA – 15%. Previous surveys: none. June 4, 1993; 46 shards.

7. 19 – 20/10/1, Israel grid: 1913 2006

A courtyard on a ridge in the northern part of ‘Iraq el-Hamam and south of E.P. 305. The courtyard with no structures inside, about 30x40 m in size, is sur-rounded by a 1 m wide wall of large stones. In its proximity a grindstone or crushing stone was found in situ, half buried in the ground. Pottery: LR – 20%; Byz – 80%. Previous surveys: none. May 28, 1993; 20 shards.

110. A landscape in ‘Iraq el-Hamam. Note the typical flora of the fringes of the Medi-terranean desert: Carob and Pistacia bushes against a background of annual flora. The farmsteads and installations demonstrate that the entire mountain was cultivated during the Roman and Byzantine periods. 1993.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

185

Site 37: 18 – 19/58/1

Mrah Rai‘yan Israel grid: 1856 1986 UTM grid: 7237 5854 Elevation: 636 m a.s.l., 200 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 1.2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 4

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 10 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 3 km distant Visibility: 9 Oct. 30, 1980; 14 shards and 31 flint items ***

A small site on the northwest sum-mit of the high Ras es-Salmeh range, east of Zebabdeh Valley. Several simple stone-built circles were found, 10-25 m in diam-eter, with flints and a few shards

around. Pottery: MBA 1 – 100%. Flint find: Undefined, and see ap-pendix. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 38: 18 – 19/88/2

el-Meraz Israel grid: 1885 1985 UTM grid: 7255 5852 Elevation: 520 m a.s.l., 100 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin and a farm Area: 0.5 dunam (0.125 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: grumosoles; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 10 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 3 km distant Visibility: 7 Mar. 24, 1982; 37 shards ***

A site on the high, eastern saddle of the Ras es-Salmeh range, about 1.5 km northeast of Kh. Ibziq. A good path nearby leads from Rabbah to Ibziq.

The site is composed of a large and square courtyard, within which there is a smaller one. In the middle of the inner courtyard are an ellipti-cal structure and a hewn winepress.

186

CHAPTER FIVE

Terrace-walls and traces of other buildings are scattered around. These are the remains of a farm-stead and a concentration of agri--

cultural installations. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

111. The central structure of the Byzantine Period farm at el-Meraz, looking east. Winter 1982.

 Site 39: 18 – 19/98/2

es-Sahl (B) Israel grid: 1898 1986 UTM grid: 7275 5855 Elevation: 300 m a.s.l., 3 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm and cave Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 9

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Bar-daleh, no. 91), 6 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), passes by site Visibility: 2 Mar. 7, 1986; 28 shards

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

A farm on the northern edge of Be-zeq Valley (Sahl Ibziq). The site contains a structure (8x25 m) built of large, hewn stones, with a large cave nearby. The structure includes rooms, whose plan is now unclear, with several entrance door--

187

posts still discernible. The ceiling of the large cave has collapsed, and in-ner walls have been built inside the cave, which is now in secondary use by shepherds. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

112. Bedouin dwellings near Bezeq Valley (Sahl Ibziq). In the background Ras es-Salmeh is visible. Winter 1994.

113. Two jar rims (no. 1, 3) and a ‘pan’ handle from the Byzantine Period farm at es-Sahl (B).

188

CHAPTER FIVE

Site 40: 18 – 19/98/1

es-Sahl (A) Israel grid: 1898 1989 UTM grid: 7274 5858 Elevation: 315 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: concentration of structures and installations Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation

Soil type: alluvium; quality: 9 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Bar-daleh, no. 91), 6 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), passes by site Visibility: 2 Mar. 7, 1986; 29 shards ***

A site on the northern fringe of Be-zeq Valley (Sahl Ibziq), close to the junction between the Wadi Khash-neh road and that of Wadi Shu-bash. On the site is a concentration of cisterns and structures, whose lines have been blurred by layers of al-luvium and flora. Near the site are some hewn installations (winepress--

es and vats), presumably for pro-cessing the agricultural produce. A prominent structure is a round one built of large stones, about 6 m in diameter. Pottery: LR – 50%; Byz – 50%. Previous surveys: This is possibly site no. 49 of Gophna and Porath, 1972, although the grid location is inaccurate.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

114. Plan of the central part of es-Sahl (A). 2006.

189

190

CHAPTER FIVE

Site 41: 18 – 19/68/1

Ras es-Salmeh Israel grid: 1864 1981 UTM grid: 7243 5848 Elevation: 713 m a.s.l., 180 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: medium-sized ruin Area: 6 dunams (1.5 acres) Topography: high summit Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 10 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 3 km distant Visibility: 8 Oct. 22, 1980; 38 shards and two flint tools ***

A site on the high, central summit of Ras es-Salmeh, between the valleys Zebabdeh and Bezeq (Sahl Ibziq). There is a fine view from here of

these valleys, Mt. Ebal and Hureish Ridge, and the desert fringes. Along the western side a 50-m-

115. Shards from Ras es-Salmeh, all from IrA IC and IrA II: 1,3. CP, dk; 2. Jug, br; 4. Jug, br; 5. CP, dk br; 6. Jar, yel; 7. Crater, dk br; 8. Early ‘ridged’ jar, dk br; 9, 12-13. Craters, br; 10-11. Jars, gray.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

long wall of large stones was pre-served, which served as a defense or supporting wall. Its northern part turns east and partially encloses the site, but a parallel closure on the south was not found. The remains of about ten structures, whose plans have been blurred by cleared stones, are inside the ruin. The highest and most prominent of them, rectangu-lar in shape and measuring about

191

6x8 m, is next to the western wall; a courtyard is close to it. Pottery: IrA IC – 50%; IrA II – 50%. Flint find: Middle Paleolithic; see appendix. Identification: Probably with Har-abbit in the Issachar Allotment (Joshua 19:19); see chapter three. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 42: 18 – 19/88/1

Khirbet Ibziq (Lower) Israel grid: 1881 1980 UTM grid: 7261 5847 Elevation: 375 m a.s.l., 60 m b.s.a. Name type: appears on map as his-torical place Site type: large ruin Area: 38 dunams (9.5 acres) Topography: valley edge, slope and ravine Rock type: Mount Scopus formation

Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 45 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 6 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), passes by site Visibility: 3 Dec. 16, 1982; 50 shards ***

A large site 1 km northeast of Kh. Ibziq (Upper), located on the slope descending into Bezeq Valley (Sahl Ibziq) and close to the ancient Shechem – Beth Shean road. The site extends over two large ridges descending east from the Ras esSalmeh range, with a ravine sepa-rating them. The remains of many structures built of large, hewn stones, were found in situ. In addition, there are

about 70 burial caves, mostly con-taining a hewn opening, vault and internal building. Many cisterns were also found, as well as the re-mains of a Roman road nearby. The settlement of Kh. Ibziq (Upper) ap-parently reached this site during the Byzantine Period. Zori and Eitam, who visited here separately, found hewn winepresses in the site. On the walls of a wine-press and a pressing platform the

192

CHAPTER FIVE

names Pardus, Josephus and Na-humus, Jews or Samaritan names, were engraved in Greek. On anoth-er winepress appears the carving: P+OC+A. Pottery: Byz – 80%; EM – 20%.

Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 52; Zori 1977, no. 51. Bibliography: Onomasticon no. 256; SWP II, 231; Zori 1971; 1977, 36.

116. Shards from Kh. Ibziq – Lower: 1,3. Jars, dk, Byz; 2. Jar, yel, EM; 4. Crater, yel, EM.

117. Aerial photo of the large town from the Byzantine and Early Moslem Periods at Kh. Ibziq (Lower), looking west. The site is between the plowed ravine at right and the ravine at left with the stone wall built along it. Note the remains of the ancient structures, the new Bedouin courtyards and the road to Sahl Ibziq at bottom left. Winter 1993.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

193

118. The Greek engraving on the winepress at Kh. Ibziq (Lower). The names of three Jews or Samaritans are carved on the rock. Spring 1994.

 Site 43: 18 – 19/97/1

el-Quleh Israel grid: 1893 1979 UTM grid: 7272 5848 Elevation: 399 m a.s.l., 100 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient but does not ap-pear on map Site type: fortress Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: Mount Scopus formation

Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 6 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 1 km distant Visibility: 9 Mar. 24, 1982; 4 shards ***

A site on a high, isolated hilltop southeast of Sahl Ibziq. To the east is Wadi Khashneh and to the west is the Neapolis – Scythopolis Ro-man road.

On the summit of the hill is a large pile (about 40 m in diameter) of collapsed, hewn building stones. The place was apparently destroyed by an earthquake. Most of the

194

CHAPTER FIVE

building stones, the edges cut in the Hellenistic-Herodian style, are very large (40x60x120 cm in size). Doorpost stones and other hewn stones were also found. West of the structure is a cistern, and about 50 m west of it a stone quarry contain-ing a cave with a convex opening were found. Very few shards were collected at the site. Gophna and Porath describe “A fort on a high hill, commanding

the road from Bezeq to Beth-Shean Valley. There is a large stone-pile 15X15 m in size, with ashlars and edge cutting”. The fortress is ap-parently related to the Neapolis – Scythopolis Road during the Hel-lenistic and Early Roman periods. The paucity of pottery suggests that the place was scarcely in use. Pottery: Hel (?) – 100%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 53.

119. A view of the fortress at el-Quleh, looking east. The arrow marks the remains on the summit to the right of Bezeq Valley (Sahl Ibziq). The slopes of ‘Iraq el-Hamam, shown in the background at left, descend into the valley. Winter 1982.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

195

120. The ruins of the Hellenistic Period fortress at el-Quleh. Note the large stones with their hewn edges. Standing – Nivi Mirkam. 1982.

 Site 44: 18 – 19/77/1

Khirbet Ibziq (Upper), on SWP map: Kh. Ibzik Israel grid: 1878 1971 UTM grid: 7255 5838 Elevation: 435 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: appears on map as his-torical site Site type: tell and large ruin Area: 32 dunams (8 acres) Topography: ridge edge, slope and ravine Rock type: Mount Scopus formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 5 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 45 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 7 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), passes by site Visibility: 4 Dec. 16, 1982; Jan. 10, 1987; Nov. 1988; 102 shards

***

A large ruin on a slope descending from Ras es-Salmeh into Bezeq Val-ley (Sahl Ibziq). Nearby is a built

pass (naqb), between Ras es-Salmeh and Ras Mubarah. From the site there is a view of Taiyasir and the

196

CHAPTER FIVE

Upper Wadi Malih. A sheikh’s-tomb, that of Nebi Hizqin, is on the upper part of the ruin, with several houses, the sea-sonal dwellings of families from Tubas, nearby. These people have made secondary use of the caves, including courtyards, as dwellings. There are also remains of numerous walls, cisterns, quarried places, and a few architectural elements (door-posts and lintels). On the eastern slope there are large areas of plun-dering. Most of the ancient shards (prior to the Roman Period) were found at the bottom of the slope. Beside the modern road. A paved Roman road runs east of the site.

Pottery: IrA II – 5%; IrA III – 2%; Per – 3%; LR – 20%; Byz – 30%; EM – 10%; MA – 30%. Special find: Fragment of a bowl with wedge decoration. Coin finds: Eight, Late Roman to Modern Periods, and see appendix. Ashtory Haparhi wrote of this site in the 14th century: “From Beth Shean leave the eastern prai-rie and walk about one hour and ascend, facing south, and after two hours you find Bezeq and it is called Ibziq.” In 1830 Joseph Schwartz wrote: “To the south of Beth Shean about two hours to the village of Ibziq which is undoubtedly Bezeq that is mentioned [in the Bible]”.

121. The Roman-Byzantine Periods town at Kh. Ibziq (Upper), looking west. In the center of the photo (top of the ridge) is the tomb of Nebi Hizqin. Remains of structures are scattered over the slopes, and the road leading left to Zebabdeh Valley is in the fore-ground. At left are the steep slopes of Ras es-Salmeh. 1987.

RAS ES-SALMEH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 13

Macalister (1907, 98-99) visited the site in 1906 and saw a convoy of Jews there coming from Tiberias. The British Survey describes “an ancient site with traces of ruins, cisterns and caves, as at Kh. Yer-zeh. There is a kubbeh (a dome) in the ruins sacred to Sheikh Hazkin apparently Ezekiel.” Gophna and Porath repeats the general descrip-tion. The identification with Biblical Bezeq (Judges 1:4-5) is unfounded

197

according to the results of the sur-vey; see also Kh. Salhab and chapter three. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath, no. 51; Zori 1977, no. 50. Bibliography: Eusebius Onomasti-con, no. 54; SWP II, 237; Ashtory Haparhi 1887, 287; Schwartz 1845, 194; Conder 1876, 69; 1881, 44; Beyer 1940, 189; Welten 1965, 47; Vilnai 1968, 47; Mazar 1973; Ilan 1973, 371-374; Avi-Yonah 1976, 42; Zertal 1994, 57-59.

122. Pottery from Kh. Ibziq (upper): 1. Crater, br, IrA II; 2. Jar, gray, Per; 3. CP, dk br, IrA II; 4-5. Jars, lt br, LR; 6. Bowl, lt, LR; 7. Jar, br, Byz.; 8. Jug, lt br, ER; 9. Bowl with wedge dec, gray/orange, IrA III; 10. Bowl, lt, ER; 11. Two oil lamps, lt, Byz.

198

CHAPTER FIVE

123. Three fragments of jars from the Byzantine and Early Moslem Periods. Note white decoration (no. 3) on black jar.

124. Aerial photo of the Roman-Byzantine Periods town at Kh. Ibziq (upper), looking northwest. The site is on the ridge in the center, with the tomb of Nebi Hizqin at the top. Note the remains of the structures in situ. Winter 1993.

CHAPTER SIX

TUBAS VALLEY LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

A Roman tomb near Taiyasir From: The second volume of the Survey of Western Palestine, p. 245 (drawing by G. Stackford)

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

201

Site 45: 18 – 19/74/1

Taiyasir (on SWP map: Taiasir) Israel grid: 1875 1942 UTM grid: 7255 5809 Elevation: 300 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: appears on map, but not as historical site Site type: medium sized ruin and Arab village Area: 10 dunams (2.5 acres) Topography: ridge edge and valley edge Rock type: Judah formation

Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra-nean brown forest soil; quality: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 30 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), passes by site Visibility: 5 Dec. 7, 1980; 32 shards ***

A small Arab village between Tubas Valley and Upper Wadi Malih. The ancient pass and the new road from the Tubas Valley to the Jordan pass

inside the village. The ancient core, relatively small in area, is on the elongated ridge

125. The village of Taiyasir, looking north. The road in the center runs from Tubas to the Jordan Valley. The ancient core is in the center of the village, and the hills of Miqwaq and Wadi Taiyasir are at left. Winter 1994.

202

CHAPTER SIX

directed approximately northsouth. There are several ancient, fortified Medieval structures in this core. In the house and terrace walls build-ing stones are interwoven. Most of the shards were scattered on the western slopes. West of the village is a family grave from the Roman Period, de-scribed by Conder and Kitchener and by Guérin. It is 9x9 m in size, built of large, well hewn stones. The opening and doorpost, skill-fully carved and decorated with embossed strips, are well preserved. The entrance to the burial cham-ber is through a small hallway with decorated doorposts. Inside there are niches for the coffins, and next to the structure are two cisterns and more carved stones. Pottery: MBA IIB – 2%; IrA IA – 2%; ER – 16%; LR – 20%; Byz – 25%; EM – 10%; MA – 15%; Ott – 10%. In the Onomasticon the place is defined as “Asher, a Manassite city. And today there is a village called thus near the road from Neapolis to Scythopolis in the fifteenth mile

of the king’s road”. The Moslem geographer, el-Muqaddasi (985 C.E.) mentions two postal stations from Beth Shean to Taiyasir and one more toward Shechem. The road, therefore, was used during the Abasside period. In 1596 there were 39 households and nine single people in the village, all Moslems. Guérin described the village and the family grave, and proposed the identification with Asher, in ac-cordance with the Onomasticon. Macalister described the village and family grave in detail in 1906. The village was also mentioned with re-lation to the Roman road Neapolis – Scythopolis. Gophna and Porath found a few Iron Age I shards near the family grave. Identification: Identified as Tirzah by Schwartz (1830) and as Asher by Guérin. The findings make ei-ther identification difficult, and see chapter three. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 69. Bibliography: Onomasticon P. 93; Schwartz Tevu’ot, 186; Guérin 1969 (IV), 355-357; SWP II, 245-246,

126. Shards from Taiyasir: 1. Crater, br, IrA I; 2. Bowl base, br, IrA I-II; 3. Jar, lt br, Byz; 4. Jug base, yel, MBA II; 5. Small bowl, lt, LR.

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

288; Thomsen 1917, 72; Beyer 1940, 189; Marmadji 1951, 103; Milik 1966, 524; Ilan 1973, 357-

203

358; Hutteroth and Abd el-Fatah 1977, 125; Neef 1982, 164.

 Site 46: 18 – 19/53/2

Khallet et-Tawileh Israel grid: 1854 1939 UTM grid: 7233 5807 Elevation: 370 m a.s.l., 25 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: shard scatter Area: 1.6 dunams (0.4 acre) Topography: slope and ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra-nean brown forest soil; quality: 6

Cultivation: uncultivated and field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 7 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 2 Dec. 3, 1980; 26 shards and 22 flint items ***

A small site in a ravine named Khal-let et-Tawileh, a hilly range separat-ing the valleys Tubas and Zebab-deh. Wadi Fuqahah is south of the site, which is about 2 km northeast of Tubas.

A shard scatter was found here, but no structural remains. Pottery and flint: Chal – 100%; for flint find see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

127. Shards from Khallet et-Tawileh, all Chal: 1, 7, 9. Plastic dec, lt br; 2. HM jar, dk; 4-5. Bowls, rough, br; 3, 6, 8. Loop handles.

204

CHAPTER SIX

Site 47: 18 – 19/53/1

Khirbet Fuqahah (on SWP map: Khurbet es Sumra) Israel grid: 1850 1933 UTM grid: 7232 5802 Elevation: 458 m a.s.l., 60 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient but does not ap-pear on map Site type: large tell Area: 60 dunams (15 acres) Topography: ridge edge, valley edge and hilltop Rock type: Mount Scopus formation

Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra-nean brown forest soil; quality: 8 Cultivation: field crops and orchards Cisterns: 9 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 7 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh (B5), passes by site Visibility: 6 Nov. 9, 1980; 109 shards ***

A fortified tell at the edge of a ridge descending into Tubas Valley, 1 km north of the village of that name. This ridge separates the valleys Ze-babdeh and Tubas, with a fine view to the latter. The site consists of two parts: 1. The ancient tell on the upper part is surrounded by a city wall in the east, south and west. It is built of large field stones and 3 m wide in some spots. Inside there are nu-merous structural remains, piles of cleared stones, caves and quarried places. 2. Below, on the slope, is the somehow later Khirbeh, presum--

ably dated to the Byzantine pe-riod and later. This part also con-tains many walls, cisterns, quarried places and an abundance of shards. In the SWP “ruined walls” are men-tioned. Pottery: IrA IA – 5%; IrA II – 15%; IrA III – 10%; Per – 10%; Hel – 10%; ER – 5%; LR – 5%; Byz – 20%; EM – 10%; MA – 10%. Special find: Bowl fragments with wedge decoration. Identification: Possibly Biblical Thebez (Judges 9:50 on; II Samuel 11:21); see chapter three. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 240

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

205

128. Pottery from Kh. Fuqahah: 7, 10 - IrA I; 1-2, 4, 9, 11-12, 15-16 – IrA II-III; 6 – IrA III; 14 – Per; 8, 13 – ER; 5 – EM; 3 – MA. 1. Ridged jar, gray/orange; 2. Crater, br; 3. Dec bowl, violet on white slip; 4. Crater, br; 5. Bowl, red slip; 6. ‘Wedge’ dec on bowl, gray/orange; 7. CP, dk; 8. Bowl, lt br; 9. Crater, dk br; 10. Pythos, dk; 11-12. Jars, br; 13. Jar, pk; 14. Bowl base, yel; 15. Jar, dk br; 16. HM jar, lt br.

206

CHAPTER SIX

Site 48: 18 – 19/63/2

el-Miqwaq (B) Israel grid: 1862 1934 UTM grid: 7243 5803 Elevation: 325 m a.s.l., 25 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: slope and plateau Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 3 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 1 km distant Visibility: 3 Dec. 3, 1980; 40 shards. ***

An enclosure on the northwestern slope of el-Miqwaq range, half way between the villages of Tubas and Taiyasir. To its north flows Wadi Hamed, and Kh. Fuqahah is situ-ated 1 km to the west.

The site is an ellipticali shaped enclosure, whose axis is directed northeast – southwest. It is sur-rounded by a wall of a double row of stones, standing in upright position one course high. Inside are several

129. Pottery from el-Miqwaq (B): nos. 3-4, 7 - LBA; the rest from MBA IIB: 1, 3. Cari-nated bowls, lt; 2. Bowl, yel; 4. Bowl, whitish; 5, 8-10. Jars, pinkish; 6. Crater, br; 7. Bowl, br; 11-12. Plastic dec.

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

walls and piles of stones, apparently covering structures. There are also few quarried places and caves. West of the enclosure, whose entrance was not found, is a round structure with Middle Bronze Age II shards

207

around. To its north and east are burial caves with triangulary cut openings and quarried stairs. Pottery: MBA IIB – 5%; LBA I – 50%. Previous surveys: none.

130. Shards from el-Miqwaq (B), all from MBA II.

 Site 49: 18 – 19/63/1

el-Miqwaq (A) Israel grid: 1869 1936 UTM grid: 7250 5803 Elevation: 340 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 1.5 dunams (0.4 acre) Topography: slope, plateau and ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 7 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), passes by site Visibility: 4 Nov. 30, 1980; 28 shards. ***

A small site in a little ravine in the southeastern part of the Miqwaq range, isolated from its surround-ings by two tributaries of Wadi Tai-yasir. It is about 700 m southwest of the center of the village of Tai--

yasir, with a view to the village, Tu-bas Valley and the ascent of Wadi Malih. The remains of several buildings, apparently from the Middle Bronze Age, are located upon several ter--

208

CHAPTER SIX

races in the ravine. The plans are obscured by piles of stones, and the amount of shards is considerable.

Pottery: MBA IIB – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

131. Shards from el-Miqwaq (A), all from MBA IIB: 1-2. Craters, br; 3. CP, lt br; 4. Jar, br; 5. Bowl, lt; 6-7. Jar and bowl base, yel; 8. Bowl, lt; 9. Jar, pinkish; 10. Jug base, br; 11. Dec of indented CP, dk.

 Site 50: 18 – 19/52/1

ej-Jelameh Israel grid: 1855 1926 UTM grid: 7237 5794 Elevation: 330 m a.s.l., 8 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: fortified tell and structure Area: 4.8 dunams (1.2 acres) Topography: hilltop and valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: field crops and orchards Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 1 km distant Visibility: 5 Nov. 30, 1980; 51 shards

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

A small tell on a natural hill in the north of Tubas Valley, about 700 m northeast of the village of Tubas. From the top of the tell, where an abandoned modern structure now stands, moderate slopes de-scend to the east and south. Along the eastern slope there is an arti-ficial rampart, with many shards around. This was probably part of the fortification. Rocky areas with cisterns and hewn installations are on the southern slope. The shard

209

scatter suggests that the ancient set-tlement (Middle Bronze Age) cov-ered the south and east of the hill. Later, during the Byzantine Period, it spread to the hilltop around the new structure. Pottery: MBA IIB – 90%; Byz – 10%. Special find: A jar handle with blurred Middle Bronze Age II scar-ab seal stamp. Previous finds: none.

132. Pottery from ej-Jelameh, all from MBA IIB; 1. Jug, yel; 2, 4. CP, indented and folded, dk; 3. Jar, yel; 5. Bowl base, yel; 6. Open bowl, lt; 7. Crater, yel; 8, 11. Jars, pink-ish; 9. Bowl base, br; 10. “Fishbone” dec on jar.

210

CHAPTER SIX

Site 51: 18 – 19/62/1

el-Murhan Israel grid: 1864 1928 UTM grid: 7245 5795 Elevation: 409 m a.s.l., 25 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin and installations Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: hilltop and plateau Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra-nean brown forest soil; quality: 4

Cultivation: uncultivated and field crops Cisterns: 3 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), passes by site Visibility: 6 Nov. 30, 1980; 20 shards ***

A small site on a hilltop on the southern edge of el-Miqwaq range, between the villages of Tubas and Taiyasir. There are stone foundations of two structures, with hewn installa-tions (winepresses and other wineproducing devices) to their east. Northeast of them are a large cis-tern and a burial cave with three hewn steps.

The site contains structures, an industrial area and a concentration of installations for wine produc-tion; it is not clear whether an agri-cultural farm stood on the site. This may be Kh. Handuq of the SWP map. Pottery: Byz – 20%; EM – 20%; MA – 60%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 52: 18 – 19/42/1

Tubas (also on SWP map) Israel grid: 1849 1922 UTM grid: 7228 5791 Elevation: 390 m a.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: on map, but not as his-torical site. Site type: large Arab village Area: 50 dunams (12.5 acres) Topography: valley edge and ridge Rock type: Mount Scopus formation

Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7 Cultivation: none Cisterns: about 100 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 4 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh (B5), passes by site Visibility: 5 Visits to edges of village: 1981, 1985

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

A very large village (small town) on the western edge of Tubas Valley. Security conditions prevented a full survey in the village, and only its edges were surveyed. In 1971 a hewn tomb was discovered west of the village, with a burial chamber and five niches. It was found deco-rated by painted stripes, with 22 pottery vessels from the 9th-8th cen-turies BCE (Iron Age II) as burial gifts. There is a high probability that an Iron Age site was some-where in the village. Pottery: LR – 10%; Byz – 30%; EM – 10%; MA – 30%; Ott – 10%;

211

Mod – 10%. In the Middle Ages the place was known as Thopas, mentioned in var-ious sources as a place on the road from Shechem to Beth Shean. In 1596 there were 41 households and 16 single individuals in the town, all Moslems. Ashtory Haparhi writes, “Go on, always walking southward, and in about an hour you will find Thebez which is called Tubas”. Schwartz (1830) writes, “Thebez: to the northeast of Shechem about five hours is the village of Tubas”. The place was partially destroyed by the earthquake of 1837. Guérin found a small town with cave dwellings

133. The center of the village of Tubas, bird’s eye view, looking northeast. The ancient tell, containing a mosque, is left of center. The location of the Iron Age site is uncertain. 1993.

212

CHAPTER SIX

Bibliography: Onomasticon, p. 165; Ashtory Haparhi Kaphtor va-Ferah, 287; Schwartz Tevu’ot, 188; Robinson 1857, 400; Guérin 1969 (IV), 357-359; SWP II, 247; Sejourné 1895, 617; Beyer 1940, 172, 189, 202; Milik 1966, 522530; Archaeological News 38 (1971) 13-14, Hutteroth and Abd el-Fatah 1977, 125; Neef 1982, 164.

and many hewn tombs. The British Surveyors found a village divided into quarters, with a sheikh heading each one, and several Christians. Identification: Possibly Thebez (by most of the explorers). It seems, though, preferable to identify The-bez at Kh. ‘Eynun or Kh. Fuqahah, both nearby; see chapter three. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 53: 18 – 19/71/1

Khallet Qatus Israel grid: 1872 1918 UTM grid: 7251 7864 Elevation: 420 m a.s.l., 5 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: valley edge, ridge and ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and allurium;

quality: 8 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 1 km distant Visibility: 3 Nov. 13, 1980; 33 shards ***

A site on the low, eastern fringes of Tubas Valley, north of Khallet Qa-tus. From the place there is a fine view of Tubas Valley, and nearby a dirt road ascends to the top of Ras Jadir. The center of the site, upon three built terraces, is a structure of megalithic stones, 5x6 m in size. A neighboring structure con-tains three walls of smaller stones with a closure wall. Nearby is a

large, hewn cave whose roof has collapsed. Similar structures, less well preserved, were found to the west of the central structure. To the north of the site, about 200 m away, are three round and square structures, also built of megalithic stones. There are also numerous caves in the area. Pottery: MBA IIB – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

213

134. Pottery from Khallet Qatus, all from MBA II: 1. Folded CP, dk; 2. Jar, pinkish; 3. Bowl, lt; 4. Jar, lt br; 5. Bowl, br; 6. Bowl, yel; 7. Jug base, lt br; 8. Jar, gray.

135. The Roman road from Tubas Valley to the Buqei‘ah, looking south. At left are the slopes of Khallet Qatus. 1986.

214

CHAPTER SIX

Site 54: 18 – 19/71/2

es-Skhrah Israel grid: 1875 1912 UTM grid: 7255 5784 Elevation: 420 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large ruin Area: 10 dunams (2.5 acres) Topography: valley edge, slope and valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 8 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Taiyasir – Buqei‘ah junction (C19), passes by site Visibility: 4 Nov. 13, 1980, 44 shards ***

A large site on the eastern fringes of Tubas Valley, between Khallet Qa-tus and Khallet Diyabil. From the site, Tubas Valley and the moun-tains Yasid and Ebal are clearly vis-ible. The site extends over a long, nar-row strip aligned southeast – north-west. It includes two or three com--

plete structures and many walls, built of especially large (megalithic) stones that signify remains of build-ings. The southernmost of the com-plete ones is a round structure, and the northernmost is a square one. The present dispersion of walls sug-gests that the entire area was once covered by similar structures, built

136. Potshards from es-Skhrah, no. 1, 3, 5, 9 – IrA I; the rest – MBA II: 1. Jug, br; 2. Crater, yel; 3. Juglet, br; 4. Bowl, gray; 5. Pythos, dk; 6. Jar, br; 7. Bowl, yel; 8. HM jar, lt; 9. Bowl, yel; 10. Jar, pinkish.

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

at considerable distances from each other. A significant shard scatter is on the surface.

215

Pottery: MBA IIB – 80%; IrA IA – 20%. Previous surveys: none.

137. The Tubas Valley from the north. At right is the village of Tubas and at left is the range of Ras Jadir.

 Site 55: 18 – 19/60/1

Khirbet ed-Der (also on SWP map; Guérin writes Kh. Sinia) Israel grid: 1865 1906 UTM grid: 7246 5774 Elevation: 370 m a.s.l., 5 m a.s.a. Name type: on map as historical place Site type: medium sized ruin Area: 6 dunams (1.5 acres) Topography: hilltop and valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 7

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 30 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh (B5), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 5 Nov. 16, 1980; Mar. 14, 1987; 122 shards and seven flint items

216

CHAPTER SIX

A site on the southeastern fringes of Tubas Valley, 2 km from the village of Tubas. South of it is a deep wadi and a dirt road, coming from the north and leading to the Buqei‘ah, passes alongside. The place is easily approached from the west, north and east. Along the edge of the slope an earthen rampart is located, possi-bly an ancient fortification. Above and north of it are a few remnants of walls and many shards. Remains of a later settlement, from the Hel-lenistic Period onwards, are in the northern and eastern parts of the site. Walls, quarried places, cisterns, and various hewn installations, in-cluding troughs for watering flocks, are also found in the area.

Pottery: MBA II – 20%; LBA I – 10%; LBA II – 5%; LBA III – 15%; IrA IA – 30%; Hel – 3%; ER – 2%; LR – 5%; Byz – 5%; MA - 5%. Flint: IrA (most of the finds), and see appendix. Special find: Seal impression of a bull facing right within square frame, and two rosette prints on jar handles. Guérin visited the site, named by him Kharbet Sinia, on May 4, 1870. He found “cisterns and ancient cel-lars”, as well as many animal pens. The SWP describes “heaps of stones and foundations”. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 97. Bibliography: Guérin 1969 (IV), 361; SWP II, 236.

138. Seal imprint of animal facing right, on jar handle, dk ware (Drawing: Fany Cohn).

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

217

139. Pottery from Kh. ed-Der: nos. 2, 5, 7, 9-10 – MBA II; the rest – IrA I (“‘Eynun family”): 1. Jar, yel; 2. Bowl base, yel; 3. Crater, yel; 4. Jar, lt; 5. Jar, pk, dec, MBA II (?); 6. Jar, lt; 7. Bowl base, br; 8. Jar, bl; 9. Bowl, yel; 10. Jar, yel; 11. Jar, gray.

 Site 56: 18 – 19/80/1

Khallet Abu Slah Israel grid: 1884 1902 UTM grid: 7264 5772 Elevation: 460 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Taiyasir – Buqei‘ah junction (C19), passes by site Visibility: 4 Nov. 20, 1980; 39 shards ***

A small site on the low, southeast-ern fringes of Tubas Valley, with a view of the valley and of Jebel Tam--

mun. The ruin, extending over two new terraces, is composed of two

218

CHAPTER SIX

sections: In the northwest, next to Khal-let Diyabil, is an area of 0.5 dunam (0.125 acre) with many shards from the Byzantine Period. In the central part are many shards from Middle Bronze Age I,

with no structural remains. This is one of the “strip sites”, typical of the Tubas Valley in the Middle Bronze Age I and II. Pottery: MBA I – 50%; Byz – 50%. Previous surveys: none.

140. Pottery from Khallet Abu Slah: nos. 3, 5-7 – MBA I; the rest – Byz: 1-2. Craters, br; 3. Jar, yel; 4. Bowl, br; 5-7. Dec and folded ledge handles, lt.

 Site 57: 18 – 19/60/2

‘Iraq Rajjah Israel grid: 1866 1900 UTM grid: 7248 5767 Elevation: 400 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin and structure Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: valley edge and hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 5

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 4 km distant Nearest road: Taiyasir - Buqei‘ah junc-tion (C19), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 4 Nov. 23, 1980; 48 shards ***

A small site on a low hillock on the ‘Eynun Range, 1 km west of Kh. ‘Eynun and 2 km southeast of the village of Tubas.

A small structure, about 2x4 m in size, is on the hilltop. It is a stage like structure built of large stones, with a similar one, dismantled, in

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

the vicinity. On the northern slope are two more walls in situ, presum-ably belonging to the site. A double winepress with a square crushing platform is to the northeast, with

219

another round platform nearby. Pottery: IrA IA (‘‘Eynun family’) – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 141. Pottery from ‘Iraq Rajjah, all from IrA I (‘‘Eynun family’): 1-3. Bowls, br; 4-6. CP, dk br (no. 5 – IrA IB); 7-8. Jugs, br; 9-11. Craters, br; 12. Jug, lt.

 Site 58: 18 – 19/79/1

Khirbet ‘Eynun (on SWP map and Guérin: Kh. ‘Ainoun) Israel grid: 1875 1898 UTM grid: 7256 5766 Elevation: 439 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: on map as historical site Site type: tell and large ruin Area: 32 dunams (8 acres) Topography: hilltop and valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: uncultivated and or-chards Cisterns: 30 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 5 km distant Nearest road: Taiyasir – Buqei‘ah junction (C19), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 6 Nov. 16, 1980; Dec. 3, 1980; 1984; 1986; more visits; 198 shards.

220

CHAPTER SIX

A tell on a prominent hilltop, in the southeastern fringes of Tubas Valley (Sahl ed-Der) and 3.5 km southeast of Tubas. The two ancient terebinth trees, which grow on the summit, are in the center of the later settlement (Byzantine Period and onward) whose area is relatively small (6-8 dunams, or 1.5-2 acres). There are structures here, with quarried plac-es and many courtyards and alleys. The ancient settlement is much larger in area, with a fortificationwall of big boulders dating most probably to Iron Age I. This wall is located at the bottom of the tell’s slope.

On the west side of the wall, rem-nants of a possible entrance were detected. The northern and south-ern slopes, within the city-wall, are crowded with building remains and pottery. Around the site and along the bottom of the hill, six circles of standing monoliths, 20-40 m in di-ameter each, were found. West of the tell is a winepress with a hewn vat and a round, crushing stone. The place was undoubtedly a central site during Iron Age I (Early Israelite Settlement period), with a special ‘family’ of pottery found, and see chapter on ceramics. Pottery: IrA IA – (‘‘Eynun family’) – 70%; IrA II – 5%; Byz – 10%;

142. Bird’s eye view of Kh. ‘Eynun, looking west. On top of the tell the later settlement is visible, and the Iron Age remains are on the slopes. At the bottom some circles can be seen. In the far background are the ravines descending into Wadi Sabun. 1993.

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

EM – 5%; MA – 10%. Special finds: Rosette imprints; indented decorations of all sorts; ‘faces’ on jug and jar handles; frag-ment of Astrate figurine; tip of clay penis. Guérin visited here on May 4, 1870, describes: “Here was once a large village, now completely over-thrown. A great number of rockcut cisterns are observed on the site; most of them are filled up with materials belonging to demolished houses. A little burj of Musulman appearance, and constructed of stones of medium size taken from the ruins of the ancient town, show that it ceased to be inhabited after

221

the Arab invasion”. He also men-tioned the terebinth trees. Conder and Kitchener wrote: “The ruins are those of an ordinary village, apparently modern, standing on a small hillock” and suggest a pos-sible identification as Aenon, next to Salem, where John the Baptist practiced (John 3:23); yet this pro-posal is problematic. Identification as biblical Thebez (Judges 9:50 on; II Samuel 11:21) seems more plau-sible, and see chapter three. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 107. Bibliography: Guérin, 1969 (IV), 361-362; SWP II, 234.

143. A circle surrounded by large stones, of the Kh. ‘Eynun type.

222

CHAPTER SIX

144. Pottery from Kh. ‘Eynun: 1-12. Handles with indented dec; 13. “Collared rim” pythos; 14-15. Ridge necked jars; 16-19. Misc.

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

223

145. Pottery from Kh. ‘Eynun; no. 4 – MA; the rest – IrA I. 1. Pythos, dk; 2. CP, gray/bl, rough; 3. ‘Manassite’ bowl, lt br; 4. Bowl, green glaze on wh; 5. CP, dk; 6. Pythos, gray; 7-9. Jars, gray and dk; 10. Jar, br, IrA II; 11. Jug, br, indented dec; 12. Bowl base, br/gray; 13. 15-16. Handles with indented dec; 14. Bowl base, basalt; 17. ‘Combined vessels’, IrA II.

146. Find from Kh. ‘Eynun: tip of human penis, cir-cumcised, light brown clay.

224

CHAPTER SIX

Site 59: 18 – 18/89/1

Jelamet ‘Amer Israel grid: 1881 1897 UTM grid: 7262 5765 Elevation: 425 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin and ancient cemetery Area: 1.2 dunams (0.3 acre) Topography: valley edge and hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Taiyasir – Buqei‘ah junction (C19), 0.2 km distant Visibility: 4 Nov. 20, 1980; 22 shards ***

A site on a rocky hillock, about 400 m east of Kh. ‘Eynun. Near it, to the north, is a dirt road leading from Taiyasir to the Buqei‘ah. Two square structures, each about 4x4 m in size, are on the hill-top. On the western slope is a hewn winepress and cup marks, about 30 cm in diameter. On the northwest

slope is a burial cave opening with a rectangular entrance and steps, in-cluding an arrangement for a burial stone. The site may have been used as a burial ground of Kh. ‘Eynun. Pottery: IrA IA – 90%; IrA II – 10%. Previous surveys: none.

147. Pottery from Jelamet ‘Amer; no. 3, 6 – IrA II; the rest – IrA I; 1, 4. ‘Manassite’ bowls, lt br; 2. Bowl base, yel; 3. CP, dk br; 5. Jar base, br; 6. Crater base, br; 7. Jar base, yel; 8. Handle with ‘human face’ dec, br; 9. Jug, br.

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

225

Site 60: 18 – 18/49/1

Khirbet el-Khrebat Israel grid: 1849 1891 UTM grid: 7230 5759 Elevation: 235 m a.s.l., 20 m b.s.a. Name type: historical site, but not on map Site type: small ruin Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: valley edge, slope and ravine Rock type: Judah formation

Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 8 Cultivation: orchards Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 3 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 1 km distant Visibility: 4 Dec. 9, 1982; 61 shards ***

A site in a small ravine on the broad slope of the ‘Asharin Range, 2 km northwest of the village of Tam-mun. From the site is a view of the road to Tammun and the ‘Eynun Ranges.

The four terraces of very large building stones seem to have been built from stones dismantled from the ancient settlement. The terraces are built on top of more ancient walls, about 1 m wide. A consider--

148. A view from the north, toward Kh. el-Khrebat. The site is at the bottom of the olive grove. In the background are the ‘Asharin Ranges between Tammun and Tel el-Far‘ah. 1983.

226

CHAPTER SIX

able shard scatter is around these terraces, and a rock surface with hewn cistern is located north of it. Beside it was a grinding stone. This is one of a series of Middle Bronze Age sites in the eastern val--

leys of Manasseh. Most of them were abandoned at the end of that period. Pottery: MBA IIB – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

149. Pottery from Kh. el-Khrebat, all from MBA IIB: 1. Crater, yel; 2. CP, dk br; 3-4. Jars, gray; 5. Bowl, pk; 6. CP, dk gray; 7, 10. Jars, pinkish; 8-9. Craters, br; 11. Carinated bowl, yel; 12-15. Bowls and jugs, lt.

TUBAS VALLEY — LANDSCAPE UNIT 14

227

Site 61: 18 – 18/48/1

Khallet Abu-Toq Israel grid: 1843 1884 UTM grid: 7224 5753 Elevation: 280 m a.s.l., 35 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large ruin Area: 10.8 dunams (2.7 acres) Topography: valley edge, slope and ravine Rock type: Judah formation

Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 8 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 3 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 2.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 1 km distant Visibility: 3 Dec. 9, 1982; 70 shards ***

A site in a wide ravine at the western edge of the ‘Asharin Range, about 2 km west-northwest of the village of Tammun. Jebel Abu Loz rises to the west and above the site. A good path from Tammun to Tel el-Far‘ah

passes through the site. Many building remains, on the slope and in the ravine, are found here. They include complete walls of large, unhewn stones. Plenty of building stones have been cleared

150. Khallet Abu-Toq, looking east. The site’s houses once covered the ravine in the fore-ground. A central structure was found in the olive orchard at right, next to the cypress tree. In the distant background the ‘Asharin Ranges are visible. Winter 1982.

228

CHAPTER SIX

and moved to the terraces in the wadi bed. In consequence, most plans are unclear, yet some houses with courtyards can be identified. In an orchard close to the path, on the western part of the site, there is a large structure (10x20 m), about 2 m high with a modern structure on top of a modern one. Cleared

stones are piled on top of it and a wealth of shards is scattered, over the site. There was once a large, agricul-tural village here, belonging to the ‘settlement wave’ of the Middle Bronze Age in the eastern valleys. Pottery: MBA IIB – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

CHAPTER SEVEN

WADI MALIH LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

A Bedouin encampment, etching by A. Taylor, 1830

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

231

Site 62: 19 – 19/28/1

Khallet el-Kebarah Israel grid: 1928 1981 UTM grid: 7308 5851 Elevation: 210 m a.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: shard scatter and walls Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Bar-daleh, no. 91), 2.5 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean Junction (B7), 0.8 km distant Visibility: 4 April 15, 1988; 39 shards ***

A small site on a shoulder, descend-ing into the southern part of Beth Shean Valley. A medium sized shard scatter and a few remnants of walls were

detected. A dirt road from Wadi Khashneh to Kh. Jabaris passes next to the site. Pottery: MBA I – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 63: 19 – 19/38/1

Wadi Salman Israel grid: 1933 1981 UTM grid: 7312 5851 Elevation: 160 m a.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: fortress Area: 0.5 dunam (0.125 acre) Topography: hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 1

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Kardaleh, no. 115), 2 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean Junction (B7), 0.8 km distant Visibility: 7 Jan. 29, 1988; 19 shards ***

A fortress on a high hilltop in the hilly area between Bardaleh and Kh. Jabaris, about 2.5 km westsouthwest of Bardaleh. The fortress consists of two forti-fied structures, one inside the other.

The outer of the two is rectangular and well built, measuring 13.5x13.5 m. The surrounding wall is wide (1.4 m) and built of large, hewn stones. The entrance, 1 m wide, is on the southeastern side. The inner

232

CHAPTER SEVEN

structure is similar by shape, 6x6 m in size and built of especially large, hewn stones. The space between the inner and outer structures is 4 m, and the inner structure stands 1 m higher than the outer ones. Its walls, like the outer ones, are 1.4 m wide; a 2 m wide entrance was

found on its southeastern side. The place was apparently used as an observation fort on the path leading through Wadi Khashneh and the southern Beth Shean Val-ley. Pottery: LR – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

151. The plan of the fortress at Wadi Salman, including the double fortified structure. Winter 1988.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

233

152. The Roman fortress at Wadi Salman, seen from the west. It is situated on a high peak overlooking the southern Beth Shean Valley.

 Site 64: 19 – 19/68/1

Kardaleh (Upper) Israel grid: 1961 1985 UTM grid: 7340 5855 Elevation: 60 m b.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 0.5 dunam (0.125 acre) Topography: ridge Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 7 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Kardaleh, no. 115), 0.2 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 1 km distant Visibility: 6 Jan. 29, 1988; 41 shards

***

A small site on a wide ridge de-scending into the southern Beth Shean Valley, between Bardaleh and Tel el-Hammeh. A concentration of shards and

one wall of field stones were found there. Pottery: MBA I - 20%; Byz – 50%; Ott – 30%. Previous surveys: none.

234

CHAPTER SEVEN

153. A traditional structure in Kardaleh (Upper). Note the construction of the openings and the mud plastering. The structure was built at the end of 19th century or the begin-ning of the 20th. Winter 1988.

154. Pottery from Kardaleh (Upper): 1, 6. Folded ledge handles, yel, MBA I; 2-4. Jar rims, lt br, Byz; 5. Jug handle, dk, Ott.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

235

Site 65: 19 – 19/07/1

Wadi Khashneh Israel grid: 1909 1975 UTM grid: 7288 5843 Elevation: 175 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 4

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Bar-daleh, no. 91), 6 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), passes by site Visibility: 1 April 15, 1988; 47 shards ***

A well preserved farm next to Wadi Khashneh, at the bottom of a slope descending into the wadi. There is a structure here, built of large, hewn stones with mortar,

whose dimensions are 7x12 m. The well preserved first floor contains two rooms and the beginning of the second floor level. Adjacent to the structure is a large, open courtyard

155. A milestone next to the Roman road of Wadi Khashneh. The road, leading from Neapolis to Scythopolis, was published by Tomsen (1917, milestones no. 248-255) at the beginning of the 20th century. Its remains have been well preserved in various sections. 1985.

236

CHAPTER SEVEN

with a cistern. Next to the farm are large agricultural areas, terraces and additional buildings.

Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: Porath 1968, no. 26.

 Site 66: 19 – 19/67/1

Wadi el-Hammeh Israel grid: 1968 1975 UTM grid: 7348 5846 Elevation: 45 m b.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure and shard scatter Area: 1.7 dunams (0.4 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: mountainous rendzina; quality: 5

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elHammeh, no. 116), 0.2 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Hammeh (B10), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 4 May 16, 1986; 36 shards and 9 flint find ***

A site dispersed over a moderate slope descending eastward to the valley of Tel el-Hammeh, about 2 km northwest of the Israeli settlement of Meholah. Several structures built of small field stones, whose plans are unclear, are strewn over the slope. East of the site is a structure measur-

ing 4x6 m, built of large, unhewn stones. Over the area of the site there is a medium sized shard scatter. Pottery: MBA I – 80%; MBA IIB – 20%. Flint find: MBA I, with one from the Chal; see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

156. Shards from Wadi el-Hammeh: nos. 1-3, 5 – MBA I; the rest – MBA II: 1-2. HM jars with cut rim and rope dec, yel; 3. Jar, gray; 4. Bowl base, lt; 5. Folded ledge handle, yel; 6. Plastic dec.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

237

Site 67: 19 – 19/77/2

Khirbet el-Hammeh Israel grid: 1972 1975 UTM grid: 7352 5846 Elevation: 120 m b.s.l., 50 m b.s.a. Name type: historical site, but not on map Site type: large site Area: 12 dunams (3 acres) Topography: valley Rock type: alluvium covering

Soil type: alluvium; quality: 7 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 8 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elHammeh, no. 116), passes by site Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), passes by site Visibility: 2 May 16, 1986; 89 shards ***

A large ruin in an internal valley extending west, south and north of the ancient Tell of el-Hammeh. The spring of ‘Ain el-Hammeh flows by the side of the ruin. A good many building remains, including walls, floors and hewn building stones, are scattered through the valley. The structures, whose plans have been made indis-tinct by cultivation, extend to the edges of the hills. Large shard and

glass scatters were found all over the area. This town, which seems to have replaced the high Tel el-Hammeh, was founded in the Byzantine Pe-riod, when the entire area was ir-rigated by spring water. The site is mentioned neither in SWP nor by Guérin. Pottery: Byz – 30%; EM – 40%; MA – 30%. Previous surveys: none.

157. Shards from the ‘late’ ruin near Tel el-Hammeh, all EM: 1. Crater, dk gray; 2. Bowl, dk; 3-4. Jars, br; 5. Bowl, dk.

238

CHAPTER SEVEN

158. Plan of the Tel and Kh. el-Hammeh. The Khirbeh is located south and east of the Tel, near the springs, 2001.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

239

159. Kh. el-Hammeh and Tel el-Hammeh in the lower edges of the Beth Shean Valley, looking east. The later ruin is in the foreground, with remains over across the valley, ad-jacent to the springs. Spring 1986.

 Site 68: 18 – 19/96/1

Qasr esh-Shekh Ghazal Israel grid: 1892 1960 UTM grid: 7270 5828 Elevation: 320 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: roadside fortress (?) Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: edge of mountainous ravine Rock type: Mount Scopus formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMeiyiteh, no. 90), 7 km distant Nearest road: Salhab – Beth Shean junction (B7), 1 km distant Visibility: 3 May 21, 1993; 49 shards

240

CHAPTER SEVEN

A fortified structure and a courtyard in a broad ravine in Wadi Khash-neh. The wadi flows through the mountainous block north of Wadi Malih, about 2.5 km northeast of Taiyasir. The site is located east of the ravine, near the road from Wadi Khashneh to Wadi Malih. The en-tire complex is built upon terraces on the slope. The central building, 8x10 m in size, is built of large, hewn and collapsed stones, now covering the internal plan. North

of the building and attached to it is a small courtyard, 10x15 m in size, surrounded by a stone wall and containing a cistern. This may have been a roadside fortress on the Wadi Khashneh roads, as suggested by Neef, and see chapter three. Pottery: IrA II – 20%; LR – 50%; Byz – 30%. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: Avi Yonah 1976, 124; Neef 1982.

160. The roadside fortress (?) at Qasr esh-Sheikh Ghazal, looking southwest. The person stands on the structure’s remains; behind them is Wadi Khashneh with the Roman road to Scythopolis. The high range in the background is Ras Jadir. 1993.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

241

Site 69: 19 – 19/26/1

Khirbet Jabaris (SWP map: Kh. Jebrish) Israel grid: 1924 1962 UTM grid: 7301 5834 Elevation: 300 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: large ruin Area: 11.8 dunams (3 acres) Topography: saddle on plateau Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and brown basalt soils; quality: 5

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 35 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMeiyiteh, no. 86), 4.5 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 3.5 km distant Visibility: 2 Jan. 9, 1983; May 23, 1986; Jul. 9, 1993; 149 shards. ***

A large settlement on a saddle, in the high area between Wadi Ma-lih and Wadi Khashneh, about 4 km northwest of the hot springs at Hamam el-Malih. Several families

from Tubas (the el-Fauqa family and others) live in the place, a cen-ter for sheep husbandry. The saddle, on which the houses of the settlement were built, de--

161. Aerial photo of Kh. Jabaris, looking east. Ruins of two towers are seen in the upper part, and beside them is a built road that crosses the site lengthwise. At right is the new dirt path from Wadi Malih and at bottom left are the plowed fields of the ravine.

242

CHAPTER SEVEN

scends to the southwest from the summit of E.P. 334, near a small, internal valley. About 50 well pre-served structures were recorded here, built of large, hewn stones. Most of the structures, with door-posts, arches and architraves, are of the courtyard house type. In the center of the settlement is a plas-tered pool and another one, with well preserved supporting arches, is located north of the site. To its northeast three large structures were also found, possibly mausolea (our opinion) but identified as watch-towers by the SWP. Burial caves are scattered over the area. In the town’s center there is a ba-silica type structure (7.5X6.5 m, inner dimensions), directed north

– southwest, with an opening in the southwestern wall and two stone benches next to the south-ern wall. The ashlar built entrance is partly decorated. The building seems to be a Byzantine Period monastery from the 5th-6th Centu-ries C.E. While exploring the place, the SWP mentioned a mosaic floor there; this was revisited by Mak-houly in 1932. He unearthed two pieces of the colorful mosaic floor, measuring 1X1.5 m and depicting a grapevine emerging from a jug. The pattern consists of a square with in-ner circles in white, yellow and red. During a tour of the area in 1973, with the participation of Ilan, Ova-diah and Arav, a mosaic inscription was found in front of the entrance.

162. Crushing basin of the “grinding stone” type, close to the site. Winter 1993.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

It contained four lines in ancient Greek, deciphered by Drs. A. Ova-diah and V. Tzafiris. The text speaks of the paving of the building by a certain ‘Omnius the priest’ (?), the head of the monastery (?), in the in-diction … (Byzantine calendar)”. It

243

is dated to the Sixth Century C.E. Throughout the settlement ar-chitectural elements, pillars, wine-presses, cisterns and burial niches were discovered. Pottery: Byz – 80%; EM – 20%.

163. Plan of the town from the Byzantine Period at Kh. Jabaris. The lower quarter of the site was not measured with an alidade, but was taken from the aerial photo.

244

CHAPTER SEVEN

During a partial survey in 1972 Ilan, following Avi Yonah, suggested identifying this as one of the two Bezeq’s of the Onomasticon; see chapter three.

Bibliography: SWP II, 238; Archaeological News 47 (1973), 11-12; Ilan 1973, 349-351; 1976. Previous surveys: none.

164. Pottery from Kh. Jabaris, all Byz: 1. CP, dk br; 2. Bowl, dk br; 3. Bowl, gray; 4. CP, dk gray; 5. Krater, br; 6-7. Jars, dk gray.

 Site 70: 19 – 19/35/1

er-Raqqeh Israel grid: 1933 1958 UTM grid: 7312 5825 Elevation: 300 m a.s.l., 50 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: built courtyard Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: slope and valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMeiyiteh, no. 86), 3 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 3 km distant Visibility: 1 July 2, 1993; 78 shards ***

A large courtyard on a low slope above Wadi Jabaris, 1 km eastsoutheast of Kh. Jabaris.

The courtyard, measuring about 35x45 m, is trapezoid in shape. The surrounding wall, which varies

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

in width between 1-2 m, is com-posed of two rows of large, hewn stones, with a filling in between. The assumed entrance is in the eastern wall. A wall enters into the courtyard, bends and ends with two hewn, plastered cisterns. Inside there are also two caves. Another cistern is on the slope, some 30 m northwest of the courtyard. The original structure dates to the Late Roman Period. At some later stage a secondary use was made of the stones, when three

245

semi-circular structures were added to the original walls and an animal pen (the bent wall inside) was built in the southern corner. In a nearby wadi to the west, stone wall casings and remains of a possible dam were found. Beyond the wadi and close to the modern road there are remains of a Ro-man road, apparently leading from Hamam el-Malih to Kh. Jabaris. Pottery: LR – 55%; Byz – 28%, MA (Mameluk) – 17%. Previous surveys: none.

165. The plan of the courtyard/pen at er-Raqqeh. Spring 1993.

246

CHAPTER SEVEN

166. The courtyard/pen from the Late Roman Period and the surrounding structures of er-Raqqeh, looking north. Kh. Jabaris is on the saddle above, with the large terebinth trees nearby.

 Site 71: 19 – 19/46/1

Umm Khubezah Israel grid: 1948 1965 UTM grid: 7328 5838 Elevation: 120 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 0.5 dunam (0.125 acre) Topography: broad ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Bar-daleh, no. 91), 2 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 2.5 km distant Visibility: 6 Jan. 8, 1988; 8 shards

***

A rectangular structure on a flat hilltop in the center of a ridge, sur-rounded by deep ravines, some 2.5 km south-southwest of Bardaleh.

The structure, 5x10 m in size, built of large, unhewn stones, with clear internal division into rooms. Three m to the east there is a sup--

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

porting wall, and two hewn cisterns are located 15 m in the same direc-tion. Nearby are many agricultural remains (terraces, towers, etc.). The dating is uncertain, due to

247

only two identifiable shards having been found. Pottery: MBA IIB (?). Flint find: Two undefined items. Previous surveys: none.

167. The remains of the solitary structure from Middle Bronze Age IIB (?) at Umm Khubezah. In the background are the hills between Hamam el-Malih and the Beth Shean Valley. Winter 1988.

248

CHAPTER SEVEN

Site 72: 19 – 19/45/1

‘Iraq ej-Jaddab Israel grid: 1946 1955 UTM grid: 7326 5824 Elevation: 84 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 1.5 dunams (0.4 acre) Topography: broad ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 7 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Hammeh, no. 116), 4 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 2.5 km distant Visibility: 4 May 23, 1986; 39 shards.

***

A well preserved farm on a mod-erate slope, in the hilly area north of Wadi Malih, about 2 km east of Kh. Jabaris. In the upper, northern part of the farm is a building of large field

stones, 6x11 m in size. It is divided into three rooms, with an entrance from the west and preserved door-posts. Of the rooms, the western two are small and equal to each other, while the eastern one is larg-er. South of the structure is an ir--

168. A view of the courtyard of the Byzantine Period farm at ‘Iraq ej-Jaddab, looking south from the central structure. 1986.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

regular shaped, attached courtyard, 26x26 m in size, with rounded cor-ners, surrounded by a stone wall 60 cm wide. East of the farm are stone

249

built, agricultural terraces. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

169. Plan of the Byzantine Period farm of ‘Iraq ej-Jaddab. In the hilly region between Kh. Jabaris and the Beth Shean Valley are several small farms of this type, while the large sites are located in Wadi Malih or in the Beth Shean Valley. Winter 1994.

250

CHAPTER SEVEN

170. Aerial photo of the Byzantine Period farm of ‘Iraq ej-Jaddab, looking north. Winter 1994.

 Site 73: 19 – 19/75/3

Khirbet Wadi esh-Shaqq Israel grid: 1972 1954 UTM grid: 7352 5823 Elevation: 105 m b.s.l., 30 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: ridge bottom and valley edge Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elKhimyar, no. 117), 0.5 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 1 Jan. 22, 1988; 60 shards; Oct. 2006

***

An enclosure on the northern bank of Wadi esh-Shaqq, in the northwestern part of esh-Shaqq Valley, 2 km southwest of Meholah.

Deep wadis isolate the place from its environs. The enclosure is square-shaped but slightly irregular, about 50x50

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

m in size. The surrounding wall is of large stones. Inside it is a separate area enclosed by an internal stone wall. In the southeastern corner of the court is a small structure, where parts of a complete Roman cook-ing pot were unearthed under one of the stones. In the vicinity to the

251

northeast is another structure, and a stone dam was found in the wadi to the east. Pottery: MBA IIB – 10%; LR – 40%; EM – 20%; Ott – 30%. Special find: Clay pipe, Ott. Previous surveys: none.

171. Plan of Kh.Wadi esh-Shaqq. The enclosure has at least two stages, 2006.

252

CHAPTER SEVEN

172. View to the northwest of the enclosure of Kh. Wadi esh-Shaqq, in the northern extremity of esh-Shaqq Valley. The enclosure, used over many periods, is situated above a wadi and below the ridges of Jebel el-Khimyar. Winter 1988.

 Site 74: 19 – 19/75/1

Khallet Khimyar Israel grid: 1976 1955 UTM grid: 7355 5824 Elevation: 130 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: a small site; farm (?) Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: Colluvial – Alluvial; quality:

5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elKhimyar, no. 117), next to site Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.75 km distant Visibility: 2 Apr. 11, 1986; 70 shards

***

A small site, perhaps a farm, on the edge of esh-Shaqq Valley, some 2 km southwest of Meholah.

In the center of the site the re-mains of a central complex, which consists of two parts, are found. In

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

its upper part there is a structure with two or three square rooms 3X3 m in size. East of this, and below it on the slope, is a large room or an internal courtyard 12X16 m in size. These seem to have been originally parts of the same complex. They are surrounded by a wall of large stones. Another wall, about 1 m wide, de--

253

scends from the structure into the wadi. Northeast of the structure is a rounded wall, presumably part of an ancient enclosure, 36 m in di-ameter. Remains of another square structure are within it. Pottery: IrA II – 10%; Per – 30%; Hel – 30%; ER – 30%. Previous surveys: none.

173. Plan of the farm (?) at Khallet Khimyar in the northern extremity of esh-Shaqq Val-ley. Northeast of the site’s structures (upper right ) are a rounded wall and the remains of additional structures, apparently belonging to the early stages of the site.

254

CHAPTER SEVEN

Site 75: 19 – 19/75/2

Jebel Khimyar Israel grid: 1978 1953 UTM grid: 7357 5825 Elevation: 90 m b.s.l., 70 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site and fortress (?) Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elKhimyar, no. 117), 0.4 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.6 km distant Visibility: 7 Apr. 8, 1988; 49 shards

***

A fortified site on the summit of a mountainous block overlooking esh-Shaqq Valley, the delta of Wadi Malih and the southern Beth Shean Valley. It is located 2 km southwest of Meholah.

Remains of a large courtyard, 45x30 m in size, enclose the high summit. It consists of remnants of a wall built of large stones. Vari-ous walls, possibly rooms, join its northern side. In the southwest corner of this wall are remains of a

174. The entrance to esh-Shaqq Valley, looking northwest, from the southern plains of Beth Shean Valley. In the center is Jebel Khimyar, with the fortress on its high summit. To the left esh-Shaqq Valley is visible and to its right is Wadi Khimyar. Spring 1988.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

round structure, perhaps a corner tower, with shards from the Late Roman Period.

255

The place appears to be a forti-fied outlook fortress. Pottery: MBA I – 10%; MBA IIB

175. Plan of the site at Jebel Khimyar. The remains include a wall of large stones and a round tower. The location and fortification define the site as a possible fortress.

256

CHAPTER SEVEN

– 40%; LR – 20%; Byz – 20%; MA – 10%.

Previous surveys: none.

176. Pottery and other finds from the fortress at Jebel Khimyar: 1. Basalt bowl with carved handle; 2. Jar, lt br, LR; 3. Loop-handle, yel, MBA I; 4. Jar handle, br, Byz; 5. Rope dec, yel, MBA II.

 Site 76: 19 – 19/74/2

Khirbet Wadi edh-Dhb‘ah Israel grid: 1977 1949 UTM grid: 7354 5820 Elevation: 120 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 4.5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: slope and valley edge Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: Colluvial – Alluvial; quality:

4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain eshShaqq, no. 89), 0.3 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 1 km distant Visibility: 2 May 11, 1986; 108 shards

***

A small site on the western fringes of esh-Shaqq Valley, between the Wadis esh-Shaqq and edh-Dhb‘ah, about 2.5 km southwest of Me-holah. A wide anti tank trench crosses the site. In the cross section created

by the trench, a dark layer and re-mains of floors and walls were dis-covered. On the slope and above the trench are a few walls and a large shard scatter. About 0.1 km south of the place, flint tools from the Middle Paleolithic (Musterian-

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

Levalois) Period were collected. In the anti tank trench the top of a jar from the Persian Period was found in situ. Pottery: Chal – 5%; EBA I – 15%;

257

IrA III – 15%; Per – 25%; Hel – 25%; ER – 10%; LR – 5%. Flint find: Ten items from Chal or EBA. Previous surveys: none.

177. Pottery from Kh. Wadi edh-Dhb‘ah: 1. Crater, br, IrA II-III; 2. Jar, br, IrA III; 3. HM jar, br, EBA; 4. Rope dec, lt, Chal; 5. Ledge handle, lt br, ‘Far‘ah family’; 6. Jar, yel, Per; 7-8. Rope dec, ‘Far‘ah family’; 9. Jar, br, LR.

178. Jar from the Persian Period, found in situ in the anti tank trench at Wadi edh-Dhb‘ah.

258

CHAPTER SEVEN

179. Wadi edh-Dhb‘ah and Wadi esh-Shaqq, looking west. The site is in the foreground at right. In the center are the white cliffs of Wadi esh-Shaqq, and in the background is high Jebel Mu‘allakah. The area was settled during many periods; the anti tank trench exposed the site, which had been buried in the ground. 1988.

 Site 77: 19 – 19/34/2

‘Iraq el-Mardom Israel grid: 1939 1946 UTM grid: 7320 5821 Elevation: 117 m a.s.l., 50 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elHammeh, no. 116), 4.5 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 2 km distant Visibility: 3 June 12, 1992; 48 shards

***

A farm complex in a narrow ravine in a hilly area, 2 km northwest of

Hamam el-Malih. A dirt road from Wadi Malih to Kh. Jabaris passes

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

nearby. The site is comprised of a central structure and a courtyard, located upon a flat area at the bottom of a slope and above a gorge, a tribu-tary of Wadi el-Mhallal. The main building (8x25 m in size) is divid-ed into three areas, approximately equal in size. The eastern one is empty, while the two western ones have secondary divisions, including inner walls and one cell. The outer walls are built of large stones, while the inner walls are of smaller ones. The masonry is of good quality.

259

North of the structure is a court-yard built of large stones, similar to those of the central structure. The yard, about 17x20 m, is irregular in shape. Adjacent to it on the eastern side is a long terrace wall descend-ing into the gorge next to the farm. The farm appears to be connect-ed with Kh. Mhallal, the large site in the vicinity. Pottery: MBA I – 30%; MBA IIB – 10%; IrA IA – 35%; IrA II – 5%; Byz – 10%; Mod – 10%. Previous surveys: none.

180. A view of the Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age site at ‘Iraq el-Mardom, looking north. The structures are on a small step behind the jeep; the farm is situated on the edges of a small, inner valley. Summer 1992.

260

CHAPTER SEVEN

181. The plan of ‘Iraq el-Mardom, with its irregular shaped courtyard in the north. A long wall, a terrace and/or a dam, extends southward to the gorge nearby.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

261

Site 78: 19 – 19/34/1

Khirbet Mhallal Israel grid: 1939 1948 UTM grid: 7316 5813 Elevation: 178 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large ruin Area: 15 dunams (3.75 acres) Topography: ridge edge, slope, valley edge and hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Malih, no. 87), 2 km distant Nearest road: Taiyasir – Meholah (B8), 2 km distant Visibility: 5 July 1, 1993; Oct. 15, 1993; 96 shards, 19 flint items and three basalt items ***

A large site on a hilltop and a slope, near a small, inner valley in a hilly area, 2 km north of Hamam el-Ma-lih. The large ruin is comprised of

three main parts: 1. On the upper part, on a flat hilltop, remains of a site on an area of 3 to 4 dunams (0.75-1 acre) are found. This site ends in the east,

182. An aerial photo of the large site of Kh. Mhallal, looking northwest. In the upper left the high settlement can be seen, with the lower step to its right. At right is the gorge of Wadi Mhallal. Winter 1994.

262

CHAPTER SEVEN

on the edge of the slope, by wide, semi circular wall, which presum-ably served as a fortification wall. The site itself includes a central courtyard (15X25 m in size), with two complexes of structures north and east of it. They consist of many rooms with walls built of large stones. The structures are situated on two steps that descend eastward, with a ravine in the north. On the ravine, built terraces and a good many shards are scattered. 2. East of part A (see fig. 184), on the eastern slope, a man-made supporting rampart, extending over and across the slope, is located. It includes at least two supporting

walls of large stones. A consider-able shard scatter was found on the rampart. 3. Four other courtyards, encom-passed by walls of large stones, are on the lower step and below the rampart. Next to them there are several structures with rooms. East of this complex there are long ter-races in the ravine. Pottery: Chal–EBA I – 1%; MBA I – 10%; MBA IIB – 24%; LBA (?) – 1%; IrA IA – 36%; IrA II – 7%; IrA III – 3%; Byz – 10%; EM – 8%. The two main periods of the site are Middle Bronze Age IIB, when the rampart was probably built,

183. Pottery from the Bronze and Iron Age site of Kh. Mhallal: 1. Jug, br, IrA IA; 2. Juglet base, br, IrA IA; 3. CP, dk br, IrA IA; 4. Ledge handle, lt, MBA I; 5. Folded CP, dk br, MBA II; 6. Bowl, gray, MBA II; 7. Jug base, br, IrA IA; 8. Bowl, pk, MBA II; 9. Bowl, lt, MBA II.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

and Iron Age IA. During the latter period the site prospered, and was certainly the most important site in

263

the Wadi Malih area. Previous surveys: none.

184. Plan of the site at Kh. Mhallal. It extends over two steps, an upper and a lower one, with a man made rampart on the slope between them. During the Iron Age I this was an important site in the area, with a central role in the array of the Israelite Settlement sites.

264

CHAPTER SEVEN

Site 79: 19 – 19/64/1

Khirbet el-M‘allaqeh Israel grid: 1963 1945 UTM grid: 7343 5817 Elevation: 30 m b.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: high saddle Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain eshShaqq, no. 89), 0.7 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8, northern branch), 1 km distant Visibility: 2 Apr. 18, 1986; 25 shards

***

A well preserved farm on a saddle in the M‘allaqeh Range, between Shaqq and Dhb‘ah Valleys, in a hilly area 3 km southwest of Me-holah. West and east of the site are high mountainous ranges. The farm complex is irregular

in shape, about 40x50 m in size. In its center is an empty space or courtyard surrounded by a series of rooms and yards. There are three such blocks: the first, south of the central yard, includes two long rooms 12X5 m in size with inner

185. The fortified farm from the Late Iron Age at Kh. el-M‘allaqeh. The person stands in the central courtyard. Spring 1986.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

divisions. In the second, west of the center, there are more long rooms. The third, in the north of the site, is the largest of the three complex-es, with two large square rooms and others beside. The entire com-plex appears to be surrounded by an outer wall 1 m wide; the inner walls are about 0.5 m wide. About 50 m north of the structure, on an upward slope, another square struc--

265

ture built of large field stones was found, 6x6 m in size. This fortified site, presumably a farm, is of the “courtyard house” type. The pottery dates it to the 11th-10th centuries B.C.E., prob-ably abandoned in the 9th century B.C.E. Pottery: IrA II (Early) – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

186. Plan of Kh. el-M‘allaqeh. Note the central space surrounded by wings with rooms. Apparently there were several stages of construction at the site.

266

CHAPTER SEVEN

187. Pottery from the fortified farm at Kh. el-M‘allaqeh: 1. Pythos, dk, IrA I-II; 2. CP, dk, IrA IC; 3. HM jar, br, IrA I-II; 4. Ridged neck jar, dk, IrA II; 5. Jar base, br, IrA I-II; 6. Jar, br, IrA II.

 Site 80: 19 – 19/44/1

Wadi Khallet el-Badd Israel grid: 1946 1940 UTM grid: 7325 5809 Elevation: 40 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 1.5 dunams (0.38 acre) Topography: valley edge and ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 7 Cultivation: none Cisterns:1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Malih, no. 87), 1.5 km distant Nearest road: Taiyasir – Meholah (B8), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 2 May 25, 1986; 32 shards

***

A farm complex with structures in the hilly area north of Hamam elMalih. The site is at the fringes of a small valley, near a wadi descend-ing into the latter. A 30 m long ter-race wall supports an elevated area with structures. In the northeastern part is a large courtyard, 12x18 m in size, with a building divided into four rooms to its east. Southwest of it there is a square courtyard, 20x15

m in size, situated beside the wadi. Next to the yard are a cave and a cistern. This farm, built during the Byz-antine Period, was in continuous use in the Middle Ages and Otto-man Periods (16th-17th centuries C.E.). Pottery: Byz – 30%; MA – 40%; Ott – 30%. Previous surveys: none.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

267

188. Plan of the farm at Wadi Khallet el-Badd. Note the man made step in the direction of the valley, the two yards and the cave which was in use when the farm was inhabited.

268

CHAPTER SEVEN

189. Pottery from the farm at Wadi Khallet el-Badd: 1. Bowl, lt br, Byz; 2. Crater base, dk, MA; 3-4. Jar and jug, br, Byz; 5-7. Dec shards, MA.

190. The farm at Wadi Khallet el-Badd, looking west. The site is on a built step on a small ravine, part of the hilly area north of Wadi Malih. It contains a structure with rooms and a square courtyard. Spring 1992.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

269

Site 81: 19 – 19/74/4

Khirbet esh-Shaqq (Guérin: Kh. ech-Chekeb) Israel grid: 1972 1946 UTM grid: 7353 5817 Elevation: 95 m b.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: historical place on map Site type: large ruin Area: 15 dunams (3.75 acres) Topography: valley edge and flat hilltop Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 4 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain eshShaqq, no. 89), next to site Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), passes by site Visibility: 4 Apr. 8, 1988; 61 shards

***

A large ruin on a low, flat hilltop in the southwest part of esh-Shaqq Valley. It is situated between Wadi esh-Shaqq in the south and a deep

ravine in the north, a tributary of the same wadi. The site is located 3 km southwest of Meholah. On the flat hilltop is a large com--

191. Aerial photo of the large site of Kh. esh-Shaqq, looking southeast. The site covers the low hill in the center. At right is the gorge of Wadi esh-Shaqq, while at left there is a new trench. Note the remnants of the structures seen on the surface. 1993.

270

CHAPTER SEVEN

plex of constructions about 40x70 m in size, including a central court-yard and various structures around it. It consists of the yard measur-ing 15X25 m, with several ‘wings’ attached to it. To its west there is a series of rooms in two rows, in-terwoven in each other. To the southeast there is another ‘wing’ with long, large rooms. The central yard is closed in the north by long halls. Other series of rooms are to the north of the complex, near the central trench. Southwest of the central complex and beyond a dirt road is a separate complex with 1520 units, about 10x50 m in size. All the buildings are built of medium sized stones, and the plans suggest

at least two building stages at the site. The southwestern unit is built of large stones and apparently dates to an earlier period than the central complex. Two concrete dams are located in Wadi esh-Shaqq, possibly built on earlier foundations. Along the rocky side of the wadi, to the north, a built and hewn aqueduct was found. Above the western dam, to the south, there is a large, hewn winepress 3x3.5 m in size, with a deep, plastered vat for new wine. A depression hewn in the floor of the winepress suggests a rock removal for another installation. Guérin and Robinson visited the site and mentioned it, but it does

192. A view of the rocky canyon of Wadi edh-Dhb‘ah, a small tributary of Wadi eshShaqq, looking west. It is near Kh. esh-Shaqq and to the north of it. 1993.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

not appear on the SWP map. Pottery: Byz – 95%; EM – 5%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po--

271

rath 1972, no. 70. Bibliography: Robinson 1970, 405; Guérin 1969 (IV), 275-276; Cond-er 1876b, 15; Zertal 1988b, 83.

193. Plan of the site of Kh. esh-Shaqq between the Shaqq and Dhb‘ah Wadis. It includes a central complex of buildings and another unit west of the dirt road with rooms. Along Wadi esh-Shaqq are dams, a winepress and a built aqueduct.

272

CHAPTER SEVEN

Site 82: 19 – 19/74/1

Khirbet Umm Ghazal (Kh. esh-Shaqq) Israel grid: 1975 1945 UTM grid: 7354 5815 Elevation: 80 m b.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: historical place on map Site type: fortress Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: high ridge Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 5

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain eshShaqq, no. 89), 0.1 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), passes by site Visibility: 5 Apr. 1, 1986; 80 shards and 11 flint items

***

A fortress on a ridge, above the southern fringes of esh-Shaqq Val-ley. The fortress consists of three

parts: 1. A round structure 20 m in di-ameter, composed of three concen-tric circles, with internal division

194. Aerial photo of the round Israelite fortress at Kh. Umm Ghazal. The fortress is seen in the center, with its three circles. At right is the building with seven rooms. Winter 1993.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

into cells. The entrance is from the east; the walls are 1 m wide; 2. A rectangular structure built of field stones, 10x15 m in size and close to the round fortress. It is composed of seven rooms and its entrance is from the west;

273

3. Part of a casemate wall is seen east of the above. This apparently surrounded the entire site. A con-siderable shard scatter was found. This fortress is similar to those discovered and excavated at elMakhruq (site no. 269 here) and

195. Plan of the round fortress at Kh. Umm Ghazal. The site is on a ridge above Wadi esh-Shaqq, and identical fortresses were found at the entrance to Wadi Far‘ah and the ascent from the Jordan Valley to ‘Aqrabeh.

274

CHAPTER SEVEN

Rujjum Abu Mukheir. It turns out that they all controlled the roads that ascends from the Jordan Valley to the Samarian Hills. Pottery: IrA II – 80%; IrA III – 20%. Flint find: 11 identifiable items; ‘Canaanite blade’ dating to Early

to MBA I. The geometrical blade is typical of the IrA; see appendix. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 71. They found there “foundations of solitary struc-tures on a ridge edge”. Bibliography: Robinson 1970, 405; Zertal 1988b, 83-86.

196. Pottery from the fortress at Kh. Umm Ghazal, all from IrA II: 1. CP, dk; 2. CP, dk, C type; 3, 5. HM jar, br; 4. Jar, yel; 6. Crater base, br; 7. Weight, basalt; 8. Bowl, br.

