i
n i ^tl
CafJtain Chm\e% Garten, the great ntneteenth-ceniur)' txcavaior of Jerusalem, traveled east of the Jordan River
and camped at a place he called "el-'Ameireh" (Merling 1989). In his report, he described the site as "three tells" (Warren 1870). Indeed, he camped at the location probably because there was water in the spring at the foot of the westem tell.
Ahhough he spelled the ruime "el-'Ameireh," it was undoubtedly the same site we are now excavating. Tall al-'Umayri, using the new official Jordanian spellings of place names. Remarkably, since Warren's time, there is no clear indication that the site was ever visited again by archaeologists until it was rediscovered over one hundred years later by the Hisban regional survey team in Î976 (Ibach 1987: 31). No road traversed the immediate region until the canstruction of the modem airport highway in \ 983. Moreover, because the site is not strate^cally placed at a high location, the rolling hills of the area hid it from explorers. Et;en Nelson Glueck, tiiat intrepid archaeological explorer of Jordan in the ¡930s and 1940s, missed the site as he traveled the Madaba road farther to the east, passing by Jawa and Yaduda.
From the Stone Age to the Middle Ages in Jordan: Digging up Tall al-'Umayri Larry G. Herr and Dou¿las R. Clark
In 1978, on the basis of Ihach's recommendation, Larry Geraty, John Lawlor, and I (Herr) attempted to find the site, fighting with winding camel tracks and the eager ignorance of wandering locals frcim whom we constantly sought directions. After many false starts in several different directions, we finally arrived, probably the first archaeologists to visit the site since the Hisban survey team in 1976. As Ibach had reported, all the pottery we could find on the surface—and there was a thick carpet of bniken porsherds everywhere—dated to the Bronze
Beirut
LEBANON _>
ü«rn»ieui
5(1
1«)
IW
Map of Jordan (above) with a more detailed map of the Amman and Dead Sea regions including Tall al-'Umayri and other sites in the region. All illustrations are courtesy of the Madaba Plains Project unless otherwise indicated.
and Iron Ages. Further, there were generous signs of stone walls on the top and slopes of the hill. It was a perfect site for us to dig following our six seasons at Tall Hishan, where the finds mostly dated to the classical and Islamic ages. If we would dig at 'Umayri, we could study all the historical archaeological periods on tbe central Jordanian plateau. That is the reason renewed excavations by Andrews University began in 1984 at 'Umayri, reborn as the Madaba Plains Project (MPP). The Bronze and Iron Age site of Tall al-'Umayri ('Umayri West) is a small, but densely occupied, multi-period site located on a natural ridge twelve kilometers south of Amman's Seventh Circle. It lies on the western side of the airport highway next to Amman National Park.' Until recently, a spring at the northern foot of tbe site was the only natural water source between Ras al''Ayn (downtown Amman) and Madaba. It was undoubtedly tbe reason for settlement at tbe location. Longtime resident and historian Raouf Ahujaber, who grew up in the area, has told us that he remembers finding water there when be was young in the 1930s. However, the source is now dry and has been covered and forgotten by recent development in the area. Excavations at the water source in Field E discovered ancient water facilities, such as drains, channels, and walls dating to the Iron II, tbe Roman, and Byzantine periods. Tbe structures from the last period included a nicely constructed well house made of ashlar stones. It seems to have functioned into the early-twentietb century (Fisher 1997: 176-87) when Abujaher found water coming from the source.
Topographic map of Tall aí-'UmayrÍ with the fields of excavation as of the 2008 season.
The ancient spring (or well) was probahly also instrumental in the establishment ot three other minor sites located on hills nearby—tbose tbat Warren had observed in the nineteenth century: (1) shallow remains from tbe classical period are on a hill to the east ('Umayri East) and include terrace walls, large and small rural structures, tombs, and caves; a recent discovery by illicit diggers has the appearance of a well-constructed, vaulted crypto-
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
69
Stratum
Period
Dates
Fields
Finds
'Neolithic
c£i. 9000-Í500 B.c.r.
E&W shi¡)es
Flint .'iaittt'r.v
East valley
Sherds on surface
Chakolithic?
CÜ. 4500-3300 B.c.E.
Híiitus
EB IA
ca. 3300-3200 B.C.E.
21
EBIB
ca. 3200-3000 B.c.E.
K
Dolmen and associated surfaces
20
L-BÍI
ai. 3000-2600 B.C.H.
D
Wall fra^pnents above iu'cirocli
19
EBIII
ca. 2600-2300 B.c.E.
CDG
Hoicses & streets on terraces on S «Sf N slopes
18
EBIV
ea. 2300-2250 B.C.E.
D
E/ïheîneral one-rdom fiím.se.'í ii'idt'Iv .sefxirati-ti
D
Sniaíl nails of cobbles, /)L'rlui/(,s íiníituii ¡tens
No re»uiin.s .so far
17
EBÍV
ai. 2250-2200 B.c.E.
Hiatus
EB IV-MB IIA-B
ca. 2200-1650 B.c.E.
16
MB IIC
ui. 1650-1600 B.c.E.
BC
Sherds in Eield B ram/»art; ivail fragn\ents & floors in field C
15
MB IIC
ca. 1600-1550 B.C.E.
BCK
Moat, rampart & uall fragments in Eield B; wall fia^ients & ßoors in Field C; care tomb in Field K
Hiatus
LBI
ca. 1550-1350 B.c.E.
14
LBIl
ca. 1350-1230 fi.c.E.
BF
Palaci'/temjúe in Fii-ld B; teiracL' ii'ail m Eield F
Ii
LB II/Iro)i J
ca. IZiO-1200 B.C.E.
B
Sfu'nls in Field B rtimpart
12
LB Wlron I
ca. 1200-1150 B.c.E.
ABFH(L.')
Perimeter «'all, gate & houses in Fields A, B éí" H; «alls fraf^s in Eield E; Inr^c stone nails in Field L.'
Hiatus
Iron IA
CCI. l I 5 0 - n 0 0 B . c . i ; .
II
Iron IB
ca. 1100-1050 B.C.E.
AH
Wall frags above Stratum 12 destruction in Field A; wall fragments in Field H
10
Iron IB
ca. 1050-1000 B.c.E.
.AH
House ivith r{tom.s & floors in Eield A; lowest courtyard sanetnar>' in Eield H
9
IronllA
ca. 1000-850 B.c.E.
ABH
Eew red-slipped, hand-bum ¡shed sherds; poss contÍTiMíttion of courtyard .sanctuary* in Field H
8
Iron ÍÍB
CÜ. «50-600 B.c.E.
A
Hon.se in Field A ii'ith /ïotter>- of the luie-ninth to eighth centuries
7
Late Iron 11/ Persian
ca. 600-550 B.c.E.
ABCEFHL
Admin istratii'e complex & houses in Fields A, B, C, F & L; well in Field E; sanctuary in Field H
6
Late Iron 11/ Persian
ea. 550-500 B.C.E.
AH
Major changes to administrative Cf)m/)leA- in Field A; hoM.ses in Field B; sanctuary' in Field H
5
Persian
ca. 5 0 0 - Í 0 0 B.C.E.
AH
Prob domestic ivall frags in Field A; poss continuation of sanctuar>' in Field H; Pensian provincial seals
HiatiLs
Late PersianHellenistic
ca. 400-200 B.c.E.
4
Hellenistic
ca. 200-50 R.C.H.
HLK
Pits in Field H; farmstead in Field L; tomb ii'ith Greek inscription in Field K
3
Early Roman
ca. 50 B.C.E.-135 c.E.
AB
Ritual pool ivas probably part of a fannstead or villa
H u i t ILS
Latt' lioiiuin
ea. I 35-350 L'.E.
2
Bvîantinf
cii. 350-650 c.E.
E
Farmstead wall fragments and pottery
I
I.sltiniíf
ai. 650 c.E.-présent
.4BCDEFHL
.Sherds in top.soil represent apicultura! actii ity: EarK' lilamic, Middle Islamic, Modem
Stratigraphie chart of the site after the 2008 season.
70 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009}
No remains so far; cemetery east of the airport highzvay
No clear remains so far
SigTii/icimt typological difference beiween pottery of Strata 12 and 11
No remains so far; possibly' also very early Hellenistic
No remains so far
portico made of ashlar stones (very well-hewn building stones); (2) structures and caves from the Mamluk and Ottoman periods ('Umayri North) covered a hill to the northeast; in the 1980s some of the older modern residents remembered living in these caves; and (3) the modern village of Bunayat to the north-northeast settled by Ajarmeh Bedouin during the twentieth century. The immediate area of the site was thus occupied ahnost continuously from the Neolithic periixl (below) to the present. The primary site—dating to the Bronze and Iron Ages—nearest the water is the one we have been digging. It can lay no claims whatsoever to a naturally strategic setting. That is, it dominates no significant landscape and guards no prominently visible approach to the area. Indeed, the top of the site is lower than the immediately surrounding hills to the north, west, and south. To the east, one can see only as far as Tall Jawa, about five kilometers listant. Watch towers would have been necessary I in the surrounding hills to provide any kind ot early warning system about advancing enemy forces. Our regional survey found structures that could The excavation's tomb team, headed by Elzbieta Dubis, shown in this picture, had have heen several of those towers. Rather, the site's come across what appeared to be an entrance to a rock-cut cave tomb, but excavation "strategic" value was command of the water source. promptly uncovered disarticulated human bones of what would turn out to be twenty It also guarded the approach to the Ammonite hills secondary burials inside the megatithic walls of an Early Bronze Age dolmen. from the Madaba Plain if the ancient road passed the site (and it probably did because the water was there).
-•..„k.
The finds from the dolmen included a semi-articulated leg, beads, and a cup, shown here \n situ.
Using an itinerary of Thutmose III. some researchers tentatively identified the site with Abel-Keramim of Judg 11:33 (Redtord 1982), but there is no certainty. Redford traced Thutmose's journey from Amman to the south toward Madaba, designating 'Umayri as one of the major stops along the route because of the water source. Indeed, although the main highway to Madaba is farther to the east today and even if'Umayri is not Abel-Keramim, there is good evidence that the ancient "Kings' Highway" followed the water and went past 'Umayri on its way south. Large-scale excavations hegan at the site in 1984 under the auspices of the Madaba Plains Project sponsored by Andrews University in cooperation with the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman. Raouf Abujaber, a major landowner of the site and a historian of Jordan, also welcomed us. The team has excavated for twelve seasons (1984, 1987, 1989, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000. 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008), though the dig is now sponsored by La Sierra University in consortium with Andrews University School of Architecture, Canadian University College, Mount Royai College, Pacific Union College, and Walla Walla University (other institutions that belonged to the consortium for periods of time were Wilfrid Laurier University 11987, 1989], Atlantic Union College [1987. 1989, 1992], and Levant Foundation Poland [1994]).The excavations show that the site was occupied by twenty-one separate settlements (strata) stretching from Early Bronze Age I to the Islamic era, but the primary periods of occupation were the
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
71
Bronze and Iron Ages. The best-preserved remains come from the Late Bronze Age and the LB/Iron I transitional period.
Unstratified Stone Age Periods NcoHthic flint tools were found in 1978 hy a survey of the Yaduda area led hy H. j . Franken of the University of Leiden and R. Ahujiiher. They were located on the lower western
and eastern slopes of the site (Franken and Abujaher 1989: 408). These unillustrated finds indicate only that some sort of activity took place in the area and not necessarily that people lived there at that time. The remains were in mixed deposits and no in situ or secondary finds from the Neolithic period have been discovered by our excavations. Franken claims that his survey at the eastern foot of the site, currently under the modern airport highway, tound Chalcolithic remains (Franken and Ahujaber 1989: 415). The site is no longer available for excavation. However, much of the pottery illustrated by Franken (Franken and Ahujaber 1989: 421) seems to me (Herr) to date to the Early Bronze period (mostly EB I) and some forms are even Iron Age (see especially sherd no. 30, which seems to be an Iron II krater).
The Bronze Age Stratum 21 (Early Bronze Age IB) At the southeastern toot ot the hill in Field K were the huge megaliths of a dolmen without its capstone. Our tomb team, headed by Eizbieta Dubis of Krakov, Poland, had come across what appeared to be an entrance to a rock-cut cave tomb, but excavation promptly uncovered disarticulated human bones of what would turn out to be twenty secondary burials (based on the number of skulls) inside the megalithic walls of a dolmen. Other finds from the dolmen included pottery dating to the EB IB period, beads, Canaanean flint tools, and mace heads.