 Site 83: 19 – 19/74/3

Muntar esh-Shaqq (on SWP map: Muntar esh-Shukk) Israel grid: 1978 1944 UTM grid: 7358 5815 Elevation: 35 m b.s.l., 80 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient but not on map Site type: fortress Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 2

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 3 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain eshShaqq, no. 89), 0.8 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.4 km distant Visibility: 9 Apr. 1, 1988; 65 shards and 9 flint items

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

A fortress on a tall hill south of esh-Shaqq Valley, 2.5 km southsouthwest of Meholah. From the site there is a view of the delta of Wadi Malih, the southern Beth Shean Valley and parts of the Gil-ead Mountains. In the center of the summit is a structure about 8 m in diameter, now covered by a pile of stones. Inside it remnants of walls are dis-cernible, and remains of a casemate wall are discerned north and west of it. This casemate wall consists of two parallel walls and connect-ing walls. Possible remains of more buildings are west of the central

275

structure. Dug out caves were also found north and south of the site. A considerable shard scatter is spread over the area. This fortress presumably guarded the road through Wadi esh-Shaqq. When abandoned, it seems to have been replaced by the fortress of Kh. Umm Ghazal. Pottery: IrA IB-IC – 100%. Flint find: Nine items from the Neolithic Period; see appendix. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 243; Zertal 1988b, 83-86.

197. The hill of Muntar esh-Shaqq, on whose summit the casemate fortress is situated. On the ridge at right is Kh. Umm Ghazal. The photo was taken from the plains of eshShaqq Valley. 1988.

276

CHAPTER SEVEN

198. Pottery from the fortress at Muntar esh-Shaqq, all from IrA IB and IC: 1. Pythos, dk; 2. Jug base, lt br; 3. Crater, br; 4-5. CP, dk.

199. Plan of the casemate fortress from Iron Age I on the summit of Muntar esh-Shaqq.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

277

Site 84: 18 – 19/93/2

Khirbet el-‘Aqabeh (on SWP map: Khirbet el-Akabeh) Israel grid: 1896 1935 UTM grid: 7274 5802 Elevation: 300 m a.s.l., 60 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient but not on map Site type: medium sized ruin Area: 6.1 dunams (1.5 acres) Topography: hilltop and valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMeiyiteh, no. 86), 4 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 5 Dec. 16, 1982; 40 shards ***

A site on a low hilltop on a range be-tween Ras Jadir and Ras Mubarah, 2 km east of Taiyasir. In the foot-hills of this range, to the south, are upper Wadi Malih and the Tubas

– Meholah Road. There is a good view from the site of the Yarzah Hills and Bezeq Pass. A modern family house, includ-ing sheep pens, now stands on the

200. Aerial photo of the site of Kh. el-‘Aqabeh, looking southwest. At the top is the road from Tubas Valley (right) to the Jordan Valley (left). The center of the site is on a rocky ridge, near the large house. Between the light colored path and the road is a Roman road. Winter 1994.

278

CHAPTER SEVEN

hill. South and west of the house, on the steep slopes that descend to the road, is a wall of large stones and covered with dirt. Apparently, it was used for fortification during the first period (MBA II?). On the flat hilltop are remnants of eight structures in situ, including walls and building stones. The central one is 6x8 m in size, built of espe-cially large boulders and standing up to 1 m high. This architecture

is typical of the Middle Bronze Age in the region. Next to and north of it is a new stone wall built on an-cient foundations, which encloses the modern structure. Nearby, the Roman road passes from the Jordan Valley. Pottery: MBA IIB – 50%; Byz – 50%. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 237.

201. Pottery from the site of Kh. el-‘Aqabeh: nos. 1-12 – MBA II; 13-14 – Byz: 1. Jar, pinkish; 2. Folded CP, dk; 3-4. Craters, br; 5-7. Jars, pk-br; 8. Jug, br; 9. Crater base, yel; 10. Bowl, pinkish; 11. Jar, yel; 12. Crater base, br; 13-14. Jars, lt br.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

279

Site 85: 18 – 19/93/1

Khirbet el-Khrebat (B) Israel grid: 1899 1933 UTM grid: 7277 5802 Elevation: 250 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 2.5 dunams (0.63 acre) Topography: slope and ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: uncultivated and field crops Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMeiyiteh, no. 86), 4 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.3 km distant Visibility: 3 Apr. 23, 1982; 33 shards ***

A site on a moderate slope descend-ing southwards to the main road from Taiyasir to the Jordan Valley. Close by, to the northwest, is the site of Kh. el-‘Aqabeh (no. 84) with its modern building. The ruin is situated on several well built steps made of field stones. On top of them several square buildings, apparently domestic,

have been preserved. Next to and west of them is a hewn cistern with a fallen roof, approached by a hewn shaft and four steps. Above the site, to the north, is a good path to Kh. Ibziq from the Taiyasir – Meholah Road. Many, varied shards were found at the site. Pottery: MBA IIB – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

202. Pottery from Kh. el-Khrebat (B), from Middle Bronze Age IIB: 1. Jar, yel; 2. Big bowl base, lt; 3. Jar, br; 4. Bowl base, pinkish; 5. Jug, br; 6. Jar, pinkish; 7. Carinated bowl, lt.

280

CHAPTER SEVEN

Site 86: 19 – 19/30/1

Khirbet el-Khrebat (A) (on SWP map: Sufy al Khureibat) Israel grid: 1930 1901 UTM grid: 7281 5799 Elevation: 230 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: historical place on map Site type: small ruin Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: ridge edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMeiyiteh, no. 86), 4 m distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.3 km distant Visibility: 3 Apr. 23, 1982; 18 shards ***

A small site on a southern slope, north of the road from Taiyasir to the Jordan Valley. At the center of the site there are a large cave and a cistern. This complex is surrounded by a stone fence, apparently used as an animal

pen. Hewn agricultural installa-tions were found, and a small shard scatter is spread over the slopes. Pottery: IrA IA – 70%; Hel – 5%; Byz – 25%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 78.

 Site 87: 19 – 19/73/2

Tel ed-Diblaqah Israel grid: 1970 1934 UTM grid: 7347 5807 Elevation: 35 b.s.l., 15 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 1.5 dunams (0.38 acre) Topography: ravine Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain eshShaqq, no. 89), 1 m distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8 – northern branch), 0.4 km distant Visibility: 1 May 9, 1986; 28 shards

***

Structures and a courtyard, appar-ently a farm, in a low ravine, south of Wadi esh-Shaqq. It is located in a hilly area about 4 km south-

southwest of Meholah. Next to a small gorge on the slope, remnants of a structure 10x12 m in size were found. Its plan is unclear,

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

but it seems to have contained a courtyard and rooms. North of the structure is a circular courtyard 40 m in diameter, which reaches the gorge. The walls are of field stones. On top of the central building an-other structure was found, 4x4 m in size (a tower?), built of stones from the site; it appears to have

281

been built later. Walls of the site have probably been used as dams. The site was presumably a farm with an adjacent animal pen, ap-parently built during the Iron Age and used also in later periods. Pottery: IrA II – 45%; Byz – 50%; MA – 5%. Previous surveys: none.

203. Pottery from Tel ed-Diblaqah: nos. 1, 3 – IrA II; the rest – Byz; 1. Bowl, br; 2, 4-5. Shards of jars, dk; 3. Bowl base, br.

204. The farm at Tel ed-Diblaqah, looking west. The farm buildings are left and around the wadi in the center. The place appears to have been chosen out of consideration for protection from the wind. 1986.

282

CHAPTER SEVEN

205. Plan of the farm at Tel ed-Diblaqah. Note the two dams\terraces in the ravine and the rounded courtyard.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

283

Site 88: 19 – 19/73/1

Khirbet Wadi Qanat ej-Jamal Israel grid: 1973 1934 UTM grid: 7349 5803 Elevation: 10 m b.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 0.6 dunam (0.15 acre) Topography: slope and hilltop Rock type: ‘Arad formation Soil type: Colluvial – Alluvial; quality:

7 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain ejJamal, no. 134), next to site Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.8 km distant Visibility: 5 May 9, 1986; 19 shards

***

A small site on a low hilltop and on a slope descending southward into Wadi Qanat ej-Jamal, slightly north of Wadi Malih and about 2 km east of Hamam el-Malih. On the site is a square courtyard or structure, 8x8 m in size, built of medium sized field stones. Walls

are connected to it on the east and west, and a cistern is next to the yard. Pottery: LR – 100%. Flint find: One item from the Mid-dle Paleolithic. Previous surveys: none.

206. The ruined structure of Kh. Wadi Qanat ej-Jamal. 1986.

284

CHAPTER SEVEN

Site 89: 19 – 19/32/1

Burj el-Malih (on SWP map: Burj el Maleh; Guérin: Kal’at el-Maleh) Israel grid: 1931 1928 UTM grid: 7311 5800 Elevation: 200 m a.s.l., 100 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: fortress Area: 4.5 dunams (1.13 acres) Topography: ridge edge and summit Rock type: ‘Arad formation Soil type: stony basaltic; quality: 2

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 5 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMeiyiteh, no. 86), 1 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 8 Jan. 17, 1988; May 29, 1992; 62 shards ***

A fortress on the edge of a high, rocky ridge that descends from Ras Ramali into Wadi Malih, to the north of the Tubas – Meholah road.

This is a ship shaped fortress built on a northwest – southeast axis, 95 m long and 50 m wide. It is sur-rounded by a wall 2.3-2.5 m wide, built of two to three rows of medi--

207. An aerial photo of the Medieval fortress of Burj el-Malih, looking west. The road in the background leads to Taiyasir at right and to the Jordan Valley at left. Winter 1993.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

um sized, hewn stones. In the south and west the wall is laid upon the cliff. The fortified gate, 2 m wide, is on the northern side. It consists of doorpost stones with hinge holes and a stone in which the joint of the gate pivoted. Beyond the gate is a fortified entrance room. Along the outer wall to the east a 20 m long inner hall, divided into three rooms, is discerned. In the smallest and easternmost of them is a round, built structure 2 m in diameter. Along the southern and southwest-ern side of the outer wall are two se-ries of halls that run parallel to the wall. The northern one contains four rooms, while the southern one contains two. In the northern part of the fortress is a hewn pool, with

285

a wall along its western wall. The masonry of the fortress is of small stones, coarse but relatively good. Two stages of building are clearly apparent: the original good building of ashlars, especially in the entrance, and the later build-ing with small stones. The entrance and ceilings were originally arched (as Guérin and the SWP noted) but all of them are collapsed now. In front of the entrance, and along the entire outer wall, loopholes for firing are discerned. The SWP describe “A fortress commanding the road down Wadi Maleh, and placed in a very strong position, with a fine view of the Jordan Valley…”. Other details are

208. The ruined gateway of Burj el-Malih. Within the entrance is a guards’ room, in which the stone doorposts and loopholes have been preserved. Summer 1988.

286

CHAPTER SEVEN

similar to our description. This fortress was apparently built during the Crusader or Mameluk period, to guard the important pass from the Jordan Valley to the inner hill country and Nablus.

Pottery: MA – 100%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 83. Bibliography: Robinson 1970, 403; SWP II, 235-236; Guérin 1969, (IV) 278-279; Ilan 1973, 351-352.

209. Pottery from the Burj el-Malih fortress, all MA: 1. Jar, lt; 2. Dec, br on wh; 3. Crater base, dk.

210. General view of the Burj el-Malih fortress, looking west. The photo was taken from the summit of E.P. 174. The fortress is in the center, with the peaks of Ras Ramali to the right. To the left of the fortress hill is the Wadi Malih pass. 1988.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

287

211. Plan of the Crusader/Moslem fortress at Burj el-Malih. A large portion of the outer wall was left vacant, without inner structures, giving the impression that the fortress was in use for only a short time. Note the pool in the center. The last plan prior to our measurements was published in SWP in 1882.

288

CHAPTER SEVEN

212. A section of the wall of the Burj el-Malih fortress. Note the good masonry with coarse ashlar stones. 1988.

 Site 90: 19 – 19/42/1

Khirbet el-Meiyiteh Israel grid: 1942 1925 UTM grid: 7320 5797 Elevation: 70 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: medium sized ruin Area: 7.8 dunams (1.95 acres) Topography: ravine and ridge Rock type: ‘Arad formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and Colluvial – Alluvial; quality:

4 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMeiyiteh, no. 86), next to site Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), passes by site Visibility: 3 Jan. 9, 1983; May 29, 1992; more visits; 70 shards and 903 flint items. ***

A site on an isolated, low hilltop in the valley of Wadi Malih, about 1 km east of Burj el-Malih. It is situated between Wadi el-Meiyiteh

(called here Wadi Lasm) and a tributary of it. ‘Ain el-Meiyiteh, the water source of the site, is close to the place. East and west of the site

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

are cultivated fields. In the west and south the place is protected by the steep slopes of Wadi el-Meiyiteh. At the same time, it is fortified by a wall of slightly hewn, medium sized stones dis-cerned in the east and the north. The entrance was presumably through a gate in the northwestern corner where a section of the wall extend northward out from the main wall. On top of the ruin are piles of building stones, originating from the destroyed structures. The northeastern slope was fortified by

289

a glacis like, stone rampart. Plenty of shards are on the surface. The site existed in the same pe-riod as that of el-Bird (site no. 91 here), south of Kh. el-Meiyiteh. It seems to be a unique example of a fortified site from Middle Bronze Age I. Pottery: MBA I – 100%. Flint find: Natuffian (mainly); Prepottery Neolithic B, Chal, MBA I; see appendix. Special find: Basalt vessels. Previous surveys: none.

213. The fortified site of Kh. el-Meiyiteh, looking west. In the center are the site and its glacis. In the distant background are the hill and fortress of Burj el-Malih. Spring 1983.

290

CHAPTER SEVEN

214. Aerial photo of the fortified site from Middle Bronze Age I at Kh. el-Meiyiteh, look-ing northwest. Left of the site are Wadi el-Lasm and ‘Ain el-Meiyiteh and above the site is the road to Taiyasir (up) and to the Jordan Valley (down). Note the constructed rampart and remains of the wall.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

291

215. Plan of the fortified site at Kh. el-Meiyiteh. Note the remains of the glacis in the right. Winter 2006.

292

CHAPTER SEVEN

216. Kh. el-Meiyiteh located within its surrounding. Winter 2006.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

293

217. Pottery from the fortified Middle Bronze Age I site at Kh. el-Meiyiteh, all from this period: 1. Bowl, rope dec, dk; 2-3. Jars, yel; 4. Bowl, gray; 5. Small jar base, yel; 6. Bowl, reddish; 7. Rope dec, gray; 8. Jar with rope dec, gray; 9-10. Dec on shards of juglet and jar, yel.

218. Photos of pottery from Kh. el-Meiyiteh: 1-3. Rope dec; 4-5. Ledge handles; 6. Sec-tion of incense burner.

294

CHAPTER SEVEN

Site 91: 19 – 19/42/2

el-Bird (Ras Hamud) Israel grid: 1943 1923 UTM grid: 7321 5795 Elevation: 80 m a.s.l., 60 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large ruin Area: 18.5 dunams (4.6 acres) Topography: ravine and ridge Rock type: ‘Arad formation Soil type: Colluvial – Alluvial and Mediterranean brown forest soil; qual--

ity: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMeiyiteh, no. 86), next to site Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 3 Jan. 9, 1983 and additional visits; 66 shards

***

A large site on an isolated ridge, pro-tected by deep wadis in the north and south. The road from Taiyasir to the Jordan Valley passes by some 0.5 km to the north. From the site there is a view only of the region of

Hamam el-Malih. The site consists of two parts: 1. The central, early site from Middle Bronze Age I-II covers most of the ridge. It was surrounded by

219. View of the el-Bird ridge, looking east. The ridge is surrounded by deep wadis. At the upper part is the fortified site with its casement wall. 1983.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

an enclosure wall 50 cm wide, pos-sibly for fortification. Many build-ings were found scattered on the ridge, most of them square ones with openings and courtyards. In the lower, eastern side of the ridge the entrances of the houses have also survived. In the middle of the site a built road, or a street, was found. The houses’ walls are one stone (30 cm) wide. In the whole area many shards from Middle Bronze Age I-

295

II were collected. 2. At the upper, western part of the site, are two large, square court-yards, each about 25x25 m. Open-ings, building stones and a fortified gateway on the south side were found in them. In this area, shards from the Iron Age and onwards were found. It appears that this upper portion is a square casemate fortress from

220. Pottery from the multi period el-Bird site: nos. 1, 5, 12 – MBA I; 3-4, 6-7, 9 – MBA IIB; 2, 10-11, 13 – IrA I; 8 – IrA II: 1. HM Jar, gray; 2. Pythos, dk; 3. Folded CP, br; 4. Jar, pinkish; 5. HM jar, yel; 6. Jar, br; 7. Crater, yel; 8. Jar, br; 9. Bowl, lt; 10-11. Dec handles, br; 12. Rope dec, gray; 13. Crater base, br.

296

CHAPTER SEVEN

Iron Age II, but this identification requires further research. Pottery: MBA I – 30%; MBA IIB – 30%; LB III – 5%; IrA IA – 5%;

‘‘Eynun pottery’ (IrA I) – 5%; IrA II – 20%; Per – 5%. Flint find: Six undefined items. Previous surveys: none.

221. Plan of el-Bird and its surrounding. The site was connected to a large agricultural area to its south. Winter 2006.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

297

222. Plan of the city of el-Bird. The site is surrounded by an enclosure wall. Winter 2006.

298

CHAPTER SEVEN

223 . Some of the well preserved structures of the Middle Bronze Age I settlement on the ridge of el-Bird. 1983.

224. Aerial photo of the casemate fortress and surrounding structures, on the upper part of el-Bird. The later courtyard in the center of the photo marks the boundaries of the fortress. Winter 1993.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

299

Site 92: 19 – 19/52/1

Khirbet Malih (A), (SWP map: Kh. el-Maleh; Guérin: Kh.Tleilat el-Maleh, and in the modern map: Hamam el-Malih) Israel grid: 1951 1928 UTM grid: 7337 5799 Elevation: 25 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large ruin Area: 13 dunams (3.3 acres) Topography: ravine Rock type: alluvium covering Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra-nean brown forest soil; quality: 5

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Malih, no. 87), next to site Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), passes by site Visibility: 2 Jan. 27, 1983; Nov. 5, 1993; 35 shards ***

A complex of structures and ancient baths at the foot of a low hill in a valley, close to the gorge of Wadi

Malih. On the western side of the site is a building with a row of rooms built

225. The grotto of Wadi and Hamam el-Malih, looking west. The hot springs are located near the palm trees; to their right were the baths. In the background is the hill of E.P. 174. Winter 1994.

300

CHAPTER SEVEN

of ashlars, and a plastered pool with a cistern east of it. On the northern bank of the wadi is a large structure dating to the Ottoman Period, used as a warm bath (Arab. Hamam). Behind and south of it are remains of other structures, while in front of it, northwards and in the part descending to the river, are a large courtyard and eucalyptus trees. 250 m to the east, near the river gorge, is a mill with an aqueduct leading to it. They also date to the Otto-man Period. Above the mill, on the mountain slope, is a ruined stone

structure, probably used as a guard-house for the site. The site served as baths with hot water at least from the Roman Period onward. Pottery: ER – 10%; Byz – 30%; EM – 20%; MA – 20%; Ott – 20%. Guérin’s suggestion that this site is Abel Meholah does not appear reasonable; see chapter three. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 84. Bibliography: Guérin 1969 (IV), 275; SWP II, 239; Ozerman 1982.

226. Pottery from Hamam el-Malih: 1. Jug, lt br, ER; 2. Jar, lt, LR; 3. Bowl, lt, LR; 4. Bowl, dk, Byz; 5. Bowl, yel, EM; 6. Jug, br, Byz; 7. Jar handle, br, Byz; 8. Dec, wh on bl, Byz-EM.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

301

227. The overall plan of the bath complexes in Hamam el-Malih. The plan shows the modern and ancient buildings of the site (Kh. Malih (A), be-low), the aqueduct and Ottoman Period flour mill (center), the tower (center right) and the prehistoric site (Kh. Malih (C), center left) and Kh. Malih (B) in the upper part.

302

CHAPTER SEVEN

Site 93: 19 – 19/52/2

Khirbet Malih (B) Israel grid: 1959 1927 UTM grid: 7335 5799 Elevation: 25 m b.s.l., 35 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: ravine at the valley edge of wadi Rock type: alluvium covering Soil type: terra rossa, Mediterranean

brown forest soil and Colluvial – Al-luvial; quality: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: river (Wadi Malih, no. 103), next to site Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.3 km distant Visibility: 3 Feb. 29, 1988; 29 shards ***

Well built structures on a small, artificial hill in a valley south of Wadi Malih, about 0.5 km east of Hamam el-Malih (Kh. Malih (A)). A large complex of structures,

built according to a very strict plan, are found here. The masonry is good, of medium sized, hewn stones. The complex is bordered on the north by an enclosure wall. The inner plan contains rooms and

230. The site of Kh. Malih (B), looking north. The ruins are in the center of the valley, behind Wadi Malih. The road to the Jordan Valley runs through the distant part of the valley, while in the background are the ridges of Kh. Jabaris. Winter 1994.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

possible streets or passageways. The western and southern parts of the place have been heavily damaged by bulldozers. In the northeast corner, hewn installations were found. Pottery: LR – 40%; Byz – 50%; EM – 10%.

303

The site seems to be connected to the bath complexes of Hamam elMalih. This was possibly an inn or commercial quarter for the visitors to the baths during the RomanByzantine Period. Previous surveys: none.

229. Plan of Kh. Malih (B).

304

CHAPTER SEVEN

228. Pottery from Kh. Malih (B), Byz: 1. Jug, br; 2. Dec, wh on bl; 3. Jar handle, br; 4. ‘Frying pan’ handle, br.

 Site 94: 19 – 19/53/1

Khirbet Malih (C) Israel grid: 1957 1930 UTM grid: 7335 5800 Elevation: 30 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: prehistoric Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: hill in river valley Rock type: alluvium covering Soil type: alluvium; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: river (Wadi Malih, no. 103), next to site Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), passes by site Visibility: 2 Nov. 5, 1993; 633 flint items ***

A small site on a hill in the valley of Wadi Malih and north of the wadi itself. The modern road from Tubas to Meholah passes near the site. An especially large scatter of flint items and flint tools was found at the site, on the top and sides of the

hill. Scattered stones, possibly con-nected to structures, were found on the summit. Flint find: Kebaran Geometrical; see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

305

Site 95: 19 – 19/62/1

Abu Qandul Israel grid: 1961 1926 UTM grid: 7339 5795 Elevation: 10 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 6 dunams (1.5 acres) Topography: ridge Rock type: ‘Arad formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 4 Nearest water source: river (Wadi Malih, no. 103), 0.2 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.6 km distant Visibility: 4 Jan. 27, 1983; Apr. 1, 1992; 78 shards ***

A large architectural complex of a farm on the slope of Abu Qandul, which descends northeastward to the valley of Wadi Malih, about 1 km east southeast of Hamam elMalih. The site includes a square, cen-tral courtyard, about 50x50 m in size, surrounded by a wall of large stones. Along the southern and western walls of the yard are series of rooms, and different walls pen-etrate into the inner space of the

courtyard. Other enclosures extend from it to the south and north, with no structures inside. About 0.1 km east of the court-yard there is another enclosure based upon terrace walls, and next to them other small structure are located. Near and inside the site’s area are cisterns, a burial cave and installations, as well as a modern structure. Pottery: Byz – 95%; MA – 5%. Previous surveys: none.

231. Pottery from the Abu Qandul farm, all Byz: 1. Jar, dk; 2. Jug, dk; 3-5. Jars, br.

306

CHAPTER SEVEN

232. Plan of the Abu Qandul farm. The farm structures are inside the square courtyard, with various structures around it.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

307

Site 96: 19 – 19/72/1

Tel el-Hilu (on SWP map: Tel Sheikh Sifry) Israel grid: 1978 1926 UTM grid: 7356 5798 Elevation: 20 m b.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: historical place on map Site type: small tell Area: 3.2 dunams (0.8 acre) Topography: river valley surrounded by mountain ranges Rock type: ‘Arad formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and desert – alluvium; quality: 5

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), next to site Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8) and Beqa‘ot – Meholah (C23), both passe by site Visibility: 3 Feb. 10, 1983, Jan. 11, 1991, 108 shards ***

A tell in a small valley, near the place where Wadi Malih turns north and enters its canyon. North of the tell are springs (‘Uyun Hilu), and an important crossroads.

The eastern side of the tell is “cut” by the Taiyasir – Meholah road. In this cross section floors, living lay-ers, graves and walls are discern-ible. On the top of the tell are the

233. Tel el-Hilu and its valley, looking north. The Tel is in the center, and Wadi Malih is seen to its left.

308

CHAPTER SEVEN

remnants of four structures in situ with only one course of stones. On and around the tell is an abun-dant shard scatter, including many painted shards.

Pottery: EBA II – 5%; MBA IIB – 5%; LBA I – 5%; LBA II – 5%; LBA III – 50%; IrA IB-C – 10%; IrA II – 10%; Per – 10%. The tell was identified by Glueck

234. Plan of Tel el-Hilu and its position. The site is defended by the two deep wadis. Winter 2006.

WADI MALIH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 15

as Yoqmme‘am (I Kings 4:12) and by Albright, Alt and Abel as Abel Meholah (Judges 7:22; I Kings 4:12; 19:16). Both identifications are problematic; see discussion in chapter three.

309

Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 86. Bibliography: SWP II, 218; Al-bright 1925; Alt 1928; Abel 1967a, 80, 96; Glueck 1943, 9 ff.; Zobel 1966.

235. Pottery from Tel el-Hilu: 1. Crater/CP, dk, LB-IrA I; 2. CP, dk, IrA II; 3. CP, br, IrA IA; 4. CP, br, IrA IB; 5. Bowl, yel, Per; 6. Bowl, yel, LB; 7. Jug, br, IrA I-II; 8. Ridged jar, dk, IrA II; 9-10. Jars, br, IrA II; 11. Jar, lt br, IrA II; 12. Bowl base, lt, MBA II.

310

CHAPTER SEVEN

236. Pottery photos from Tell el-Hilu: 1. Crater/CP, LB; 2. ‘Mortaria’ bowl, Per; 3, 5. Jugs, IrA II; 4. Base of small bowl, LB.

CHAPTER EIGHT

RAS JADIR LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

A stone circle typical to the central hill country From: The SWP, vol. II, p. 305 (Drawing by G. Stanford)

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

313

Site 97: 18 – 19/72/2

el-Hozah Israel grid: 1879 1925 UTM grid: 7260 5793 Elevation:540 m a.s.l. 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure Area:2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 8 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 9 Apr. 21, 1981; 3 shards ***

An enclosure on a high and isolated summit, in the northern part of Ras Jadir and 2.5 km east of Tubas. The site is an irregular shaped, stone built enclosure 30x20 m in diameter, located on the summit. The enclosure wall is of one course (1 m wide) of large, unhewn stones.

Attached to the wall from the out-side and north is a small stone structure, presumably later than the enclosure. Two circles of small stones are inside the enclosure, oth-erwise empty of structures. Related to the enclosure is a wall which goes south over the ridge, for about 0.1

236. The stone built enclosure at el-Hoza, looking south. 1993.

314

CHAPTER EIGHT

km. There are almost no shards in-side, and only three fragments were detected. Thus dating is uncertain.

Pottery: MBA IIB – (one shard!) Previous surveys: none.

237. Plan of the enclosure of el-Hozah.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

315

Site 98: 18 – 19/72/3

et-Tughrah Israel grid: 1873 1921 UTM grid: 7254 5789 Elevation: 505 m a.s.l., 140 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 1.5 dunams (0.38 acre) Topography: ridge edge and hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: rendzina and

terra rossa; quality: 7 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 1 km distant Visibility: 8 May 3, 1981; 46 shards ***

A small site on a slope of an elon-gated ridge, in the western part of Ras Jadir and 2 km east of Tubas. The site is surrounded, in the

west and south, by a simple wall of unhewn stones; it may have been used as a fortification. Inside are several walls and structures whose

238. Pottery from et-Tughrah, nos. 1, 4, 10-11 – MBA II; 3, 5, 7-9 – IrA IA; the rest – IrA II: 1. Crater, yel, fishbone dec; 2. Ridged/Carinated jar, br; 3. CP, br; 4. Bowl, yel, dec inside; 5. CP, dk br; 6. Crater, br; 7-9. Bowls, lt br; 10. Chalice, yel; 11. Jug, br.

316

CHAPTER EIGHT

plans are blurred by piles of cleared stones. The most complete of these, in the south of the site, is built of very large, hewn stones; possibly, it was once part of a larger, central structure.

Pottery: MBA IIB – 20%; IrA IA – 60%; IrA II – 20%. Special find: Crater’s rim with em-bossed fishbone decoration. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 99: 19 – 19/11/1

Qta‘at el-Khalifeh Israel grid: 1912 1913 UTM grid: 7290 5782 Elevation: 210 m a.s.l., 20 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: shard scatter Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: ridge and ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 5

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 3 km distant Nearest road: Taiyasir – Meholah (B8), 2 km distant Visibility: 1 Feb. 6, 1987; 31 shards and 2 flint items

239. General view of Qta‘at el-Khalifeh, looking east. The shard scatter was found in the center of the ravine. In background: the ridges of Ras Jadir, descending eastward. Winter 1987.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

A site in a small ravine, in the ridg-es east of Ras Jadir and about 0.7 km north of Kh. Yarzah (site 104). Next to it is a well named Bir Abu Tayib. Concentrations of shards and flint items, including adzes, were

317

found on the site, with no building remains. Pottery and flint: Ghassulian Chal – 100%; for flint find see appen-dix. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 100: 19 – 19/41/2

Khirbet Umm el-‘Uqbeh (B) (on 50.000 map - Kh. Umm el-Qibeh) Israel grid: 1941 1911 UTM grid: 7319 5783 Elevation: 80 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: farm and structure Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: valley edge and step Rock type: alluvium cover Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 1 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 1 km distant Visibility: 4 Jan 21, 1987; Apr. 22, 1993; 28 shards ***

A large structure on a low step in the northern edge of Hawakir Val-ley, between Burj el-Malih and Kh. es-Samrah. The structure, built in “‫ ”ח‬shape with unequal wings, is 27x23 m in overall size. The eastern wing is 27 m long, while the western one is only 16 m long. Each wing is 8 m wide; the eastern one contains three rooms, and the western one has two. In the center of the struc-ture is a small, inner courtyard. Part of the western wing may have been dismantled. The walls are of small stones with bonding material. The amount of

fallen stones hints for the existence of a second storey. About 50 m northeast of the structure is an ac-tive cistern, with a grinding stone in secondary use as a cover. At least ten complexes of hewn installations, dating prior to Iron Age, were found 20-75 m distant from the structure. The structure, which may have been built after 1870 CE, does not appear on the SWP map. In the im-mediate vicinity are several struc-tures of this type. Pottery: Ott – 50%; Mod – 50%. Previous surveys: none.

318

CHAPTER EIGHT

240. At right – plan of the structure at Kh. Umm el-‘Uqbeh (B). At left – plan of the hill, containing hewn installations (numbered here).

 Site 101: 19 – 19/61/1

Khallet Mahmud el-‘Ali (A) Israel grid: 1968 1918 UTM grid: 7348 5789 Elevation: 35 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 0.2 dunam (0.05 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown for--

est soil; quality: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 0.8 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 3 Jan. 23, 1987; 7 shards ***

A structure in a small ravine on a slope descending into Wadi el-Fau, near the junction of the Tubas – Meholah road and with the Beqa‘ot road, about 1 km southwest of Tel el-Hilu. There is here a solitary structure

built of large, unhewn field stones. It contains a long hall, 2.5x10 m in size, in the corner of which is a semicircular structure. Shards from the Middle Bronze Age were found scattered over the eastern slope. This was a house or a farm, pre--

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

sumably related with nearby Tel elHilu.

319

Pottery: MBA IIB – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 102: 19 – 19/61/2

Khallet Mahmud el-‘Ali (B) Israel grid: 1969 1918 UTM grid: 7350 5787 Elevation: 45 m b.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 4.8 dunams (1.2 acres) Topography: slope Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 0.8 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), passes by site Visibility: 2 Jan. 23, 1987; 42 shards ***

A site on a slope descending into Khallet Mahmud el-‘Ali, close to the road from Tel el-Hilu to Beqa‘ot (C23) and 5 km south southeast of Meholah. The buildings stand on a low, natural slope. They consists of a 45 m long strip of three, well built ar-chitectural units, located between

the cliff and the slope and stand upon terraces. The western unit has two rooms and a yard (?); the cen-tral one consists of two small (3X4 m) rooms; and the eastern unit has three rooms and a half round yard. Other buildings may have belonged to the site, but only scattered walls remained of them. Above the cliff

241. Pottery from the site, all MBA IIB: 1. Crater, yel; 2. Bowl, lt; 3. Folded CP, dk br; 4. Bowl, yel; 5. Jar, pinkish; 6. Jug, lt.

320

CHAPTER EIGHT

there are remains of three more structures. This well built settlement from Middle Bronze Age II, at the fring-es of the desert, is part of a group of sites located south of it. Their pot--

tery seems to differ from the Medi-terranean region; see introduction on ceramics. Pottery: MBA IIB – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

242. Plan of the Khallet Mahmud el-‘Ali (B) site, with the strip of structures along the slope.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

321

243. A view of the Middle Bronze Age II village at Khallet Mahmud el-‘Ali (B), looking north. The structures are on the upper part of the slope, below the bushes seen on the horizon. Winter 1992.

 Site 103: 18 – 19/90/1

Ras Jadir Israel grid: 1891 1908 UTM grid: 7270 5774 Elevation: 712 m a.s.l., 5 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: shard scatter Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: hilltop on plateau Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 5

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 7 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 3 km distant Visibility: 8 Apr. 21, 1981; 39 shards ***

A shard scatter on a small hilltop, on the southern part of upper Ras Jadir. The site is in a rocky, stony area.

No structural remains were found, but apparently one or two struc-tures once stood there. Over an area of several hundreds square meters,

322

CHAPTER EIGHT

among the rocks, was a single pe--

Pottery: IrA IA – 100%.

riod shard scatter.

Previous surveys: none.

244. Pottery from Ras Jadir, all from IrA IA: 1, 3. Pythoi, br; 2. CP, dk br; 4. Jug with indented dec, lt br.

 Site 104: 19 – 19/10/2

Khirbet Yarzah (B) (on SWP map: Kh. Yerzeh) Israel grid: 1913 1905 UTM grid: 7295 5776 Elevation: 278 m a.s.l., 25 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: large ruin (a town) Area: 60 dunams (15 acres) Topography: ridge edge, hilltop and ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 40 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 3 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 2 km distant Visibility: 3 Apr. 15-23, 1982; May 21, 1993; 82 shards ***

A large ruin in a hilly area, east of Ras Jadir and south of the Taiyasir – Meholah road. In the area, some 6 km east of Tubas, there is a com-plex of sites. On a low, broad mountain range the remains of 70 or more struc-tures in situ, built of hewn stones and 1 m high in average, were found. In the buildings’ entrances

there are preserved doorposts and architraves, with different installa-tions. On a summit north of the site (E.P. 278) is a large structure in situ, probably a church. It includes five pillars, 50 cm in diameter, and many carved architectural items. On the western slope are a num-ber of burial caves. One of these (a mausoleum) is well built with ash--

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

lars on its façade, hewn steps and a central hall. Inside there are three arches and burial niches. Another structure, presumably a mosque, with a terebinth tree inside is in the vicinity. A well built, 4 m wide Ro-man road reaches the site from the north. Today, several Bedouin families live among the ruins. In their ani-mal pens building stones from the site are interwoven and re used. This is an important small town in the area from the Byzantine Pe-riod.

323

Pottery: LR – 10%; Byz – 90%. Guérin, who visited here on May 4, 1870, noted the large size of the site, the mosque, the burial caves and the two terebinth trees. Cond-er and Kitchener (April 2nd, 1874) mention the Roman road leading to the site, the villa, the church, and the burials. Identification: Asher of the Byzan-tine Period (Onomasticon, p. 27); see chapter three. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: Guérin 1969 (IV), 360-361; SWP II, 242.

245. Aerial photo of Kh. Yarzah, looking north. In the center of the ridge are many struc-tures of the Roman–Byzantine Period site, with modern structures and Bedouin fences among them. To the left the ancient tell is seen. In the ravine behind it is the road to Ras Mrah el-Wawiyat. Winter 1993.

324

CHAPTER EIGHT

Site 105: 19 – 19/20/1

Ras Mrah el-Wawiyat Israel grid: 1921 1902 UTM grid: 7303 5771 Elevation: 275 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: on map but not as his-torical site Site type: shard scatter Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: hilltop Rock type: Judah formation

Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 3 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 2.5 km distant Visibility: 5 May 21, 1993; 41 shards ***

A site on a wide hilltop in the hills east of Ras Jadir, about 0.5 km southeast of Kh. Yarzah (B). From the site is a fine view of the territory surrounding the Yarzah sites. An extensive shard scatter, espe-cially body shards, is spread on the southern part of the hilltop. Slop--

pily built walls of large stones – ter-races or fences – were also found. These seems to date to a later pe-riod than that of the shards. Pottery: MBA IIB – 22%; IrA IA – 58%; IrA II – 17%; Others – 3%. Previous surveys: none.

246. The hill of Ras Mrah el-Wawiyat, looking southeast. The site is at the top of the hill, near the tree. Spring 1993.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

325

Site 106: 19 – 19/10/1

Khirbet Yarzah (A) (on SWP map: Kh. Yerzeh) Israel grid: 1913 1904 UTM grid: 7294 5775 Elevation: 270 m a.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: tell Area: 11 dunams (2.75 acres) Topography: ridge edge, hilltop and ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 5 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 3 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 2 km distant Visibility: 5 Apr. 15-23, 1982; Feb. 7, 1986; 112 shards ***

A tell in the low hills east of the Ras Jadir, about 2 km south of the Tubas – Meholah road and 5 km southeast of Taiyasir. It is located on an elongated ridge with two hilltops, isolated from its environs by ravines. The ancient

tell is on the eastern of the two hilltops. There are no structural re-mains, but a rich and varied shard scatter. North of the tell are one or two structures, apparently from the Byzantine Period, quarries and caves.

247. The valley of Kh. Yarzah, looking south. The ridge of the site is at right; in the back-ground (left), on the hilltop with the tree, is Mrah el-Wawiyat. Spring 1993.

326

CHAPTER EIGHT

Pottery: MBA I – 2%; MBA IIB – 5%; IrA IA – 20%; IrA II – 20%; IrA III – 10%; Per – 20%; Hel – 10%; ER – 3%; “‘Eynun” pottery (IrA I) – 10%. Special find: Bowls with wedge decoration; rosette imprints; “‘Ey-nun faces”; handles with indented

decoration. Identification: presumably with Asher (Joshua 17:7); see chapter three. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: Zertal 1990, 94 (re-garding identification).

248. Photos of finds from Kh. Yarzah (A): 1-3. Indented handles, IrA I; 4. CP, IrA II; 5-6. Bowls, ER; 7. Crater, Age I; 8-10. misc.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

327

249. Pottery from Kh. Yarzah (A): nos. 13, 17 – MBA I; 4, 7 – MBA II; 1, 3, 5, 10, 1415 – IrA I; 6, 8, 16 – IrA II-III; 12 – Per; 2, 9 – Roman: 1. CP, dk; 2. Jar, br; 3. Crater base, dk; 4. Bowl with fishbone dec, yel; 5. Crater base, br; 6. Bowl, red slip; 7. Bowl, lt; 8. Crater, dk; 9. Jug, br; 10. Bowl/CP, dk; 11. Bowl, wedge dec, IrA III; 12. Bowl, yel; 13. Jar, Br; 14-15. Handles with indented dec; 16. Jar, br; 17. Folded ledge handle.

CHAPTER EIGHT

328 Site 107: 19 – 19/50/1

E.P. 147 (A) Israel grid: 1956 1908 UTM grid: 7332 5781 Elevation: 147 m a.s.l., 60 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure and shard scatter Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: mountainous rendzina;

quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Malih, no. 87), 2 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 7 Jan. 23, 1987; 17 shards ***

Remains of an enclosure on a high summit, in the hills west of the Beqa‘ot – Meholah road and 5 km east of the Yarzah sites. Only sections of the enclosure walls, built of large stones, have

survived. On the area is a medium sized shard scatter. Pottery: MBA IIB – 80%; IrA II – 20%. Previous surveys: none.

250. Plan of the Middle Bronze Age II enclosure at E.P. 147 (A).

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

329

Site 108: 19 – 19/51/1

E.P. 147 (B) Israel grid: 1959 1911 UTM grid: 7339 5782 Elevation: 80 m a.s.l., 60 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: mountainous rendzina;

quality: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Malih, no. 87), 2 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 1.8 km distant Visibility: 6 Jan. 23, 1987; 19 shards ***

A farm complex on the eastern slope of E.P. 147, descending to the Beqa‘ot – Meholah road. A structure 6x8 m in size, built of large, hewn stones, is the nucleus of the place. Its masonry is precise, but without mortar. From this a wall, apparently the remains of a

courtyard, goes eastward and turns south. About 20 m to the south is a hewn cistern, with a covering stone and an opening for pumping water. A stone trough is located nearby. Pottery: LR – 20%; Byz – 80%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 109: 18 – 19/90/1

Khallet en-Nakhleh quality: 1 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 8 km distant Nearest road: Taiyasir – Buqei‘ah (C19), 1 km distant Visibility: 10 Apr. 21, 1981; 60 shards

Israel grid: 1899 1901 UTM grid: 7281 5768 Elevation: 600 m a.s.l., 200 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: ridge edge and high summit Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: rendzina and terra rossa;

***

A small site on a very narrow, rocky «backbone» of Ras Jadir, located on its high, southeast summit. From

the site is a wide panorama of the hills east of Ras Jadir, the Buqei‘ah and Jebel Tammun.

330

CHAPTER EIGHT

The only structural remains pre-served is a wall of large, unhewn stones. Other sections of walls are discernible as well. A large shard scatter, especially in the northern part of the site, was found. The unusual location and the ab--

sence of architecture suggest a secu-rity or cultic function. Pottery: IrA IA – 100%. The iden-tifiable shards are from this period, with others difficult to identify. Previous surveys: none.

251. Pottery from Khallet en-Nakhleh, all from IrA IA: 1-2. Bowls, lt br; 3. Crater, br; 4-5. Jars, br; 6. Chalice base, br; 7-8. Jugs, lt br; 9. Bowl, yel; 10. Crater, br; 11. Jug base, lt br.

 Site 110: 19 – 18/19/1

Wadi Khallet Abu ‘Ali Israel grid: 1918 1895 UTM grid: 7292 5762 Elevation: 280 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: built courtyard Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 4 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 3.5 km distant Visibility: 1 Apr. 15, 1982; May 21, 1993; 8 shards

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

A courtyard on a slope of a low ra-vine, 1 km south – southeast of Kh. Yarzah (A-B). The trapezoid courtyard is 16x18 m in size, with a surrounding wall of large stones about 1 m wide. Few shards are scattered around the

331

courtyard. This courtyard, similar to others in the area, was most probably used as an animal pen. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

252. The courtyard plan of Khallet Abu ‘Ali.

332

CHAPTER EIGHT

253. The courtyard of Khallet Abu ‘Ali, looking south. Most of these yards, apparently used for cattle, are situated on slopes.

 Site 111: 19 – 18/38/2

Khallet esh-Shardeh Israel grid: 1939 1889 UTM grid: 7319 5783 Elevation: 165 m a.s.l., 35 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosures and concentra-tion of installations Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: low hilltop Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 6 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 2.5 km distant Visibility: 2 May 21, 1993; 101 shards

***

A site on a low, wide hilltop in the hills north of the Buqei‘ah, 1.5 km northwest of Kh. Yusef. The site

is located near Wadi Khallet eshShardeh and is surrounded by high hills. To its west the dirt road from

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

el-Hawakir to Ras Mubarah passes. On the western part of the hill-top there are two enclosures next to each other. They are built of one row of large stones, some of them standing upright. The western en-closure is about 25 m in diameter; its inside had been cleaned of dirt, possibly for use as a threshing floor. From the second enclosure only one third has been preserved. At least five complexes of hewn instal--

333

lations of various types are scattered over the area. A good many shards are scattered around the installa-tions. Pottery: IrA I-II – 40% (only body shards); Byz – 40%; Mod – 20%. The site was presumably an en-campment of nomads during vari-ous periods, including the modern one. Previous surveys: none.

254. Plan of the enclosures at Khallet esh-Shardeh. The figures on the plan indicate num-bers of installations complexes.

334

CHAPTER EIGHT

Site 112: 19 – 18/49/2

el-Hawakir (B) Israel grid: 1945 1894 UTM grid: 7322 5764 Elevation: 120 m a.s.l., 60 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 3.2 dunams (0.8 acre) Topography: ridge edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 3 Nearest water source: spring (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 4 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot –Tel el-Hilu (C23), 2 km distant Visibility: 5 May 13, 1988; 49 shards

***

A large farm complex on the ridge edge overlooking the deep ravine of el-Hawakir, about 3 km south – southeast of Burj el-Malih. At the site is an irregular shaped courtyard, 18x16.5 m in measure-ments, with rows of rooms along the eastern, southern and western wings. A cistern, which later be-came a cave, is in the southwestern corner of the yard. At least three built entrances are detected: in the north (a simple one) and the south

(an entrance between two rooms). A third entrance opens into the north – eastern room. The walls are of large field stones, with walls extend outwards from the court to the east. On a lower level below the yard is another enclosure, with no rooms (not on the plan). Outside the courtyard there are more cis-terns. Pottery: Byz – 80%; EM – 10%; MA – 10%. Previous surveys: none.

255. Pottery from el-Hawakir (B): 1-2. Bowls, red slip and white dec, MA; 3-4. Jar and bowl, br, Byz; 5-6. White dec on bl, EM.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

335

256. Plan of the farm el-Hawakir (B). Note the yard with surrounding rooms and a cis-tern (cave) inside.

336

CHAPTER EIGHT

Site 113: 19 – 18/49/1

el-Hawakir (A) Israel grid: 1942 1891 UTM grid: 7324 5761 Elevation: 125 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 0.8 dunam (0.2 acre) Topography: hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 4 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 2 km distant Visibility: 6 May 13, 1988; 19 shards

***

A small site on a high summit, west of Hawakir Valley and about 4.5 km south of Burj el-Malih. There is a hewn cistern that ap-pears on the 50:000 map, with a large pile of building stones next to it. These appear to have been taken

from a dismantled structure nearby. On the slope to the east are several walls and a considerable shard scat-ter. Pottery: IrA II – 30%; Byz – 70%. Previous surveys: none.

257. Pottery from el-Hawakir (A), nos. 1, 3, 5 – IrA II; 4,6-8 – Byz: 1. Bowl, br; 2. CP, LR; 3. Jar, gray; 4. Jug, lt br; 5. Bowl, br; 6-9. Jars, br and yel.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

337

Site 114: 19 – 18/59/1

Khirbet Umm el-‘Uqbeh (A) (on SWP map: Khurbet Umm el-Iqba; another name: Kh. Umm el-Kiba) Israel grid: 1955 1899 UTM grid: 7337 5768 Elevation: 90 m a.s.l., 60 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: tell and large ruin Area: 22 dunams (5.5 acres) Topography: ridge edge and hilltop Rock type: Kurnub formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra-nean brown forest soil; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 28 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 3 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot –Tel el-Hilu (C23), 0.8 km distant Visibility: 6 Apr. 23, 1982; Mar. 30, 1990; 66 shards ***

A large ruin on a high, elongated On a large hilltop are many struc-range, west of and above Wadi el- tures in situ, well built of large, hewn Fau. About 0.5 km to the east runs stones. Many caves were also found, the Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu road. with hewn, carved entrances into

258. The town of Kh. Umm el-‘Uqbeh from the air, looking south. The site covers the conical shaped ridge, whose tip is in the east. At left are the slopes descending into Wadi el-Fau; at right is the saddle with many structures in situ.

338

CHAPTER EIGHT

the buildings and many cisterns. To the west of the hilltop, on a saddle, are two large structures (villas). The earlier stage compose of a 19x13 m hall with rooms. the later one, on top of the former, is a unit 20x10 m. It consists of a room with oven (?) and a paved courtyard. The few shards dating to Iron Age II are on the western slopes of the hill and on the narrow ridge east of the site. This was a small town or a large village, that prospered during the LR and the Byzantine Periods, whose

design and structures characterize the settlements of these periods in the desert fringes. Today the place is in advanced stages of destruction due to Israel Defense Force train-ing, and looting of antiques. Pottery: IrA II – 5%; LR – 30%; Byz – 65%. Coin finds: Ten coins from the Late Roman Period through the Middle Ages. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 241.

259. Pottery from Khirbet Umm el-‘Uqbeh (A): no. 3 – IrA II; 1-2, 4-6 – LR and Byz; 7 – MA: 1. Bowl, br; 2, 6 – Jars, lt br; 4. Jar with strainer, lt br; 5. Jar base, br; 7. Dec, br on wh.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

339

260. Plan of a villa in Kh. Umm el-‘Uqbeh (A), on the western saddle, showing its two stages.

261. Entrance to structure on the western saddle, looking south. Note the two door-posts in situ. 1990.

340

CHAPTER EIGHT

Site 115: 19 – 18/69/1

Khirbet Hamamat Israel grid: 1962 1895 UTM grid: 7343 5765 Elevation: 50 m b.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient but does not ap-pear on map Site type: small ruin Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: ridge edge Rock type: Kurnub formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 3 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot –Tel el-Hilu (C23), passes by site Visibility: 2 Apr. 29, 1988 – May 6, 1988; 59 shards

***

A site on a flat hilltop above Wadi el-Fau, near and west of the Beqa‘ot –Tel el-Hilu road, and about 2.5 km north of Kh. es-Samrah.

At least ten structures were found in the site, relatively distant from one another. Most of them are lo-cated on the northern and western

262. The site at Kh. Hamamat (indicated by cars), seen from the air and looking north. Road C23 (Beqa‘ot – Meholah) is above and to the right of the site, while Wadi el-Fau is to its left. 1993.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

parts of hilltop. Their walls, of large blocks of local sandstone, are 60 cm wide. The plans of the structures are complicated, with internal division into rooms and courtyards. In the south – western side of the settlement is a 26 m long wall covered with stones, possibly a part of fortification. In the northern side there are also remains of a possible wall.

341

Pottery: EBA I – 5%; MBA IIB – 25%; LBA III – 40%; IrA IA – 30%. The ceramic inventory is difficult to define. The place was possibly related to the nearby road and riverbed, which carries water during rainy winters. Previous surveys: none.

263. Pottery from Kh. Hamamat: 2-3 – LB; 4, 6-12 – MBA II; 5 – EBA I (‘Far‘ah family’?); the rest – IrA I: 1. Pythos, dk; 2-3, Bowls, yel; 4. Bowl, lt br; 5. Rope dec, br; 6-7. Bowl bases, yel; 8-10. Jars, pinkish; 11. Bowl, lt; 12. Bowl, br; 13. Jug (?), br; 14. Pythos, dk br; 15. Jar, yel; 16. Bowl, lt.

342

CHAPTER EIGHT

264. The plan of the Hamamat site. It is in some way unique by plan (wide spaces be-tween structures) and pottery.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

343

Site 116: 19 – 18/38/1

el-Mubarah Israel grid: 1933 1883 UTM grid: 7321 5763 Elevation: 40 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure and farm Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: mountainous rendzina and Mediterranean brown forest soil; qual--

ity: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 4 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot –Tel el-Hilu (C23), 4 km distant Visibility: 5 May 13, 1988; 10 shards

***

A structure on a high hilltop, about 4 km south of Wadi Malih. The structure is 10x10 m in size, built of walls of field stones 1 m wide. One opening and a small, ad--

jacent courtyard were found related to the structure. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 117: 19 – 18/47/1

Khirbet Yusef (on SWP map: Kh. Umm el-Hosr) Israel grid: 1948 1879 UTM grid: 7335 5745 Elevation: 40 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient but not on map Site type: large settlement Area: 60 dunams (15 acres) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 5 Nearest water source: spring (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 6.5 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 1 km distant Visibility: 3 May 6, 1988; Apr. 14, 1990; 134 shards

***

A large settlement (a town?) in the western edge of es-Samrah Val-ley, an extension of the Buqei‘ah, about 3.5 km north – northwest of

Moshav Ro‘i. The site spread on a system of ar-tificial terraces on a slope descend-ing from the range of Umm Hasan

344

CHAPTER EIGHT

into es-Samrah Valley. On the ter-race levels, dozens of structures are discerned in situ, some with walls standing to 2 m high. In the north-ern part is a round building 20 m in diameter, perhaps a lookout tower. Several pens and courtyards are lo-cated in the eastern and the western sides of the settlement, presum-ably from a later periods, perhaps the Middle Ages. In the northern, upper part a burial cave was found, with opening surrounded by an en-closure wall. Most of the buildings are well

built of field stones, whereas the terraces are of large rock boulders. The ceramic finds are rich and var-ied. Judging by its location and size, this was possibly a central site of the desert fringes during the Middle Bronze Age I-II. Pottery: Chal – 5%; EBA I – 5%; MBA I – 50%; MBA IIB – 15%; LBA III – 10%; IrA IA – 5%; MA – 10%. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 241.

265. Aerial photo of Kh. Yusef, looking west. 1993.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

345

266. Plan of the large site at Kh. Yusef. It extends over terrace steps, most of which are built on ancient foundations. The courtyards and pens belong apparently to the Medieval Period.

346

CHAPTER EIGHT

267. Pottery from Kh. Yusef: nos 2-3, 6, 10 – MBA I; 1, 7, 9 – MBA II; 11 – LB; 5,8 – IrA I; 4 – MA: 1. Crater, Yel; 2-3. Ledge handles, lt; 4. Bowl, br; 5. Bowl, lt br; 6. Jar base, yel; 7. Jar, pinkish; 8. Crater, br; 9. CP, dk br; 10. Jar base with imprint dec; 11. Bowl, lt.

RAS JADIR — LANDSCAPE UNIT 16

347

Site 118: 19 – 18/46/1

E.P. 170 Israel grid: 1948 1868 UTM grid: 7328 5738 Elevation: 170 m a.s.l., 80 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: high hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 6 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 2 km distant Visibility: 7 Nov. 12, 1993; 17 shards ***

A small site on a high summit southwest of Kh. Yusef and north of the Buqei‘ah, about 1 km east of Kh. Musheibiq. There is a fine view from there of the Buqei‘ah and of Wadi el-Fau. At least two structures are on the summit. They consists of walls of structures in situ, covered by cleared stones. Around is a medium sized shard scatter. The ceramic inven--

tory include Middle Bronze Age II shallow bowls with folded rims; see chapter on ceramics. Pottery: MBA IIB – 88%; IrA I (not certain) – 12%. The single vessel type found may hint toward a special function of the site. The two bases of bowls are perhaps from Iron Age I. Previous surveys: none.

268. Pottery from E.P. 170: Two typical bowls from MBA IIB. This is almost the only type of bowl found at this site.

CHAPTER NINE

THE BUQEI‘AH LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

Traditional springtime harvesting (source unknown)

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

351

Site 119: 18 – 18/88/1

en-Naqqar (A) Israel grid: 1888 1883 UTM grid: 7270 5752 Elevation: 230 m a.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 5 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), passes by site Visibility: 3 March 10, 1982; 64 shards ***

A site on the northwestern fringe of the Buqei‘ah, with the dirt road from Tammun to Moshav Beqa‘ot nearby. From the site is a view of the Buqei‘ah and to the other MBA I sites nearby. The site is located above Wadi Durah, which drains the Buqei‘ah to the east. On a low step are re-mains of many structures in situ, square in shape and having an at--

tached courtyard. Most of the houses are arranged from east to west in a strip (the so-called “strip settlements”), but few are on the natural steps descending into the valley. Some of the structures are built of especially large stones, and various installations and shards are scattered around. Pottery: MBA I – 95%; MA – 5%. Previous surveys: none.

269. Pottery from the Middle Bronze Age I site of en-Naqqar (A), all from this period except for no. 3: 1. HM jar, yel; 2. Jar, gray; 3. Bowl with yellow glaze, MA; 4. Jar base, gray; 5. Folded ledge handle, yel.

352

CHAPTER NINE

Site 120: 18 – 18/98/1

en-Naqqar (B) Israel grid: 1890 1884 UTM grid: 7272 5752 Elevation: 230 m a.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 4 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), passes by site Visibility: 3 March 10, 1982; 51 shards ***

A site on the northwestern fringes of the Buqei‘ah, located slightly west of the Tammun – Beqa‘ot dirt road and 2 km east – northeast of Tammun. The site is on a low step near Wadi Durah, which drains the Buqei‘ah to the east. About 0.2 km west of it is en-Naqqar (A). It ap-pears that the buildings in the site

were dismantled during the process of cultivation. The only structure remained is in the east, near the dirt road going north to Tubas Val-ley. Few shards are beside it, with shards scatter over the other parts of the place. Pottery: MBA I – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

270. Shards from en-Naqqar (B), all from MBA I: 1. HM jar, yel; 2. Bowl, lt gray; 3. Jar Base, yel; 4. Ledge handle, yel; 5. Jar, dk gray.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

353

Site 121: 19 – 18/18/1

Beyader Shawish Israel grid: 1912 1884 UTM grid: 7294 5752 Elevation: 175 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Kurnub formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 8

Cultivation: uncultivated and field crops Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 5 Mar 31, 1982; 20 shards ***

A small site on the northern edge of the Buqei‘ah, between the wadis Beyader Shawish and Khallet Ra-mali. Several walls of field stones on top of a low terrace are on the site,

with no clear plans. Few shards are scattered among the walls, with more in the field to the south. The site includes several struc-tures, presumably seasonal enclo-sures or pens. Similar structures

271. The Beyader Shawish site (northern edge of the Buqei‘ah), looking north. The walls are on the edge of the valley; in the background the eastern extensions of Ras Jadir are visible. 1982.

354

CHAPTER NINE

are today in use by Bedouins. The northern edge of the Buqei‘ah is less amenable to passage than the southern one, where ancient roads

passed. Pottery: IrA II – 80%; Byz – 20%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 122: 18 – 18/67/1

Tammun (also on SWP map) Israel grid: 1864 1878 UTM grid: 7257 5750 Elevation: 370 m a.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: Arab village on map Site type: large Arab village Area: 40 dunams (10 acres – the ancient core) Topography: hilltop and ridge edge Rock type: Judah formation

Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 80 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 4 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), 1 km distant Visibility: 6 Mar. 12, 1982; 90 shards ***

A large Arabic village on a hilltop at the edge of a ridge, overlooking an inner valley to the west and the Buqei‘ah to the east. It is crowned, to the south, by high Jebel Tam-mun. The central village is a tell, whose remains are blurred now. The an-cient core of the modern village is a part of the tell. This core includes Medieval fortified houses with loopholes for shooting. Many buri-al caves were also found, as well as hewn places, installations and parts of ancient walls. Pottery: IrA II – 10%; ER – 10%; LR – 20%; Byz – 20%; EM – 10%; MA – 20%; Ott – 10%. In the Medieval literature the vil--

lage was wrongly identified with biblical Tappuah (Jos 17:7-8), on the Manasseh – Ephraim bound-ary. It appears as the “Land of Tap-puah” or Terrae Tampne. The monk Burchard of Mount Zion (1280 C.E.) wrote: “Six leagues east of Tirzah, on the road leading to Jor-dan, is the Land of Tappuah which, of all the mountains, is outstanding as an exceptionally bare mountain [the reference is to Jebel Tammun, A.Z.]. This area is also the terri-tory of Manasseh, reaching to the plains of the Jordan opposite Ma-cherunte.” (probably Machaerus of Josephus, a fort in Transjordan in-volved in the first revolt against the Romans, A.Z.). The Land of Tap-puah, according to him, is along

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

the southern border of Manasseh. Later the place is mentioned by the 14th century Italian explorer Ma-rino Sanuto (1321 C.E.) as “Terrae Tampne, bordering the allotment of Ephraim in the north.” Guérin visited the village on April 25, 1870, and found there “ancient cisterns and cellars”. He wrote that

355

only the hilltop was settled, while the slopes were covered with piles of trash. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 228; Guérin 1969 (IV), 257; Beyer 1940, 189; Burchard 1971, 52; Sanutu 1971, 13.

272. The village Tammun from the air, looking north. The ancient tell is in the center and beyond the village the road to Tubas is seen.

356

CHAPTER NINE

Site 123: 18 – 18/87/2

el-Khanuq Israel grid: 1885 1874 UTM grid: 7273 5756 Elevation: 240 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 7

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), 1 km distant Visibility: 3 Mar. 10, 1982; 42 shards ***

A site on the western fringes of the Buqei‘ah, about 2 km east of the village of Tammun. Located in a small valley near a wadi named elKhanuq, it descends from the Tam--

mun plateau to the Buqei‘ah. Near-by a built path leads from Kh. ‘Atuf to Tammun. A very large pile of stones, appar-ently including the building stones

273. The Middle Bronze Age I site of el-Khanuq on the western edge of the Buqei‘ah, looking north. The location, on a low slope protected from the wind, is typical of the “fringes sites” of the Buqei‘ah. Remains of the site are visible near the piles of stone on the far side of the ravine.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

of the dismantled structures, is in the center of the site. The pile is surrounded by a stone fence, with many shards scattered in the areas

357

around. Pottery: MBA I – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

274. Pottery from el-Khanuq, all from MBA I: 1. Bowl, yel; 2. Jar, dk gray; 3. HM jar with cut rim, gray, stamped dec; 4. HM jar, brown, rope dec; 5. Flat loophole handle, yel; 6. Bowl with irregular rim, gray; 7. Bowl base in MBA II tradition; 8. HM jar, yel; 9. Jar, dk gray; 10-11. Ledge handles, yel.

358

CHAPTER NINE

Site 124: 18 – 18/87/1

Abu Rihan Israel grid: 1886 1872 UTM grid: 7273 5754 Elevation: 240 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), 1 km distant Visibility: 4 Mar. 10, 1982; may 5, 2006; 99 shards ***

A small site on the western fringes of the Buqei‘ah, about 2 km east of the village of Tammun. North of the site is a small gorge (Khanuq), with a built path to Tammun. New terrace walls, built of stones of the ancient site, are the sole ar-

chitecture. The original structures have been dismantled through preparation for agriculture, and a large quantity of shards is scattered around. Pottery: MBA I – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

275. The site of Abu Rihan, looking south, is situated on the opposite slope. Jebel Tammun is in the far background.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

359

276. Pottery from Abu Rihan, all from MBA I: 1, 3. Bowls, yel and br; 2. HM jar, gray; 4. Bowl with irregular rim, br; 5, 8. Jars, gray, rope dec; 6. Jar, yel; 7. Bowl, yel; 9. HM jar, yel; 10. Jar base, yel; 11. Jar, gray; 12. Loop handle, yel; 13. Folded ledge handle.

 Site 125: 18 – 18/87/3

Bir ej-Jwar Israel grid: 1888 1870 UTM grid: 7270 5737 Elevation: 220 m a.s.l., 7 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: medium sized ruin Area: 9.8 dunams (2.45 acres) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: springs (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), 1 km distant Visibility: 5 Mar. 4, 1982; 111 shards ***

A site on the western fringe of the Buqei‘ah, north of Jebel Tammun and about 2.5 km east of the village

of Tammun. It is situated on a ridge protected by wadi gorges, with an ancient well (Bir ej-Jwar) in its cen--

360

CHAPTER NINE

ter. An important junction of paths is nearby. A low terrace marks the perim-eter of the site. It should have been used as a borderline and perhaps a

fortification. Inside are numerous terraces and cultivated areas, with no structural remains. The terraces seems to be built on top of ancient walls. A large shard scatter was found.

277. Photos of pottery from Bir ej-Jwar site. no.2, 5 – Byz; 1-4, 6-7 – MBA I.

278. View to the north of the large MBA I site at Bir ej-Jwar, on the western edge of the Buqei‘ah. The site, isolated from its close environs by gorges, is in the center of the ridge, above the jeep. In the background Ras Jadir is visible.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

The place appears to be a cen-tral site for the settlements in the Buqei‘ah.

361

Pottery: MBA I – 90%; Byz – 10%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 126: 19 – 18/37/1

Ras el-Ahmar Israel grid: 1930 1875 UTM grid: 7323 5745 Elevation: 240 m a.s.l., 60 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure Area: 1.5 dunams (0.38 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: Kurnub formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 3

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), 1 km distant Visibility: 7 Mar. 31, 1982; Mar. 22, 1993; 17 shards

279. View to the Buqei‘ah, seen from Ras el-Ahmar. Note the enclosure (with the figure), Moshav Beqa‘ot (in the distance, at center) and the ranges of Umm Jurein in the back-ground.

362

CHAPTER NINE

An enclosure on a high slope above the northern edge of the Buqei‘ah, with a fine view to the valley. Wadi Nis descends nearby. A square enclosure, about 33x33 m in size, is the core of the site. It is surrounded by a stone wall about 1.5 m wide. It is well built of two rows of stones with a filling of field stones between them. In the southeast corner of the enclosure a

long, narrow structure is attached, with two rooms. The entrance was not found. This is one of many structures (enclosures or courtyards) charac-teristic of the desert fringe area. It seems to have been used for agricul-tural purposes. Pottery: LR – 20%; Byz – 80%. Previous surveys: none.

280. Right – plan of the courtyard at Ras el-Ahmar. Left – place of the courtyard on the mountain of Ras el-Ahmar.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

363

Site 127: 19 – 18/36/2

Khirbet Musheibik (on SWP map: Kh. Umm esh-Sheibik) Israel grid: 1935 1869 UTM grid: 7316 5739 Elevation: 216 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: medium sized ruin and farm Area: 7 dunams (1.75 acres) Topography: hilltop and plateau Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 6 Cultivation: none

Cisterns: 7 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elMayatteh, no. 86), 6.1 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), 1 km distant Visibility: 5 Mar. 31, 1982; Apr. 10, 1988; Mar. 16, 1990; 84 shards

***

A farm complex on a low summit, part of the Umm Hasan range; this belongs to the high northern edge of the Buqei‘ah.

The site, a relatively well pre-served, includes the following (fig. 282): 1.The central core is a square

281. The Iron Age/Byzantine/Moslem Periods farm of Kh. Musheibik, looking south-west. The original core of the farm is in the upper right corner; during various periods courtyards were added to it.

364

CHAPTER NINE

courtyard, 15x18 m in size, in the northwest, upper corner of the complex. Inside it is the main house (in the northeast corner), with large stone pillars (monoliths) in situ to support the roof. In the southwest corner of the courtyard is another, small structure.

2. South of no. 1 is a large court-yard, 25x30 m in size. Its southern edge is a strip with many walls and rooms, whose character is unclear. This courtyard seems to be con-temporary with no. 1 and precedes no. 3. 3. The third large courtyard

282. Plan of the Kh. Musheibik farm. Note the assumed stages of development of the site: 1. Central core from IrA II (?); 2. Attached courtyard and structures nearby; 3. Later courtyard.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

(25x25 m), with different orienta-tion, is built in the northeast cor-ner. It seems to be later than nos. 1-2, perhaps to be added during later periods (Byzantine or Early Moslem). 4. About 80 m northwest of the complex, beyond the saddle, is an-other, irregular shaped courtyard about 30x30 m in size. It is built with two rows of large stones. In-side are a cave and a small structure. This yard, seemingly for agricultur-al use, is similar to the characteristic yards of the region. 5. Some 0.3-0.5 km to the east of the farm, on a high ridge, are stone

365

towers and agricultural terraces. Kh. Mushiebik is a fine example of a farm established in Iron Age II-III, to be continued in later pe-riods. It includes the farm itself and its agricultural surroundings. Pottery: IrA II – 50%; IrA III – 20%; Byz – 20%; EM – 10% (a single Medieral shard). Special find: Bowls with wedge decoration. Coin find: One coin from the 12th century C.E.; see appendix. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 242.

283. Remains of the Kh. Musheibik farm, looking west. Ras Jadir is in the background.

366

CHAPTER NINE

284. Pottery from Kh. Musheibik: 1. CP, br, IrA II; 2. Bowl, br, IrA II-III; 3. CP type D, IrA II; 4. Dec jar, violet on wh, MA; 5. Bowl, br, IrA III; 6. Bowl base, br, Byz; 7. Bowl, br, IrA III; 8-9. Jugs, IrA II; 10. Bowl base with wedge dec, gray, IrA III; 11. Jug, lt br, Byz.

 Site 128: 19 – 18/67/2

es-Samrah Enclosure Israel grid: 1964 1872 UTM grid: 7345 5744 Elevation: 50 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: valley and ridge Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 4

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 6 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), passes by site Visibility: 3 Apr. 22-29, 1988; 19 shards

***

A large enclosure on a low ridge in the northern edge of the Buqei‘ah. The site is situated half way be--

tween Beqa‘ot and Tel el-Hilu, and about 0.3 km northwest of Kh. esSamrah.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

367

285. The southern enclosure wall at es-Samrah, looking north. In the background are the Umm el-‘Uqbeh ranges.

286. The enclosure plan at es-Samrah.

368

CHAPTER NINE

This site, surrounded by a wall made of very large boulders (the largest are 1.5x3 m in size!), fits the elliptical outline of the ridge. Remains of short walls, related to the main one, evidence to struc-tures that were once attached to it.

Only the southern part of the en-closure was preserved, whereas the northern one disappeared. Very few shards were found. Pottery: MBA I – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 129: 19 – 18/79/1

Khirbet es-Samrah (Guérin: Kh. es-Somera) quality: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 28 Nearest water source: spring (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 6 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), passes by site Visibility: 3 May 19, 1982; Mar. 10, 1990; Apr. 1, 1993; 77 shards

Israel grid: 1970 1890 UTM grid: 7351 5741 Elevation: 55 m a.s.l., 8 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: large ruin Area: 30 dunams (7.5 acres) Topography: ridge edge and valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Colluvial – Alluvial;

***

A large ruin on the Buqei‘ah, near Wadi el-Fau. It is situated northeast of the Samrah junction, where the ‘Shai ascent’ road leaves the Beqa‘ot – Meholah one. The ruin is situated between two wadis that descend westward. The remains of 70 or more units, with houses and courtyards, are arranged on two ridges running from east to west. Each such unit contains a cen-tral structure with a series of rooms, arranged around one or more courtyards, and a cistern. The basic building is of good quality, made of large, hewn, smoothen stones.

Architectural special items (col-umns, worked stones, decorations and columns) were also discovered. An apparently later building stage, where small field stones are used, appears on top of the first stage structures. In the southern part of the site are three burial caves with a hall (dromos) and a hewn entrance. Next to the road a complete “villa” in situ has survived (fig. 288), with two water channels (aqueducts). The shards prior to the Roman period were collected only in the northern site, while later ones (Ro-man onwards) are scattered all over.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

In the wadi to the north of the site are dams. Pottery: MBA I – 3%; IrA II – 2%; Per – 2%; Hel – 10%; ER – 10%; LR – 13%; Byz – 30%; EM – 10%; MA – 20%.

369

Coin find: 11 coins from LR to MA; see appendix. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 240; Guérin 1969 (IV), 226; (V), 175.

287. Bird’s eye view of the large site of Kh. es-Samrah on the northern Buqei‘ah, looking northeast. The main road (bottom) leads to Meholah (left) and to Wadi el-Far‘ah (right). Upward and to the right is the ‘Shai ascent’ road. The site extends over both sides of the latter (see plan). In the ravine at left is a series of dams.

370

CHAPTER NINE

288. Plan of the southern part of Kh. es-Samrah. In this area scattered solitary houses, cisterns and many hewn installations were discerned.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

371

289. Pottery from Kh. es-Samrah: 1. Jar, dk gray, Byz; 2. Bowl, red slip and burnish, ER; 3. Jar, dk gray, Hel; 4. Bowl base, gray, bl and wh slip, MA; 5. Basin, br, LR; 6. Jar, lt br, Per; 7. Jar, red burnish, ER; 8. Jar base, lt, MBA I; 9. Jar, dk gray, Byz; 10. Jar handle, lt, Hell; 11. Bowl base, Sigillata, red burnished, ER; 12-13. Jar, br, Roman; 14-15. Ledge handles, lt, MBA I; 16. Dec, wh on bl, EM.

 Site 130: 19 – 18/36/1

Umm el-Hasan Israel grid: 1935 1860 UTM grid: 7316 5730 Elevation: 100 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure Area: 1.5 dunams (0.38 acre) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 3

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 5 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 3 Mar. 31, 1982; Mar. 17, 1990; 29 shards ***

A large courtyard in a small ra-vine, on a slope on the northern Buqei‘ah. The irregular, rectangular like

enclosure is 26x48 m in measure-ments, surrounded by a 1.5 m wide wall made of large field stones. In the western wall a built entrance 1

372

CHAPTER NINE

m wide was discerned, with few re-mains of inner walls. This structure, of agricultural character, is one of a group of simi-lar enclosures dated to the Byzan--

tine Period. They were used pre-sumably as animal pens. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

290. Plan of the Umm el-Hasan courtyard on the Buqei‘ah. This structure, typical to the Desert Fringes, was used for animal (cattle?) husbandry.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

373

Site 131: 19 – 18/15/1

Khirbet ‘Atuf (on SWP map and Guérin: Kh. A’thouf) Israel grid: 1914 1856 UTM grid: 7296 5724 Elevation: 130 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: large ruin Area: 20 dunams (5 acres) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 22 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 5 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), passes by site Visibility: 4 Mar. 9, 1982; May 30, 1993; May 5, 2006; Jul. 7, 2006; 66 shards ***

A large site on the southern edge of the Buqei‘ah, at the foot of Jeb-el Tammun. A good view of the

Buqei‘ah is seen from the place, and a dirt road from Beqa‘ot to Tam-mun passes nearby.

291. The large Kh. ‘Atuf from the air, looking west. The Beqa‘ot - Tammun road is in the center, with the site (dated to the Roman-Byzantine Periods onwards) at left, on the low slope of Jebel Tammun. To the right of the road is the “pools” area, possibly used for special crops (rice, sugar cane?). 1996.

374

CHAPTER NINE

The site is a medium sized, Medi-eval ruined village atop a more an-cient (Iron Age to Byzantine Period) ruin, with several Bedouin families now. The 60 ruined structures in situ, with some roofing preserved, are laid upon ancient foundations. The foundations and abandonment dates of these houses, most of which are of the house courtyard type, are unclear. They are arranged in groups or complexes. There is what seems to be a main street, which leads in eastwest direction. Many cisterns, caves and other hewn plac-es are discerned. East of the village on the plain there is an area rich in shards with some ruined buildings.

North of the Beqa‘ot – Tammun road there is a large agricultural sec-tion, some 50 dunams in area, with 70-90 leveled “pools”, surrounded by low earthen ramps. They appear to be built for some special agricul-tural crop – perhaps rice, sugar cane or fish growing. This exceptional phenomenon is without parallel in the Manasseh Hill Country. Pottery: IrA II-III – 5%; Byz – 50%; EM – 30%; MA – 15%. Special find: two wedge dec bowls. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 135. Bibliography: SWP II, 237; Guérin 1969 (IV), 255-256.

292. Pottery from Kh. ‘Atuf: 1. Juglet base, lt, EM; 2. Bowl, br, IrA II; 3. Dec shard, violet on wh, MA; 4-7. Jars, jugs and ‘frying pan’, lt br, Byz; 8. Bowl base, yellow glaze, MA; 9-10. Painted shards, MA.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

293. Plan of the “pools” area in Kh. ‘Atuf, 2006.

375

CHAPTER NINE

376 Site 132: 19 – 18/34/1

Khirbet es-Sefireh (on PEF map: Kh. es-Sefeirah) Israel grid: 1933 1843 UTM grid: 7316 5712 Elevation: 55 m a.s.l., 3 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: farm and structure Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: valley Rock type: alluvium covering Soil type: alluvium; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 4 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), passes by site Visibility: 4 May 13, 1982; Mar. 1, 1990; 72 shards ***

A site on a low hillock in the cen-ter of the Buqei‘ah, surrounded by fields and located about 1 km north – northeast of Moshav Beqa‘ot. A rectangular courtyard 11x22 m in size is the center of the place. The surrounding wall is of two rows of

hewn stones. In the northern wall a protrusion indicates the pos-sible gate, with two dividing walls nearby. Inside the yard (south) is an elliptical structure, 10 m in diam-eter, built of field stones. This may represent a later (Medieval?) stage.

294. Remains at Kh. es-Sefireh, looking south.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

West and south of the structure are two cisterns; the southern one in-cludes a hewn, stone pillar in situ. Next and west to the yard a thresh-ing floor was found. More walls are scattered on the hillock. Pottery: IrA III – 30%; Byz – 60%;

377

MA – 10%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 143. They found a “solitary structure on a low hill-top”. Bibliography: SWP II, 240.

295. Plan of Kh. es-Sefireh. Note the courtyard and the threshing floor.

378

CHAPTER NINE

296. Pottery from Kh. es-Sefireh: 1. Bowl, lt br, IrA III; 2. Bowl, br, Byz; 3. Jar handle, dk gray, Byz; 4. Juglet base, pk, Byz; 5-7. Decorated shards, violet on wh, MA.