Wall fragments west of the dolmen that may be the remains of a shelter for visitors are visible at the top of this photo. The large stone near the bottom left (the associated surface has been excavated in this photo) may have been a table, platform, or altar. The visitors may have come to the dolmen to conduct feasts and other mortuary or funerary rituals.
72
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
The disarticulated bones suggest that the individuals were buried elsewhere initially, then dug up and transferred to the dolmen site for secondary reburial. The bones were accompanied hy heads, Canaanean flint tools, mace heads, and eighteen whole pottery vessels Irom the EB IB period, a few with typical hand painting (Dubis and Dabrowski 2002). There were no artifacts from any other period inside the dolmen. This is the first time such finds and such clear evidence for date, function, and use patterns have been discovered inside a dolmen anywhere in the Mediterranean basin, hiimediately surrounding tlie dt)lmen and piled against its eastern, southem, and westem sides were smaller stones (small boulders), suggesting the original structure may have been covered by stones looking something like a large cairn. But perhaps even more striking than the preservation of the finds was the presence of a series of beaten-earth, plaster, and pebbled surfaces surrounding the dolmen (partially visible in the photo at the top of p. 71). In places where the slope was steep, the surfaces included bedrock steps, especially in front of
the structure (seeDubisand Dahrowski [2002] for illustrations). Strata 30-19 (Early Bronze Age IMU) Close to the dolmen, as many as five surfaces were discovered, Although EB IB layers may ultimately be found at the top of the one on top of the other. But the numbers of surfaces diminished site, our first certain signs of habitation on the tell start with EB II as excavations moved away from the structure. Embedded into tm the southern slope of the site in Eield D. The configuration of the surfaces at a distance of about three to four meters were a the landscape that the first settlers found was essentially that t)f a ceramic jar {north} and a stone table or platform or altar (west). ridge projecting eastward from the higher ridge (now the forested Amman National Park} to the west. Levels of exposed bedrock The latter was placed in front of the only structural walls near on the west show that the site was not an isolated the dolmen. Although only partially hill, but contained defensible slopes only on its preserved, the wall remains suggest north, east, and south sides. a shelter for visitors to the dolmen that contained at least two rooms. Eour phases of pre-EB IV wall fragments from The pottery' in the lower surfaces and domestic dwellings were built on the northern and associated with the features was EB southern slopes of the site (Fields C and D}, but IB, but the upper surfaces contained the changes were so slight we have combined them late EB II or even early EB III sherds. into two strata. The greatest exposure was -^ "" - on the southern shelf (Field D; Harrison The number of surfaces suggests that ', ' 2000}. Stratum 20 produced surfaces and continuous funerary rituals, such as I , wall fragments that dated to EB II. These feasting and ambulation, took place ' / walls were very fragmentary and produced at the structure and that these lasted ' only patches of surfaces and few finds. But for a considerable amount of time. , the pottery was clearly EB II and the character The dolmen seems to have been of the walls suggests domestic structures. covered by debris that washed down the slope of the site from the Stratum 19, dating to the EB III period, was settlement above, preserving the the most extensively occupied settlement on the structure and its contents, later to site, covering all the slopes and the top. It included be found by us. Its capstone, which walls from three phases, each one built on top of the may have been the only feature of other and slightly changing the plans of the structure still above ground Stratum 19, dating to the EB III period, was the most the houses. The last and best preserved after the Early Bronze Age, was extensively occupied settlement on the site. The phase was covered by debris from probably removed at a later date for last and best preserved phase, shown in this plan of collapsed walls and ceilings, including architectural reuse. The dolmen still Field D, was covered by debris from collapsed walls plastered reeds and burned beams. The stands on the lower southern slopes and ceilings, including plastered reeds and burned finds comprised parts of three houses of the site about one hundred meters beams. The finds comprised parts of three houses separated by narrow alleyways and a separated by narrow alleyways and a terrace wall. north of the modem petrol station. tenace wall.
This partially cobbled courtyard belongs to the best preserved EB III house in Field D, In the foreground is the "kitchen" of the house, complete with a "range," that is, a stone-lined fire pit.
These pottery vessels are shown in their original locations on the floor of the storeroom of the Early Bronze Age house. One of the large jars contained over one thousand chick peas, enough to furnish the family with plenty of hummusi
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
73
>
^•
rf:
V.
-^.^ A poorly preserved EB IV house in Stratum 18 of Field D was built directly over the much better preserved EB III houses of Stratum 19.
The most complete house (to the east ot the street) bad a cobbled courtyard for animals in tbe northwest, a living area in the northeast, a kitchen with a sunken hearth in a stone bench in the southwest, and a storeroom with thirty broken but complete pottery vessels in the southeast (Harrison 1997a: 114—15). One t)f the jars contained the charred remains of over one thousand chick peas. Hummus seems to be at least five thousand years old! Though incompletely excavated, parts of rwo other bouses, each with at least tw(i rot>ms. were discovered across a narrow street to the west and on an upper terrace to tbe north. Tbey, too, produced parts ot smashed store jars and long, thin flint blades in the Canaanean style. The western house contained two interconnected subterranean storage chambers carved into tbe bedrock. A series of steps accessed these basement rooms. Other terraces probahly supported bouses on the upper slopes of the site.
TELL EL-'UMEIRI SECTION OF WESTERN DEFENSE SYSTEM^FIELD B
Iran \\ Iron 1 E D Middle Brnnic CZl Bedrock
•
i)13mMSL
Bwg
•M5J. • MftfII ah™ "WO-
910
7JW
At some point in Stratum 15 (MB IIC), the inhabitants fortified the site. These fortifications transformed its appearance, creating the modern hill-like shape we see today. In this section through the fortification system the white features date to the Middle Bronze IIC and the lightgray ones to the LB/lron I transitional period.
74 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
The three small soundings that made up Field G on the northem slope of the site all produced Early Bronze III domestic remains with smashed pottery. Although our soundings in Fields C and G were too small to allow us to judge confidently, there was prtibably a similar series of terraces with domestic buildings here. The top of the ridge was probably occupied at this time, too, though in situ Early Bronze remains have not yet heen discovered there, except for small bedrock features under the Stratum 17 (MB) rampart in Field B. Although the site was 4.7 hectares in size (11.7 acres),' no signs of a fortification system have been found, at least on the lower slopes. Likewise, excavation to bedrock on the westem lip of the site in Field B, where we would expect fortifications, has yielded no sign of an Early Bronze fortification system for the upper tell. We must understand tbe settlement as essentially a large village (Harrison 1997b; Philip 2008). Strata 18-17 (Early Bronze Age IV) Directly above the well preserved houses of EB III in Field D were two considerably more ephemeral strata (Mitchel 1989: 287-95). The earliest stratum (18) comprised the partial remains of two small, nearly square structures of one room, each sporting one pillar in the center, probably to support a crude roof. The walls were very nanow and could not have been very high. Thin surfaces with no accumulation on them suggest the buildings did not have a lengthy lifespan. The western house had curved corners, while excavation has produced only one angled comer for the eastern house. Although interior surfaces contained grinding tools and mortars, only an outside exposure surface (a surtace that was not used intensively by human traffic) connected the six meters of space between the two dwellings, implying that occupation at the site was sparse. The structures seem to date to the earliest stages of EB IV (based on pottery) when the EB III civilization was collapsing throughout the southem Levant. Above the two houses and also dated to EB IV, was an even more ephemeral series of small stone walls, possibly used for animal pens or to define fields or gardens (Stratum 17). Much of the second half of the EB IV period seems to have seen no settlement at 'Umayri, but a cemetery of shaft tombs just east of the airport highway produced typical EB IV tomb fijmishings (Waheeb and Palumbo 1993). Strata 16-15 (Middle Bronze Age IIC) After a hiatus during the early stages of the Middle Bronze Age, a major settlement was again established. The initial one (Stratum 16) was built on the ridge top ar\d soon grew larger so that houses were constructed on the northern slope in Field C. So far, in situ remains have been found only in this location. Until now, very little could be said about the identity of the people who settled our site. Only rarely do settlers tell us who they were through inscriptions or other identifying features. Based on evidence from many sites and finds in the southern Levant dating to the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, these newcomers may have been what the Bible and other texts refer to as "Canaanites."
Much more prominent was Stratum 15. At some point the inhabitants fortified the site by creating a hill out of the original ridge. In Field B, where the site jt)ined the higher ridge to the west, they dug a north-to-south dry moat five meters deep across the ridge at the westem edge of the settlement and then piled up layers of earth and crushed limestone to create a steep rampart climbing up another five meters for a total of ten meters from tbe bottom of the moat to the top of the tampart. The CLirth within the nmipart contained MB IIC potten,- trom
A cave tomb, with multiple burials and several MB IIC pottery vessels, shov^ri here, was found near the dolmen on the lovwer southeastern slope of 'Umayri.
Wall fragments of the MB IIC period are visible at the bottom of this photo. The very large boulders almost qualify as "Cyclopean" masonry, a typical feature of Middle Bronze Age architecture. A limecoated surface runs up to the wall stones.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009] 75
A moldmade "Asherah" figurine was found in debris from the LB II town in Field F. The nude woman with a "page-boy" hairstyle is typical of snnall female figurines from this period.
the Stratum 16 settlement. There does not seem to have been a wall at the top of the rampart at the location of our section. A small portion of the same rampart seems to have been discovered at the top of the northern slope just outside the Stratum 14 (Late Bronze Age) palace/temple. These fortifications transformed the appearance of the site, creating the modem hill-like shape we see today. Nestled inside the newly fortified settlement (looking much like a crater) was the contemporary town. Our project has so far discovered two locations in Field B where fragmentary MB IIC walls were found. One was made up of two wall fragments constructed of relatively large boulders (a typical feature of many Middle Bronze sites) and was undoubtedly part of a major building, while the other had three walls supporting a plastered pool, one of the earliest constructed water installations inside a site so far discovered in Jordan. The latter construction was situated on top of the rampart. Both sets of walls may have belonged to a large tower or palatial building at the northwest corner of the site, probably the highest spot at the time. Extra-urban domestic remains were discovered on the northern slope of the site in Field C (a surface and a fragmentary wall) above the Stratum 16 remains (Battenfíeld 1991: 75). The pottery associated with all these features was typical of MB IIC assemblages and included "chocolate-on-white" ware, which also continued into LB L A cave tomb, with multiple burials and several MB IIC pottery vessels, was found near the dolmen at the southeastern base of the site in Field K (Górniak and Kapica 2002). This tomb is still visible.
This monumental building, viewed from the east, may have been a temple. At the bottom of the photo is a monumental entrance with a series of stairs leading down to the entrance room and another series leading up to what must have been the second floor. Everything shows signs of having been destroyed by an earthquake. Some of the surviving walls of the structure are almost three meters [10 feet) high.
76
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
Stratum 14 (Late Bronze Age II) Although the rare potsherd is found now and then from the first half of the Late Bronze Age, we have not yet discovered any certain architectural features from this time period. We thus tentatively suggest a hiatus. S t r a t u m 14 reflects 'Umayri's settlement during the Late Bronze Age II, so far excavated only in Field F, the eastern portion of the tell, and Field B in the northwestem corner oi the site. Thus, the extant evidence demonstrates a Late Bronze occupation at 'Umayri that may have made use of the entire 1.4 hectare area of the top of the site, probably that area encompassed by the MB IIC rampart. Field F produced a series of four arbitrarily defined LB II debris layers overlying a Middle Bronze Age structure that was exposed in only one square (6M90) and consisted of remains of a few walls and earth layers, possihiy a terrace wall (Low 1997: 191-95). T h e Late Bronze
layers contained mixed remains from domestic, cultic, and economic spheres of life, including two joining pieces of a plaque figurine, often identified with fertility goddesses such as Asherah or Astarte.
The other source of information from the Late Bronze Age on the site comprises a very well-preserved monumental huilding in Field B, atop the relatively well defined MB IIC remains of Stratum 15. Because it is an important structure for the archaeology of Jordan, and hecause it has not been published before, we will describe it in some detail. Built directly into and over the interior portions of the Middle Bronze rampart in the northwest JL—-z. corner of the site, this building emerged ^
This computerized isometric drawing shows the layout of the Late Bronze building, which includes two southern rooms (1 and 2), an entry hall (4), a large central room (3), and a back room (5) along the western side of the building. A small photo of the cultic shrine is set in its niche in room 3. i/lustrati'on courtesy of Kent Bramlett.
Artist's cut-away reconstruction of the Late Bronze Age building. One entered the building from the east through a stepped threshold lined with orthostats. Visitors could either ascend the stone stairs to the second story or take one of two short sets of stairs leading down into Room 4. Rhonda Root, artist.
over six excavation seasons. Because the walls stood over two meters high in places, it took our team parts of three seasons to excavate any given room to the floor. The site's inhabitants utilized not only the Middle Bronze rampart layers sloping toward the center of the city on which to found the building, but also the two-meterthick walls of a Middle Bronze tower built at the northwest corner of the site. The buiiding consisted of Rve rooms with two floors. Both phases utilized the same architectural elements of the building, albeit with slight variations. A plan of the building reveals the rooms—two on the southern side (Rooms 1 and 2), an entry hall (Room 4), a large central room (Room 3), and a back room along the westem side of the building (Room 5). The exterior dimensions of the building are clear. It is basically rectangular in shape with exterior measurements of 12 by 16 meters. The walls are bonded throughout, except those abutting the northern and western exterior walls, and consist predominantly of semi-hewn smallto medium-sized boulders, making the construction of the walls unique for the site. The interior wall between Rooms 3 and 5 was of mixed construction, made up of both small boulders and mudbricks. Exterior walls measured 1.5 meters in thickness, with the exception of the western wall of Room 5, which consisted of the two-me ter-thick external "tower" wall of Stratum 15, and those on the interior between 1 and 1.2 meters thick. One curious feature is the two parallel walls forming the eastern side of the building, set cheek-by-jowl next to each other. Only during the last season did the obvious explanation appear to us; the inner (western) of the two walls is actually a "stair wall." That is, the stairs preserved farther to the north would have continued
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
77
In Room 3 of the Late Bronze Age building the Inhabitants had constructed a plastered niche, seen here as it was discovered in 2004. Within it were five natural standing stones embedded in plaster together with a variety of ceramic objects.
Rooms 3 and 5 appears only to have been built to its surviving height of just over one meter. It seetns clear from the destruction debris in all five rooms that the structure once supported a second story over at least portions of it. Massive amounts of mudbricks from the upper walls and mud from the ceilings, second story flooring, and roofing detritus filled every room, with burned remains of large support beams especially concentrated in Room 3. Added to this evidence for another floor to the building is the stairway on the eastern side of Room 4 leading upward. Indeed, the stairway seems to have continued for a considerable distance on top of the eastern wall of Room 1. There has been some debate about whether Room 3 might have supported a second story, given the wide span between load-bearing walls. Unfortunately, the surviving evidence is of limited value in this regard, but, as the painting on p. 77 makes clear, we tend to think it was a single story, perhaps On the floor in front of the niche were a presentation altar (seen here) and small offering with a higher ceiling. table. Hundreds of smashed domestic animal bones (mostly sheep and goat) covered the floor of the room. Their preservation does not suggest that they had been burned. One entered the building from the east through a stepped threshold 1.5 meters wide, lined in upwards on top of this wall to the second floor or the roof. places with orthostatic stones (flat stones placed on edge). Thus the eastern wall, made of larger stones, is actually the One went up a few steps and then down again to a small paved outer wall of the structure. platform located roughly in the center of the stairway wall of While for the most part these walls were preserved over two Room 4. At this juncture, those entering could choose to turn meters high in places, the mixed-construction wall between left, ascending the stone stairs, we assume, to the second story.
78 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
On the other hand, the platform also connected to stairs leading down to the right into Room 4. A third option presented itself with at least two steps leading directly down into this room. Room 4 measured nearly eight meters long and over two meters wide. Doorways were built into three of this room's walls—the 1.5 meter-wide entry on the east, a 1.2 meterwide door into Room 1 on the south, and two 1.2 meter-wide doors in the western wall, providing access to Room 3. The southern of the two doors was used throughout the building's occupation, but the northern one fell out of use during the second phase, and the owners filled it in with stones. Given the construction of the entryway and span between the walls, it does not seem likely that there was a second story above Room 4- On the floor of the room lay hundreds of bones and two large, flat stones that may have heen standing stones used in ritual activities. This, along with broken ascending stairs in the room and the separation of rows in the eastern exterior wall, testifies to an earthquake as the cause of the building's destruction, though this quake may have occurred at the end of Stratum 13 (below). Rooms 1 and 2 were entered through the southern doorway of Room 4. Occupying about one third of the floor space of the building, their combined thirty-one-square-meter floor area revealed multiple lenses of use surfaces. The walls were all bonded and preserved to more than two meters high. The western wall of Room 2 seems to have used an earlier MB IIC mudbrick wall. Otherwise, besides the evidence of a fiery end for the burned bricks, there was nothing found on the floors in the room to suggest a function. The size of the room, the massive amount of fallen bricky debris (accumulating over two meters thick), and the stairway in Room 4 are persuasive evidence of a second story at least above Rooms 2 and 3. Room 3, accessed through the doorway(s) in the wall between Rooms 4 and 3, yielded the most exciting discoveries in the building. These finds also contribute to our understanding of the building's function. Encompassing twenty-eight square meters of floor space, its walls were mostly of stone, with extensive evidence of mud plaster covering the stones. But the western, "installation wall" (Bramlett 2008) consisted of mudbrick as well as stone, and originally likely stood only one meter or so high. Toward the southern end of this wall the ancients had installed, approximately 0.6 meters above the floor, a plastered niche measuring 1.6 meters wide, 0.6 meters high and 0.4 meters deep. It housed five natural standing stones embedded in plaster together with several ceramic artifacts including two carinated bowls, a chalice, parts of four lamps, and two crudely made, unfired figurines. The five stones embedded in the plaster of the niche included a large central aniconic stone in a domelike shape, flanked on the left by a small, disc-shaped stone and one that looked Uke a human foot. On the right were a head-shaped stone and then a smaller chert nodule which, with its natural calcareous accretions, gave the appearance of a face with an open eye. Placed on theflcxirin front of the niche were a flanged presentation altar and small offering table, both made
This crudely made, unfired clay figurine is one of fifteen found in Room 5 of the Late Bronze building. Photo courtesy of Monique Vincent.
of mudbricks plastered on the exterior surfaces. Near them, beside the entry door, was found an additional lamp. Along the eastern wall, what were probably bench stones were also discovered in Room 3. The floor of almost the complete room was covered with hundreds of bones from domestic animals. The bones showed no signs of burning. Behind the "cultic wall" ot Room 3 was another space. Room 5. Bounded by the Middle Bronze "tower wall" on the west, a short wall on the south, a segment of the northern wall, and the "cultic wall" on the east, it was rectangular in shape, measuring 4-3 meters long and 2.1 meters across. Its floor level was more than one meter above that of Room 3, likely due to the rising Middle Bronze rampart beneath. There appears to be no point of entry into the space. The room produced fifteen handmade, poorly fired ceramicfigurinesand three nearly ctiniplete ceramic vessels—a goblet, a dipper juglet, and one small jar.
NFAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 7 2 ' 2 ( 2 0 0 9 )
79
IT'S A TEMPLE WITH SIDE ROOMS A notable feature of the Late Bronze buiiding is the cuit associated with food consumption, particularl)! the numbers niche with five standing stones and the plastered mudhrick of bowls and platters (shallow bou'ts), predominated; Room 1, presentation altar in Room 3. However, a cult niche does bou'ts and platters 15, cooking pots 5, jars and jugs 2, lamps not a temple make. Here / will briefly explain why i interpret I; Room 2, bou'is and platters 7, cooking pots 3, jars and this building to have functioned primarily as a temple. Room jugs 3; Room 3, bou'ls and platters 30, cooking pots 0, jars layout and organization suggests Room 3 «'as the dominant and jugs 6, lamp I; Room 4, bou'is and platters 42, cooking and most significant room of this building. The entry steps pots } 5, jars and jugs 6, lamps 6. in Room 3 we found nearly and ascending stöircase across Room 4 diminished utilitarian complete shallow bowh with sheep or goat bones in them near space, and what remained directed access past a mudhrick- the stone bench opposite the cultic niche and altar and along and-ptflster altar with associated standing stone through two the north wall of the room. The high proportion of bowls to doorways (a third was later bioclced up) to the other roam.s. A food storage containers far exceeds the number usually found second story existed over Rooms I and 2 hut the archaeologicalin domestic contexts but is consonant u'ith the practice of evidence does not easily accord a second story over Rooms 3 shared sacral meals or food offerings presented in cultic ritual. and 4. Not a single comparable residential or palatial structure Additionally, we found no ovens, bins, silos, or obvious joudin S)iria'Pal¿5tine (o/ti;hich I am aware) exhibits a cult room at preparation areas an^-ichere in the building. But we did find the functional center of its floor plan, or an^itffiere else for that unfired clay figurines similar to those placed in the cultic matter, and the plan does not align easily with Late Bronte niche in Rooms 2, 3, 4, and 5. The plastered mudbrick table Age house5, though the MB/Lß "S;>rian house type" (Holladay and standiiag stone near the foot of the stairs and three cultic 1997) shows certain limited parallels. In comparison to these, miniature bowls found in Room 4 also indicate pervasive our building dedicated a larger proportion of its space to the cultic attention throughout the major rooms of this building. entrai room (Room 4); the smaller adjunct rooms (Rooms 1 and While i conclude from the available evidence that the 2) do not communicate directly to the main hall (Roon\ 3) and observance of cult was the most important function of this only sequentially to the long entry liall (Room 4). building, Ï do allow for a unique s^^nthesis of typolo^ such Most significantly, and, for me, persuasively, room-use that the building may have served as a complete institution analysis of Building C shows that the entire building was for the cult practitioners in which priestly du'elling and divine oriented toward cultic function. Daviau (1993) provides house were not clearly distinguished. Nevertheless, "temple" is statistical benchmarks for vessel percentages per t^ipe associated the best designator for this building. with functional class paradigms for area use and room Bramlett unction, in the use-surface strata of all the rooms, vessels
Given the combined floor space of Rooms 3 and 5, it is highly unhkely that a second story existed over them. If, as we have proposed, the wall between the two rooms was less than two meters high and thus not load bearing, the span would he too great to support another construction level. But there were at least two phases of use, the second marked by the blockage of the northern doorway in the eastern wall of Room 3 and a use surface approximately ten to twelve centimeters above the original level. The architectural and artifactual evidence seems to suggest a palatial and certainly a cultic function. The size and construction of walls and the floor plan rule out a primarily domestic function. Was the main purpose of the structure religious or political, if the two can be separated completely? Rooms 1 and 2 have given up little evidence to help us make this distinction. Room 4 was clearly an entry hall, which might fit either palace or temple architecture, but the two "standing
80
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
stones" definitely suggest a religious aspect to the room. But how should we interpret Rooms 3 and 5? Do they represent the cultic component of a palatial facility or do they reflect the central purpose of the structure as a temple with an entry hall and two large side chambers? Kent Bramlett's University of Toronto Ph.D. dissertation (2008) on the building in its archaeological and historical context argues cautiously but strongly for identifying this structure as a temple and cites comparative evidence from the Levant, especially from Israel/Palestine and Jordan. The cultic function of Room 3, central to the building's spatial features, along with the function of Room 5 as a probable vestry or favissa for storing unused (or no longer usable) cultic artifacts, certainly gives pride of place to this interpretation. Bramlett also treats contemporary Late Bronze Age settlements in the region, reconstructing in the process proposed
IT'S A PALACE WITH A SHRINE / would dearl'y like this building to he a temple too, but /
i say this not only because the shrine was low in elevation
can't find any similar temples udth four interconnecting rooms
relative to the other rooms of the building, but tKe "cultic"
anywhere in the eastern Mediterranean. The Late Bronze Age
vessels found in the niche were slighth broken, even though
was a time when the elite members of society seem to have
the^ were in situ and had not /alien. The breaks U'ere ancient
been very prominent ot settlement sites, constructing palaces
and no menciabte pieces at all were found. There was no rim
and temples at almost every town or city site where excavators
on the chalice at all; it had broken away in many pieces in
dii^. So it was no surprise to us to find this splendid building.
antiquity and was placed in the shrine in a defective state.
But the shrine was a surprise, because the plan of the building
The howls and lamps were similar. Even the figurines were
did not lead us to expect such a find.
so crude that we cannot surest they were intended to inspire
Most temples in the Late Bronze Age are made up of two rooms, sometimes with small attached storerooms or favissas.
honor and respect for a major deity. It doesn't seem like the people treated the shrine with much respect.