 Site 133: 19 – 18/44/1

Khirbet Umm el-Qatan (on SWP map: Kh. Umm el Kotn) Israel grid: 1947 1841 UTM grid: 7329 5710 Elevation: 50 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: small ruin and farm Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: hilltop and valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium, near agricultural soil; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 6 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 5 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), passes by site Visibility: 6 May 13, 1982; Jan. 17, 1990; Apr. 10, 1993; Jan. 13, 2006; 106 shards ***

A fortified site on an isolated hill-top in the center of the Buqei‘ah, with a fine view to its eastern sec-tion. The Mehola – Wadi Far‘ah asphalt road (‘Alon road’) passes to the west of the site, with the junc-tion to Moshav Ro‘i nearby. The site is approached from the north. A fortified structure, about 44x48 m in size, is arranged around a 20x30 m square yard in its cen-ter. This is surrounded on all sides by series of rooms – long halls and

square units – of irregular dimen-sions and plan. The main entrance was seemingly on the western side, where the most massive architec-ture is discerned. From the main body “wings” or towers protrude to the north, the south and the west; some of them contains inner divi-sions. Three cisterns are inside the fort, with ten more scattered upon the hill (figs. 298, 300). The fort seems to be built in at least two chronological stages.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

The first one (the fortified struc-ture) is of large boulders, without mortar and with several monoliths incorporated in the building (fig. 298– black). On top of this stage a later one is apparent. The stones, taken from the first building, were secondarily used for small, irregular courtyards and structures. The dif-ference between the two stages is striking (fig. 298 – gray). The considerable amount of Iron Age shards may identify the first structure with this period. The later stage, judging by the architecture, may be dated to Middle Ages. The 10 cistern openings on the

379

hill, at distances of 10 to 50 m from one another, are large hewn open-ings. There is a similarity in plan be-tween Kh. Umm el-Qatan and Jellamet Wustah (Khallet Kalles) – (Zertal 2004, Site no. 152). The resemblance is in building design and plan. Both, apparently dated to Iron Age III (Assyrian period), have been functioning as fortresses or administrative structures. Pottery: IrA III – 70%; Byz – 15%; EM – 5%; MA – 10%. Coin find: Four coins from the MA; see appendix.

297. Aerial photo of the fortress site at Kh. Umm el-Qatan. The site is located on a low, rocky hill near an important junction in the heart of the Buqei‘ah. The central structure resembles fortified sites (from the end of the Iron Age) found on Jebel Hureish and near Sanur Valley.

380

CHAPTER NINE

Special find: Iron Age arrowhead. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 144. They found “a

ruin on a hilltop. In the area of the ruin are structural remains.” Bibliography: SWP II, 241.

298. The plan of Kh. Umm el-Qatan . Note the original structure and the additions from later periods (Byzantine Period to Middle Ages) on top of it.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

381

299. Pottery from Kh. Umm el-Qatan: 1. Bowl, br/bl, IrA III; 2. Bowl, gray, Byz; 3. Bowl, green glaze, MA; 4. Jar/HM jar, dk br, IrA II-III; 5. Bowl, br/gray, IrA III; 6. Jug, br, Byz; 7. Jar, dk gray, IrA III; 8-11. Jars and jugs, Byz and EM.

300. Plan of the hill, with the fort of Umm el-Qatan and the installations (numbered).

382

CHAPTER NINE

Site 134: 19 – 18/64/3

Ro‘i (1) Israel grid: 1964 1846 UTM grid: 7356 5713 Elevation: 60 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure and structures Area: 1.5 dunams (0.38 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 4

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 6 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 1 km distant Visibility: 4 Jan. 27, 1992; Jul. 7,2006; 34 shards and six flint items ***

A site on the southern slope of Twel edh Dhyiab range, in the northeast-ern Buqei‘ah. It is built near a small wadi descending from the summit

into the valley. The oval, empty enclosure about 35 m in diameter, is surrounded by a wall of large, unhewn stones. To

301. Plan of Ro‘i (1). The walls around the enclosure were apparently used for dwelling houses.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

the south and west, and adjacent to the enclosure, various structures are discerned built of walls 40-60 cm wide. There was a medium sized shard scatter. This site is a typical Chalcolithic Period enclosure in the Manasseh

383

fringes. Pottery and flint: Chal – 100%; see flint appendix. In a later visit (Jul. 7, 2006) a possible IrA I-II shards were collected. Previous surveys: none.

302. Selection of pottery from the Chalcolithic Period site of Ro‘i (1), all from this pe-riod: 1. ‘V shaped’ bowl base, dk; 2-3. HM jars, br; 4. Rope dec; 5. Wide strip handle, dk.

 Site 135: 19 – 18/64/1

Twel edh-Dhyab (on PEF map as well) Israel grid: 1967 1848 UTM grid: 7349 5719 Elevation: 156 m a.s.l., 110 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: rendzina; quality: 2

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 7 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 1 km distant Visibility: 8 May 13, 1982; May 11, 1990; 14 shards ***

A structure on a high summit in the northern Buqei‘ah. West of this range, in a valley, passes the C23 road to Meholah, with another as-phalt road to Hemdat extending eastwards. On the summit is a struc-ture about 6x10 m in size, built

of slightly hewn, large boulders 40x60x60 cm in average. Due to advanced destruction, its plan is hardly discerned. It seems to be a watch tower to control the central Buqei‘ah and the roads nearby. Few shards were found. Pottery: Hel – 50%; Byz – 50%.

384

CHAPTER NINE

Previous surveys: Gophna and Porath 1972, no. 145.

Bibliography: appears on SWP map with the note (R) signifying ruin; no description is given.

303. The structure at Twel edh-Dhyab, viewed from the east.

304. Plan of the structure at Twel edh-Dhyab.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

385

Site 136: 19 – 18/64/2

Khirbet el-Hadidiyyeh Israel grid: 1967 1841 UTM grid: 7361 5712 Elevation: 40 m a.s.l., 5 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: farm Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: low ridge in valley Rock type: Mount Scopus formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 7

Cultivation: on ridge – none; in valley – field crops Cisterns: 3 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 6 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 3 Apr. 27, 1990; May 11, 1990; 95 shards ***

An agricultural complex on a low ridge in the northern Buqei‘ah, 0.4 km northeast of the center of Moshav Ro‘i. The complex is comprised of four parts: 1. The central structure (the first stage), 18x27 m in size, is built of large, hewn stones. It includes at least two large rooms, with a court-yard in the eastern part. The walls are 1 m wide. On top of it there is a later pen with small, additional structures. Apparently in this later stage the ancient structure was un-used. 2. West of the complex is a long and narrow structure (6X9 m), in-cluding two stages as well. It is built around the opening of a large cave. 3. A large cistern, with a built aq--

ueduct leading to it, is located some 36 m southwest of no. 1. 4.Two round and oval threshing floors, each surrounded by a low wall, are situated south and east of the central structure. The architecture has two stages: the first and massive one was pre-sumably Byzantine, while the later one is probably medieval. The threshing floors evince the crucial role of cereal agriculture in the economy of the region. Pottery: Byz – 50%; EM – 30%; MA – 20%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 151. They mention “a solitary, rectangular structure on a ridge edge, with a few Byzantine Period shards nearby”.

386

CHAPTER NINE

305. Plan of Kh. el-Hadidiyyeh with its stages.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

387

Site 137: 19 – 18/74/1

el-Mashkakarah Israel grid: 1975 1849 UTM grid: 7356 5716 Elevation: 60 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin and shard scatter Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 7 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 8 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 2 km distant Visibility: 3 Mar. 2, 1990; 22 shards ***

A site in a small valley in the north-ern Buqei‘ah, between Twel edhDhyab and Mufyeh Range. In the center of the valley is an elevated, rocky area, on which there are cleared stones and concentra-tions of pottery. It seems to be the

remains of dismantled structures, or camp remains from the Iron Age. The pottery find includes many body shards but few rims. Pottery: IrA II – 50%; IrA III – 50%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 138: 19 – 18/84/1

Khallet Makhul Israel grid: 1984 1847 UTM grid: 7375 5718 Elevation: 70 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure Area: 1.5 dunam (0.38 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 8 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 3 km distant Visibility: 2 Feb. 23, 1990; 40 shards ***

An enclosure and structures on the Hemdat passes through this valley. southern edge of a small valley, be-The elliptical enclosure, 35-40 tween Peles In the north and Kh. m in length and 18 m in width, is Mufyeh in the south. The road to built of large stones laid in a row.

388

CHAPTER NINE

The enclosure is filled with sedi-ments, being now a terrace wall. In the southern part of the enclosure there are small cairns and structural remains.

Pottery: MBA IIB – 5%; IrA IA – 40%; IrA II – 30%; ER – 10%; LR – 15%. Previous surveys: none.

306. Plan of the enclosure at Khallet Makhul.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

389

307. Pottery from Khallet Makhul: 1. CP, br, MBA II; 2. Jug base, lt br, IrA I; 3. Jar, IrA I; 4. Jar, lt, LR; 5. Pythos, dk br, IrA I; 6. CP, dk, IrA I; 7.Bowl IrA I; 8. CP Type A, IrA IA.

308. The Iron Age enclosure at Khallet Makhul, looking southwest. In the background – the hill of Twel edh-Dhyab.

390

CHAPTER NINE

Site 139: 19 – 18/74/2

Khirbet es-Sun‘ah Israel grid: 1977 1844 UTM grid: 7359 5715 Elevation: 70 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Mount Scopus formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 7 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 3 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 7 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 2.5 km distant Visibility: 2 Mar. 2, 1990; 65 shards ***

A site east of Ro‘i, in a small valley in northeastern Buqei‘ah. Adjacent to it, in the east, are small ravines, old bunkers and army trenches. The main component of the site is a rectangular structure, 6x15 m

in size, with a hall (south) and a room (north). The walls, built of very large boulders, are 0.8 m wide. West and north of this structure are three large, hewn, plastered cis-terns. Two of them relate to irregu-lar courtyards or enclosures, with

309. The central structure at Kh. es-Sun‘ah, looking east. The figure at left stands on one of the threshing floors. In the background are the Mufyeh Hills.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

inner cemented surfaces descending to the cistern. The northern cistern, collapsed now, is enclosed with three thin, parallel walls. There are also threshing floors. The northern part of the site is enclosed by a wide wall, of which only sections have survived. This site is unusual in its con--

391

centration of cisterns and threshing floors; possibly it served as a re-gional center for processing of the summer crops. Pottery: IrA II – 25%; ER – 2%; LR – 3%; Byz – 30%; EM – 20%; MA – 20%. Previous surveys: none.

310. Plan of the complex at Kh. es-Sun‘ah. Note the threshing floors and cisterns.

392

CHAPTER NINE

311. Pottery from Kh. es-Sun‘ah: nos. 1, 3 – IrA II: 1. CP, br; 2. Jar, lt, LR; 3. Bowl, yel; 4. Jar, lt br, ER; 5. Jug, lt, ER; 6, 7. Jar rims, Byz; 8, Handle, Byz.

 Site 140: 19 – 18/23/1

Khirbet Muqeysimeh (on the SWP map: Kh. Umm Keis-meh; Guérin: Kh. Oumm Keismah) Israel grid: 1928 1837 UTM grid: 7321 5701 Elevation: 85 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: large site Area: 10 dunams (2.5 acres) Topography: low hilltop in valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 8 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 2.5 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), passes by site Visibility: 4 Mar. 17, 1988; 50 shards

***

A large, partially ruined site, on a low hilltop west of Moshav Beqa‘ot. To its west runs the road from Wadi el-Far‘ah to Meholah. There is a fine view to the center of the Buqei‘ah. The site was surveyed in 1967 by Damti, who describes it as fol-lows: “In the center of the ruin a large structure is discernible; its di-mensions are 30x30 m and its wide walls are built of stones in second--

ary use. The main opening is in the western wall; in the northwestern corner remnants of a round wall were located. To the south of the structure is a fallen stone pillar, 3 m in length. To the east and west of the structure were found two small, square towers, around which Iron Age II shards were collected. Hewn stones with Crusader edge hewing (!) were found, as well as cisterns. Possibly the settlement protected

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

the road between the Jordan Valley and Tubas and Jenin (!).” In April–May 1972 a salvage ex-cavation was carried out here. Five areas were opened along the above mentioned asphalt road. Dwelling places, containing several rooms, were exposed, with doorposts, hallways and courtyards with ov-ens. The finds included one coin, a lamp and many shards from the Byzantine Period. On the ridge slope northwest of the settlement were found ten graves, hewn in the rock. All of them were found looted, with Byz--

393

antine Period shards nearby. In the burial caves sarcophagoi and niches are hewn in the rock. The open-ings of the burial caves are hewn as arches. This area seems to serve as the site’s cemetery. Pottery: IrA II – 10%; Byz – 30%; EM – 30%; MA – 20%; Ott – 10%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no 149. They mention in particular the cemetery and hewn graves. Bibliography: SWP II, 241; Guérin 1969 (IV), 254-255; Ilan 1973, 334-335; AN 43 (1973), 11-12.

 Site 141: 19 – 18/63/1

Khirbet Umm Butmeh (on the SWP map: Kh. Umm Butma) Israel grid: 1968 1832 UTM grid: 7350 5701 Elevation: 38 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: structure Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 7 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Argaman (C21), passes by site Visibility: 3 May 19, 1982; Apr. 14, 1990; 27 shards ***

A structure in the northern edge of the central Buqei‘ah, about 1 km southeast of Moshav Ro‘i. A dirt road nearby leads to the eastern Buqei‘ah. The structure, about 8x10 in size,

is built of large, unhewn stones. It contains a court (southeast) and two rooms (northwest). Upper round and oval small rooms, built of pebbles, may represent a later stage. Next to the site are some

394

CHAPTER NINE

hewn, agricultural installations. The place is a farmhouse along the edge of the Buqei‘ah, founded and existed in the Middle Ages.

Pottery: MA – 100%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 152.

312. Plan of Kh. Umm Butmeh with its two stages.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

395

Site 142: 19 – 18/72/1

‘Iraq el-Asbah Israel grid: 1976 1829 UTM grid: 7359 5699 Elevation: 70 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: caves Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 7 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman junction (C21), passes by site Visibility: 2 May 19, 1982, Apr. 1, 1990, 29 shards ***

Cave dwellings on the northern edge of the Buqei‘ah, about 2 km southeast of Moshav Ro‘i. They are located in a small, internal ravine. The caves with settlement re-mains are above the ravine. Dump with remains including shards, bones and other items is found in

font of the openings. The ceilings are all blacked from smoke. Dwell-ing caves with settlement remains, on the range above the site, were also found and checked. Pottery: MA – 100% (in the cave dwellings). Previous surveys: none.

313. Pottery from the cave dwellings at ‘Iraq es-Asbah, from MA: 1. Dec shard, br on wh; 2. Bowl, gray; 3. Jug base, yel.

396

CHAPTER NINE

Site 143: 19 – 18/50/1

Khirbet Humsah (on SWP map: Hute Saduneh; Guérin: Tell es-Safra) Israel grid: 1955 1806 UTM grid: 7348 5677 Elevation: 67 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: historical place on map Site type: fortress Area: 5.1 dunams (1.28 acres) Topography: valley edge, hilltop and saddle Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 4 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman junction (C21), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 4 May 19, 1982; Apr. 22, 1992; 66 shards ***

A site in a broad ravine, connect-ing the center of the Buqei‘ah with Wadi el-Far‘ah. It is located in the southern Buqei‘ah, with high Ras Humsah towers it from the east.

Wadi Humsah begins there and continues south to Wadi el-Far‘ah. The well preserved complex, on a low hilltop, was presumably a for-tress. It was fortified, at least in its

314. Bird’s eye view of Kh. Humsah, viewed from the south. The fortress is on the hill at right; the dams are in the gorge at left.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

original stage. It is well constructed of large, hewn stones. The nucleus is a square courtyard, about 33X33 m in size, surrounded by series of rooms. Northwest of this building there is a large courtyard, 40X25 m in size, less preserved than the square fort. In the vicinity of the court and the fort there are many remains of walls of dismantled buildings. The entrance into the complex was

397

through a long hallway running northwest – southeast, with a large cistern opening in its center. In a later stage (marked gray in fig. 315) several rooms were erected upon the original ones. Some 0.2 km east of the fortress, in a wadi, two well built dams were found, arranged one after the other. These were the water suppliers of the site. Pottery: LR – 20%; Byz – 50%;

315. The fortress plan at Kh. Humsah.

398

CHAPTER NINE

EM – 20%; MA – 10%. Coin find: Four coins, from LRA to the EM; see appendix. Conder and Kitchener mention “remains of a structure and a pool”. It may have been Guérin’s Tel Za-phrah, where he mentions “a small hill, covered with medium and large sized stones, whose origin was ruined buildings”. This seems to be a Roman – Byz--

antine Periods fortress of the Cas-tellum type, several of which are known in the survey (cf. nos. 144, 266 in this volume) Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 166. They describe “remnants of solitary structures on a low hilltop, constructed from field stones”. Bibliography: SWP II, 237; Guérin 1969 (IV), 253.

316. The upper dam near Kh. Humsah, looking southeast.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

399

317. The fortress of Kh. Humsah, looking north, April 1993.

 Site 144: 19 – 17/88/1

Khirbet Umm Kharaz (on SWP map: Kh. Umm Harraz) Israel grid: 1980 1781 UTM grid: 7372 5646 Elevation: 8 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: historical place on map Site type: fortress Area: 2.6 dunam (0.65 acre) Topography: valley edge and hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Colluvial – Alluvial; quality: 4

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 3 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 5 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman junction (C21), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 4 May 8, 1983; Mar. 20, 1992; 52 shards

***

A fortress in the southeastern Buqei‘ah. Nearby, Wadi Abu Sidreh begins its descent into the Jordan valley. There is a fine view from the site of the Jordan Valley, Ras Hum--

sah and the eastern Buqei‘ah. The basic plan (apparently dating to the Roman – Byzantine Periods) is a square courtyard surrounded

400

CHAPTER NINE

by a massive wall 1.5–2 m wide. Originally measuring 35x35 m, in the present day only the southern half and sections of the surround-ing wall have survived. The rest was destroyed by the Israel Defense Forces. In the center there is a mas-sive structure of large stones (a tow-er), 10x10 m in size and 2 m high. Inside the fort and along the wall various rooms are discerned, with several hewn cisterns. At a later stage some structures were added on the outside. The northern slope is supported by wide terrace walls,

while on the southern one there are two large circles surrounded by walls, presumably threshing floors. The plan is of the castellum type, with a central tower as in site no. 259. It seems to play a military role, possibly road control. Pottery: IrA II – 5%; IrA III – 30%; LR – 10%; Byz – 40%; EM – 15%. Flint find: see appendix. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 241.

318. The fortress of Kh. Umm Kharaz, after its partial destruction by the Israeli army. Above to the right is an army training installation, viewed to the west.

THE BUQEI‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 17

401

319. Plan and reconstruction of the Roman–Byzantine fortress at Kh. Umm Kharaz.

CHAPTER TEN

JEBEL TAMMUN LANDSCAPE UNIT 18

Young women draw water in a traditional village etching by P. Lortet (1884)

JEBEL TAMMUN — LANDSCAPE UNIT 18

405

Site 145: 18 – 18/48/2

Abu Loz Israel grid: 1841 1881 UTM grid: 5223 5748 Elevation: 342 m a.s.l., 150 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 1.1 dunams (0.28 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 8

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 2 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh Junction (B5), 1 km distant Visibility: 9 Dec. 9, 1982; 95 shards and 30 flint items ***

A site on a high summit on the western edge of the Tammun Range, about 2 km west of the vil--

lage of Tammun.The valley of Wadi el-Far‘ah extends to the south and west of the site. There is a fine view

320. Pottery from Abu Loz: 1, 3. Bowl bases, yel, MBA II; 2. Especially large crater, br, ‘Far‘ah Family’; 4. HM jar with rope dec, EBA I; 5. Jar, yel, EBA I; 6. Bowl, yel, MBA II; 7. Bowl with toothed rim, lt br, ‘Far‘ah Family’; 8. Jar, br, ‘Far‘ah Family’; 9. Small bowl, basalt; 10. Jar, pk, MBA II; 11. Jug, pk, MBA II; 12. Toothed ledge handle, br, ‘Far‘ah Family’.

406

CHAPTER TEN

of these areas from the site. The site is enclosed by a wall from the south, east and west. In the north there are bare rocks, suggesting an erosion of the wall. Inside there are few walls in situ, made of field stones, and building

stones. The site is especially rich in pottery. Pottery: Chal – 40%; EBA I – 40%; MBA II – 20%. Flint find: see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 146: 18 – 18/17/1

el-‘Ajjam Israel grid: 1813 1875 UTM grid: 7225 5744 Elevation: 342 m a.s.l., 70 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient but does not ap-pear on map Site type: enclosure Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 5

Cultivation: uncultivated and field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 2 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 7 Mar. 21, 1983; 11 shards ***

An oval enclosure on an isolated, rocky hill on the western edge of the Tammun Range, about 1.5 km west – southwest of the village of Tammun. Nearby is a pass (naqb) between Tammun and Tel el-Far‘ah. No sheikh’s tomb, as indicated in the map, exists here. The 1.8 m wide surrounding wall

is built from very large boulders. Some of them, on the bottom of the wall, are 1.0x0.6 m in size. On top of these there is a later layer of small field stones. The entrance is a built opening, with two stages as well, located on the east side. The area inside is basically empty, with few walls and fallen monoliths. The shards find is extremely sparse. On

321. Pottery from el-‘Ajjam, all MBA I: 1. Jar, br ; 2. Ledge handle; 3. HM jar, yel.

JEBEL TAMMUN — LANDSCAPE UNIT 18

a saddle east of the pass are round tumuli without any shards. Pottery: MBA I – 100%.

407

Previous surveys: Porath 1968, no. 42.

322. The el-‘Ajjam enclosure plan.

408

CHAPTER TEN

323. The Middle Bronze Age I enclosure on the el-‘Ajjam summit, looking north, 1993. The rocky place is difficult to approach. The path from Tammun to Wadi el-Far‘ah is in the left, on the saddle.

 Site 147: 18 – 18/75/1

Qabr ‘Abush Israel grid: 1877 1856 UTM grid: 7259 5725 Elevation: 590 m a.s.l., 300 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient but does not ap-pear on map Site type: small ruin, structure and cairn Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: high summit and ridge Rock type: Judah formation

Soil type: rendzina; quality: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 2 km distant Visibility: 10 Mar. 2, 1982; 22 shards

JEBEL TAMMUN — LANDSCAPE UNIT 18

A site on the highest summit of Jeb-el Tammun (590 m above sea level), with a very fine view of the entire valley of Wadi el-Far‘ah. Also seen are Tel el-Far‘ah, the Buqei‘ah and Ras Jadir. There is a pile of stones (a tomb or dismantled tumulus) with a new stone fence nearby. East of these is a cleared field, surrounded by a

409

stone fence. On the eastern slope an elongated structure, 10x19 m in size, was discerned, similar to the structure at “the Kurgan” (site no. 148 here). To the west is a hewn, Byzantine Period type winepress. Most of the shards were collected on the northern slope. Pottery: MBA I – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

324. Pottery from Qabr ‘Abush, all MBA I: 1. Bowl, br; 2. Jar, gray; 3, 6. Rope dec, yel; 4. Jar base, yel; 5. Folded ledge handle, dk.

 Site 148: 18 – 18/94/1

el-Khellaiyel (“The Kurgan”) Israel grid: 1893 1849 UTM grid: 7276 5718 Elevation: 540 m a.s.l., 250 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin, structure and cairn Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: high summit and ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: grumosoles and rendzina; quality: 2

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 6 km distant Nearest road: Tel el-Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 2 km distant Visibility: 10 Mar. 18, 1982; Dec. 21, 1988; Apr. 21, 1993; 122 shards and six flint items

410

CHAPTER TEN

A site on a high summit of Jebel Tammun, to the east of a narrow, rocky saddle. There is a very fine view to Wadi el-Far‘ah. The site consists of three parts: 1. A pyramid-like hillock (“Kur-gan”), 25 m in diameter and 6 m high. It is basically compose of re-mains of ash and burnt bones, to-gether with dirt and stones. Inside are structural remains, with many shards scattered nearby. 2. Some 120 m northwest of the “kurgan” is an elongated structure of large boulders, 5x25 m in size. It is divided into two halls of un-equal length. Close to it is a smaller tumulus. 3. 50 m north of the “Kur--

gan” there is a large, empty burial cave with steps leading into it. In the area of the long structure two dismantled circles of stones were found. Long walls extends to the northwest of the complex, but their connection to it is unclear. To the north of the site there is also a hewn basin. The site is exceptional in its lo-cation and structure, with a most varied pottery. All characteristics suggests a cultic center with fire sacrificial activities. Pottery: Chal – EBA I (‘Far‘ah Fam-ily’) – 30%; MBA I – 20%; MBA IIB – 25%; LB I – 25%. Flint find: Six undefined items. Previous surveys: none.

325. An overall picture, from the west, of the cultic site at el-Khellaiyel (“The Kurgan”). The large pile of ash (on which the figure stands) is on the cliff of Jebel Tammun, which descends southward into Wadi el-Far‘ah. 1985.

JEBEL TAMMUN — LANDSCAPE UNIT 18

411

326. Plan of the el-Khellaiyel complex. In the center is “The Kurgan” and above it, to the northwest, the elongated structure and the tumuli near it.

412

CHAPTER TEN

327. “The Kurgan” - a pile of ash and bone fragments, the central part of the site of el-Khellaiyel, looking north. At right, in the distance, are the ranges of Jebel Tammun. 1986.

328. The elongated structure at el-Khellaiyel, looking north. In the distance are the rang-es of Jebel Tammun. 1986.

JEBEL TAMMUN — LANDSCAPE UNIT 18

413

329. Pottery from el-Khellaiyel: 1. Bowl base, lt, MBA II; 2, 4. Bowls, br, rope dec, ‘Far‘ah Family’; 5-6. CP, dk, LB; 7. HM jar, gray, MBA I; 8. Bowl, pk, MBA II; 9. Jar, lt, MBA II; 10. Jug, br, LB; 3, 11. Rope dec, br, ‘Far‘ah Family’.

 Site 149: 18 – 18/95/1

Khirbet Umm el-Kubesh (also on SWP map) Israel grid: 1898 1852 UTM grid: 7281 5721 Elevation: 470 m a.s.l., 200 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient but does not ap-pear on map Site type: small ruin and farm Area: 1.6 dunams (0.4 acre) Topography: plateau Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: grumosoles and rendzina; quality: 4

Cultivation: uncultivated and field crops Cisterns: 4 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 8 km distant Nearest road: Tammun – Beqa‘ot junction (C20), 1 km distant Visibility: 9 Mar. 18, 1982; Apr. 21, 1993; 41 shards

414

CHAPTER TEN

A farm-complex on a small summit on the edge of a plateau. It is lo-cated on the second, northeastern, step of Jebel Tammun, with a fine view of the entire Buqei‘ah and Ras Jadir. The central feature is a large structure, about 45x44 m in size; it compose of an inner courtyard with wings of rooms around. In the southern side there is a small court-yard surrounded by rooms. The inner masonry is of ashlars, while other walls are of hewn field stones. In the western part is a long court-yard; a building with three rooms protrudes westward from the enclo-sure wall. In the northeastern wing, the shortest one, nine rooms with openings and doorposts in situ were found. Another long courtyard sep-arates the northeastern courtyard

from the southern one. A separate, small structure with three rooms is located slightly southeast of the structure. Some 40 m to the south-east there is an agricultural complex, with three threshing floors and two structures, one with rooms, be-tween them. Due to its remoteness, the place is very well preserved. In the center of the site there are two olive presses in situ and a hewn wine cellar. Northeast of it there are a burial cave and a hewn trough. The site represents a full scale farming complex. The pottery finds suggest the Middle Ages as the most important period. Pottery: Byz – 25%; EM – 20%; MA – 55%. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 241.

330. Pottery from Kh. Umm el-Kubesh: 1-2. Bowl bases, EM; 3. Decorated shards, Mameluk.

331. Kh. Umm el-Kubesh: decorated shards from the Mameluk Period, violet on white.

JEBEL TAMMUN — LANDSCAPE UNIT 18

415

332. Plan of Kh. Umm el-Kubesh. Note the oil press installations in the courtyard and the array of threshing floors southeast of the farm.

416

CHAPTER TEN

333. Aerial photo (looking east) of the farm complex at Kh. Umm el-Kubesh, on the northeastern slope of Jebel Tammun. Winter 1993.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

WADI EL-FAR‘AH LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

A deep wadi in the Samaria area, by W. H. Bartlett

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

419

Site 150: 18 – 18/28/1

Burj el-Far‘ah (on SWP map: Burj el Farah) Israel grid: 1829 1883 UTM grid: 7206 5750 Elevation: 195 m a.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: on map as ancient site Site type: tell and fortress Area: 8 dunams (2 acres) Topography: ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 3 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), 0.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 3 Dec. 10, 1982; 41 shards

*** A tell and a fortress at the edge of whose terraces have been preserved a narrow ridge, whose steep slopes until today. Only the northern part descend into Wadi el-Far‘ah. The of the ridge is attached to its envi-site is located about 1 km east of rons. On the southern edge there Tel el-Far‘ah. is a relatively well-preserved medi-The fortress stands on a small tell eval fortress, 25x30 m in size and

334. The tell and fortress at Burj el-Far‘ah, looking northwest. Note the prominent wall, the fortified place, and the moat. 1993.

420

CHAPTER ELEVEN

separated from the ridge by a moat, about 4-5 m wide and 2 m deep. The fortress consists of a central courtyard surrounded by rooms, with a tower wall standing to 8 m high. The good masonry is of hewn stones with mortar. In the area are many shards. Pottery: IrA II – 30%; IrA III – 10%; Per – 10%; Hel – 15%; ER – 5%; MA – 30%. Burj el-Far‘ah, continued from Iron Age II until the Middle Ages, was apparently intended to protect

the springs. The place is not men-tioned in the Crusader or Moslem sources of the Middle Ages. The British Surveyors describe “a square tower of small dimensions. It was apparently built as a guard tower and is not older than the Saracenic Period”. Guérin mentions “a square tower, 20 by 20 paces”. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 115. Bibliography: Guérin 1969 (IV), 259-261; SWP II, 234-235; Ilan 1973, 362-363.

335. Pottery from Burj el-Far‘ah: nos. 2, 6-10 – IrA II; 1. Jar body shard, Byz; 2. CP, br; 3. Bowl, gray, Per; 4. Dec jug, violet on wh, MA; 5. Bowl, br, ER; 6-7. HM jars, br; 8. Jug, yel; 9. Ridged jar, gray/orange; 10. Bowl, red slip; 11. Jar, yel, Hel; 12. Bowl, MA; 13. Jar base, Sigillata, ER; 14. Jug, Hel.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

421

Site 151: 18 – 18/28/2

Tel el-Far‘ah (on SWP map: Tell el Farah) Israel grid: 1821 1881 UTM grid: 7214 5749 Elevation: 150 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: on map as ancient site Site type: fortified tell Area: 80 dunams (20 acres) Topography: valley edge and hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and colluvial-al--

luvial; quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 22 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elFar‘ah, no. 85), next to site Nearest road: Far‘ah – Qabatiyeh junction (B5), passes by site Visibility: 3 Dec. 10, 1982; 56 shards ***

A large tell on the western edge of Wadi el-Far‘ah. It is separated from the plain by steep ravines in the north, and approached via a saddle (west). Around the place there are two rich springs – ‘Ain el-Far‘ah (east) and ‘Ain ed-Dilb (south). Excavations by the French Ex-pedition under the direction of R. de-Vaux, between 1948 and 1963, uncovered large fortifications (a wide wall and gate) and a city dated to the Early Bronze Age I-II. Fol-lowing a prosperous period during Middle Bronze Age IIB, the city much shrank during Late Bronze Age II. The small Iron Age I settle-ment is dated to the 11th Century B.C.E. During the Israelite King-dom (Iron Age II) the city, which became for a short period the capi-tal of the northern kingdom, pros-pered again, just to be destroyed and burnt during the revolt of

Omri (ca. 870 B.C.E.). Then, the capital was moved to the Samaria. Around the tell several cemeteries and tombs were unearthed by the French expedition. Pottery: Neolithic – 5%; Chal – 5%; EBA I – 5%; EBA II – 20%; EBA III – 5%; EBA IV – 5%; MBA I – 5%; MBA IIB – 5%; LB I – 3%; LB II – 5%; LB III – 5%; IrA IC – 2%; IrA II – 20%; IrA III – 5%; Per – 5%. Albright identified the tell with Tirzah (Joshua 12:24; I Kings 14: 17; 15:21; etc), the capital of the Kings of Israel. This identification was accepted after the French Ex-pedition excavations; see chapter three. Bibliography: de Vaux, R., and Steve, A. M., 1947; 1948-1949; 1951; 1952; 1955; 1957; 19611962; De Vaux 1992; Chambon 1984; Mallet 1987.

422

CHAPTER ELEVEN

336. Tel el-Far‘ah - the tell and the excavation areas. Drawn after Chambon 1984, Plate 4.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

423

Site 152: 18 – 18/47/2

Wadi esh-Sha‘ab Israel grid: 1842 1875 UTM grid: 7223 7543 Elevation: 170 m a.s.l., 8 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: shard scatter Area: 8 dunams (2 acres) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 2 km distant Visibility: 3 July 5, 1982; 12 shards ***

A site on a step, about 2 km east of Tel el-Far‘ah. It is located where Wadi esh-Sha‘ab enters the plain of Wadi el-Far‘ah. A small shard scatter was found on the natural step near the wadi, which descends from Jebel Tam--

mun. There is also a three-wall structure, made of large field stones, with no shards nearby. The relation of the shards and the structure is unclear. Pottery: Neolithic – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 153: 18 – 18/36/1

Khirbet esh-Sheikh Smett (A) (on SWP map: Kh. Es Smeit and in Guérin: Kh. A’sir) Israel grid: 1835 1867 UTM grid: 7218 5735 Elevation: 170 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: large ruin and sheikh's tomb Area: 16 dunams (4 acres) Topography: valley Rock type: alluvium covering Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 8 Cultivation: uncultivated and field crops Cisterns: 28 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah no. 104, 0.6 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 3 July 5, 1982; 49 shards

424

CHAPTER ELEVEN

A site and a sheik's tomb on the up-per, northwestern part of Wadi elFar‘ah valley, about 2 km southeast of Tel el-Far‘ah and in the center of a small plain (Sahl Figas). There are good many ruined structures, mostly built of large, hewn stones; in some of them the plaster has also been preserved. The tomb of Sheikh Smett, in the south-east part, contains a half-ruined structure with mikhrab, supported by two columns in secondary use, one made of marble. An upsidedown other column base there was used as a column capital. Next to the structure is a paved courtyard with a cistern and gutter. To the south of

the ruin several hewn, agricultural installations were discovered. Many walls are in situ, with pieces of glass and rough mosaic stones. Pottery: Byz – 60%; EM – 10%; MA – 30%. Guérin notes the sheik's tomb and names it Kharbet A’sir, which he connects with Asher (Joshua 17:7). SWP members describe “Walls, apparently modern, with a dome, possibly ancient, and a col-umn with a capital.” Previous surveys: Porath 1968, no. 48; Knierim 1969, no. 2. Bibliography: SWP II, 240; Guérin 1969 (IV), 261.

337. The tomb of esh-Sheikh Smett, looking west. Summer 1982.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

425

Site 154: 18 – 18/46/1

ej-Jelameh Israel grid: 1840 1868 UTM grid: 7222 5745 Elevation: 140 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: known as historical but does not appear on map Site type: small ruin Area: 1.8 dunams (0.45 acre) Topography: valley edge and valley Rock type: alluvium covering Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 7 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 4 July 5, 1982; 41 shards ***

A small site on an eastern slope, be-tween Wadi el-Far‘ah and the west-ern ranges of Jebel Tammun. Some 0.3 km to the west is esh-Sheikh Smett (site no. 153 here). A few remains of walls made of hewn stones, with scatter of pottery and glass fragments, mark the re-mains. On the slope there are built

steps, and in the wadi below is a concentration of cisterns. This may have been a large farm or a structure related to the central site of Kh. esh-Sheikh Smett near-by. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

338. Pottery from ej-Jelameh, all Byz: 1, 3. Jars, br; 2. Bowl, lt. br; 4. Dec jug, yel; 5. Jar handle, dk; 6. ‘frying pan’ handle, dk.

426

CHAPTER ELEVEN

339. The Byzantine Period site of ej-Jalameh, looking west. The remains are on the low hill in the foreground. Summer 1982.

 Site 155: 18 – 18/36/2

Khirbet esh-Sheikh Smett (B) Israel grid: 1833 1867 UTM grid: 7215 5735 Elevation: 170 m a.s.l., 50 m b.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: large ruin Area: 30 dunams (7.5 acres) Topography: slope and valley Rock type: alluvium covering Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 8 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 2 July 5, 1982; 87 shards ***

A large site on the upper, northwest-ern part of Wadi el-Far‘ah, about 2 km southeast of Tel el-Far‘ah. The original settlement extended over

the plain and slopes, and only on the small, northern part the later ruin and the tomb of Sheikh Smett were built (site no. 153 here).

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

The remains of dozens of build-ings in situ, built of field stones, are discerned. They are spread over five large, artificial steps. On the southern slope a possible fortifica-tion wall of large stones was found. Building stones are also scattered about. The site was the main settlement in the area during Middle Bronze

427

Age I, and a possible “mate” of Tel el-Far‘ah. In 1969 Knierim visited here, but did not differentiate be-tween the earlier and the later site. Porath also included both in one site. Pottery: Chal – 2%; MBA I – 40%; MBA IIB – 58%. Previous surveys: Porath 1968, no. 48; Knierim 1969, no. 2.

340. Pottery from the Middle Bronze Age site of esh-Sheikh Smett (B): nos. 7-8 – MBA I, the rest – MBA IIB: 1. Bowl base, yel; 2. Bowl with dec on rim, yel; 3. Bowl base, br; 4, 6. Bowls, yel; 7. Jar, gray; 8. Jar handle, yel; 9, 11. Bowls, yel; 10, 12. Jars, br.

428

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Site 156: 18 – 18/05/1

Khirbet Farweh (Kh. ‘Ain el-Beidan) Israel grid: 1802 1850 UTM grid: 7179 5722 Elevation: 168 m a.s.l., 50 m b.s.a. Name type: historical site but not on map Site type: large ruin Area: 20 dunams (5 acres) Topography: narrow ridge between wadis Rock type: Judah formation

Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 12 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain elBeidan, no. 83), near the site Nearest road: Shechem – Far‘ah (B2), passes by site Visibility: 2 Mar. 11, 1985; 70 shards ***

A large site in a narrow ravine and on a ridge, adjacent to the good springs of ‘Ain el-Beidan and ‘Ain Kudeira. The road descending from Shechem to Wadi el-Far‘ah pass

nearby. The site is enclosed by high Mount Ebal (west) and by Wadi Sajur (south). The area of the site is populated now by stores and cafés, where the road sharply bends.

341. View to the west of Kh. Farweh and its environs. In the center of the photo is deep Wadi Abrad; to its left is Jebel Kebir, with the slopes of Mount Ebal and the road to Shechem to the right. 1989.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

At various places in the sections along the road ruined structures, floors, building stones and pieces of marble are visible. There are also ashlars, pillars and a base in the At-tic style, ceramic pipes for water and a Corinthian capital in a yard near the road. An eroded rectan-gular structure, with walls of ash-lars and field stones alternately, is found at grid point 1809/1851. Its doorpost is also made of one ash-lar. This structure is now a Welli, or a holy Sheik's tomb for the locals. Along the road there are openings of burial caves, one with a sarcopha-gus. About 0.5 km upwards there a group of Roman milestones, col--

429

lected together. Pottery: EBA I – 10%; EBA II – 10%; Hel – 10%; ER – 15%; LR – 20%; Byz – 20%; EM – 5%; Ott – 5%; Mod – 5%. This site composed a settlement and a roadside inn. The settlement is identified as Mishnaic Bedan, and see identifications. An inn and a roadside station named Thera stood here during the Crusader Period. Previous surveys: Porath 1968, no. 64. Bibliography: SWP II, 237; Beyer 1940, 173; Avi-Yonah 1963, 124; Reich 1991 (report on excavation of a tomb).

 Site 157: 18 – 18/35/1

Khirbet es-Sirb (on SWP map: Kh. es Serb) Israel grid: 1832 1855 UTM grid: 7225 5720 Elevation: 125 m a.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: on map as historical site Site type: medium-sized ruin Area: 8 dunams (2 acres) Topography: ridge edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 7 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 8 Nearest water source: Wadi elFar‘ah (no. 104), near to site Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), passes by site Visibility: 6 Mar. 19, 1980; 40 shards ***

A medium-sized ruin on the edge of a narrow ridge, above the point where two branches of Wadi elFar‘ah meet. There are many foundations of

field stones, yet most of the stones are concentrated in piles. Some wall corners, made of ashlars with holes for bolts, are preserved, with plenty of shards and broken glass.

430

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Pottery: LR – 30%; Byz – 40%; EM – 15%; MA – 15%. Previous surveys: Kappus 1966, 78-

79; Kallai 1972, no. 1. Bibliography: SWP II, no. 240.

342. Kh. es-Sirb (on the high hill in center), looking west. To the right and below are Wadi el-Far‘ah and the road from Shechem to the Jordan Valley. Autumn 1985.

 Site 158: 18 – 18/14/1

Khirbet el-Khrebat (on SWP map: Ain Es-Subian; Kappus: Kh. el-Hurebe) Israel grid: 1814 1846 UTM grid: 7206 5712 Elevation: 180 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: on map as historical site Site type: medium-sized ruin Area: 6.5 dunams (1.63 acres) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 6 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.5 km distant Nearest road: Shechem – Far‘ah (B2), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 5 Mar. 4, 1983; 68 shards

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

A site on a slope in the narrowest, southwestern part of the Wadi elFar‘ah valley, where the slopes of Jebel Kebir meet Wadi el-Beidan. The site, on a narrow step, con-sists of two parts: The first, main khirbeh, in the western side, contains structures of large, hewn stones. Nearby and be-side are built terraces, caves, instal-lations, cisterns and a large shard

431

scatter. East of the site is the second part, the cemetery. Here are many looted burial caves, a modern struc-ture and terraces. Only few shards were found here. Pottery: Byz – 5%; EM – 70%; MA – 25%. Coin find: Three Medieval coins; see appendix. Previous surveys: Kappus 1966, 77; Porath 1968, no. 66.

343. Pottery from Kh. el-Khrebat: 1-5. EM; 6-7. Byz; 8 – MA: 1. Bowl, gray; 2. Jar, dk gray; 3. Bowl, yel; 4. Bowl, green and bl glaze; 5. Jug base, br; 6-7. Jars, br; 8. Bowl shard, br dec on white.

 Site 159: 18 – 18/34/1

Wa‘ar el-Quf Israel grid: 1831 1841 UTM grid: 7231 5708 Elevation: 175 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 2.8 dunams (0.7 acre) Topography: valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (branch of Wadi Beidan, no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Shechem – Far‘ah (B2), 1 km distant Visibility: 4 Mar. 4, 1983; Jan. 15, 1984; 115 shards

432

CHAPTER ELEVEN

A site on the lower, southern step of the Wadi el-Far‘ah valley, north of Jebel Kebir. Near a rocky ravine, on an area of broad ridges, foundations of six structures were found in front of two large, hewn caves. Their walls, of hewn stones, are 1.5 m high. Above the step and caves are struc-tures, installations and other caves.

On top of a site from Middle Bronze Age IIB and Iron Age II the small, rural settlement was estab-lished and abandoned between the 15th – 17th centuries C.E. Pottery: MBA IIB – 30%; IrA II – 10%; MA – 40%; Early Ott – 20%. Previous surveys: none.

344. Pottery from Wa‘ar el-Quf: nos. 5, 7-8, 10 – MBA IIB; 4 – IrA II; 1-3, 6, 9 – MA: 1-3. Bowls, slip and dec; 4. CP, br; 5. Bowl, yel; 6, 9. Dec shards, br on wh and glaze; 7, 10. Jars, yel; 8. Bowl base, gray.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

433

Site 160: 18 – 18/54/1

el-‘Unuq Israel grid: 1852 1840 UTM grid: 7244 5706 Elevation: 48 m a.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure Area: 14.9 dunams (3.73 acres) Topography: ridge edge and hilltop Rock type: alluvium covering Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium; quality: 7

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), near the site Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 4 Feb. 10, 1983 and other visits; 174 shards ***

A large enclosure on a hilltop, isolat-ed by ravines, in the Wadi el-Far‘ah valley. The wadi flows to its north, in a narrow channel. The site is best approached through a saddle from the south, with a dirt road passes

0.3 km in the southeast. The enclosure, elliptical in shape, is 250 m long and 70 m wide. It is surrounded by a well-built wall of large field stones. On the southeast-ern part of the wall there is a built

345. Aerial photo of the enclosure at el-‘Unuq, looking northwest. Winter 1987.

434

CHAPTER ELEVEN

entrance, with a presumed another one on the western wall. The enclosure is divided into two unequal parts: the large, southern one is about two thirds in area, while the smaller one is in the north. A dirt rampart, presumably covering a wall, separates them. Near and out-side the southwestern tip is a 10x15 m rectangular structure. Other structures may have been built on the inside. In the middle of the southern tip there is a round stone pile 5 m in diameter, most probably covering a round structure. There is a small wall nearby.

This is possibly to be identi-fied with a biblical Gilgal. If so, an identification with the one related to the road to Ebal and Garizim (Deutronomium11: 29-30) can be suggested, and see chapter on iden-tifications. Pottery: IrA IA – 70%; “‘Eynun” – 20%; IrA II – 10%. Many shards with indented decoration and “hu-man faces” were found; see ceramic introduction. Previous surveys: Zertal 1988, 162 and no. 452. Bibliography: Zertal 1991, 38-43.

346. Pottery from el-‘Unuq (all, except no. 12, IrA IA): 1. ‘Manassite’ bowl, br; 2, 7. Py-thoi, br; 3, 4. Indented handles; 5. Pyxis handle, lt br; 6. Bowl, br; 8, 9. Crater bases, dk br; 10. Bowl base, br; 11. Jug, lt br; 12. Jar, black with orange outside, IrA II.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

347. Plan of el-‘Unuq. Note the ‘sandal shape’ form of the site.

435

436

CHAPTER ELEVEN

348. Handles of jars and jugs with indented decoration, from the enclosure of el-‘Unuq, IrA I.

 Site 161: 18 – 18/74/2

Maqbarat en-Nuseriyyeh Israel grid: 1870 1843 UTM grid: 7258 5709 Elevation: 100 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: ancient cemetery Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: rendzina; quality: 3

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 5 June 27, 1982; 54 shards ***

A looted cemetery in the southern foothills of Jebel Tammun. See the description of elMaqbarah (site no. 162 here).

Pottery: EBA I – 60%; MBA IIB – 10%; LB I – 15%; LB II – 15%. Previous surveys: none.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

437

349. Selected pottery from the looted cemeteries (Sites nos. 161-162): nos. 1-4 – 'Gray burnished' ware craters, EBI; nos. 5-10 – small jars with red slip, EBI.

438

CHAPTER ELEVEN

350. The looted cemetery at Maqbarat en-Nuseriyyeh, with tomb openings and material removed from tombs. Large cemeteries are characteristic of the margins of Wadi el-Far‘ah. 1982.

 Site 162: 18 – 18/74/1

el-Maqbarah Israel grid: 1879 1841 UTM grid: 7254 5712 Elevation: 100 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: ancient cemetery Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: rendzina; quality: 3

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 6 June 27, 1982; 81 shards ***

A burial area on the northern edge of the Wadi el-Far‘ah valley in the low, southern edge of Jebel Tam-mun.

The cemeteries, in an advanced looting, extend over the lower ridg-es of Jebel Tammun. Hundreds of holes of shaft and tunnel caves, in

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

various stages of illegal excavations, are on the site. Many shards, includ-ing large fragments of vessels, are scattered outside the graves. Similar cemeteries extend eastwards, along

439

the foothills of Jebel Tammun. Pottery: EBA I – 60%; MBA IIB – 10%; LB III – 10%; IrA I – 10%; IrA II – 10%. Previous surveys: none.

351. Pottery from the cemetery at el-Maqbarah: 1. Crater base, IrA II; 2. Carinated bowl, yel, MBA IIB; 3. Jar, dk; 4. Small jar, EBA I; 5-6. Bowl bases, yel, MBA II.

 Site 163: 18 – 18/84/1

el-Maqaber Israel grid: 1885 1841 UTM grid: 7267 5709 Elevation: 100 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site but does not appear on map Site type: ancient cemetery Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation

Soil type: rendzina; quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 6 June 27, 1982; 39 shards ***

A burial area in the southern foot-hills of Jebel Tammun. See the de-scription of el-Magbarah (site no. 162 here).

Pottery: EBA I – 80%; LB III – 10%; IrA I – 10%. Previous surveys: none.

440

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Site 164: 18 – 18/43/3

Khirbet Umm Qasim (on SWP map: Kh. Umm el Kasim) Israel grid: 1840 1832 UTM grid: 7233 5698 Elevation: 170 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site but does not appear on map Site type: medium-sized ruin Area: 6.1 dunams (1.53 acres) Topography: slope and ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 4 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Farr, no. 109), 1 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 2 km distant Visibility: 4 Feb. 12, 1983; 24 shards ***

A ruin at the bottom of a steep ra-vine, descending from Jebel Kebir northward to Wadi el-Far‘ah, on the second step above the river.

Some ten structures of large, slightly hewn stones, are on both sides of the ravine. They are welllaid on top of built terraces, with

352. A view from the east of Kh. Umm Qasim. The ruin is located on the slope at left, descending into the plains of Wadi el-Far‘ah River. The range ascending to the left is Jebel Kebir. 1983.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

an especially sturdy masonry. In the center of the wadi there ia a well-built dividing wall, possibly a dam. At the top of the site there is a built cistern. East of the ravine, on the cliffs, several looted burial caves are discerned, well hewn and with arched openings and niches inside. A looted, broken stone sarcophagus was also discovered.

441

The original construction of the site may have been during Iron Age II, and during the Early Roman Pe-riod it may have been used solely as a burial ground; but this requires additional investigation. Pottery: IrA II – 30%; ER – 70%. Previous surveys: none. Bibliography: SWP II, 241.

353. Pottery from Kh. Umm Qasim: nos. 1, 3 – IrA II; the rest – ER: 1. Jar, br; 2. Jug, lt br; 3. HM jar, gray/orange; 4-8. Jugs and jars, lt br.

 Site 165: 18 – 18/43/2

Khallet esh-Shukreh Israel grid: 1847 1836 UTM grid: 7239 5703 Elevation: 55 m a.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 3.1 dunams (0.78 acre) Topography: slope and ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Farr, no. 109), 1.2 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 2 km distant Visibility: 6 Feb. 10, 1983; 49 shards

442

CHAPTER ELEVEN

A site on a long, narrow ridge that descends northward to Wadi elFar‘ah from Jebel Kebir. This ridge ends, in its bottom part, at the enclosure of el-‘Unuq( site no. 160 here). At the site are four steps, built on terraces. On these steps, there are a few structural remains and many shards. A road, built of two rows of

large curbstones and the 2 m wide, passes through the center of the site and descends toward el-‘Unuq (site 160). There may be a connection between this site and el-‘Unuq. Pottery: IrA IA – 10%; IrA II – 60%; IrA III – 30%. Special find: Bowl fragment with wedge decoration. Previous surveys: none.

354. Pottery from Khallet esh-Shukreh: nos. 1-5 – IrA IA; 7-12 – IrA II; 6 – IrA III: 1. CP, Type A, dk br; 2-4. Bowls, br; 5. Crater, lt br; 6. Wedge-decorated bowl base, orange and black; 7. CP, br; 8. Bowl, br; 9-12. Jugs and jars, br.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

443

Site 166: 18 – 18/43/1

Khirbet Bet Farr (A) (on SWP map: Kh. Beit Far) Israel grid: 1848 1831 UTM grid: 7225 5698 Elevation: 150 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: tell Area: 6.5 dunams (1.63 acres) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 7 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Farr, no. 109), 0.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 2 km distant Visibility: 6 Dec. 6, 1983; 77 shards ***

A tell on an artificial step on a slope, upon one of the ridges descending from Jebel Kebir to Wadi el-Far‘ah. To its east is Kh. Bet Farr (B) (site

no. 168 here), separated by a nar-row ravine. The tell rises about 9 m above the area to its north. In its center there

355. The Iron Age tell of Kh. Bet Farr (A), looking west. In the foreground are remains of the Kh. Bet Farr (B) site. At left is Jebel Kebir with Wadi el-Far‘ah valley (right). Winter 1983.

444

CHAPTER ELEVEN

is an enclosure or large courtyard, surrounded by a stone wall. Inside are structural remains, building stones and many shards. Beside this is another large structure, 20x20 m in size, whose walls are single stone wide. The SWP surveyors mention just the later Bet Farr to the east (site no. 168 here). Porath, as well, did not differentiate between the two sites. Kappus divided the entire area into sections and dated them to the

“Middle and Late Arab” periods. Pottery: IrA IA – 20%; IrA II – 70%; IrA III – 10%; LR – 5%; Byz – 5%. Special find: Handle with 'human face' decoration (IrA IA); see intro-duction on ceramics. Identification: Porath's identifica-tion of this site as Tiphsah (II Kings 15:16) is difficult; see chapter on identifications. Previous surveys: Kappus 1966, 7980; Porath 1968, no. 72.

356. Pottery from Kh. Bet Farr (A): nos. 1-4, 12 – IrA IA; 8, 11 – LR; the rest – IrA II-III: 1. Bowl, lt br; 2. CP, br; 3. Pythos, br; 4. CP, dk br; 5. Crater, br; 6. CP, dk br; 7. Crater, lt br; 8. Jar, lt br; 9. HM jar, lt br; 10. Ridged jar, br; 11. Bowl, yel; 12. Dec handle, lt br.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

445

Site 167: 18 – 18/73/1

el-Khirbeh (en-Nuseriyyeh) Israel grid: 1874 1838 UTM grid: 7255 5705 Elevation: 15 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: historical site but does not appear on map Site type: medium-sized ruin Area: 9.8 dunams (2.45 acres) Topography: slope and valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa, alluvium and

Mediterranean brown forest soil; qual-ity: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 4 June 27, 1982; 39 shards ***

A ruin on the northwestern part of Wadi el-Far‘ah Valley, near the southern edge of Jebel Tammun; about 2 km to its southeast is Kh. Bet Hasan (site no. 173 here). The ruin extends over the two

sides of a gorge (Wadi Nuseriyyeh). On the site are the remains of 20 houses, each with several rooms around a courtyard. The masonry is of large, local field stones, with walls 1 m wide. Other walls in the

357. el-Khirbeh (en-Nuseriyyeh), viewed from afar. The site is behind Kh. Bet Hasan (the settlement in the center of the valley). Above it is Jebel Tammun. 1992.

446

CHAPTER ELEVEN

area are possibly agricultural ter-races. The place apparently relates to the main road nearby, as evidenced by other Medieval sites. The an--

cient name, Nuseriyyeh, has been preserved in the refugee settlement nearby. Pottery: Per – 2%; MA – 98%. Previous surveys: none.

358. Pottery from el-Khirbeh (en-Nuseriyyeh), all from MA except for no. 2 (EM): 1. Dec shard, br on wh; 2. Bowl, yel; 3. Plastic dec, yel; 4-5. Glazed bowls, green and yellow.

 Site 168: 18 – 18/42/1

Khirbet Bet Farr (B) (on SWP map: Kh. Beit Far) Israel grid: 1849 1829 UTM grid: 7228 5696 Elevation: 150 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: large ruin Area: 15.2 dunams (3.8 acres) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 19 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Farr, no. 109), 0.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 3 km distant Visibility: 6 Feb. 10, 1983; 189 shards ***

A large site on the southern slope of Wadi el-Far‘ah Valley, on the second step descending from Jebel Kebir. Parts of the site are surrounded by a built, stone wall. Inside are about 30 structures in situ and well planned streets. The structures are

of medium-sized field stones, some hewn, with doorposts in situ. Some structures extend outside and west of the enclosure wall, touching the eastern part of Kh. Bet Farr (A) (site no. 166 here). To the northeast is a large house, dated to the Ottoman Period, and a small spring. The area

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

is full with Bedouin dwellings. Pottery: ER – 10%; LR – 10%; Byz – 10%; EM – 10%; MA – 60%. Coin find: 16 coins from the Ro-man to Mameluk Periods; see ap-pendix. Identification: The existing pro-posal to identify it with Bethpho--

447

rum from the Crusader Period is possible. See chapter on identifica-tions. Previous surveys: Kappus 1966, 7980; Porath 1968, 72. Bibliography: SWP II, 237; Beyer 1940, 173 ff, 178 (regarding iden-tification).

359. Aerial photo taken northward of Kh. Bet Farr (B). Above to the right is the Ottoman Period structure; next to it in the gorge is the spring, ‘Ain Farr. Winter 1993.

448

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Site 169: 18 – 18/52/1

Khirbet ‘Ain Farr Israel grid: 1855 1829 UTM grid: 7238 5699 Elevation: 90 m a.s.l., 70 m a.s.a. Name type: historical but does not appearon map Site type: large site Area: 18 dunams (4.5 acres) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: rendzina; quality: 5

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Farr, no. 109), near the site Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1.2 km distant Visibility: 3 Feb. 6, 1983; Dec. 28, 1984; 98 shards and 35 flint items ***

A large site on a low, broad ridge south of the Wadi el-Far‘ah valley. Northeast of the site is a spring, ‘Ain Farr, with a road (Aqrabaniyeh to Bet Farr) to the west. East of it

is a small, deep ravine, and to its south there is a low cliff. The site extends along the axis of the ridge, in a northeast – south-west direction. On the ridge are a

360. View to the south of Kh. ‘Ain Farr and its environs. On the range is the Ottoman Period house; the gorge and spring are at its foot. In the foreground is the ridge of the site. Winter 1984.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

number of low terraces with con-siderable shard scatter. On the top of the ridge there is a low acropo-lis, 3 dunams (0.75 acre) in size; no structural remains were found there. Pottery: Chal – 50%; EBA I – 30%; IrA IA – 20%. Flint find: Chal and EBA; see ap-pendix.

449

Ceramic notes: Many shards, from the end of the Chalcolithic Period (‘Far‘ah family’), are of thick ware with red slip and rope decoration; see discussion on ceramics. Special find: Decoration on a large vessel, perhaps part of a temple model (?). Previous surveys: none.

361. Pottery from Kh. ‘Ain Farr, all from ‘Far‘ah family’ (Chal – EBA I), except for nos. 7-10 (IrA IA) and no. 12 (Roman): 1. Jar base, yel; 2-3. Basins, lt br; 4. Rope dec; 5-6. HM jars, lt br; 7-9. CP, dk br; 10. Bowl, br; 11. Bowl, basalt; 12. Jar, lt br; 13-15. Handle, basin and 'temple' vessel, br.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

450

362. Shard photos from Kh. ‘Ain Farr.

 Site 170: 18 – 18/52/2

ej-Jwar Israel grid: 1852 1823 UTM grid: 7215 5690 Elevation: 182 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: plateau Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 7 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Farr, no. 109), 0.8 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 3 km distant Visibility: 6 Dec. 17, 1983; 30 shards ***

A small site in the middle step between Wadi el-Far‘ah and Jebel Kebir. A modern house is located 0.2 km northwest of the site. On the site are concentrations of shards, quarried and two cisterns. A road built of two rows of stones,

apparently of the Byzantine period, leads to the site. This section be-long to the road from Kh. Bet Farr to Tel el-Fukhar. Pottery: LR – 50%; Byz – 50%. Previous surveys: none.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

451

Site 171: 18 – 18/72/1

Tel Miski (called in the SWP map and by Guérin Tell elKadhieh. Glueck names it Tell Umm es-Smaikh) Israel grid: 1873 1824 UTM grid: 7252 5693 Elevation: 30 m b.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: fortified tell Area: 15.5 dunams (3.88 acres) Topography: hilltop and valley Rock type: alluvium covering Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium; quality: 9

Cultivation: orchard (partial) Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Miski, no. 101), next to site Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 2 Feb. 6, 1983; June 6, 1986; 115 shards ***

A tell in the center of the valley of Wadi el-Far‘ah and near the river gorge with a spring, ‘Ain Miski, at its foot. The tell is elliptical in shape: its wide point is in the west, to become thinner in the east. Its southern part is planted now, with

houses nearby. In the southeast corner of the tell a wall built of large, unhewn stones has been exposed; it is 2 m high (1983), probably to be dated to Iron Age II. A water-channel in the north has cut a large cross-section

363. Tel Miski, seen from the west. The cut in the left was made by Wadi el-Far‘ah.

452

CHAPTER ELEVEN

in the tell, where at least six settle-ment layers are discernible; these include floors, walls and a brick wall (apparently from Early Bronze Age II). Several ceramic vessels pro-trude from the cross-section. On top of the tell are an Arab cemetery, remains of walls and a large depres-sion, possibly a pool.

This is an important, fortified site from Iron Age I-II and before on the Wadi el-Far‘ah valley. Glueck mentioned finding a “low, extensive tell” and wrote on the early shards there (Late Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age I). Pottery: Chal – 10%; EBA I-II – 20%; LB II – 10%; IrA I – 20%;

364. Pottery from Tel Miski: nos. 3, 9 – ‘Far‘ah family’; 8 – EBA I; 2, 4, 7, 13 – LB II; 1, 5, 10, 12 – IrA I; 11 – IrA II; 6, 15 – Hel; 14 – Byz: 1. Handle with indentation, br; 2, 7, 10. CP, dk br; 3, 9. Bowls with rope dec, lt br; 4. Jar handle, red dec on wh; 5. Bowl, lt br; 6. Jar, yel; 8. Jar base, yel; 11. HM jar, br; 12. Pythos, dk br; 13. Bowl base, yel; 14. Spout with filter, br; 15. Jar, pinkish.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

IrA II – 25%; Per – 5%; LR – 5%; Byz – 5%. Flint find: Three items from an undefined period. Coin find: Five coins from the Hasmonean to Byzantine Periods; see

453

appendix. Previous surveys: Glueck 1960, 320; Kappus 1966, 81-82; Porath 1968, no. 76; Kallai 1972, no. 3. Bibliography: SWP II, 246; Guérin 1969 (IV), 262.

365. A view from the north of the wall ( from the Iron Age?) of Tel Miski, exposed by the river. Standing: N. Mirkam. Winter 1983.

454

CHAPTER ELEVEN

366. Pottery from Tel Miski: 1-2. Rope dec, Chal – EBA I; 3. Spout, Byz; 4. Jar handle, IrA II; 5. CP, IrA II; 6. Jar, Hel; 7. Jar handle with indentation, IrA I; 8. HM jar rim, IrA II.

 Site 172: 18 – 18/72/2

Khirbet Murassas Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.8 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 4 Feb. 6, 1983; Dec. 28, 1984; 37 shards

Israel grid: 1873 1821 UTM grid: 7261 5688 Elevation: s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: small ruin Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: slope and valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium; quality: 7

***

A site on a cultivated hill, on a low step south of Wadi el-Far‘ah and

about 0.4 km south of Tel Miski. Building stones and walls in situ,

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

that makes structural remains, were found in a plowed field, with shards nearby. In the field around them Early Bronze Age I shards were col-lected. In Kh. Murassas marked on the

455

map there are new houses (from the time of Jordanian rule) without an-cient shards. Pottery: Chal – EBA I (‘Far‘ah fam-ily’) – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

367. Kh. Murassas, looking southeast. The ancient site is on the ridge left of the houses. Jebel Kebir is in the background. Winter 1984.

368. Pottery from Kh. Murassas, all from ‘Far‘ah family’ (Chal – EBA I), lt br: 1-3, 5. Basins, rope dec; 4, 7. Rope dec; 6. Amphoriskos (?) base.

456

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Site 173: 18 – 18/82/1

Khirbet Bet-Hasan Israel grid: 1883 1826 UTM grid: 7266 5694 Elevation: 40 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: on map but not as his-torical site Site type: small ruin and Arab village Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: ridge edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa, alluvium and

Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.3 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), passes by site Visibility: 4 May 19, 1982; 29 shards ***

A site, with a refugee village on top of it, in the northwestern part of the valley of Wadi el-Far‘ah, about 0.5 km north of the river and adja-cent to the asphalt road to the Jor--

dan Valley. The small village was founded af-ter 1948. It was built on top of a ruin, whose remains were rendered indistinct and not it is impossible

369. Kh. Bet Hasan, seen from the northwest. Behind the site is the valley of Wadi elFar‘ah and Jebel Kebir. Spring 1982.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

to characterize them. There are only shards there, without architecture. Pottery: EBA I – 35%; EBA II

457

– 20%; IrA II – 45%. Previous surveys: Porath 1968,no. 79; Knierim 1969, 53.

 Site 174: 18 – 18/92/1

Tel el-Hadad Israel grid: 1896 1822 UTM grid: 7278 5691 Elevation: 36 m b.s.l., 17 m a.s.a. Name type: historical place but does not appear on map Site type: large ruin Area: 20 dunams (5 acres) Topography: ridge edge and hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa, alluvium and

Mediterranean brown forest soil; qual-ity: 8 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns:1 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.6 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), passes by site Visibility: 5 May 19, 1982; 44 shards ***

A large site on a hill, in the center of the valley and north of Wadi elFar‘ah. South of it pass the road to the Jordan Valley, with Tel Shibli (site no. 180 here) to its east.

On the summit and slopes (south, west and east) of the hill many shards and glass fragments are scat-tered. A few walls, with many scat-tered building stones, were found

370. Pottery from Tel el-Hadad: 1-2. Bowls, gray, EM; 3. Jars, MA; 4-5. Bowls, lt br, Byz; 6. Wh dec on bl, Byz – EM; 7. Bowl base, MA.

458

CHAPTER ELEVEN

in situ, while the others were up-rooted by the cultivation. On the southern slope of the tell is a large, round stone (1.3 m in diameter and 0.7 m thick) with a square hole in it, possibly a grindstone of an ag-ricultural installation. The place is under heavy illegal excavations and

looting. Pottery: LR – 15%; Byz – 50%; EM – 35%. Coin find: Three coins from the Roman and Byzantine Periods; see appendix. Previous surveys: Porath 1968, no. 80; Knierim 1969, no. 30.

371. Tel el-Hadad, viewed from the east, on the hill in the center of the photo. At left is the road to Shechem. 1988.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

459

Site 175: 19 – 18/02/1

Wadi el-‘Aris Israel grid: 1900 1826 UTM grid: 7282 5695 Elevation: 45 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: ancient cemetery Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa, alluvium and Mediterranean brown forest soil;

quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 6 May 19, 1982; 107 shards ***

A large looted cemetery, the burial place of adjacent Tel Shibli or a re-gional graveyard. By the time of our visit in 1982, about 30 graves had been broken into; these were shaft tombs char-acteristic of Middle Bronze Age I, and included a shaft 2 m deep and burial chambers. A large shard scat--

ter was found outside the looted graves, and additional grave open-ings were visible. Judging by size, it may be that this served as a grave-yard for the entire area during Mid-dle Bronze Age I. Pottery: MBA I – 95%; MBA IIB – 5%. Previous surveys: none.

372. Pottery from the cemetery at Wadi el-‘Aris, all from MBA I exept no. 6: 1. HM jar, gray; 2. Jar, yel; 3. Ledge handle, yel; 4. Rope dec; 5. Jar, dk gray; 6. Small jug, MBA II, yel.

460

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Site 176: 18 – 18/51/1

Khirbet Tel el-Fukhar (on SWP map: Kh. Tel el Fokhar) Israel grid: 1853 1814 UTM grid: 7245 5682 Elevation: 423 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: tell and large ruin Area: 50 dunams (11 acres) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 18 Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Jwar, no. 107), 0.75 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 3 km distant Visibility: 8 Jan. 8, 1984; 78 shards ***

A large site, including a tell and a ruin, above the middle, cliff-like step of Jebel Kebir. This step de-scending northward to the valley of Wadi el-Far‘ah. To its south is a small, inner valley. From the site is a fine view of Wadi el-Far‘ah and its environs. On the western part of the com-plex is a small tell, 4 dunams (1 acre) in size. The tell was apparent-ly fortified by a wall. From its top, with structures and installations on it, steep slopes descend to the north, east and west. To the south are ruined Arab houses, several de-cades old. East of the tell, on an area of 1520 dunams (4-5 acres), a large ruin

spreads over a saddle and a range. Remnants of walls, many burial caves, hewn installations (including wine-presses basins in situ) and oth-er quarrying have been preserved. A considerable shard scatter is all over. West of the ruin the complex the Jwar Valley is located, with built dams on a ravine descending from Jebel Kebir; their dating is unclear. Pottery: Hel – 10%; ER – 20%; LR – 10%; Byz – 50%; EM – 10%. Coin find: 16 coins from Roman to Early Moslem Periods; see ap-pendix. Previous surveys: Kallai 1972, no. 11. Bibliography: SWP II, 241.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

461

373. Photos of pottery from Kh. Tel el-Fukhar: 1. Jar, LR; 2. Wh dec on bl, EM; 3. Bowl, EM; 4. Jar, ER; 5. Lid, Byz; 6. Shard with wh dec, EM; 7. Lamp, br, LR (see Fig. 374: 10); 8. Bowl base H, Hel. (see Fig. 374: 11).

374. Pottery from Kh. Tel el-Fukhar: 1. Jar, gray, Per-Hel; 2. Bowl, lt br, ER; 3. Jar, pk, ER; 4. Bowl, red slip, ER; 5. Bowl, bl, Byz; 6. Bowl, gray, Per-Hel; 7. Lid, bl/br, Byz; 8. Bowl, br, LR; 9. Jar, dk gray, Byz; 10. Lamp, br, LR; 11. Bowl base, lt, Hel;

CHAPTER ELEVEN

462 Site 177: 18 – 18/91/2

ed-Dweir Israel grid: 1891 1816 UTM grid: 7374 5685 Elevation: 40 m b.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 1.2 dunams (0.3 acre) Topography: ridge edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.3 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.7 km distant Visibility: 3 Jan. 5, 1985; 78 shards and 23 flint items ***

A small site on a slope descending into Wadi el-Far‘ah, about 1 km south of Kh. Bet Hasan. There is a view of the irrigated river valley. The foundations of eight to ten structures, built of medium-sized, unhewn field stones with right an-gles corners were found. The struc--

tures stand on an artificial rampart, about 30 cm higher than the surface of the slope. Many building stones have been preserved. Pottery: Pottery Neolithic – 10%; Chal (‘Far‘ah family’) – 40%; EBA – 50%. Previous surveys: none.

375. Photos of shards from the site at ed-Dweir, all from the ‘Far‘ah family’.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

463

376. Pottery from ed-Dweir, from ‘Far‘ah family’ (Chal-EBA): 1. HM jar, lt br; 2. Base, gray; 3-4. Craters, lt br; 5-6. HM jars, br; 7. Rope dec; 8. Bowl, lt br; 9. Ridged ledge handle.

 Site 178: 18 – 18/91/1

Jelamet el-Ahmar (A) Israel grid: 1898 1814 UTM grid: 7281 5681 Elevation: 30 m b.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large ruin and ancient cemetery Area: 50 dunams (12.5 acres) Topography: ridge edge and hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa, alluvium and Mediterranean brown forest soil;

quality: 5 Cultivation: uncultivated and field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 4 May 19, 1982; Jan. 10, 1992; 70 shards and 110 flint items ***

A site and a large cemetery on a wide, rocky hill south of Wadi elFar‘ah, in the middle of the river valley. The site is located opposite

to the pass of Bab en-Naqb and Tel Shibli, both north of the wadi; there is a sharp bend in the wadi at the foot of the site.

464

CHAPTER ELEVEN

About two thirds of the hilltop are surrounded by a built 'road', which encircles the site on the east, south and west, with no remains on the northern side, where the cliff 'falls' to the deep wadi. This 'road' is built of two parallel rows of very large stones 4 m apart; some of the stones are in upright position. The

overall length of this 'road' is 480 m, with connecting walls ('stations') in eight places along the whole length. On the top of the hill, opposite E.P. -30, a large, double structure was found, which contains two rectangular structures, each about 10x15 m in size, with an opening between them. This arrangement,

377. The plan of the site at Jelamet el-Ahmar (A). Note the “procession road”, the en-trance structure and the grave openings.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

located in the center and 'tip' of the 'road', may have been used as an entrance to the complex. Over the entire area, dozens of burial caves, looted in the process of being looted, are discerned. The tombs contained hewn shafts and open-ings, with grave niches and burial halls. Shards and parts of vessels are scattered all over the looted areas. On the hill and the slopes hewn ba-sins were also found, with an aver-age diameter of 30-50 and depth of 40 cm. The site is an especially large

465

burial complex which apparently contained hundreds of burial caves. The built road ('procession road') was probably used for burial cer-emonies, mainly during the Early Bronze Age. Wadi el-Far‘ah and its valley, both sides of the wadi, were used during many periods as a cen-tral burial area. Pottery: Neolithic – 5%; EBA I – 45%; EBA II – 50%. Flint find: 110 items from Pottery Neolithic and EBA; see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

378. The hill of Jelamet el-Ahmar (A), looking southeast. The site is on the hill, beyond the low Wadi el-Far‘ah and the electric poles. Spring 1982.

466

CHAPTER ELEVEN

379. Aerial photo, looking northeast, of the site of Jelamet el-Ahmar (A). In the left is Wadi el-Far‘ah and the road to the Jordan Valley. Winter 1992.

380. A view to the west of the “procession road”, 1984

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

467

381. Shards from Jelamet el-Ahmar (A), nos. 1, 3, 5, 12 – ‘Far‘ah family’; 2 – Neol; the rest – EBA I-II: 1, 3, 5. Bowls, br, rope dec; 2. Dec; 4. Small jar, br; 6. Platter; 7, 13. HM jars, yel; 8, 10-11. Jars, br and yel; 9, 14. Jar bases, yel; 12. Bowl, br, rope dec; 15-16. Ledge handles.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

468

382. Photos of shards from Jelamet el-Ahmar (A): 1. ledge handle, red slip; 2-3. HM jars.

 Site 179: 18 – 18/91/3

Jelamet el-Ahmar (B) Israel grid: 1893 1815 UTM grid: 5684 7377 Elevation: 55 m b.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Colluvial-Alluvial; quality: 7

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.3 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.6 km distant Visibility: 2 May 19, 1982; 44 shards and 96 flint items ***

A site on a narrow ridge in a ravine descending to Wadi el-Far‘ah, some 0.5 km west of Jelamet el-Ahmar (A). The site is situated south of the wadi. Remains of a structure, built of small pebbles, are in the center of the ridge, with two or three steps on the slope. No other structural remains are discerned but many stone items, flint of various types and shards. Among them were

sculpted and worked stones and broad flint adzes. Pottery: Pottery Neolithic – 70%; Chal – EBA I – 30%. Flint find: Pottery Neolithic, Chal and EBA I; see appendix. Special find: fragment of statue bot-tom (?), red; smooth basalt stone with cut, depicting female sexual organ. Previous surveys: none.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

469

383. Pottery from Jelamet el-Ahmar (B): nos. 10, 12, 17 – Neol; the rest – ‘Far‘ah family’: 1-6. Bowls with rope dec, lt br; 7, 13, 17, Dec; 8. HM jar, br; 9, 18, 20. Serrated ledge handles; 10. Small jar, br; 11. Jar, br; 12. Small jar, red slip; 14. Jar base; 15. Bowl with embossed dec, lt br; 16. HM jar; 17. Jar; 19. Handle.

470

CHAPTER ELEVEN

384. Photos of pottery and flint tools from Jelamet el-Ahmar (B).

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

471

385. A view from the southwest of the site of Jelamet el-Ahmar (B), on the ridge above the cypress tree. The orchards of Wadi el-Far‘ah are to the left; in the background is Ras Bilam ez-Zef. Behind is the hill of Jelamet el-Ahmar (A). Spring 1982.

 Site 180: 19 – 18/01/1

Tel Shibli (on SWP map: Shibleh; on new maps: Kh. Bab en-Naqb) Israel grid: 1901 1819 UTM grid: 7284 5689 Elevation: 57 m b.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: tell Area: 6 dunams (1.5 acres) Topography: ridge edge, valley edge and hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 8 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), passes by site Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), passes by site Visibility: 3 May 24, 1982; 63 shards ***

A tell in the valley of Wadi el-Far‘ah, adjacent to it and to the spring of

‘Ain Shibli. The tell is connected by a saddle to the ridge on the north--

472

CHAPTER ELEVEN

west, and is protected on the east by Wadi en-Naqb. On top of the tell is a square structure, 40x40 m in size, built of earthen rampart 6 m wide. A similar rampart on the perimeter of the tell may have marked the surrounding wall. The road to the Jordan Valley has cut a deep cross-section in the tell, where remnants of walls and floors are visible. On the surface of the tell there are remains of many more walls, with broad expanses of looting in the north. Here, there

is an abundance of Byzantine Pe-riod shards. Porath suggested that a pottery workshop stood there. A new Bedouin settlement was in the northwest of the tell during our visit (1982). Pottery: EBA I – 20%; EBA II – 10%; MBA I – 30%; IrA II – 2%; LR – 8%; Byz – 20%; EM – 10%. Flint: 'Canaanite blade' from the Bronze Age. Special find: Basalt weights. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 159.

386. Aerial photo of Tel Shibli, looking southeast. To its left is Wadi Bab en-Naqb; behind it are the orchards of Wadi el-Far‘ah and the road to the Jordan Valley. Winter 1992.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

473

387. Pottery from Tel Shibli: nos. 2, 4-5, 7 – EBA I-II; 1, 3, 10-11, 13 – MBA I: 6, 12, 14 – Byz: 1, 9. Jars, gray slip, rope dec; 2, 4. Jars, red slip; 3. Crater, gray; 5. HM jar, yel; 6. Jar, br; 7. Platter, red slip; 8, 10, 13. Ledge handles, yel; 11. Bowl, yel; 12. Jar, dk; 14. Section of jar, wh dec on bl.