They do not have large attached rooms like our soutfiern
I will admit that m^ interpretation (first made in 2004
rooms. And those rooms soar two stories high, well above the
when the shrine was found) is u;ealcened a hit b^i the standing
top of the "holy" room. What god would like thatV. To suggest
stones found in the entrance room in 2008, but two "cultic"
tKat the priests may have lived higher than tke god in the same
rooms out of a total of six rooms (counting two rooms on the
building is not normally acceptable. The lack of parallels and
second floor above the two southem rooms) does not make a
the small nature 0/ tKe shrine itself lead me to think of the
temple in my view. Let the debate continue'.
building as a palatial structure for a wclltu-do famiiy who also wanted significant cultic space attached, probably for a minor
Larry G. Herr
deity or group of deities.
lines of commerce and communication as well as political ties (2008: 55-113). From the archaeological evidence, he posits a string of sites scattered along highland trade routes which served an important role in Late Bronze commerce in Transjordan. The small cluster of sites in central Jordan, including Sahah, Amman, Umm ad-Dananir, Safut, and 'Umayri, were close enough in proximity to each other to have formed a city-state form of polity. As part o{ this city-state system, 'Umayri and its fortunes diminished toward the heginning of the thirteenth century at ahout the time of increasing Egyptian influence in the region, influence that favored Amman and Sahah (Bramlett 2008: 269-70).
The Iron Age Stratum 13 (Late Bronze Age/Early Iron 1 Transition) Following the collapse of the LB II temple and its associated settlement, there was a fundamental change in the nature of the settlement. Gone are palatial buildings associated with activities of the elite classes of society; gone are fertility figurines of Asherah and cultic shrines; and gone are pottery forms solidly at home in the Late Bronze Age. Newly arrived are houses and finds very similar to the earliest stages of the Iron I settlement sites west oí the Jordan River; pottery forms that anticipate those found at the scores of Iron I settlement sites throughout the southern Levant; and modest religious
expressions in the form of crude standing stones and ceramic model shrines. One can compare the finds best with the settlement of diverse trihal groups, prohahly a very similar settlement pattern as that noted for highland sites west of the Jordan River (Faust 2006). The inhabitants of 'Umayri built their settlement, but before they could live there ver>' long an earthquake seriously jolted the settlement around 1200 B.C.E. We have very few architectural remains from this stratum, but we know their cultural remains from the debris taken from their structures for subsequent reuse in the reconstruction of the severely damaged western defensive rampart system, which, until the earthquake, was still in use from its initial founding in Stratum 15 (MBA). Thus, at this point in the excavation of'Umayri, we can speak only of some kind of occupation (Stratum 13) whose earthquake damage provided the raw materials for rebuilding parts of'Umayri in the subsequent, spectacularly preserved Stratum 12. It may have been this earthquake that damaged the walls of Stratum 14 (above). We found no signs of occupation above the Late Bronze Age building in either Stratum 13 or 12, even though it was out of use since the end of Stratum 14. The pottery from Stratum 13 is virtually like that of the following one, except there were fewer Iron I forms and more Late Bronze ones, which suggests the tail end of the Late Bronze Age.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
81
Stratum 12 (Late Bronze Age/Early Iron 1 Transition) The post-earthquake settlement at 'Umayri reb(.>unded immediately following the seismic event that destroyed the Stratum 15 (MBA) westem defenses, as indicated by the quick repairs to the disrupted rampart layers. During this period the town likely encompassed the entire top of the tell in addition to small areas on the slopes. Remains trom the LB/lron I transition have been excavated in all fields on the flat top as well as downslope in Field B (the western defense system). Field C on the northern slope, and Field F on the eastern part of the tell. Excavations in Field F revealed only fragments of a domestic structure and associated finds, and a terrace wall with two subphases ot surfaces (Low 1997: 195-202). Field C on the northern slopes produced only a terrace wall and ash layers of the Stratum 12 destruction (Battenfield 1991: 85). While both areas may be extra-urban, we know little about them with any degree of certainty. However, from the remains uncovered on the western end of the tell (Fields A, B, and H) several features of the perimeter wall and defenses are clear, providing a reasonably complete picture of the nature and extent of defensive structures, including a reuse of the Stratum 15 moat at the bottom of the slope, a retaining wall that suppt.irted a steep rampart, and long stretches of a perimeter wall not unlike a casemate wall in places. Earlier indications for a gate in Field A have not panned out. The moat, carved during the MB II period (Stratum 15) into the bedrock spur on which 'Umayri's earliest settlement was founded, was six meters across and five meters deep, creating a formidable obstacle against unwanted entry. The retaining wall was built to support the higher level of the new beatenearth rampart of Stratum 12, which was constructed from a mix of clay, nari (crushed limestone), and charcoal to prevent its erosion during the rainy season. The rampart rose at a 35° slope for another five meters along a distance of fifteen meters as it ascended the hill. At the top of the slope a two-meter-thick perimeter wall was constructed into and directly on top of the cresting Stratum 15 rampart. Courses of the wall nearly matched rampart layers, indicating a unified construction to restore the defense system as a whole. Currently surviving to a length ot approximately eighty meters along the western edge ot the site, the perimeter wall extended from the northwest corner toward the south, curving sharply eastward into the town and then continuing south. Plaster fragments on the exterior wall stones, forming the wall's curve, suggest a monolithic look to the wall, especially near the angle where it turns south. The wall line as it curved into the town was interrupted abruptly due to construction of the Late Iron II Ammonite administrative complex of Stratum 7 and what lay to the east is unknown except for fragmentary discoveries. The inhabitants built three houses immediately inside the western defenses between the Late Bronze building and the curve of the perimeter wall: Building B, on the north (in Field B), has been completely excavated and partially reconstructed;
82
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
nfi A in the middle (in Fields B and A), has also been completely excavated; and Building C, on the south, cradled inside the curving perimeter wall (in Field A), has been excavated only partially so far. All were constructed abutting the perimeter wall. North of Building B along the perimeter wall, nothing survives from this period. Bur because late Iron
Extending for eighty meters along the western edge of the site, the two-meter-thick perimeter wall (the northern part of which is seen in this photo), belonging to the Late Bronze/Iron Age transitional period, was integrated into the Stratum 12 rampart.
II houses were immediately above the Late Bronze building, we suggest the area was empty during Stratum 12. Although only partially revealed, there was an alleyway to the east of and facing the entrances of Buildings A and B (and probably C), granting access to courtyards belonging to
Location of the Late Bronze building
the two completely excavated buildings. The evidence also suggests at least two phases of building activity. Evidently both buildings initially opened directly onto the alleyway, without the protection of a walled courtyard on the east and with no external dividing wall between their courtyards. Later, courtyards were enclosed in front of the houses. The newly formed courtyard of Building B measured over eight meters long and an average of four and a half meters wide, creating thirty-six square meters of newly protected space around the house's entrance. Two entryways provided access from the alleyway, but in a subsequent phase the most direct one in the southeast corner of the courtyard was walled shut. The courtyard also saw the installation of a paved area, probably an animal pen, which, in the final phase of courtyard renovation, was expanded further. Simultaneous if not directly connected phases of renovation also appeared in the remains of Building A. The general plan of Building A was rectilinear and consisted of four rooms on the ground floor. Its northem wall was shared with Building B. Entry from the eastern courtyard brought ancient inhabitants into Room Al, measuring 5 by 2.7 meters. Remains included a stone-lined bin in a corner, a bench along the eastern wall, a stone-ringed hearth and stone grinding implements, along with numerous broken ceramic vessels on the beaten-earth floor. Immediately west of Room Al was a stone-paved room, Room A2, separated by what must have been a fabric wall supported by wooden posts resting on stone post-bases, or just empty space between the posts. Inside this 2.5-by-2.5 meter room was a large standing stone, resting against the room's westem wall, and a large stone presentation altar oriented in front of the standing stone. To the south of Room A2 was a room encompassing an alcove built into the southern wall of the building, Room A4. It measured almost two-by'two meters if the hallway on the north is included. But the rectangular protrusion of the wall was 1.6 meters deep. Stones resting on the floor may have been crude "standing stones" at one point, suggesting a religious use for at least two rooms. Finally, the westernmost room. Room A3, enclosed a space 2.6 meters wide by 4.8 meters long. Inside were seven or eight large-collared pithoi that produced tens of thousands of carbonized grains mostly of barley, but of other typical grains and vegetables as well. A stepped platform was located in the southwest corner of the room. Remains in the destruction rubble filling Building A included building detritus confirming the existence of a second story and articulated faunal remains of at least two butchered animals left behind as the occupants must have departed hastily.
Abutting the perimeter wall and dating to the same period (Stratum 12), three houses had been constructed. An alleyway facing their entrances provided access to courtyards.
Building B, adjacent to Building A on the north, formed a "four-room" or "pillared" house, typical of the Iron Age in the southern Levant (Faust 2006; Ji 1997). Entering from the eastern alleyway (and, later, surrounding courtyard), occupants of this house initially encountered three parallel long rooms, each about 5.4 meters long and 2 meters wide and separated by two rows of five or six wooden posts, set upon stone post bases. The southern long room was paved with mostly small-
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72'2 (20091 83
The Stratum 12 town suffered a violent end as is apparent in this photo of the Building A remains. At the bottom debris from the roof is visible, while above can be seen the colorful burned and fragmented bricks of the walls from the second story.
These collared-rim pithoi in one of the houses (Room A3 of Building A in Stratum 12) once contained barley as well as other grains and vegetables.
84 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
to-medium-sized boulders and then repaired at least once with larger overlying pavers. With the exception of a few paving stones in the northern long room, most of it and the central long room included beaten-earth floors and part of a stone-ringed hearth still apparent in the floor of the northern room. The presence of a hearth in a roofed portion of the building is curious. How did they solve the choking problem of smoke inside the house? Indeed, it may have been for this reason that the eastern wall, the leeward wall of the building, was not a complete wall. That is, the eastern end seems to have been largely open, perhaps hung with carpets or blankets that could be arranged in a multitude of ways that would allow smoke to issue out of the house, depending on air currents. Toward the back (western portion) of the house and utilizing the perimeter wall at its western side, was the fourth room, a broad room. It produced the vast majority of the remains from the building's estimated forty- to fifty-year occupational history. In this room were found tens of thousands of sherds, mostly from about seventy-five shattered, utilitarian, collared pithoi of the transitional period between LB II and the early part of the Iron I period, along with numerous other ceramic and stone artifacts, five military points, slingstones or pounding stones, and the burned bones of at least four humans splayed across the room as they fell from the upper floor or the roof.
upstairs or on the roof. For example, our team discovered a huge basalt lower grindstone upside down within the destruction debris about one meter above the floor, indicating that food milling happened on the second story or even on the roof. The ground floor probably served primarily to house stabled animals and storage containers like pithoi, and space for cooking activities. We have in the remains of the 'Umayri four-room house a treasure trove of architectural and artifactual information on the construction, human activity patterns, and demise of a typical domestic structure. First, the architecture: This particular four-room house is one of the best preserved anywhere and, as well, one of the earliest, so early it slightly antedates what archaeologists usually call Iron Age I, the time period when these houses began to proliferate. Early Iron Age settlements, many boasting four-room houses, appeared primarily in the hill country of Palestine in large numbers, around three hundred. New evidence suggests a similar phenomenon on the eastern side of the Jordan River in what would become Gilead, Ammon, Moab, and Edom in the Iron II period. The number of Jordanian Iron I sites, ranging from excavated settlements to surveyed sherd scatters, is impressive.