474

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Site 181: 19 – 18/01/2

‘Ain Shibli Israel grid: 1904 1817 UTM grid: 7287 5685 Elevation: 55 m b.s.l., 5 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large ruin and shard scatter Area: 20 dunams (5 acres) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.2 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), passes by site Visibility: 2 May 24, 1982; 31 shards ***

A site on a slope near Wadi elFar‘ah, in the foothills of the north-ern and next to the Jordan Valley road. A new Bedouin settlement is built on the site. Many shards were found on the slopes, some concentrated in groups. The various walls do not create structures, and the site was

possibly an extension of the forti-fied tell nearby. Pottery: EBA I – 20%; MBA IIB – 30%; Hel – 30%; Byz – 20%. Previous surveys: none. The site may have been surveyed by Porath (1968, no. 85), who called it Kh. Tahunet et-Tirah.

388. Pottery from ‘Ain Shibli: 1. Jar, lt, Hel; 2. Bowl base ,yel, MBA II; 3. Small bowl, lt Hel; 4. Small bowl, red slip, EBA; 5. Bowl base, lt ,MBA II ; 6. Rope dec, br, EBA I.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

475

Site 182: 18 – 18/61/1

Mughur ‘Id Israel grid: 1861 1810 UTM grid: 7254 5677 Elevation: 350 m a.s.l., 200 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 4.8 dunams (1.2 acres) Topography: slope Rock type: Kurnub formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium; quality: 6

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Mughur ‘Id, no. 108), 0.2 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 2.2 km distant Visibility: 8 Feb. 13, 1983; 62 shards and four flint items ***

A site on a low hilltop, on the mid-dle step south and above the val-ley of Wadi el-Far‘ah. South of the site rise the cliffs of Tell el-Fukhar. From the cliff to the site there is a well-built pass (naqb) with hewn

steps. There is a fine view of the river valley. A surrounding wall on the west, one stone wide, may have been a fortification. Next to it is a large structure and another in the south,

390. View from Mughar ‘Id of western Wadi el-Far‘ah, with Jebel Tammun above it. 1984.

476

CHAPTER ELEVEN

round. In the north and east there are no walls. Few walls in situ and many shards are on the hilltop. In the ravine to the northeast is a spring (‘Ain Mughur ‘Id, on the 50.000 map - ‘Ain Za‘anuni) – the water source of the site. Apparently

the wall is no related to the shard scatter. Pottery: EBA I – 90% (with some Iron Age and Byz shards). Flint: Three items from the Early Bronze Age; see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

391. Pottery from Mughur ‘Id, all EBA I, except for nos. 1, 4: 1. Bowl, br, IrA II; 2. Bowl, red slip; 3. Bowl, yel; 4. Bowl, dk, Byz; 5-6. Rope dec, br; 7. Small bowl, yel; 8. Ledge handle, br.

 Site 183: 18 – 18/60/1

Tel Za‘anuni Israel grid: 1866 1802 UTM grid: 7259 5667 Elevation: 442 m a.s.l., 300 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: fortified tell Area: 26 dunams (6.5 acres) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain Za‘anuni, no. 106), 0.2 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 3 km distant Visibility: 9 Feb. 13, 1983; Apr. 14, 1987; Dec. 10, 1993; 122 shards and nine flint items

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

A fortified tell on the eastern edge of a small plain, on the upper step above the Wadi el-Far‘ah valley and north of Jebel Kebir. ‘Ain Za‘anuni, the water source, is 0.2 km to the northwest. There is a fine view of the Wadi el-Far‘ah environs. The site consists of four parts: 1. The lower city is in the south of the site. This is an irregular long triangle, 15 dunams (3.75 acres), in area, situated on a small plateau de-lineated by cliffs in the south, east and north. To its west rise the up-per city (tell or “acropolis”). Along the edge of the slope, on the south-ern side, a wall 2-3 m wide, built of medium-sized stones is discerned. In its midway in the south the wall forms a kind of “bay”, presumably

477

the location of the gate. Although the wall is missing in the east and north, it seems to exist there as well. On the surface there is a rich scatter of shards but only few walls in situ. 2. The upper city is the hilltop tell, about 15 dunams (3.75 acres) in area, located north and above of the lower city. It composes of three main, built terraces descending eastward. On the summit there are remains of structures and a possible fortification wall, while the wall of the lower city comes from the south and connects to the eastern part of the tell. 3. The industrial area north of the tell. Here there are many instal-lations, including two oil presses and several basins. It seems that

392. View from the south to the lower city of Tel Za‘anuni. 1983.

478

CHAPTER ELEVEN

in this area there was an extensive activity of processing agricultural products, mainly during the Byzan-tine Period – judging by the pottery and type of installations. This must have occurred when the tell itself was sparsely settled. A built road also leads to this area. 4. 4. The cemetery is located on the hilltop and the slopes west of the tell. Several dozen burial sys-tems are here (1993), most of them under heavy looting. Each system consists of one central hall with caves, mostly with entrance-shaft and sometimes with steps. The dump outside the tombs contains a rich pottery collection, which rep--

resents the settlement periods of the site. Pottery: Pottery Neolithic – 5%; Chal – 10%; EBA I – 25%; EBA II – 40%; MBA IIB – 5%; IrA II – 10%; Byz – 5%. Flint find: EBA; see appendix. This is one of the most important sites from the Early Bronze Age in the Wadi el-Far‘ah area. In addition to its natural, fortified and elevated location, it is fortified by a wall and a possible gate. It is one of a group of fortified tells from this period in the valley: Tel el-Far‘ah (N), er-Rjj-um, el-Makhruq and possibly Wadi Umm Wattad. Previous surveys: none.

393. View from the southeast of the tell (at left in photo) and the lower city of Za‘anuni. Winter 1994.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

479

394. The plan of the fortified site of Tel Za‘anuni. At bottom is the lower city and the place of the gate (?), with the upper tell to the north. Next to it are the industrial area and the cemetery.

480

CHAPTER ELEVEN

395. Pottery from Tel Za‘anuni: 1. Bowl, br, Neol; 2-3. Jars, yel, EBA II; 4-5. HM jars, br, Neol; 7. Jar handle, br, IrA II; 6, 8. HM jar and jar, br, ‘Far‘ah family’; 9. Platter, yel, EBA II; 10. Chalice base, yel, EBA; 11-12. Jars, red slip, EBA II; 13. Bowl base, yel, MBA II; 14. Basin base, basalt; 15. Small jar, lt, EBA, 16. Rope dec, br; 17. Combed dec, EBA II; 18. Ledge handle, yel, EBA I; 19. Rope dec, br. EBA.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

481

Site 184: 18 – 18/70/1

Khirbet ‘Ain Dabbur Israel grid: 1875 1809 UTM grid: 7269 5675 Elevation: 70 m a.s.l., 5 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 4.2 dunams (1 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: spring (‘Ain edDabbur, no. 111), 0.7 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 2 km distant Visibility: 5 Mar. 25, 1984; 49 shards ***

A small site in an area built of slopes descending north from Jebel Kebir to the valley of Wadi el-Far‘ah. It is about 2 km southwest of Kh. Bet Hasan, and adjacent to the spring of ‘Ain Dabbur and the path as-cending to Tel Za‘anuni.

The site is located in a small hilltop on a slope. It stretch upon three steps of large stones, approxi-mately aligned east – west. At least ten well-preserved structures with discernible walls were found in situ. Above the site is a cultivated field

396. View from the north of the site at ‘Ain Dabbur. The structural remains are on the terraces; Jebel Kebir is in the background. Winter 1984.

482

CHAPTER ELEVEN

with many shards. Pottery: MBA IIB – 100%.

Previous surveys: none.

397. Pottery from ‘Ain Dabbur, all MBA IIB: 1-2, 4. Bowls, yel; 3. Crater, gray; 5, 7. Jars, pinkish; 6. Jug, gray.

 Site 185: 18 – 18/90/1

Jelamet el-Ahmar (C) Israel grid: 1898 1809 UTM grid: 7281 5680 Elevation: 10 m b.s.l., 5 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: prehistoric site Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: low hilltop on plain Rock type: alluvium covering Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 8

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.7 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), passes by site Visibility: 4 Dec. 3, 1993; 212 flint items ***

A prehistoric site on a low hilltop on the cultivated plains south of Wadi el-Far‘ah, about 0.6 km south of Jelamet el-Ahmar (A). Many installations and a scatter

of flint tools and items were found on the hilltop. Flint find: Kebarran-Geometric; see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

483

Site 186: 19 – 18/10/2

Khirbet el-‘Athmawiyyeh Israel grid: 1911 1802 UTM grid: 7291 5670 Elevation: 50 m b.s.l., 20 m b.s.a. Name type: historical site but does not appear on map Site type: large ruin Area: 18 dunams (4.5 acres) Topography: valley edge and slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: uncultivated and field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), passes by site Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), passes by site Visibility: 1 May 19, 1982; 38 shards ***

A large site in the valley of Wadi el-Far‘ah, situated on a slope delin-eated by a series of low cliffs, in the narrow place where the river cuts through a strip of hard rock. It is

next to the river gorge and the road to the Jordan Valley. On the slope many structures were found in situ, including court-yards and walls of hewn stones. An

398. View from the east of Kh. el-‘Athmawiyyeh, where the tents are set up, left of Wadi el-Far‘ah and the road. In the background are Ras Bilam ez-Zef and Jebel Tammun.1993.

484

CHAPTER ELEVEN

old aqueduct crosses the ruin, and burial caves in secondary use, most of them looted, are in the cliffs above and around the site. There is a modern Bedouin encampment on

the site (1993). Pottery: Byz – 70%; EM – 30%. Coin find: one coin; see appendix. Previous surveys: Porath 1968, no. 91.

399. Pottery from Kh. el-‘Athmawiyyeh: nos. 1-4, 9 – Byz; the rest – EM: 1, 4. Jars, dk; 2-3. Bowls, lt br; 5-6. CP, dk; 7. Dec shard, wh on bl; 8. jug with strainer, dk; 9. Jar base, lt.

 Site 187: 19 – 18/10/1

er-Rjjum Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 3 May 19, 1982; Apr. 24, 1992; 70 shards

Israel grid: 1915 1802 UTM grid: 7299 5671 Elevation: 40 m b.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: fortified city Area: 34 dunams (8.5 acres) Topography: ridge edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra-nean brown forest soil; quality: 3

***

A fortified city on a ridge isolated from its surroundings by deep gorges. The ridge is located above

and north of Wadi el-Far‘ah, in the narrow, central part of the river val-ley.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

The ridge where the city is built slopes moderately southwestwards; its only connection with its envi-rons is in the north-east, where a presumed moat is quarried, 15 m across and 3 m deep, to isolate the city from the eastern ridge. The site is about 260 m long, 130 m wide and roughly elliptical in shape, with 'waves’ of the citywall along the topography. It was surrounded by a wide wall, 2-3 m wide on the average, which encir-cles the city from all its sides. On the northeastern, higher side of the settlement, an area about 10 dunams (2.5 acres) in size is dis--

485

cernible; part of it may be based on the fill excavated from the moat. On this section of the place, which reminds an'acropolis', there are im-portant parts of the fortification: it compose the gate complex with an entrance and towers. In addi-tion, in the northern corner of it there is a large structure, covered by pile of stones. The upper city wall, 4 m wide in this area, leaves the gate-complex toward the south. Parts of it are also covered by piles of stones. In the northeastern corner of the high area the wide city wall divides into an upper and a lower branch;

400. Aerial photo to the northeast of the Early Bronze Age city at er-Rjjum. Note the placement of the city on a ridge surrounded by deep wadis. Winter 1994.

486

CHAPTER ELEVEN

the latter, 2 m wide, pass along the moat and connects to the city-wall in the northern corner. This part was served, presumably, as the outer fortification line in the gate-area. Along the city-wall and inside the settlement, many structural remains in situ are visible. Most of them, built of field stones and peb-bles, have been preserved adjacent to the wall. In the central part sev-eral large piles of stones apparently

cover structures. There are also many installations in situ. On the cliff, in the northwestern gorge, the remains of a built path were pre-served, perhaps leading originally to the gate area. This fortified city belongs to a special type of sites from the Early Bronze Age, presumably estab-lished at the beginning of urbaniza-tion. Nearby in the wadi there are sites from the end of the Chalco--

401. Pottery from er-Rjjum: nos. 7-8, 10, 12 – EBA I; the rest – EBA II: 1. Platter, yel; 2. Small jar base, slip; 3. HM jar, br; 4. Jar, yel; 5. HM jar, lt; 6. Jar, lt br; 7. Platter, yel; 8. Jar base, yel; 9. HM jar, yel; 10. Jar, dk; 11. Jar, dk; 12-13. Ledge handles.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

lithic Period and Early Bronze Age, which might have been the origin of the population of er-Rjjum; and see sites 178-179, 181-182 here. Pottery: EBA I – 60%; EBA II – 40%.

487

Flint find: one item from an un-identified period. Previous surveys: Porath 1968, no. 88. Bibliography: Zertal 1993.

402. Plan of the fortified, Early Bronze Age city at er-Rjjum. In the northeast the double wall, the moat and the gate-complex are seen.

488

CHAPTER ELEVEN

403. The moat and gateway at er-Rjjum, looking west. The piles of stone mark the place of the towers. In the background are Wadi el-Far‘ah and Jebel Kebir. 1982.

404. Photos of Early Bronze Age pottery from er-Rjjum.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

489

Site 188: 18 – 17/99/1

‘Aqabet el-Kataf Israel grid: 1896 1795 UTM grid: 7272 5659 Elevation: 120 m a.s.l., 100 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 2 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 2.3 km distant Visibility: 7 Apr. 19, 1985; 17 shards ***

A site on the northern slope of Jebel Kebir, about 2 km south-southwest of Bab en-Naqb. At the site a long, rectangular structure was found, built paral-lel to the slope. It is two courses

high now, built of large, semi-hewn stones. Two piles of stones at the structure’s edges may indicate ter-races on the slope. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 189: 19 – 18/00/1

‘Iraq el-Hamrah Israel grid: 1902 1800 UTM grid: 7286 5668 Elevation: 20 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structures on hilltop Area: 15 dunams (3.75 acres) Topography: broad hilltop in valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 3

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.7 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 5 Apr. 12, 1985; Dec. 3, 1993; 31 shards and 98 flint items ***

Structures scattered over a broad hilltop west of Wadi el-Far‘ah and north of Wadi Khallet er-Radwan, 1 km northwest of Moshav Ham--

rah. The 24 structures at the site are divided into three types: tumuli, round structures and large, square

490

CHAPTER ELEVEN

courtyard. Most of the round structures are concentrated on the southern hilltop (four structures) and on the northern side (11 struc-tures). The structures are 10-25 m apart in average. The three tumuli are 4-5 m in diameter, whereas the round constructions are about 5 m in diameter, built of Cyclopaean boulders on the bottom, with large, stone doorposts standing on either side of the entrance. Most of the entrances face northeast. On top of the large boulders at the bottom is a layer of smaller stones up to the full height, 0.5 – 1 m. The interior of the constructions is empty, except for a long monolith to support the roof. Several structures has an inner division: nos. 13 and 21 contain

two units, and no. 11, an excep-tion, has four adjacent units and a large courtyard with internal divi-sion. No. 16 was probably a later farm structure. In the western slopes of the site there is a courtyard, no. 23, 25x37.5 m in size. Its wall is built of large stones, 0.8 m wide. On its northern side is another, parallel wall, with later structures next to its corners. Pottery: Chal – 22%; MBA IIB – 8%; IrA IA – 12%; Byz (in the courtyard area and southern part) – 58%. Flint find: Neolithic and Chal; see appendix. No architectural parallels to this site have been found. It is a unique

405. One of the round structures at ‘Iraq el-Hamrah, viewed northward. Note the pair of standing monoliths in the entrance at right. Winter 1993.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

site; it is difficult to assume that it was used as a dwelling place. Small finds are few, and the connection

491

between them and the structures is not clear. Previous surveys: none.

406. Plan of the site at ‘Iraq el-Hamrah, with numbered structures. No. 23 is a courtyard from the Byzantine Period. The period of the rest is unknown.

492

CHAPTER ELEVEN

407. Aerial photo looking west of the site of ‘Iraq el-Hamrah. The Byzantine Period courtyard is at top left. The fields in the upper background are on the southern step of Wadi el-Far‘ah. 1994.

408. Structure no. 15 at ‘Iraq el-Hamrah, looking west. In the background are the valley of Wadi el-Far‘ah and the range of Jebel Kebir. Winter 1994.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

493

Site 190: 19 – 17/29/2

Tel Abu Rumh (SWP map: Tell Abu Rumh; Guérin: Tell es-Safra) Israel grid: 1927 1794 UTM grid: 7319 5659 Elevation: 107 m b.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: small site Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: hilltop and valley Rock type: alluvium covering Soil type: terra rossa and brown-basal--

tic; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.3 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), passes by site Visibility: 3 Feb. 28, 1983; 62 shards ***

A small site on an isolated hilltop, in the central part of the valley of Wadi el-Far‘ah and north of the riv-er. North of it is the road to Beqa‘ot and Meholah. The site is partly destroyed due to non-archaeological excavation activities. The remnants of tumuli on its summit lead to a possible conclusion that there was here a Middle Bronze Age I settlement and a Middle Bronze Age IIB cem-etery, after which it ceased to exist.

This may be Tel es-Safrah men-tioned by Guérin as a “small hill … its top is covered by a pile of large and medium-sized stones”. Conder and Kitchener saw it as “an artificial tell with remains of foundations”. Pottery: MBA I – 80%; MBA IIB – 20%. Previous surveys: Porath 1968, no. 92. Bibliography: Guérin 1969 (IV), 253; SWP II, 246.

409. Pottery from Tel Abu Rumh: 1. Jar, yel, MBA I; 2. CP, dk, MBA II; 3. Jar, yel, MBA II.

494

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Site 191: 19 – 17/28/1

Mrah el-‘Enab (SWP map: El-Buseliyeh; British Mandate 1:100.000 map: Mrah el-Inab; Guérin: Kh. Aliakeloum) Israel grid: 1928 1789 UTM grid: 7319 5653 Elevation: 100 m b.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: fortified tell Area: 16.8 dunams (4.2 acres) Topography: ravine edge and ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and brown-basal-tic; quality: 6

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 3 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), passes at foot of site Visibility: 5 Mar. 19, 1984; Nov. 26, 1993; 142 shards and six flint items ***

A tell at the tope of the northern cliff above Wadi el-Far‘ah, in the middle of the river valley. The road to the Jordan Valley and Wadi elFar‘ah is at the foot of the site, to

the south. The site is conveniently approached only from the north. Now (2000) it became a Bedouin settlement. From the site a steep cliff de--

410. View of Mrah el-‘Enab from the south-west. The site is on the hill in the center, and below it is Wadi el-Far‘ah. Winter 1992.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

scends southward to the road. On the upper part of the cliff, upon a rock step, the remains of a 2 m wide stone wall are discerned, built of large field stones. It surrounds the

495

tell on the south and the west. The southern slope is entirely built up with many remains of walls. In the upper part there is a modern house, with structural remains of large

411. Pottery from Mrah el-‘Enab: 1. Crater, gray, IrA I; 2. Bowl, br/gray, IrA III; 3. CP, gray, IrA I; 4. Jug, lt br, IrA II; 5. Bowl, yel, Per; 6. Small jar, lt, MBA II; 7. Pythos, gray, IrA I; 8. Jar, lt, IrA II; 9. Bowl, lt, MBA II; 10. Jug, lt br, IrA I; 11. Jar, gray, IrA I-II; 12. Bowl, basalt; 13. Bowl base, wedge dec, gray/orange, IrA III; 14. Handle with 'Human face' dec, IrA I; 15. Small jug; lt, Hel; 16. Bowl, wh and red slip, IrA II; 17. CP, dk br, IrA IB; 18. Jar, lt, Hel; 19. Lamp, lt, ER.

496

CHAPTER ELEVEN

stones, and a plastered pool nearby. This might have been a fortress for protecting the road during the Ro-man Period. Guérin, who called the place Kh. el-Yaklum, noted the site’s wall. Conder and Kitchener quoted Guérin, calling by this name to two other ruins: Kh. Buseliyeh and el-

Farsheh. Pottery: MBA I – 15%; IrA IA – 20%; IrA II – 30%; IrA III – 5%; Per – 5%; Hel – 5%; ER – 20%. Flint find: IrA. See appendix Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 174. Bibliography: Guérin 1969 (IV), 254-255; SWP II, 236.

412. Plan of Mrah el-‘Enab. The entrance to the site was apparently in the center of the northeastern side. According to the plan, it could have been a military site in the Roman period.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

497

413. View of the site at Mrah el-‘Enab, looking north. In the background are Wadi elFar‘ah and Jebel Kebir.

414. Corner of lower wall at Mrah el-‘Enab. Winter 1993.

498

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Site 192: 19 – 17/38/1

el-Farsheh Israel grid: 1931 1786 UTM grid: 7321 5653 Elevation: 123 m b.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: ravine edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and brown-basal--

tic; quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.7 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.3 km distant Visibility: 5 Mar. 19, 1984; 39 shards ***

A site at the eastern edge of elFarsheh Range, about 0.5 km southeast of Mrah el-‘Enab. On a hill the remains of a struc-ture or two, and several walls in situ, built from medium-sized stones, were found. The entrance to the structures was from the west, where a square building of large stones was

also found. The shards are concen-trated only around the structures. This was an isolated structure or a farm, possibly connected to the fortified site at Mrah el-‘Enab. Pottery: IrA IC – 20%; IrA II – 80%. Previous surveys: none.

415. el-Farsheh from the west. The remains are on the hill, near the jeep. 1984.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

499

416. Pottery from el-Farsheh: 1-2. Bowls, br, IrA IC; 3. CP, br, IrA IC; 4, 6. Jug bases, br, IrA II; 5. Bowl, br, IrA I.

 Site 193: 19 – 17/27/1

Khirbet Ghadbaneh Israel grid: 1920 1779 UTM grid: 7314 5645 Elevation: 78 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: medium-sized ruin Area: 1.5 dunams (0.38 acre) Topography: valley Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 4 Dec. 28, 1983; Apr. 24, 1992; 22 shards ***

A site in the area of low hills south of Wadi el-Far‘ah, about 1 km southeast of Moshav Hamrah. The five structures on the site are built of walls 0.8 m wide of small stones. The three northern struc-tures contain one room each, with doorposts at the entrance. To the two southern structures courtyards

are attached. The distances between the structures are 10-50 m; in the southern part of the site there are cave openings, and two cisterns were found in the houses. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: Porath 1968, no. 100.

500

CHAPTER ELEVEN

417. Plan of the village from the Byzantine Period at Kh. Ghadbaneh.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

501

Site 194: 19 – 17/37/1

Khirbet Basaliyyeh (on SWP map: Buseiliyeh) Israel grid: 1936 1779 UTM grid: 7326 5646 Elevation: 140 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: large ruin Area: 18 dunams (4.5 acres) Topography: ravine Rock type: Mount Scopus formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 6 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.3 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), passes by site Visibility: 2 Feb. 28, 1983; 78 shards ***

A large ruin in a broad ravine, where two wadis (Jofeh and Bai-yadheh) exit to Wadi el-Far‘ah from the north. The Shechem – Jiftliq road runs north of the site. On a flat hilltop, in the eastern part of the ravine, remains of sev-eral structures were found in situ, among them walls of hewn stones. According to the finds, the struc-tures may be dated to Early Bronze

Age I. In the field west of the hill is a large scatter of shards and glass, but no building remains. North of the site there are new structures (Bedouin dwellings). Pottery: EBA I – 10%; IrA II – 10%; ER – 10%; Byz – 50%; EM – 20%. Coin find: 10 coins from the Late Roman, Byzantine and Medieval Periods; see appendix.

418. Photos of pottery from Kh. Basaliyyeh.

502

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Guérin visited the site and gave it its present name. He found a built rectangle, 33x58 paces in size, with walls 0.95 m wide. The structure also contained a cellar, which, ac-cording to Guérin, the Arabs called “el-Habis” – the prison. There is no trace of this structure today. Guérin

also discussed the matter of identi-fication; see chapter on identifica-tions. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 176. Bibliography: SWP II, 236; Guérin 1969 (IV), 251-253.

419. Pottery from Kh. Basaliyyeh: 1. Bowl, lt, MA; 2. Jar base, lt, EBA I-II; 3. Jar, gray, IrA II; 4. Jar base, gray, EBA I; 5. Bowl, br, LR; 6. Bowl, red slip and dec, ER; 7. Bowl, black, Byz; 8. Jar, lt br; ER; 9. Jug base, lt, MA; 10. Chalice base, yel, EBA I; 11. Jar, lt, LR.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

503

Site 195: 19 – 17/27/2

Umm ez-Zrub Israel grid: 1922 1771 UTM grid: 5644 7306 Elevation: 120 m b.s.l., 25 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: ridge edge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.8 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.8 km distant Visibility: 4 May 15, 1992; 8 shards ***

A structure with attached courtyard on a ridge edge, part of the area west of Wadi el-Far‘ah and 1.5 km southeast of Moshav Hamrah. Two walls, built of medium-sized stones, remained of the structure.

To the south is an adjacent court-yard, built of small stones, 12x12 m in size. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 196: 19 – 17/36/1

ed-Dajan (SWP: Ed-Dejan and on new maps: Kh. ed-Dikah) Israel grid: 1934 1762 UTM grid: 7326 5628 Elevation: 170 m b.s.l., 5 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: small ruin Area: 1.8 dunams (0.45 acre) Topography: valley Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 5 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), passes by site Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), passes by site Visibility: 3 Feb. 28, 1983; 27 shards ***

A site on a low, rocky hillock, on the southern bank of Wadi el-Far‘ah and west of the narrow pass (“dike”) where the road to the Jordan Valley

pass. A modern house stands on the site, with few shards scattered in the fields east and south of the struc--

504

CHAPTER ELEVEN

ture. The hillock is surrounded by fences of cleared stones. In the walls of the new structure and the fences there are ancient building-stones. The original name of the site, ac-cording to the local people, is ed-

Dika (do not appear in the Israeli Emergency Survey). Pottery: Byz – 90%; EM – 10%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 178.

420. Pottery from ed-Dajan (all Byz): 1, 3. Bowls, lt br; 2. Bowl, br; 4-6. Jars, wh dec on bl, Byz-EM.

421. The site of ed-Dajan (on low hillock with structure) and Bab ed-Dayyq (on high hilltop, above cypresses), looking east. 1987.

WADI EL-FAR‘AH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 19

505

Site 197: 19 – 17/35/1

Bab ed-Dayyq Israel grid: 1936 1759 UTM grid: 7328 5626 Elevation: 170 m b.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: on map but not as his-torical site Site type: small tell Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: ridge edge and hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: terra rossa and alluvium;

quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.3 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 5 Feb. 28, 1983; 49 shards and 12 flint items ***

A tell on a high, prominent hilltop, above and south of the deep gorge of Wadi el-Far‘ah, who pass here through its narrowest point. From this place the river delta opens to the east towards the Jordan River.

Army entrenchment, which has ruined the shape of the site, cov-ers now the hilltop. The original, approach to the tell was from the south only; to the west, north and east there are steep slopes. Appar--

422. The site of Bab ed-Dayyq, looking west. the tel is on the highest point above the cliff.

506

CHAPTER ELEVEN

ently, above the summit there was a fortress with a small settlement around. In the 1968 survey a large structure or wall surrounding an enclosure was found. According to the surveyor, it was a foundation for a brick structure built on top of it. Today there are no structural remains, but many shards on the slopes.

The site's location supports Po-rath's opinion that this was possibly a lookout fortress or tower to guard the Wadi el-Far‘ah road. Pottery: EBA I – 20%; IrA IA – 20%; “‘Eynun” pottery – 20%; IrA II – 30%; IrA III – 10%. Flint find: Chal; see appendix. Previous surveys: Porath 1968, no. 110.

423. Pottery from Bab ed-Dayyq: 1. Crater, pk, EBA; 2. Crater-HM jar, gray, IrA I-II; 3. Bowl, lt, red dec, IrA II; 4. CP, dk br, IrA II; 5. Jar base, lt, EBA I-II; 6. Jug, lt br, IrA II; 7. CP, dk br, IrA IA; 8. Jar, gray, IrA II; 9. Jar, br, IrA II.

CHAPTER TWELVE

RAS HUMSAH LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

View from the Jordan River of the mountain ranges of the Desert Fringes etching by D. Roberts (1839)

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

509

Site 198: 19 – 18/42/2

Umm er-Rkab (C) Israel grid: 1941 1827 UTM grid: 7323 5697 Elevation: 110 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: courtyard Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina; qual--

ity: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 5 May 1, 1992; 41 shards

*** A courtyard on a western slope of was found around and inside. Umm er-Rkab Range, with a fine It belongs to a group of sites of view of Moshav Beqa‘ot and the this type in the Manasseh fringes, central Buqei‘ah. which apparently had an agricul-The courtyard, 9x11 m in size and tural function. built of large stones, has 1 m wide Pottery: Byz – 100%. walls. A considerable shard scatter Previous surveys: none.

424. The courtyard at Umm er-Rkab (C), looking west. In the background are Moshav Beqa‘ot (at left), the Buqei‘ah and Ras Jadir. 1994.

510

CHAPTER TWELVE

Site 199: 19 – 18/42/1

Umm er-Rkab (B) Israel grid: 1944 1823 UTM grid: 7325 5694 Elevation: 100 m a.s.l., 15 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 15 dunams (3.75 acres) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina; qual--

ity: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3.5 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 3 May 1, 1992; 38 shards ***

A farm-complex on the northern slope of Umm er-Rkab Range, overlooking the central Buqei‘ah. In the center there is a house 6x4 m in size, built of large stones. Its

shape has been blurred by piling of stones. West and upward slope, is a courtyard 6x12 m in size, irreg-ular in shape, surrounded by wall of large stones. About 150 m to

425. A house on the slope at Umm er-Rkab (B), looking west. At bottom right is the ra-vine leading to Moshav Beqa‘ot, and in background - the Buqei‘ah plain. Winter 1994.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

511

426. Plan of farm at Umm er-Rkab (B). Note terraces and cistern with water channel.

512

CHAPTER TWELVE

the southeast is another well built courtyard. 30 m west of the cen-tral complex, on the upward slope, there is a hewn cistern with a chan-nel leading to it. Southwest of the

complex there are many agricul-tural terraces. A considerable shard scatter is around the complex. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

427. Pottery from Umm er-Rkab (B), all Byz; dk br and reddish: 1. Jar; 2-3. Jar handles; 4. Jar with ridge, ER; 5. Jug.

 Site 200: 19 – 18/01/3

Umm ej-Juren Israel grid: 1909 1814 UTM grid: 7301 5679 Elevation: 130 m a.s.l., 120 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: ridge edge and high summit Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.6 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 9 May 21, 1982; Jan. 29, 1993; 62 shards ***

A large structure on a ridge edge in the hills of Umm ej-Juren, a high range overlooking from the north the central part of of Wadi el-Far‘ah. The site, viewing also the eastern Buqei‘ah, is 1 km southeast of Tel Shibli The structure, built of large stones, is trapezoidal; it is 20 m long

(northern and southern walls), 14 m (eastern wall) and 10 m (west). There is a secondary division in the eastern side, which creates a long room. A parallel wall of big boul-ders is found some 6 m east of the building. The rich collection of pottery indicate intensive use, and the site may have been used as an

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

outlook fortress. Pottery: MBA IIB – 20%; IrA II

513

– 80%. Previous surveys: none.

428. Pottery from Umm ej-Juren: 1-3, 9 - IrA II; 4-8 - MBA II: 1. Jar, br; 2. Crater, br; 3. Ridged jar, dk gray; 4. Jar, lt (MBA I); 5-6. Bowls, yel; 7-8. Bowl bases, br; 9. HM jar, dk.

429. Plan of the site at Umm ej-Juren.

514

CHAPTER TWELVE

Site 201: 19 – 18/11/1

Ras Bilam ez-Zef (A) Israel grid: 1914 1815 UTM grid: 7307 5682 Elevation: 170 m a.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: cairn Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 9 May 19, 1982; 9 shards

***

A cairn on a high summit in the mass of Bilam ez-Zef, between Wadi el-Far‘ah and the eastern Buqei‘ah. There is a fine view of Wadi elFar‘ah and the Beqa‘ot area. The cairn is 11 m in diameter and 2 m high. It is built of large and

medium-sized stones, with remains of walls. Around the cairn are sec-tions of walls, an evidence for a pre-sumed structure or two. Pottery: EBA I – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

430. Pottery from Ras Bilam ez-Zef (A), all from EBA I: 1. Platter, red slip; 2. Jar, br; 3. HM jar base, gray.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

515

Site 202: 19 – 18/11/2

Ras Bilam ez-Zef (B) Israel grid: 1913 1813 UTM grid: 7307 5681 Elevation: 115 m a.s.l., 120 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: shard scatter and encamp-ment remnants Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: high saddle Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 7 May 4, 1992; 29 shards ***

A large shard scatter on a broad sad-dle in the heights of the Ras Bilam ez-Zef Range, north of Wadi elFar‘ah. The scatter continues from the saddle to the east. The remains of walls found in various places on the saddle are the evidence for encampment over long periods. Wet of the saddle there is a

small structure built of large stones. The grinding stones found in the site are typical to nomads’ encamp-ment. Pottery: EBA I – 10%; IrA II – 30%; Per – 5%; Hel – 15%; Byz – 20%; MA – 20%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 203: 19 – 18/31/1

E.P. 141 Israel grid: 1935 1819 UTM grid: 7322 5690 Elevation: 135 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest EP Site type: structures and built court-yards Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: moderate slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Meholah (C23), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 4 Jan. 14, 1994; 22 shards

516

CHAPTER TWELVE

431. The eastern courtyard at E.P. 141, looking northeast. In background is the summit of the mountain of Umm er-Rkab (Ras Qasm). Winter 1994.

432. The western courtyard at E.P. 141, looking west. In lower right is the ravine of Umm er-Rkab; in background is Moshav Beqa‘ot. Winter 1994.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

433. The plan of the site at E.P. 141.

517

518

CHAPTER TWELVE

Structures and courtyards on the slope of the large hill of E.P. 141, about 1.5 km south-southeast of Beqa‘ot. Two units were discerned, about 90 m distant from each other: 1. An irregular courtyard, 7x10 m in size, built of large field stones. In its western corner is a small, dismantled structure, 4x4 m in size, with especially large building stones. 2. East of it is a smaller, rectangu--

lar courtyard, with a large structure (5x7 m) in its southwest corner. A round threshing-floor is built close to each structure, and a long wall running along the ridge from northwest to southeast. There are also a tumulus and a hewn instal-lation. The site is close by style and masonry to the farms of ‘Iraq elHamam (sites nos. 36 here). Pottery: LR – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 204: 19 – 18/41/2

Umm er-Rkab (A) (on SWP map: Khallet Umm Rukab) Israel grid: 1943 1819 UTM grid: 7335 5691 Elevation: 187 m a.s.l., 200 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: cairn and structure Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina; qual--

ity: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman junction (C21), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 9 May 1, 1992; 15 shards ***

A cairn and a structure on a high summit of the Umm er-Rkab Range, between the central Buqei‘ah and Wadi el-Far‘ah. There is an good view to the Buqei‘ah. The cairn, built of large stones, is 7 m in diameter. There prob-ably was a circular tower here, but the fallen stones have rendered the

shape unclear. A long wall arrives to the cairn from the west, descend-ing eastward along the slope. About 0.1 km west of the cairn, beyond a small saddle, are remains of a struc-ture, 5x8 m in size, whose plan is unclear. Beside it, shards from Iron Age II and a few later shards were found.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

The central cairn possibly served as a lookout tower. There were few shards, one of which possibly dates to the Chalcolithic period.

519

Pottery: IrA II – 60%; LR – 40%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 162.

434. A Bedouin encampment in the ravine east of Umm er-Rkab (A), looking north. In background are the southern ranges of the Buqei‘ah and the range of Dhahret el-Meidan. 1994.

 Site 205: 19 – 18/41/1

Khallet Musah Israel grid: 1945 1815 UTM grid: 7328 5686 Elevation: 100 m a.s.l., 45 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm and structure Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina; qual--

ity: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 4 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman junction (C21), 2 km distant Visibility: 3 May 1, 1992; 30 shards

520

CHAPTER TWELVE

A farm on a ridge in the Umm erRkab Range, between the central Buqei‘ah and Wadi el-Far‘ah. The farm is situated on a ridge southeast of the summit of Ras Qasm (E.P. 187), with a cultivat-ed ravine to its north. The central part of the site is a structure 6x15

m in size, built of large stones. It contains two rooms and a court-yard with secondary division. To its west, 60 m away, are a terrace wall and a hewn cistern. About 50 m south of the site there are possible remains of more structures.

435. Plan of the site of Khallet Musah. At right is the farmhouse; at left is the cistern.

436. The farm structure at Khallet Musah, viewed from the north. May 1993.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

Pottery: IrA II – 60%; LR – 40%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 163. They appar-ently discovered the site, but incor--

521

rectly identified its exact location, and they make no mention of the Iron Age II shards.

 Site 206: 19 – 18/20/1

Qasr Mikser Israel grid: 1924 1806 UTM grid: 7307 5674 Elevation: 20 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: historical but not on map Site type: farm and structure Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: plain Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina; qual--

ity: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), passes by site Visibility: 4 May 24, 1982; Mar. 13, 1992; 26 shards ***

A structure and a courtyard, be-tween Ras Bilam ez-Zef and the road from Wadi el-Far‘ah to Me-holah, 2.5 km south of Beqa‘ot. Beside a structure of large stones, 4x4 m in size, there is a circular

courtyard. Around the site are a large shard scatter and agricultural installations. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

522

CHAPTER TWELVE

Site 207: 19 – 18/31/2

Wadi ej-Jurn Israel grid: 1938 1810 UTM grid: 7320 5682 Elevation: 60 m a.s.l., 2 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: encampment Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: wadi gorge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa and Mediterra--

nean brown forest soil; quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 2 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Me-holah (C23), 1 km distant Visibility: 2 Jan. 21, 1994; 25 shards ***

Remains of an encampment next to the gorge of Wadi ej-Jurn, 2.5 km south of Beqa‘ot. On a low step, adjacent to the wadi gorge, two kidney-shaped circles of stones were found. The leveled step, also used by the Bed--

ouins, is protected by a terrace wall running along the gorge. Among other finds, there is a grinding stone of basalt. Pottery: Byz – 5%; MA – 60%; Ott – 35%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 208: 19 – 18/40/1

Habis ‘Id Israel grid: 1943 1808 UTM grid: 7329 5675 Elevation: 80 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: ridge at edge of plateau Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman junction (C21), 2 km distant Visibility: 5 Jan. 14, 1994; 79 shards ***

A small site on the southern edge of the plateau, south of the Umm er-Rkab Range. At least three structures once

stood at the site, of which only piles of stones remained with fragments of walls. Of the central structure, medium-sized stones are seen. East

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

of the structures are two stone cir-cles, 8 m in diameter each. The site appears to have been a farm or seasonal structures, con-nected with cultivation of the nearby areas and with animal hus--

523

bandry. Pottery: IrA II – 62%; Hel – 4%; LR – 34%. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 165.

437. The site at Habis ‘Id, looking east. In the background are Ras Humsah and its cliffs. Winter 1994.

524

CHAPTER TWELVE

Site 209: 19 – 18/30/1

Wadi Habis ‘Id Israel grid: 1936 1807 UTM grid: 7319 5675 Elevation: 10 m a.s.l., 7 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and terra rossa; quality: 3

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 2 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 4 Jan. 21, 1994; 47 shards

***

A structure on a rock step above a low cliff in Wadi Habis ‘Id, 3 km south-southwest of Beqa‘ot. This is a long, well-built structure on top of the cliff. The western wall, the best preserved one, is built of two rows of medium-sized stones, and is 1 m wide and 21 m long. Parallel to it, 9 m away, is the eastern wall. It is 36 m long and

mostly in ruins. The wall connecting the two is in the south side of the structure and is 0.45 m wide. At the bottom of the cliff, in the east, a rock shelter was found, closed by a later wall. A small shard scatter was found on the site. Pottery: MBA IIB – 95%; LR – 5%. Previous surveys: none.

438. Pottery from Wadi Habis ‘Id: nos. 2, 5, 8 – MBA II; the rest – LR: 1, 3-4, 6-7. Jars, lt br and dk inside; 2. CP, bl; 5, 8. Bowls, lt.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

525

439. Wadi Habis ‘Id, looking north. The wadi descends southward to Wadi el-Far‘ah. The site is above the cliff at left.

 Site 210: 19 – 17/48/1

Khirbet el-Mutaqallabat Israel grid: 1948 1781 UTM grid: 7331 5651 Elevation: 10 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: on map as historical site Site type: small site Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 2 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Wadi elFar‘ah (C24), passes by site Visibility: 4 Jan. 21, 1994; 60 shards ***

A site in ruins on the western edge of Mutaqallabat Valley, near an army base and adjacent to Wadi Mutaqallabat.

Only a wall 2 m wide, built of large stones, presumably part of a large enclosure, has survived of the site. The site was destroyed by bull-

526

CHAPTER TWELVE

dozers in the 1980's. Pottery: IrA II – 60%; IrA III –

30%; Byz – 10%. Previous surveys: none.

440. Pottery from Kh. el-Mutaqallabat, all from IrA II-III except for no. 2, 5: 1, 3. CP, br; 2. Bowl, br, IrA I; 4. Jug, dk; 5. Jar, lt br,Byz.

 Site 211: 19 – 17/68/2

Wadi ‘Abd el-’Al Israel grid: 1960 1783 UTM grid: 7349 5645 Elevation: 48 m a.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure and shard scatter Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: brown alluvium; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman Junction (C21), 2 km distant Visibility: 4 Mar. 20, 1992; 34 shards ***

A site on a step on the eastern edge of Ras Humsah, next to the path to Kh. Umm Hajar. From the site is a fine view of Mutaqallabat Valley. The site compose the remains of an elliptical enclosure, 20x12 m in size. The enclosure wall was built of large stones, that has survived in several sections. In the missing sec-tions a low, dirt rampart with small stones remains. In several places,

there are walls and bases of contem-porary Bedouin encampments. This enclosure and nomads-en-campment was in use over long pe-riods. Many sites of this type are in the desert fringes of the Manasseh. Pottery: Chal – 3%; IrA IA – 31%; Hel – 8%; LR – 13%; Byz – 5%; MA – 27%; Mod – 13%. Flint find: two undefined items. Previous surveys: none.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

441. Plan of the enclosure in Wadi ‘Abd el-’Al.

527

528

CHAPTER TWELVE

442. The enclosure in Wadi ‘Abd el-’Al, viewed from the east, with Ras Humsah above it. Winter 1992.

 Site 212: 19 – 17/68/1

Khirbet Umm Dhabeh (Umm Hajar) Israel grid: 1968 1783 UTM grid: 7352 5649 Elevation: 40 m a.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: farm Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: low ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3.5 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman Junction (C21), 1 km distant Visibility: 4 May 8, 1983; Feb. 11, 1992; 33 shards ***

A site on a saddle, near a good pass from Wadi el-Far‘ah to the eastern Buqei‘ah, and about 1.5 km west of Kh. Umm Kharaz. There is a

view of the eastern Buqei‘ah, the Jordan Valley and the valley of Wadi el-Far‘ah.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

The site contains two main parts: 1. A large, rectangular courtyard, about 17x25 m in size. Its walls are built of large field stones, each av-eraging 40x40 cm in size. The west-ern and southeastern walls are built with two rows of stones, whereas the northern and southern has one row of large stones. Parts of the walls still stand to two courses, or about 1 m, high. There are remains of a building, east of the courtyard, which probably have preceded it and dismantled. A short wall leaves the southern corner but has no continuation; it seems to have been built at a later date than the court-yard itself.

529

2. Some 20 m south of the court-yard a structure with few surviving walls is discerned; its eastern wall is 13 m long and 0.4 m wide. It seems to have been a dwelling place, but is now covered by a pile of cleared stones. The site was founded during Iron Age II (8th-7th Centuries BCE), with a farm, of the Byzantine Peri-od, on top of it. The large courtyard dates to the latter time. Other Byz-antine Period courtyards have been found in the Manasseh fringes. Pottery: IrA II – 21%; Byz – 75%; MA – 4%. Previous surveys: none.

443. Umm Dhabeh as seen from a bird's eye view, from the west (arrow). The road leads right to the Buqei‘ah and left to Wadi el-Far‘ah. Winter 1993.

530

CHAPTER TWELVE

444. Pottery from Umm Dhabeh: 1. CP, br, IrA II; 2. Bowl, lt br, Byz; 3. Bowl, br dec on wh, MA; 4. Handle, br, Byz.

445. Plan of the enclosure and buildings at Umm Dhabeh.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

531

Site 213: 19 – 17/57/1

Khirbet ej-Jofeh Israel grid: 1952 1776 UTM grid: 7334 5643 Elevation: 30 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: historical site but does not appear on map Site type: fortress and structure Area: 1.5 dunams (0.38 acre) Topography: low hilltop on valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil and mountainous rendzina; quality: 7 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 3 May 8, 1983; Feb. 28, 1992, 41 shards ***

A site on the low hills between Ras Humsah in the north and Wadi elFar‘ah in the south, with a view of Ras Khubezah and Ras Humsah. It is situated at the edge of Mutaqalla--

bat Valley, near the road from Wadi el-Far‘ah to the eastern Buqei‘ah. There are two main parts in the place:

446. Kh. ej-Jofeh, looking northwest. The figures stand on the remains of the square structure; in background are Mutaqallabat Valley and the eastern part of Ras Humsah. 1994.

532

CHAPTER TWELVE

1. A square structure, 13x13 m in size, with a separate unit in the north, perhaps for living quarters. Its southern part is a sort of inner courtyard. Two building stages are discernible: the earlier is of small stones, with walls of large, partially hewn stones on top of it. This may express two periods. 2. The western unit is a round structure (a tower?) whose outer diameter is 14 m. It contains three concentric circular walls, 1 m dis-tance between them. The inner circle is 7 m in diameter. Between the two units, nos. 1 and 2 above, is a connecting wall, about 0.6 m wide. This site is architecturally simi-lar to the round fortresses of the

‘Malfuf ’ type, found at Kh. eshShaqq, el-Makhruq and Rujum Abu Muheir. All these are fortresses with three concentric circles and a square structure next to it. The re-semblance to the Ammonite round towers is apparent. A place in the name of Kh. Jofeh appears on the map near the Mechorah Junction, next to Wadi el-Far‘ah. However, no ancient site exist on this spot. Site 213 appears on previous maps as "Murhan Zafi-yeh". Pottery: MBA I – 5%; IrA II – 30%; Byz – 15%; MA – 50%. Special find: fragment of a basalt mace head. Previous surveys: none.

447. Plan of the site at Kh. ej-Jofeh. Note the round tower and the later, square unit.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

533

448. Pottery from Kh. ej-Jofeh, 2-4, 6 – IrA II; 1, 5 – Byz; 7-9 – MBA I: 1. Jug, br; 2. Bowl, yel; 3. Jar, br; 4. Bowl base, gray; 5. Jar, lt br; 6. Bowl, br; 7-9. Rope dec and ledge handle, yel.

 Site 214: 19 – 17/67/1

Khirbet Umm Hajar (B) Israel grid: 1969 1778 UTM grid: 7351 5649 Elevation: 70 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 0.3 dunam (0.08 acre) Topography: hilltop Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 4 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman Junction (C21), 1 km distant Visibility: 4 Mar. 7, 1992; 11 shards ***

A structure at the edge of a high ridge on the southeastern edge of the Buqei‘ah, between Ras Humsah and Ras Umm Khubezah. There is a solitary structure, built of unhewn field stones, with discernible walls but unclear plan. A medium-sized amount of shards

was collected on the eastern slope, below the structure. From a fragment of a cooking pot found there, the site was dated to an early stage of Iron Age II (10th Century BCE?). Pottery: IrA II – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

534

CHAPTER TWELVE

Site 215: 19 – 17/77/1

esh-Shamekh Israel grid: 1971 1779 UTM grid: 7353 5645 Elevation: 35 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3.5 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman Junction (C21), 1 km distant Visibility: 3 Mar. 13, 1992; 20 shards ***

A site at the edge of the eastern Buqei‘ah, about 1 km west of Kh. Umm Kharaz and near the pass linking the Buqei‘ah with Mutaqal-labat Valley. Above it, to the west, towers the Shamekh Range. The site is comprised of four parts:

1. A round circle, 7.5 m in di-ameter, built of one row of stones. Next to it there are possible remains of more circles, larger than the first one. 2. A rectangular structure, built of large stones, 4x6 m in size, is placed

449. The figures stand on the site of esh-Shamekh, viewed to the south. In the back-ground is part of the eastern Buqei‘ah and the ranges of Umm Kharubeh and Umm Khubezah. Winter 1994.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

3 m west of the round circle. 3. A part of a small structure, of whose only a corner remained, is to the west of the above. 4. A large courtyard surrounded by a stone wall, whose southern

535

half is missing. In spite of the miss-ing stones it seems to surround the entire courtyard. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

450. Plan of the site at esh-Shamekh.

536

CHAPTER TWELVE

Site 216: 19 – 17/67/2

E.P. 11 Israel grid: 1963 1773 UTM grid: 7344 5645 Elevation: 11 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest EP Site type: structure and shard scatter Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman Junction (C21), 1 km distant Visibility: 3 Mar. 7, 1992; 18 shards ***

A site on a low ridge in the middle of Mutaqallabat Valley, close to a small wadi that drains the north-ern valley. Near it, to the south, are training trenches and bunkers. One square structure, built of large stones, about 5x5 m in size, is on the site. Around it is a shard

scatter over an area of 2 dunams (0.5 acre). There may have been more structures at the site that were destroyed due to military activity. Pottery: IrA II – 25%; Byz – 40%; Mod – 35%. Previous surveys: none.

451. Remains of the site at E.P. 11. In background is Mutaqallabat Valley. 1994.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

537

Site 217: 19 – 17/56/2

Khallet el-Khanakhneh (A) Israel grid: 1957 1769 UTM grid: 7340 5642 Elevation: s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: prehistoric Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman Junction (C21), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 2 Mar. 7, 1992; 58 flint items ***

A site on the edge of the eastern slope of a ravine that descends northwards to Mutaqallabat Valley. Its surface was damaged by bulldoz-ers activity. There are no building

remains, but a large flint scatter. Flint find: Middle Paleolithic; see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 218: 19 – 17/57/3

Khallet el-Khanakhneh (B) Israel grid: 1958 1771 UTM grid: 7341 5641 Elevation: s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: courtyard/enclosure Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina; qual--

ity: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman Junction (C21), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 2 Mar. 7, 1992; 28 shards ***

A built courtyard on the eastern edge of Mutaqallabat Valley, which joins the eastern Buqei‘ah and Wadi el-Far‘ah.

There is a large courtyard on a moderate slope, slightly above the valley edge. The courtyard, 22x24 m in size, is surrounded by a wall

538

CHAPTER TWELVE

0.6-0.7 m wide of large, partially hewn stones, some in upright po-sition. The eastern wall is three stone-courses high. On the west-ern side of the courtyard a parallel wall creates a long hall, about 5 m wide, with possible rooms. On the

eastern side are a few remnants of a similar wall. The site is yet another in a row of Byzantine Period court-yards in the region. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

452. The courtyard plan at Khallet el-Khanakhneh (B).

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

539

453. View to the east of the built courtyard at Khallet el-Khanakhneh (B). The remains of the courtyard are visible on the lower part of the slope. The source of flint of Ras elKharubeh was discovered on this ridge. Winter 1992.

 Site 219: 19 – 17/77/2

Ras Umm Khubezah quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 4.5 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman Junction (C21), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 4 Feb. 25, 1992; 46 shards and 51 flint items

Israel grid: 1977 1773 UTM grid: 7361 5644 Elevation: 35 m a.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin and shard scatter Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

***

A site on the northern bottoms of Ras Umm Khubezah, about 1 km southwest of Kh. Umm Kharaz. There is a good view to the eastern

Buqei‘ah and the Jordan Valley. The site is located on the east-ern slope of a small hilltop, with a round tower at the summit above, 7

540

CHAPTER TWELVE

m in diameter and built of one row of large, hewn stones. These have been preserved in some places to a height of two courses. The site, lo-cated on elevated surface, contains two parts: 1. On a saddle, about 0.1 km west of the site, is a rock surface 30x30 m in size. In its southwest corner there is a wall of hewn stones, built along the edge of the rock surface. On the surface there are several ba-sins. Probably for grinding. 2. In a small wadi nearby the re-mains of several rectangular build-ings, with plans unclear, were dis--

cerned. On an area of 2 dunams (0.5 acre) around the buildings are a medium-sized shard scatter and many flint items. Aside from the flint tools, basalt stones for grind-ing and procession were also found. Apparently there were also encamp-ments on the spot. Pottery: MBA II – 30%; IrA II – 30%; Roman-Byz – 30%; Ott – 2%; Mod – 8%. Flint find: Natufian, Pre-Pottery, Neolithic B, Chal, MBA II and IrA Age (items); see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

454. The upper part of the site of Umm Khubezah, looking north. In background is the hilltop with round tower. On the southern slope is rock surface with hewn installations. Spring 1994.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

541

Site 220: 19 – 17/46/1

Wadi Umm el-Khazam Israel grid: 1947 1764 UTM grid: 7330 5635 Elevation: 30 m b.s.l., 10 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: farm Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: slope Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 5

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 1 Apr. 22, 1992; 53 shards ***

A fortified farm on a slope in the hilly area between the valley of Jeb-el el-Muspah and Wadi el-Far‘ah. The farm consists of a court-yard, 23x24 m in size, built of large stones. Inside it there are the

remains of a series of rooms along the northwestern wall, with possi-ble remains of similar rooms along the other walls. A small, trapezoidal structure, built of stone, was found near and outside of the southern

455. The site at Wadi Umm el-Khazam, looking north. Remains of the farm are on the left side of the hill, where the figure stands. In background: the low range of Ras Kharubeh. 1994.

542

CHAPTER TWELVE

corner. The plan here resembles the cas-tellum-type Roman fortresses of the period, but its location points to a

fortified farm. Pottery: LR – 70%; Byz – 30%. Previous surveys: none.

456. Plan of the fortified farm (?) at Wadi Umm el-Khazam. Note the rooms along the walls.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

543

Site 221: 19 – 17/66/1

Khirbet Ras el-Kharubeh Israel grid: 1966 1766 UTM grid: 7349 5635 Elevation: 70 m b.s.l., 30 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: encampment and shard scatter Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) Topography: ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil and mountainous rendzina; qual-ity: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman Junction (C21), 1.25 km distant Visibility: 2 Feb. 25, 1992; 20 shards ***

A site in a ravine, on either side of a small wadi, which descends from the range of Ras el-Kharubeh to Mutaqallabat Valley. On the west side of the small wadi were found three, elliptical-ly-shaped tent bases, built of field stones. In the area of the encamp-ment and around it a shard scatter was found; no earlier architecture was discovered. The shard scatter

was medium-sized (63 body frag-ments, aside from the 20 that were sorted). Apparently the site was a permanent or semi-nomadic settle-ment place, on which tents were pitched. Pottery: MBA IIB – 16%; IrA I – 11%; IrA II – 26%; Byz – 21%; MA – 26%. Previous surveys: none.

544

CHAPTER TWELVE

Site 222: 19 – 17/76/1

Khirbet Naqb el-Matar Israel grid: 1973 1767 UTM grid: 7355 5638 Elevation: 25 m a.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: ancient but does not ap-pear on map Site type: fortress and tower Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: saddle and pass Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman junction (C21), passes by site Visibility: 6 Mar. 13, 1992; May 1, 1992; 10 shards ***

A tower or fortress in a pass between Argaman (near the Jordan Valley) and Mutaqallabat Valley. This is the easily accessible road between the two valleys.

There is a round tower here, similar to the Iron Age fortresses at Kh. esh-Shaqq, el-Makhruq, and Rujum Abu Muheir. In the center is an internal circle 10 m in diam--

457. A view looking north at the fortress of Naqb el-Matar. The jeep is on the road from the Buqei‘ah to the Jordan Valley. Behind the fortress is Ras Umm Khubezah. 1992.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

eter. Outside there are the remains of more circles. In the southwest is an angle of walls, presumably of a nearby structure. The plan and location makes this site a roadside fortress to guard the pass. It seems to be built during

545

Iron Age II and was in use during the Roman-Byzantine Period as well. Shards are few. Pottery: IrA II – 80%; Roman-Byz – 20%. Previous surveys: none.

458. Plan of the fortress (round tower of Ammonite type) at Naqb el-Matar.

546

CHAPTER TWELVE

Site 223: 19 – 17/56/1

Jebel el-Mssafh (A) Israel grid: 1951 1761 UTM grid: 7325 5632 Elevation: 30 m a.s.l., 100 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site and structures Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: high hilltop and valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 8 Apr. 22, 1992; 18 shards ***

A site on a hilltop at the edge of Ms-safh Valley, between the Buqei‘ah and Wadi el-Far‘ah, with a fine view of Wadi el-Far‘ah, the river delta and the Jordan Valley. There is a small structure of large stones, 4x4 m in size. North of it is

another structure, 10x10 m in size, with at least two walls, one of which is two stones wide (1 m). Pottery: IrA II – 70%; Byz – 15%; MA: 15%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 224: 19 – 17/55/2

Jebel el-Mssafh (B) and stony-desert soil; quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1 km distant Visibility: 8 Apr. 22, 1992; 51 shards

Israel grid: 1954 1758 UTM grid: 7326 5625 Elevation: 25 m b.s.l., 100 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: fortress (?) Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: high hilltop and valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

***

A site on a hilltop at the edge of Ms-safh Valley, between the Buqei‘ah and Wadi el-Far‘ah, with a fine view

of Wadi el-Far‘ah and its delta. Here are remains of a round

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

structure (a tower?), 10 m in diam-eter. Its northern wall, one stone wide, has survived in good con-dition, with more parts around. Within the structure is a round pile of cleared stones, shaped like a tow-er, in which the original building

stones have been concentrated. This is, probably, another of the round towers east of Wadi elFar‘ah. Pottery: IrA II – 34%; Byz – 66%. Previous surveys: none.

459. A view from the west of the round tower at Jebel el-Mssafh (B). 1994.

460. Plan of the round tower at Jebel el-Mssafh (B).

547

548

CHAPTER TWELVE

Site 225: 19 – 17/55/1

el-‘Alam (A) Israel grid: 1951 1755 UTM grid: 7333 5626 Elevation: 50 m b.s.l., 5 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site; enclosure Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 7 Apr. 22, 1992, 45 shards and 20 flint items ***

An enclosure or farm at the edge of Mssafh Valley, between Wadi elFar‘ah and the northern Buqei‘ah. Nearby are the remains of a small settlement.

The remains of a partial enclo-sure, 25 m long and 8 m wide and built of small stones, were found. The northeastern side does not exist. Inside ad to the east are two

461. Plan of the site at el-‘Alam (A). The relationship between the enclosure and the structures inside is not clear.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

structures, one with a looting pit and a wall to its north. On the path descending into Wadi Umm Watad there are remains of more structures built of large stones. Next to them a road (?), built of two parallel walls and another, large wall at the edge

549

of the road, was discerned. Pottery: EBA I – 50%; IrA II – 50%. Flint find: Chal (mainly); see ap-pendix. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 226: 19 – 17/55/3

el-‘Alam (B) Israel grid: 1955 1755 UTM grid: 7337 5626 Elevation: 50 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site and structure Area: 0.2 dunam (0.05 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 2 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 2 km distant Visibility: 7 Apr. 10, 1992; 17 shards ***

A site at the edge of Mssafh Valley and above the cliff descending to Wadi el-Far‘ah. At the site is a single structure of

large stones, 4x4 m in size, with a shard scatter. Pottery: ER – 50%; LR – 50%. Previous surveys: none.

550

CHAPTER TWELVE

Site 227: 19 – 17/55/4

Wadi Ras el-Kharubeh (el-Mrah) Israel grid: 1956 1757 UTM grid: 7341 5626 Elevation: 50 m b.s.l., 50 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure and structures Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 7

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 4 Feb. 25, 1992; Apr. 10, 1992; 27 shards ***

An enclosure and structures on the edge of Mssafh Valley, an elongated step between Wadi el-Far‘ah and the northern Buqei‘ah. At the site is an enclosure, oval and slightly irregular, 35 m in di-ameter (maximum); the surround-ing wall is of two rows of especially

large stones. Two long rooms are attached to its outside from the south. To their east are two more structures with a plan difficult to discern. Many shards were found at the site, but their identification was difficult.

462. View to the west of the enclosure at Wadi Ras el-Kharubeh. At right are the slopes of Ras Kharubeh. Spring 1994.

RAS HUMSAH — LANDSCAPE UNIT 20

Pottery: IrA IA-B – 10%; IrA II – 25%; ER – 50%; MA – 15%.

551

Previous surveys: none.

463. Pottery from Wadi Ras el-Kharubeh: nos. 1-5 – IrA I-II (stage of period in paren-theses); no. 6 – MA: 1. Jug, br (I); 2. CP, dk br (I); 3. Jug, br (II); 4. Jar, yel (II); 5. CP, br (late I); 6. Jar, lt.

464. Plan of the site at Wadi Ras el-Kharubeh.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

THE DESERT FRINGES LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

Looking south from the heights of Ras Kharubeh, toward Wadi el-Far‘ah, the Jordan Valley and the Sartabah-Alexandrium. Etching from the British PEFQst 1875, 58.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

555

Site 228: 19 – 19/92/1

Re’us ej-Jibsin Israel grid: 1992 1929 UTM grid: 7381 5799 Elevation: 20 m b.s.l., 20 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: saddle on plateau Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: mountainous rendzina;

quality: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 2.5 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 2 km distant Visibility: 3 Mar. 6, 1988; 15 shards

*** A structure and courtyard in the rounded by a stone wall and with hilly mass of Re’us ej-Jibsin, 4 km a cistern inside, is connected to the southeast of Meholah. structure on its eastern side. The structure, 6x7 m in size, is The site is a farm or solitary built of large, hewn stones; its in-- structure. terior is divided into two rooms. Pottery: Byz – 100%. A courtyard, 8x16 m in size, sur-Previous surveys: none.

465. The structure on the saddle of Re’us ej-Jibsin, looking north. In background are the ranges next to the settlement Rotem.

556

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Site 229: 19 – 19/82/1

‘Ain el-Hilu (A) Israel grid: 1980 1923 UTM grid: 7361 7593 Elevation: 50 m b.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: high hilltop Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean

brown forest soil; quality: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 0.4 km distant Nearest road: Tubas – Meholah (B8), 0.4 km distant Visibility: 4 Feb. 26, 1988; 18 shards

***

A solitary structure on a high hill-top, above and to the east of the junction between the Tubas – Me-holah and the Beqa‘ot – Meholah roads. From the site is a good view of Tel el-Hilu and its springs.

The rectangular structure, built of 1 m wide wall of large stones, is 6x12 m in size. In 1988 the struc-ture was excavated to the natural rock, and the quantity of pottery was minimal. This site might have

466. The hill of the sites of ‘Ain el-Hilu. The structure is on the summit (A), and the Chalcolithic Period site (B) is on the southern slope.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

served as a lookout post. Pottery: MBA IIB – 100%.

557

Previous surveys: none.

467. The fortified structure at ‘Ain el-Hilu (A) after its exposure, 1988.

 Site 230: 19 – 19/82/2

‘Ain el-Hilu (B) Israel grid: 1981 1922 UTM grid: 7359 5792 Elevation: 63 m b.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large ruin Area: 12 dunams (3 acres) Topography: slope and valley edge Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: rendzina and Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 5

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 0.3 km distant Nearest road: Wadi Far‘ah – Meholah (C23), 0.3 km distant Visibility: 3 Feb. 26, 1988; 49 shards and 35 flint items (aside from material of excava-tions)

***

A large settlement on the southern

slope of the edge of Maskiyot Val--

558

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

ley, above the cliffs descending into ‘Ain Hilu and Tel el-Hilu. There are about 15-20 structures in the settlement, built of small stones and pebbles. Several large structures, resembling courtyards, are on the upper part of the site; smaller structures are on the lower part. In 1988 the site was excavated over a two week period by A. Zer-tal and the Manasseh Hill Country Survey team. Four architectural complexes were exposed in the cen-ter of the site, including Chalco--

lithic Period broadhousr structure, with the entrance on the short side and the bases for the doorposts. The floors were of packed earth, and in one of the corners an elongated jar with two hole handles was found. Other pottery included “V-shaped” bowls, churns and more. The flint items were few. The excavations were renewed in 2006 under S. Bar. Pottery: Chal – 100%; for flint find see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

468. ‘Ain el-Hilu (B) excavations, Area E. 2006.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

559

469. General plan of the Chalcolithic Period village at ‘Ain el-Hilu (B). Excavation was carried out in the marked squares. The lines of walls denote complexes or courtyards. 2006.

560

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

470. View of the Chalcolithic Period site at ‘Ain el-Hilu (B), looking north. 1988.

471. Stone foundations of one of the structures at ‘Ain el-Hilu (B). An elongated jar with two hole handles was found leaning against a wall. 1988.

472. Plan of areas B-C, excavations at ‘Ain el-Hilu (B), 2006.

11

10

9

0

H

-62.49 -62.69

-62.69

W

L9

3

1

W

-62.35 -62.65

4

W

4

m

I

46 1

W

L459

-62.48 -62.61

-62.57

#

L466

-62.41 -62.71

L442

-62.67

Unexcavated

-62.49 -62.68

-62.64

8

45

W

-62.83

L6 L456

-62.51 -62.78

L18 L457

-62.35 -62.74

Unexcavated

46

4

W

L437 L443

W420

#

-62.34 -62.58

49

W4

L413

-62.59

W4 32a L444

J

Area B•

-62.37 L436 -62.75 -62.76 L441

-62.35

-62.83

W418

# -62.50

-62.5 8

L454 #-62.44

-62.27 -62.76

-62.39 -62.63 -62.37

-62.70

-62.28 -62.47

0

-62.32 -62.67

L408 L433

2

43

W

-62.32 -62.67

L426 L429 L453 L463 F467 L469

#

B

#

5

2

W42

-62.34

L431

W41 L427 8

-62.72

L409

-62.55

L414

-62.14 -62.50

Unexcavated

-62.26 -62.48 L464

K

-62.72

W430

-62.85 -62.29 -62.59

L42 L45 2

# 6 -62.96 L42 9

-62.72 W43

-62.80 -62.70 Rocks in Disorder -62.64 -62.81

8 -62.67

L405 L407 L468

-62.64

#

-62.21 -62.60

-62.80 -62.72 L410

W41

W42 0

L415

-62.08 -62.47 L402

-62.8 5

#

-62.64

L403

-62.33

6

-62.32

21 W4

W448 46 W

L438 L455

9

47 0

-62.09 -62.42

43 W

W41 25

L445

W4

-62.19 -62.42

4

51

#

17

W4

W41 L412 9 W43

W4

Ein Hilu

B

-62.00 -62.70

B.M. -62.08

-62.85 -63.05

L400 L470

-62.14 -62.55

23

K

W4

J

L129

L125

-62.55

L131 L136 L138 L141

L134 L135 L136 L143a F143b L144a F145 L146

L

Unexcavated

L114

L130

#

L124

L106

L121

-62.13

L128 L135 L138 L139 L143 F143b L144 F145 L146

-63.55 L117

A

-62.00 -62.19

-62.60 L118

F143b

-63.08

F145 #

L146

L

Area C

-62.38

L112 L127

-63.93

L105

-62.19 -62.38

A

W4 45 W

0

Area B + C

W

2

23

W14

I

W4

-62 .95

H

11

10

9

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

561

562

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Site 231: 20 – 19/02/1

el-Beyaz Israel grid: 2003 1926 UTM grid: 7382 5794 Elevation: 80 m b.s.l., 70 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: prehistoric site Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: ridge and slope Rock type: Tiberias formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 4

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 2 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 1 km distant Visibility: 7 Apr. 4, 1986; Dec. 16, 1988; 68 flint items ***

A site of stone circles on the high, eastern slope of the ridge of el-Bey-az, 1.5 km northwest of the settle-ment Brosh. The four stone circles are de-scribed as follows (from south to north): 1. A small circle, 7 m in diameter, well built of large stones. 2. The central circle, 20 m in di-ameter and irregular in shape, built of large stones, some in upright po-sition; A small structure adjoins it on its east. 3. A large circle, about 32 m in diameter, adjoining no. 2 on the

south. It is not well preserved, with large sections missing. Its construc-tion is similar to no. 2. 4. A small circle, 4 m in diameter, on the northern part of the site (not on the plan). There is a basin hewn in rock in the western side. Similar circle sites were also found in Mrah Ra‘iyan (site no. 37 here), Zahret el-Meidan (B) (site no. 256 here) and Ras en-Naqb Baqar (site no. 261 here). Flint finds only: see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

563

473. The site of stone circles of el-Beyaz. Their meaning and function are unknown.

564

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Site 232: 19 – 19/71/1

Tabqet el-Hilweh Israel grid: 1975 1915 UTM grid: 7356 5784 Elevation: 40 m b.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: large ruin Area: 27 dunams (6.75 acres) Topography: slope and valley edge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 1 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 3 Jan. 2, 1987; Feb. 5, 1988; 61 shards and 42 flint items ***

A large site on a moderate slope de-scending northward into Tabqet el-

Hilweh Valley, about 6 km southsouthwest of Meholah. Part of the

474. Plan of the site of Tabqet el-Hilweh. The enclosures in the center and at right were built in Middle Bronze Age I; the enclosures in the upper part are of a later date.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

ancient site is today in the area of the settlement Maskiyot. The place is situated in a topo-graphical “bowl” surrounded by hills. In the southern and the high-est part, are three units of court-yard settlements surrounded by enclosure wall. The easternmost is oval in shape, with two sharp tips. Inside are several dwelling units in situ. The average diameter of this courtyards is 40 m, with walls built of large stones. Its neighbor from the west is 30 m in diameter, with house remains inside. In the dwell--

565

ing units square or irregular rooms were found; apparently this part of the site dates back to Middle Bronze Age I. On top of the above settlement, after a long cessation of settlement, a smaller site was built during and after Iron Age II. This consists of a large, square courtyard in a shape of an apsis, 40x40 m in size, and it was built on the northeastern part of the ancient settlement. To the west of the site there is a cave. Pottery: MBA I – 50%; MBA IIB – 5%; IrA II – 20%; Byz – 15%;

475. Pottery from the site of Tabqet el-Hilweh: 1. Jug, br, LR; 2,14. Bowls, yel, MBA I; 3. Jug, br, IrA II; 4-6, 8. HM jars, yel gr, MBA I; 7. CP, dk br, IrA I-II; 9. Jar, gr, MBA I; 10-13. Jars, br, IrA II; 15. Ledge handle, yel, MBA I.

566

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

EM – 5%; MA – 5%. Flint find: MBA I (the majority); see appendix. This site is one of the largest of the Middle Bronze Age I in the Manasseh fringes, and resembles several sites of the Negev high-lands. On its ruins an Iron Age II

farm was built; possibly during the Byzantine Period it was dismantled and a small village was built on top of it. The wide expanses of pasture land and the small valley nearby provided the economic basis of the settlement. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 233: 20 – 19/11/1

Khirbet Wahraneh Israel grid: 2013 1913 UTM grid: 7395 5783 Elevation: 190 m b.s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure and small site (farm?) Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: narrow ridge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 2 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), passes by site Visibility: 4 Mar. 6, 1988; 19 shards ***

A small site at the edge of a rocky ridge with a view of the Jordan Val-ley, located next to and west of the Beth-Shean-Jericho road and 0.5 km to the south of Brosh. There are the remains of a struc-ture, 3.5x5 m in size, built of hewn stones. Destruction has rendered

the building plan unclear. Nearby on the slope there are terraces and various walls. The site was possibly a farm or an isolated structure dur-ing the Roman Period. Pottery: LR – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

567

Site 234: 19 – 19/70/1

Re’us et-Tabaq Israel grid: 1972 1906 UTM grid: 7351 5773 Elevation: 28 m a.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosures and courtyard Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: saddle on plateau Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina; qual--

ity: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 2 km distant Nearest road: Beqa‘ot – Tel el-Hilu (C23), 1 km distant Visibility: 5 Feb. 12, 1988; 33 shards and 12 flint items ***

A site on a high ridge, overlooking the Jordan Valley, to Tabqet el-Hil-weh and Wadi Fau. Steep slopes descend from the ridge westward, to the Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel el-Hilu

Road. In the center is a courtyard, 15x25 m in size, with a surrounding wall 1.2 m wide, built of two rows of large stones. In the northwestern

476. Re’us et-Tabaq, viewed to the east. Note the remains of the Byzantine Period courtyard.

568

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

part of the courtyard are two built rooms, each about 3X4 m in size. The courtyard, apparently built during the Byzantine Period, is sit-uated in the center of the site from Middle Bronze Age I. It included units of courtyards or enclosures, generally round or elliptical in shape. At least three such units were

discernible on the surface, built of small field stones, together with solitary walls. About 0.1 km north of the site a square tower built of large stones was found. About 0.3 km south of the site, on the summit (Israel grid 1905 1973), there is another struc-ture of large stones, 7x7 m in size.

477. Pottery from the site, all MBA I except for no. 3: 1-2, 4. Jars, gray; 3. Bowl base, Byz; 5. HM jar; 6. rope dec, lt.

478. Plan of the site at Re’us et-Tabaq.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

Its walls are 1.2 m wide and its en-trance is on the north side. These structures have probably belonged to the central site. The northern tower appears on the SWP map, Sheet XII, marked (R) for ‘ruin’.

569

Pottery: MBA I – 90%; Byz – 10%. Flint find: MBA I (the majority) and unidentifiable items; see ap-pendix. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 235: 19 - 18/79/1

E.P. 118 Israel grid: 1977 1898 UTM grid: 7355 5770 Elevation: 114 m a.s.l., 80 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 3 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 1.2 km distant Visibility: 8 Feb. 12, 1988; 27 shards and two flint items ***

A site on a high, narrow ridge sur-rounded by deep wadis. It overlooks the Jordan Valley, Tabqet el-Hil-weh, Ras Ramali and Nahal Bezeq to the north, and the Buqei‘ah to the south and west. The ridge is In the well preserved site there is a round or elliptical courtyard, about 35 m in diameter. The court-yard is surrounded by an enclosure wall built of large stones and with gaps in the wall. Along the enclo-sure-wall, on the inside, 2-3 rooms of an average size of 2x4 m are dis-cernable. An additional, smaller courtyard adjoins the large one on

the eastern side. About 0.2 km to the southeast, on an adjacent summit, is a 5x5 m structure built of large stones, with Byzantine Period shards nearby. Pottery: MBA I – 100% (in the en-closure). Three MBA II shards. Flint find: Two unidentified items. This dwelling enclosures are sim-ilar in structure to the ‘classic’ sites of this period. Its elevated location, and the three shards of Middle Bronze Age II, are surprising. The pottery find is small in quantity. Previous surveys: none.

570

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

479. The range of E.P. 118, viewed from the south. The site is in the center of the range. The road leads to Tabqet el-Hilweh.

480. Plan of the Middle Bronze Age I enclosure at E.P. 118. Such MBA 1 enclosures are few in the Manasseh Hill Country.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

571

Site 236: 19 – 18/79/2

Wadi Ra’us el-Kuw‘ah Israel grid: 1975 1896 UTM grid: 7342 5766 Elevation: s.l., 10 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small farm Area: 1.5 dunams (0.38 acre) Topography: ridge Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 3.8 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 1 km distant Visibility: 2 Mar. 18, 1988; 47 shards ***

A site on a wide and low ridge in an inner valley between crossing wadis, about 2.5 km north of Kh. es-Samrah. In the southern part are two par-allel walls 25 m long and 6 m dis-tant from each other, built of field stones. In the space between the walls there seems to be rooms. One of the walls turns north to create a possible courtyard, 25x25 m in size

and empty of structures. A parallel enclosure was possibly existent on the eastern side. A large shard scat-ter was found on the site. The site is most probably a farm dating to the 7th-6th centuries BCE, a typical settlement in East Manasseh. Pottery: IrA III – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

481. Pottery from Wadi Ra’us el-Kuw‘ah, all from IrA III: 1, 3, 6. Jars, br; 2. Bowl, yel; 4. Jug base, lt; 5. CP, br.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

572 Site 237: 19 – 18/68/1

Wadi Abu Dayah Israel grid: 1964 1888 UTM grid: 7342 5757 Elevation: 10 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 0.3 dunam (0.08 acre) Topography: ravine Rock type: Mount Scopus formation Soil type: terra rossa; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 4 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), passes by site Visibility: 1 Mar. 1, 1989; two shards ***

A solitary structure in a ravine, next and east to the road from Tel el-Hilu to Beqa‘ot, and about 1.5 north of Kh. es-Samrah. The structure, of large field stones, is 11x15 m in size with

no discerned entrance. Its western wall was especially prominent. Few shards were collected. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

482. Remains of the structure at Wadi Abu Dayah.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

573

Site 238: 19 – 18/78/1

Ra’us el-Kuw‘ah Israel grid: 1970 1882 UTM grid: 5755 7351 Elevation: 63 m a.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: shard scatter Area: 10 dunams (2.5 acres) Topography: saddle Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 3 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 5 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 0.8 km distant Visibility: 4 Mar. 18, 1988; 30 shards ***

A site on a broad, partially culti-vated ridge, overlooking Moshav Beqa‘ot to the south. The site is 1 km north of Kh. es-Samrah. There is a shard scatter, dated

to the Byzantine and Early Mos-lem Periods, over an area of about 10 dunams (2.5 acres), with no structural remains.The main con-centration was to the southeast of E.P. 73. There are few shards from

483. The landscape of Ra’us el-Kuw‘ah and its surroundings, looking west. In the back-ground to the left are the Buqei‘ah and Jebel Kebir; in the center are the Musheibik Hills and Wadi Fau.

574

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

the Middle Bronze Age 1 (a folded ledge handle). Pottery: MBA I – 10%; Byz – 50%;

EM – 40%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 239: 19 – 18/98/1

Khirbet es-Suweideh (also on SWP map) Israel grid: 1997 1887 UTM grid: 7377 7558 Elevation: 60 m a.s.l., 30 m b.s.a. Name type: historical site Site type: tell and large military camp Area: 40 dunams (10 acres) Topography: ridge and edge of inter-nal valley Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 50 Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 5 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 3 km distant Visibility: 4 Jun. 17, 1988; Feb. 10, 1993; 112 shards and four coins ***

A large, permanent army base on a broad ridge, descending south into a small, internal valley. It is located in the hilly part of the Manasseh fringes, between Wadi Feiran and Wadi esh-Shaqq, about 2 km north-east of Peles. A. The camp complex containing five parts: 1. The central enclosure is a large rectangle suited it to the topogra-phy, whose original dimensions were 188x100 m. It was originally surrounded by a 1.3 m wide wall, whose remains are seen here and there. In a few sections a double enclosure wall, with a space of 5 m between the two walls, is discern--

able. The enclosure walls are vis-ible in most parts of the site, but in various places it has been damaged by later activities. The area within the enclosure is completely built up with crowded, massive stone constructions, whose fallen stones cover the entire site. This area is divided into streets running east – west (4 m wide) and north – south (2 – 3 m wide). Most of the east – west streets are opened through the enclosure wall. Between the net of streets there are blocks 10X10 m I dimensions. The blocks are divided into struc-tural complexes with many rooms, inner squares, passages and lanes. Most of the rooms, with stone

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

doorposts in situ, are about 4x4 m in size. Many of the streets and lanes are equipped with inner gates with bolt holes, which enabled to close the passages. This division into structural blocks is in the northern two thirds of the camp’s area. The southern area, about one third of the total, is built differently. The higher level of fallen stones suggests a second sto-rey, while street blockings are here as well. In the center of the southern part, facing north, there is a strong tower, 10x10 m in size and built of very large stones with hewn edges. The tower is 2-3 m higher than the level of fallen rocks. North of the tower is a long hall with a fallen pil-lar and a hewn basin with a rough relief on one side.

575

On the southwest side of the en-closure are courtyards with a con-centration of large cisterns, and a built entranceway, leading up to the tower; these seems to be later than the original building. On the north side at least two more towers, smaller than the central one, are discernable. 2. The additions beyond the original camp: On all sides of the camp, various additions are dis-cernable: in the west a large area of structures has been added to the camp, covering about 10 dunams (2.5 acres). It contains complexes of buildings whose plan and building method are similar to those of the camp inside. This western “wing” suits the central camp, and appar-ently was an extension of it. On the

484. A bird’s eye view, looking west, at the camp of Kh. es-Suweideh. Note the network of streets. At up left is the beginning of Wadi Feiran.

576

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

northern part of the western “wing” a built entrance, protected by a cla-vicula, is visible. In the north, ad-ditional structures, most of them divided into rooms, jut out from the camp’s wall. In the east there is a special “wing” that deviates from the straight lines that define the en-tire camp. In this section, built at an 450 angle to the enclosure wall, the buildings suit the slope line. The slanted street goes off from the entrance to one of the wide streets, and blocks of buildings to the north and south are adjacent to it. In the area south of these there are large courtyards, cisterns, and several stone troughs. A logical solution here is that these were stables. On the southern side, as well, there are

deviations, including a protected expanse and rooms with a cistern. 3. The water system: Aside from the numerous cisterns in and around the enclosure, a dam and a central pool were constructed in Wadi Feiran, located about 0.2 km east of the site and much lower than it. The dam is about 15 m long and 2 m wide, with an artifi-cial pool, 20x26 m in size, with 1 m high walls connected to it. Assum-ing that these originally reached a height of 1 m more, the pool could have held 1000 – 1200 cu m. A path runs from the dam along the slope up to the camp. 4. Road: Along the ridge between Wadi Feiran and Wadi esh-Shaqq is

485. Bird’s eye view to the south, of the camp at Kh. es-Suweideh. At right is the road descending into Wadi Feiran. The water reservoir of the camp is at left.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

a road built of two parallel rows of large stones. This road, marked on the SWP map, apparently ascended from the area of Kh. es-Samrah (the Wadi Fau path) and descended to the Jordan Valley. This road was presumably paved. 5. Cemeteries: About 0.2 km west of the site, on a slope, two stone sarcophagoi were found in situ with their stone covers intact. On the slope east of the site, towards Wadi Feiran, there are several plundered burial caves. The central cemetery of the site was presumably in this area.

577

B. Chronology and history of the site: Aside from site from the Bronze and Iron ages at Kh. es-Suweideh, at least two stages of the Roman camp can be discerned: 1. The camp was established in the 2nd Century C.E., when the original enclosure was built. Later the camp was enlarged and the extensions were added on. This is evident from the resemblance in building style and plan of the en-closure and its extension. The dif-ferent stages are expressed by the

486. The ruins of the camp of Kh. es-Suweideh, looking north. The photo was taken from the tower on the southern part. Seated is R. Kimchi.

578

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

differences of plan. 2. Some time after the construc-tion of the original camp and its extensions, while the place was still functioning, a massive dismantling of structures and using the stones for changes in the structures, espe-cially for blocking of streets, can be discerned. This blocking is vis-ible in many streets and lanes, and its reasons are difficult to fathom without excavation. 3. The camp was abandoned and then used as courtyards or pens. This can probably be dated to the Byzantine Period.

Summary: The camp of Kh. esSuweideh is a well-preserved and complete of the Roman military camps. Pottery and coin finds in-dicate its establishment to the 2nd Century C.E., with possible rela-tion to the establishment of for-tresses and other camps in the area. The historical sources related to this building are as yet unknown. Pottery: MBA IIB – 5%; IrA IA-C – 5%; IrA II – 5%; Hel – 5%; ER – 10%; LR – 60%; Byz – 10%. Coin find: Of the four coins, one is of Alexander Jannaeus, two are Pro-vincial city-coins (Eliya Capitolina

487. Pottery from Kh. es-Suweideh, all from the Late Roman Period (2nd Century), un-less otherwise noted: 1. Jar, lt br; 2. Bowl, lt br; 3. Juglet, dk; 4. Bowl, br; 5. Jar, yel, MBA II; 6. Jar, lt, Hel; 7. Jug base, br, MBA II; 8. Bowl, br, MBA II; 9. Jug, lt br; 10. Jug base, lt br; 11. CP of type B, IrA 1; 12. Jar,It br; 13. CP, dk br, IA1; 14. Small bowl, lt br, Byz.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

and Caesarea Maritima) from the time of Hadrian, and one from the Byzantine Period; see appendix. Special find: Two arrowheads, a piece of jewelry, nails and pieces

579

of metal. Bibliography: SWP II, 240; Hash-man 1996. Previous surveys: none.

488. Plan of the Roman camp at Kh. es-Suweideh, measured with an alidade. Note the basic rectangle of the camp and the additions to the east and west. The tower is in the center of the southern part.

580

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

489. The built reservoir of the camp of Kh. es-Suweideh, looking west.

490. A decorated stone sarcophagus, to the west of Kh. es-Suweideh.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

581

491. The two sides of a bronze coin of Eliya Capitolina (Roman Jerusalem) dated to Hadrian.

492. Plan of the area of Kh. es-Suweideh. 1. the camp; 2. the water reservoir; 3. the built road to the Jordan Valley; 4. the concentration of sarcophagi and the cemetery.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

582 Site 240: 19 – 18/87/1

Umm ez-Zoqeh Israel grid: 1982 1875 UTM grid: 7364 5747 Elevation: 150 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: courtyard Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: plateau and high slope Rock type: Mount Scopus formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 6 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 2 km distant Visibility: 6 Jun. 10, 1988; 21 shards

493. Plan of the Byzantine courtyard of Umm ez-Zoqeh.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

A rectangular courtyard on a south-ern slope of a ridge in the hilly block of Umm ez-Zoqeh, 1 km north of Peles and adjacent to the road of Ma‘aleh Shai. The courtyard, about 20x25 m in size, is built at the top of a ter-raced slope overlooking a deep ra-vine. The surrounding wall is of large field stones whose average dimensions are 0.6x0.6 m. Possible entrances were found in the north

583

and west, and collapsed cistern is in the north. A large terebinth tree (Pistacia Atlantica) grows in the southwest corner of the courtyard. According to local tradition, the terebinth tree of Umm ez-Zoqeh is sacred, and heals barren women and various illnesses. We heard this tradition from shepherds from vari-ous places in the area. Pottery: Byz – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 241: 19 – 18/97/1

Khalil el-‘Adseh Israel grid: 1996 1877 UTM grid: 7376 5747 Elevation: 70 m a.s.l., 30 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small ruin and enclosures Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: ravine Rock type: Judah formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 6 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 3 km distant Visibility: 3 Jun. 17, 1988; Feb. 13, 1993; 24 shards ***

A small site in a broad ravine de-scending south from Kh. es-Suwei-deh, about 1 km south of that site. There are two built enclosures, one within the other. The largest is square-shaped, 25x25 m in size and surrounded by a 1 m wide wall.

Inside it there is an inner enclosure with rounded corners. It seems that two structures stood inside the en-closures, but their plan is unclear. Pottery: Chal – 2%; IrA II – 3%; Byz – 95%. Previous surveys: none.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

584

494. The built enclosures of Khalil el-‘Adseh.

 Site 242: 19 – 18/96/2

Khalil es-Sa‘h Israel grid: 1999 1865 UTM grid: 7389 5739 Elevation: 65 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: courtyard Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: plateau Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 2 Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 7 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 3.5 km distant Visibility: 5 Dec. 30, 1988; 14 shards ***

A courtyard on a plateau, 1.5 km east of Peles (Umm ez-Zoqeh). To the north are two deep Wadis Qa‘ud ‘Ideh and Khalil el-‘Adseh.

The courtyard is about 18x18 m in size, surrounded by a wall 1.5 m wide, built of two rows of large stones. The walls inside appear to

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

be of a later date. One cistern is in the southern corner and a second outside of the courtyard. Outside of the eastern corner is an ellipticalshaped structure.

585

Pottery: Byz – 100%. Flint find: Three pieces from an unidentified period. Previous surveys: none.

495. Plan of the courtyard of Khalil es-Sa‘h.

586

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

496. The Byzantine courtyard of Khalil es-Sa‘h, looking northeast. In the background are the ranges near Kh. es-Suweideh.

 Site 243: 19 – 18/96/1

Abu Firan quality: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: springs (‘Uyun Hilu, no. 88), 6 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 4 km distant Visibility: 2 Apr. 7, 1989; 42 shards

Israel grid: 1995 1862 UTM grid: 7377 5737 Elevation: 50 m a.s.l., 30 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site and farm Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: valley Rock type: Mount Scopus formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

***

A site in a small, internal valley, about 1 km east of Peles. Next to it runs a dirt road from the Hemdat road to Kh. es-Suweideh.

On a small bump west of the dirt road are remains of a structure, about 4x6 m in size, built of field stones. A medium-sized shard scat--

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

ter was found there. The site appears to be a farm or a seasonal structure.

587

Pottery: IrA II – 30%; Byz – 70%. Previous surveys: none.

497. The small farm of Abu Firan, looking west. In the background is Peles Range.

 Site 244: 19 – 18/95/1

Peles (1) Israel grid: 1992 1858 UTM grid: 7373 5728 Elevation: 70 m a.s.l., 50 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: valley Rock type: Mount Scopus formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 4.5 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 3 km distant Visibility: 1 May 5, 1989; 27 shards ***

A small site on the edge of an in--

ner valley, about 1 km south east of

588

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Peles; a dirt road from Hemdat to Kh. es-Suweideh passes next to it. A shard scatter is found over an open area lacking any structural re-mains. In the cross-sections created

by army trenches, levels of settle-ment are visible, including ash. Pottery: MA – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

498. Pottery from Peles (1), all MA: 1, 3. Dec, br on wh; 2. A stucco handle, gray.

499. Shard scatters at the site of Peles (1).

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

589

Site 245: 20 – 18/15/1

el-‘Arquv Israel grid: 2011 1855 UTM grid: 7395 5726 Elevation: 40 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 0.2 dunam (0.05 acre) Topography: ridge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: mountainous rendzina;

quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 2 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 1 km distant Visibility: 5 Jun. 10, 1988; 12 shards ***

A small site in a hard, rocky area, about 3 km east-southeast of Peles. Remnants of a wall or two, with-out any clear plan, were found on a wide ridge. Shard scatters and a pile

of building stones were also found. This was presumably a farm or sin-gle structure. Pottery: Byz – 50%; MA – 50%. Previous surveys: none.

500. Pottery from el-‘Arquv: nos. 1-4, 6 – Byz; 5 – MA: 1, 4. Jars, br; 2. ‘Frying pan’, lt br; 3. Dec, wh on bl; 5. stucco handle, lt; 6. ‘Frying pan’ handle, br.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

590 Site 246: 19 – 18/94/1

Abu Sha‘areh Israel grid: 1992 1849 UTM grid: 7372 5772 Elevation: 115 m a.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small farm Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 5 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 4 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 3 km distant Visibility: 3 Apr. 7, 1989; May 5, 1989; 49 shards and 13 flint items ***

A site on a broad hilltop, about 1 km northwest of Hemdat and 1.5 km southeast of Peles. The road to Peles passes 0.2 km to the south. In the center of the site is an el--

liptical courtyard with a sharp tip, 35x45 m in size and surrounded by a well-built wall of mediumsized stones, 1 m wide on the aver-age. A rectangular structure, about

501. Aerial photo of the farm of Abu Sha‘areh.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

5x16 m in size, is adjacent to the outside of the courtyard wall in the south. Nearby the wall widens to ca. 4 m, covering possible rooms. East of these a built entrance with a small tower are discerned. In the western part of the courtyard is a pile of stones, 10x13 m in diam-eter, which apparently covers the remains of a dwelling place, with remains of walls emerging. The two arms of the courtyard connect up to this pile of stones.

591

The many shards collected are from the Late Iron Age, mainly from the 7th-6th centuries B.C.E. In the Byzantine Period possibly the site was in use, presumably re-lated agriculture in the area. Pottery: IrA II – 30%; IrA III -50%; Byz – 20%. Flint find: unidentified; see appen-dix. Special find: two shards from EBA I. Previous surveys: none.

502. Plan of the Iron Age farm of Abu Sha‘areh. Note the unusual shape of the courtyard.

592

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

503. Pottery from Abu Sha‘areh, from IrA II-III unless otherwise noted: 1. Jar, gay; 2. Bowl, yel/br; 3. HM jar, br; 4. Bowl, br, Byz; 5. Bowl, br; 6. Juglet, gray/br; 7. Bowl, bl; 8. Bowl, br; 9. Jar, dk.

504. The Iron Age farm of Abu Sha‘areh, looking northwest. The figure stands on the central structure. In the background is the hill of Umm Zoqeh (Peles).

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

593

Site 247: 19 – 18/94/2

Hemdat Israel grid: 1995 1845 UTM grid: 7390 5716 Elevation: 150 m a.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small farm Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: hilltop on plateau Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 3.5 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 3 km distant Visibility: 5 May 5, 1989; 22 shards ***

A small site on a wide hilltop, about 0.3 km northwest of the settlement of Hemdat. A small structure, 5x6 m in size, with straight and curved walls to-gether. Its wall is 1 m wide and built of hewn stones. West of the site are

indistinct remains of a courtyard (?) and additional walls. The site seems to compose the re-mains of a farm. Pottery: IrA II – 30%; Byz – 70%. Special find: Ott pipe stem. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 248: 20 – 18/14/1

‘Iraq Abu Hashish (A) Israel grid: 2011 1843 UTM grid: 7394 5714 Elevation: 35 m b.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: fortress Area: 3.6 dunams (0.9 acre) Topography: broad hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 2 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 1 km distant Visibility: 6 May 25, 1990; Jun. 1, 1990; two shards

***

An unfinished, half-built fortress on a broad, secluded hilltop next to

wadis, on the lowest step of the ‘Ar-quv Range, with a fine view of the

594

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Jordan Valley. This is a Roman courtyard for-tress of the castellum type, 58X60 m in size, with a square courtyard and casement rooms around it. The space between the parallel walls is 5.5 m; they are well built of large, hewn stones. Three built entrances, 5 m wide each, were discerned: in

the eastern, western and southern sides. The fortress was not completed, but abandoned in the middle of the construction. Each side was abandoned in a different building stage, and the southwest corner was not built at all. Inside, three piles of building stones were found. The

505. The fortress plan of ‘Iraq Abu Hashish (A). The fortress was abandoned before its construction was completed.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

eastern wall of the fortress is three courses high, and the others one or two. In the wadi to the north of the fortress (Israel grid: 2008 1847) a well-built dam was found, made of small stones and plastered with mortar. It is 1 m wide and encloses a sort of a reservoir, which appar-ently served as the water source for the site. Next to the dam, in a wadi to the south, two built threshing floors were found.

595

Pottery: Very few shards were found, but the site was dated, most proba-bly, by its shape to the Late Roman Period (2nd Century C.E.). Identification: This is probably Coabis, a road station between Jericho and Beth Shean on the Peutinger Map; see chapter on identifications. Bibliography: Zertal 1991, 6-18; Hashman 1996. Previous surveys: none.

506. Aerial photo of the abandoned fortress of ‘Iraq Abu Hashish (A)

596

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

507. The dam of the fortress of ‘Iraq Abu Hashish (A), looking north. The figure stands on the remains of the wall. Similar dams typify the Roman military system in the region.

 Site 249: 20 – 18/14/2

‘Iraq Abu Hashish (B) Israel grid: 2011 1841 UTM grid: 7393 7511 Elevation: 35 m b.s.l., 50 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: broad hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 2 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 1 km distant Visibility: 4 May 25, 1990; 39 shards ***

A small site on the hilltop of ‘Iraq Abu Hashish, 0.2 km south of the Roman fortress of the same name. A small and elliptical courtyard,

20x25 m in size, is at the site, with sparse remains of structures around it. The walls are built of pebbles. The plan of the structures is indis-tinct; to the south are many piles

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

of stones, possibly concealing addi-tional structures. To the west of the site, on a saddle 0.2 km away, are remnants of Bedouin encampment

597

and threshing floors. Pottery: IrA II – 20%; LR – 20%; Byz – 30%; MA – 30%. Previous surveys: none.

508. The small site of ‘Iraq Abu Hashish (B), looking east. The figure is in the center of the site.

 Site 250: 19 – 18/94/3

Muntar Mufyeh Israel grid: 1991 1841 UTM grid: 7369 5710 Elevation: 189 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: small structure and fortress Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 5 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 3.5 km distant Visibility: 8 Mar. 13, 1982; Feb. 23, 1990; 51 shards

598

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

A site on a high hilltop in the Mu-fyeh Range, with a broad saddle ex-tends between the site and Kh. Mu-fyeh (Site no. 251 here). North of the site is the new road to Hemdat. In the north of the site there is a tower, 9x10 m in size and 2 m high, built of large stones whose dimen-sions are 0.6x0.6x0.8 m. The well built tower which contains two rooms is connected to a rectangu-lar courtyard 25X20 m in size, sur-rounded by rooms on three of its sides. The three rooms in the west are 4.5x6 m, 4x4 m and 3.5x7 m. The two rooms on the south are

4x4.5 m and 4x8 m, with a possible entrance between them; On the east there is only one long hall. The outer walls are about 0.6 m wide, while the inner ones are 1 m wide. Pottery: Hel (?) – 20%; ER – 20%; LR – 40%; Byz – 20%. The site seems to be a watchtower over the agricultural areas of Kh. Mufyeh. Both the SWP and the IES (Israeli Emergency Survey) defines it as such. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 153. Bibliography: SWP II, 239.

509. Plan of the fortress at Muntar Mufyeh.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

510. LR pottery from Muntar Mufyeh: 1, 4. Jars, lt br; 2-3. Jugs ,lt br.

511. Remnants of the small fortress of Muntar Mufyeh.

599

600

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Site 251: 19 – 18/83/1

Khirbet Mufyeh (on SWP map: Kh. Mofia) Israel grid: 1986 1836 UTM grid: 7376 5707 Elevation: 200 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: historical site on map Site type: small town Area: 20 dunams (5 acres) Topography: valley edge and hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil; quality: 6

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 19 Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 5 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 4 km distant Visibility: 5 Mar. 13, 1982; Mar. 10, 1990; Feb. 20, 1993; 115 shards ***

A large ruin on a hilltop in east Manasseh, northeast of the Buqei‘ah. It is located 3 km south of Kh. es-Samrah and 1.5 km

southwest of Hemdat. Steep slopes descends from the hilltop toward the Jordan Valley. The complete terracing of the

512. The large site of Kh. Mufyeh from a bird’s view, looking southeast. Most of the visible remains are Medieval, built on top of the early structures from the Roman and Byzantine Periods.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

site’s slopes created artificial levels used for building and cultivation. The two distinct architectural stages in the site are as follows: 1. In the upper part of the hilltop is the later settlement, about 150 m in diameter. It contains six or seven building-complexes, with squares, lanes, passages, dwelling places and

601

inner courtyards. In most of the lat-ter are cistern openings. The slop-pily constructed inner walls are 0.6 m wide, without plaster or mortar, while the outer ones are 1.2 m wide. The stones must have been taken from the early structures. 2. Below the later settlement there is an earlier one, with well-

513. Overall plan of the small town at Kh. Mufyeh. The black lines indicate the earlier stage of the site, while the gray ones show the later stage. Note the courtyards and cis-terns.

602

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

built, straight walls of large stones. Its plans were rendered unclear by the later building. Presumably, the earlier stage can be dated to the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods, and the later stage to the Middle Ages (Mameluk Period) or perhaps slightly earlier. Pottery: LR – 10%; Byz – 40%; EM

– 20%; MA (Mameluk) – 30%. Coin find: 22 coins from the Late Roman, Byzantine and Early Mos-lem (Ummayad) Periods; see ap-pendix. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 153. Bibliography: SWP II, 239.

514. The hilltop of Kh. Mufyeh with its buildings, looking northwest. The dark stains on the slope indicates soil out of cisterns.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

603

Site 252: 19 – 18/83/2

Wadi Mufyeh Israel grid: 1989 1831 UTM grid: 7373 5703 Elevation: 150 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: flat hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest

soil; quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 4 km distant Nearest road: Wadi el-Far‘ah – Tel elHilu (C23), 4.5 km distant Visibility: 2 Mar. 15, 1990; 39 shards ***

A small site on a ridge descending north from the el-Asbah Range into Wadi Mufyeh, 0.4 km southeast of Kh. Mufyeh. A few poorly-built walls and a medium-sized shard scatter are on

the site. These apparently belonged to several structures, perhaps sea-sonal ones. Pottery: MBA IIB – 37%; IrA II – 40%; Byz – 23%. Previous surveys: none.

515. Remains of a structure at the small site of Wadi Mufyeh, looking west. In the back-ground is the hill of Kh. Mufyeh. 1990.

604

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

516. Pottery from Wadi Mufyeh: 1. Bowl, br, IrA II; 2. Jar, Pnk, MBA II; 3. Bowl, br, MBA II; 4. Bowl base, br, MBA II; 5. Jar base, IrA; 6. Bowl, pnk, MBA II.

 Site 253: 19 – 18/82/1

Wadi Abu el-Loz Israel grid: 1981 1820 UTM grid: 7373 5692 Elevation: 155 m a.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site and enclosures Area: 3 dunams (0.75 acre) Topography: saddle Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: rendzina; quality: 2

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 6 km distant Nearest road:Buqei‘ah – Argaman (C21), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 5 Apr. 23, 1992; 44 shards and 39 flint items ***

A site on a saddle in the Zahret el-Meidan ridge, near Wadi Abu el-Loz, with a good view of the Buqei‘ah and the Jordan Valley. On the site are two connected irregular-shaped enclosures, each measures 30x35 m. The walls are built of one row of large stones. Be-tween the enclosures there is a long and narrow structure, 2x14 m in size. Inside the enclosures there are several walls.

The site was probably built dur-ing Middle Bronze Age IIB-C, and was in secondary use during the Byzantine Period. Many flint items are scattered around. Pottery: MBA IIB – 60%; LR – 5%; Byz – 35%. Flint find: Epipalaeolithic and Natufian, see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

605

517. Pottery from Wadi Abu el-Loz. nos. 2, 5, 8 – MBA II; the rest – LR and Byz: 1, 3-4. Jars, br; 2, 5. Bowls, lt; 6-7. Small jugs, lt br; 8. Folded CP, br; 9. Small bowl, lt.

518. Plan of the Middle Bronze Age enclosures of Wadi Abu el-Loz.

606

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

519. The saddle with the site of Wadi Abu el-Loz, located between the jeep and the figure at right, looking east.

 Site 254: 19 – 18/81/1

Zahret el-Meidan (A) Israel grid: 1987 1819 UTM grid: 7370 7688 Elevation: 180 m a.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: saddle Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 8 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman (C21), 2 km distant Visibility: 5 Jun. 15, 1990; 60 shards and 14 flint items ***

A structure on a saddle, surround-ed by deep wadis of the Zahret elMeidan Range. It is located north

of the Buqei‘ah and about 2 km south-southwest of Hemdat. The trapezoidal structure, built

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

of large stones, measures 12x20 m. Inside it are two parallel long spaces, one wide and the other nar-row, with a small room in the end. A wall protrudes from near the northern corner to another possible structure.

607

Northeast of the site is a terraced ravine. Pottery: MBA IIB – 90%; IrA II – 10%. Flint find: Unidentified; see appen-dix. Previous surveys: none.

520. The Middle Bronze Age II structure at Zahret el-Meidan (A), one of the few of its type in the array of settlements of this period.

608

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

521. General view, looking west, of the structure at Zahret el-Meidan (A). The site is located in the center of the saddle. The deep wadi in the background is Wadi Abu el-Loz, and the high range is E.P. 273.

 Site 255: 20 – 18/11/1

Khirbet Wadi el-Gharur (A) Israel grid: 2018 1811 UTM grid: 7411 5682 Elevation: 240 m b.s.l., 5 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: caves and small site Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: slope near a narrow val-ley Rock type: ‘Avdat formation

Soil type: alluvium; quality: 8 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 1.5 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), passes by site Visibility: 5 Jan. 20, 1989; 41 shards ***

A small site on the northern bank of Wadi el-Gharur, next to the out-let of the wadi to the Jordan Valley.

The ruin is situated on a moder-ate slope descending south to Wadi el-Gharur. Its northern part is next

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

to a row low cliffs, in which two large, natural caves were found. In front of these few structural re-mains, walls in situ and a large shard scatter are discerned. Apparently the site extended into the caves and

609

over the slope. Pottery: IrA II – 20%; ER – 20%; LR – 10%; Byz – 40%; MA – 10%. Previous surveys: none.

522. Pottery from Khirbet Wadi el-Gharur (A): 2-3, 5, 7-8 – IrA II: 1. Small bowl, ER; 2. CP, dk br; 3. Jar, br; 4. Jar, lt br, ER; 5. Crater, br; 6. Juglet, lt br, LR; 7-8. Craters, dk br.

523. View to the east of the site of Kh. Wadi el-Gharur (A). At left are the cliffs contain-ing the caves, part of the site.

610

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Site 256: 19 – 18/90/1

Zahret el-Meidan (B) Israel grid: 1992 1805 UTM grid: 7376 5675 Elevation: 155 m a.s.l., 120 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: stone circles Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: plateau Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 8 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman (C21), 2 km distant Visibility: 7 Jun. 15, 1990; 28 shards ***

A site on a plateau northeast of the Buqei‘ah, about 3 km south of Hemdat, with a fine view of the Buqei‘ah and the Jordan Valley. A dirt road from Kh. Mufyeh to the Jordan Valley passes nearby.

At the site are two round, stonesbuilt circles, one inside the other. The outer one is 35 m in diameter, with a surrounding wall built of two rows of large stones and one m wide. In the center of the outer

524. Bird’s eye view of the stone circles at Zahret el-Meidan (B). The function of these well-built circles, apparently constructed during Middle Bronze Age II, is unknown.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

circle is a smaller one, about 10 m in diameter, with disturbances from some later time. Between the two circles are remains of a small wall. The construction is regular and well done.

611

This extraordinary site can be ex-plained by various directions, yet it surely was not a dwelling place. Pottery: MBA IIB – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

525. Plan of the stone circles from Middle Bronze Age II at Zahret el-Meidan (B).

612

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Site 257: 20 – 18/10/1

Khirbet Wadi el-Gharur (B) Israel grid: 2018 1809 UTM grid: 5680 7409 Elevation: 230 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: shard scatter Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: wadibed Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: alluvium; quality: 6

Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 1.5 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 3 Jan. 20, 1989; 39 shards ***

A small site in the valley of Wadi el-Gharur, about 0.3 km southwest of Kh. Wadi el-Gharur (A). In a cultivated field, next to a line of cleared stones, concentrations of

shards were found. Apparently a house or two stood there for a short period. Pottery: IrA II – 100%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 258: 20 – 18/10/2

Sheikh Gharur Israel grid: 2019 1807 UTM grid: 5678 7411 Elevation: 250 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 0.6 dunam (0.15 acre) Topography: valley and valley edge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 6 Cultivation: field crops Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 1 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), passes by site Visibility: 4 Jan. 20, 1989; 53 shards ***

A small site next to the Jordan Val-ley road and south of Wadi Gharur, about 6 km north-northeast of Ar-gaman. A shard scatter was found in a

plowed field, next to piles of cleared stones. Cultivation has destroyed the structures (only one wall re-mains in situ) and scattered the shards, but it can be assumed that

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

there was a single structure or farm at the site. Pottery: EBA II – 30%; IrA II

613

– 70%. Previous surveys: none.

526. Pottery from Sheikh Gharur, from EBA (nos. 2, 4) and IrA II (the rest): 1. CP D, br; 2. Bowl, lt; 3. Crater base, br; 4. Jar base, rough, lt; 5. Small bowl, yel; 6-7. Jars, lt br.

 Site 259: 20 – 17/19/1

Khirbet el-Gharur (on SWP map: Kh. Karur) Israel grid: 2014 1798 UTM grid: 7398 5669 Elevation: 155 m b.s.l., 60 m a.s.a. Name type: historic site on map Site type: permanent military camp Area: 9 dunams (2.25 acres) Topography: hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 6 Cultivation: none Cisterns: 6 Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 3 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 0.8 km distant Visibility: 7 Jan. 20, 1989; Apr. 22, 1993; 108 shards ***

A permanent Roman military camp on a high, flat hilltop overlook-ing the Jordan Valley, about 4 km north-northeast of Argaman and 0.8 km west of the Jordan Valley Road.

The site is trapezoid in shape; its dimensions are 116 m (south side), 104 m (north side), 72 m (east side) and 56 m (west side). It is surrounded by a wall 1.5 m wide, built of medium-sized stones. This

614

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

wall is well preserved in the east and south, but the remaining sides have been heavily damaged by Is-raeli Defense Forces activity. These activities have also damaged other parts of the site, most of which are restorable for the plan. The inner space is full by square blocks of rooms connected by streets, thus the site is apparently a combina-tion of two Roman military types: castellum (courtyard fortress) and a castrum (permanent camp). The place is divided into quar-ters by means of streets 2.5–4 m wide in average. Two north-south streets were found in the eastern half of the site, with three east-west streets survived as well. In the quar-ters many densely built structures are discerned, built of large, hewn stones; their collapse cover the site

now with a layer of fallen stones. In the quarters there are blocks of square rooms, averaging 4x4 m in size; the entrances are through well-smoothen stone doorposts in situ with bolt holes. Between the blocks are at least two inner squares 12.5x12.5 m in size, with a large cistern in the middle of each. More cisterns were found in other places, inside and outside of the camp. Slightly to the west of the camp’s center is the main tower, about 10x10 m in size. It is built of very large stones with hewn edges, and rises 2-3 m above the present level of fallen stones. Next to the southwest corner of the site, on the outside, an addition-al architectural unit is discerned, 22.5x30 m in size (0.7 dunams,

527. View to the east of the Roman camp from 2nd-3rd Century C.E. at Kh. el-Gharur. The piles of stones indicate the structures, following destruction by the IDF.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

or 0.18 acre in area). Here there is a large courtyard and several rect-angular rooms attached to it from

615

the inside, with another cistern. A similar courtyard and rectangular rooms were found in the southwest

528. The Roman camp of Kh. el-Gharur, a bird’s eye view, looking west. The shape of the site and the destruction by the IDF can be seen well. The dam of the site is in the upper, right side of the photo.

616

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

part of the camp on the inside. A 1-m long stone, with a carved line dividing it, is found in the rub-ble. In one half there is an X and an O in the other.

The camp is precisely and well built. In some of the sections made by the army tractors, a thick layer of ash was discernible, offering a pos-sible clue as to the fate of the site.

529. Plan of the camp of Kh. el-Gharur. Note the basic similarity to Kh. es-Suweideh.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

On the outside of the southeast corner of the camp, a stone sar-cophagus, broken and covered with soot, was found. It had clearly been heated and broken apart, perhaps in order to find treasure inside. Some 0.3 km west of the site, in a small wadi that leads into Wadi el-Gharur, a dam, 15 m long and 2 m wide, is discerned. It is built of small stones strengthened by cement mixed with pottery frag-ments. Pottery: LR (2nd-3rd Century C.E.) – 100%. Special find: Three coins from the 3rd Century C.E. (see appendix) and a handle of a bronze jug.

617

This permanent Roman camp is designed according to the standard plan of such sites. It was a part of the military array along the Jordan Valley, including also Kh. Khiraf (site no. 266 here), ‘Iraq Abu Hash-ish (site no. 248 here) and Kh. esSuweideh (site no. 239 here). The site was established and existed in the 2nd-3rd Century C.E., as evi-denced by the pottery and coins. The absence of later shards indi-cates a short life-span. To the above the fortresses of Kh. Humsah (site no. 143 here) and Kh. Umm Kharaz (site no. 144 here) should probably be added. In 1990 and 1991 Hirschfeld published an incomplete plan of

530. View of the built dam in Wadi Gharur, near and west of the camp. The Roman mili-tary array is typified by dams built in the proximity of the camps for water supply.

618

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

the site and proposed that it was a “fortified village from the Roman Period”. Previous surveys: Gophna and Po--

rath 1972, no. 169. Bibliography: SWP II, 238; Hirschfeld 1990, 45-46; 1991; Hashman 1996.

531. Pottery from the site, all from LR (2nd-3rd C C.E.): 1-3. Bowls, lt br; 4. CP, dk br; 5. Bowl, br; 6, 8. Jars, lt br; 7. Bowl base, lt br; 9. Jug base, br; 10-12. Jars and jugs, br.

532. Two sides of a bronze handle from Kh. el-Gharur, designed as a bird’s foot. This is identical in design to the vase-han-dles found in the caves of Bar Kochba in the Judaean desert by Yadin (1963, fig 20: 10-11 and pp. 72-73), who suggested that their origin is from Roman camps.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

619

533. A carved stone from Kh. Gharur.

 Site 260: 19 – 17/88/2

el-Munsahleh Israel grid: 1985 1785 UTM grid: 7378 7656 Elevation: 10 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: structure Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: ridge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Colluvial-Alluvial;

quality: 4 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 6 km distant Nearest road: Buqei‘ah – Argaman Junction (C21), passes by site Visibility: 3 May 8, 1983; 32 shards ***

A site on a ridge in the southeast part of the Buqei‘ah, slightly north-east of Kh. Umm Kharaz. Here there is a small structure, 6x6 m in size. It is built of field

stones, with an entrance on the north side, but contains no internal division. North of the structure is a flat area with various stone walls and a shard scatter.

620

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Pottery: IrA III – 50%; Byz – 50%.

Previous surveys: none.

 Site 261: 19 – 17/97/1

Ras en-Naqb Baqar Israel grid: 1998 1779 UTM grid: 7380 7650 Elevation: 40 m a.s.l., 100 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: circles of stone Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: high summit Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Colluvial-Alluvial; quality: 2

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 3.5 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 2 km distant Visibility: 3 May 8, 1983; 20 shards and 20 flint items ***

A stone-circles site on the summit of Ras en-Naqb Baqar, a tall moun-tain 2 km north of Argaman. Two circles of large stones are discerned, each 25 m in diameter. Nearby there is a small shard and

flint scatter. Pottery: EBA – 100%. Flint find: Middle Paleolithic; see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 262: 20 – 17/06/5

Wadi Abu Sidreh Israel grid: 2002 1769 UTM grid: 7386 5641 Elevation: 230 m b.s.l., 40 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: small site Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) Topography: broad wadi Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: colluvial-alluvial; quality: 4

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 3 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 1.5 km distant Visibility: 1 Feb. 17, 1989; 41 shards

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

A small site on a step created by sediment, east of the channel of Wadi Abu Sidreh and 1 km north

621

of Argaman. The step is composed of huwwar, in the edge of which are remains of

534. The site of Wadi Abu Sidreh, looking west from the wadi.

535. Pottery from the site of Wadi Abu Sidreh: nos. 1-2. CP type A, dk br, IrA IA; 3. CP type B, IrA I; 4, 6. ‘Manassite’ bowls, lt br, IrA IA; 5. Bowl, br, Byz; 7. Bowl, gray, IrA II; 8-9. Jars, br, IrA II.

622

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

a wall built of large stones, possi-bly built for protection against ero-sion. On the northern part of the step there are the remains of several rectangular-shaped buildings with walls built of local stone. A large shard scatter is near and around the site.

Many Sysiphus trees, typical to the area, grow next to the site and in the wadi. The site may have served as a farm and an encampment of nomads. Pottery: IrA IA – 30%; IrA II – 30%; Byz – 20%; MA – 20%. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 263: 19 – 17/76/2

Mugharet Umm Khubezah Israel grid: 1979 1766 UTM grid: 7562 5656 Elevation: 50 m b.s.l., 20 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: cave dwelling Area: 0.5 dunam (0.13 acre) Topography: slope and wadi rock Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 5 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 4 km distant Visibility: 1 Jan. 1, 1993; 40 shards ***

A large cave dwelling on the west-ern bank of Wadi Umm Khubezah, in a steep, mountainous area, 1.5 km west of Argaman. The dirt road from Argaman to the Buqei‘ah passes close by, to the south to the cave. The cave contains a large en-trance 20 m in diameter. Beyond it is a wide rock pillar with stone passages on both sides, and another

large, inner hall. The ceiling of the latter has collapsed; its walls con-tain niches and depressions. On the floor are thick layers of sheep and goat manure, shards and other ma-terial. Most of the shards were col-lected on the slope in front of the cave. Pottery: Byz – 20%; EM – 5%; MA – 50%; Ott – 15%; Mod – 10%. Previous surveys: none.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

623

536. Pottery from Mugharet Umm Khubezah: nos. 1, 4, 7 – MA; the rest – Byz: 1. Bowl base, dec, br on white; 2. Bowl, br; 3. Jar, lt br; 4,7. Dec shards, br on white; 6. Jug, gray; 8-9. Jars, dk gray.

 Site 264: 19 – 17/76/3

Wadi Ras Umm Khubezah Israel grid: 1978 1764 UTM grid: 5635 7361 Elevation: 40 m b.s.l., l.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure and encampment Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: saddle Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: Mediterranean brown forest soil and mountainous rendzina;

quality: 2 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 4 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 5 km distant Visibility: 2 Jan. 1, 1993; 63 shards and 30 flint items ***

A small encampment on a saddle in a mountainous area, close to the be-ginning of Wadi Umm Khubezah. Wadi and the road from Argaman to the Buqei‘ah. Two construction stages were dis-cerned:

1. An early stage of two round enclosures, southern and northern, built of large stones. Only part of them was preserved. 2. On top of these, simple con-struction is discerned, with walls built of small stones and tent bases

624

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

and installations. In the second part of the site, to the south and west of the road, remains of encampments and a shard scatter are discerned on a broad saddle and on several ridges. In this area, a fragment of an Iron Age IA cooking pot (Type A) and shards from Iron Age II were

collected. Pottery: IrA I – (?); IrA II – 28%; Byz – 40%; MA – 14%; Ott – 6%; Mod – 12%. Flint find: unidentified items; see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

537. Plan of the enclosures of the encampment site on the saddle near Wadi Ras Umm Khubezah.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

625

Site 265: 20 – 17/06/2

‘Iraq Matar Israel grid: 2002 1765 UTM grid: 7387 5636 Elevation: 205 m b.s.l., 40 m b.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: ravine Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: stony-desert soil;

quality: 3 Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 2 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 1 km distant Visibility: 3 Nov. 24, 1989; 71 shards ***

An enclosure and structures in the Khiraf Range, about 1 km north of Argaman. The enclosure, built of large stones and 46 m diameter (maxi-mum), is close to a low cliff to the

west, from which the semicircle starts. The built side of the enclo-sure-wall is its inner side. In the south, at least three small spaces (dwelling units?) are adjacent to the enclosure wall from the outside

538. A view to the northwest of the round enclosure from the beginning of Iron Age I at ‘Iraq Matar.

626

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

south. Outside of the enclosure is a partially-preserved parallel wall of unknown function. Inside the en--

closure is a short wall ending with an upright monolith, and another monolith stands nearby. A number

539. Plan of ‘Iraq Matar, next to the Jordan Valley.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

of walls (dams?) cross the nearby wadi. Pottery: IrA IA – 80%; Byz – 20%. Previous surveys: none.

627

In 1999 a certain person pub-lished in the PEQ a copy of our Hebrew site, without mentioning the origin.

540. Pottery from the site: 1-3. CP A and B, dk br, IrA IA; 4. Jar, Byz; 5. Jug base, dk br, IrA I.

 Site 266: 20 – 17/06/1

Khirbet Khiraf Israel grid: 2001 1762 UTM grid: 7384 5632 Elevation: 103 m b.s.l., 100 m a.s.a. Name type: historic site on map Site type: fortress Area: 7 dunams (1.75 acres) Topography: ridge edge and hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: stony-desert soil; quality: 2

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Jordan River (no. 112), 2.5 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 8 Mar. 17-24, 1989; 84 shards ***

A fortress on a high and broad hill-top, east of E.P. 103 and above the big bend of Wadi Abu Sidreh. It is about 1 km north of Argaman, and provides a fine view of the central part of the Jordan Valley. The fortress, which is connected in the west to a saddle, is located close to a steep cliff in the south. It is a trapezoidal-shaped structure with unequal sides: its dimensions

are 56 m (eastern, northern and western sides), while the south side is 66.5 m. The internal area of the fortress is 3.4 dunams (0.85 acre). The western and eastern walls con-tinue on south, beyond the corners of the fortress, up to the edge of the cliff, and connect to it. In this way, an additional 2.4 dunams (0.6 acre) are added to the area of the fortress. Between the walls connecting the

628

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

fortress to the cliff another wall was built, which runs parallel to the south side of the fortress and is 12 m away from it. This wall created a long, narrow space whose purpose is unknown. The fortress itself is an inner courtyard, surrounded by various types of rooms (6x6 m in dimen-sions), which are attached to the inside of the outer wall. This wall, built of large local (hard Eocenean limestone and local conglomerate), is 1.2 m wide. The roughly hewn stones, mostly fallen now close to the wall, are 0.4x0.5x0.6 m on the average. The level of the collapse in-dicates a single story structures, ex-cept for the towers in the corners.

The towers in the four corners are not protruding from the sur-rounding-wall. Their dimensions are 5x5 m (outside), with a level of fallen stones higher than that of the other walls. Another tower is in the center of the northern side, next to one of the two presumed entrances. This tower, containing two units (rooms or halls), whose dimensions are 5x7 m, apparently protected the northern entrance. Another pos-sible entrance was in the east side, close to the tower in the southeast corner. A new opening was made on the west side by the IDF. In several places, a second series of rooms was built inside the court-yard, close to and parallel to the

541. Remains of the fortress at Kh. Khiraf, viewed to the east. In the background are the valley and white huwwar hills of the zor and the ghor.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

first series. Such double series were found next to the southwest corner, in the eastern part of the southern wall and all along the eastern wall. The area between the northern and the northeastern towers, 240 sq. m. in area, seems to be of special importance. It contains long halls and adjacent courtyards. Near the northwestern tower an extension of nine rooms enters the inner yard. At least 72 architectural units

629

(rooms or courtyards) were located throughout the fortress, with an overall built-up area of about 1.9 dunams (0.48 acre). A prudent cal-culation indicates 100-150 perma-nent inhabitants here. Following our publication it was published also by Hirschfeld (1991), with a partial plan and chronological conclusions similar to ours.

542. A bronze coin of Hadrian, minted in Caesarea, from Kh. Khiraf.

543. Pottery from the fortress at Kh. Khiraf, all from LR – Byz: in the central column – bowls; in side columns – jars and jugs.

630

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

544. Bird’s eye view of the fortress at Kh. Khiraf, looking west.

545. Plan of the fortress, as measured by the Manasseh Hill Country staff.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

Pottery: LR (2nd-3rd Century C.E.) – 100%. Coins finds: one coin of Hadrian from Caesarea Maritima, see ap-pendix.

631

Previous surveys: Gophna and Po-rath 1972, no. 227. Bibliography: Zertal 1992, 3-8; Hirschfeld 1991; Hashman 1996.

 Site 267: 19 – 17/75/1

Ras el-Kharubeh Israel grid: 1972 1752 UTM grid: 7358 5622 Elevation: 130 b.s.l., 10 m b.s.a Name type: nearest range Site type: encampment Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) Topography: saddle Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: stony-desert soil; quality: 3

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 3 km distant Nearest road: Jericho – Tel el-Ham-meh (B10), 3 km distant Visibility: 5 Feb. 4, 1994; 68 shards

546. Bedouin tents on the typical encampment site in the cliffs of Ras Kharubeh, looking west.

632

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

An encampment site on a broad saddle in the center of Umm Khar-ubeh Range, near a junction of dirt roads crossing the range. On top of the saddle, remains of simple structures, built of small stones, are discerned. Each struc-ture contained several rooms. The shard scatter is large and varied. This is one of the many encamp--

ment sites on the range. Pottery: IrA I – 20%; IrA II – 6%; LR – 12%; Byz – 9%; MA – 13%; Ott – 3%; Mod – 22%; unidenti-fied – 15%. Previous surveys: none. On the range of Ras el-Kha-rubeh, the following encampment sites were found:

 267/1: 19 – 17/66/1 Israel grid: 1965 1762 UTM grid: 7349 5632 Elevation: 155 m a.s.l.

Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) 62 shards and three flint items ***

An encampment site on a saddle, next to the road descending from the Ras el-Kharubeh Range into Mutaqallabat Valley. A few tent bases made of small

stones and a medium-sized shard scatter were found at the site. Pottery: IrA II – 27%; LR-Byz – 59%; MA – 8%; Mod – 6%. Previous surveys: none.

 267/2: 19 – 17/66/2 Israel grid: 1969 1769 UTM grid: 7355 5633 Elevation: 140 m a.s.l.

Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) 47 shards and nine flint items ***

An encampment on a northeastern shoulder of Ras el-Kharubeh, about 0.3 km from EP 211. At the site there are few tent bases, arranged stones and a medium-sized shard

scatter. Pottery: MBA II – 2%; IrA II – 36%; LR – 58%; Mod – 4%. Previous surveys: none.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

633

267/3: 19 – 17/65/1 Israel grid: 1961 1759 UTM grid: 7348 5629 Elevation: 40 m a.s.l.

Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) 65 shards and 60 flint items ***

An encampment on the northern bank of a wadi which descends westward from Ras el-Kharubeh. At the site are sections of buildings with poorly constructed walls, fallen

stones and circles of stones belong-ing to a relatively modern tents. Pottery: IrA II – 23%; Ott – 50%; Mod – 27%. Previous surveys: none.

 267/4: 19 – 17/55/1 Israel grid: 1959 1758 UTM grid: 7343 5628 Elevation: 30 m a.s.l.

Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) 64 shards ***

An encampment on a western side of Ras el-Kharubeh, next to a wadi. Seven circles of stone were found at the site, with small, paved areas. A

wall built of one row of small stones is on the west side. Pottery: IrA II – 6%; Ott – 94%. Previous surveys: none.

 267/5: 19 – 17/64/1 Israel grid: 1969 1748 UTM grid: 7358 5619 Elevation: 100 m a.s.l.

Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) 39 shards and 100 flint items ***

A site on a large saddle on the Ras el-Kharrubeh Range, next to EP 121. The site, divided by the dirt road of Ras el-Kharrubeh, consists of structure built of large stones, with several rooms. Nearby there are the remains of a contemporary Bedouin encampment with a large

tumulus at EP 121 and many flint items nearby. Pottery: Chal – 50%; IrA II – 50%. Flint find: Middle Paleolithic. Previous surveys: none.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

634

547. Plan of the central structure at site 267/5 on Ras Kharubeh.

 267/6: 19 – 17/73/1 Israel grid: 1979 1736 UTM grid: 7361 5606 Elevation: 67 m b.s.l.

Area: 5 dunams (1.25 acres) 28 shards and four flint items ***

An encampment at the top of a wadi of Umm Kharrubeh Range. On both sides of the wadi there are a few remains of walls, that pro-vided support for the tents. There are also several built installations.

Next to the site, to the east and west, two built tumuli were found. Pottery: MBA II – 21%; IrA I – 7%; Byz – 36%; MA – 14%; Mod – 22%. Previous surveys: none.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

635

548. Pottery from the Ras Kharrubeh site 267/6: nos. 1-2, 6 – IrA I; 3-4 – MBA; the rest – Byz and MA: 1. HM jar, br; 2. CP, br; 3. Bowl, lt, MBA II; 4. Bowl base, pk, MBA II; 5. Jug, gray, Byz; 6. ‘Manassite’ bowl, br; 7. Jug base, lt, MBA II; 8. Jar, br, Byz; 9. Bowl, br, Byz; 10. Jar handle, br, Byz.

 267/7: 19 – 17/72/1 Israel grid: 1971 1728 UTM grid: 7358 5598 Elevation: 130 m b.s.l.

Area: 4 dunams (1 acre) 51 shards and 14 flint items ***

An encampment on a broad saddle, in the southwest part of the Ras el-Kharubeh Range, next to the Shechem – Jiftliq road. The site, with few remains of stone walls and platforms, is located on two low hills and its architecture

has been disturbed by later activity. All over the site is a shard and flint scatter. Pottery: IrA I – 25%; LR – 15%; Byz – 18%; MA – 6%; Ott – 12%; Mod – 24%. Previous surveys: none.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

636

549. The site of 267/7 on Ras Kharrubeh, looking west.

 267/8: 19 – 17/72/2 Israel grid: 1975 1728 UTM grid: 7360 5609 Elevation: 70 m a.s.l.

Area: 1 dunam (0.25 acre) 36 shards and 14 flint items ***

An encampment site on a saddle in the southern part of the Ras elKharubeh Range. Steep wadis de-scend from the site eastward and westward; the road of Ras el-Kha-rubeh crosses the site.

There is a cleared area for tents here but no architectural finds, ex-cept for one small circle of stones. Pottery: IrA II – 15%; Byz – 70%; Ott – 15%. Previous surveys: none.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

637

267/9: 19 – 17/81/1 Israel grid: 1980 1716 UTM grid: 7362 5693 Elevation: 51 m b.s.l.

Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) no shards but flints. ***

A site on the plateau on the southeastern edge of Ras el-Kharru-beh, with the road from el-Makhruq nearby. There is view from there of Wadi el-Far‘ah and the Jordan Val-ley.

The place appears to be a con-centration of tumuli of various sizes that have been dismantled. Flint find: middle Paleolithic. Previous surveys: none.

550. Plan of the 267/9 site of tumuli in the heights of the Ras Kharubeh range.

638

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Site 268: 19 – 17/63/1

el-Mas‘udi Israel grid: 1969 1733 UTM grid: 7356 5602 Elevation: 110 m b.s.l., 40 m a.s.a. Name type: nearest place Site type: enclosure and structures Area: 2 dunams (0.5 acre) Topography: broad hilltop Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: brown-basalt soil; quality: 3

551. Plan of the Chal-colithic Period site at el-Mas‘udi. The Chalco-lithic shards were found in the larger, western en-closure.

Cultivation: none Cisterns: none Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 0.5 km distant Nearest road: Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), 0.5 km distant Visibility: 5 Jan. 28, 1994; 32 shards

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

A site on a large, rocky hilltop in the southwest part of Ras el-Kha-rubeh. The site is comprised of three parts: 1. A round enclosure 18 m in di-ameter, built of large stones, with an entrance in the eastern part. Around it is a shard and flint scat-ter. 2. 0.2 km east of the enclosure

639

is a tumulus with two adjoining courtyards. 3. 60 m north of no. 2 there is another stone-circle 10 m in diam-eter. The relation between parts 1 to 3 is unclear. Pottery: Chal – 100%. Flint find: Middle Paleolithic and Chal; see appendix. Previous surveys: none.

 Site 269: 19 – 17/80/1

el-Makhruq (Guérin: Kh. Makherouk) Israel grid: 1983 1707 UTM grid: 7369 5575 Elevation: 247 m b.s.l., 30 m a.s.a. Name type: historic site on map Site type: fortified enclosure city and fortress Area: 45 dunams (11.25 acres) Topography: broad ridge Rock type: ‘Avdat formation Soil type: rocky-stony soil; quality: 3

Cultivation: none Cisterns: 1 Nearest water source: Wadi el-Far‘ah (no. 104), 1 km distant Nearest road: Tel el Far‘ah – Jiftliq (B3), and Jericho – Tel el-Hammeh (B10), passes by site Visibility: 4 Nov. 19, 1993 and additional visits; 170 shards and 88 flint items ***

A large, fortified site on the decent from el-Makhruq into the valleys of Wadi el-Far‘ah and the Jordan. The place has suffered from both archaeological excavations and de-structive activities of the IDF. The site consists of at least four parts: 1. A fortified city from the Early Bronze Age, which covered the en-tire area of the ridge. According to

the excavated finds, the city was triangular in shape with one corner pointing north. A large, fortified tower of red bricks, approached from the north by means of stairs, was found here with three archi-tectural stages. In the center of the site (Area B-C of the excavations, cf. bibliography) parts of the resi-dential quarter were exposed. In addition, the city wall of the Early

640

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Bronze Age was discerned, with four consecutive levels of settlement, all from Early Bronze Age II-III. 2. Fortresses from Iron Age II. The northern of the two is squareshaped and is on top of the Early Bronze fortress. The central one is circular and is composed of three concentric circles, with inner divi-sion into cells. 3. A tell with a large, rectangular fortress on it, in the eastern, lowest part of the site. The fortress is built on top of the Early Bronze city and is surrounded by a particularly wide (about 4 m) stone wall. This for-tress was also built during Iron Age II (and cf. now Zertal 2005 - Vol. IV, site no. 73).

4. Cave dwellings in the southern part of the site, with built court-yards in front of them. Agricultural installations were found there. Pottery: Chal – 4%; EBA I – 5%; EBA II-III – 65%; MBA IIB – 2%; IrA II – 24%. Special find: ceramic head of female figurine, IrA II. Flint find: Pottery Neolithic, Wadi Rabbah stage; Chal and EBA; see appendix. Previous surveys: Bar-Adon 1972, no. 4. Excavation reports: Yeivin 1992; Yeivin and Eisenberg 1992. Bibliography: Guérin 1969 (IV), 235-238.

552. View to the north of the round, Iron Age II fortress at el-Makhruq, excavated by Yeivin and Eisenberg in 1974.

THE DESERT FRINGES — LANDSCAPE UNIT 21

641

553. Three views of the figurine head of Ammonite type from el-Makhruq. It was found on the eastern fortress and is apparently from Iron Age II.

554. View to the east of the rectangular, Iron Age II fortress, built on the eastern hilltop of el-Makhruq (where the figures stand). The plains of Jordan Valley are visible in the background.

642

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

555. Plan of the site. The dotted line marks the area of the Early Bronze Age city. The Iron Age fortresses (rectangular and circular) and the fortified, Early Bronze Age structure (at right) are also marked.

556. Aerial photo of the ‘wedge’ of el-Makhruq between the Jericho – Beth Shean road and the Jiftliq – Shechem road.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

643

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbreviations AASOR = Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. ABD = D. N. Friedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, vols. 1-6, New York 1992. AN = Archaeological News, by the Antiquities Authority of Israel (He-brew). ANET = J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Related to the Old Testament, 3rd Edition, Princeton 1969. Antiquities, Ant = Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus Flavius, Loeb. BAR = Biblical Archaeology Review. BAR = British Archaeological Reports. BASOR = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. EB = Encyclopaedia Biblica, vols. I-VIII, Jerusalem 1973-1988 (Hebrew). EI = Eretz Israel. JSG = M. Kochavi (ed.), Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967-1968, Jerusalem 1972 (Hebrew). HEI = A. Cohen, (ed.), The History of Eretz-Israel, vols. 1-7, Jerusalem 1981 (Hebrew). HL = M. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land, from the Persian Period to the Arab Conquests, Grand Rapids 1966. JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society. IEJ = Israel Exploration Journal. JNES = The Journal of Near Eastern Studies. JPOS = Journal of the Palestine Oriental Studies. JRA = The Journal for Roman Archaeology. JS = A. Shmueli, D. Grossman, and R. Ze’evi (eds.), Judaea and Samaria, vols. I-II, Tel Aviv 1977 (Hebrew). JSR = Judaea and Samaria Research Studies (Hebrew). KS = A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I-II, Muenchen 1953. NEAEHL = E. Stern et al. (eds), The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological

644

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Excavations in the Holy Land, vols. 1-4, Jerusalem 1993. OEANE = E. M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vols. 1-6, Oxford 1997. PEFA = Palestine Exploration Fund Annual. PEFQst = Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement. PEQ = Palestine Exploration Quarterly. PJB = PalaestinaJahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Institut Fuer Alter-tumwissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem. PPTS = Palestine Pilgrims to Terrae Sancta, 13 vols, London 1890-1897, repr. 1971. RB = Revue Biblique. Samaria and Benjamin = Z. Ehrlich (ed.), Studies in Geographical History, Jerusalem (hebrew). Shanks 1992 = H. Shanks (ed.), The Rise of Ancient Israel, Wasington DC. SS = S. Dar and Z. Safrai (eds.), Samaria Studies, Tel Aviv 1986 (He-brew). SWP = C. R. Conder and H. H. Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine, London 1882. VT = Vetus Testamentum. Wars = The Jewish Wars by Josephus Flavius, Loeb. Yakoby and Tzafrir 1988 = D. Yakoby and R. Tzafrir (eds.), Jews, Samari-tans and Christians in Byzantine Eretz Israel, Jerusalem 1988 (Hebrew). Yedioth = Yedioth ha’Hevrah le-Hakirath Eretz Israel (News of the Society for the Exploration of the Land of Israel). ZAW = Zeitschrift fuer die alttestestamentliche Wissenschaft. ZDPV = Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina Vereins.

Literature Abel, F.-M., 1967. Geographie de la Palestine, I-II, Paris 1935 (rep. 1967). Aharoni, Y., 1979. The Land of the Bible, A Historical Geography, Phila-delphia. Albright, W. F., 1925. “The Administrative Division of Israel and Judah”, JPOS V, 17-54.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

645

Albright, W. F., 1926. “The Topography of the Tribe of Issachar”, ZAW 3, 225-236. Albright, W. F., 1931. “The Site of Tirzah and the Topography of Western Manasseh”, JPOS XI, 241-251. Albright W. F., 1952. “The Smaller Beth Shan Stela of Sethos I (13091290 B.C.)”, BASOR 125, 24-33. Alt, A., 1928. “Die Reise: Zarethan, Abel Meholah, En Hadda”, PJB 24, 33-70. Alt, A., 1932. PJB 28, 74-97. Alt, A., 1953. “Israels Gaue unter Salomo”, KS II, 76-90. Amiran, R. et al., 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem. Armsrong, H., 1889. Names and Places, London. Avi-Yonah, M., 1956. “The Samaritan Revolts against the Byzantine Em-pire”, EI 4, 127-133 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah, M., 1966. The Holy Land, from the Persian Period to the Arab Conquests, Grand Rapids. Avi-Yonah, M., 1972. “2. Asher”, EB 1, 786 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah, M., 1976. Gazeteer of Roman Palestine. Qedem 5. Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah, M., and Stern, E., (eds.) 1975. Encyclopaedia for Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vols. I-IV, Jerusalem. Baker, D. W., 1992. “Rabbith”, ABD 5, 1604-1605. Bar-Adon, P., 1972. “The Judaean Desert and the Plain of Jericho”. JSG, 92-153 (Hebrew). Bar Kochba, B., 1980. Wars of the Hasmonaeans, The Days of Judah Mac-cabaeaus, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Ben Arieh, Y., 1970. The Rediscovery of Eretz Israel in the 19th Century, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Ben Zvi, Y., 1976. The Book of the Samaritans, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Beyer, G., 1940. “Neapolis und sein Gebiet in die Kreuzfahreit,” ZDPV 63, 155-210. Boneh, I., and Baida, A., 1977. “Water Sources and Their Use in Judaea and Samaria”, JS I, 34-48 (Hebrew). Burchard of Mount Zion, 1971. PPTS XII, 1-136. Campbell, E. F., 1993. “Shechem (Tell Balatah)”, NEAEHL 4, Jerusalem, 1345-1354.

646

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chambon, A., 1984. Tell el-Far’ah nord – l’age du fer, Paris. Chambon, A., 1993. “Far’ah, Tell -, Late Bronze to the Roman Period”, NEAEHL 2, 440-443. Cohen, R., 1999. Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev, vol. 1, The Chal-colithic, EB and MB I, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Cohen, O., 2005. Indentations on Handles and Rims in the Iron Age I Period in the Central Hill-Country of Israel, An MA dissertation, Haifa University (Hebrew). Cole, D., 1984. Shechem I. The Middle Bronze Age 2B Pottery, Philadel-phia. Conder, C. R., 1876a. “Proposed Tests for the Survey”, PEFQst 1876, 6673. Conder, C. R., 1876b. “Early Christian Topography”, PEFQst 1876, 1117. Conder, C. R., 1881. “Biblical Caines (Bezek)”, PEFQst 1881, 44. Conder, C. R., and Kitchener, H. H., 1879. The Palestine Exploration Fund Map, Sheet VIII, London. Conder, C. R., and Kitchener, H. H., 1882. The Survey of Western Pales-tine, Memoirs Vol. II – Samaria, London (= SWP). Cook, P., Roth, I., and Meimaran, Y., 1970. The Geology of the Shechem Syncline, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Cross, F.-M., 1992. “Daliyeh, Wadi ed-”, ABD 2, 3-4. Dan, Y., 1977. “The Soils of Judaea and Samaria”, JS I, 14-29 (Hebrew). Dannin, E., 1970. “Central spots in the Flora of Samaria”, Teva ve-Aretz 12, 125-128 (Hebrew). Demsky, A., 1979. “The Permitted Villages of Sebasteh in the Rehov Mo-saic”, IEJ 29, 182-194. Dever, W. G., 1992. “How to Tell a Canaanite from an Israelite”, in Shanks 1992, 27-60. Di-Segni, L., 1988. “Scythopolis (Beth Shean) During the Samaritan Re-volt of 529 AD”, in Yakoby and Tzafrir 1988, 217-228 (Hebrew). Drori, Y., 1981. “Eretz Israel in the Mameluk State”, HEI VII, 9-59 (He-brew). Edelman, D., 1992a. “Abel Meholah”, ABD 1, 11-12. Edelman, D., 1992b. “Asher”, ABD 1, 482-483. Ellenblum, R., 1991. The Rural Frankish Settlement in Eretz Israel Dur--

BIBLIOGRAPHY

647

ing the Crusader Period, A PH. D. Thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Eusebius Onomasticon = G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville, R. I. Chapman III, J. E. Taylor (eds.), The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerusalem 2003. Feldstein, A., Qidron, G., Hannin, N., Kameiski, Y., and Eitam, D., 1993 (= Feldstein et al.), “The Survey in the Maps of South Ramallah and el-Bireh and North En-Kerem Map”, in: Magen, I., and Finkelstein, I., (eds.), Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Finkelstein, I., 1986. ‘Izbet Sartah – An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha’ayin, Israel. BAR 299, Oxford. Finkelstein, I., 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I., 1988-1989. “The Land of Ephraim Survey – 1980-1987: Preliminary Report”, Tel Aviv 15-16, 117-184. Finkelstein, I., and Ledermann, Z., 1997. Highland of Many Cultures, vols. I-II, Tel-Aviv. Fishman-Ducker, R., 1988. “The Land of Israel in two Byzantine Chro-niques”, Yakoby and Tzafrir 1988, 169-181 (Hebrew). Fuchs, G., 1983. Greece in Eretz Israel – Beth Shean in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Gal, Z., 1980. The Highlands of Issachar (Hebrew) Gil, M., 1981. “The Land of Israel During the Moslem Rule (634-1099 CE)”, HEI VI, 15-161 (Hebrew). Glueck, N., 1937. “Explorations at the Land of Amman”, BASOR 68, 13-21. Glueck, N., 1943. “Three Israelite Towns in the Jordan Valley: Zarethan, Succoth, Zaphon”, BASOR 90, 2-23. Glueck, N., 1951. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. Part I: Text (AA-SOR XXV-XXVIII), New Haven Goetze, A., 1958. “Remarks on Some Names in the Execration Texts”, BASOR 151, 28-33. Goitein, S. D., 1965. “The City of Adam in Psalms?” Yedioth vol. II (Se-lection from volumes 1-15), Jerusalem, 277-279 (Hebrew). Goldfuss, H., and Golani, A., 1993. “The Survey in the Map of Wadi el-Makuch”, in: Y. Magen and I. Finkelstein (eds.), 1993. Archaeological

648

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Goldreich, Y., 1977. “Climatic Regions in Judaea and Samaria According to the Thornton System”, JS I, 29-33 (Hebrew). Gophna, R., and Porath, Y., 1972. “The Land of Ephraim and Manasseh”, JSG, 196-241. Gottwald, N. K., 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh, New York. Gradzeloff, B., 1949. Une stele scythopolitaine du roi Sethos 1er, Cairo. Grossman, D., 1986. “Oscillations in the Rural Settlement of Samaria and Judaea in the Ottoman Period”, SS, 303-388 (Hebrew). Guérin, V., 1969. Description géographique, historique et archaéologique de la Palestine, tome II – Samarie, Paris (1875; rep. 1969). Halpern, H., 1966. Encyclopaedia of Agriculture, vols. I-IV, Jerusalem (He-brew) Hashman, S., 1996. A Roman Military Array in the Eastern Slopes of Sa-maria Region in the 1st-2nd Centuries CE, MA Thesis, Haifa University (Hebrew with English Summary). Helms, S. W., and others (eds.), 1992. Excavations at Tel Um Hammad, 1982-1984, Early Assemblages (EB I-II), ed. A. V. G. Betts; Text by S. W. Helms, A. Betts and N. O’Tool, Edinborough. Hirschfeld, Y., 1990. “Kh. Ghirur”, AN 91, 45-46 (Hebrew). Hirschfeld, Y., 1991. “Khirbet Khiraf: A 2nd Century Fort in the Jordan Valley”, JRA 4, 170-183. Holladay, J. S., 1966. The Pottery of Northern Palestine in the 9th and 8th Centuries BC (A Ph. D. Thesis), Harvard University. Hull, J. H., 1992. “Tiphsah”, ABD 6, New York, 571. Hutteroth, D. H., and Abdulfatah, K., 1977. Historical Geography of Pal-estine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late Sixteenth Century, Erlan-gen. Hutton, R. R., 1992. “Sheth”, ABD 5, 1209. Ibrahim, M., 1992, “Jordan Valley”, ABD 3, 959. Ibrahim, M., Sauer, J., and Yassine K., 1976. “The East Jordan Valley Sur-vey, 1975”, BASOR 222, 21-66. Ilan, Z. 1973. The Jordan Valley and the Desert of Samaria, Tel Aviv (He-brew). Ilan, Z., 1976. “Khirbet Jabaris – An Ancient Site in the Desert of Sa-maria”, Nofim 4, 20-27 (Hebrew).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

649

Isaac, B., 1978. “Milestones in Judaea from Vespasian to Constantine”, PEQ 110, 47-60. Kallai, Z., 1967. The Tribes of Israel, A Study in the Historical Geography of the Bible, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kallai, Z., 1972. “The Land of Benjamin and Mt. Ephraim”, JSG, 153196 (Hebrew). Kaphtor va-ferah 1897. Sefer Kaphtor va-Ferah to the Rabbi Ashtori Haparhi. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kappus, S., 1966. “Oberflachenuntersuchungen im Mittleren Wadi Far’ah”, ZDPV 82, 74-82. Kempinski, A., 1983. “Early Bronze Age Urbanization in Palestine: Some Topics in Debate”, IEJ 33, 235-243. Kempinski, A., 1986., “’Joshua’s Altar’ – An Early Iron Age Watchtower”, BAR 12/1, 44-49. Kempinski, A., 1992. “Urbanization and Town Plans in the Middle Bronze Age II; Middle and Late Bronze Age Fortifications”, in: A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, from Prehistoric to Persian Periods, Jerusalem, 121-143. Knierim, R., 1969. “Oberflachenuntersuchungen im Wadi Far’a, II”, ZDPV 65, 51-62. Kochavi, M., 1967. The Settlement Wave of the Middle Bronze (Canaanite) Period in the Negev, I-II, Ph. D. Dissertation, Hebrew University (Hebrew with English Summary). Kochavi, M. (ed.) 1972. Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967-1968. Jerusalem (= JSG, Hebrew). Lapp, N., 1993. “Daliyeh, Wadi ed-”, NEAEHL 1, 320-323. Lemaire, A., 1972. “Le ‘pays de Hepher’ et les ‘filles de Zelophehad’ a la lumiére des ostraca de Samarie”, Semitica 22, 13-20. Lemaire, A., 1977. Inscriptions hebraiques I : Les ostraca, Paris. Lemaire, A., 1978. “Les bene Jacob”, RB 85, 321-337 Lemaire, A., 1982. “Recherches actuelles sur les origines de l’ancien Is-rael”, Journal Asiatique 270, 24-25 Lemaire, A., 1984. “La haute Mesopotamie et l’origine de Bene Jacob”, VT 34, 102-195. Lemaire, A., 1994a. “Histoire et administration de la Palestine a l’epoque perse”, In: E. –M. Laperrousaz (ed.), Palestine a l’epoque perse, Paris, 11-

650

BIBLIOGRAPHY

55. Lemaire, A., 1994b. “Epigraphie et numismatique palestinienne”, in: E.M. Laperrousaz and A. Lemaire (eds.), La Palestine a l’epoque Perse, Paris, 261-289. Mackenzie, D., 1911. “Megalithic Monuments of Rabbath Ammon at Amman”, PEFA 1, London, 1-41. Magen, I., and Finkelstein, I., (eds.), 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Maier, W. A., 1992. “Hadad”, ABD 3, 11. Malamat, A., 1983. Israel in the Biblical Period, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Mallet, W. G., 1987. Tell el Far’ah 2, Le bronze moyen, vols. 1-3, Paris. Marmadji, A. S., 1951. Textes geographiques Arabes sur la Palestine, Paris. Mazar (Meisler), B., 1947. “The Land of Canaan in the Eve of the Patriar-chal Age”, Revue de l’histoire Juive en Egypte 1, 33-68. Mazar, B., 1960. “The Cities of the Priests and the Levites”, VT supplement 7, 193-205. Mazar, B., 1973. “Bezeq”, EB 2, 45 (Hebrew). Mazar, B., 1986a. “Pharaoh Shishak’s Campaign to the Land of Israel”, in: The Early Biblical Period, Historical Studies, Jerusalem, 139-151. Mazar B., 1986b. “The Valley of Succoth in Biblical Times”, in: Excava-tions and Discoveries, Articles in the Archaeology of Eretz-Israel, Jerusalem, 167-177 (Hebrew). Mazar, B., 1986c. “The Historical Background of the Samaria Ostraca”, in: The Early Biblical Period, Historical Studies, 173-189. Mazar, B., 1986d. “The Middle Bronze Age in Canaan”, in: The Early Biblical Period, Historical Studies, Jerusalem, 1-35. Mazar, B., 1992a. “The Dynasty of Omri”, Biblical Israel, State and Peo-ple, Jerusalem, 116-127. Mazar, B. 1992b. “Shechem – A City of the Patriarchs”, Biblical Israel, State and People, Jerusalem, 42-55. Mazar, B. 1992c. “The Cities of the Priests and the Levites”, Biblical Israel, State and People, Jerusalem, 134-146.. Mazar, A., 1981. “Giloh – An Early Israelite Settlement Site Near Jerusa-lem”, IEJ 31, 1-36. Mazar, A., 1999. “The ‘Bull Site’ and the ‘Einun Pottery’ Reconsidered”, PEQ 131, 144-148.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

651

Meimaran, Y., 1980. The Geology of the Shechem Syncline, Jerusalem (He-brew). Meimaran, Y., 1992. “The Geological Nature of Samaria”. JSR 1, 359-372 (Hebrew). Mellaart, J. (Leonard, A.), 1962. The Jordan Valley Survey, Some Unpub-lished Soundings, Winona Lake. Miller, M., 1916. Itineraria Romana, Stuttgart. Milik, J., 1966. “La patrie de Tobie”, RB 73, 522-530. Miroschedji, P. de, 1993. “Far’ah, Tell -, Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age”, NEAEHL 2, Jerusalem, 433-438. Moran, W. M., 1987. Les lettres d’El-Amarnah, correspondence diploma-tique du pharaon, transl W. M. Moran, French trans. D. Collon and H. Cazelles, Paris. Na’aman, N., 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz Israel according to the ‘Amarna Letters, Unpublished Ph. D. Disserta-tion, Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew). Neef, H. –D., 1982. “Die MUTATIO IN MEDIO, eine Roemische Stras-senstation zwischen Skythopolis und Neapolis”, ZDPV 98, 163-168. Noth, M., 1932. “Der Beitrag der samarischen Ostraka zur Loesung topogaphischer Fragen”, PJB 1932, 54-67. Ozerman, M., 1982. “The Abandoned Hammam”, Teva ve-Aretz 24, 7276 (Hebrew). Palumbo, G., 1991. The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant, Settle-ment Patterns, Economy and Material Culture of a ‘Dark Age’, Rome. Pekkari, T., 1968. Untersuchungen zu den roemischen Reichstrassen, Bonn. Picard, I., and Golani, A., 1965. Geological Map of Israel - North, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Porath, Y., 1968. The Samaria Survey (B), Unpublished Text (Hebrew). Posener, G., 1940. Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie, Bruxelles. Pury, de, A., 1969. “Genése XXXIV et l’historire”, RB 76, 5-49. Rainey, A. F., 1962. “Administration in Ugarit and the Samaria Ostraca”, IEJ 12, 64-66. Ravikovitz, S., 1981. The Soils of Israel, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Redford, D. B., 1992. “Kush”, ABD 4, 109-111 Reich, R., 1981. “A Tomb from the Roman Period Near Khirbet Ferweh”, Samaria and Benjamin II, 214-227 (Hebrew).