Since all of the building had been covered by a massive mudbrick destruction layer, in places up to two meters thick, it was clear that every nondestructible object left in this building at the time of its demise was preserved within the confines of the house. Excavation also indicated that, except for approximately thirty-five to forty collared pithoi set into the groundfloor beaten-earth surface (Clark and London 2000) and likely a few additional household implements in the broad room, nothing else among the nearly two hundred objects found in the building came from the floors, but from the destruction debris above the floors. Indeed, the evidence from the amount of preserved mudbrick and the majority of artifacts mixed into the destruction debris as the house collapsed clearly demonstrates the presence of a second story over the entire house, and that most tasks associated with the human occupants of the house occurred
Building B is a "four-room" or "pillared" house, a type typical of the Iron Age in the southern Levant. This photo was taken before the excavators partially reconstructed it.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009) 85
IRON I SITES IN JORDAN Here we list the numbers by region, north to south (Clark 2002a; the numbers are based on JADIS, the Jordanian database of sites), realizing that, because some surveys, especially older ones, may have misread the ceramic evidence, the numbers could be inflated: Between the Yarmouk River (near Irbid) and the Wadi ai-Zarka (north of Amman) - 155 Between the Wadi Zarka and the Wadi al-Mujih (south of Madaba) - 158 Between the Wadi Mujib and the Wadi al'Hiisa (South of Kerak)- 129 Around the Wadi al-Hasa - 75 Of the total of 517 recorded sites, only around fifty have been excavated in some fashion. Thus, we are not in a strong position to assess the nature of all these sites. But what appears to be clear is a rapid explosion of Iron I sites, not unlike that across the Jordan River to the west. And four-room houses appear at many of these locations as well. We experimented with construction techniques of the fourroom house at 'Umayri by reconstructing much of the groundfloor wooden infrastructure and, with no-maintenance, replica construction materials, a good deal of the broad room and the beginnings of the second story (Clark and Herr 2004). This process has allowed us an open window into the labor-intensive practices connected with ancient house construction and the human investment it took to bring a house to completion as well as to maintain it. Specific-gravity measurements of the various construction materials— stone for floors and walls; wood for posts, beams, and cross-beams; reeds for ceilings/floors; mudbrick for the entire second story; lime for plaster and mortar; and mud for flooring/roofing—total over four hundred tons in weight (Clark 2003), demonstrating an immense investment of work and energy. While all of the remains found in the house reflect typical implements and processes of daily life in the southem Levant, the small number of textile artifacts is surprising in light of n o r m a l d o m e s t i c assemblages of spindle whorls and loom weights. Either there was little clothing production in the house or
methods other than a vertical loom were utilized. Otherwise, artifacts of food preparation, consumption, and especially storage predominate, as we would expect in the subsistence economy characteristic of common people during the period. The artifacts also provide a unique source of information about 'Umayri's connections with other regions during a time of limited trade and travel (Clark 2007). Also preserved in the collapsed construction material were numerous charred wooden beams and posts, testimony to the fiery demise of the house. Add to these the scattered, burned human bones and military hardware found primarily in the hroad room, and a rapid, violent end by military means becomes clear, Building C has not been as completely excavated as Buildings A and B. Its plan is not yet known, but we have reached the floors of two rooms. As was true with Buildings A and B, we discovered many collared pithoi in the back room of the house, this time a quantity of at least fifteen. However, almost all of these contained potters' marks on at least one handle, often on two. The majority of the handles sported a horizontal "V" engraved into the clay on the top of the handle. Gloria London, our ceramic technologist, is presently studying the marks in conjunction with their construction methods and form to determine information about individual potters. Interestingly, only two different marks were evident in significant numbers (a third mark occurred only once).
Because the building had been covered by a massive destruction layer, every nondestructible object left in the building was preserved. Most of the nearly two hundred objects found came from the second floor, where most of the domestic activity took place. This painting reconstructs some of those activities as suggested by the finds. Rhonda Root, artist.
86 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
The team experimented with ancient construction techniques used on the four-room house by reconstructing much of the ground-floor wooden infrastructure and a good deal of the broad room and the beginnings of the second story.
As in Buildings A and B, Building C (Stratum 12, Field A) also contained collared-rim pithoi, but of these, almost all had potters' marks on at least one handle, as seen in these examples.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
87
THE CONTENTS OF THE FOUR-ROOM HOUSE Occupation of the four-room house, and buildings like it, has been the subject of several recent studies. What the 'Umayri four-room house contributes to this discussion is an entire corpus of non-destructible household implements all preserved and jecovered in one house. These artifacts, distinguished by function in tbe following list, represent mostly daily-life activities;
Food Preparation
Textiles
Ceramic Cooking Pots
10
Ceramic Spindle Whorls
4
Stone Hand Grinders
8
Stone Loom Weight
1
Stone Weights
4
Stone Spindle Whorl
1
Stone Whetstones
Household
Stone Querns
2 (one huge)
Ceramic Lamps
Stone Flint Blades
1
Ceramic Seal impressions
2
Stone Pestles
1
Stone S
2
Stone Cosmetic Palette
1
Food Consumption Ceramic Jugï-
ih
Stone Roof Roller
1
Ccramic Btiwls
7
Gaming Piece
1
Ceramic Kraters
7
Large Spacer BcaJ
I
Ceramic Pyxis
I
Astragalus
1
Ceramic Flasks
1
Stone Hematite Ball
1
Stone Bowls
2
Stone Alabaster jug
1
Military (probably from the destroyers) Stone Ballista/Pounders
Food Storage Ceramic Pithoi
75
Ceramic Stoppers
10
Ceramic Jars or Jugs
7
Ceramic Jars
6
4
Br(Mi:e Weapon Points
Bn.Mize Male Deiry Legs and Feet Human Bones
Food Disposal A massive midden twt) meters frtim the northcustcrn corner of the courtyard of Building B contained: 60-70 artifacts 5.000-7.000 potsherds 25,000 bone fragments
88
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
Ca. 200 huinuLi Lxmc tiaymcuL^. remains of at least iouT individuals (twt) adults, one likely male; one juvenile, about fifteen years old; and one child), the bones were burned. disarticulated, and scattered in the broad room. Tests are currently underway for DNA matches among the individuals entombed in tbe col!;ipse of tlie 'Unv.ivri fnur-room hiuisc.
Virtually all pithoi in Building C displayed only two types of rims. Can we correlate vessel rim form with type of potters' mark? Did each potter make vessel rims in individual ways? The large garbage pit east o( Building B may have served all three houses. The contents of the pit, with about twenty-five thousand bones, including the hones from a few wild animals as well as primarily domestic creatures, contained no visible suh-layers, though it was at least two meters deep. The broken pottery comprised a heavy number of burned cotiking pots. Gloria London has suggested the pit may be connected with activities of feasting at the three houses (personal communication). 1 (Herr) have suggested that the three houses may have made up a "house of the father," with each house emphasizing different activities: storage in House B and cultic activity in House A (Herr 2009). Alternatively, I (Clark) have not heen persuaded fully hy either suggestion, especially in the case of House B, which appears selfcontained and thoroughly domestic in nature, even if adjoined by House A and its clear cultic connections. Only fragmentary remains of Stratum 12 have heen found so far in Field H, but the finds indicate that more significant domestic architecture will be discovered there in future seasons. Strata U - 1 0 (Late Iron I) After a probable hiatus during at least the second half of the twelfth century B.C.E., the site was rebuilt, but apparently not
on tbe grand scale of Stratum 12. Only isolated rtxims or parts of houses so far attest to the two settlements that date to the later parts of the Iron 1 period, most likely the eleventh century B.C.E. The changes between the two strata are not clear, because the remains were so fragmentary. But the finds of all types are fundamentally different than those from the preceding strata, suggesting to us that there may have heen a slight hiatus between Strata 12 and 11 or that the later settlements were made up of a group different from that of Strata 13-12, though we do not wish to attempt any specific ethnic identity. There was nothing above the destruction of Building B, but into the top of the brick destruction of Stratum 12 in Field A (over Building A) was a storeroom with eighteen collared pithoi embedded in the fallen bricks. The rims and necks of the vessels were significantly different from the scores of examples produced in Stratum 12 (Herr 2001; compare the vessels from this stratum published in Herr 1989a: 351 with those from Stratum 12 in Clark 2002b: 78-91). The necks were short and the rims were upright with a rounded thickening rather than the long necks and flaring, triangular, everted rims of Stratum 12. This significant typological difference was consistent in all other locations, as well. It must represent a period of time between them to account for the typological differences. Thus we suggest a short hiatus—time for the second assemblage to develop. Near the storeroom were fragmentary remains of two phases of at least one domestic dwelling that, except for reusing the perimeter wall, seems to have ignored the wall lines of the previous stratum. These new walls may have been part of the same building as the storeroom. The settlement was not as prosperous as it had been in Stratum 12. That is, the walls were narrower and were huilt with less skill.
A courtyard sanctuary in Strata 11 and 10 (Late Iron I) in Field H featured a small altar in the middle. The sanctuary seems to have retained its religious function over several centuries.
Ahove the destruction of the transitional LB/lron 1 dwellings of Stratum 12 in Field H was a large open area, paved with cobbles and resurfaced with plaster floors in Strata 11 and 10. The large open space would have been impossible to roof and seems to have been an open courtyard sanctuary with a small altar or presentation stone in the middle. Parts of at least two model shrines were found on one of the several surfaces in the courtyard (Herr and Clark 2003: 291, fig. 23). We also discovered small fragments of ceramic statues trom this time secondarily deposited in the debris layers of later strata, suggesting that the religious function of the space continued throughout several centuries.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72;2 (2009)
89
In Field L massive walls, up to one and a half meters wide and constructed of very large boulders almost two meters long, seem to date to this period (or as early as Stratum 12), but much more needs to be excavated to know what type of buildings they were. Although about five of these walls have been discovered, excavators have reached the founding level of only one of them.
Strata 9-8 (Iron IIA-B) Only a few slipped and hand-burnished potsherds have been found in Fields A, B, and H, suggesting the site was no more than a very minor one in the Iron Age IIA (Stratum 9, tenth to ninth centuries B.C.E.). One of the floors in the courtyard sanctuary in Field H may belong to this stratum, but, except for Strata 11-10, we made very few finds on the floors of this structure. However, during the 2008 season we discovered a house with at least three rooms in Field A that we can securely attribute to the Iron IIB period (Stratum 8, ca. late-ninth to eighth or early-seventh century B.C.E.). Some of the walls were preserved over a meter high and the floors were paved with cobbles or beaten earth. Pottery from this period has been well known at the site for many seasons, but this is the first time we have discovered significant architectural remains. We assume that the courtyard sanctuary in Field H continued to be used during these strata, though many of the surfaces produced ver>' little pottery. This n^odel shrine was found on one of the floors of the Stratum 10 courtyard sanctuary in Field H.
Strata 7-6 (Late Iron ll/Persian) Major building again took place around the beginning of the sixth century (Stratum 7), probably under the royal patronage of the Ammonite king Ba'alyasha' (biblical Ba'alis of Jer 40:14), whose name we discovered on a seal impression from this time period (Herr 1989b). We ;ilso found a large complex of basement rooms with thick walls constructed in a large pit dug into the Iron IIB and Iron 1 strata (see Lawlor 2000: 22). Thefloorof the basement level was discovered covering the destruction of Stratum 12 immediately below. The thick walls of this Ammonite administrative This Stratum 8 house in Field A is the first significant architectural structure so far found for the Iron IIB period at 'Umayri. The complete plan of the building is not yet known.
\
RCHAEOLOGY 72:1 (2009)
Excavators uncovered a large administrative complex in Stratum 7, Field A, attributable to Ammonite rule. The complex was probably intended to administer the production of wine at the numerous farmsteads within a short distance of the site. Balloon photo by E. and W Myers.
This seal impression found on the surface of the site in 1984 belonged to "Milkom'ur the servant of Ba'alyasha'." Ba'alyasha' was the Ammonite king likely responsible for the rebuilding of the site around the beginning of the sixth century (Stratum 7).
complex, prohably meant to support at least a second story, were more massive than most domestic walls. Part oí the complex appeared to be constructed in the four-room plan, though a bit larger than most domestic structures of the type (Lawlor 2000: 22). Moreover, several Ammonite inscribed seals and seal impressions, typical of administrative activities, were found in or around the building (Eggler, Herr, and Root 2002). Because we have ftiund only the basement walls and floors, doorways between the rooms were rare. One room.
immediately north of the four-room structure, contained a stairway with narrow treads leading to the lower floor. The complex was probably intended to administer the production of wine at many contemporary farmsteads discovered nearby by our survey team (within three to five kilometers). Approximately forty of these farmsteads were discovered, and four of them were excavated by the MPP hinterland survey team (LaBianca 1991). Associated with the structures were multiple winepresses and caves for working and storing the production of the farms. The material cultural finds from the farmsteads were almost identical to those of the administrative complex and its accompanying domestic quarters (below). Indeed, a seal from one of the farmsteads contained a Babylonian artistic scene, much like some oí the seals found at 'Umayri. At the same site (Site 84 in the 'Umayri Hinterland Survey recording system supervised by David Hopkins) that produced this seal, excavators found a full assemblage of domestic tools and objects ranging from ground stone tools to jewelry. North of the administrative complex were more modest structures with domestic finds on the floors, probably houses for those who operated the administrative activities (Lawlor 2000: 22). These were not built with basements and the rooms were interconnected by doorways. One complex contained at least seven rooms. Similar large domestic complexes with interconnecting rooms were found nearby at Tall Jawa (Daviau 2002: 9-14). They seem to be characteristic of some Ammonite domestic buildings.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (20091 91
Found in a domestic quarter (in Field A) dating to the end of the Iron Age (Stratum 7), these ceramic vessels had been stacked on a shelf when they fell onto the plaster floor. The seven cups shown in the middle of this photo were part of a set made In slightly different sizes so they could all stack together.