652

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Robinson, E., 1970, Biblical Researches in Palestine and the Adjacent Coun-tries, in the years 1838 & 1852, I-III, Boston 1856, repr. Jerusalem 1970. Sabah, A., 1992. “The Flora of the Jordan Valley and East Samaria”, in M. Marcus (ed.), The Jordan Valley and East Samaria, 48-56 (Hebrew). Safrai, Z., 1980. Borders and Government in Eretz-Israel During the Mish-naic and Talmudic Periods, Tel-Aviv (Hebrew). Safrai, Z., 1986. “The History of Settlement in Samaria During the Ro-man-Byzantine Period”, SS, 127-181 (Hebrew). Sanuto, Marino, 1971. Secrets for True Crusaders, to Help them to Re-cover the Holy Land, PPTS XII, 1-75. Sapir, Y., 1991. “Tel el-Far’ah – Tirzah?”, Samaria and Benjamin II, 197206 (Hebrew). Schlei, D. G., 1992. “Adoni-Bezek”, ABD 1, 74. Sejourné, A., 1895. “Chronique de Jerusalem”, RB 3, 611-628. Sellin, E., 1917. Gilgal, Leipzig. Sethe, K., 1926. Die Achtung feindlicber Fursten, Volker etc., Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Klasse No. 5. Shein, S., 1981. “Eretz Israel during the Crusader Period (1099-1291)”, HEI VI, 177-353 (Hebrew). Schwartz, Yehosef, 1979. Sefer Tevu’ot Ha’aretz (The Book of the Crops of the Land), Jerusalem 1900 (Facsimile reprint 1979 – Hebrew). Stager, L. E., 1981. Highland Villages and Early Israel, Chicago. Taylor, M. A., and Taylor, J. G., 1992. “Noah”, ABD 4, 1122-1123. Thomsen, P., 1917. “Die Roemischen Milensteine der provinzen Syria, Arabia und Palaestina, ZDPV 40, 1-104. de Vaux, R., and Steve, A. M., 1947. “Les fouilles de Tell el-Far’ah, prés Naplouse. La 1ére campagne”, RB 54, 573-589. de Vaux, R., and Steve, A. M., 1948-1949. “Les fouilles de Tell el-Far’ah, pres Naplouse. La 2éme campagne”, RB 55, 544-580; 56 (1949), 102138. de Vaux, R., and Steve, A. M., 1951. “Les fouilles de Tell el-Far’ah, pres Naplouse. La 3éme campagne”, RB 58, 393-430. de Vaux, R., and Steve, A. M., 1952. “Les fouilles de Tell el-Far’ah, pres Naplouse. La 4éme campagne”, RB 59, 551-583. de Vaux, R., and Steve, A. M., 1955. “Les fouilles de Tell el-Far’ah, pres Naplouse. La 5éme campagne”, RB 62, 541-589.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

653

de Vaux, R., and Steve, A. M.,1957. “Les fouilles de Tell el-Far’ah, pres Naplouse. La 6éme campagne”, RB 64, 552-580 de Vaux, R., and Steve, A. M.,1961-1962. “Les fouilles de Tell el-Far’ah, pres Naplouse. La 7éme, 8éme et 9éme campagnes”, RB 68 (1961), 557592; 69 (1962), 212-253. de Vaux, R., 1968. “Le pays de Canaan”, JAOS 88, 23-30. de Vaux, R. 1992. “Far’a, Tell (North)”, NEAEHL 2, 1297-1320 (Hebrew). Vilnai, Z., 1968. Judaea and Samaria (The West Bank), Jerusalem (Hebrew). Weinstein, J., 1975. “Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom”, BASOR 217, 1-16. Weinstein, J., 1981. “The Egyptian Empire in Canaan – A Reassessment”, BASOR 241, 1-28. Welten, P., 1965. “Bezeq”, ZDPV 81, 138-165. Wright, G. E., 1946. “The Literary and Historical Problem of Joshua 10 and Judges 1”, JNES 5, 105-114. Wright, G. E., 1965. Shechem, The Biography of a Biblical City, NewYork. Yadin, Y., 1955. “Some Aspects of the Strategy of Ahab and David”. Biblica 36, 332-351. Yadin, Y., 1959. “Recipients or Owners, A Note on the Samaria Ostraca”, IEJ 9, 184-187. Yadin, Y., 1963. Judaean Desert Studies. The Findes from the Bar Kochba Period in the “Cave of the Letters”. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Yadin, Y., 1968. “A Further Note on the Lamed in the Samaria Ostraca”, IEJ 18. 50-51. Yeivin, S., 1958. “Issachar (3), The Tribal Allotment”, EB 3, 946-952 (Hebrew). Yeivin, Z., 1974. “Israelite Towers at Khirbet Mahruq”, Qadmoniot 3-4 (27-28), 102-104 (Hebrew). Yeivin, Z., 1992. “Two Watchtowers in the Jordan Valley”, EI 23 (Biran Volume), Jerusalem, 155-174 (Hebrew). Yeivin Z. 1993. “Mahruq, Khirbet el-”, NEAEHL 3, 929-932. Yeivin, Z., and Eisenberg, E., 1992. “Mahruq, Khirbet el-”, NEAEHL 3, 926-928 (Hebrew).

654

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zaharoni, I., 1991. “’And he counted them in Bezek’ – Saul’s Victory on the Ammonites through the scenery”, Samaria and Benjamin II, 206-214 (Hebrew). Zertal. A., 1984. Arubboth, Hepher and the Third Solomonic District, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zertal. A., 1985. “Has Joshua’s Altar been Found on Mt. Ebal?”, BAR XI/1,26-43. Zertal. A. 1986a. “The Water Factor During the Israelite Settlement Pro-cess in Canaan”, in: M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (1500-1000 B.C), Proceedings of the Interna-tional Symposium held at the University of Haifa, 1985 (Orientalia Loeve-nensia Analecta 23), Haifa, 341-352. Zertal, A., 1986b. “How can Kempinski be so Wrong?” BAR XII, 42-53. Zertal. A., 1986-1987. “An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mt. Ebal: Ex-cavation Seasons 1982-1987, Preliminary Report”, Tel Aviv 13-14, 105166. Zertal. A,. 1988. The Israelite Settlement in the Hill-Country of Manasseh, Haifa (Hebrew). Zertal, A., 1989a. “The Pahwah of Samaria (Northern Israel) During the Persian Period - Types of Settlement, Economy, History and New Discov-eries”, Transeuphratene II, 9-30. Zertal, A., 1989b. “The Wedge-Shaped Decorated Bowl and the Origin of the Samaritans”, BASOR 276, 77-84. Zertal. A., 1990. “’In the Land of the Perizzites and the Giants’: The Isra-elite Settlement in the Hill-Country of Manasseh”, in: N. Na’aman and I. Finkelstein (eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy, Archaeological and His-torical Aspects of Early Israel, Jerusalem, 53-101 (Hebrew Version). Zertal. A., 1991. “Israel Enters Canaan – Following the Pottery Trail”, BAR XVII/5, 28-47. Zertal, A., 1992a. “Bezeq”, ABD 1, 717-718. Zertal, A., 1992b. “Response to W. G. Dever”, in: Shanks 1992, 76-78. Zertal, A., 1992c. “Two Unknown Roman Fortresses in the Jordan Valley and the Location of Coabis”, Cathedra 62, 3-18 (Hebrew). Zertal, A., 1993a. “Fortified Enclosures of the Early Bronze Age in Sa-maria and the Beginning of Urbanization,” Levant 25, 113-125. Zertal, A., 1993b. “Manasseh, Survey of ”, NEAEHL 4, 1131-1132.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

655

Zertal, A., 1993c. “Ebal, Mount”, NEAEHL 1, 375-377. Zertal, A., 1994. “‘To the Land of the Perizzites and the Giants’: On the Israelite Settlement in the Hill-Country of Manasseh”, in: N. Na’aman, and I. Finkelstein (eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy, Jerusalem, 47-70. Zertal, A., 1995. “Three Iron Age Fortresses in the Jordan Valley and the Origin of the Ammonite Circular Towers”, IEJ 45, 253-273. Zertal, A., 1996a. “The Cultivation and the Economy of Olives During the Iron Age in the Hill Country of Manasseh”, M. Heltzer and D. Eitam (eds.), Olive Oil in Antiquity - Israel and the Neighboring Countries from the Neolithic to the Early Arab Period, Padova, 307-314. Zertal, A., 1996b. The Manasseh Hill-Country Survey, vol. II – The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert, Tel Aviv and Haifa (Hebrew). Zertal, A., 1997. “Manasseh, Survey of ”, OENAE 4, 164-166. Zertal, A., 1998. “The Iron Age I Culture in the Hill-Country of Canaan – A Manassite Perspective”, in: S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, 13th to Early 10th Centuries BCE, Jerusalem, 238-251. Zertal, A., 2000. A Nation is Born, The Altar on Mt. Ebal and the Emer-gence of Israel, Tel-Aviv (Hebrew). Zertal A., 2001. “The Heart of the Monarchy: Pattern of Settlement and Historical Considerations of the Israelite Kingdom of Samaria”, in: A. Ma-zar (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, London, 38-65. Zertal, A., 2003. “The ‘Eynun Pottery’ – History, Meaning, Future”, in: Y. Eshel (ed.), JSR 12, 9-19 (Hebrew). Zertal, A., 2004. The Manasseh Hill-Country Survey, vol. I – The Syncline of Shechem. Leiden. Zertal, A., 2005. The Manasseh Hill-Country Survey, vol. IV – From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba, Tel-Aviv and Haifa (Hebrew). Zertal. A., forthcoming. The Manasseh Hill-Country Survey, vol. V – From Wadi Far’ah to the Dead Sea, Tel Aviv and Haifa (Hebrew). Zertal, A., and Greenberg, M., 1983. “On Computerized Methods of Survey Recording”, Proceedings of the Tenth Archaeological Congress in Israel 6 (Hebrew). Zertal, A., and Mirkam, N., 2000. The Manasseh Hill-Country Survey, vol. III – From Nahal ‘Iron to Nahal Shechem, Tel-Aviv and Haifa (Hebrew). Zobel, H. J., 1966. “Abel Mehola”, ZDPV 82, 83-108.

656

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zohary, M., 1955. Geobotany, Merhavia (Hebrew). Zohary, M., 1980. The Botanical Landscapes of Eretz-Israel, Tel-Aviv (He-brew). Zori, N., 1962. “An Archaeological Survey in the Beth Shean Valley”, in: Y. Aviram (ed.), The Beth-Shean Valley - The 17th Convention of the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 135-198 (Hebrew). Zori, N., 1971. “Four Greek Inscriptions from the Beth Shean Valley”, EI 10 (Shazar Volume), 240 (Hebrew). Zori, N., 1977. The Land of Issachar - Archaeological Survey of the Gilboa and its Slopes, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Zussman, Y., 1981. “A Halachic Inscription from the Beth Shean Valley”, Y. Naveh (ed.), A Collection of Jewish Inscriptions, Jerusalem, 117-188 (He-brew).

PART THREE

APPENDICES AND INDICES

APPENDIX A

FLINT FINDINGS IN EAST MANASSEH Haim Winter Zinman Institute of Archaeology - University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel 31905, Israel

Preface for the English edition: This appendix was prepared during the years 1993-1994 and published in Hebrew (Winter 1996). Since then further studies have been carried out in the Jordan Valley; the most important of these is Volume IV of the Manasseh Hill Country Survey which has been published in Hebrew (Zertal 2005). Accordingly, new data and new understandings on the studied area have been achieved. None of these data contradict the picture or the conclusions of this study; rather they just expand the scope and supply explanations for some problems which were not fully clarified in Volume II. Thus it was decided not to rewrite the appendix but to present some updates for several important issues in the prologue. Acknowledgements: Special thanks to A. Zertal and the Manasseh Hill Country Survey team who gave me the opportunity to study the interesting material from an area whose prehistory had barely been researched previously. Thanks also to S. Rosen who

read a part of the manuscript and made important comments; to A. Gopher, M. Davis, M. WeinsteinEvron, D. Nadel and D. Kaufman who helped with their remarks and literary sources and A. Ronen who encouraged me to continue my work on prehistoric issues. Thanks to Y. Winter for his comments and instructions concerning the sources of raw flint on Ras el-Kharube and his help in editing the text. Sketches of the tools were prepared by me and the drawings were prepared by Z. Friedman. I alone am responsible for any possible mistakes. Haifa, November 2006 Haim Winter

660

APPENDIX A

Introduction The Manasseh Hill Country Survey started in 1978 with the aims of in-vestigating and recording archaeo-logical remains, the ecological situa-tion and settlement patterns during historic and proto-historic Periods. The systematic and foot survey of large areas paid special attention to architectonic features and pottery shards which served as the main chronological indicator for dat-ing the sites. Further attention was given to agricultural installations and the ecological background, but during the early stages of the survey the attention paid to prehistoric re-mains was still inadequate. Special prehistoric surveys have been carried out in Israel – on Mount Carmel (Olami), in the Ne-gev (Marks et al.) in Sinai (Bar-Yo-sef and Philips) and others as well. Despite the fact that the aims of the Manasseh Hill Country Sur-vey were different and prehistory was apparently beyond its scope, over time, more and more flint arti-facts were collected. They had to be analyzed in order to throw light on early human communities about which only little was known in the studied area. Flint findings were a byproduct of the general survey and their col-lection was selective because of in-adequate know-how of the teams at the time and the fact that attention was paid mainly to historic sites.

Small artifacts such as microlithes and small debris were largely over-looked because of the difficulty of locating them without sieving. This study tries to use the frag-mentary lithic material in order to learn details about the presence of human communities during preand proto-historic Periods in the studied area. The potential for pre-historic research in the area is high considering that flint artifacts were found in another 50 sites published in this volume. These flint artifacts were not included in this appendix because they were either not indica-tive or their number was insignifi-cant. Only sites with an appropri-ate and to some extent indicative, assemblage were included. The fact that the survey was in-complete as far as flint findings are concerned dictated the scope of the analyses. Not all the technologi-cal and statistical aspects used for regular pre-historic research could be applied due to the fragmentary character of the assemblages. The scope of analysis for each site de-pended also on the quantity of lithic material in the collection; thus, the picture of the site does not reflect necessarily its actual importance in the frame of other contemporane-ous sites in the area. The aim of this study was to establish a general chronological framework for the flint assemblages

FLINT FINDS

but in some cases it was impossible to distinguish sub-stages or local characteristics. During the years 1993/1994 the sites Khirbet Malih (C), Jelamet el-Ahmar (C), ‘Iraq

661

el-Hamra and some of the Ras elKharube sites were surveyed thor-oughly and larger quantities of flint artifacts were collected, resulting in a more detailed discussion.

General remarks on flint findings (raw material and shaped pieces) A detailed investigation of the sources of raw flint (such as these for Levallois pieces or Cananean blades) or of the metric attributes of the artifacts was beyond the scope of the study. Nevertheless, some facts discovered by the survey should be mentioned. In the area of Ras el-Kharube many spots and sites with finds from the Middle Palaeolithic Period were located. Close to these, lenses of raw flint were found, distrib-uted at random in the lower layers of limestone from the Eocene Age (Zor‘a formation). The colour of these Middle Palaeolithic flint arti-facts without patina is light brown to gray-brown (a comparison to the Munsell chart was not carried out) but most surface findings show a light, tending to gray, spotted pati-na. During the Epi-Palaeolithic Pe-riod, apparently, the same flint was used but patination is only light or completely absent. Some of the end scrapers were broken by snapping. Apparently, during the Epi-Palaeolithic Period, these end scrapers were deliberately

snapped, resulting in tools similar to thumbnail scrapers. All those pieces were counted separately. Oc-casionally some of the breaks could be post depositional and late. Flint artifacts from the Neolith-ic and Chalcolithic Periods were mostly produced from light brown to beige coloured flint, sometimes with dark brown stripes or from coarse grained flint. Some of the axes from these periods were pro-duced from semi-translucent, light brown flint. The sources of these flint varieties were not discovered. Artifacts from the Wadi Rabah stage, at the southern part of the survey area (mainly sickle blades) were produced from dark brown flint to be found, perhaps, 10 km to the south, in the vicinity of Yafit (D. Nadel, personal information). The fan scrapers from el-Makhruq were prepared from dark brown flint. The material, the preparation of the striking platform and the en-gravings on the dorsal cortical face are similar to those from Arad from Early Bronze Age II (Schick 1978). Cananean blades were produced

662

APPENDIX A

from light coloured material appar-ently different from the local variet-ies. Even though no metric compar-ison was carried out, the impression was that most of these from the Early Bronze Age were shorter and narrower than those from the Mid-dle Bronze Age I. Some Cananean blades were broken by snapping in order to prepare segments for com-posite sickles. In many cases these segments showed bi-lateral sickle sheen which serves as evidence that they were reversed in the haft. Apparently fan scrapers and Cananean sickles were distributed by trade networks (Rosen 1989, 204, 209). In many assemblages from the surveyed area there is a dispropor-tion between the quantity of re--

touched tools and the quantity of waste. There are two reasons for this phenomenon. Firstly, the collecting was selective and no attention was paid to amorphous or small arti-facts. The second reason concerns the retouch. Every artifact with regular uninterrupted retouch of 1cm in length at least is considered as a retouched tool; in some cases such retouch was post deposition-al and caused by natural forces or trampling of animals. Only in some cases, on patinated pieces, such late damage could be confirmed be-cause the “retouch” had no patina. For these reasons, in most cases, no statistical analyses similar to those from excavated sites could be car-ried out and we had to rely on dif-ferent parameters (see methodology below).

Methodology Flint tools have served humanity from the dawn of prehistory and have continued through the histor-ic ages until present times. In the course of the prehistoric research new procedures and typological lists were introduced as auxiliary tools and new technologies were applied. An identification based on typological considerations only has many disadvantages: 1. Different lists were prepared at different times for identical arti-facts; 2. Quite a few artifacts do not

match any list; 3. Certain tools were used over long periods and are unsuitable for a chronological evaluation; 4. Regional or local varieties may not match generalized lists; 5. In some cases the typological and radiometric dates do not match (Hovers and Marder 1991, 51-53). Faced with these problems, it was decided to rely on several sources for dating the assemblages. When-ever possible we used more than one source in order to verify the

FLINT FINDS

dating. The available sources are listed below: 1. To a certain extent we used general type lists (Bordes 1961; Bar-Yosef 1970; Lee 1973), lists for specific tools such as arrowheads (Gopher 1985), sickle blades (Bu-rian and Friedmann 1979; Gopher 1989a), reports from excavations and summarizing papers. 2. Technological and morpho-logical features served as additional tools. Among these is the mor-phology of cores and the industrial waste; the application of the Leval-lois technique and the preparation of the striking platform; the appli-cation of the microburin technique; pressure flaking and application of Cananean blade technology. 3. At sites containing pottery a cross-check between the pottery shard assemblage and the flint as-semblage was carried out. In cases when the flint assemblage contained artifacts used over different periods this cross-check helped to define the chronology. Examples of this are Cananean blades common in both Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age I, and large geometric sickle segments, were in use from Middle Bronze Age II until the end of Iron Age II. 4. The composition of the tool and waste assemblages served as important evidence. Whenever no type fossils fossile directoire – pieces were present in the assemblage, the

663

character and percentages of tools and waste were checked carefully in order to enable dating. Khir-bet el-Meiyiteh (no. 90) can serve as an example. At first, cores, end scrapers and burins, typical to the Epi-Palaeolithic Period, were col-lected but microlithes were missing completely. A new thorough search yielded the missing microlithes and lunates and the Natufian culture could be identified at the site. Simi-larly, at ‘Iraq el-Hamra (no. 189), lunates were found only when the site was searched again. 5. In accordance with the avail-able data the identification of the periods was divided into three grades: a. Highly reasonable identification b. Reasonable identification c. Possible identification. Tools which served as type fossils and technologies which served for the identification: Bifacial hand-axes served for the identification of the Lower Pal-aeolithic Period. Tools, which are similar to some extent, were found in Neolithic sites but these tools showed usually battered lateral edges (Olami 1984, 139, 151-152; Ronen 1984, 163 and figs. 10.29.1 and 10.30.1). No Lower Palaeoli-thic sites were found in the studied area. Characteristic traits for the Middle Palaeolithic Period: • The presence of the Levallois

664

APPENDIX A

technique at sites lacking hand-axes (see remark in the prologue); • The preparation of the strik-ing platform and the presence of chapeau de gendarme bases; • The relative abundance of side scrapers; • The relative percentage of the various tool groups (Bordes 1961); The relative shares of blades end scrapers, burins and their morphol-ogy served for the identification of the Upper Palaeolithic Period. A single site from this period was found only on the fringe of the studied area and is not included in this volume; The Epi-Plaeolithic Period was de-fined by the following traits: • The morphology of cores and waste materials; • The relative share and the mor-phology of the various types of mi-crolithes. The phases within the pe-riod can be defined by these traits: • The morphology of end scrap-ers and burins. Traits for defining the Neolithic Pe-riod: • Bifacial tools – the axe, the adze, the chisel – and their special morphology; • The presence of various types of

arrowheads; • The presence of various types of sickle blades and reaping knives. Characteristics of the Wadi Rabah phase: • Typical sickle blades; • The morphology of bifacial tools. Traits defining the Chalcolithic Pe-riod: • The morphology of bifacial tools; • The morphology of sickle blades; • The presence of perforated, dis-coid flint tools; • The presence of fan scrapers. The Early Bronze and Middle Bronze I Ages were defined as fol-lows: • The presence of Cananean blades and Cananean sickle blades; • The presence of fan scrapers. Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze and Iron Ages were defined by geomet-ric sickle blades. Studies dealing with flint tools and assemblages served as main lit-erary sources for this work. They are listed in the bibliography below.

FLINT FINDS

665

Discussion and evaluations Flint assemblages from a surface survey are not sufficient in order to draw a full map of site distribution during the various periods. The pic-ture, in accordance with the data at hand, is only fragmentary. The absence of findings from the Lower Palaeolithic Period (except one possible handaxe) could indi-cate that during this period there was no human presence in the area. It should be considered that perhaps geomorphologic processes covered the remains from this period (see remarks in the prologue). The Middle Palaeolithic Period is represented in the studied area by many sites and find spots of flint. Except for one single site, in the north of the studied area (Ras esSalmeh, site 41) all the other sites of the period were concentrated in a clearly defined geographic location. Its center is the high peak of the Ras el-Kharube massif and the sites are dispersed on it and its fringes. The boundaries of the area (triangular shaped) are the road from Adam Junction to Mehola Junction at the east, the road from Adam Junction to Mehora Junction in the west and in the north the gorges of el-Jofe, Umm Kharaz and Abu Sidreh. The number of sites and the quantity of artifacts point to a re-markable presence of humans dur-ing this period. All sites are openair and no cave site was discovered.

Open-air and cave sites from this period are well known all over the Middle East. In Israel, clusters of open-air sites or find spots from the period were found on Mount Carmel (Olami 1984), the moun-tainous area in the central Negev (Marks and Freidel 1977) and at the fringes of the Judean Mountains (Schuldenrein 1978, 32-42). In the studied area all find spots from this period are located high above the surroundings and at some distance from water sources. The distance from the center of the mountain-ous triangle to the surrounding valleys is about 6-7 km, but most sites were closer to potential water sources in the gorges and valleys surrounding the Ras el-Kharube massif or to Lake Lisan (or earlier lakes) which flooded large parts of the area during the period. In any case the topographic structure was different than today’s setting. It furthermore should be considered that the Middle Palaeolithic Period coincides with the last Ice Age or even the last Interglacial Period. At least during a part of the period the climate was different and less arid than today (Weinstein-Evron 1990). Except for a single site located at the very edge of the studied area (to be published in Volume III of the survey, see also remark in the pro-logue) no sites from the Upper Pal--

666

APPENDIX A

aeolithic Period were found. Openair sites from this period were found about 10 km to the south of the studied area in Wadi Fazael (Gor-ing-Morris 1980b). Unlike the sit-uation in the mountainous area in the central Negev and Sinai where many open-air sites of this period were found, to the north such sites are few or absent (Ronen 1975). On Mount Carmel human presence is documented only in caves (Ronen 1974, 63). A possible reason for this situation in the north could be the deterioration of climatic condi-tions. It is difficult to find type fossils of the Epi-Palaeolithic Period by a sur-face survey conducted on foot due to the small dimensions of many of these. • No sites from the Kebaran cul-ture, the first stage of the Epi-Pa-laeolithic Period, were found by the survey. It should be considered that in the lowlands of the Jordan Valley (a part of the Syrian-African Rift Valley) quite a few sites of this stage were discovered – from EinGev (Bar-Yosef 1970) and Ohalo 2 (Nadel 1990; see also remarks in the prologue) in the north to Wadi Fazael and Urkan er-Rub (Bar Yosef et al. 1974; Goring-Morris 1980a; Hovers et al. 1988) southwards. Possible reasons for this phenom-enon are the mountainous terrain and higher elevations above the surrounding in the studied area and the climatic conditions which

continued from the previous Upper Palaeolithic Period. Apparently the Kebaran was a direct continuation of this stage (Bar-Yosef 1970, 28; Gilead 1984, 227-229; see also remarks in the prologue). • From the Geometric Kebaran culture the survey discovered two sites, both on hills above still pe-rennial streams – Wadi Malih (no. 94) and Wadi Far‘ah (Wadi Far‘ah; no. 185). • In similar settings two Natu-fian sites were discovered: in Wadi Malih (no. 90) located about 1 km upstream to the west and at Wadi Far‘ah (Wadi Far‘ah; site 189) to the east of the above mentioned Geometric Kebaran site. Two oth-er sites were identified as possibly Natufian. The locations of Geometric Ke-baran and Natufian sites in the studied area are similar to those of other sites from these periods, close to water sources and flowing streams. To mention some of the sites in this situation: Einan (Per-rot 1960; 1974), Hayonim terrace (Henry and Leroy-Gurhan 1976), Poleg M18 (Bar-Yosef 1970), Neve David (on the banks of Na-hal Siakh, Kaufman 1987), Nahal Oren (Steklis and Yisraely 1963; Noy et al. 1973), Heftsibah (on the banks of Nahal Hadera, Ronen et al. 1975), Hatula (Ronen and Lechevallier 1985; Lechevallier and

FLINT FINDS

Ronen 1994), D5 (in Nahal Zin, Marks 1976) and D16 Rosh Zin (Henry 1976). Some of the sites are directly on the banks of the streams – Einan, Neveh David and D5, while others – ‘Iraq el-Hamra (no. 189 in this volume), D16 Rosh Zin and Hayonim terrace were at some distance from the water source. Artifacts from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period were discovered in three sites, two of them in Wadi Malih (nos. 83 and 90) and the third (no. 219) at Ras Umm Khu-beiza. The scarcity of artifacts from this period apparently points to limited human activity during this period. Despite the equal number of sites the artifacts from the follow-ing Pottery Neolithic Period are numerous and indicative. Two sites in the Wadi Far‘ah (nos. 178, 179) were on two hills about 1 km apart. The third site was discovered at elMakhruq (no. 269), a large mul-tiple period site at the junction of Wadi Far‘ah and the Jordan Valley. All three sites were close to water sources, areas appropriate for agri-culture, gathering and hunting. In two sites (nos. 268-269), at the fringes of the Ras el-Kharube mas-sif, tools of the Wadi Rabah phase were found. These are apparently a part of a group of sites from this stage in the Jordan Valley – Mun-hata (Gopher 1989a), Tel Tsaf (Go-pher 1989b) and probably others. Some indications for this stage are

667

apparently found also in the Zabab-deh Valley, in the northern part of the studied area (no. 4). From the Chalcolithic Period onwards, and early historic periods, flint findings are represented only in a rather small part of the many sites from these periods. For full information about settlement pat-terns during these periods the read-er should turn to the introduction of this volume. The Chalcolithic Period is repre-sented in all landscape units except Jebel Tammun. Compared to the other periods, the number of sites from this pe-riod is high (nos. 4, 16, 29, 31, 32, 46, 90, 99, 189, 219, 229, 269). Some more sites were identified as possibly Chalcolithic (nos. 134, 169, 179). From the Early Bronze Age the number of sites with flint findings declines and they are concentrated mainly in the area of Wadi Far‘ah (nos. 169, 178, 179, 182, 183, 189), and in two more sites (nos. 225, 269). Middle Bronze Age I was iden-tified in four sites, in the north of the studied area (nos. 66, 90, 232, 234). Flint from the Iron Age was found in site no. 191 and possibly also in site no. 82.

APPENDIX A

668

Description of the sites Site no. 4

el-Habayel (A) Isr. Grid Ref. 1834/2001

The flint and stone assemblages: Chalcolithic Period (main part of assemblage) – highly reasonable identification. Wadi Rabah phase (few artifacts) – possible identifica-tion. Waste and flint artifacts without retouch: Discoid core with yellow patina 1; Discoid core 1; Primary flake 6; Flake 5; Blade 1. Total – 16 Flint Tools and retouched artifacts: Axe 5; Adze 3; Chisel 3; Chisel with lateral polish 1; Broken bifacial tool 3; Pick 1; De’jete scraper on small flake 5; Rounded scraper 1; Fan scraper 1; Side scraper 2; Burin 1; Notch 6; Massive borer 1; Awl 1; Retouched flake 6; Thick backed blade (similar to type D sickle, Go-pher 1989a, 95) 2; Blade (similar to type C sickle, Gopher 1989a, 95) 1; Retouched blade 5; Truncation 4; Backed knife 1. Total – 53. Total of flint artifacts – 69. The stone artifacts: Coarse adze or hoe of limestone 4; Fragment of flat and rimmed basalt base 1; Fragment of conical basalt rim1; Fragment of conical basalt bowl 1; Fragment of base of a ba--

salt incense burner 1; Fragment of a basalt pebble with a bi-conical hole 1. Discussion: The flint assemblage bears charac-teristics of the Chalcolithic Period and the Wadi Rabah phase. Cer-tain tool types are common to both periods but some are characteristic for one or the other. The polished adze, the thin backed and bi-trun-cated blade (sickle blade like), and the fan scraper could represent the Chalcolithic (Yeivin 1958, 40-44; Hennessey 1969, 17-18; Lee 1973, 249-260; Rosen 1982, 140; Crow-foot-Payne 1983, 716; Levi and Rosen 1987, 281-309). The Wadi Rabah phase is apparently repre-sented by the chisel with the pol-ished lateral edges (Kaplan 1969, fig.10; Gopher 1989a, figs. 43/44), the axe and the chisel with a rectan-gular cross-section (Kaplan 1977, 75) and probably also the thick, backed and bi-truncated blade (similar to a sickle blade type D – Kaplan 1969, 16 and fig. 13/8; Gopher 1989a, 95; Gopher and Orrelle 1990, 70). It should be emphasized that even though the indications seem convincing, they should not be considered as abso--

FLINT FINDS

lute because of the rather small as-semblage and the resemblance of tools from both periods. The basalt artifacts, the coni-cal bowls, and the base of the in--

669

cense burner are attributed to the Chalcolithic as well. To summarize, most flint artifacts and stone tools match the findings of the pottery shards which are attributed to the

557. el-Habayel (A): 1. Axe; 2. Polished chisel; 3. Chisel with bi-lateral polish; 4. Massive borer; 5-6. Blade similar to type D sickle; 7. Blade similar to type C sickle; 8. Fan scraper; 9. Backed knife; 10. Polished adze; 11. Chisel.

670

APPENDIX A

Chalcolithic. The discoid core with yellow patina seems intrusive and

could be attributed to the Middle Palaeolithic.

 Site no. 16

Mughur Abu Rishi Isr. Grid Ref. 1842/1975

The flint assemblage: Chalcolithic Period – highly rea-sonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake 4; Blade 2. Total – 6. Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed and bi-truncated blade (similar to a sickle blade) 1; Pol-ished axe 1; Axe (calcareous flint) 1; Chisel 1; Broken bifacial artifacts 4; End scraper on flake 1; Side-scraper

on primary flake 1; Notch on flake 1; Awl on flake 1. Total – 12. Total of flint artifacts – 16. Discussion: The blade (similar to a sickle blade), the polished axe with a trapezoid cross-section, the side-scraper and the tool assemblage generally are in accordance with Chalcolithic tool-kits (Yeivin 1958; Lee 1973; Rosh-walb 1981; Levi and Rosen 1987). The pottery findings of the site were

558. Mughur Abu Rishi: 1. Polished axe; 2. Backed and bi-truncated blade (similar to a sickle blade); 3. End scraper on flake.

FLINT FINDS

attributed to the Chalcolithic as well. No artifacts pointing to a dif--

671

ferent period were found.

 Site no. 29

el-Mabhashiyye Isr. Grid Ref. 1847/2005

The flint and stone assemblages: Chalcolithic Period – highly rea-sonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Core 1; Ridge blade 2; Flake 2; Blade 1; Limestone pestle 1. Total – 7. Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed and bi-truncated sickle

blade 4; Polished axe 2; Adze 4; Chisel 1; Pick 1; Massive limestone adze (hoe?) 1; Broken bifacial arti-facts 7: Bifacial tool with an oblique burin blow; End scraper 2; Notch 6; Denticulate 1; Awl 2; Borer 1; Retouched flake 1; Truncation 2. Total – 36. Total of flint and stone artifacts – 43.

559. el-Mabhashiyye: 1. Polished axe; 2. Bifacial tool with an oblique burin blow; 3. Pick; 4-5. Backed and bi-truncated sickle blade.

672

APPENDIX A

Discussion: The backed and truncated sickle blades (type C, Gopher 1989a, 95), the axes, the adzes and the chisel, all of them with a trapezoid cross-sec-tion, are characteristic of the Chal--

colithic Period (Yeivin 1958; Hen-nessey 1969; Lee 1973; Levi and Rosen 1987). No artifacts pointing to a different period were found so the whole assemblage should be at-tributed to this period.

 Site no. 31

‘Iraq el-Hamam (lower) Isr. Grid Ref. 1897/2007

The flint assemblage: Chalcolithic Period – highly rea-sonable identification.

Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake 3; Blade 1; Bladelet 1. Total

560. ‘Iraq el-Hamam (lower): 1-2. Polished adze; 3. Chisel; 4. Backed knife; 5. Sidescraper; 6. Carrinated end scraper; 7. Sickle blade; 8. Denticulate; 9. Borer.

FLINT FINDS

– 5. Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed and bi-truncated sickle blade 1; Adze 4; Chisel 3; Pick 1; Broken or unfinished bifacial arti-fact 5; Side-scraper on CTE (core trimming element) 1; Notch 2; Denticulate 2; Awl on retouched blade 1; Borer 1; Truncation 1; Backed knife 1. Total – 25. Total of flint artifacts – 30. Discussion: The assemblage is attributed to the

673

Chalcolithic (Yeivin 1958; Hen-nessey 1969; Lee 1973; Levi and Rosen 1987). The adzes, chisels and sickle blade and their morphology are typical of the period. The awl was prepared from a fragment with lateral abrupt retouch on both sides and both faces were partly polished, it apparently served earlier as a chis-el. The side scraper was prepared from a CTE detached at a right an-gle to previous detachments. Both the flint and pottery assemblages are attributed to the period.

 Site no. 32

Mrah es-Sbeh Isr. Grid Ref. 1905/2008

The flint assemblage: Chalcolithic Period – highly reasonable identi-fication. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake core 2; Primary flake 2; Flake 2; Blade 2. Total – 8. Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed and bi-truncated sickle blade 2; Backed and bi-truncated blade (similar to a sickle blade) 1; Dihedral burin 1; Axe (polished on both faces) 1; Adze 2; Chisel 1; Chisel (fragment) 1; Pick 1; Notch 2; Naturally backed knife 1; Backed knife 1; Retouched flake 3; Re-touched blade 1; Hammerstone (on previous bifacial artifact) 1; Varia 1.

Total – 20. Total of flint artifacts – 28. Discussion: Similarly to most other sites in the area, the artifacts were pre-pared from light coloured, mostly calcareous flint. The composition and technology match these from the Chalcolithic. Typical tools of this period are the backed and bitruncated sickle blade and the adze with trapezoid cross-section (Yeivin 1958; Hennessey 1969; Lee 1973; Levi and Rosen 1987). An excep-tion is the dihedral burin which is typical to earlier periods and rare in the Chalcolithic. It was prepared from the same flint mentioned

674

APPENDIX A

above and therefore should not be considered as intrusive. Burins are present in the previous Wadi Rabah

phase (Gopher 1989a; Gopher and Orrelle 1990) but there are not enough indications for continuity.

561. Mrah es-Sbeh: 1. Adze; 2. Polished axe; 3. Naturally backed knife; 4. Dihedral bu-rin; 5. Sickle blade.

 Site no. 37

Mrah Ra‘yan Isr. Grid Ref. 1856/1986

The flint assemblage: Not defined. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Primary flake 7; Flake 7; Blade 1; Chunk 2; Total – 17. Tools and retouched artifacts: Nosed end scraper 1; End scraper on primary flake 1; Serrated side-

scraper on flake 1; Side-scraper on chunk 1; Notch on primary flake 2; Denticulate on primary flake 1; Borer on primary flake 1; Re-touched primary flake 2; Retouched blade 3. Total – 13. Total of flint artifacts – 30. Discussion: The assemblage does not contain any chronological markers which

FLINT FINDS

could indicate the period. Most of the unretouched pieces were pri-mary elements and half of the tools were also prepared from primary el-ements. No cores were found at the site and it may be assumed that this was a workshop for the preparation

675

of cores. The fact that some of the artifacts were apparently prepared by the Levallois technique (but without preparation of the strik-ing platform) and the side scrapers could point to the Middle Palaeoli-thic Period.

 Site no. 41

Ras es-Salmeh Isr. Grid Ref. 1864/1981

The flint assemblage: Middle Palaeolithic Period – highly reasonable identification. Artifacts and tools: Levallois flake 1; Mousterian point 1. Total – 2.

Discussion: Despite the fact that only two ar-tifacts were found they may be at-tributed to the Middle Palaeolithic Period (Bordes 1961). Even if the findings were not in situ they point to human presence in the area dur-ing this period.

562. Ras es-Salmeh: 1. Mousterian point; 2. Levallois flake.

676

APPENDIX A

Site no. 46

Khallet et-Tawileh Isr. Grid Ref. 1854/1939

The flint assemblage: Chalcolithic Period – highly rea-sonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Levallois core 1; CTE 1; Ridge blade 1; Flake 3; Blade 3; Chip 1. Total – 10. Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed and bi-truncated blade (similar to a sickle blade) 1; Polished chisel on ridge blade 1; Fragment of bifacial artifact 1; Side-scraper on flake 1; Notch 2; Denticulate

on flake 1; Retouched flake 3; Re-touched blade 1; Truncation 1. To-tal – 12. Total of flint artifacts – 22. Discussion: The small assemblage should be at-tributed to the Chalcolithic. The backed and bi-truncated blade, the polished chisel, the side scraper and the other artifacts as well correspond with assemblages from this period (Yeivin 1958; Hennessey 1969; Lee 1973; Levi and Rosen 1987) and the pottery findings from the site.

563. Khallet et-Tawileh: 1. Polished chisel; 2. Backed and bi-truncated blade; 3. Notched side-scraper.

FLINT FINDS

677

Site no. 55

Khirbet ed-Der Isr. Grid Ref. 1865/1906

The flint assemblage: Not defined. Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed and truncated large geomet-ric sickle segment 2; Backed and bi-truncated large geometric sickle segment with large notch (probably post depositional) 1; Backed and truncated sickle blade 1; Notch on truncated blade 1; Retouched flake 2. Total – 7. Discussion: Large geometric sickle segments were in use from Middle Bronze Age II until at least the end of Iron Age II. No morphological varieties were reported from assemblages of these periods and anyhow the sam--

ple size is rather small for compari-sons. The single informative trait is the mean length of the artifacts (Rosen 1983, 198) – 61 mm in our case. This measure fits the values reported for the Late Bronze Age. A comparison to the assemblages of Tell Nagila (Middle Bronze Age II – Gilead 1973) and Gezer (Iron Age I – Rosen 1986) indicates simi-larity to both sites. The cross-check with the pottery assemblage com-plicates the picture still more. The assemblage contained shards from Middle Bronze Age II – 20%, Late Bronze Age – 30% and Iron Age I – 30%. The flint artifacts could be from any of these periods.

564. Khirbet ed-Der: 1-3. Large geometric sickle segment; 4. Backed and truncated sickle blade.

678

APPENDIX A

Site no. 66

Wadi el-Hammeh Isr. Grid Ref. 1968/1975

The flint assemblage: Middle Bronze Age I – highly rea-sonable identification (main part of the assemblage). Tools and retouched artifacts: Cananean sickle blade 1; Cananean blade 1; Backed and bi-truncated Cananean blade 1; Backed and truncated blade 1; Shouldered end scraper on primary flake 1; Notch on fragment of Cananean blade 1; Awl 1; Retouched flake 2. Total – 9.

Discussion: Cananean blades are characteris-tic of Early Bronze and Middle Bronze I Ages (Rosen 1983, 127; 1989, 208). Most artifacts in the assemblage were produced by the Cananean technology. The backed and truncated blade, similar to Chalcolithic blades can apparently be found also in assemblages from the Middle Bronze Age I (see Rosen 1991, 11). Most of the pottery as-semblage was attributed to Middle Bronze Age I and the flint assem-blage should be attributed simi-larly.

565. Wadi el-Hammeh: 1. Cananean blade; 2. Cananean sickle blade; 3. Notch on frag-ment of Cananean blade; 4. Shouldered end scraper.

FLINT FINDS

679

Site no. 82

Khirbet Umm Ghazal (Kh. esh-Shaqq) Isr. Grid Ref. 1975/1945

The flint assemblage: Early and Middle Bronze Age I, Iron Age – possible identification. Tools and retouched artifacts: Geometric sickle segment 1; Cana-nean sickle blade 1; Shouldered end scraper 1; Denticulate 1; Retouched blade with two ventral notches 1; Truncated flake 2; Retouched flake 1; Retouched blade 2. Total – 10. Discussion: Cananean sickle blades were in use during the Early Bronze Age

(Waechter 1958, 325; Schick 1978; Rosen 1985) and Middle Bronze Age I (Rosen 1989, 208). Most other flint artifacts could also be-long to these periods. The pottery assemblage from the site was attrib-uted to the Iron Age and the backed and truncated geometric sickle seg-ment should be attributed similarly (Rosen 1983, 136; 1986, 262). The variety and the small number of ar-tifacts do not allow further conclu-sions.

566. Khirbet Umm Ghazal: 1. Cananean sickle blade; 2. Geometric sickle segment; 3. Denticulate; 4. Shouldered end scraper.

680

APPENDIX A

Site no. 83

Muntar esh-Shaqq Isr. Grid Ref. 1978/1944

The flint assemblage: Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period – reasonable iden-tification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake 2; Blade 2. Total – 4. Tools and retouched artifacts: By-blos arrowhead (broken) 1; Re-touched point (broken) 1; Axe with transversal blow 1; Denticulate 1; Awl 1. Total – 5. Total of flint artifacts – 9. Discussion: The composition of the assemblage and the limited quantity of artifacts make it dif-ficult to define the period exactly.

The axe with a transversal blow is mainly attributed to the Pre Pottery Neolithic Period (Crowfoot-Payne 1983) but is present also in the Chalcolithic (Hennssey 1969, 17; Levi and Rosen 1987, 284). The broken Byblos arrowhead (Gopher 1985, 57) was mainly in use at a later stage of the Pre-Pottery Neo-lithic Period and the early Pottery Neolithic Period. No cross-check with the pottery assemblage, attrib-uted completely to the Iron Age, was possible. It seems reasonable to attribute the flint assemblage to the Pre Pottery Neolithic Period.

567. Muntar esh-Shaqq: 1. Axe with transversal blow; 2. Byblos arrowhead (broken); 3. Retouched point (broken; arrowhead?); 4. Denticulate.

FLINT FINDS

681

Site no. 90

Khirbet el-Meiyiteh Isr. Grid Ref. 1942/1925

The flint assemblage: Epi-Palaeolithic Period – the Natu-fian Culture (main part of the as-semblage) – highly reasonable iden-tification; Neolithic Period (few artifacts) – reasonable identifica-tion; Chalcolithic Period (few arti-facts) – reasonable identification; Middle Bronze Age I (few artifacts) – highly reasonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake core 7; Flake-blade core 2; Bladelet core 10; CTE 4; Ridge blade 7; Primary flake 37; Flake 221; Blade 19; Fragment of blade 37; Bladelet 13; Fragment of blade-let 32; Burin spall 4; Chunk 153; Chip 141; Globular hammerstone 4; Hammerstone on core 1; Micro-burin 19. Total – 711. Tools and retouched artifacts: Sickle segments: Reaping knife (with tang) 1; Fragment with tang 1; Backed, truncated with fine re-touch 1; Fragment with plain cut-ting edge 1; Cananean 3; Cananean fragment 2. Sickle segments total – 9. Scrapers: End scraper on flake 10; Thumbnail scraper 4; End scraper on blade 6; De’ete scraper 1; End scraper on truncation 7; End scrap-er with notch 3; Double end scrap--

er 2; Narrow carinated end scraper 1; Nucleiform (core) scraper 1; Transversal scraper 1. Scrapers to-tal – 36. Burins: Dihedral on flake 1; Di-hedral De’ete 1; Dihedral angled 1; Angled on natural pan 1; On trun-cation 1; Double on truncation 1; On concave truncation 2; Trans-versal 2; Flat faced 1. Burins total – 12. Microlithes: Bladelet – retouched 2; Bladelet – partially retouched 5; Bladelet – retouched on ventral face 5; Bladelet – backed 3; Blade-let with oblique truncation 5; Arch backed 3; Micro-end scraper 1. Mi-crolithes total – 24. Geometric Microlithes: Lunate 2; Triangle 1. Geometric microlithes total – 3. Raclette with burin blow 1; Bu-rin-scraper 4; Notch on flake 44; Double notch 3; Denticulate 1; Borer 8; Awl 8; Backed knife 1; Re-touched flake 20; Retouched blade 5; Backed blade 4; Truncation on flake 3; Varia 6. Total of tools and retouched arti-facts – 192. Total of flint artifacts – 903. Discussion: Most of the tools, cores and the waste materials are from gray and

682

APPENDIX A

brown coloured dark flint. The di-mensions of these dark artifacts are in most cases small and the cores are exhausted. A similar phenom-enon was observed at other EpiPalaeolithic sites in the area such as Khirbet Malih (C). The larger artifacts were prepared mostly from light-coloured flint and apparently belong to the later phases of the site. An investigation of the sources of raw flint is beyond the scope of

this study. The division of the artifacts in the assemblage points to human presence at the site during four preand proto-historic periods: The earliest, represented by the majority of the artifacts, is the EpiPalaeolithic Period. The relatively small number of microlithes in the assemblage was caused by the difficulty in locating such small

568. Khirbet el-Meiyiteh: 1-2. Bladelet core; 3-4. Microburin; 5. Arch-backed micro-lithe; 6. Obliquely truncated microlithe; 7. Triangle; 8-9. Backed lunate; 10. Double burin; 11. Angled burin; 12. Thumbnail scraper; 13. Raclette–Burin; 14. Burin–scraper; 15. Narrow, carinated scraper; 16. Double end scraper; 17. End scraper.

FLINT FINDS

artifacts in a surface survey. Nev-ertheless, the bladelet cores, small waste materials, microburins, end scrapers, narrow carinated scrapers, burins and microlithes including lunates and a triangle point clearly to the Natufian phase of the period. The abrupt backed, narrow lunates and the triangle indicate perhaps

683

the Late Natufian (Bar-Yosef and Valla 1979), similarly to Einan Ic (Valla 1984), Har Horsha (Marks and Larson 1977) and Rosh Zin (Henry 1976). The large assem-blage, including all the components – exhausted cores, primary flakes, industrial waste and a large variety of shaped tools – point to rather in--

569. Khirbet el-Meiyiteh: 1. Reaping knife with tang; 2. Borer; 3, 5. Backed knife; 4. Fragment of reaping knife with tang; 6-7. Cananean sickle blade. 8. Cananean blade.

684

APPENDIX A

tensive activities at the site, either as a repeatedly visited campsite or as a base camp. The location of the site, on a terrace above a still flow-ing spring, similar to many other sites of this period, supports this as-sumption. The Pre Pottery Neolithic B Pe-riod is apparently represented by tanged reaping knives. These tools may be considered as type fossils (Crowfoot-Payne 1983; Gopher 1989a). The artifacts were prepared from light coloured flint, and possi-bly some of the scrapers and burins prepared from the same flint also belong to this period. The relatively small number of indicative artifacts point to a low level of activities dur-ing this period. The Chalcolithic Period is repre--

sented by the backed and truncated sickle blades and the coarse borers (Lee 1973; Levy and Rosen 1987). The backed knife reappears during the Pottery Neolithic Period (Go-pher 1989a) but here it apparently belongs to the Chalcolithic. This assumption is supported by the fact that no other flint or pottery arti-facts which could be attributed to the Pottery Neolithic Period were found. The scarcity of Chalcolithic artifacts points to a low level of ac-tivity during this period. Cananean blades are type fossils indicating either the Early Bronze Age or Middle Bronze Age I. The pottery assemblage of the site was attributed to the latter and the Cananean sickle blades should be attributed similarly.

 Site no. 94

Khirbet Malih (C) Isr. Grid Ref. 1957/1930

The flint assemblage: Epi-Palaeolithic Period – the Geo-metric Kebaran Culture (main part of the assemblage) – highly reason-able identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake core 3; Bladelet core 10; CTE 3; Primary flake 17; Ridge blade 2; Flake 131; Blade 5; Blade fragment 23; Bladelet 26; Bladelet fragment

95; Burin spall 7; Chunk 47; Chip 129. Total – 498. Tools and retouched artifacts: Scrapers: Core scraper 4; Thumb-nail scraper 2; End scraper on blade 3; Double end scraper on blade 1; End scraper on retouched blade 2; End scraper on truncation 2; Nosed end scraper, wide 4; Nosed end scraper, narrow 1; End scraper on notched piece 1; Side scraper 1.

FLINT FINDS

Scrapers total – 22. Burins: Dihedral 2; Angled dihe-dral 1; On natural pan 7; Dihedral double 1; On concave truncation 1; On concave truncation, double 1; Flat faced 3. Burins total – 16. Microlithes: Falita point 1; Bladelet – partially retouched 2; Bladelet – retouched (fragment) 1; Blade-let – ventrally retouched 1; Blade-let – backed (fragment) 3; Bladelet – backed with notch (fragment) 1; Bladelet – narrow, obliquely trun-cated 3; Bladelet – broad, obliquely truncated 4; Bladelet – narrow, arch backed (fragment) 1; Bladelet – broad, arch backed 3; Bladelet with bilateral abrupt retouch (frag-ment) 1. Microlithes total – 21. Geometric Microlithes: Proto rect-angle 1; Rectangle 4; Rectangle/ Trapeze (fragment) 5; Asymmetric trapeze 1; Trapeze 3. Geometric microlithes total – 14. Notch 16; Truncation 10; Plane on flake 1; Burin-scraper 2; Re-touched blade 12; Retouched blade (fragment) 4; Twisted arch backed blade 3; Obliquely truncated blade 2; Cananean blade (fragment) 2; Fan scraper (fragment) 2; Borer 3; Varia 5. Total of tools and retouched arti-facts – 135. Total of flint artifacts – 633. Remark: A small part of the assemblage seems intrusive. The Cananean blades and

685

the fan scrapers apparently origi-nate from the Bronze Age. Discussion: The site is located on the northern bank, about 15 m above and 150 m from the river bed of Wadi elMalih on a small hillock, in the close vicinity of a fresh water spring which still serves the local popula-tion. The border of the site to the north is a small ravine and a road. At this section the river is perennial most years, but its water, originating from springs to the west, is too sa-line today for human purposes. On top of the hillock a few un-hewn stones protruded from the ground indicating a stone structure. The total absence of pottery and the scarcity of late flint tools do not al-low conclusions about the character of this architecture without excava-tion. Most artifacts were found on top of the hillock (15 m X 20 m). On the slopes there were fewer and fewer pieces and on foot of the hill-ock no flint artifacts were found, probably as the result of erosion. A similar phenomenon was observed at the Natufian site of Khirbet elMeiyiteh, about 1 km upstream to the west. The relatively large number of bl-adelet cores, the presence of many bladelets and bladelet fragments, up to 40% of the unretouched artifacts, pointed to a microlithic industry of the Epi-Palaeolithic Period. In or-der to define to which stage of the Epi-Palaeolithic the site should be

686

APPENDIX A

attributed a short comparison to contemporaneous sites was carried out and a close similarity to Geo-metric Kebaran assemblages, mainly from the coastal plain was observed (Bar-Yosef 1970, 179); the data are given in Table 1. The comparison was carried out in accordance with the type list of Bar-Yosef (1970); intrusive artifacts were excluded. The comparison to Neveh Da-vid, Negev and Sinai sites shows a similarity of tool types but not of their relative share in the assem-blages. The phenomenon could be caused by the difference in collect-ing techniques or by environmental reasons. In regularly excavated sites, the excavated earth is sieved or wet sieved and the share of recovered microlithes in the assemblage in-creases remarkably (Table 2). Typi-cal Kebaran artifacts, such as elon-gated, backed, obliquely truncated bladelets and arch-backed elongated bladelets are nearly completely ab-sent. Similarly, lunates and microburins typical to the later Natufian were not found. Rectangles and trapezes were the most numerous pieces among the microlithes and these are typical to the Geometric Kebaran. The character of the assemblage indicates that the source of raw flint was quite distant. Exhausted cores, the rarity of primary flakes and CTE, indicate that the initial stage of core preparation was executed elsewhere while the abundance of

flakes, chunks and chips proves that the final stages of tool preparation was carried out at the site. The lo-cation of the site on a hillock high above the bank of the riverbed and the ravine to the north proves that the assemblage was in situ. The set-ting on a terrace above a riverbed is similar to other sites of the period: Neveh David, Nahal Zin sites, and other sites in Wadi el- Malih and Wadi Far‘ah in this survey. The area of the site (about 300 sq. m) is close to the area of other open air sites of the period – up to 200 sq. m. (Bar-Yosef 1970) and as reported in later publications about temporary sites – up to 400 sq. m (Bar-Yosef 1981; Kaufman 1992, 178). This is in accordance with the division of the sites of this period to small, temporary camp sites as op-posed to large base sites covering an area of 1000-1500 sq. m (Ronen et al. 1975; Kaufman 1986, 1989). Conclusions: The site of Khirbet Malih (C) should be attributed to the Geometric Ke-baran phase of the Epi-Palaeolithic Period and the assemblage seems to be in situ. The composition of the assemblage is in accordance with the composition of other surface collections, as opposed to assem-blages from excavated and sieved sites with different percentages of artifacts. The size and location of the site point to a seasonal or tem-porary camp site. Only an excava-tion could define the depth of the

FLINT FINDS

flint-bearing horizon and the char--

687

acter of the stone structures.

Khirbet Malih (C)

Geometric Kebaran A

The artifacts

N

%

%

Scrapers Carinated and Nucleiform (core) scrapers Burins

12

9.8

9.6 – 26.2

9

7.3

16

13.0

Non geometric microlithes

21

17.0

3.3 – 8.4 2.9 -5.6 (23.5) 18.7 – 46.3

Geometric microlithes

14

11.4

4.5 – 15.9

Notches

16

13.0

3 – 17

Borers

0

0

0

Table 1: Comparison of percentages of main tool categories from Khirbet Malih (C) to the range of percentages in other sites of the Geometric Kebaran A phase (Bar-Yosef 1970, 179).

Khirbet Malih (C)

Neveh Ma‘aleh Nahal Zin - D5 David Zik

The artifacts

N

%

%

%

%

Scrapers

21

17.0

8.35

3.1

10.6

Burins

16

13.0

5.88

0.1

1.5

Truncations

10

8.1

1.55

9.0

8.5

Microlithes

21

17.0

18.26

34.7

20.5

Geometric microlithes

14

11.4

55.72

47.6

38.2

Notches

16

13.0

4.02

3.2

13.7

Table 2: Comparison of percentages of main tool categories from Khirbet Malih (C) to three excavated sites: Neveh David – Kaufman, 1987; Ma‘aleh Zik – Goring Morris, 1978; Nahal Zin - D5 – Marks, 1976.

688

APPENDIX A

570. Khirbet Malih (C): 1-2. Bladelet core; 6-7, 9-10, 12. Rectangle; 4, 8, 13. Trapeze; 15. Asymmetric trapeze; 5, 11, 14. Rectangle/ Trapeze (fragments); 16, 24. Arch-backed bladelet; 17-21. Obliquely truncated bladelet; 22. Ventrally retouched bladelet; 23. Par-tially retouched bladelet; 25. Falita point (fragment); 26. Double dihedral burin; 27. Angled dihedral burin; 28-29. Burin on concave truncation; 30. Flat faced burin; 31. Double end scraper; 32. Thumbnail scraper; 33. End scraper on snapped blade; 34. Nu-cleiform (core) scraper; 35-36. Carinated end scraper.

FLINT FINDS

689

Site no. 99

Qta‘at el-Khalifeh Isr. Grid Ref. 1912/1913

The flint assemblage: Chalcolithic Period – Reasonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake 1; Blade (fragment) 1. Total – 2. Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed and bi-truncated sickle blade 1; Bilateral denticulate 1.

Total – 2. Total of flint artifacts – 4. Discussion: The assemblage is very small but the presence of the backed and bitruncated sickle blade (Lee 1973, 250; Type E – Gopher 1989a, 95) points to the Chalcolithic Period. This is in accordance with the pot-tery findings attributed entirely to this period.

571. Qta‘at el-Khalifeh: 1. Sickle blade; 2. Bilateral denticulate.

 Site no. 134

Ro‘i (1) Isr. Grid Ref. 1964/1846

The flint assemblage: Chalcolithic Period – possible iden-tification. Artifacts without retouch and waste:

Primary flake 2; Flake 4. Total – 6. Tools and retouched artifacts: End scraper 1; Double end scraper 1; Side scraper (fragment) 1; Fan

APPENDIX A

690

scraper (fragment)? 1; Notch 3; Re-touched flake 2; Retouched blade 2; Backed knife 1. Total – 12. Total of flint artifacts – 18. Discussion: Despite the fact that the assemblage does not contain specific Chalco--

lithic artifacts, no artifacts indicat-ing a different period were present. The fragment of the fan scraper, the backed knife and the pottery find-ings support the assumption that the site should be attributed to the Chalcolithic Period.

572. 1. Backed knife; 2. Double end scraper; 3. End notch.

 Site no. 144

Khirbet Umm Kharaz Isr. Grid Ref. 1980/1781

See Ras el-Kharube sites – Kh. I be-low.

 Site no. 145

Abu Loz Isr. Grid Ref. 1841/1881

The flint assemblage: Lower Palaeolithic Period ? –– pos-sible identification (a single arti-fact). The other artifact was not

defined. Tools and retouched artifacts: Sickle blade (fragment) 1; Bifacial hand axe 1. Total – 2.

FLINT FINDS

Discussion: Two artifacts are not sufficient in order to define a site. The bro-ken sickle blade could be the tip of a Neolithic reaping knife or of a Cananean blade with a sporadic burin scar. The Ovoid hand axe (Bordes 1961) was produced from a flint cobble. Such hand axes are 27% of the Ma‘ayan Barukh assem-blage from the Lower Palaeolithic Period (Stekelis and Gilead 1966,

691

15). Similarly to our specimen the cortex on many of these artifacts remained preserved (Gilead 1970). To some extent similar tools reap-pear during the Neolithic (Olami 1984, 139, 151-152), but most of these tools show signs of battering and use wear on the circumference. In face of the fact that no further evidence for the Lower Palaeolithic Period in the studied area was re-ported, the attribution of the tool to this period is uncertain.

573. Abu Loz: 1. Ovoid hand axe ?, Axe? 2. Sickle blade (fragment).

692

APPENDIX A

Site no. 169

Khirbet ‘Ain Farr Isr. Grid Ref. 1855/1829

The flint assemblage: Chalcolithic Period – possible iden-tification. Early Bronze Age – highly reason-able identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake 5; Blade 1; Bladelet (frag-ment) 2; Chip 1. Total – 9. Tools and retouched artifacts: Cananean sickle blade 5; Cananean blade (fragment) 1; End scraper on flake 3; End scraper on blade 2; Double end scraper on flake 1; Shouldered end scraper on flake 1; Converging scraper on flake 1; Notch 2; Denticulate 1; Awl 1;

Borer 1; Retouched flake 5; Re-touched blade 1; Core with second-ary retouch 1. Total – 26. Total of flint artifacts – 35. Discussion: The Cananean blades and sickle blades are type fossils of the Early Bronze Age (and Middle Bronze Age I as well; Rosen 1989, 214215). Thirty percent of the pottery findings at the site were attributed to the Early Bronze Age and also a part of the flint assemblage is similarly attributed. About half of the pottery was attributed to the Chalcolithic but no prominent tools which could be attributed de--

574. Khirbet ‘Ain Farr: 1. Double end scraper; 2. End scraper; 3. Converging scraper; 4. Awl; 5. Borer; 6. Shouldered end scraper; 7-8. Cananean sickle blade.

FLINT FINDS

finitively to this period were found (such as adzes, axes and character-istic sickle blades). The scrapers, the notches and the borer could be

693

from any of these periods. It is quite difficult to find any differences be-tween ad hoc tools of both periods.

 Site no. 178

Jelamet el-Ahmar (A) Isr. Grid Ref. 1898/1814

The flint assemblage: Pottery Neolithic Period – highly reasonable identification. Early Bronze Age – highly reason-able identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake core 1; Primary flake 13; Flake 11; Blade 4; Blade (fragment) 4; Chunk 9; Chip 2. Total – 44. Tools and retouched artifacts: Arrowhead, type Byblos (pressure flaking) 1; Arrowhead, type Amuq 1; Backed and bi-truncated sickle blade 2; Cananean sickle blade 6; Bifacial tool (fragment) 1; End scraper on flake 2; Nucleiform (core) scraper 1; Side scraper 1; Di-hedral burin on flake 1; Flat faced burin on flake 1; Angled burin on primary flake 1; Tanged dihedral burin 1; Backed and truncated bladelet 4; Notch 8; Denticulate 2; Awl 3; Borer (fragment) 1; Re-touched flake 4; Retouched blade 7; Cananean blade (fragment) 2; Truncation 4. Total – 54.

Total of flint artifacts – 98. Discussion: The Cananean sickle blade is a prominent marker of the Early Bronze Age. Backed and truncated sickle blades, and in the Negev re-touched bladelets, as well, still pre-vailed to some extent during this period (Schick 1978; Rosen 1989). Apparently a part of the flint as-semblage has to be attributed to the Early Bronze Age, similarly to the main part of the pottery findings. Arrowheads of Byblos and Amuq types are attributed mainly to the late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Pe-riod or early Pottery Neolithic Pe-riod (Stekelis 1966; Gopher 1981, 1985). The partial pressure flaking on the Byblos point serves as a fur-ther chronological indication for the period. The presence of burins during the Pottery Neolithic Period as documented at Sha’ar Hagolan (Steckelis 1966), seems to confirm that the other part of the assem-blage originates from this period. The pottery findings from this pe--

694

APPENDIX A

riod at the site consolidate this dat-ing. The absence of typical axes and sickle blades does not contradict

this assumption (see also site 179 – Jelamet el-Ahmar (B).

575. Jelamet el-Ahmar (A): 1. Arrowhead type Amuq; 2. Arrowhead type Byblos; 3. Angled burin; 4. Bi-facial tool (fragment); 5-6. Cananean sickle blade; 7. Backed and bitruncated sickle blade; 8. End scraper; 9. Backed and truncated bladelet.

 Site no. 179

Jelamet el-Ahmar (B) Isr. Grid Ref. 1893/1815

The flint assemblage: Pottery Neolithic Period (main part of the assemblage) – highly reason-able identification. Chalcolithic Period (part of the as-semblage) – reasonable identifica-tion. Early Bronze Age (part of the as--

semblage) – reasonable identifica-tion. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake core 7; Primary flake 4; Flake 14; Blade 9; Blade (fragment) 5; Chunk 7; Spherical hammerstone 4. Total – 50.

FLINT FINDS

Tools and retouched artifacts: Arrowhead, type Byblos 1; Arrow-head, type Amuq (pressure flaking) 1; Sickle blade with coarse bifcial denticulation 2; Sickle blade with coarse bifcial denticulation (frag-ment) 1; Truncated Cananean sick-le blade 1; Thin axe with lentoid cross-section 2; Axe with polished cutting edge 2; Coarse massive axe 1; Axe (fragment) 1; Unfinished bifacial tool 1; End scraper 2; Nu-cleiform (core) scraper 1; Scraper on polished axe fragment 1; Side scraper 1; Dihedral burin on blade 2; Angled dihedral burin on flake 3; Notch 10; Double Notch 1; Den-ticulate on primary flake 2; Awl 3; Retouched flake 4; Retouched blade 2. Total – 46. Total of flint artifacts – 96. The stone tool assemblage:

695

Basalt pebble (similar to a female sex organ) 1; Sandstone shaft sharp-ener 1; Small cup mark on a lime-stone pebble 1; Coarse limestone adze (hoe?) 2. Total – 5. Discussion: The Cananean sickle blade and probably some other tools should be attributed to the Early Bronze Age, similarly to 40% of the pot-tery assemblage. No type fossils from the Chalco-lithic Period (30% of the pottery) were found, but apparently the coarse adzes (or hoes) and some of the scrapers and notches could be attributed to this period. Most flint and stone artifacts should be attributed to the Neo-lithic Period. Arrowheads of Byb-los and Amuq types with pressure flaking and thin axes with a lentoid

576. Jelamet el-Ahmar (B): 1-2. Axe; 3. Arrowhead type Byblos (fragment); 4. Arrowhead type Amuq; 5. Sickle blade with bifacial denticulation; 6. Cananean sickle blade.

696

APPENDIX A

cross-section are definitely attrib-uted to late Pre Pottery Neolithic entities and continue to the Pot-tery Neolithic. The sickle blades with deep bifacial denticulation also originate from this period, e.g. Sha’ar Hagolan (Stekelis 1966); Nitzanim (Yeivin and Olami 1979); Giv‘at Haparsa (Olami et al. 1977); Munhata 2b (Gopher 1989a). The fact that burins, which are scarce in later periods, are documented at Sha’ar Hagolan as well, seems to confirm that the main part of the assemblage has to be attributed to this period. The fact that 30% of the pottery also originates from this period supports this assumption. The stone artifacts provide fur-ther evidence. The female sex or-gan like basalt pebble is present

at Sha’ar Hagolan (Stekelis 1966) and small cup-marks on limestone pebbles start early in the Neolithic but continue also to the later stages (Stekelis 1966; Noy 1981, 8-9). At site 178 – Jelamet el-Ahmar (A), located about 1 km to the southeast a similar Neolithic as-semblage was found. The main differences between the sites are that at site 178 the majority of the pottery originates from the Early Bronze Age, only 5% of the shards were Neolithic and no typical sickle blades were present. At Jelamet elAhmar (B) the presence of both Neolithic flint and pottery assem-blages is considerable. A discussion about a possible connection be-tween the two sites is beyond the scope of this study.

577. Jelamet el-Ahmar (B) – stone artifacts: 1. Basalt pebble (similar to a female sex or-gan); 2. Sandstone shaft sharpener; 3. Small cup mark on a limestone pebble.

FLINT FINDS

697

Site no. 182

Mughur ‘Id Isr. Grid Ref. 1861/1810

The flint assemblage: Early Bronze Age 1 – highly reason-able identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Primary flake 1. Tools and retouched artifacts: Cananean sickle blade 2; Backed Cananean blade 1.

Total of flint artifacts – 4. Discussion: The small flint assemblage is in full accordance with the pottery find-ing attributed to Early Bronze Age I. Attention should be paid to the fact that the Cananean elements are quite narrow (see also the general remarks on flint findings above).

578. Mughur ‘Id: 1-2. Cananean sickle blade; 3. Backed Cananean blade.

 Site no. 183

Tel Za‘anuni Isr. Grid Ref. 1866/1802

The flint assemblage: Early Bronze Age – highly reason-able identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: CTE 1; Flake 3. Total – 4. Tools and retouched artifacts:

Cananean sickle blade 2; Fan scrap-er (fragment) 1; Double notch 2. Total – 5. Total of flint artifacts – 9. Discussion: The Cananean sickle blades and the fan scraper on tabular flint with

APPENDIX A

698

semi-abrupt retouch are promi-nent tools of the Early Bronze Age (Schick 1978; Rosen 1983, 1989).

The dating of the flint findings is in full accordance with that of the pottery assemblage.

579. Tel Za‘anuni: 1-2. Cananean sickle blade; 3. Fan scraper (fragment).

 Site no. 185

Jelamet el-Ahmar (C) Isr. Grid Ref. 1898/1809

The flint assemblage: Epi-Palaeolithic Period, the Geo-metric Kebaran phase – highly rea-sonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Bladelet core 1; Primary flake 3; Flake 18; Blade 2; Blade (fragment) 2; Bladelet 6; Bladelet (fragment) 12; Burin spall 1; Chunk 25; Chip 43. Total – 113. Tools and retouched artifacts: Scrapers: End scraper on flake 1; Carinated end scraper on primary flake 2; Carinated end scraper on flake 2; Nucleiform (core) scraper 1; End scraper on snapped blade-let 2; Thumbnail scraper 1. Total

scrapers – 9. Burins: Angled, dihedral 1; On pri-mary flake 1. Total burins – 2. Microlithes: Obliquely truncated bladelet 4; Obliquely truncated bl-adelet (fragment) 5; Retouched bladelet (fragment) 6; Backed bladelet (fragment) 2; Arch-backed bladelet 2. Total mi-crolithes – 18. Geometric Microlithes: Rectangle 3; Trapeze 4; Rectangle/Trapeze (fragment) 9; Total geometric mi-crolithes – 16. Notch 16; Denticulate 5; Borer 4; Awl 3; Truncation 8; Retouched flake 17; Retouched blade 1; Varia 2. Total tools and retouched arti--

FLINT FINDS

facts – 100. Total of flint artifacts – 213. Discussion: The location of the site on a hill above a stream is similar to many other Epi-Palaeolithic sites, some of them in the surveyed area: ‘Iraq el-Hamra in the close vicinity and Khirbet el-Meiyiteh and Khirbet Malih (C) in Wadi Malih. Wadi Far‘ah, to the north of the site, is a perennial stream until present times and to the south, close to the site according to the topography, there

699

were apparently some other springs flowing into Wadi Far‘ah. The flint assemblage – contain-ing various types of scrapers, burins, microlithes and geometric micro-lithes – point to the Epi-Palaeolith-ic Period generally. The microlithes of the rectangle/trapeze group indi-cate the Geometric Kebaran phase. According to the quantity and the dispersal of the artifacts, it was a seasonal or temporary campsite (see also site 94 Khirbet Malih (C) for a detailed discussion).

580. Jelamet el-Ahmar (C): 1-2. Obliquely truncated artifact; 3. Arch-backed bladelet; 4. Rectangle; 5-6. Trapeze; 7. Backed bladelet (fragment); 8. Double notch; 9. Double end scraper; 10. Carinated end scraper; 11. End scraper on snapped blade; 12. Thumbnail scraper; 13. Nucleiform (core) scraper; 14. Angled burin; 15. Flat faced burin.

700

APPENDIX A

Site no. 189

‘Iraq el-Hamra Isr. Grid Ref. 1902/1800

Area A – The top of the hill and the southwestern slope The flint assemblage: Epi-Palaeolithic Period, the Natu-fian culture – highly reasonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Cores: Flake core 2; Blade core 2; Bladelet/flake core 2; Bladelet core 7. Total cores – 13. CTE 20; Primary flake 48; Flake 134; Blade 5; Bladelet 19; Blade-let (fragment) 55; Burin spall 6; Chunk 75; Chip 63. Total of ar-tifacts without retouch and waste – 438. Microburin 9. Tools and retouched artifacts: Scrapers: End scraper on flake 9; Carinated end scraper 4; End scraper on blade 2; End scraper on snapped blade 6; De’ete scraper on blade 1; De’ete scraper on flake 3; End scraper on bladelet 4; Nucleiform (core) scraper 3; Thumbnail scraper 11; Double end scraper on flake 2; Nosed end scraper on flake 2; Nar-row carinated end scraper 1; Microend scraper 2; Transversal scraper 1. Total scrapers – 51. Burins: Dihedral 1; Angled dihe-dral 4; Double angled dihedral 2; Flat faced 1; On natural pan 3; On

straight truncation 1; On concave truncation 1; Transversal 5; Burinscraper 1. Total burins – 19. Microlithes: Retouched bladelet 4; Retouched bladelet (fragment) 6; Backed bladelet 2; Backed bladelet (fragment) 5; Obliquely truncated bladelet 5; Obliquely truncated bl-adelet (fragment) 4; Arch-backed bladelet 2; Ramon point 2; Trun-cated bladelet 1; Truncated bladelet (fragment) 2; Bi-truncated bladelet 1. Total microlithes – 34. Geometric Microlithes: Proto rect-angle 1; Rectangle 2; Rectangle/ Trapeze (fragment) 1; Asymmetric trapeze 1; Lunate 2; Hiluwan lu-nate 2. Total geometric microlithes – 9. Notch 72; Denticulate 5; Awl 10; Retouched flake 75; Backed or retouched blade 20; Truncation 6; Varia 6. Total of tools and re-touched artifacts – 310. Area A: Total of flint artifacts – 757. Area B – The western slope The flint assemblage: Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age – highly reasonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste:

FLINT FINDS

Flake core 1; Primary flake 3; Flake 4; Blade 1; Blade (fragment) 3. To-tal – 12. Tools and retouched artifacts:

701

Sickle blades: Backed, bi-truncated with fine retouch on the cutting edge 1; Backed and bi-truncated 2; Naturally backed and truncated 1; Cananean (fragment) 4. Total

581. ‘Iraq el-Hamra – Area A: 1. Core; 2-3. Bladelet core; 4-5. Microburin; 6-9. Oblique-ly truncated piece; 10-11, 13. Arch backed piece; 12. Ramon point; 14. Rectangle; 15. Trapeze; 16-17. Lunate with abrupt backing; 18-19. Heluwan lunate; 20. Thumbnail scraper; 21. Micro-end scraper; 22-23. Carinated end scraper; 24. End scraper; 25-27. Angled burin.

702

APPENDIX A

sickle blades – 8. Adze 1; End scraper on flake 1; Nucleiform (core) scraper 1; Side scraper 1; Bilateral side scraper 1; Fan scraper 1; Burin on flake 1; Notch on flake 2; Denticulate 4; Borer 4; Retouched flake 2; Backed knife 4; Backed knife (fragment) 2; Retouched blade (fragment) 2. To-tal of tools and retouched artifacts – 36. Area B: Total of flint artifacts – 48. Total of flint artifacts from both ar-eas – 805. Discussion: At this site a relatively large quan-tity of flint artifacts was collected, mainly at the top of the hill, about 100 m from the round structure at the summit, and on the south-western slope (area A). The area to the north and the eastern range are nearly bare of flint artifacts. On the western slope (area B), a smaller as-semblage of different character was collected (see further on). The material from area A is char-acterized by dark coloured flint in brown, gray and black shadings and the dimensions of both waste materials and tools are small. Waste materials include primary flakes, abundant flakes, bladelets and mi-croburins as well. The tool group includes various types of scrap-ers, burins, microlithes, lunates and geometric microlithes. This composition is in accordance with Natufian assemblages. The lunate

and microburin were prominent types during this period. It is quite difficult to compare the relative fig-ures of artifacts to the material from excavated and wet or dry sieved sites (Bar-Yosef and Goren 1973, 56) because assemblages from these sites contain large numbers of small pieces and microlithes. The fact that the assemblage con-tains all the components of an in-dustry – exhausted cores, primary flakes, CTE, flakes, blades, indus-trial waste and various tool groups – indicates rather intensive activi-ties at the site. However, further re-search is needed in order to find out whether it was a base camp or a site for repeated or seasonal camping. The location of the site, close to a perennial stream (Wadi Far‘ah) is in accordance with many other sites of the period located near water sourc-es and streams, e.g., Nahal Oren (Steckelis and Yisraely 1963; Noy et al. 1973), Einan (Perrot 1960), Poleg 18M (Burian and Friedman 1965; Bar-Yosef 1970) and Khir-bet el-Meiyiteh (site no. 90 in this volume). There is some difficulty in locating the site within the chrono-logical sequence of the Natufian complex according to surface finds. Our tendency is to attribute the site to the earlier Natufian because of the relative width of the lunates and the presence of Heluwan re-touch on two of them. This type of lunates is similar to Einan IVa (Valla 1984), el-Wad B2 (Garrod

FLINT FINDS

and Bate 1937, 30-35) and differ-ent from later lunates – small, nar-row and backed – similar to these from Einan C1 (Valla 1984), Rosh Horesha (Marks and Larson 1977) and Rosh Zin (Henry 1976). The material recovered from the western slope, area B, is completely different from the material recov-ered from area A. Most artifacts are larger, from light coloured or calcar-eous flint. Some of the artifacts are

703

covered by a thick, white patina as visible on broken pieces. The mod-est number of artifacts and scarcity of cores and primary elements ap-parently indicate that at this loca-tion no regular flaking process was carried out. The adze, the backed sickle blades with double trunca-tions and fine retouch of the cut-ting edge are prominent tools of the Chalcolithic. Adzes with a cutting edge prepared by a single blow are

582. ‘Iraq el-Hamrah – Area B: 1. Adze; 2. Side scraper; 3. Carinated end scraper; 4. Borer; 5. Fan scraper; 6-7. Backed and bi-truncated sickle blade; 8-9. Cananean sickle blade; 10. Cananean blade.

APPENDIX A

704

not very common in the Chalco-lithic, but they are present at Beer Sheva site Bir Abu Matar (Rosen, personal information). Type fossils for the Early Bronze Age are Cana-nean sickle blades; probably the fan scraper with cortex and semi-abrupt retouch should also be attributed to this period. The artifacts recovered from the western slope testify to a human

presence of undefined character at this location during the Chalcolith-ic and Early Bronze Age. No connection of the stone struc-tures on the summit and the south-western slope to the Natufian could be found. The few pottery shards from the western slope apparently belong to the Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age.

 Site no. 191

Mrah el-‘Enab Isr. Grid Ref. 1928/1789

The flint assemblage: Iron Age (part of the artifacts) – Reasonable identification. The artifacts: Blade (fragment) 1; Geometric sick-le segment 2; Ventrally retouched bladelet 1; Denticulate on flake 1. Total – 5.

Discussion: The few artifacts do not supply sound evidence for the period. The large geometric sickle segments were in use from Middle Bronze Age II till the end of the Iron Age (Rosen 1982, 1986) but according to the pottery finds they should be attributed to the Iron Age.

583. Mrah el-‘Enab: 1-2. Large geometric sickle segment.

FLINT FINDS

705

Site no. 197

Bab ed-Dayyq Isr. Grid Ref. 1936/1759

The flint assemblage: Undefined. Tools and retouched artifacts: Adze? End scraper? 1; Denticulat-ed end scraper on primary flake 1; End scraper on flake 1; Transver-sal scraper on primary flake 1; Side scraper on primary flake 1; Notch 2; Double notch on fragment of sickle segment 1; Naturally backed knife with alternate retouch 1. Total of flint artifacts – 9.

Discussion: Most flint artifacts were from light coloured material characteristic of the later periods in this area. The majority was prepared from pri-mary elements and generally the ad hoc character is obvious. The tool with the convex ventral face was produced from a large primary blade with a large portion of cortex on the dorsal face and it could be defined either as an adze or as an end scraper. The fragment of the

584. Bab ed-Dayyq: 1. Adze? End scraper? 2. End scraper; 3. Transversal scraper; 4. Natu-rally backed knife.

706

APPENDIX A

sickle segment with two notches could not be attributed to a definite period. About 20% of the pottery finds are from the Early Bronze Age but the absence of type fossils does

not allow a reasonable definition. To some extent it seems reasonable to attribute the assemblage to the Chalcolithic or the Early Bronze Age.

 Site no. 217

Khallet el-Khanakhneh (A) Isr. Grid Ref. 1959/1769

see Ras el-Kharube sites – Kh. III below.

 Site no. 219

Ras Umm Khubezah Isr. Grid Ref. 1977/1773

The flint assemblage: Epi-Palaeolithic Period, the Natu-fian culture – possible identifica-tion. The Neolithic Period – reasonable identification. The Chalcolithic Period – reason-able identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Bladelet core 2; CTE 1; Primary flake 2; Flake 4; Blade 6; Bladelet 2. Total – 17. Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed and truncated sickle blade with retouched cutting edge 1;

Backed sickle blade with worn cut-ting edge 1; Reaping knife 1; Reap-ing knife with burin blow (frag-ment) 1; Geometric sickle segment ? 1; Polished axe (fragment) 1; End scraper 4; Nucleiform (core) scrap-er 1; Dihedral angled burin 1; Flat faced burin 1; Notch 6; Double notch 2; Denticulate 4; Awl 7; Bor-er 2; Retouched flake 3; Retouched blade 5; Truncation 2. Total – 44. Total of flint artifacts – 61. Discussion: The assemblage represents a quite complicated picture as type fossils from different periods were recov-ered:

FLINT FINDS

Without excavations and sieving it is quite difficult to find small mi-crolithes, but the bladelet cores, the nucleiform scraper on an exhausted bladelet core, end scrapers and bu-rins point to an Epi-Palaeolithic en-tity. The backed sickle blade with a damaged cutting edge shows simi-larity to sickle blades recovered at many Natufian sites, e.g. el-Wad

707

B2, Kebara B, Einan B1 (after Valla 1984, 248-251, 302-303); Salibiya 1 (Crabtree and Campana 1990, 113) and could serve as a marker of the Natufian culture. The reaping knives with re-touched cutting edge and proximal retouched tang point to the Neo-lithic Period – probably Pre Pottery B (Noy et al. 1983, 86-87; Gopher

585. Ras Umm Khubezah: 1. Bladelet core; 2. Angled burin; 3. Nucleiform (core) scrap-er; 4. End scraper; 5. Carinated end scraper; 6. Backed sickle blade (Natufian?); 7. Flat faced burin on notched flake; 8. Polished axe (fragment); 9-10. Borer; 11. Reaping knife (fragment) with burin blow; 12. Backed and truncated sickle blade; 13. Geometric sickle segment ?.

708

APPENDIX A

1989a, 50-64). The Chalcolithic Period is rep-resented by the polished axe, the backed and truncated sickle blade with a retouched cutting edge and probably also the borers (Yeivin 1958; Hennessey 1969; Lee 1973; Levi and Rosen 1987). At this stage there is no explanation for the ab-sence of Chalcolithic pottery at the site. The large geometric sickle seg-ment could be attributed to later periods – from Middle Bronze Age II until the Iron Age (Rosen 1982, 142; 1983, 127). About 30% of the

pottery, at the site, was attributed to each of these periods; therefore it is impossible to attribute the sickle definitely to any of them. The bi-lateral sickle sheen on a geometric sickle segment is exceptional and possibly the tool was prepared from the distal end of a Cananean sickle blade. Similarly to other sites in the re-gion, the artifacts attributed to the later periods are of light coloured flint, while these attributed to the Natufian are smaller in size and of dark, gray shaded flint.

 Site no. 225

el-‘Alam (A) Isr. Grid Ref. 1951/1755

The flint assemblage: Early Bronze Age – Reasonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Primary flake 1; Blade 3; Blade (fragment) 3. Total – 7. Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed sickle blade with fine re-touch on cutting edge 1; End scrap-er 3; Double carinated end scraper 1; Side scraper 1; Notch 1; Notch on backed blade 1; Double notch on retouched flake 1; Double notch on retouched blade 2; Awl 1; Re--

touched blade 1. Total – 13. Total of flint artifacts – 20. Discussion: Backed sickle blades with fine re-touch on the cutting edge are usu-ally attributed to the Chalcolithic (Burian and Friedman 1979; Rosen 1983, 127, 132) but no definite conclusions should be drawn from a single artifact. The absence of bifacial tools such as axes and adzes, present in most assemblages from this period, supports the assump-tion that the assemblage is not Chal-colithic. At Bab edh-Dhra, about 55 km to the south, most sickle

FLINT FINDS

blades from the Early Bronze Age were backed (McConaughy 1979). In Gamla too, backed sickle blades from this period were recovered (Olami 1989). The composition of the assemblage (scrapers, notches, mainly ad hoc tools) comply with

709

Early Bronze Age findings, even though type fossils such as Cananean blades and fan scrapers were miss-ing. Half of the pottery finds were attributed to this age and it seems reasonable that the flint should be attributed similarly.

586. el-‘Alam (A): 1-2. End scraper; 3. Double carinated scraper; 4. Awl; 5. Backed sickle blade.

 Site no. 230

‘Ain el-Hilu (B) Isr. Grid Ref. 1981/1922

The flint assemblage: Chalcolithic Period (main part of the assemblage) – highly reasonable identification. Undefined (few artifacts). Artifacts without retouch and waste: Pyramidal bladelet core 1; Flake 1; Blade 2; Blade (fragment) 1. Total – 5. Tools and retouched artifacts:

Polished adze 1; Adze (atypical on flake) 1; Carinated end scraper on blade 1; End scraper on primary flake 1; End scraper on flake 2; End scraper on snapped blade 3; Notch on flake 6; Notch on truncated blade 1; Awl 1; Borer 1; Retouched flake 5; Retouched blade 1; Trun-cated blade/bladelet 3; Backed knife with ventral retouch on the cutting edge 1. Total – 28. Total of flint artifacts – 33.

710

APPENDIX A

Discussion: According to the composition and technology a large part of the as-semblage fits the Chalcolithic. The polished adze, the carinated end scraper on a blade with trapezoid cross-section and bilateral abrupt retouch, and the backed knife serve as prominent tools representing the period (Yeivin 1958; Hennessey 1969; Lee 1973; Roshwalb 1981;

Levi and Rosen 1987). The Chalco-lithic component of the flint finds corresponds to the pottery finds from this period. Other artifacts – the thin end scrapers on snapped blades, the truncated bladelets and probably the bladelet core – could point to the Epi-Palaeolithic, but in light of the missing type fossils this part of the assemblage will be con-sidered as undefined.

587. ‘Ain el-Hilu (B): 1. Pyramidal bladelet core; 2. Notch on truncated blade; 3. Pol-ished adze; 4. Carinated end scraper on blade; 5. Backed knife; 6-7. End scraper on snapped blade.

FLINT FINDS

711

Site no. 231

el-Beyaz Isr. Grid Ref. 2003/1926

The flint assemblage: Undefined. Artifacts without retouch and waste: CTE 1; Primary flake 10; Flake with partial cortex cover 13; Flake 20; Blade 5; Bladelet 1; Burin spall 1; Chunk 7. Total – 58. Tools and retouched artifacts: Burin 2; Partially retouched blade-let 2; Notch 3; Retouched flake 3. Total – 10. Total of flint artifacts – 68. Discussion: The composition of the assemblage indicates that the location served as a workshop for initial preparation of flint cobbles. This assumption is based on the absence of cores and chips, while the number of primary flakes and flakes partially covered

with cortex is quite high. The tool group proved marginal working and retouch, and notches could be caused by sporadic blows. Accord-ingly, these tools are not indicative for the identification. The artifacts are sharp and ap-parently not abraded. The greater part of the artifacts are small in dimensions, from brown and gray shaded flint, partly covered by a spotted, light gray patina. These traits show a similarity to the ma-terial from Epi-Plaeolithic sites in the area, such as site 94 – Khirbet Malih (C), at a distance of 4.5 km. At this site the components of the initial preparation of flint cores are missing. Further research is needed in order to verify whether el-Beyaz was the source of flint for Khirbet Malih (C).

 Site no. 232

Tabqet el-Hilweh Isr. Grid Ref. 1975/1915

The flint assemblage: Middle Bronze Age I (main part of the assemblage) – highly reasonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and

waste: Primary flake 3; Flake 3; Blade 3; Chunk 2. Total – 11. Tools and retouched artifacts: Cananean sickle blade 4; End scrap--

712

APPENDIX A

er on flake 1; Shouldered scraper on primary flake 1; Notch 7; Awl 7; Retouched flake 4; Retouched blade 4; Truncation 3. Total – 31. Total of flint artifacts – 42. Discussion: Similarly to other sites from the Middle Bronze Age I in the area, the presence of Cananean sickles is prominent. This period closes the chapter of the Cananean technol-ogy (Crowfoot-Payne 1983, 723; Rosen 1983, 127; 1989, 208). Here, similarly to site 66 – Wadi el-Hammeh and site 90 – Khirbet el-Meiyiteh, the Cananean sickles

are of the wider variety, mostly not truncated and breaks could also be post depositional. Following the absence of type fossils that might indicate other periods it can be as-sumed that the artifacts originate from Middle Bronze Age I. The retouched blades, borers, awls and scrapers show some similarity to these from Har Yerukham (Gilead 1973, 133), a site attributed to the same period. Half of the pottery finds were attributed to Middle Bronze Age I and accordingly the flint finds should be attributed similarly.

588. Tabqet el-Hilweh: 1-2. Cananean sickle blade; 3. Truncation; 4. Awl; 5. Carinated, shouldered scraper on primary flake.

FLINT FINDS

713

Site no. 234

Re’us et-Tabaq Isr. Grid Ref. 1972/1906

The flint assemblage: Middle Bronze Age 1 – Reasonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake 2; Blade 5. Total – 7. Tools and retouched artifacts: Cananean sickle blade 1; End scraper 1; Side scraper 1; Notch 1; Double truncation 1. Total – 5.

Total of flint artifacts – 12. Discussion: Despite the small number of arti-facts, according to the Cananean sickle blade and the pottery finds (90% MBA I) the assemblage should be attributed to Middle Bronze Age I. For a detailed discus-sion and references, see site no. 232 – Tabqet el-Hilweh.

 Site no. 246

Abu Sha‘areh Isr. Grid Ref. 1992/1849

The flint assemblage: Undefined. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Flake core 1; Flake 2; Blade 2. To-tal – 5. Tools and retouched artifacts: Raclette 1; Notch 2; Denticulate 1; Awl 2; Retouched flake 1; Re--

touched blade 1. Total – 8. Total of flint artifacts – 13. Discussion: Eighty percent of the pottery finds were attributed to the Iron Age; however, as no type fossils were re-covered the assemblage was classi-fied as undefined.

714

APPENDIX A

Site no. 253

Wadi Abu el-Loz Isr. Grid Ref. 1981/1820

The flint assemblage: Epi-Palaeolithic Period, the Natu-fian Culture – possible identifica-tion. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Discoid core 1; CTE 2; Flake 4; Blade 2; Bladelet 1; Chip 3. Total – 13. Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed sickle blade 1; End scraper on flake 3; End scraper on primary element 1; Angled burin on flake 1; Burin on blade 1; Burin on CTE. 1; Retouched bladelet 1; Notch on ventral face 2; Notch on primary flake 1; Denticulate 1; Awl 2; Re-touched flake 5; Retouched blade 5; Truncated blade 1. Total – 26. Total of flint artifacts – 39.

Discussion: The absence of type fossils in the as-semblage makes an exact identifica-tion quite difficult. The end scrap-ers, the burins, the bladelets and the sickle blade point to the Natufian Culture like el-Wad B2, Kebara B, Einan B1 (after Valla 1984, 248251, 302-303) and others. The assemblage was mainly produced from brown to gray flint, similar to the other Epi-Plaeolithic sites in the area. Without excavations and siev-ing it is quite difficult to find the typical small microlithes; therefore the identification is defined as pos-sible. The pottery finds at the site were from historic periods and have no relation to the flint assemblage.

589. Wadi Abu el-Loz: 1-3. End scraper; 4. Backed sickle blade; 5. Angled burin; 6. Retouched bladelet.

FLINT FINDS

715

Site no. 256

Zahret el-Meidan (B) Isr. Grid Ref. 1992/1805

The flint assemblage: Middle Bronze Age II – possible identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Discoid core 1; Flake 2; Blade 3. Total – 6. Tools and retouched artifacts: Cananean sickle blade 1; End scrap-er on flake 1; Notch 3; Denticulate 3. Total – 8. Total of flint artifacts – 14. Discussion: The small assemblage could fit dif-ferent periods, with the exception

of the Cananean sickle blade with bilateral sheen. This artifact disap-peared apparently during Middle Bronze Age I (Rosen 1983, 133; 1989, 214). At Tell Nagila, a Middle Bronze Age II site, Cana-nean sickles still prevailed (Gilead 1973, type 3, fig. 4 no. 15) but this evidence is not sound enough to expand the period of these sickles to later periods. Ninety percent of the pottery finds were attributed to the Middle Bronze Age II and the flint assemblage should be attrib-uted similarly. The Cananean sickle blade is an exception or its presence was incidental.

 Site no. 261

Ras en-Naqb Baqar Isr. Grid Ref. 1998/1779

see Ras el-Kharube sites – Kh. II below.

 Site no. 264

Wadi Ras Umm Khubezah Isr. Grid Ref. 1978/1764

The flint assemblage: Undefined. Artifacts without retouch and waste:

Blade/flake core 1; Primary flake 2; Flake 6. Total – 9. Tools and retouched artifacts:

716

APPENDIX A

Thumbnail scraper 1; Straight side scraper 1; Notch 1; Double notch 1; Denticulate 1; Borer 1; Needle awl 4; Retouched flake 9; Trunca-tion 2. Total – 21. Total of flint artifacts – 30. Discussion: Generally the flint artifacts are not abraded and sharp. The flint qual-ity varies; some items are from light coloured calcareous flint and oth-ers are from high quality brown,

gray or reddish flint. Missing type fossils and the character and size of the assemblage make it impossible to reach any chronological conclu-sions. Worthy of mentioning are the four needle awls similar to these from Hatula (Ronen and Lech-evallier 1985) and Netiv Hagdud (Nadel 1988), and the short, thick borer prepared from a fragment, propably of a Chalcolithic axe or adze, with trapezoid cross-section.

590. Wadi Ras Umm Khubezah: 1. Thumbnail scraper; 2-4. Needle awl; 5. Borer.

 Site no. 268

el-Mas‘udi Isr. Grid Ref. 1969/1733

The flint assemblage: Wadi Rabah phase (final Pottery Neolithic) – highly reasonable identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Primary flake 4; Flake 23; Blade 3; Blade fragment 3; Bladelet 1; Chunk 4. Total – 38.

Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed and bi-truncated thick sick-le blade (type D, Gopher 1989a) 6; Naturally backed sickle blade 1; Backed and bi-truncated blade (similar to type D sickle) 3; Bi-trun-cated blade with bilateral retouch 1; Naturally backed, retouched blade (like sickle) 2; End scraper on flake 4; Carinated end scraper 1; Thumb--

FLINT FINDS

nail scraper 1; Nosed end scraper 1; Double shouldered end scraper 1; Transversal scraper 1; De’ete scraper 1; Notch 4; Double notch 1; Den-ticulate 2; Awl 2; Borer 1; Massive borer 1; Retouched flake 6; Trunca-tion 3; Backed and truncated knife 1; Varia 2. Total – 46. Total of flint artifacts – 84. Discussion: The flint artifacts were prepared from brown and gray, good quality flint. Some of them were covered by a spotted light gray patina. Few ar-tifacts showed newer retouch with-out patina, perhaps indicating reuse of ancient pieces, apparently from the Middle Palaeolithic Period. The sharpness of the artifacts indicates that they were found in situ.

717

The type fossil for the period is the backed and bi-truncated thick sickle blade with quite coarse re-touch on the cutting edge (either dorsal or ventral). These, and simi-lar blades without sickle sheen, compose about 15% of the assem-blage. These tools are characteristic or even unique to the Wadi Rabah Phase. Furthermore, the massive borer also supports this assumption (Gopher 1989a) and all the other tools fit well into the frame of the period. Small body shards of pottery part-ly covered with red paint, a ribbon handle and the base of a V shaped vessel were also recovered. All these comply with the attribution to the Wadi Rabah phase.

591. el-Mas‘udi: 1-4. Backed and truncated thick sickle blade; 5. Backed knife; 6. End scraper on flake; 7. Borer; 8. Massive borer.

718

APPENDIX A

Site no. 269

el-Makhruq Isr. Grid Ref. 1983/1707

The flint assemblage: Pottery Neolithic Period – highly reasonable identification. Wadi Rabah phase – highly reason-able identification. Chalcolithic Period – highly rea-sonable identification. Early Bronze Age – highly reason-able identification. Artifacts without retouch and waste: Core 17; CTE 1; Ridge blade 2; Primary flake 30; Flake 69; Blade 24; Blade fragment 8; Bladelet 3; Chunk 31; Chip 3; Hammerstone 2. Total – 190. Tools and retouched artifacts: Backed and bi-truncated sickle blade with fine retouch on cutting edge 5; Backed sickle blade (fragment) 1; Sickle blade, unretouched (frag-ment) 1; Bi-truncated sickle blade with bifacial pressure flaking 1; Cananean sickle blade 6; Cananean sickle blade (fragment) 3; Bifacial polished axe 1; Axe – cutting edge fragment 1; End scraper on flake 1; De’ete end scraper 1; Carinated end scraper 6; Nucleiform (core) scrap-er 4; Side scraper 4; Transversal scraper 4; De’ete side scraper 1; Fan scraper with carvings 1; Fan scraper with carvings (fragment) 1; Burin 3; Retouched bladelet 2; Notch 34;

Double notch 3; Denticulate 10; Borer 6; Massive borer 2; Borer on fragment of bifacial tool with trap-ezoid cross-section and bilateral polish 1; Awl 13; Retouched flake 22; Retouched blade 5; Retouched blade (fragment) 6; Backed blade 5; Cananean blade 5; Truncation 4; Backed knife 1; Varia 10. Total – 176. Total of flint artifacts – 366. Stone tools: Bifacial polished basalt axe 1; Per-forated discoid tool, from hard limestone (fragment) 1; Limestone shaft sharpener 1; Basalt vessel (rim fragment) 1. Discussion: The flint assemblage provides quite a complicated picture. Artifacts from four different periods were re-covered; the earliest is the Pottery Neolithic Period. A possible type fossil of this period is the bifacial pressure flaked (Abu Gosh flaking) sickle blade with lentoid cross-sec-tion and sickle sheen on both faces. This kind of retouch was first rec-ognized on artifacts from the Late Pre Pottery Neolithic and contin-ued to the Pottery Neolithic. Simi-lar blades were recovered at Giv‘at Haparsah (Olami et al. 1977), Nit-zanim (Yeivin and Olami 1979), and probably also in Jericho (Pot--

FLINT FINDS

tery Neolithic, type B – CrowfootPayne 1983). Apparently the bu-rins should also to be attributed to this period, similarly to those from Sha’ar Hagolan (Steckelis 1966), Giv‘at Haparsah and Nitzanim. During the Wadi Rabah phase the share of burins in assemblages di-minishes (except Nahal Zehora I – Gopher and Orrelle 1990) and from the Chalcolithic Period on they disappear nearly completely. Another typical tool is the backed knife which made its reappear-ance during the Pottery Neolithic (Gopher 1989a) and continues to the Wadi Rabah Phase and the Chalcolithic. In conclusion, most of the mentioned artifacts should be attributed to the Pottery Neo-lithic. This conclusion is in accor-dance with the pottery finds from the excavation at area C (Gimel in Hebrew – Eisenberg 1992). Pol-ished basalt axes are reported from earlier Neolithic phases and are not known in the Pottery Neolithic, but no conclusions should be made from a single artifact. The massive borers (Kaplan 1969; Gopher 1989a; 1989b; Go-pher and Orrelle 1990), the borer on a fragment of a bifacial tool with trapezoid cross-section and a part of the backed and truncated sickle blades fit well to the Wadi Rabah tool kit. The identification of this phase is supported by the fact that at the site Wadi Rabah pottery shards were found (Gopher, per--

719

sonal information). A definite type fossil for the Chal-colithic Period is the perforated discoid tool which was recovered at many sites from the south to the Golan in the north. These specific tools are totally absent in Wadi Rabah sites (Gopher, personal in-formation; Kaplan 1969; 1977). At el-Makhruq a large fragment of such a perforated tool was recov-ered (about 15 cm diameter and 3.9 cm thickness in the center; see Fig. 593/1). Most of the circumference was shaped by alternate detaching of coarse flakes, and a more-or-less flattened base was prepared by bi-facial abrupt retouch. The hole in the center is symmetric, rounded and was shaped carefully by gentle, point-like chipping. Morphologi-cally the tool resembles such tools from Neveh Ur (Perrot et al. 1967) and type IV (Epstein and Noy 1988). The artifact was prepared from hard limestone similarly to such artifacts from Abu Matar (Per-rot 1955, 78). Other tools which could be attributed to the Chal-colithic are the polished axe with a triangular cross-section (later a longitude blade was detached) and probably the fan scraper (Fig. 592/7) with cortex cover (without carvings on the cortex) and coarse retouch (Yeivin 1958; Levy and Rosen 1987) and the backed and bi-truncated sickle blades with fine retouch on the cutting edge (even-tually some of these could also be at--

720

APPENDIX A

tributed to the Wadi Rabah phase). The fourth period represented in the flint assemblage is the Early Bronze Age. Type fossils for this pe-riod are the fan scrapers with cortex cover and carvings on the cortex

and carefully prepared bases (Fig. 593/2-3), and the Cananean blades and Cananean sickle blades (Schick 1978; Crowfoot-Payne 1983; Rosen 1989). The fan scrapers re-semble those recovered in Arad,

592. el-Makhruq (part 1): 1. Sickle blade (pressure flaking); 2-5. Backed and truncated sickle blade; 6. Massive borer; 7. Fan scraper; 8. Polished axe; 9. Backed knife; 10. Den-ticulate; 11. Borer on bifacial tool fragment; 12. Awl; 13. End scraper.

FLINT FINDS

levels II-IV (Schick 1978). This re-semblance can be observed by the carvings on the cortex, the prepara-tion of the bases and the similarity of the flint. Other tools which could origi-nate from more than one period

721

were of no use for the identification of the periods. Generally the flint assemblage is in accordance with the pottery finds from the survey and the ex-cavations.

593. el-Makhruq (part 2): 1. Perforated discoid tool; 2-3. Fan scraper with carvings; 4-5. Cananean sickle blade; 6. Cananean blade.

722

APPENDIX A

Sites at the Ras el-Kharube massif and its vicinity: (See also the introduction and the prologue) The flint finds recovered from Ras el-Kharube and its vicinity point to a group of sites from the Middle Plaeolithic Period. A group of sin-gle-period sites located in a limited geographical area needs a different system of analysis than the verbal description of each site applied for the other sites in this annex. In order to create a clear picture, a compari-son of the frequency of the various artifact groups in the assemblages from the studied area was carried out (tab. 3). Furthermore the indi-ces of some assemblages were com-pared to those from some excavated contemporaneous sites (tab. 5). The limited sample size impedes carry-ing out a full analysis according to the conventional system of Bordes. Accordingly, only the main groups of Bordes were reported and few in-dices calculated (tables 4-5 below). The value of these comparisons is limited because of the difficulty in comparing excavated sites and sporadic surface collections. Fur-thermore, in our case the thickness of the flint bearing horizon is un-known and altogether the picture should be considered as partial and preliminary. On the Ras el-Kharube massif, many Middle Palaeolithic artifacts are dispersed all over the area, not only at the listed sites or find spots. Most flint concentrations in this

area are at locations different from the surveyed sites from other peri-ods and they were numbered differ-ently – Kh. I (Kharube I) to Kh. XI; the coordinates are according to the Israel Grid Reference and mark the center of the collected area. Discussion and evaluations: The studied assemblages prove similarity to each other in the com-position of tool and waste material groups and flint varieties. The arti-facts are mostly sharp, not abraded and heat cracking is rare. The as-semblages are homogenous and no artifacts which could be attributed to other periods were recovered in this area. The composition, of both the tool and waste groups, points definitively to a flake industry. The raw flint originates from cobbles imbedded in the limestone layers of the Zor‘a formation from the Eocene Age protruding at the northwestern fringes of the Ras elKharube massif. Some patinated artifacts had regular retouch with-out patina, and originated appar-ently from a later phase, indicating a long term occupation of the area within the period. The ratio of cores, waste materials and tools differs considerably from the ratio in excavated sites, that as a result of the selective collection (or in few cases even unintentional

FLINT FINDS

retouch or edge damage caused by natural forces). These facts have some effect on the general index (IL) and its value is therefore lim-ited. At all sites or find spots, cores (mostly Levallois), and a wide va-riety of tools corresponding gener-ally to the type list of Bordes were recovered. A still unexplained phe-nomenon is the low number of flakes and points produced by the Levallois technique compared to the high number of Levallois cores. Probably here too the influence of selective collection, with preference for larger, easily visible artifacts is recognizable. At all 11 flint concen-trations on Ras el-Kharube, cores, flakes, blades, industrial debris and a variety of retouched tools were re-covered. A metric analysis was not carried out but it should be empha-sized that no elongated Levallois points were located. The density of artifacts varies from site to site and without sys-tematic excavations and research it is impossible to define the character and the extent of activities at each of them. The find spot Kh. IV, grid ref. 1958/1767, differs from the other flint concentrations. At this loca-tion, on a steep slope, flint cobbles which had been quarried from the flint lenses imbedded in the lime-stone matrix were found. These cob-bles could serve for the preparation of cores, even though some of them were not utilized. Cores, mainly

723

large not exhausted Levallois cores were also present. The tools recov-ered proved only marginal retouch or a single burin blow, they were not completed and were apparently discarded. We assume that here was one of the sources of raw flint and a workshop for the preparation of cores and tools. A large variety of artifacts and tools indicating a wide range of activities was recovered on the ridge above the mentioned slope (find spot Kh. III, grid ref. 1959/1769). Also from find spots Kh. VI (grid ref. 1976/1750), Kh. X (grid ref. 1975/1737) and Kh. XI (grid ref. 1968/1756) rather numerous as-semblages were recovered. At these three find spots and the above men-tioned find spot, Kh. IV, the largest variety of tools and unretouched ar-tifacts was found. They all were lo-cated at elevated points overlooking the surrounding area. At the other find spots the number of artifacts and the variety of types is lower. Some of these sites were surveyed during earlier phases of the survey when the attention paid to flint ar-tifacts was still inadequate. At all concentrations or find spots, components characteristic for the Middle Palaeolithic Period were present. Technologically this included the Levallois technique, the preparation of the striking plat-forms and facetted bases and a flake based industry generally. Typologi-cally the assemblages included vari--

APPENDIX A

724 Re Gri fer d en ce The artifacts

1980/ 1781

1998/ 1779

1959/ 1769

1958/ 1767

1965/ 1763

1976/ 1722

1956/ 1750

1972/ 1750

1972/ 1746

1975/ 1737

1968/ 1756

Kh. I

Kh. II

Kh. III

Kh. 1V

Kh. V

Kh. V1

Kh. VII

Kh. VIII

Kh. 1X

Kh. X

Kh. X1

Artifacts without retouch and waste Levallois core Total cores

(1)

(1)

(2)

(7)

(3)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(6)

(6)

1

1

2

11

5

5

2

2

2

7

10

Industrial waste Primary flake

-

-

5

8

11

6

13

9

1

18

17

-

-

13

19

3

4

2

6

4

11

3

Flake

5

3

19

36

29

13

18

13

11

86

40

Blade/ Bladelet Total waste

4

1

6

8

4

1

6

1

1

12

3

10

5

45

82

52

29

41

31

19

134

73

1-2

4

1

3

4

8

5

-

-

11

13

3

-

-

1

4

1

-

-

-

1

6

-

4

1

-

1

2

-

2

3

-

-

5

3

5

1

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

1

1

-

Levllois pieces and tools (after Bordes) 6

6-7

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9 – 29

1

1

10

2

2

4

1

2

3

10

7

30 – 31

1

2

4

3

4

6

2

-

1

13

11

32 – 33

1

-

1

5

-

3

-

2

1

4

6

34 – 35

1

1

2

5

2

8

1

-

2

7

13

36 – 37

-

-

2

6

-

-

-

1

-

1

2

38

-

-

-

-

-

2

1

-

-

4

1

39

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

1

40

-

1

2

2

-

2

-

-

-

4

-

42

2

2

11

16

9

8

5

5

2

35

18

43

1

-

7

5

1

2

3

-

-

2

15

45 - 50

-

2

5

7

7

9

2

5

1

18

25

51

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

54

-

-

3

7

-

2

-

1

-

3

4

59 – 61

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

62

1

-

1

-

2

1

-

-

-

6

5

Total tools Total artifacts Levallois technique Facetted platform

14

11

54

74

36

55

23

16

12

133

127

24

16

99

156

88

84

64

47

31

267

200

10

2

15

13

12

9

11

3

3

33

10

5

1

7

2

2

9

3

2

1

15

7

Table 3: Frequency of flint finds at Ras el-Kharube sites

FLINT FINDS

725

Captions for table 3: 1-2 3 4 5 6-7 9-29 30-31 32-33 34-35 36-37

Levallois flake Levallois point Retouched Levallois point Pseudo Levallois point Mousterian points Side scrapers End scrapers Burins Perforators Backed knives

Grid reference /Site

38 39 40 42 43 45-50 51 54 59-61 62

1959/1769 Kh. III

Naturally backed knife Raclette Truncation Notch Denticulate Retouched pieces Denticulated point (Tayak point) End notch Chopping tools Varia

1976/1722 Kh.VI

1975/1737 Kh.X

Relative quantities for the comparison of sites % Levallois pieces (from total of tools and unretouched) 27.78 16.36 24.36 1 - 62 Levallois pieces (from total less cores and waste)

16.30

12.33

13.64

Facetted platform (from total of tools and unre-12.96 16.36 11.28 touched) 1 - 62 Relative quantities, Index after Bordes % IL ty Levallois typological (restricted) IL ty Levallois typological (real)

1968/1756 Kh.XI

7.87 5.78 5.51

2.27

5.26

5.38

3.49

9.26

14.55

16.54

12.60

II Mousterian (restricted)

25.00

10.53

10.75

8.14

II Mousterian (real)

20.37

7.27

7.51

5.51

20.45

50.00

23.66

37.21

16.67

34.55

16.54

25.20

4.35

8.20

7.02

7.51

III Upper Palaeolithic (restricted) III Upper Palaeolithic (real) Levallois (IL)

Table 4: Relative quantities of artifact groups and indices at Ras el-Kharube sites

APPENDIX A

726

ous types of points and side scrap-ers from the Mousterian (group II) and various types of end scrapers, burins, borers and knives from the Upper Palaeolithic (group III). Fur-thermore, notches and denticulates were also present in abundance. For a comparison some indices for the four larger sites were cal-culated (tab. 4). Similarly to most contemporaneous sites, table 4 points to very low ILty (restricted) and ILty (real) indices. Mousterian index (group II) is low as well, es-pecially at Kh. XI. At this site the percentages of Levallois pieces and

The sites

facetted bases are also very low. It is difficult to determine whether the reasons were functional or there were different modes along the axis of time. Upper Palaeolithic index (group III) is dominant at Kh. VI, Kh. IX and Kh. X. Only at Kh. III it is somewhat lower than the Mouste-rian index. Also at all the other sites not included in table 4 the Upper Palaeolithic index is higher than the Mousterian index. Because of the exceptional ra-tio between unretouched artifacts and waste and retouched artifacts Mousterian Group II

IL ty%

Upper Palaeolithic Group III

Restricted

Real

Restricted

Real

Restricted

Real

Ras el-Kharu-beh sites Exceptional values Tirat Carmel (the triangle) Tirat Carmel (level 2-4)

2.275.38

9.2616.54

10.7525.00

7.2720.37

20.4537.21

16.5425.20

(8.14)

(5.51)

50.00

34.55

1.12

16.01

34.90

23.36

20.49

13.13

2.04

7.96

26.50

23.00

22.44

19.46

Rosh Ein Mor

5.30

60.60

10.80

3.30

30.40

9.20

Nahal Aqev (D 35)

1.75

45.54

20.18

10.27

19.30

9.82

Far‘ah II

0.00

39.81

5.65

3.40

4.84

2.91

Qouneitra (A)

0.73

10.17

30.55

24.54

26.84

21.70

Qouneitra (B)

0.24

7.19

36.52

33.17

11.47

10.42

Table 5: Comparison of Ras el-Kharube sites to some open-air or excavated sites. Refer-ence for figures: Ronen 1974; Crew 1976; Munday 1977; Gilead 1980; Goren-Inbar 1990.

FLINT FINDS

and tools, caused by the collecting techniques, the Levallois index (IL) is low at all find spots Kh. I – Kh. XI and should be related to very carefully. Its value is close only to that of Far‘ah II (Gilead 1980, 56) – 4.48%. Table 5 demonstrates that

727

no other contemporaneous site is similar to Ras el-Kharube sites in all components; therefore it is prefer-able to compare the restricted typo-logical indices of the tool groups. The greatest similarity of Ras el-Kharubeh restricted indices, of

594. Ras el-Kharube (part 1): 1. Levallois point core (Kh. IV); 2. Levallois point core (Kh. XI); 3. Discoid core (Kh. II); 4. Levallois blade core (Kh. III); 5. Levallois point (Kh. XI); 6. Mousterian point (Kh. III); 7. Retouched Levallois point (Kh. III) 8. Tayac point (Kh. X).

728

APPENDIX A

the Mousterian (group II) and the Upper Palaeolithic (group III) is to these of Rosh Ein Mor in the Negev highlands. Chronologically the ex-cavator classified this site to a cold and humid phase of the last Ice Age

50-60 ka BP (Crew 1976, 110; see also the important remark in the prologue). In the same area the Na-hal Aqev site (Munday 1977, 3536) was similarly classified. Since these sites were published, new

595. Ras el-Kharubeh (part 2): 1-2. End scraper (Kh. X); 3. End scraper (Kh. I); 4. End scraper (Kh. III); 5. Side scraper (Kh. IV); 6. Side scraper with ventral retouch (Kh. I); 7. Bilateral side scraper (Kh. III); 8. Transversal scraper (Kh. IV); 9. Burin (Kh. II); 10. Burin (Kh. I).

FLINT FINDS

methods of radiometric dating have been developed and the analyses have proved that Middle Palaeo-lithic sites were much earlier than first assumed. Possibly the Rosh Ein Mor and Nahal Aqev sites are also much older than assumed by the excavators. The climatic and topographic settings of Ras el-Kharube – a mountainous, semi-desert area – are similar to those of the moun-tainous Negev and probably living conditions were also similar. The

729

similarity of the assemblages and the similar living conditions indi-cate, to some extent, that Ras elKharube sites and the mountainous Negev sites of Rosh Ein Mor and Nahal Aqev could had existed dur-ing the same time span. According to the limited sample size and par-tial comparisons further thorough research is essential in order to con-firm or disprove this assumption. Such a research is beyond the scope of this study.

Prologue and final remarks for the English edition 1. During the periods studied, the climate differed and fluctuated over time. From about 65 ka to 15 ka BP, a period relevant for this study, Wadi Far‘ah and large parts of the area were flooded by Lake Lisan (figs. A and B below). This lake is the last of several lakes which existed in the Jordan Rift Valley earlier in the Pleistocene. Following a series of fluctuations, the lake reached its maximum elevation of 164 m be-low present sea level about 27 ka BP (Bartov et al. 2002, 20, fig. 7 and fig. 596 in this study). It is difficult to locate, on the present surface, in situ prehistoric finds from peri-ods earlier than 15-17 ka BP and lower than 164 m below sea level, because no sites could exist in the flooded area. Furthermore, over the millennia, marls (the Lisan marls) were deposited at a depth of up to

40-50 m (Bartov et al. 2002, tab. 2, fig. 6), thus earlier sites (including those which existed prior to 65 ka BP) were flooded and buried later by the lake deposits. Artifacts from these earlier sites may be found on the surface only whenever they were unearthed by natural forces, by human activity or at sites close to the shoreline, flooded only over a short period. The map (fig. 597 in this study) demonstrates clearly that Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites, located by the surface survey, were above, and a few only close to the ancient shoreline. This refers to the sites north of Wadi Far‘ah, pub-lished in this appendix, and these published in volume IV south of Wadi Far‘ah. Actually, in the lower areas, most surface finds and sites were from the later periods, from the Epi-Plaeolithic and younger pe--

APPENDIX A

730

riods. 2. The date suggested for the Mid-dle Palaeolithic site of of Rosh Ein Mor pointed to a quite late date (Crew 1976, 76-78). In appendix 1 of Volume II it was predicted that this evaluation could possibly change after further analyses were carried out. This is exactly what happened and in 2003, a reliable Th/U analysis of ostrich eggshell dated Rosh Ein Mor somewhat earlier than 200 ka BP (Rink et al. 2003, 200). 3. The common view that in the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic no bifacial handaxes were present should be rejected because in three sites from this period, published in Volume IV, such artifacts were pres-ent (Winter 2005, sites 197, 198, 203). This fact was also confirmed by the findings from the Tabun cave

(summarized by McPherron 2003, tab. 3.1, 58). 4. The presence or disappearance of certain tools in a chronologically defined period should be treated very carefully. As mentioned above, bifacial hand axes continued to some extent in the Middle Palaeo-lithic Period; burins were also re-covered in assemblages later than the Neolithic and Cananean sickles were found in Middle Bronze Age II sites as well. 5. The Wadi Rabah phase is today attributed definitely to the Late Pottery Neolithic. 6. Actually the Upper Palaeolithic site of Rujm ez-Zia was not pub-lished in Volume III but in Volume IV. 7. The Kebaran – a continuation of the Upper Palaeolithic – started about 20 ka BP at a time when

Qsftfou!Tfb!Mfwfm

1

.211

.311

.411

.511 1

21

31

41

51

61

71

ZFBST!CQ! y !2111

596. Lake Lisan level (after Bartov et al. 2002)

81

FLINT FINDS

Lake Lisan still covered a part of the studied area; therefore, some early Kebaran sites could also be covered by lake deposits.

731

8. The site of Ohalo 2 was later dated to 23 ka BP and attributed to the Upper Palaeolithic.

597. Site location map of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites and Lake Lisan shoreline at its highest level – 164 m below sea level.

732

APPENDIX A

References Bartov, Y., Stein, M., Enzel, Y., Agnon, A. and Reches, Z. 2002. “Lake Lisan and Sequence Stra-tigraphy of Lake Lisan, the Late Pleistocene Precursor of the Dead Sea”, Quaternary Research 57, 9-21. Bar-Yosef, O. 1970. “The Epipal-aeolithic Cultures of Palestine”. Un-published Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Bar-Yosef, O. 1981. “The Epi-palaeolithic Complexes in the Southern Levant”, in: Sanlaville, P. and Cauvin, J. (eds.), Prehistoire du Levant, 389-408, Paris. Bar-Yosef, O., Goldberg. P. and Levenson, T. 1974. “Late Quarter-nary Stratigraphy and Prehistory in Wadi Fazael, Lower Jordan Valley: A Preliminary Report. Paleorient 2, 415-428. Bar-Yosef, O. and Goren, N., 1973. “Natufian Remains in Hayonim Cave”. Paleorient 1, 49-69. Bar-Yosef, O. and Goring-Morris, A.N. 1977. “Geometric Kebaran A Occurences”, in: Bar-Yosef, O. and Philips, J.L. (eds.), Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Maghara, Northern Sinai, Qedem 7, 115-148. Bar-Yosef, O. and Valla P. 1979. “L’evolution du Natoufian, Nou-velles Suggestions”. Paleorient 5, 145-152. Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Pa-leolitique, ancien et Moyen. Memoire No. I de l’Institut de Prehistoire de

l’Universite de Bordeaux. Burian, F. and Friedman, E. 1965. “Ten Years of Prehistoric Survey of the Coastal Plain from Nahal Hadera to Nahal Lakhish”. Miteku-fat Haeven 6-7, 1-33 (Hebrew). Burian, F. and Friedman, E. 1979. “A Typology of Arrowheads and Sickle Blades and its Chronological Implications”. Mitekufat Haeven 16, 5-16 (Hebrew). Crabtree, P.J. and Campana, D.V. 1990. “A Note on the First Season of Excavations at the Late Natufian Site of Salibiya I, Jordan Valley”. Paleorient 16/1, 111-114. Crew, H.L. 1976. “The Mousterian Site of Rosh Ein Mor”, in: Marks, A.E. (ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvi-ronment in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. I, 75-112. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. Crawfoot Payne, J. 1983. “The Flint Industries of Jericho”, in: Kenyon, K.M and. Holland, T.A. (eds.) Excavations at Jericho V, App. C, 622-759. Oxford. Eisenberg, E. 1992. “Makhruk, Hirbet”, in: Stern E. (ed.), The New Encyclopedia for Archaeological Excavations in Eretz Israel, vol. 3, 926-928. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Epstein, C. and Noy, T. 1988. “Ob-servations Concerning Perforated Flint Tools from Chalcolithic Pales-tine”. Paleorient 14/1, 133-141.

FLINT FINDS

Garrod, D.A.E. and Bate, D.M.A. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Car-mel, vol. 1, Clarendon Press, Ox-ford. Gilead, D. 1970. Early Palaeolithic Cultures in the Middle East. Unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation, The He-brew University, Jerusalem. Gilead, D. 1973. “Flint Tools from the Middle Bronze Age from Har Yeruham and Tell Nagila”, in: Aha-roni, Y. (ed.), Excavations and Stud-ies, Tel Aviv, 133-143 (Hebrew). Gilead, I. 1980. “A Middle Pal-aeolithic Open-Air Site near Tell Far‘ah,Western Negev, Preliminary Report”. IEJ 30, 317-348. Gilead, I. 1984. “Is the Term EpiPalaeolithic Relevant to Levantine Prehistory?” Current Anthropology, 25, 227-229. Gopher, A. 1981. The Stratigraphy and Industry of Flint Tools in Wadi Tbiyek, a Pre Pottery Neolithic Site in Southern Sinai. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew Univer-sity, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Gopher, A. 1985. Flint Tool Indus-tries of the Neolithic Period in Israel. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Gopher, A. 1989a. The Flint As-semblage of Munhata: Final Report. Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Francaise de Jerusalem, vol. 4. Paris: Association Paleorient. Gopher, A. 1989b. “The Flint In-dustries from Tell Tsaf ”. Tel Aviv

733

15-16, 37-46. Gopher, A. and Orrelle, E. 1990. “The Flint Industry of Nahal Ze-hora I, A Wadi Raba Site in the Me-nashe Hills”. BASOR 276, 67-76. Goren-Inbar, N. 1990. “Quneitra: A Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights”. Qedem 31. Goring-Morris, A.N. 1978. “Ma‘aleh Zik: A Geometric Keba-ran A Site in the Mountainous Ne-gev”. Mitekufat Haeven 16, 59-67 (Hebrew). Goring-Morris, A.N. 1980a. Late Quaternary Sites in Wadi Fazael, Lower Jordan Valley. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew Univer-sity, Jerusalem. Goring-Morris, A.N. 1980b. “Up-per Paleolithic Sites from Wadi Fazael”. Paleorient 6, 173-192. Hennessey, J.B. 1969. “Preliminary Report on a First Season of Excava-tions at Teleilat Ghassul”, Levant 1, 1-24. Henry, D.O. 1976. “Rosh Zin: A Natufian Settlement near Ein Av-dat”, in: Marks A.E. (ed.), Prehis-tory and Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. I, Part 1, 317-348, SMU, Dallas. Henry, D.O. and Lerroi-Gourhan, A. 1976. “The Excavation of Hayonim Terrace, an Interim Report”, Journal of Field Archaeology 3, 391-406. Hovers, E., Horwitz, L.K., Bar-Yo-sef, D.E. and Cope-Miyashiro, C. 1988. “ The Site of Urkan-er-Rub

734

APPENDIX A

IIa: A Case Study of Subsistence and Mobility Patterns in the Keba-ran Period in the Lower Jordan Val-ley”, Mitekufat Haeven 21, 14-48. Hovers, E. and Marder, O. 1991. “Typo-Chronology and Absolute Dating of the Kebaran Complex: Implications from the Second Season of Excavations at Urkan er-Rub IIa”, Mitekufat Haeven 24, 34-58. Kaufman, D. 1986. “A Reconsid-eration of Adaptive Changes in the Levantine Paleolithic”, in: Strauss, L.G (ed.), The End of the Epipaleo-lithic in the Old World, BAR Inter-national Series 284, 117-128, Ox-ford. Kaufman, D. 1987. “Excavations at the Geometric Kebaran Site of Neve David, Israel: A Preliminary Report”. QUARTAR 37/38: 189199. Kaufman, D. 1989. “Observations on the Geometric Kebaran : A View from Neve David”, in: Bar-Yosef, O. & Vandermeersch, B. (eds.), Investigations in South Levantine Prehistory. BAR International Series 497, 275-285, Oxford. Kaufman, D. 1992. “Hunter-Gath-erers in the Levantine Epipaleolith-ic: the Socioecological Origins of Sedentism”. Journal of Mediterra-nean Archaeology 5/2, 165-201. Kaplan, J. 1969. Ein el-Jerba, Chal-colithic Remains in the Valley of Yis-rael. Publications of the Museum of Antiques, Tel Aviv–Yaffo. Kaplan, J. 1977. “Neolithic and

Chalcolithic Remains in Lod”. Eretz Israel vol.13, 51-73 (Hebrew). Lee, J.R. 1973. Chalcolithic Ghassul: New Aspects and Master Typology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Levy, T.E. and Rosen, S.A. 1987. “The Chipped Stone Industry at Shiqmim: Typological Con-siderations”, in: Levy, T.E. (ed.), Shiqmim 1, BAR International Se-ries 356, Oxford, 281-294. Marks, A.E., 1976. “Site D5: A Geometric Kebaran A Occupation in the Nahal Zin”, in: Marks, A.E. (ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenviron-ments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. I, 293-316. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. Marks, A.E. and Freidel, R.A. 1977. “Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Avdat/Aqev Area”, in: Marks, A.E. (ed.) Prehistory and Paleoenvi-ronments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. II, 131-155. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. Marks, A.E. and Larson, P.A. 1977. “The Excavations at the Natufian Site of Rosh Horesha”, in: Marks, A.E. (ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvi-ronments in the Central Negev, Isra-el, vol. II, 23-191. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. McConaughy, M. 1979. Formal and Functional Analyses of the Chipped Stone Industry from Bab edh-Drah, Jordan. Ann Arbor. McPherron, S.P. 2003. “Techno-logical and Typological Variability

FLINT FINDS

in the Bifaces from Tabun Cave, Israel”, in: Soressi, M. and Dibble, H.L. (eds), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University of Pennsylvania, 55-74. Munday, F.C. 1977. “Nahal Aqev (D35): A Stratified Open-Air Mousterian Occupation in the Av-dat/Aqev Area”, in: Marks, A.E. (ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenviron-ment in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. II, 35-55. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. Nadel, D. 1988. The Flint Assem-blage from Netiv Hagedud (Jordan Valley). Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Nadel, D. 1990. “ Ohalo II - A Pre-liminary Report”. Mitekufat Haeven 23, 48-59. Noy, T., Legge, A.J. and Higgs, E.S. 1973. “Recent Excavations at Na-hal Oren, Israel”. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39, 75-99. Noy, T. 1981. “The Beginning of the Neolithic Period in the Levant”. Eretz Israel vol.16, 7-14 (Hebrew). Olami, Y. 1984. Prehistoric Carmel. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusa-lem and Stekelis Museum of Pre-history, Haifa. Olami, Y. 1989. “Flint Findings from the Early Bronze Age Excava-tions at Gamla”. Mitekufat Haeven 22, 62-67. Olami, Y., Burian, F. and Fried-man, E. 1977. “The Excavations at

735

Giveat Haparsa – a Neolithic Site in the Coastal Area”, Eretz Israel vol. 13, 34-47 (Hebrew). Perrot, J. 1955. “The Excavations at Tell Abu-Matar”. Israel Explora-tion Journal 5/1, 17-40. Perrot J., 1960. “Excavations at Eynan (Ein Mallaha), Preliminary Report on the 1959 Season”. Israel Exploration Journal 10/1, 14-22. Perrot, J. 1974. “Mallaha (Eynan)”. Paleorient 2/2, 485-486. Perrot, J., Zori, N. and Reich, Y. 1967. “Neve Ur, un Nouvel Aspect du Ghassulien”. Israel Exploration Journal 17/4, 201-232 (French). Rink, W.J., Richter, D., Schwarcz, H.P., Marks, A.E., Monigal, K. and Kaufman, D. 2003. “The Middle Palaeolithic Site of Rosh Ein Mor, Central Negev, Israel: Implications for the Age Range of the Early Le-vantine Mousterian of the Levan-tine Corridor”. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science, vol. 30/2, 195-204. Ronen, A. 1974. Tirat Carmel – A Mousterian Open-Air Site in Israel. Tel Aviv University Publication No. 3. Ronen, A. 1975. “The Palaeolithic Archaeology and Chronology of Israel”, in: Wendorf, F. and Marks, A.E. (eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant, 229248, Dallas. Ronen, A. 1984. Sefunim Prehis-toric Sites – Mount Carmel, Israel. BAR International Series 230/1,

736

APPENDIX A

Oxford. Ronen, A., Kaufman, D., Goph-na, R., Backler, N., Smith, P., and Amiel, A. 1975. “The Epi-Palaeo-lithic Site Hefziba, Central Coastal Plain of Israel”. QUARTAR 26, 5372. Ronen, A. and Lechevallier, M. 1985. “The Natufian-Early Neo-lithic Site Hatula, near Latrun, Is-rael”. QUARTAR 35/36, 141-163. Rosen, S.A. 1982. “Flint Sickles of the Late Protohistoric and Early Historic Periods in Israel”. Tel Aviv 9, 139-146. Rosen, S.A. 1983. Lithics in the Bronze and Iron Ages in Israel. Un-published Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Chicago. Rosen, S.A. 1985. “The En Shadud Lithics”, in: Braun E. (ed.), En Shadud, BAR International Series 249, 153-157, Oxford. Rosen, S.A. 1986. “Note on the Gezer Flint Caches”, in: W.G. De-ver (ed.), Gezer IV, 259-263, Jeru-salem. Rosen, S.A. 1989. “The Analyses of Early Bronze Age Chipped Stone Industries: A Summary State-ment”, in: de Miroschedji, P. (ed.), L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien: Bilan et perspec-tives des recherches actuelles. BAR In-ternational Series 527 (i), 199-222, Oxford. Rosen, S.A. 1991. “Flint Tools”, in: Oren, E. and Yekutiely Y.,

“Northern Sinai in the Middle Bronze Age 1 - Pastoral Nomadism and Sedentary Settlements”. Eretz Israel 21, 6-22. Roshwalb, A. 1981. Prehistory in the Wadi Gazzeh; A Typological and Technological Study based on the MacDonald Excavations. Un-published Ph.D. dissertation. The University of London. Schick, T. 1978. “Flint Imple-ments”, in: Amiran R. (ed.), Early Arad 1, 58-63. Schuldenrein, Y. 1978. “Ancient Environments and the Extending of Prehistoric Sites in the Lower Jordan Valley, a Preliminary Re-port”. Mitekufat Haeven 16, 32-44 (Hebrew). Stekelis, M. 1966. The Yarmukian Culture. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Stekelis, M. and Gilead D. 1966. “Ma‘ayan Barukh”. Mitekufat Haeven 8 (Hebrew). Stekelis, M. and Yizraely, T. 1963. “Excavations at Nahal Oren, Pre-liminary Report”. Israel Exploration Journal 1, 1-12. Valla, F.R. 1984. Les Industries de Silex de Mallaha (Eynan) et du Natufian dans le Levant. Memoires et traveaux du Centre de Recherche Francais de Jerusalem, 3. Waechter, J. 1958. “Flint Imple-ments”, in: O. Tufnell, Lachish V, Oxford. Weinstein-Evron, M. 1990. “Paly--

FLINT FINDS

nological History of the last Pleni-glacial in the Levant”. Les Industries a pointes foliaciees du paleolitique superieur europeen, Krakov, E.R.A.U.L. No. 42, Liège. Winter, H. 1996. App. 1. “The Flint Artifacts”, in: Zertal, A. The Mannasseh Hill Country Survey, vol. II, – From Nahal Bezek to the Sar-taba Massif, 611 – 681. Haifa Uni-versity and Ministry of Defense Publications (Hebrew). Winter, H. 2005. App. 1. “The Flint Artifacts”, in: Zertal, A. The Mannasseh Hill Country Survey, vol. IV – From Nahal Bezeq to the Sar--

737

taba Massif, 565 – 647. Haifa Uni-versity and Ministry of Defense Publications (Hebrew). Yeivin, E. 1958. “Flint Tools from Hurvat Beter”. Atiqot B, 40-44 (Hebrew). Yeivin, E. and Olami, Y. 1979. “Nizzanim, A Neolithic Site at Nahal Evtah: Excavations of 196870”. Tel- Aviv 6, 99-135. Zertal, A. 2005. The Mannasseh Hill Country Survey, vol. IV – From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba. Haifa University and Ministry of Defense Publications (Hebrew).

APPENDIX B - COIN FINDS

COIN FINDS FROM THE EASTERN VALLEYS AND THE DESERT FRINGES Ya‘akov Yanai

A cataloged description of the coin finds is presented here as an appen-dix. Most of the coins are identified, and on many of them the names of the rulers, mints and dates are leg-ible. A period of over 2000 years is embodied in the numismatic finds, from the beginning of the 2nd cen-tury BCE until the present day. This appendix presents the origins and date of minting of the coins, some minted “locally” in the Holy Land but most minted throughout the empires that controlled the land during the following periods: Helle-nistic, Roman, Byzantine, Moslem (Umayyad, Abasside, Mameluk), and Ottoman; as well as modern coins from Iraq, Jordan and Israel. Numbers of sites in the general book are used here. Within each site the coins are numbered chron-ologically. The information about each coin is in the following order: A. General description: 1. Period; 2. Ruler and years of his reign; 3. Material denomination;

4. Diameter; 5. Weight. B. Description of obverse and re-verse sides, including insciptions, date and mint. C. References. Abbreviations: AR – Silver; Circular ins. – Circular inscription; Ex – Exergue; Ref. – Reference; gm. – grammes; l. – left; mm. – milimetres; Obv. – Obverse; Rev. – Reverse; r. – right; stg. – standing; I wish to express my special thanks to Adam Zertal, who entrusted me with the task of processing the nu-mismatic finds, to David Shklovski for the photographs and to Ariel Berman who helped both with the bibliography and with the general references for the Arabic coins and especially for numbers 2:1; 33:7; 133:3; 158:1; 194:9-10.

740

APPENDIX B

Site No. 1:

Khirbet ‘Anahum 1. Byzantine, Mauricius Tiberius, 582-602 C.E., Bronze, 1/2 follis – 20 numia, 21.7-23.5 mm, 5.85 g. Obv.: Full-face portrait of ruler, wearing crested helmet, clothed, ar-mored, globe with cross in r. hand. Circ. Ins.: “DN. MA TIBER P…” embossed ring around edge. Rev.: Large ‘K’ with cross above, at l.: ‘A/N/N/O’, at r.: 7-41 (588/9 C.E.), below: I = Constantinople mint G, embossed ring around edge, axis 7. Ref.: Type as in Roth 135, no. 71, 81.

2. Modern, State of Israel (founded 1948). Bronze-aluminum, 21.5 mm, 4.15 g, bilingual Hebrew-Ara-bic inscriptions (from ‘agorah’ series of ‫)תש“ך –תשל“ט‬. Obv.: Inside square depression with rounded corners, palm tree with seven date fronds, two bunches of dates, below ‘ ‫ ’ישראל‬in Hebrew and to l., ‘Israel’ in Arabic. Rev.: Inside depression as above; large no. 10, below: agurot/‫תש“ך‬, minting date 5720 after Creation – 1960 C.E., Axis 12. Ref.: Coins of the World 1982, 1084, no. 25.

 Site No. 2:

Khirbet esh-Sheikh Safiriyan 1. Early Moslem, Abbaside, Almu-wattakil, 232-247 of the Hijrah, 847-861 C.E., Bronze, max. 19 mm, 1.93 g, Fils (section), Arabic inscription. Obv.: First part of the Shuhadah in center: ‘LA ALLAH / ALLAH W../ LA SHARIK…’ between two cir--

cles, blurred inscr. (verse 33, chap-ter 9 of the Quran?). Rev.: Second part of the Shuhada. Center: ‘ALLAH / MUHAMED / RASU../ AL…’; Above: ‘ALLAH.’ Around, between two circles is the date: ‘235’ of the Hijrah, 849 C.E., Axis 8.

COINS

741

Site No. 14:

el-Khirbeh (ez-Zard) 1. Late Roman, Theodosius I, 379395 C.E., Bronze, 12.5-13.6 mm, 0.9 g, AE/4, Latin inscription.

Ref.: Bruck, 61.

Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with pearl diad., clothed, armored; Circ. Ins.: ‘DNTHEODO-SIVSPFAVG’.

4. Bronze, 9.5-11.1 mm, 0.72 g, AE/4, worn.

Rev.: Victoria dragging captive to l., wreath in hand; below l.: Cross.; Circ. Ins.: ‘SALVS REI-PVBLI-CAE’ ; below mint: ‘ANT’- An-tioch. Minted between 383-395 C.E., Axis 5.

3. Bronze, 10.5-11.4 mm, 1.1 g, AE/4, worn, 5th century C.E.

Obv.: Ruler to r., clothed. 5th cen-tury C.E. 5. Bronze, 9.8-10.4 mm, 0.79 g, minute, AE/4, worn. Obv.: Ruler to r., clothed. 5th cen-tury C.E. 6. Bronze, 10.4-12.5 mm, 0.48 g, unidentified, worn.

Ref.: Bruck, 61; RIC IX, 295, no. 70.

7. Early Moslem, AR, 5.5-14 mm, 0.33 g, fragment of unidentified dirham.

2. Bronze, 11.5-12.2 mm, 0.77 g, AE/4, worn. As above [?], ruler and mint unidentified. Minted between 383-395 C.E., Axis 11.

8. Lead, 17.5-20 mm, 3.45 g, not definitely a coin. 9. Lead, 11-16 mm, 1.62 g, tri-angular piece.

 Site No. 33:

Khirbet Abu Farhan 1. Late Roman, Valens, 364-378 C.E., Bronze, 16.3-17.5 mm, 1.75 g, AE/3, Latin inscription. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with pearl diad., clothed, armored. Circ. Ins.: ‘DNVALENS-PFAVG’.

Rev.: Caesar dragging captive to r., banner in l. hand. Circ. Ins.: ‘GLO-RIARO-MANORVM’. Bottom: mint: ‘ANT’- Antioch. J, Axis 6. Ref.: Bruck 35; RIC IX, 274, no. 10(b); 281, no. 35(b).

APPENDIX B

742

2. Bronze, 13.3 g, AE/4, illegible.

mm,

0.91

Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with pearl diadem, clothed, armored. Rev.: Victoria dragging captive to l., illegible, minted between 383-395 C.E., Axis 6. Ref.: Bruck 61. 3. Honorius,393-423 C.E., Bronze, 11-12.2 mm, 1.1 g, AE/4, Latin in-scription. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with pearl diadem, clothed, armored. Around: ‘……RIVSPFAVG’.

5. Justinus II, 565-578 C.E., Bronze, 21-23 mm, 5.28 g, half Follis-20 Nummia, Latin inscr. Obv.: Justinus II and Sophia sit-ting on throne, full face; around: ‘…NVSPPAVG’ Rev.: Large ‘K’, above ‘KC’, bottom l.: ‘…/N/A’, r. E=5 (569-570 C. E.), Below: ‘TES’ (?) - Thessalonica mint, Axis 6. Ref.: Roth 85, no. 108.

Rev.: Victoria dragging captive at l., worn; bottom: ‘CONS’ - Constan-tinople mint, VI. Minted 393-395 C.E., Axis 6. Ref.: Bruck 61; RIC 9, 236, no. 90(C) 4. Byzantine, Justinian I, 527-565 C.E., Bronze, 29.3-31.1 mm, 14.6 g, Follis-40 Nummia, Latin inscr. Obv.: Large ‘M’, cross above it, at l.: seven-pointed star, star at right. Below: I. Bottom: cross and name of mint: ‘THEuP’ - Theopolis III (Antioch). Minted between 528538 C.E., Axis 6. Ref.: Roth 54, no. 273.

6. Mauricius Tiberius, 582-602 C.E., Bronze, 23-23.6 mm, 6.17 g, half Follis-20 Nummia, Latin inscr. Obv.: Full-face portrait, wearing helmet with plume, clothed, ar-mored, globe with cross in r. hand, around: ‘MAV-TIBERPPA’, ring around edge. Rev.: Large ‘K’, cross above, at l.: ‘A/N/N/O’, at right:= 8 = 589/590 C.E., Below: ‘E’, Constantinople

COINS

743

mint, V, ring around edge, Axis 6.

as in 267-268.

Ref.: Roth, type as in 134-135.

9. Sh‘aban II. el-Ashraf Naser edDin Sh‘aban II, 764-778 Hijrah, 1363-1377 C.E., Bronze, 17.2-19 mm, 2.95 g, Fils, Arabic inscrip-tions. Obv.: Around and among design of ‘eye’ with flower bulbs on edges: ‘… TAN / ALMALK”, circle at edge.

7. Early Moslem, Abbaside, Abu Ja‘afar Abdallah Almamun, 196218 Hijrah, 813-833 C.E., Bronze, 17-19.2 mm, 2.56 g, Follis, domed token, Arabic inscription.

Rev.: Inside wreath of flower bulbs: illegible name of mint.

Obv.: Center: ‘LA ALLA ILA /… H/…K LAHU’. Below – wavy line, rope around edge.

10. Bronze, 16-17.7 mm, 1.85 g, Fils, worn, illegible.

Rev.: In circle: ‘MUHAMAD / RA-SUL / ALLAH’. Circ. Ins. Blurred. Ramlah mint, Axis 1. Ref.: Lavoix I, no. 1586; Berman 1976, similar type, 39, no. 91.

Ref.: Balog, Mameluks 221, no. 458.

11. Ottoman Period. Bronze, 16.117.1 mm, 8.13 g, Fils, thick token, Arabic inscription. Obv.: Inscr: ‘MISR’. (Name of coin in Egypt: alkahrah – Cairo). Rev.: Complicated design [net]. Ref.: Type as in Berman 1976, 122, no. 385 and drawing on back cov-er.

8. Middle Ages, Mameluk, Abu Bakr, al Mansur Seif ed-Din Abu Bakr, 741-742 Hijrah, 1341 C.E., Bronze, 17-17.6 mm, 3.46 g, Fils, Arabic inscriptions. Obv.: Star of David, points between its tips, circle around. Illegible date in star. Rev.: Star of David as above, inside: ‘B / DA / MASHK’ (minted in Da-mascus). Ref.: Balog, Mameluks 164-5, type

12. Muhammed V, 1327-1336 Hi-jrah, 1909-1918 C.E., Cupro-nick-el, 16 mm, 1.85 g, 5 Farah, Arabic inscription. Obv.: Monogram (tughrah) of rul-er’s name; at right: Rashad (‘walks the straight path’). Below: ‘SIT-TAH’ (Year 6 – 1914-1915 C.E.). Around; circle of pearls; above and below: decoration of sheaves at r., decoration of olive branch at left; at edge: circle with short, perpendicu-lar lines.

744

APPENDIX B

1749, no. 43. 13. Modern, Iraq, Feisal I, 19211933 C.E., Bronze, 19 mm, 2.43 g, Fils, Arabic inscription. Obv.: Ruler to r., Circ. Ins. ‘FAIS-AL ALAWAL MALK ALIRAQ’.

Rev.: ‘5 FARA’. Around, frame of pearls (almost full crescent moon). Above center, between two stars: ‘DAWLAH UTHMANIYAH’. R. and l. ‘DARAB FI QUSTAN-TINA’. Below center: decoration, ‘1327’ (1327 Hijrah – year of sul-tan’s ascension to throne), Axis 12.

Rev.: ‘FILS’ (1). Below: ‘Fils’ in central circle. Above and below: ‘ALMAMLAKAH ALIRAQIYAH’; at r. ‘1349’ (Hijrah), at l.: 1931 (C.E.), Axis 12. Ref.: Coins of the World 1982, 1065, no. 1.

Ref.: Coins of the World 1982,

 Site No. 44:

Khirbet Ibziq (Upper) 1. Roman, Faustina II (wife of Marcus Aurelius), died 176 C.E., Neapolis (Shechem). Bronze, 19.922.6 mm, 5.63 g, city mint, Greek inscr..

On two sides of figure in upper area: ‘ET – 4’ (year 90 of city calen-dar, 162 C.E.), Axis 12. Ref.: Rosenberger III, 8, no. 19.

Obv.: Empress to r., hair pulled back in ‘ponytail’, clothed; circ. Ins (Greek): ‘…TEINANCEBAC-THN’. Rev.: Artemis of Ephesus fac-ing front, in her arms, ‘shepherd’s crocks’. Two deer stg. beside, fac-ing back and up toward goddess. Around: ‘FLNEAC …CIRIAPA’;

2. Late Roman, Arcadius, 383-408 C.E., Bronze, 111.4-13 mm, 0.88 g, AE/4, Latin ins. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with pearl diadem, clothed, armored. Around:

COINS

‘…ARC…’. Rev.: Victoria dragging captive at l., worn. Minted between 383-395 C.E., Axis 7. Ref.: Bruck 61. 3. Byzantine, Justinian I, 527-565 C.E., Bronze, 27.8-29.5 mm, 11 g, half follis – 20 nummia, Latin inscr. Obv.: Ruler to front, wearing hel-met with plume, clothed, armored. In r. hand: globe with cross, at r.: cross; around: ‘DNIVSTIN-IAN-VSPPAVG’.

745

Bronze, 19.8-25.9 mm, 4.71 g, Follis – 40 Nummia, Latin inscr., chopped-off token. Obv.: Portrait of ruler, full face, wearing crown with cross, clothed. In r. hand: globe with cross, around: ‘IMPER-CONST…’ Rev.: Large ‘M’; at left: ‘A’, Below: ‘A’, at bottom: ‘NEO…’, attributed to Constantinople mint, Axis 6. Ref.: Roth, type as in 266, no. 93, pl XXXI:14.

Rev.: Large ‘K’, cross above, at left: ‘O/N/N/A’, at right: XII = 538/9 C.E., Below: B. Ref.: Roth 36, no. 107. 6. Medieval, Mameluk. 15 mm, 1.66 gm, worn. 7. Bronze, 1.5 g, fragment of ring with carved engraving.

4. Tiberius II Constantine, 578-582 C.E., Bronze, 28.4-30 mm, 11.5 g, follis – 40 nummia, Latin inscr.

8. Modern, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Hussein, ascension to throne 1952). Cupro-nickel, 30.5 mm, 7.46 g, 50 Fils, bilingual (Ara-bic-English) inscription.

Ref.: Roth, type as in 113, no. 7.

Obv.: ‘50’, above: ‘1374’ (Hijrah), below: ‘1955’ (C.E.), ‘HUSEIN MALIK’, in central circle with crown above it. Bottom, l. and r.: wreath of date cluster and two sheaths. Next to crown: flower with seven petals; around: at r. below and at l. inscription: ‘ALMAMLAKAH ALARABIYAH ALHASHEMI-YAH’,

5. Constans II, 641-668 C.E.,

Rev.: ‘50’ in inner circle, and above:

Obv.: Ruler to front, wearing crown with cross, clothed as consul. In r. hand: ‘mappa’, in l. hand: staff with eagle/vulture, illegible. Rev.: Large ‘M’, cross above, at left: ‘O/N/N/A’, at right: 91/1 = 8 = 581/2 C.E., Below: ‘NIKOA’ Nicomedia mint, I, Axis 1.

746

APPENDIX B

‘FIFTY FILS’, below: ‘1955’ and seven-pointed star; around: ‘THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN’, Axis 12. Ref.: Coins of the World 1982, 1174, no. 11.

 Site 114:

Khirbet Umm el-‘Uqbeh (A) 1. Late Roman, Constantine II 317-337 C.E., Caesar during his father’s reign (337-340 C.E. – Au-gustus) Bronze, 18.5 mm, 2.65 g, AE/3, Latin inscription. Obv.: Laur. Head r., ins: ‘CON-STANTINVSIVNNOBC’. Rev.: Two soldiers stg. either side of two standards. Circ.ins.: ‘GLORIAEXERC-ITVS’; In ex.: ‘ASIS’ - Siscia mint, A, minted between 330-335 C.E., Axis 12. Ref.: RIC VI, 453 no. 220.

Obv.: Ruler to r. Rev.: Victoria dragging captive to left. Minted between 383-395 C.E., Axis 5. Ref.: Bruck 61. 4. Bronze, 10 mm, 0.90 g, Minima, worn. 5th Century C.E. 5. Bronze, 10 mm, 1.15 g, Minima, worn. 5th Century C.E. 6. Bronze, 11 mm, 0.58 g, fragment of AE/4, worn. 5th Century C.E. 7. Seventh Century C.E., transition between Byzantine and Moslem Pe-riods. Bronze, 14-16.5 mm, 0.98 g, worn, cut from sheet of bronze. Obv.: Ruler, facing front.

2. Theodosius I (?), 379-395 C.E., Bronze, 12.8-13.5 mm, 0.8 g, AE/4, worn.

Rev.: Large ‘M’, underlined, Axis 11.

Ref.: Bruck, 92-93.

Ref.: Kirkbride 1948, 62, nos. 5758; Qedar 1988/89, 30, series A-E (general).

3. Arcadius, 383-408 C.E., Bronze, 12.1-12.9 mm, 0.73 g, AE/4, illeg-ible.

8. Medieval, Ayyubides (Zengis?), El-Malek el-’Adel Nur ed-din Mahmud (?), 541-569 Hijrah,

COINS

1146-1174 C.E., Bronze, 18.5-21.5 mm, 3.98 g, Fils, Arabic inscr.

747

no. 163.

Obv.: Unclear, plant adornment.

9. Medieval, Mameluk? Bronze, 11.2-14.7 mm, 0.82 g, illegible.

Rev.: Unclear inscription (Damas-cus mint?), plant adornment.

10. Bronze, max. 14 mm, 0.46 g, illegible.

Ref.: Berman 1976, type as in 63,

 Site 127:

Khirbet Musheibik 1. Medieval, Artikim, Mardin Najm ed-Din Alfi, 547-572 Hi-jrah, 1152-1176 C.E., Bronze, 32.8 mm, 9,53 g, ‘Dirham AE’, Arabic inscription. Obv.: Two images facing each other, each adorned with diad (borrowed from type of Imperial Greek mint-ing of Asia Minor from 1st Century C.E.); above: ‘NAJM ALDIN’; be-low: ‘MALK DIAR BAKR’, tribal sign. Rev.: Two stg. figures, facing for--

ward; head of figure on right encir-cled by halo, crowning figure on left (borrowed from type of Byzantine minting from middle 10th to 12th Century C.E.). Inscr. around and between figures: ‘ABU ALMUD-HAFR ALFI BIN TAMARTASH IL GHAZI BIN ARTAQ’, Axis 4; Two perforations for hanging (one broken, not in use), matching heads of coin on either side. Ref.: Berman 1976, 58, no. 147; Lane-Poole III, 142, no. 372.

748

APPENDIX B

Site 129:

Khirbet es-Samrah 1. Roman, Salonina (wife of Gal-lienus). Silver (billon), 21.1-22.4 mm, 2.77 g, Antoninianus, Latin inscription. Obv.: Ruler facing r., on crescent, adorned with diadem, clothed. Around: ‘SALONINAAVG’. Pearls around edge. Rev.: Victoria marching at r., furling banner in r. hand, holding bunch of dates on l. shoulder; around: ‘VICTORIAAVG’ under: ‘SI B’ - Siscia-B min. Combination of Sa-lonina and Gallienus coins. Minted between 260-268 C.E., Axis 12.

ROMA. Minted between 388-395 C.E., Axis 6. Ref.: Bruck 61; RIC IX, type as in 133-134, no. 64; 136, no. 69 (gen-eral and without Christogram). 4. Bronze, 11.6-12.7 mm, 1.35 g, AE/4, worn, last quarter of 4th Cen-tury C.E. 5. Bronze, 11.7 mm, 1.13 g, worn. 6. Bronze, 10.3 mm, 1.0 g, worn, 5th Century C.E. 7. Bronze, 7.1 mm, 0.52 g, Mini-ma. Obv.: Worn. Rev.: Illegible, possi-bly monogram, 5th Century C.E. 8. Bronze, 7.7 mm, 0.63 g, Mini-ma, worn, 5th Century C.E.

Ref.: Obv. only: RIC V:1, 198199 (general), Only Rev.: like type of Gallienus – RIC V:1, 183, no. 588. 2. Bronze, 13.3 mm, 1.3 g, local minting, worn. 3. Late Roman. Bronze, 11.4-12.5 mm, 0.84 g, AE4, Latin inscrip-tion. Obv.: Ruler facing r., adorned with pearl diad, clothed, illegible. Rev.: Victoria dragging captive l., also holding booty in r. hand. Around: ‘SALVSREI-PVBLICAE’ ; bottom: ‘SMR’ - Rome mint:

9. Mameluke, en-Nasr Aladdin Muhammed?, third reign, 709-741 Hijrah, 1310-1341 C.E., Bronze, 14.6-16.5 mm, 1.40 g, Fils, Arabic inscription. Obv.: Worn, ‘MUHAMAD..’, frame adornment. Rev.: Worn. Ref.: Balog, Mameluks (general), 152, no. 230b, Table IX; 158, no. 248, Table X. 10. Bronze, 15.8-17 mm, 0.53 g, Fils, worn, undated. 11. Bronze, 19.4-23.1 mm (innerouter), 2.0 g, ring, undated.

COINS

749

Site 133:

Khirbet Umm el-Qatan 1. Medieval, Ayyubids, el-Malek elKamel I en-Nasr ed-Din Moham-med, 615-635 Hijrah, 1218-1238 C.E., with Caliph el-Mustanaser, 623-640 Hijrah, 1226-1242 C.E., Bronze, 21.5 mm, 3.18 g, Fils, Ara-bic inscription. Obv.: partially erased inscription: ‘…ALMALK ALKAMEL’. Rev.: as above: ‘ALIMAM’. 2. el-Kamel I, as above. Bronze, 1719 mm, 2.85 g, Fils, Arabic inscrip-tion. Obv.: inside square frame with external dots: ‘…K ALKA …/ MIN/…ALMALK….’.

Shean excavation.

3. Bronze, 21.5 mm, 1.95 g, Fils, disfigured by knife. 4. Mameluks, ez-Zahr Rukkan edDin Baibars I, 658-676 Hijrah, 1260-1277 C.E., Bronze, 18.5 mm, 2.22 g, Fils, Arabic inscription. Obv.: Indistinct inscription; lion walking, facing l. Rev.: Indistinct inscription.

Rev.: ‘…MAD BIN ABI / B…DIN ABU…’, Axis 3. Attributed to Da-mascus mint. Ref.: Balog, Ayyubids, no. 465, completion of reading from Beth

Ref.: Balog, Mameluks, 103 (gen-eral). 5. Steel arrowhead, overall length 60 mm, 5.93 g, triangular blade 20 mm long, max. width of side 6.8 mm, point 25 mm long.

 Site 143:

Khirbet Humsah 1. Roman, Aurelianus, 270-275 C.E., Bronze coated with silver, 21-22 mm, 2.78 g, Antoninianus, Latin inscription. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with radial crown, armored, long, thin neck; around: ‘IMPCAVRELIAN--

VSAVG’. Rev.: Female figure at l. presenting wreath to ruler stg facing her at r.; seven-pointed star between them. Around: ‘RESTITVTOR-BIS’, be-low: ‘KA’ -Tripoli mint, Phoenicia, 3rd Period, Axis 12.

750

APPENDIX B

Ref.: RIC V, 309, no. 389.

2. Late Roman, Constantine I (the Great), 307-337 C.E., Bronze, 19.6-20.7 mm, 3.63 g, reduced Follis, Latin inscription.

Obv.: Ruler facing r., bareheaded, clothed, armored, the letter Del-ta to l. of back of neck; around: ‘DN……STANTI-VSNOBCAES’. Rev.: Legionnaire spearing fallen horseman at l.; around: ‘...MPREPARATIO’; below: ‘ALEA’ - Alex-andria mint, A, Axis 6. Ref.: Bruck 17-20.

Obv.: Ruler r., adorned with wreath, clothed, armored, around: ‘IMCONSTANTINVSPFAVG’. Rev.: Sol stg naked at l, adorned with radial crown, r. hand open, globe in l. hand, cloak around neck and over l. shoulder, at l. sevenpointed star; around: ‘SOLIINVIC-TOCOMITI’; bottom: ‘PT’ - Ticinum mint. Minted between 313-318 C.E., Axis 6. Ref.: RIC VI, 361, no. 14.