Other house iragments were found in Field B, complete with several large holemouth pithoi buried almost completely beneath the use surfaces; only the mouths of the vessels were visible. One almost perfectly preserved pithos was empty except for the skeleton oí a mouse! One of the houses displayed rows of columns with the space between them filled with loosely packed field stones iti a pier-and-quoin construction. Domestic material culture lay on the surfaces of these structures, including a bronze bowl, textile tools, and a series of ceramic bowls, cups, and lamps that had been stacked on a shelf when they fell onto the plaster floor. Indeed, seven cups in a set were made in slightly different sizes so they could all stack together. In Field F, on the eastern edge of the site, we discovered a structure we have called an entry monument. The town was not fortified at this time, but the inhabitants built a structure that looked like half of a four-chambered gate. There was no sign that the other half existed and no city wall was connected to it, but it was formed by a north-south wall with piers jutting out to the east, toward the gently sloping downhill side of the site (Low 1991; 187, fig. 8.11). As in many city gates from the Iron Age, there was a standing stone next to the structure with
92
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72;2 (2009)
an adjacent basin, possibly to hold libations or other offerings by people entering (or leaving) the town. Although the settlement of Stratum 7 was not large (only about one hectare), it produced more small finds than any other period. These included many inscribed seals (Eggler, Herr, and Root 2002), ceramic figurines (with zoomorphic and anthropomorphic examples in roughly equal numbers), textile tools, scores of ground stone tools, beads, jewelry, bronze fibulae (the precursors of safety pins), etc. Preliminary photos and/or drawings have been published in the seasonal reports. The Ammonite administrative complex continued into the early Persian period (Stratum 6) with changes to rooms and repairs to the walls of the Stratum 7 structures without an apparent intervening destruction. It was probably from Stratum 6 that five inscribed seal impressions originate, all written in the Aramaic script dating to around 500 B.C.E. Alas, all were found in secondary fills or in topsoil deposits and all are difficult to read. We could not relate them directly to the buildings, but on the basis of the paleography (the forms of the letters), they must have come from this time. They contained two lines of writing, each with three letters. The first line
normally contained the name of a person, probably an official of the Persian provincial government, while the second line held the three consonants of the name of the province, 'Ammon. The discíívery oí these impressions is strong evidence that there was a province of 'Ammon in the Persian Empire, a view now accepted as fact by most historians. The seal impressions probably functioned similarly to the yehud (Judah) seals and seal impressions found in the Jerusalem area, that is, as symbols o( the authority of the local provincial government.
This is one of five inscribed seal impressions, all written in the Aramaic script and dating to about 500 B.C.E., although all were found in secondary deposits. It mentions the name of an official (here named Shuba'} and the name of the province, 'Ammon, and was found in Field A.
Stratum 5 (Possibly the Persian Period) Above the administrative complex in Field A were fragmentary wall foundations just below topsoil that did not conform to the walls of the admir\isttative complex below. Thete were no preserved surfaces and, therefore, no clearly associated finds. Usually only one course high, these walls were difficult to date and we can suggest no coherent plan or discernible function for the walls. But the virtual lack of any later pottery in the topsoil and sub-topsoil loci of the area suggests the walls date to the Persian period, that is, to the period immediately following Stratum 6. Perhaps they belonged to private dwellings.
The Classical Age We discovered localized remains at various places around the site from the classical and Islamic ages. Strata 4-2 were not site-wide settlements, but only small farms cultivating the region around tbe spring. Stratum 4 (Hellenistic, 333-63 B.C.E.) In Field L at the southem edge of the site, excavators found two phases of a farmstead whose surfaces produced Hellenistic pottery (Herr and Clark 2005a: 257, fig. 26). It had several rooms on the western side of a courtyard. Especially interesting were about ten handmade juglets that looked much like Iron II dipper juglets. But their context was securely Hellenistic. A large number of pithoi suggests storage of agricultural goods. The walls of the farmstead sometimes reused late Iron Il/Persian walls (Stratum 7), though this period was not well represented here. The inhabitants probably farmed the hillsides and the valley floors around the site. A tomb near the bottom of the southeastern slope of the site had a Greek inscription near its entrance: "Year 110, most pious Isidoros" (Merling 1991).
These lamps come from the Hellenistic period farmstead excavated in Field L
Stratum 3 (Early Roman, 63 B.C.E.-135 C.E.) A small plastered ritual pool, probably a miqvch, was found cutting into the domestic houses of Strata 7-6 in the northern part of Field A and the southern part of Field B (Lawlor 1991; 38). The plaster lining was very well preserved. A small, steep set of stairs descended into the pool, showing that it was not the bottom part of a small cistern. Two potsherds from the foundation
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
93
Stratum 2 (Byzantine, 325 C.E.-640 C.E.) Fragmentary walls of a Byzantine farmstead were found at the eastern edge of the site in Field F. Although no surfaces were discovered, a large amount of pottery was retrieved. The most dominant type of vessel was a flat-based vat, rare at most urban Byzantine sites, probably used in agricultural activities, possibly the grape harvest (Low 1991; 224). We also discovered that the ashlar well house in Field E at the northern foot of the site was constructed at this time (Fisher 1997: 186-7). However, there is no known major site in the immediate area dating to the Byzantine period. There was only the farmstead in Field F and the shallow, scattered remains on the eastern site across the airport highway. It may be that people camefi-oma few kilometers around to draw water from a communal source.
is the way significant settlements are visible horizontally in a panorama across the site, rather than simply in a top to bottom, layered relationship. That is, a visitor to the site standing at a spot to the east of Field A can see MB II remains in the northwest; the Late Bronze Age palace/temple to the north; the partially reconstructed four-room house from the transitional LB/lron I period in the northern center; the late Iron Il/Persian Ammonite administrative complex in the center and south; and the late Iron 1 courtyard sanctuary to the southwest. There is no suggestion that discoveries of the thick stone architecture in Fields H and L, probably of Iron I date, will abate during future seasons. The significance ot these walls needs to he examined in considerably more detail, but it will take much more excavation as the walls seem to be very well preserved, probably well over a meter high and there are many strata above them. Likewise, more work needs to be done in the southwestern portion of the site (Field H) where more significant remains from Stratum 12 are just beginning to emerge.
The Islamic Age (Stratum 1)
Notes
stones of the pool dated to the Early Roman period. It was most likely all that was left of a villa or farmstead with Jewish inhabitants, if the pool was indeed a miqveh.
Early Islamic (Umayyad and Abbasid) pottery was found in topsoil in many areas, especially beneath rock piles that probably stemmed from field clearance for agricultural activities during the early Middle Ages. Only two Ayyubid/Mamluk sherds were discovered heneath one rock pile in Field A. We also found one or two Ottoman pipes, a sure sign of the arrival of tobacco from the New World. A few modern finds, such as broken teacups, indicate continued light use of the site into the twentieth century, perhaps by Bedouin.
Summary Twelve seasons of excavation have shown that there were two major periods of recoverable settlement at Tall al-'Umayri: the Early Bronze Age and the Iron I period. Indeed, the largest settlement at the site dated to EB III, but there does not seem to have been any fortification system. Four strata of Iron I occupation (counting the two transitional strata) probably saw settlement for most of the period, though the second stratum was the most important with major fortifications, and wellpreserved domestic huildings. Other periods were probably also strongly represented, bur their remains have not been recovered as yet in the magnitude of the Early Bronze and Iron I discoveries. These include the MB IIC settlement, which saw the construction of the rampart and moat, as well as major non-domestic buildings that used large stone construction. The subsequent Late Bronze period was also probably a major one at the site, as the palace/temple shows. The late Iron Il/Persian period was also important, though it was probably one of the smallest settlements in the history of the site. Even so, it produced over 50 percent of the small finds we have recovered so far. A major characteristic of the site is the excellent preservation of the architectural finds. Walls stood over a meter high in Strata 14 (LB), 12 (Transitional LB/Iron I), and 7 (late Iron Il/Persian). Some were one and a half to two meters high. A few of the EB 111 walls in Field D approached a meter in height. Another aspect
94
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72^2 (2009)
1. Even the individual walls of the excavated site are visible in Google Earth at 35"52'O7.32" North and 35^^53'16.75" East. Search for "Amman, Jordan" and then move to those coordinates. 2, Lawrence T Geraty was the initial director of the project with Larry G. Herr as the Chief Archaeologist. Now, in 2008, Geraty is listed as Founding Director, with Herr and Dougias K. Clark as Co-Directors. The Field Supervisors include: Field A: John I. Lawlor (1984-2004) and Robert Bates (2006-2008); Field B: Douglas R, Clark (1984-2002) and Kenr Bramlett (2004-2008); Field C: James Battenfield (1984-1987); Field D: Larry M. Mitchell (1984), Michèle Daviau (1987), and Tim Harrison (1989-1994); Field E: James Battenfield (1987) and James Fisher (1989); Field F: Russanne Low (1987-1992); Field G: James Fisher (1989); Field H: Lloyd Willis (1994), David Berge (1996-2000, 200-1^2006), Julie Cormack (2002); and Monique Vincent (2008); Field K: Ebhieta Duhis (1994-2000, 2008); Field L: David Hopkins and Mary Boyd (2000-2008). Team sizes have varied from aKiut thirty-five foreigners in 2002 (after 9/11 ) to almost one hundred in 2008. Hired locals made up another fifteen to twenty-five workers each season. The project is a multidisciplinary, educational project that conducts a full range of classes, lectures, and tours around Jordan. Preliniin;iry puhiications have appeared afrer every season in hoth the Annuai of the Depanmem of Aniiquities of Jordan (Geraty, Herr, and LaBianca 1987; Geraty. Herr. LaBianca, Battenfield, Christopherson et ai 1989; Herr et ai. 1996; Herr and Clark 2003, 2005a, 2009; Herr, Clark, Gerary. and LaBianca 1999; Herr, Clark, and Trenchard 2001; Herr, Gerary, LaBianca, and Younker 1991, 1994; Herr, Geraty, LaBianca, Younker, and Clark 1996, 1997) and Andreivs University Seminary Studies (Geraty 1985; Geraty. Herr, and LaBianca 1988; Herr and Clark 2004, 2005b. 2008; Herr, Clark and Trenchard 2002; Younker, Geraty, Herr, and LaBianca 1990, 1993; Younker, Geraty, Herr, LaBianca, and Clark 1996, 1997) the former presenting technical stratigraphie rept>rts and the latter comprising historical and literary discussions. Scientific preliminary reports were also published irregularly in Bulletin of ihe American Scíu«)ís of Oriental Research SMp/)Iemen£5 series (Geraty, Herr, LaBianca, Battenfield, Boiing ef al. 1986; Geraty, Herr, LaBianca et al. 1990; LaBianca et ai 1995) Five seasonal reports in large-volume format have been published (a sixth is in press), each with full technical reports for all fields of excavation through the 1998 season, along with articles on objects, artifacts, and samples (Geraty, Herr, LaBianca, Battenfield, Christopherson el ai 1989; Herr, Clark, Geraty, Younket, and LaBianca 2000, 2002; Herr, Geraty. LaBianca and Younker,
ed. 199!, 1997). Other volumes are in preparation. All publications are ampiy illuscrated in black and white drawings and photographs. The excavation manual was written by Herr in 1980 and has been used with only minor changes since then. In the 1990s Gary Christopherson added a section on archaeological survey and both were published together as Herr and Christopherson 1997. With minor changes it has heen adopted hy the other MPP excavations, additional projects historically related to MPR and a few other excavations in the southern Levant. The original manual was hased upon the experience a number of us had with the computerization process of the early Hisban records in 1978. It thus owes many insights to the adaptations Roger Boraas made to the Batata (Shechem) recording procedures. The computerized database utilized the locus sheets and was designed in 1997 by Karen Borstad in Microsoft Access. All locus sheet and object/ artifact records have been entered Into the database. The database was used by ETANA (Electronic Tools and Ancient Near Eastetn Archives) as one of its cest databases before it ended. Matt Vincent has designed a readonly web application (please see http://umayri.opendig.org/). This will become the primary site for all on-line puhlications of the site; items are added periodically as they become ready. Digital photographs since 1996 have also been entered. Other materials, such as old slides and prints, plans, pottery plates, hone listings, flint listings, shells, etc. will he entered as they become available from specialists. Even popular items, such as the weekly reports of the excavation and a large series of Microsoft Powerpoint presentations, will he made available. Any information on the excavations may be downloaded for research purposes. At present there are 3,541 loci in the datahase. The main web site of the project for information and excavation forms is http://mpp.wallawalla.edu.