3. Constantius Gallus, 351-354 C.E. (under Constantius II). Bronze, 21-23 mm, 3.38 g, Cen-tenionalis, Latin inscr.

4. Early Moslem, transition between Byzantine and Moslem. Bronze, 14.5-16.5 mm, 2.53 g, Follis cut rectangularly; Arabic inscription? Obv.: figure facing forward. Rev.: Large ‘m’, at left: ‘TAYB’, (‫טב‬ = TOV?* or Tiberias?); below: hori-zontal line; Axis 11. * possibly Countermark: ‘TOV’, Qedar, 1988/9, 32; and with trans-lation of Meshorer 1965/6, 32-34.

COINS

751

Site 158:

Khirbet el-Khrebat 1. Medieval, Ayyubids, el-Malek en-Naser Salah ed-Din Yusef ibn Ayyub, 564-589 Hijrah, 11691193 C.E., Bronze, 23-24.8 mm, 5.8 g, Fils, Arabic inscription, adorned letters. Obv.: Within inner ring of pearls: ‘ALMALK ALNASR’; above: lily; below: plant adornment, around outside ‘SULTAN ALMUSLI-MIN’; pearls around edge.

Ghazi, 582-613 Hijrah, 11861216 C.E., with Caliph en-Nasr, 575-622 Hijrah, 1180-1225 C.E., Bronze, max. 22.2 mm (fragment), 2.81 g, Fils, Arabic inscr.

Rev.: Within inner ring of pearls: ‘YUSEF / BIN AYYUB’; above, decoration resembling flat letter ‘V’; below: six-pointed star; around outside: ‘DARB BIDIMASHK SANA SIT WATAMANIN’, (5[86] Hijrah, 1189/90 C.E.), Axis 3.

Rev.: ‘ALIMAM ALNASR…’; in-side star as above; around: ‘MAD RASUL ALLAH’. Pearls around edge, Aleppo mint, Axis 1.

Ref.: Berman 1976, 68, no. 176; Balog, Ayyubids, no. 148.

2. El-Malek et-Thahr Gyat ed-Din

Obv.: ‘ALMALK ALTHAHR...’, inside octagonal star of pearls, bor-dered by line. Around: ‘AHAD ASHAR WASI…’ (6[11] Hijrah – 1213/14 C.E.). Pearls around edge.

Ref.: Berman 1976, type as in 76, no. 206, but date is different and name of minter is outside token; Balog, Ayyubids, no 670.

3. Bronze, max. 15 mm, 0.37 g, broken coin, worn.

752

APPENDIX B

Site 168:

Khirbet Bet Farr (B) 1. Late Roman, Constantine I (the Great), 307-337 C.E., Bronze, 16.5-17.5 mm, 2.07 g, AE3, Latin inscr.

and rev. indistinct.

Obv.: Ruler facing r., adorned with diadem with rosette, clothed, ar-mored. Around: ‘CONSTANTINVSMAXAVG’; pearls around edge.

Obv.: Ruler standing front, wearing crown, clothed, scepter topped by cross in right hand, globe with cross in l. hand, illegible.

Rev.: Two soldiers stg. with two banners between them, spear in outer hand of each, inner hand on shield. Around: ‘GLOR-IAEX-ERC-ITVS’. At bottom: mint – il-legible. Minted between 330-335 C.E., Axis 6.

4. Transition Byzantine-Arabic. Bronze, 17.5-24.5 mm, 3.30 g, Follis – 40 Nummia.

Rev.: Large ‘m’, horizontal line con-necting, at center, three parts of let-ter; above: diagonal cross (perhaps X?); below: horizontal line, illeg-ible, Axis 12. Ref.: Kirkbride 1948, general, no exact parallel.

Ref.: Bruck 25-28. 2. Arcadius, 383-408 C.E., Bronze, 13-14 mm, 1.31 g, AE/4, Latin in-scription. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with pearl diadem, clothed, armored, around: ‘DNARCADIVSPFAVG’. Rev.: Victoria dragging captive to l., carrying booty on shoulder and in r. hand; at l.: Christogram. Around: ‘SALVSREI-PVBLICAE’; below: ‘CONA’ - Constantinople mint, A, between 388-392 C.E., Axis 12. Ref.: RIC IX, 234, no. 86(c). 3. Byzantine, Heraclius or Constans II?, first half of 7th Century C.E., Bronze, max. 16 mm, 1.44 g, Fol-lis – 40 Nummia (fragment). Obv.

5. Medieval, Mameluke, ez-Zahr Rukkan ed-Din Baibars I, 658-676 Hijrah, 1260-1277 C.E., Bronze, 14.5-18.0 mm, 2.85 g, Fils, cut to-ken, Arabic inscr. Obv.: Lion moving l., tail raised; at left and below: lines of frame; at-tributed to Damascus mint, Axis 8. Rev.: esh-Shuhadah: ‘/..LA ALLAH IL / MUHAMAD’. Ref.: Balog, Mameluks (general), type as in p. 105, Table IV: 98100.

COINS

753

- 7(71) Hijrah [1369/70 C.E.], at-tributed to Damascus mint.

6. En-Nasr Nasr ed-Din Mu-hammed, Third Reign, 709-741 Hijrah, 1310-1341 C.E., Bronze, 17.0-19.5 mm, 2.71 g, Fils, Arabic inscriptions. Obv.: ‘ALMALK ALNASR…’; Above and below: floral decora-tions; around edge: circle and dots outside it. Rev.: In center, round ‘sign’ with five-petalled flower sunk inside; around and inward: ‘DARB BIDI-MASHQ SANA TALATIN’ - 7(30) Hijrah [1329 C.E.]. Ref.: Balog, Mameluks, 162, no. 261; Berman 1976, 88, no. 22. 7. Bronze, 17-20 mm, 1.77 g, Fils, Arabic inscriptions. Obv.: ‘ALMALK ALNASR…’ around circle, and illegible inscrip-tion. Rev.: ‘MIN / ALMALK /…’ around circle, and illegible inscr. First half of 14th Century C.E., Axis 10.

Ref.: Balog, Mameluks (general, due to poor preservation) 220, no. 456. 9. Bronze, 16.5-17.5 mm, 1.99 g, Fils, Arabic inscriptions. Obv.: ‘ALMALK ALAF…’; above: dividing line and decoration. Rev.: ‘SHU…’N; below: dividing line and inscription: ‘…SHAF…’?; the coin has a hole in it, Axis 9. Ref.: Balog, Mameluks (general) similar to type on 220, Table XVII: 454. 10. Mameluk, undefined. Bronze, 19.5-21.5 mm, 3.29 g, Fils. Obv and Rev.: Indistinct Star of David, 14th-15th Century C.E. 11. Bronze, 15 mm, 0.56 g, thin, undefined. Obv.: A…’.

‘ALSULTAN

ALMALK

Rev.: Inner circle, worn, 14th-15th Century C.E. 12. Bronze, 13.5-15 mm, 0.59 g, thin, undefined.

Ref.: Balog, Mameluks, type similar to 148, no 215.

Obv.: At r., frame of dots: ‘...AL-MALK…’, worn.

8. Al-Ashraf Nasr ed-Din Sh’aban II, 764-778 Hijrah, 1363-1377 C.E., Bronze, 14.5-16.0 mm, 0.74 g, thin, Arabic inscriptions.

Rev.: In frame of dots: ‘HAD…’, worn, 13th-15th Century C.E.

Obv.: ‘…K/ ALAF/SHAR...’, un-derlined.

Obv.: ‘ALNASR…’, worn.

Rev.: ‘HAD SABU…/ SANA…’

13. Bronze, 14-16 mm, 0.80 g, thin, undefined. Rev.: Above frame of dots, at edge: ‘…MD...’, worn, 13th-15th Century

754

APPENDIX B

C.E.

not definitely a coin, worn.

14. Bronze, 14-15 mm, 0.54 g, thin, undefined.

16. Bronze, max. 21 mm, 0.67 g, metal sheeting (cut), not definitely a coin, indistinct. Ottoman.

Obv and Rev.: worn, illegible. 15. Bronze, 14 mm, 0.40 g, thin,

17. Lead, weight, diameter 14.5 mm, height 20.5 mm, 24.34 g.

 Site No. 171:

Tel Miski 1. Hasmonaean (Late Hellenis-tic), Alexander Yannaeus, 103-76 B.C.E., Bronze, 12-13.5 mm, 0.97 g, Prutah, Greek-Aramaic bilingual inscription, excentric minting.

fronds, pearl edge, Axis 12. Ref.: Meshorer 1982 A, 24-25, 236; no. 7-8, Table 7.

Obv.: Anchor in circle; around: ‘ …YBAS3…’. Rev.: Eight-pointed star in dotted circle, around: ‘…‫( ’מלכאאל‬King Al[exander]), Axis 12. Ref.: Meshorer 1982 A, 79-80, type Cd, Table 7.

2. House of Herod (Early Roman), Herod the Great, 37-4 B.C.E., Bronze, max. 19.1 mm, 2.91 g, double Prutah, Greek inscription (partially broken). Obv.: X surrounded by ribbon; around: ‘HP… ,ECY’, pearl edge. Rev.: Three-legged table on hori-zontal line, at left and right date

3. Late Roman. Constantius II, 337-361 C.E., Bronze, 15.3-16.4 mm, 1.99 g, AE/3, Latin inscrip-tion. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with diadem, clothed, armored, around: ‘..TIVSPFAVG’. Rev.: Legionnaire spearing fallen horseman. Around: ‘..EMP-REPA-RATIO’. In area at l.: ‘M’; below: ‘SMTHES’ – Thessalonica mint, minted between 354-361 C.E., Axis 12. Rev.: Bruck 20.

COINS

4. Eudochia (wife of Arcadius, 395 C.E., died 404 C.E.). Bronze, 12.313 mm, 1.16 g, AE/4. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with el-egant diadem, dressed, illegible.

755

Latin inscr. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with dia-dem, dressed, star at left. Around: ‘DNTHEO…’.

Ref.: Bruck 42.

Rev.: Theodosius II stg. between Arcadius and Honorius facing for-ward, holding spears, illegible. Axis 12.

5. Theodosius II, 402-450 C.E., Bronze, 12.4-13 mm, 1.37 g, AE/4,

Ref.: Bruck 42; Kent and Carson 1965, Table III: 2214.

Rev.: Seated figure facing forward, blurred, Axis 12.

 Site No. 174:

Tel el-Hadad 1. City coin, Neapolis (Shechem), Elagabalus, 218-222 C.E., Bronze, 23.5-24.8 mm, 12.35 g, Greek in-scr. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with wreath (?); around: ‘ACT…OC’, pearl edge, signs of sawing on to-ken. Rev.: Mount Garizim with temple and altar, with steps leading to them from avenue of columns at foot of mountain; around: ‘…A… TTO,…’; Axis 12. Ref.: Rosenberger III, 11, no. 3739. 2. Late Roman. Bronze, 13-14.4 mm, 0.74 g, AE/4. Obv.: Ruler to l., adorned with wreath, clothed, indistinct inscrip-tion. Rev.: Inside diadem: ‘V/VOT’, in--

distinct. Last quarter of 4th Century C.E., Axis 12. Ref.: Bruck 94. 3. Byzantine. Heraclius, 610-641 C.E., Bronze, 30.6-32.4 mm, 10.90 g, Follis – 40 Nummia, stamped over older mint, Latin ins. Obv.: Heraclius at l., Heraclius Constantinus at r., stg. and facing forward, wearing crowns, dressed, each holding globe with cross in right hand; around, distorted inscription: ‘…DDNhERA… CONS’. Rev.: Large ‘m’; above: cross; at l.: ‘N/N/A/O’; at r.: 41 = 6 (615/6 C.E.); below in space: ‘E’; at bot-tom: ‘CO(N)’ - Constantinople mint, V, Axis 7. Ref.: Sear 1974a, 151, no. 805; Roth (general), type as in 201 no 139 (different date).

756

APPENDIX B

Site No. 176:

Khirbet Tel el-Fukhar 1. Roman, Roman consuls in Judea, Festus, 59-62 C.E., under reign of Nero (54-68 C.E.). Bronze, 16.8-18.4 mm, 2.73 g, Prutah, Greek inscription. Obv.: Name of emperor inside wreath: ‘NEP/WNO/C’ pearl edge. Rev.: Date frond; around: ‘LEKA-ICAPOC’, year 5 of Nero’s reign (59 C.E.), Axis 12. Ref.: Meshorer 1982, B, 183, 285; no. 35, Table 33.

2. City coin, Caesarea, Hadrian, 117-138 C.E., Bronze, 18.2-20 mm, 6.40 g, Latin inscription. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with wreath, clothed, armored. Around: ‘IMPTRAHA DRIANOCAA’; pearl edge. Rev.: Apollo stg naked, facing left, snake in right hand, left hand lean-ing on tripod for incense, cloak draped over neck and l. shoulder; around: ‘CIF.AVG-CAESAR’; pearl edge, Axis 12. Ref.: Kadman 1957, 102, Table III: 29; Rosenberger, II, 4, no. 24.

3. City coin, Neapolis (Shechem). Bronze (Orichalcum), 23.8-24.3 mm, 9.6 g, Greek inscr. Obv.: Ruler to r., rectangular coun-termark with head (?) on neck at right; around: ‘…AV…KAICAP’, worn. Rev.: Stg. figure (resembles Zeus Heliopolitas) facing front, worn, Axis 12. 4. Late Roman, Probus, 276-282 C.E. Silver-coated bronze (rem-nants), 21.1-22.2 mm, 4.15 g, An-toninianus, Latin inscription, pearl edge on both sides of coin. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with radial crown, clothed, armored. Around: ‘IMPCMAVRPROB-VSAVG’. Rev.: Probus clothed, stg. and fac-ing l., holding scepter with eagle at top, accepting globe from Jupiter at r., naked except for cloak draped from neck onto left shoulder; long scepter in l. hand. Around: ‘CLE-MENTIAT-EMP’; below in space: ‘E’; at bottom: ‘XXI’; attributed to Siscia mint. Axis 6. Ref.: RIC V: 2, 86, no. 643.

COINS

757

Ref.: RIC VI, 693, no 86; Bruck 25.

5. Carus, 282-283 C.E. Silver-coat-ed bronze (remnants), 20.5-22.2 mm, 3.28 g, Antoninianus, Latin inscr, pearl edge on both sides of coin. Obv.: Ruler to r. adorned with crown of rays, clothed, armored. Around: ‘IMPCMAVRCARVSP-FAVG’. Rev.: Carus, clothed, stg. at l. with dagger, receiving Victoria present-ing him with wreath, from Jupiter stg. at r., clothed, long scepter in l. hand, star above; around: VIRT-VSAV-GGG’; below in space: ‘A’; at bottom: ‘XXI’, attributed to An-tioch mint, Axis 12. Ref.: RIC V:2, 150, no. 125. 6. Constantine I (the Great), 307337 C.E., Bronze, 16-18 mm, 2.57 g, AE/3, Latin inscr, pearl edge on both sides of coin. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with em-bedded diadem, clothed, armored. Around: ‘CONSTANTI-NVS-MAXAVG’. Rev.: Two soldiers stg with two ban-ners between them, spear in out-side hands, inside hands on shield; Around: ‘GLOR-IAEXERCITVS’; below: ‘SMANB’ - Antioch mint, II, minted between 330-335 C.E., Axis 6.

7. Constantius II, 337-361 C.E., Bronze, 17.3-18 mm, 2.07 g, AE/3, Latin inscriptions. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with diadem, clothed, armored; around: ‘DNCONSTANTIVSPFAVG’. Rev.: Legionnaire stabbing fallen horseman; around: ‘FELTEMP… RATIO’; at bottom: ‘ALES’; Al-exandria mint, V, minted between 350-361 C.E., Axis 12. Ref.: Bruck 20-21. 8. Bronze, 14.7-15.8 mm, 2.18 g, AE 3/4, Latin inscr. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with dia-dem, clothed, armored, illegible. Rev.: Legionnaire stabbing fallen horseman; around: ‘…TEMPREPARATIO’, minted between 354-361 C.E., Axis 10. Ref.: Bruck 20-21. 9. Bronze, 14.7-15.7 mm, 2.32g, AE 3/4, Latin inscr.. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with dia-dem; around: ‘DNCON…’. Rev.: Legionnaire stabbing fallen horseman; around: ‘…REPARA-TIO’, minted between 354-361 C.E., Axis 10. Ref.: Bruck 20-21. 10. Theodosius I, 379-395 C.E.

758

APPENDIX B

13.6-14.7 mm, 1.28 g, AE/4, Latin inscr. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with pearl diadem, clothed, armored; around: ‘DNTHEODO-SIVSPFAVG’. Rev.: Victoria dragging captive to l.; carrying booty on her shoulder, held in r. hand; at l.: Christo-gram. Around: ‘SALVSREI-PV-BLICAE’; at bottom: ‘SMKA’ - Cyzicus mint, I/A, minted be-tween 388-395 C.E., Axis 6. Ref.: RIC IX, 246-247, no. 26(a), 30(a). 11. Honorius, 393-428 C.E. 1212.5 mm, 0.77 g, AE/4, Latin in-scr. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with diadem, clothed, armored; around: ‘…RIVSPFAVG’. Rev.: Victoria dragging captive left-ward; carrying booty on her shoul-der, held in r. hand; at l.: Christo-gram. Around: ‘…PVBLICAE’; at bottom: ‘ANS’ - Antioch mint, V/6, minted between 393-395 C.E., Axis 12.

pointed star at left, cross at r.. Be-low: Δ; at bottom: ‘CON’ - Con-stantinople mint, IV, relief hoop around, Axis 6. Ref.: Roth 14, no. 32. 13. Justinianus I, 527-565 C.E.,

Bronze, 28.6-35.2 mm, 15.79 g, Follis – 40 Nummia, Latin inscr. Dotted circle at edge on both sides of coin. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with diadem, clothed, armored; around: ‘DN.- ANPPAV’. Rev.: Large ‘M’; above; cross; at l. and r.: eight-pointed star. Below: Δ; at bottom: ‘…TIX’, Antioch mint, IV, minted between 527-528 C.E., Axis 5. Ref.: Roth, type as in 53, no. 265, Table VIII:1.

Ref.: RIC, IX, 295, no. 70(c). 12. Byzantine, Justinus I, 518-527 C.E., Bronze, 27.931.6 mm, 16.40 g, Follis – 40 Nummia, Latin inscr. Obv.: Inside round depression, portrait of ruler to r., adorned with diadem, clothed, armored; around: ‘…-NVSPPAVG’. Rev.: Large ‘M’, cross above, six-

14. Bronze, 14.7-15.6 mm, 2.62 g., 12 Nummia, Latin-Greek bilingual inscriptions.

COINS

Obv.: Ruler to r., remnants of in-scription: ‘DNIV…’. Rev.: Large ‘I+B’; above: cross; at bottom: ‘!,%:’ - Alexandria mint, Axis 7, could belong to three different rulers between 518-578 C.E. 15. Early Moselm (Umayyad), postReform – 697-750 C.E., Bronze, 16.3-17.5 mm, 3.72 g, Fils, Arabic inscription within circle. Obv and Rev.: Shuhadah, ‘LA ALLAH / ILA ALLAH / WAHDAH MUHA-MAD / RASUL/ ALLAH’, Axis 10. Ref.: Walker, type as in 210, no. 638, Table XXIII.

16. Bronze, 19.5-21.5 mm, 3.32 g, Fils, Arabic inscription. Obv.: Inside three concentric circles, first part of Shuhadah: ‘LA ALAH / ILA ALLAH / WAHDAH …; Rev.: Center, other part of Shu--

hadah: ‘MUHAMAD / RASUL / ALLAH’, above: ‘bud’; around: ‘BISM ALLAH DARB HADA ALFLUS …’; mint illegible, eightpointed star, pearl edge, Axis 3. The three above circles point to mint in Southern Syria-Palestine. Ref.: Qedar 1988/89, 35.

17. Roman-Byzantine. Bronze (coated?) with silver, 1.43 g; pol-ished fragment of one side of mir-ror? Radius indicates diameter of 10-14 cm. 18. Modern. Bronze, ball-shaped bell, 22 mm, 33 mm, 16.96 g, decorated with dotted line. Used mostly for herds of sheep. 19. Ottoman, 20th Century C.E. (Mohammed V). Copper, casing of rifle bullet, 7.92 mm, 12 mm, length 53 mm, weight (uncleaned) 11.50 g. The symbols around: ‘1332’ (Hijrah = 1913/1914 C.E.). Unfired.

 Site No. 186:

Khirbet el-‘Athmawiyyeh 1. Late Roman-Byzantine. Bronze, max. 11 mm, 1.17 g, fragment of

759

undefined coin.

760

APPENDIX B

Site No. 194:

Khirbet Basaliyyeh 1. Late Roman, Bronze, 11.6-12.5 mm, 0.77 g, AE/4, Latin inscr. Obv.: Ruler to r., clothed. Around: ‘DN...-...AVG’, indistinct. Rev.: Victoria dragging captive to-ward l.; at l., indistinct cross. Mint-ed between 383-395 C.E., Axis 12. Ref.: Bruck 61. 2. Byzantine, Justinus II, 565-578 C.E., Bronze, 28.5-31.5 mm, 12.24 g, Follis – 40 Nummia, Latin inscr, circle around edges. Obv.: Justinus II and Sophia sitting on throne facing front, clothed, il-legible. Rev.: Large ‘M’; above: cross; at l.: ‘O/N/N/A’; at r.: ‘X’ (= 574/5 C.E.); below: ‘A’; at bottom: ‘NIKO’ - Nicomedia, mint A [I], Axis 6. Ref.: Roth 88, no. 149. 3. Bronze, 20-22 mm, 5.49 g, half Follis – 20 Nummia. Obv.: Justinus II and Sophia sitting on throne facing front, clothed, il-legible. Rev.: Large ‘K’; above: cross; at l.: ‘O/N/N/A’; at r.: ‘Δ’ (= 568/9 C.E.); below: ‘TES’ – Thessalonica mint, Axis 6. Ref.: Roth 84, no. 105. 4. Heraclius, 610-641 C.E. 28-31.5 mm, 8.99 g, Follis – 40 Nummia, repeat minting, damaged by corro--

sion. Obv.: Heraclius and Heraclius Con-stantine stg to front. Rev.: Large ‘M’; above: cross; at l.: ‘O/N/N/A’; at r.: large ‘X’, remnant of former mint; below: ‘’CON’ – Constantinople mint, Axis 7. Ref.: Roth, type as in 201, nos. 139-141. 5. Early Moslem, Byzantine-Arabic transition. Bronze, 15.3-24.6 mm, 2.41 g, Follis – 40 Nummia, illeg-ible. Obv.: Figure facing front, crowned, clothed, long cross in r. hand. Rev.: Large ‘M’, below: horizontal line, Axis 6. Ref.: Kirkbride 1948 (general). 6. Damascus. 21-22 mm, 4.35 g, Follis-40 Nummia, bilingual Ara-bic-Greek ins., encircled by dotted line. Obv.: Figure stg to front, crowned, long cross in r. hand, globe with cross in l. hand. At left: palm frond with ‘T’ above it. Rev.: Large ‘M’; above: cross; at l.: ‘ΔAM’; at r. :’...MUHAMAD’, below: crescent; at bottom: ‘BIDI-MISHK’; Damascus mint, Axis 3. No exact parallel; mint details appear on various other coins; see Walker: palm frond – p. 6 no. 9.

COINS

7. Medieval, Umaiyyad, post-re-form of Abd el-Malk (77 Hijrah, 696/7 C.E.). Bronze, 18-26.5 mm, 2.58 g, Fils, Arabic inscription, re-peat minting.

761

design; Axis 5. Ref.: Berman 1976, type as in 72, no. 190; Balog, Ayyubids, no. 320.

Ref.: Walker, type as in 208, no. 618; Qedar, 1984/5, type as in “group” 3 without mint name, p. 71 no. 56, pl. 21.

10. al-Malk el-Mansur Nasr ed-Din Muhammed I, prince of Hama, 587-617 Hijrah, 1191-1220 C.E., under ruler of Aleppo al-Malk al-Thahr Giyath ed-Din Ghazi, 582-612 Hijrah, 1186-1216 C.E., with the Caliph el-Nasr, 575-622 Hijrah, 1180-1225 C.E., Bronze, 20 mm, 2.66 g, Fils, Arabic inscr. Obv.: ‘ALMALK ALTHAHR / / ALMALK ALMANSUR’; above, in center and below: floral design.

8. 712-751 CE, Ramlah mint. Bronze, 13-14 mm, 3.18 g, Fils, Arabic inscription, repeat minting.

Rev.: ‘DAR B / ALIMAM ALNA…/ BID MAH’, circle in margin, dots around it; Axis 4.

Obv.: Within circle of pearls, floral symbol (similar to palm branch); around, part of inscription.

Ref.: Balog, Ayyubids, no. 825.

Obv and Rev.: The Shuhadah; in circle: ‘LA ALAH / ILA ALLAH / WAHDAH MUHAMAD / RA-SUL / ALLAH’. indistinct rem-nants of earlier minting outside circle; Axis 12.

Rev.: Within circle of pearls, cres-cent; around, part of inscription and part of outer circle; Axis 3. Ref.: Walker, similar type, 257 nos. 855-879. 9. Medieval, Ayyubids, all-Malk el’Adel I Seif ed-Din Abu Bakr, 592615 Hijrah, 1196-1218 C.E. Bronze, 22.5-24 mm, 6.69 g, Fils, Arabic inscription, worn, cut. Obv.: Inside dotted circle, fivepointed star: ‘AL .../ ALMALK ALA…/; around on outside: ‘SAT-MA…BIDIMISHQ’ Rev.: Remnants of inscription: ‘… ABU BAKR...’; below, complex net

Non-coin metal objects: 11. Byzantine. Bronze weight, 26.06 g, 25.5 mm, 0.9 mm thick, in shape of backgammon playing piece. Upper side: Round depression, 4.4 mm knob in center; above: cross; at left: ‘'’ and small circle; at r.: ‘A’ (one ounce); below, six rays around point. The signs are depressed. Lower side: Unsuccessful round de-pression with central point; shallow, engraved scratches in field (possibly monograms?). Encircling side: Two

762

APPENDIX B

engraved coils.

 Site No. 239:

Khirbet es-Suwedeh 1. Roman, City coin, Hadrian, 130138 C.E., Aelia Capitolina (Roman Jerusalem). Bronze, 22-23 mm, 8.9 g, Latin inscription, pearl edge. Obv.: Ruler to r., clothed, beard-ed, adorned by wreath. Around: ‘HADRIANOAVG IMPCAE-TRAIA'. Rev.: Head of Aelius to r., clothed, bearded. Around: ‘L.AELIVS CAE-SA-COL AEL CAP’. Ref.: Kadman 1956, 80 and no. 8; Meshorer 1989, 23 and no. 8.

2. Caesarea Maritima. Bronze, 1719 mm, 6.2 g, Latin inscription. Obv.: Caesar to r., adorned by wreath, clothed. Around: ‘IMP-TRAHA-DRIANOCAE’. Rev.: Apollo stg. at left, tripod and snake in front. Around: ‘CIFAVGCAESAR’. Ref.: Kadman 1957, 102 and no. 29.

COINS

763

Site No. 251:

Khirbet Mufyeh 1. Roman, city coin. Bronze, 14.315 mm,. 5.08 g. worn.

- Nicomedia mint, V, minted be-tween 330-335 C.E., Axis 12.

Obv.: Ruler to r., worn.

Ref.: RIC, VII, Type as in 635, no.199.

2. Late Roman, Claudius II Gothi-cus, 268-270 C.E. Silver alloy, 1921.6 mm, 3.13 g, Antoninianus, Latin inscr. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with ra-dial crown, clothed; around: ‘IM-PCCCLAVDIVSAVG’. Pearl edge. Rev.: Heracles stg. To front, naked, club in r. hand, lion’s hide in l.; around: ‘IVVENTVSAVG’; at bot-tom: ‘Δ’; pearl edge, attributed to Antioch mint, Axis 6. Ref.: RIC, V:1, 229, no. 213.

3. Constantine I, ‘the Great’, 307337 C.E., Bronze, 15.4-16.5 mm, 1.27 g, AE 3/4, Latin inscr, pearl edge on both sides of coin. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with rosette diadem, clothed, armored; around: ‘CONSTANTI-NVS MAXAVG’. Rev.: Two soldiers stg. with one banner between them, each hold-ing spear in outer hand, inner hand on shield. Around: ‘GLORI-IAEX-ERC-ITVS’; at bottom: ‘SMNE’

4. Constantinople. Bronze, 15.817.9 mm, 2.46 g, AE/3, Latin in-scr., pearl edge on both sides of coin. Obv.: Portrait of Constantinople facing l., wearing crested helmet adorned by wreath, clothed, balled staff of outstretched spear on left shoulder; around: ‘CONSTANTI…IS’. Rev.: Victoria turning leftward on ship’s prow, spear in r. hand, left hand on shield. At bottom: ‘SMA-NA’ - Antioch I mint, minted be-tween 330-341 C.E., Axis 6. Ref.: RIC, VI, type as in 693, nos. 92, 114; Hill and Kent 1965, pl. II:7 or 7:II.

5. Constantine II, 337-340. Bronze, 12.3-13.1 mm, 1.45 g, AE/4, Latin inscr. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with

764

APPENDIX B

rosette diadem, clothed, armored. Around: ‘…TANTINVSAVG’. Rev.: Caesar stg. to front, spear upside-down in r. hand, l. hand on shield. Around: ‘VIRTVS-…’; at bottom: wreath with R, Rome mint, Axis 12. Ref.: Bruck 85.

9. Valentinianus II, 375-392 C.E., Bronze, 11.4-12 mm, 1.04 g, AE/4, Latin inscr. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned by dia-dem. Around: ‘…NVALENTIN-IA’. Rev.: ‘XX/MVLT/X/VOT’ within wreath; Axis 7; minted between 378-383 C.E. Ref.: Bruck 93.

6. Constantius II, 337-361. Bronze, 13.7-15.5 mm, 1.91 g, AE 3/4, Latin inscr. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with pearl diadem; around: ‘DNCON-STAN-TIVSPFAVG-’ . Rev.: Two soldiers stg either side of two standards. Around: ‘GLORIAEXERC-ITVS’; at bottom: ‘SMAN’ - Antioch mint, IV, pearl edge, Axis 6. Ref.: Bruck 30.

10. Theodosius I, 379-395 C.E., Bronze, 11.4 mm, 1.16 g, AE/4, Latin inscription, indistinct. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned by dia-dem, clothed; remnant of inscrip-tion: ‘...OD…’. Rev.: Victoria dragging captive to l., booty on her shoulder; remnant of inscription: ‘...PVB’; at bottom: ‘CON’ - Constantinople mint, Axis 6. Ref.: Bruck 61. 11. Bronze, 12 mm, 1.08 g, AE/4, illegible. 12. Arcadius, 383-408 C.E., Bronze, 12.1-14.2 mm, 1.01 g, AE/4, Latin inscriptions.

7. Bronze, 13.5 mm, 1.63 g, AE 3/4, indistinct. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned by dia-dem. Rev.: Victoria to l., Axis 12, third quarter of 4th Century. Ref.: Bruck 66. 8. Bronze, max. 12.7 mm, 0.72 g, AE 3/4, incomplete, worn.

Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned with pearl diadem, clothed; around: ‘DNARCADIVSPFAVG’. Rev.: Victoria dragging captive l., booty on her shoulder; Christo-gram at l.; around: ‘…VSREI-PV-BLICAE’; at bottom: ‘..SΔ’ - Thes-salonica mint, IV, minted between 388-393 C.E., Axis 5. Ref.: RIC, IX, type as in 188, no.

COINS

65(c).

13. Honorius, 393-423 C.E., Bronze, 11.7-14 mm, 2.05 g, AE 3/4, indistinct. Obv.: Ruler to r.. Rev.: Soldier stg at left, spear in r. hand, l. hand on shield, being crowned by Victoria, stg at r. Axis 12. Ref.: Bruck 85; Sear 1974, type as in 347, no. 4157. 14. Theodosius II, 402-450 C.E., Bronze, 9.4 mm, 0.56 g, Minima, Latin inscriptions, indistinct. Obv.: Ruler to r., adorned by dia-dem; around: ‘…OSIVSPF…’. Rev.: Cross; around” ‘CONC…’; Axis 12. Ref.: Bruck 7.

765

tially broken. Obv.: In center of first part of Shu-hadah: ‘LA ALLAH ILA ALLAH / WAHDA’. In margin, around, are two concentric circles, between which three ring-ties are visible. Rev.: Pomegranate in center, around: second part of Shuhadah: ‘MUHAMAD / RASUL / AL…’. In margin, around, are two con-centric circles, between which three rings are visible; Axis 8. Ref.: Walker, type as in 203, no 595, Table XXIII. 18. Bronze, 17.5-19 mm, 0.84 g, Arabic inscriptions, partially bro-ken. Obv.: In center of first part of Shu-hadah: ‘…LAH / ILA ALLAH / WAHDAH’. In margin, around, are two concentric circles, between which a crescent and point to left of inscription are visible.

16. Byzantine, Justinianus I, 527565 C.E., Bronze, 8.2-9 mm, 0.49 g, Nummia, illegible.

Rev.: In center: second part of Shu-hadah: ‘RASUL A…’. In margin, around, are two concentric circles, between which is name of minter: ‘DHARB BIHALB?’, to right of in-scription. Aleppo mint? Axis 4.

Obv.: Ruler to r., clothed, ar-mored.

Ref.: Walker, type as in 243, no 794, Table XXVI.

Rev.: Large ‘A’; Axis 9.

19. Bronze, 14 mm, 1.78 g, Fils, Arabic inscriptions.

15. Bronze, 7.1 mm, 0.48 g, Mini-ma, worn. 5th Century C.E.

Ref.: Sear 1974a, no. 173, 281. 17. Early Moslem, Umayyad, post-reform of Abd el-Malk, 696751 C.E., Bronze, 18.2 mm, 2.89 g, anonymous Fils, pomegranate specimen, Arabic inscription, par--

Obv.: First part of Shuhadah: ‘ALAH / ILA ALLAH / WAHDAH’. Rev.: ‘DHARB HADHA ALFILS BIDIMASHQ’, Damascus mint.

766

APPENDIX B

Axis 1. No exact parallel exists. Generally: Walker 248, nos. 812-815.

Rev.: ‘ALLAH AHAD AL…/ AL-SAMD LAM YALD / …YULD...’; around, marginal inscription: date and mint (if one exists) outside of token. Axis 8. Minted after 100 Hi-jrah, 719 C.E. Ref.: Walker, type as in 242, no. B.44, pl. XXVI; 291, nos. 954-956, pl. XXXI.

20. Bronze, 17-19.2 mm, 4.84 g. Fils, Arabic inscriptions. Obv.: ‘LA ALLAH ILA / ALLAH WAHDAH / LA SHARIQ…’; around, remnants of illegible, mar-ginal inscription.

21. Bronze, 10.2-11.4 mm, 1.06 g, undefined (coin fragment). 22. Bronze, 11.4-23.5 mm, 1.32 g, piece of perforated metal sheet.

 Site No. 259:

Khirbet Gharur 1. Roman, city coin. Bronze, 17.521 mm, 6.36 g, poor state of pres-ervation, indistinct. Obverse: Ruler to r.. 2. Bronze, 21 mm, 4.18 g, poor

state of preservation, indistinct. Obv. Ruler to r. 3. Bronze, max. 22 mm, 3.38 g, piece of bronze, not definitely coin, minted depression.

INDEX 1

LIST OF WATER SOURCES IN THE TERRITORY OF VOL. II (numbers are those in the text)

No. 35 40 49 83 85 86 87 88 89 91 101 103 104 106 107 108 109 111 112 115 116 117 132 134

Name ‘Ain Ginai Bir el-Haffireh ‘Ain Jerbah ‘Ain el-Beidan ‘Ain el-Far‘ah ‘Ain el-Miyiteh ‘Ain Malih Hilu Springs ‘Ain esh-Shaqq ‘Ain Bardaleh ‘Ain Miski Wadi Malih Wadi el-Far‘ah ‘Ain Za‘anuni ‘Ain Jwar ‘Ain Mughur ‘Id ‘Ain Farr ‘Ain ed-Dabbur Jordan River ‘Ain Kardaleh ‘Ain el-Hammeh ‘Ain el-Khimyar Qa‘un Springs ‘Ain ej-Jamal

Israel Grid 1783/2060 1726/2009 1742/1992 1801/1853 1829/1885 1940/1928 1940/1928 1951/1925 1972/1946 1953/1995 1870/1829 – – 1863/1805 1847/1815 1862/1809 1850/1829 1875/1803 – 1962/1983 1972/1976 1975/1947 1941/2014 1973/1927

Type Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring River River Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring River Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring

INDEX 2

LIST OF GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES COLLECTED DURING THE SURVEY 18-18 Map Geographical Name

Israel Grid

Unit

Type

Wadi Sadi el-‘Asharin Sahl Figs Bir Sughra Wadi Sa‘adaniyeh Bir Khallaiyel el-Khallaiyel Bir ej-Jamal Qasr Yehiyah Mugharet Abu Rihan eth-Thamr el-Widan Bir Juwar el-Aqra‘ Khallet Traq es-Suq Juwarat Khallet Ghazaleh

1858/1889 184/188 1840/1863 1859/1868 1868/1838 1859/1868 1885/1862 1884/1865 185/187 1885/1869 1883/1878 1883/1883 1888/1870 1893/1860 1898/1862 189/188 187/188

14 14 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 18 18 16 16

Wadi Ridges Plain Cistern Wadi Cistern Ravine Cistern Summit Cave Ridge Plain Well Summit Ravine Ridges Slope

Geographical Name

Israel Grid

Unit

Type

Wadi Hamam Wadi el-Ward Wadi Nukheil Sahl el-Marj Khallet Natsh Khallet Sureh

179/184 178/184 178/184 178/183 176/181 175/183

11 (Mt. Ebal)* 11 (Mt. Ebal)* 11 (Mt. Ebal)* 11 (Mt. Ebal)* 11 (Mt. Ebal)* 11 (Mt. Ebal)*

Wadi Wadi Wadi Plain Ravine Ravine

18-19 Map

* Belong to Vol. I

INDEX 2 – GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES

769

Geographical Name

Israel Grid

Unit

Type

Wadi Hamed Mafqa‘ah Khallet Sabatah Merj el-Qumbar Ras Mizlaqa en-Nusraniyat Umm Badr el-Butmeh el-Haiya Dhahr el-Jellameh Misriyeh el-Khariqeh el-Jubilat er-Ratma el-Murhan et-Tughrah Khallet Ghazaleh en-Nab‘a Kuris Khallet ‘Ubeid Wadi Suweid Shamiyah Kebireh Wadi Khudeirat Khallet Sheikh Bar‘ghash Wadi ‘Uthman el-Khallaiyel edh-Dhahr Khallet Mas‘adeh Kiliyani es-Sibhiyeh en-Nabulsiyeh el-Waqfiyeh Joret el-Baghl Umm Najassah esh-Shamiyeh Umm ‘Odeh

183/192 183/191 186/195 185/194 187/190 187/190 186/191 186/191 185/191 186/191 185/192 185/191 185/190 187/190 186/193 186/193 187/190 187/191 185/192 184/199 183/197 181/198 183/199 – – – 185/194 184/194 184/193 184/196 183/198 182/199 184/195 184/196 181/199 181/198 188/196

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Wadi Plateau Ravine Ridges Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Ridge Plain Ridge Slop Ravine Slop Plain Plain Wadi Hill Wadi Ravine Hill Wadi Ridges Plain Ravine Plain Plain Plain Plain Hill Hill Hill Plain

770

INDEX 2 – GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES

Geographical Name

Israel Grid

Unit

Type

Jurb el-Mahnaqeh er-Rashd Khallet Sarnut Khallet Diyabil Khallet ‘Iraq Khallet el-Khad Khallet Shardeh Khallet Jumi Khallet Zeitun Khallet Qasem Suqlan Muwarith el-Marj Khallet Murrar Khallet Tubas Khallet Asaseh Jebel Hadatheh Khallet ‘Abd Khelaiyel Khisas Khallet Sabuh Ras Musabbal Ma‘asir Wadah Khellaiyel Zibl el-M’khabeh Ras Jizeh Jellamet Mahdar Ras Mushreifeh Khallet Daraj Khallet ‘Abd el-Mi‘rad

183/196 180/197 187/191 189/189 190/190 189/190 189/191 188/192 187/192 187/192 189/190 189/190 187/193 185/198 181/198 188/196 187/199 186/197 187/196 187/197 186/196 187/195 188/195 188/196 188/197 188/198 187/199 187/198 187/197

12 12 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

Wadi Plain Ravine Ravine Ravine Ravine Ravine Ravine Ravine Ravine Summit Plateau Summit Ravine Ravine Ridge Ravine Slop Ravine Summit Slop Ridges Ridges Mountain Ridge Summit Ravine Ravine Ridges

Geographical Name

Israel Grid

Unit

Type

Khallet Saleh ‘Id Khallet es-Suna‘ Idra‘ Hamdallah Jellamet Ghuzlan

1974/1842 1979/1843 1955/1865 1947/1846

17 17 17 17

Ravine Ravine Plain Ridge

19-18 Map

INDEX 2 – GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES

771

Geographical Name

Israel Grid

Unit

Type

Marma Hamed el-Marmaleh Bir el-Mughar Jebel Qantur Khallet Hasan Khallet Abu Slah

1954/1862 1910/1887 1921/1848 1902/1860 190/185 190/189

17 17 17 18 18 18

Ridge Slop Cistern Summit Ravine Ravine

Geographical Name

Israel Grid

Unit

Type

Ras el-Hab edh-Dhba

191/195 190-190

13 16

Summit Terrace

19-19 Map

INDEX 3

PARTIAL LIST OF FEATURES (CISTERNS, AGRICULTURE INSTALLATIONS, CEMETERIES, ROADS ETC.)

1. 18-18 Map Features

Israel Grid

Unit

Kh. Bet Farr - to Kh. Tel el-Fukhar, built road. 4 m wide Burial cave east of Kh. ‘Ain Farr Quarried sarcophagus in situ in the ravine Cistern on a slope east of Kh. ‘Ain Farr Remains of built road on a slope of Jebel Kebir Remains of built road on a slope of Jebel Kebir Stone structure, 4x4 m, on a slope of Jebel Kebir Two burial caves on the northern slope of Jebel Kebir Tumulus, 4 m high and 10 m in diameter, on a slope of Jebel Kebir Two stone circles, 3 m in diameter each, on a slope of Jebel Kebir Stone structure, 10x10 m, on a slope of Jebel Kebir Stone yard, 10x40 m, near Jelamet Ahmar Two burial caves Structure and two quarried winepresses on the northern slope of Jebel Kebir (E.P. 328.7). Roman-Byzantine pottery Ancient road in a quarried naqb at the foot of Mughur ‘Id cliffs A built and quarried road from Wadi Far‘ah to Kh. Humsah, on Habis ‘Id plateau Three stone structures on a western slope of a summit of Jebel Tammun (central), 6x6 m each Cistern on a western summit of Jebel Tammun Two cisterns on a ridge west of Tammun Round stone structure, 10 m in diameter, and a quarried winepress at Tammun ridge

1825/1848 1859/1830 1875/1812 1859/1825 1873/1813 1827/1811 1878/1806 1878/1808 1879/1806

19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

1878/1816

19

1882/1804 1895/1809 1894/1801 1833/1832

19 19 19 19

1861/1811

19

1940/1800

19

1858/1870

18

1859/1868 1856/1882 1862/1865

18 18 18

INDEX 3 – FEATURES

773

Features

Israel Grid

Unit

Structure and a cistern on a summit of Tammun ridge Three stone structures in a ravine of Jebel Tammun Four stone structures, 4x4 m each, on a summit of Jebel Tammun Cistern at Jebel Tammun Quarried winepress at Jebel Tammun Stone structure east of Qabr ‘Abush Round structure on a northern slope of Jebel Tammun Seven round and square stone structures in a ravine of Jebel Tammun Round stone structure, 25 m in diameter, on a slope

1867/1864 1866/1845 1870/1863

18 18 18

1872/1859 1875/1857 1878/1854 1884/1834 1887/1834

18 18 18 18 18

1887/1837

18

598. The burial stone circles near the esh-Shaqq Valley.

774

INDEX 3 – FEATURES

Features

Israel Grid

Unit

Quarried winepress on a summit of Jebel Tammun Cistern on a northern slope of Jebel Tammun Quarried winepress in a northern ravine of Jebel Tammun Stone structure, 6x8 m, on a ridge Cistern on a northern slope of Jebel Tammun Cistern and a structure on a northern slope of Jebel Tammun Concentration of Iron Age II shards east of the “Kurgan” Structures and a stone wall north of the “Kurgan” Cistern on a northern slope of Jebel Tammun Cistern on a northern slope of Jebel Tammun Two stone structures on the summit of el-Akra‘, Jebel Tammun Quarried winepress near Traq es-Suq Two cisterns on a northern slope of Jebel Tammun Three quarried winepresses on a northern slope of el‘Asharin Ridge Built road from Tubas Valley to Buqei‘ah The end of this road Plastered cistern near el-Khanuq Cistern at en-Naqqar (A) Cistern at en-Naqqar (B) Cistern near Abu Rihan Three caves near el-Khanuq

1888/1852 1889/1858 1886/1859 1881/1859 1878/1864 1885/1864

18 18 18 18 18 18

1896/1849 1895/1853 1892/1858 1896/1857 1890/1860

18 18 18 18 18

1897/1861 1898/1863 1852/1882

18 18 14

1885/1900 1898/1883 1885/1875 1888/1884 1893/1883 1888/1870 1884/1873

14 14 17 17 17 17 17

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Two crushing basins and a structure on an eastern slope of E.P. 556 Three quarried winepresses, a Rujjum and a cistern on an eastern slope of E.P. 556 Circle and a wall along the ridge

1898/1993

13

1899/1994

13

1855/1984

13

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Three Rujjums, a winepress and a looted grave on E.P. 436, east of Tilfit

1838/2002

13

2. 18-19 Map

3. 18-20 Map

INDEX 3 – FEATURES

775

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Rujjum and a structure near Wadi el-Balad Circular crushing basin and a structure on a slope south of Wadi Shubash RRujjum and a quarried winepress on a ridge east of E.P. 387 Quarried winepress on E.P. 387 Structure and a quarried winepress on E.P. 392, south of Wadi Shubash Structure and a circular crushing basin near Wadi Shubash Circular crushing basin on the summit of E.P. 430 Circular crushing basin south of E.P. 425

1842/2005 1847/2013

13 13

1847/2005

13

1852/2007 1854/2017

13 13

1854/2019 1858/2009 1862/2009

13 13

13 13

Yard and a crushing installation at ‘Iraq el-Hamam, near E.P. 451 Structure at ‘Iraq el-Hamam, near E.P. 451

1875/2003

Structure and a crushing installation at ‘Iraq el-Hamam, near E.P. 451 Structure east of E.P. 451

2004/1878

Crushing installations north of Wadi Shubash

1883/2014

13 13

Yard and a crushing basin at E.P. 198, south of Wadi Shubash

1888/2010

13

599. A solitary structure near the Buqei‘ah.

1877/2004

1881/2004

13 13

776

INDEX 3 – FEATURES

4. 19-17 Map Feature Circle , 8 m in diameter, built of medium stones Two-rooms structure, 4x8 m, from the Ottoman Period, appears on map Stones, flint and shards concentrations and agriculture field along Ras Juren Ridge Heaps of stones near two cleared fields, shards from Iron Age II and Roman-Byzantine Tumulus, built of medium sized stones, 6 m in diameter, on a ridge of Ras el-Kharubeh Looted Tumulus built of standing stones, 3 m in diameter, on a ridge of Ras el-Kharubeh. Byzantine shards Circle, 6 m in diameter, built of medium sized standing stones at Ras el-Kharubeh Two tumuli, 5 m in diameter, built of medium sized stones, on a low hilltop at Ras el-Kharubeh Tumulus, two rows of stones, at Ras el-Kharubeh Tumulus, 5 m in diameter, and remains of structures on the edge of a ridge of Ras el-Kharubeh Tumulus, 6 m in diameter, and a small structure. 100 m to the south - another structure and a maq‘ad Stone circle, 6 m in diameter, body shards from the Middle Bronze Age II Tumulus, 8 m in diameter at Ras el-Kharubeh. To the south two yards, 8 and 2 m in diameter. To the north a round small room

Israel Grid 1932/1781 1940/1752

Unit 19 19

1928/1813

20

1932/1817

20

1980/1740

21

1973/1740

21

1974/1734

21

1959/1757

21

1951/1765 1980/1747

21 21

1980/1740

21

1975/1735

21

1968/1740

21

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Stone structure, 4x4 m, and a cistern, on the western slope of Muntar Mufyeh Four cisterns on the western slope of Muntar Mufyeh Stone structure, 6x6 m, southeast of E.P. 118 Three quarried winepresses and four cisterns on E.P. 121, and on the western slope north of Kh. es-Samrah Structure and a quarried installation near E.P. 273 (‘Iraq el-Loz) Rujjums west of Kh. Mufyeh

1987/1843

21

1989/1841 1977/1898 1968/1875

21 21 21

1985/1827

21

1982/1839

21

5. 19-18 Map

INDEX 3 – FEATURES

777

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Two structures, Rujjum and a quarried winepresses south of Umm ez-Zoqeh Three quarried installations east of E.P. 118 Cistern south of E.P. 50 Built road and structures near Kh. es-Suweideh The end of this road Built road to Wadi el-Kharubeh The end of this road Circular crushing basin east of Kh. es-Suweideh Cemetery of Kh. es-Suweideh Threshing floors at a wadi, east of ‘Iraq Abu Hashish Stepped burial cave at Jebel Qantur Quarried crushing installation Rujjum at Jebel Qantur Two plastered cisterns east of Kh. ‘Atuf and near the ‘Atuf - Beqa‘ot road Stone structure, 4x5 m Stone structure, 4x5 m Cistern at a southern slope of Ras el-Ahmar Cave at the southern slope of Ras el-Ahmar Cistern at a southern slope of Ras el-Ahmar Stone structure, 5x5 m, on the summit of Ras el-Ahmar Stone structure, 5x5 m on the slope of Ras el-Ahmar Roman road near E.P. 349 next to Marmaleh-Mubarah, 3-4 m wide The end of this road Cistern at a southwest slope of Ras el-Mubarah Cistern at a southwest slope of Ras el-Mubarah Cistern at a southwest slope of Ras el-Mubarah Stone structure north of E.P. 104 Two structures on a northern summit of E.P. 104 Two structures on a ridge, east of Kh. Umm Hassan Cistern at the ravine, south of Ras Umm Hassan Stone structure on a northern slope of Twel edh-Dhyab, Shards from Iron Age III Structure at the northern margins of the Buqei‘ah Stone circle, 10 m in diameter, on a south slope Twel edhDhyab. Shards from the Middle Bronze Age I

1982/1872

21

1978/1898 1988/1904 1992/1882 2003/1898 1988/1882 1985/1888 1985/1878 1999/1885 2009/1842 1903/1860 1903/1859 1904/1858 1921/1848

21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 18 18 18 18

1903/1887 1907/1889 1929/1871 1926/1873 1927/1874 1929/1878 1929/1879 1912/1893

17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

1924/1888 1925/1883 1923/1885 1929/1884 1946/1846 1944/1852 1942/1856 1939/1858 1968/1853

17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

1979/1814 1963/1849

17 17

778

INDEX 3 – FEATURES

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Concentration of shards on a slope west of Twel edh-Dhyab Cistern at the foot of a slope north of Twel edh-Dhyab Cistern at the foot of a slope north of Twel edh-Dhyab Quarried winepress near Kh. Umm el-Butmeh Stone structure, 4x2 m, with concentration of shards Two cisterns and a quarried winepress on the ridge above Khallet Makhul Stone structure, 6x6 m northwest of Muntar Mufyeh

1856/1964 1960/1858 1962/1865 1978/1844 1979/1854 1981/1844

17 17 17 17 17 17

1985/1844

17

Stone structure on a ridge, east of E.P. 95 Rujjum on E.P. 95 Two cisterns west of Kh. es-Samrah A Roman road start The end of this road Quarried winepress near Wadi el-Fou Cistern on a slope north of E.P. 170 Cave with a yard, 25x25 m, north of Kh. Musheibik 200 m long stone wall on a slope Stone structure, 4x5 m, with a yard near Kh. Musheibik Quarried winepress on an eastern slope of E.P. 170 Cistern near the winepress Stone structure, 5x6 m, on the summit of E.P. 170 Part of a built road on a slope south of Kh. Yusef Stone structure, 6x8 m, in the ravine east of E.P. 170 Cistern at the foot of the slope Cistern on a ridge near Wadi Abu Dabseh Cistern, a structure and a quarried winepress near Wadi Abu Dabseh Structure, 4x4 m, near Wadi el-Mukeimnat Two cisterns near Khallet esh-Shaqquf Structures on a ridge west of Ras Mubarah Structure west of Khallet esh-Shaqquf Five structures, 5x5 m each, and a quarried winepress on the eastern slope of E.P. 285 Two structures on the western slope of E.P. 285

1969/1835 1965/1837 1962/1874 1935/1878 1946/1875 1961/1879 1946/1871 1935/1873 1938/1874 1938/1871 1947/1870 1946/1870 1946/1868 1954/1863 1952/1864 1955/1868 1950/1874 1949/1877

17 17 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

1949/1872 1925/1887 1928/1884 1921/1889 1930/1893

16 16 16 16 16

1923/1893

Two stone structures above Ras Umm Hassan

1937/1863

Cistern in the ravine, west of Ras Umm Hassan

1862/1937

16 16 16

Five stone structures on a slope, west of Kh. Musheibik

1938/1870

16

INDEX 3 – FEATURES

779

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Cistern on a slope Four structures on a northern ridge of Ras Mubarah Kh. Yarzah – Ras Mubarah Roman road The end of this road Two cisterns and a structure near Khallet ‘Abu Ali Rujjum on a western ridge of Umm er-Rkab Ridge Rujjum on a central hilltop of Umm er-Rkab Ridge Rujjum in the ravine, north of Umm er-Rkab Structure and a yard on a northern ridge of Umm er-Rkab Rujjum and an Iron Age II period shard concentration Rujjum at the ridge of Umm er-Rkab Rujjum at the ridge of Umm er-Rkab Two stone structures on Ras edh-Dhef Stone structure, 6x6 m, and Byzantine shards Five quarried burial caves in the ravine on a southern slope of Ras Mudhaber Stone structure, 5x5 m, on Ras Mudhaber Structure and a yard, 7x8 m, on Ras Mudhaber Threshing floor north of Wadi Khalil Humsah Built Roman road east of Beqa‘ot Cistern with Iron Age shards Walls and sarcophagus or a broken quarried water trough

1932/1869 1933/1887 1928/1900 1934/ 1887 1918/1897 1941/1826 1942/1822 1945/1822 1949/1824 1941/1826 1944/1814 1814/1947 1918/1810 1919/1801 1925/1821

16 16 16 16 16 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

1925/1824 1923/1827 1941/1804 1995/1885 1996/1888 1998/1888

20 20 20 20 20 20

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Tumulus and a looted square structure Built Roman road, 4 m wide The end of this road Structures, 4x4 m, south of Wadi Msitif Structure, quarried winepress and a Rujjum northeast of E.P. 334 Road on a western slope of ‘Iraq el-Hamam The end of this road Cave and a cistern on a western slope of ‘Iraq el-Hamam Two crushing circle basins north and west of E.P. 431 (‘Iraq el-Hamam) Cave and a cistern on a northern slope of ‘Iraq el-Hamam

1970/1951 1935/1960 1950/1959 1962/1935 1932/1968

13 13 13 13 13

1904/1993 1912/1998 1906/1993 1911/1988

13 13 13 13

1916/1998

13

6. 19-19 Map

780

INDEX 3 – FEATURES

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Built road from Sahl Ibziq to ‘Iraq el-Hamam (central) Crushing circle basin east of Bezeq Valley Roman built road leading to Kh. Yarzah The end of this road Cisterns at Kh. Yarzah Seven crushing basins and a cistern west of Ras Mrah elWawiyat Concentration of Iron Age I shards on Ras Mrah elWawiyat Three quarried winepresses and a structure north of the above concentration Concentration of shards and installations on a ridge south of Burj el-Malih Concentration of shards on a ridge south of Burj el-Malih Two quarried winepresses on a summit and eastern slope of E.P. 33 290 Stone circles on a ridge, west of Wadi Fau Encampments remains with Byzantine shards

1903/1989 1906/1983 1902/1919 1907/1910 1914/1905 1915/1902

13 13 16 16 16 16

1921/1902

16

1924/1905

16

1928/1919

16

1932/1917 1966/1915

16 16

1963/1902 1962/1905

16 16

600. A built Tumulus on Jebel Tammun.

INDEX 3 – FEATURES

781

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Structure, 7x7 m, south of Re’us et-Tabaq Structure, north of Kh. el-Khurebat Two structures on Khurebat Ridge Two structures on ridge, south of Wadi Umm ‘Amar Cistern on ridge, south of Wadi Umm ‘Amar Structure on a ridge, north of Ras el-Badd Quarried winepress on the summit of Ras el-Badd Built road east of the summit of Ras el-Bad (500 m) Structure and a Rujjum on the summit of Ras el-Mubarah Cistern and a quarried winepress on a ridge, east of Mubarah Road sections, east of Ras el-Mubarah Structure and a quarried installation at Wadi el-Makhnawi Two cisterns and a structure (near E.P. 233), south of Wadi el-Makhnawi Agricultural terraces on Ras Ramali Four stone structures, 5x6 m, on Ras el-Rabi Ridge Structure on the summit of E.P. 279 Sections of a built road (200 m) and a structure, north-east of Ras Ramali Structure, installations with Byzantine shards Circular crushing basin, crushing installation and two quarried winepresses, west of Bardaleh 30 Stone burial (?) circles Quarried crushing basin north of Wadi el-Badd

1974/1903 1900/1930 1900/1937 1908/1941 1904/1942 1906/1964 1905/1958 1910/1954 1912/1952 1918/1949

21 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

1918/1949 1913/1942 1914/1937

15 15 15

1926/1943 1928/1952 1928/1978 1933/1953

15 15 15 15

1949/1984 1951/1989

15 15

1943/1982 1955/1935

15 15

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Structure and a crushing basin on the ridge of ‘Iraq elHamam

1915/2003

13

Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Quarried installation north of Sadd el-Balqawi

2014/1883

21

7. 19-20 Map

8. 20-18 Map

782

INDEX 3 – FEATURES

9. According to UTM grid Feature

Israel Grid

Unit

Large yard on a ridge, south-east of ‘Iraq er-Jaddab Stone structure, 6x6 m, east of ‘Iraq er-Jaddab Stone structure, 4x5 m, north of Wadi Salman Rujjums on a ridge Cupmarks and quarried stone at Ras Humsah Big heap of stones, 25 m in diameter and 2 m high, at Ras Humsah Tumulus, 6 m in diameter

7324/5823 7324/5826 7322/7341 7328/5847 7324/5683 7324/5683

21 21 21 21 20 20

7324/5684

20

INDEX 4

LIST OF THE ARABIC VILLAGES AND THEIR POPULATION (IN HISTORICAL SOURCES)

Site No.

Name

3 6 15 20 22 23 34 45 52 122 171

Tilfit Zebabdeh Kfer Sir ‘Aqabah Khirbet Salhab Rabbah Taiyasir Tubas Tammun Miski

1596 Census

Guérin (1870)

1931 Census

(1)

(2)

– – 6+15 (81) 4+31 (159) 5+22 (115) 2+8 (42) 23 (115) 9+39 (204) 16+41 (221) – –

– – abandoned 150 130 abandoned no data no data 2500 600 –

(3) 120/26 632/134 107/21 233/42 411/89 abandoned 570/111 192/36 4097/773 1599/316 –

Legend: (1) Family Households + Singles = Estimated total persons (cf. Hütteroth and Abd elFatah 1977). (2) Persons Total. (3) Persons/Settled Houses.

INDEX 5

SITE INDEX Name of Site

No.

Unit

Ahmar (A), Jelamet el-

178

19

Ahmar (B), Jelamet el-

179

19

Ahmar (C), Jelamet el-

185

19

Ahmar, Ras el-

126

17

Asbah, ‘Iraq el-

142

17

‘Abhar, Khallet

8

12

‘Abush, Qabr

147

18

‘Adseh, Khalil el-

241

21

‘Ajjam, el-

146

18

‘Al, Wadi ‘Abd el-

211

20

‘Alam (A), el-

225

20

‘Alam (B), el-

226

20

‘Ali (A), Khallet Mahmud el-

101

16

‘Ali (B), Khallet Mahmud el-

102

16

‘Ali, Wadi Khallet Abu

110

16

‘Amer, Jelamet

59

14

‘Anahum, Khirbet

1

12

‘Aqabah

22

12

‘Aqabeh, Khirbet el-

84

15

‘Aris, Wadi el-

175

19

‘Arquv, el-

245

21

‘Athmawiyyeh, Khirbet el-

186

19

‘Atuf, Khirbet

131

17

Badd, Wadi Khallet el-

80

15

Balad, Wadi el-

30

13

Baqar, Ras en-Naqb

261

21

Basaliyyeh, Khirbet

194

19

Beyaz, el-

231

21

Beyaz (A), el-

25

13

INDEX 5 – SITE INDEX

785

Name of Site

No.

Unit

Beyaz (B), el-

26

13

Bird, el- (Ras Hamud)

91

15

Butmeh, Khirbet Umm

141

17

Dabbur, Khirbet ‘Ain

184

19

Dajan, ed-

196

19

Daya, Wadi Abu

237

21

Dayyq, Bab ed-

197

19

Der, ed-

19

12

Der, Khirbet ed-

55

14

Dhabeh, Khirbet Umm (Umm Hajar)

212

20

Dhba‘ah, Khirbet Wadi edh-

76

15

Dhyab, Twel edh-

135

17

Diblaqah, Tel ed-

87

15

Dweir, ed-

177

19

‘Enab, Mrah el-

191

19

E.P. 11

216

20

E.P. 118

235

21

E.P 141

203

20

E.P. 147 (A)

107

16

E.P. 147 (B)

108

16

E.P. 170

118

16

‘Eynun, Khirbet

58

14

Far‘ah, Burj el-

150

19

Far‘ah, Tel el-

151

19

Farhan, Khirbet Abu

33

13

Farr, Khirbet ‘Ain

169

19

Farr (A), Khirbet Bet

166

19

Farr (B), Khirbet Bet

168

19

Farsheh, el-

192

19

Farweh, Khirbet

156

19

Feyaz, Khallet

9

12

Firan, Abu

243

21

Fukhar, Khirbet Tel el-

176

19

786

INDEX 5 – SITE INDEX

Name of Site

No.

Unit

Fuqahah, Khirbet

47

14

Ghadbaneh, Khirbet

193

19

Gharur, Khirbet el-

259

21

Gharur (A), Khirbet Wadi el-

255

21

Gharur (B), Khirbet Wadi el-

257

21

Gharur, Sheikh

258

21

Ghazal, Khirbet Umm

82

15

Ghazal, Qasr esh-Sheikh

68

15

Habayel (A), el-

4

12

Habayel (B), el-

5

12

Hadad, Tel el-

174

19

Hadidiyyeh, Khirbet el-

136

17

Hajar, (B) Khirbet Umm

214

20

Hamam, ‘Iraq el-

36/1-7

13

Hamam (Lower), ‘Iraq el-

31

13

Hamamat, Khirbet

115

16

Hamdun, Khirbet

17

12

Hammeh, Khirbet el-

67

15

Hammeh, Wadi el-

66

15

Hamrah, ‘Iraq el-

189

19

Hamul, Jelamet

27

13

Hasan, Khirbet Bet-

173

19

Hasan, Umm el-

130

17

Hashish (A), ‘Iraq Abu

248

21

Hashish (B), ‘Iraq Abu

249

21

Hawakir (A), el-

113

16

Hawakir (B), el-

112

16

Hemdat

247

21

Hilu (A), ‘Ain el-

229

21

Hilu (B), ‘Ain el-

230

21

Hilu, Tel el-

96

15

Hilweh, Tabqet el-

232

21

Hozah, el-

97

16

Humsah, Khirbet

143

17

INDEX 5 – SITE INDEX

787

Name of Site

No.

Unit

Ibziq (Upper), Khirbet

44

13

Ibziq (Lower), Khirbet

42

13

‘Id, Habis

208

20

‘Id, Mughur

182

19

‘Id, Wadi Habis

209

20

Ja‘ar, Khallet ej-

10

12

Jabaris, Khirbet

69

15

Jaddab, ‘Iraq ej-

72

15

Jadir, Ras

103

16

Jamal, Khirbet Wadi Qanat ej-

88

15

Jelameh, ej-

50

14

Jelameh, ej-

154

19

Jibsin, Re’us ej-

228

21

Jofeh, Khirbet ej-

213

20

Juren, Umm ej-

200

20

Jurn, Wadi ej-

207

20

Jwar, Bir ej-

125

17

Jwar, ej-

170

19

Kardaleh (Upper)

64

15

Kataf, ‘Aqabet el-

188

19

Khalifeh, Qta‘at el-

99

16

Kebarah, Khallet el-

62

15

Kfer

15

12

Khanakhneh (A), Khallet el-

217

20

Khanakhneh (B), Khallet el-

218

20

Khanuq, el-

123

17

Kharaz, Khirbet Umm

144

17

Kharubeh, Khirbet Ras el-

221

20

Kharubeh, Ras el-

267

21

Kharubeh, Ras el-

267/1-9

21

Kharubeh, Wadi Ras el-

227

20

Khashneh, Wadi

65

15

Khazam, Wadi Umm el-

220

20

Khellayel, el- (“The Kurgan”)

148

18

788

INDEX 5 – SITE INDEX

Name of Site

No.

Unit

Khimyar, Khallet

74

15

Khimyar, Jebel

75

15

Khiraf, Khirbet

266

21

Khirbeh (en-Nuseriyyeh), el-

167

19

Khirbeh (ez-Zard), el-

14

12

Khubezah, Mugharet Umm

263

21

Khubezah, Ras Umm

219

20

Khubezah, Umm

71

15

Khubezah, Wadi Ras Umm

264

21

Khrebat, Khirbet el-

60

14

Khrebat, Khirbet el-

158

19

Khrebat (A), Khirbet el-

86

15

Khrebat (B), Khirbet el-

85

15

Kih, Khirbet Mgharet el-

12

12

Kubesh, Khirbet Umm el-

149

18

Kuw‘ah, Ra’us el-

238

21

Kuw‘ah, Wadi Ra’us el-

236

21

Loz, Abu

145

18

Loz, Wadi Abu el-

253

21

Mabhashiyyeh, el-

29

13

Makhruq, el-

269

21

Makhul, Khallet

138

17

Mikser, Qasr

206

20

M‘allaqeh, Khirbet el-

79

15

Malih, Burj el-

89

15

Malih (A), Khirbet

92

15

Malih (B), Khirbet

93

15

Malih (C), Khirbet

94

15

Maqaber, el-

163

19

Maqbarah, el-

162

19

Mardom, ‘Iraq el-

77

15

Mashkakarah, el-

137

17

Mas‘udi, el-

268

21

Matar, ‘Iraq

265

21

INDEX 5 – SITE INDEX

789

Name of Site

No.

Unit

Matar, Khirbet Naqb el-

222

20

Meidan (A), Zahret el-

254

21

Meidan (B), Zahret el-

256

21

Meiyiteh, Khirbet el-

90

15

Meraz, el-

38

13

Mhallal, Khirbet

78

15

Miqwaq (A), el-

49

14

Miqwaq (B), el-

48

14

Miski, Tel

171

19

Mssafh (A), Jebel el-

223

20

Mssafh (B), Jebel el-

224

20

Mubarah, el-

116

16

Mufyeh, Khirbet

251

21

Mufyeh, Muntar

250

21

Mufyeh, Wadi

252

21

Munsahleh, el-

260

21

Muqeisymeh, Khirbet

140

17

Murassas, Khirbet

172

19

Murhan, el-

51

14

Musah, Khallet

205

20

Musheibik, Khirbet

127

17

Mutaqallabat, Khirbet el-

210

20

Nakhleh, Khallet en-

109

16

Naqb, en-

28

13

Naqqar (A), en-

119

17

Naqqar (B), en-

120

17

Nkhelat, en-

21

12

Nuseriyyeh, Maqbarat en-

161

19

Peles 1

244

21

Qandul, Abu

95

15

Qasim, Khirbet Umm

164

19

Qatan, Khirbet Umm el-

133

17

Qatus, Kallet

53

14

790

INDEX 5 – SITE INDEX

Name of Site

No.

Unit

Qrud, Khirbet

18

12

Quf, Wa‘ar el-

159

19

Quleh, el-

43

13

Rabbah

34

13

Rahweh, er-

7

12

Rajjah, ‘Iraq

57

14

Raqqeh, er-

70

15

Ra‘iyan, Mrah

37

13

Rihan, Abu

124

17

Rishi, Mughur Abu

16

12

Rjjum, er-

187

19

Ro‘i 1

134

17

Rkab (A), Umm er-

204

20

Rkab (B), Umm er-

199

20

Rkab (C), Umm er-

198

20

Rumh, Tel Abu

190

19

Sa‘h, Khalil es-

242

21

Safiriyan, Khirbet esh-Sheikh-

2

12

Sahl (A), es-

40

13

Sahl (B), es-

39

13

Salhab, Khirbet

23

12

Salman, Wadi

63

15

Salmeh, Ras es-

41

13

Samrah, es- Enclosure

128

17

Samrah, Khirbet es-

129

17

Sanur, Mrah

35

13

Sbeh, Mrah es-

32

13

Sefireh, Khirbet es-

132

17

Sha‘ab, Wadi esh-

152

19

Sha‘areh, Abu

246

21

Shamekh, esh-

215

20

Shaqq, Khirbet Wadi esh-

73

15

Shaqq, Khirbet esh-

81

15

Shaqq, Muntar esh-

83

15

INDEX 5 – SITE INDEX

791

Name of Site

No.

Unit

Shardeh, Khallet esh-

111

16

Shawish, Beyader

121

17

Shibli, ‘Ain

181

19

Shibli, Tel

180

19

Shukreh, Khallet esh-

165

19

Sidreh, Wadi Abu

262

21

Sir

20

12

Sirb, Khirbet es-

157

19

Slah, Khallet Abu

56

14

Smett (A), Khirbet esh-Sheikh

153

19

Smett (B), Khirbet esh-Sheikh

155

19

Skhrah, es-

54

14

Sun‘ah, Khirbet es-

139

17

Suweideh, Khirbet es-

239

21

Tabaq, Re’us et-

234

21

Tahah, Abu

24

13

Taiyasir

45

14

Taleb, Khallet

11

12

Tammun

122

17

Tawileh, Khallet et-

46

14

Tilfit

3

12

Toq, Khallet Abu-

61

14

Tubas

52

14

Tughrah, et-

98

16

‘Ubed, Abu el-

13

12

‘Unuq, el-

160

19

‘Uqbeh (A), Khirbet Umm el-

114

16

‘Uqbeh (B), Khirbet Umm el-

100

16

Wahraneh, Khirbet

233

21

Wawiyat, Ras Mrah el-

105

16

Yarzah (A), Khirbet

106

16

Yarzah (B), Khirbet

104

16

792

INDEX 5 – SITE INDEX

Name of Site

No.

Unit

Yusef, Khirbet

117

16

Za‘anuni, Tel

183

19

Zebabdeh, ez-

6

12

Zef (A), Ras Bilam ez-

201

20

Zef (B), Ras Bilam ez-

202

20

Zoqeh, Umm ez-

240

21

Zrub, Umm ez-

195

19

INDEX 6

LIST OF SITES BY PERIOD Neolithic Period: 151-152, 177-179, 183. Chalcolitic Period: 4, 5, 8, 16, 28-29, 31-32, 46, 76, 78, 99, 117, 134, 145, 148, 151, 155, 169, 171-172, 177, 179, 183, 189, 211, 230, 241, 267/5, 268-269. Early Bronze Age: 261. Early Bronze Age I: 76, 78, 115, 117, 145, 148, 151, 156, 161-163, 169, 171-173, 177-183, 187, 194, 197, 201-202, 225, 269. Early Bronze Age II: 96, 151, 156, 173, 178, 180, 183, 187, 258. Early Bronze Age II-III: 269. Early Bronze Age III: 151. Middle Bronze Age I: 7, 11, 17, 18, 21, 25, 37, 56, 62, 64, 66, 75, 77, 78, 90-91, 96, 106, 117, 119, 120, 123125, 128-129, 146-148, 151, 155, 175, 180, 190-191, 213, 232, 234-235, 238. Middle Bronze Age II: 55, 145, 219, 267/2, 267/6. Middle Bronze Age IIB: 1-3, 6, 17, 18, 36/6, 45, 48-50, 53-54, 60-61, 66, 71 (?), 73, 75, 77-78, 84-85, 91, 96-98, 101-102, 105-107, 115, 117-118, 138, 148, 151, 155, 159, 161-162, 175, 181, 183-184, 189-190, 200, 209, 221, 229, 232, 239, 252-254, 256, 269. Late Bronze Age: 78 (?). Late Bronze Age I: 2, 48, 55, 148, 151, 161. Late Bronze Age II: 2, 55, 96, 151, 161, 171. Late Bronze Age III: 2, 55, 91, 96, 115, 117, 151, 162-163.

794

INDEX 6 – lIST OF SITES BY PERIODS

Iron Age: 111, 134 (?), 182. Iron Age I: 1-2, 6, 19, 23, 27, 41, 45, 47, 54-55, 57-59, 77-78, 83, 86, 91, 96, 98, 103, 105-106, 109, 115, 117-118 (?), 138, 151, 160, 162-163, 165-166, 169, 171, 189, 191-192, 197, 211, 221, 227, 239, 262, 264 (?)-265, 267, 267/6, 267/7. Iron Age II: 1-3, 6, 10, 12, 18, 23, 30, 41, 44, 47, 58-59, 68, 74, 77-79, 82, 87, 91, 96, 98, 105-107, 113-114, 121-122, 127, 129, 137-140, 144, 150-151, 159-160, 162, 164-166, 171, 173, 180, 183, 191-192, 194, 197, 200, 202, 204-205, 208, 210, 212-214, 216, 219, 221-225, 227, 232, 239, 241, 243, 246-247, 249, 252, 254-255, 257-258, 262, 264, 267-267/5, 267/8, 269. Iron Age II-III: 131. Iron Age III: 1- 2, 12, 18, 30, 44, 47, 76, 78, 82, 106, 127, 132-133, 137, 144, 150-151, 165, 166, 191, 197, 210, 236, 246, 260. Persian Period: 1-3, 12-13, 20, 22-23, 30, 34, 44, 74, 76, 91, 96, 106, 129, 150-151, 167, 171, 191, 202. Hellenistic Period: 1-2, 18, 22, 34, 43 (?), 47, 55, 74, 76, 86, 106, 129, 135, 150, 156, 176, 181, 191, 202, 208, 211, 239, 250. Early Roman Period: 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 14, 20, 23, 34, 45, 47, 55, 74, 76, 92, 106, 122, 129, 138-139, 150, 156, 164, 168, 176, 191, 193, 226-227, 239, 250, 255. Late Roman Period: 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 14, 20, 23, 34, 36, 40, 44-45, 47, 52, 55, 63, 68, 70, 73, 75-76, 88, 93, 104, 108, 114, 122, 126, 129, 138-139, 143-144, 156-157, 166, 168, 170-171, 174, 176, 180, 203-205, 208-209, 211, 220, 226, 233, 239, 248-251, 253, 255, 259, 266267, 267/2, 267/7. Roman-Byzantine Period: 219, 222, 267/1. Byzantine Period: 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 20, 22-24, 26, 33-36, 38-40, 42, 44-45, 47, 50-52, 55-56, 58, 64-65, 67-70, 72, 75, 77-78, 80-81, 84, 86-87, 92-93, 95, 104, 108, 110-114, 116, 121-122, 125-127, 129-133, 135-136, 139-140, 143-144, 149, 153-154, 156-158, 166, 168, 170-171, 174, 176, 180-183, 186, 188-189, 193-196, 198-199, 202, 206-207, 210-213, 215-216, 218, 220-221, 223-224, 232, 234, 237-243, 245-247, 249-253, 255, 260, 262-265, 267, 267/6-267/8.

INDEX 6 – lIST OF SITES BY PERIODS

795

Early Moslem Period: 1-3, 6, 10, 14-15, 20, 22-24, 33-34, 36, 42, 44-45, 47, 51-52, 58, 67, 69, 73, 78, 81, 92-93, 112, 122, 127, 129, 131, 133, 136, 139-140, 143-144, 149, 153, 156-158, 168, 174, 176, 180, 186, 194, 196, 228, 232, 238, 251, 263. Middle Ages: 1-3, 6, 10, 15, 18, 22-24, 34, 36, 44-45, 47, 51-52, 55, 58, 67, 70 (Mameluk), 75, 80, 87, 89, 92, 95, 112, 117, 119, 122, 129, 131-133, 136, 139-143, 149-150, 153, 157159, 167-168, 202, 207, 211-213, 221, 223, 227, 232, 244-245, 249, 251 (Mameluk), 255, 262-264, 267, 267/1, 267/6, 267/7. Ottoman Period: 6, 15, 20, 23, 34, 45, 52, 64, 73, 80, 92, 100, 122, 140, 156, 159, 207, 219, 263-264, 267, 267/3, 267/4, 267/7, 267/8. Modern: 22, 36, 52, 77, 100, 111, 156, 211, 216, 219, 263-264, 267, 267/1-267/3, 267/6, 267/7.