Clark, D. R., and Uindon, G. A. 2000
Daviau, P M. M. 1993
Houses and Their Fumis/iings in Bronze Age Palestine; Domestic Activity Areas and Artefact Dis:ribution in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. ShefField: Sheffield Academic.
2002
Excavations at Tall Jaiva, Jordan. Volume 2: The Iron Age Artefacts. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 11/2. Leiden: Brill.
Dubis, E., and Dahrowski, B. 2002
2002
Faust, A.
References
Fisher, J. R.
Field C: The Northem Suburb. Pp. 74-86 in Madaba Plains Projeci 2: The 1987 Season at Tell el-'Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, L. T Geraty, 0 . S. LaBianca, and R. W. Younker. Berrien Springs, MI; Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology. Bramlett, K. V 2008 Eiisiem Front: The Transjordanian H^hhmds in Late Bronze Age Hegemonic Contest. Ph.D. diss. Toronto: University of Toronto. Clark, D. R.
2006
1997
1991
2002a
2(X)2h 2003 2007
Field B: The Westem Defense System, Pp. 48-116 in Madaba Plains Project 5: The 1994 Season at Tail nl-'Umayri and Subsequent Studies, ed. L, G. Herr, D. R. Clark, L. T Geraty, R. W. Younker, and 0 . S. LaBianca. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology. Domestic Architecture in Jordan during the Iron I Age. The American Schools ofOrienial Research Newsletter 52: 12-13. Bricks, Sweat and Tears; The Human Investment in Constructing a "Four-room" House. Near Eastem Ardiaeology 66: 34-43. Cultural Interaction through the Windows of the Four-Room House at Tall al-'Umayri, Studies in the History and Archaeology
of]ordan9: 103-12. Clark, D. R., and Herr, L. G. 2004
Excavation, Restoration and Presentation of Tail a!-'LJmayrl (Madaha Plains Project) 1998-2000 or Telling, Untelling, Retelling the Story of Tall al-'Umayn. Studies in the History and Archíieolíigy of Jordan S: 65-78.
Field K: The Dolmen and Other Features on the South Slopes of Tall iil-'Uniayri. Pp. 171-77 in Madaha Plains Project 5; The 1994 Season at Tail al-'Uma^ri and Subséquent Studies, ed. L. 0 . Herr, D. R. Ciark, L. T Geraty, R. W. Younker, and 0 . S. LaBianca. Berrien Springs, MI; Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology.
Eggler, J.; Herr, L G.; and Root. R.
). Thanks to mathematician Anneliese Weiss and student Bethany Reiswig for providing us with these calculations. They did it for the extent of each succeeding settlement.
Battenfield, J. R.
Investigating Ancient Ceramic Traditions on Both Sides of the Jordan. Pp. lOO-l 10 in Tfie Arc/meolog^y of}tndan and Bevond: Essays in Hojior of James A. Sauer, ed. L. B. Stager, J. A. Greene, and M. D. Coogan. Studies In the Archaeology and History of the Levant 1. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns.
Seais and Seal Impressions from Excavation Seasons 1984-2000. Pp. 234-304 in Madaba Plains Project 5: The 1994 Season at Tali til-'Umayri and Subsequent Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, D. R. Ciark, L. T Geraty, R. W. Younicer, and 0 . S. LaBianca. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews Univcrsit\' in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology. Israel's Et/iniigenesis: Seltlement, Interaction, Ex/Jdnsiiin tint! RfsistUTice. London; Equinox. Field E; The Water System. Pp. 176-87 in Madaba Plains Project 3: The 1989 Season ui Tell e/-'Umeiri and Vicinity and SuhsL'c/uent Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, L. T. Geraty, 0 . S. UiBianca, and R. W Younker. Berrien Springs, MI; Andrews University in cooperation with the institute of Archaeology.
Eranken, H. J., and Abujaber, R. S. 1989
Yadoudeh; The History of a Land. Pp, 407-36 in Madaf>a Plains Project 1: The 1984 Season at Tell ei-'Umeiri and Vicinitv and Subsequent Studies, ed. L. T. Geraty, L. G. Herr, 0 , S. LaBianca, and R. W. Younker. Berrien Springs, Ml; Andrews University in ctxiperation with the Institute of Archaeology.
Geraty, L. T. 1985 The Andrews University Madaba Piains Project; A Preliminary Report on the First Season at Tell el-'L'meiri (June 18 to August 8, 1984), Andreuis University Seminary Studies 23: 84-110. Geraty, L. T; Herr, L. G.; and LaBianca, 0 . S. 1987
The Madaba Plains Project; A Preliminary Report on the First Season at Tell el-'Umeiri and Vicinity. Annual of the Department o/Antiijuities of Jordan 31; !87-99. 1988 The Joint Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report on the Second Season at Tell el-'Umeiri ami Vicinity (June 18 to August 6, 1987). Andrews University Semimtry Studies 26; 217-52. Geraty, L. T; Herr, L. G.; LaBianca, 0 . S.; Battenfield, ]. R.; Boling, R. G.; Clark, D. R.; Lawlor, J. I.; Mitchel, L. A.; and Younker, R. W. 1986
Madaha Plains Project; A Preliminary Report of the 1984 Season at Tell ei-'Umeiri and Vicinity. Bulletin of the Amencan Sch
h of Oriental Rcsearc/i Su/»f)/etmiit 24; 117-44.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
95
Gerar>', L. T; Herr, L.G.; LaBianca, 0 . S.; BattenficM, J. R.; Christoplierson, G. L.; Dark, D. R.; Cole, J. A.; Daviau, R M. M.; Hubbard, L. E.; Lawlor, J. U Liiw, R.; and Younker. R. W. 1989
1990
Madiihn Plains Project: The 1987 Season at Tell el-'Umeiri and Vicinity. Annual of the Departmeni af Amiquilies of Jordan 33: 145-76. Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report (»f the 1987 Season at Teil el-'Umeiri and Vicinity. BuUetm oj the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 26: 59-88.
2004 2005a
Annual of ü\e Department of Arttiqiiities of Jordan 49: 245-60.
2005b Madaba Plains Project-Tall al-'Umayri, 2004. Andrews Vniversity Seminary Studies 43: 229-46. 2008
Madaba Plains Project-Tall al-'Umayri, 2006. Andreuis Vniiiersity Seminary Studies 46: 65-81.
2009
Madaba Plains Project; Excavations at Tall al-'Umayri, 2006. Annuiii of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 52: 181-202.
Gómiak, M., and Kapica, M. 2002
The Middle Brome IIC Chamber Tomb: Field K02. Pp. 178-205 in MiJtidba Plains Project 5: The 1994 Season at Tail al-'Umayri and Subseijuau Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, D. R. Clark, L. T. Geraty, R. W. Younker, and 0 . S. LaBianca. Berrien Springs, Ml: Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology.
Harrison, T F 1997a
Field D: The Lower Southem Terrace. Pp. 99-175 in Madaba Pkiins Project i: The ¡989 Season at Tell d-'Uniciri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, L. T. Geraty, 0 . S. LaBianca, and R. W. Younker 1997, Berrien Springs, Ml: Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology
1997b
Shifting Patterns of Settlement in the Highlands of Central Jordan during the Early Btonie Age. Bulleiin of the American SchtKih of Oriental Research 306: 1-37.
2000
Field D: The Lower Southern Terrace. Pp. 95-154 in Herr, Clark. Geraty, Younker, and LaBianca 2000.
Herr, L. G, i989a
1989h
The Inscribed Seal Impression. Pp. 369-74 in Madaba Plaim Project I: The 1984 Season at Tell t;í-'L'me¡n and Vicinity and Subsecjuent Studies. Geraiy, L. T.; Hert, L. G.; LaBianca, 0 . S.; and Younker, R.W., ed. Berrien Springs, ML Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology-.
1995
Wine Production in the Hills of Southern Ammoii and the Founding oí Tall al-'Umayfi in the Sixth Centur>' BC. Anrtual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 39: 121-25.
2001
2009
1997
Excavation Manual: Madaba Plains Project. Revised Edition, Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University in ctH)peratiun with the Institute of Archaeology. Herr, L. G., and Clark, D. R.
96
1999
Madaba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-'Umayrï, 1998. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 43: 99-114.
Herr, L. G., Clark, D. R., Geraty, L. T, Younker, R. W., and LaBianca, 0 . S., ed. 2000
Madaha Plains Project 4: The 1992 Season at Tall al-'Umnyri and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, ML Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology.
2002
Madaba Pkiim Project 5; The 1994 Season at Tall al-'Umayri and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, Ml: Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology. Hen, L. G.; Glark, D. R.; and Trenchard, W, C. 2001
Madaba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-'Umayrl, 2000. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 45: 237-52.
2002
Madaba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-'Umayri, 2000. Andrews University Seminary Studies 40: 105-23.
Herr, L. G.; Geraty, L. T; Clark, D. R.; and LaBianca, 0 . S. Madaha Plains Project: Tall at-'Umayri, 1998. Andrews Universicy Seminary Studies 38: 29-44. Herr, L. G.; Geraty, L. T; UBianca, 0 . S.; and Younker, R. W. 1991
Madaba Plains Project: T h e 1989 Excavations at Tell el-'Umeiri and Vicinity. Annual of the Departmenr o/Aiiti<^ities o/Jordan35: 155-79.
1994
Madaba Plains Project: The 1992 Excavations at Tell el-'Umeiri, Tell jalul, and Vicinity. Annual of the Departmeiii of Antiijiiities of Jordan 38: 147-72. Herr, L. G.; Geraty, L. T; LaBianca, 0 . S.; Younker, R. W; and Clark, D. R. 1996
Madaba Plains Project 1994: Excavations at Tall al-'Umayrî, Tall Jaliil, and Vicinity. Annual of the Department of Aïitiijuities o/Jovdan 40: 63-82.
1997 Madaba Plains Project 1994: Excavations at Tall al-'Umayn, The History of the Collared Pithos at Tell el-'Umeiri, Jordan. Tall Jalul, and Vicinity. Annual o/t/ie Department o/Antií^ities Pp. 237-50 in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and hJeigliboring o/Jordan 41: 145-67. Lands in Mernorv ofDuughis L. Esse, ed. S. R. Wolff. Studies in Holladay,J.S.,Jr. Ancient Oriental Civilization 59. ASOR Books 5, Chicago: 1997 House: Syro-Palestinian Houses. Pp. 94-114 in The Oxford The Oriental Institute of the University' of Chicago; Boston: Encyclopedia of Arcluieohgy in the Near East, Vol. 3, ed. E. M. American Schools of Oriental Research. Meyers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The House of the Father at Iron I Tall al-'Uniayri, Jordan. lbach, Jr., R. D. Pp. 191-98 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor
ofLuxiiTence E. Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Herr, L. G., and Chrístopherson, G.
2003
Herr, L. G.; Clark, D. R.; Geraty, L. T; and LaBianca, 0 . S.
2000 The Pottery Finds. Pp. 299-354 in Madaba Plains Project I: The ¡984 Season at Tell el-'Umciri and Vicinity and Subsequent Stucííes. ed. L. T. Geraty, L. G. Herr, 0 . S. LaBianca, and R.W. Younker. Berrien Springs, Ml: Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology.
Madaba Plains Project-Tall al-'Umayri, 2002. Andreivs University Seminary Studies 42: 113-27. Madaba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-'Umayri, 2004.
Mädabä Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-'Umayn, 2002. Annual of the Department o/Antiquities of Jordan 47: 279-94-
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
1987
Archaeological Survey of the Heshan Region: Catalogue of Siles and Characterization of Periods. Hesban 5. Berrien Sprinys, Ml: Andrews University/Institute of Archaeology.
Ji,C.-H.C. 1997
A Note on the Iron Age Four-room House in Palestine. Orientalia 66: 387-413.
LaBianca, 0 . S. 1991 An Introduction to the 1987 Tell el-'Umeiri Hinterland Surveys and Excavations. Pp. 266-68 in Madaba Plains Project 2: The
1987 Season at Teil eí-'Umeiri and Vicinity and Subseijuent Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, L. T. Gerraty, 0 . S. LaBianca, R. W. Younker. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University- in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology. LaBianca, 0 . S., ei al 1995
Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report on the 1989 Season at Tell et-'Umeiri and Hinterland. Pp. 93-120 in Preíimiíiary Excavation Reports, ed. W. G. Dever. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Reseatch 52. Atlanta: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Lawlot, J. 1. 1991
2000
Field A: The Ammonite Citadel. Pp. 15-52 in Madaba Plains Project 2: The 1987 Season at Tell ei-'Umeiri and Vicinity and Subseiiueni Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, L. T. Gerraty, 0 . S. LaBianca, R. W. Ynunker. Betrien Springs, Ml: Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology.. Field A: The Administrative Complex. Pp. 21-58 inMadafca P/aiiis Project 4: The 1992 Season ai Tall al-'Umayri and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, Ml: Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology.
Low, R. D. 1991
1997
Field F: The Eastern Shelf. Pp. 170-231 in Madaba Piains Project 2: The 1987 Season at Tell eWmeiri and Vicinity and Sid>sequent Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, L. T Geraty, 0 . S. LaBianca, and R. W. Younker. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology.. Field F: The Eastern Shelf. Pp. 188-221 in Herr, Geraty, LaBianca, and Younker 199?. Madaba Plains Project 3: The 1989 Season at Tell el-'Umeiri and Vicinity and Suiiseqwent Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, L. T. Geraty, 0 . S. LaBianca, and R. W. Younker. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University in C(X)peration with the Institute of Archaeology.
Merling, D. 1989
1991
Charles Warren's Explorations between Na'ur and Khirbet as-Suq. Pp. 26-29 in Madaba Plains Project ¡: The ¡984 Season at Tell ei-'Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies, ed. L. T. Geraty, L. G. Herr, 0 . S. LaBianca, and R. W Younker. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University in cooperation with the Insritute of Archaeology. The Tell el-'Umeiri Inscription. Andrews University Seminar)' Studies 29: 225-33.
Mitchel, L. M. 1989
Field D: The Lower Southern Terrace. Pp. 282-95 in Madaba Plains Project J : The 1984 Season at Tell el-'Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies, ed. L. T. Geraty, L. G. Herr, 0 . S. LaBianca, and R. W Younker. Berrien Springs. MI: Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology.
Philip, G. 2008
The Early Bronze Age I-III. Pp. 161-226 in Jordan; An Arcíiaeo/ogictí/ Reader, ed. R. G. Adams, London: Equinox.
Redford, D. B. 1982
A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan (Nos. 89-101 of Thutmose Ill's List of Asiatic Toponyms). Journal/or the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12: 55-74.
Waheeb, M., and Palumbo, G. 1993
Salvage Excavations at a Bronze Age Cemetery Èiear Tell el-'Umciri. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan il: 147-63.
Warren, C. 1870
Expedition to East Jordan, July, August, 1867. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 1: 284-307.
Younker R. W. 1991
Architectural Remains from the Hinterland Survey. Pp. 335-42 in Madaba Plains Project 2: The 1987 Season at Tell el-'LJmeiri and Vicinity and Sufcse<}uenr Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, L. T Geraty, 0 . S. LaBiatica, and R. W. Younker. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology. Younker, R. W; Geraty, L. T; Herr, L. G.; and LaBianca, 0 . S. The Joint Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report of the 1990 1989 Season, Including the Regional Survey and Excavations at El-Dreijat, Tell Jawa, and Tell el-'Umeiri (June 19 to August 8, 1989). Aíidreií's LMiversil^ Semiriím SiMtlies 28: 5-52. The Joint MaJaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report of the 1993 1992 Season, Including the Regional Survey and Excavations at Tell Jalul and Tell el-'Umeiri (June 16 to July 31, 1992). Andreu-'s University Seniinary Studies 31: 205-38. Younker, R, W; Geraty, L. T; Herr, L. G.; LaBianca, 0 . S.; and Clark, D. R. Preliminary Report of the 1994 Season of the Madaba Plains 1996 Project: Regional Survey, Tall al-'Umayri and Tall Jalul Excavations (June 15 to July 30, 1994). Andreujs University Seminai7 Studies 34: 65-92. 1997
Preliminary Report of the 1996 Season of the Madaba Plains Project: Regional Survey, Tall al-'Umayri and Tall Jalul Excavations (June 19 to July 31, 1996). Aiidreu^j University Seminary Studies 35: 227-40.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Larry G . Herr is Professor of Religious
Studies at Canadian University College in Alberta, Canada. He eanxed his Ph.D.
in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
at Harvard
University, and began excavations in Jordan in 1971 at Tail Hisban. He currently serves as Director Emeritus of tHe Madaba Plains Project excaiwtions at Tall ai'Umayri, nähere he co-directed the project for tu-elve seasons from 1984 to 2 0 0 8 . Douglas R. Clark is Associate Dean of the School of Religion at La Sierra University and Director of the University Honors Program. He earned fiis Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Rabbinic Judaism
at Vanderbiit University, and began excavations in Jordan in 1973 at Tall Hishan. He currently serves as Director of tfie Madaba Plains Project excavations at Tali ai-'Uma;yri, the larger project celebrating last year its fortieth annivcTsary of recovering Jordan's considerable cultural heritage.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2(2009] 97
From the Editor This issue of Near Eastern Archaeology features the results of twelve seasons of excavation at Tall al-'Umayri, an ASOR-affiliated project directed by Larry G. Herr and Douglas R. Clark. This site is one of several excavations working under the auspices of the Madaha Plains Project, a consortium of projects that have played a key role in the archaeological investigation of the central Jordanian plateau. More than two decades of excavations at 'Umayri have uncovered twentyone strata of occupation that span the Early Bronze through Islamic periods. Among the noteworthy findings are significant archaeological remains dating to the Late Bronze/Iron Age transitional period— discoveries that are transforming our understanding of this pivotal period and are providing new insights into the early Iron Age in the highland regions on both sides of the Jordan River. Recent work in the Faynan copper ore district in southern Jordan is also changing our views of the early Iron Age period. In a co-authored FieldNote by Erez Ben-Yosef, Thomas E. Levy, and Mohammad Najjar, new copper-pit mine fields have been located with the help of satellite imagery. These mines may represent one of the most significant sources of copper in the region. Based on their close proximity to the smelting sites of Khirbat al-Jariya and Khirbat en-Nahas, the authors date these previously unidentified mines to the early Iron Age. Our second FieldNote contribution addresses the issue of biogeography and paleoclimates via the bestiary represented in ancient Egyptian decorated monuments. Nicolas Maniius proposes that the canid represented in the Fourth Dynasty funerary chapel of Nefermaat should be identified as a side-striped jackal, an animal that currently does not inhabit the region. He suggests that its appearance in an Old Kingdom decorated tomb may be an indicator of different ecological conditions in Egypt's past. To the archaeological expeditions in this field this summer, 1 wish a productive and successful season of work. We look forward to showcasing the results of your research in future issues of Near Eastern Archaeology.
Ann E. Killehrew Editor, Near Eastern Archaeology
Editor: Ann E. Killebrew Managing Editor: Biliie Jean Coiiins Art Director: Monica McLeod Sawyer/McLeod Creative Assistant Editors: Jennie Ebeiing, Gabriele Fassbeck, and Justin Lev-Tov Editorial Assistant: Heather D. Heidricli Editorial Committee Class of 2009
Cla.ssof2011
Ann Marie Knoblauch
Marie-Henriette Gates
Eric Cline
Margreet Steiner
K. Lawson Younger
Samuel Wolff
Class of 2010
Class of 2012
Steven Fine
Neil Asher Silberman
Beth Alpert-Nakhai
Sharon Stcadman
Lynn Swartz Dodd
Bethany Walker
Subscriptions Annual subscription rates are $35 for individuals and $100 for institutions. Near Eastern Archaeology is also avaiiable as a part of the benefits of some ASOR membership categories. For details, contact ASOR toll-free at (888) 847-8753. Postage for Canadian and other international addresses is an additional $ 13. Payments should be sent to ASOR Member/Subscriber Services, 656 Beacon St., 5th floor, Boston, MA 022152010. Fax (617) 353-6575. E-mail: [email protected]. VISA/MC orders can be phoned in, or subscribe online atwww.asor.org/pubs/howtoorder.html. Back issues Back issues can be obtained by contacting T h e David Brown Book Co., PO Box 511, Oakville, C T 06779. Tel. (800) 791-9354. Fax (860) 945-9468. E-mail: david.brown.bk.co@snet. net. Web: oxbowbooks.com. Editor's Office All editorial correspondence should be addressed to the NEA editor: Ann E. Killebrew, e-mail: aekl 1 @psu.edu. All articles must follow NEA's instructions for contributors, available at http://www. asor.org/pubs/nea/instructions.html Advertising Correspondence should be addressed to ASOR Publications, 656 Beacon St., 5th floor, Boston, MA 02215-2010. Tel. (617) 353-6570. Fax (617) 353-6575. E-mail: [email protected]. Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. Permissions requests may be made according to the instructions provided on ASOR's web site at asororg/pubs/permissions.html. Postmaster Send address changes to Near Eastern Archaeology, ASOR Member/Subscriber Services, 656 Beacon St., 5th floor, Boston, MA 02215-2010. Periodicals class postage paid at Boston, MA and additional offices. Near Eastern Arc/iaeolog^ (ISSN 1094-2076) is published quarterly (March, June, September, December) hy the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), 656 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02215-2010. Printed by Cadmus Jounial Services, Baltimore, MD. Copyright © 2008 by the American Schools of Oriental Research www.asor.org
IT'S A TEMPLE WITH SIDE ROOMS A notable feature of the Late Bronze building is the cult associated with food consumption, particularly the numbers niche with five standing stones and the plastered mudhrick of bowls and plotters (shallow bowls), predominated: Room 1, presentation altar in Room 3, However, a cult niche does bowls and platters 15, cooking pots 5, jars and jugs 2, lamps not a temple make. Here 1 will briefly explain why 1 interpret 1; Room 2, bowls and platters 7, cooking pots 3, jars and this building to have functioned primarily as a temple. Room jugs 3; Room 3, bowls and platters 30, cooking pots 0, jars layout and organization suggests Room 3 was the dominant and jugs 6, lamp 1; Room 4, bowls and platters 42, cooking and most significant room of this building. The entry steps pots 15, jars and jugs 6, lamps 6. In Room 3 we found nearly and ascending staircase across Room 4 diminished utilitarian complete shallow bowls with sheep or goat bones in them near space, and what remained directed access past a mudhrick- the stone bench opposite the cultic niche and altar and along and-plaster altar with associated standing stone through two the north wall of the room. The high proportion of bowls to doorways (a third was later blocked up) to the other rooms, A food storage containers far exceeds the number usually found second story existed over Rooms 1 and 2 but the archaeological in domestic contexts but is consonant with the practice of evidence does not easily accord a second story over Rooms 3 shared sacral meals or food offerings presented in cultic ritual. and 4- Not a single comparable residential or palatial structureAdditionally, we found no ovens, bins, silos, or obvious foodin Syria-Palestine (of which I am aware) exhibits a cult room atpreparation areas an^iwhere in the building. But we did find the functional center of its floor plan, or anywhere else for that unfired clay figurines similar to those placed in the cultic matter, and the plan does not align easily with Late Bronze niche in Rooms 2, 3, 4, and 5. The plastered mudbricic table Age houses, though the MB/LB "Syrian house type" (Holladayand standing stone near the foot of the stairs and three cultic 1997) shows certain limited parallels. In comparison to these,miniature bowls found in Room 4 also indicate pervasive our building dedicated a larger proportion of its space to the cultic attention throughout the major rooms of this building, entry room (Room 4); the smaiier adjunct rooms (Rooms 1 and While / conclude from the available evidence that the 2) do not communicate directly to the main hall (Room 3) and observance of cult was the most important function of this only sequentially to the long entry hall (Room 4), building, I do allow for a unic¡ue synthesis of typology such Most significantly, and, for me, persuasively, room-use that the building may have served as a complete institution analysis of Building C shows that the entire building was for the cult practitioners in which priestly dwelling and divine oriented toward cultic function, Daviau (1993) provides house were not clearly distinguished. Nevertheless, "temple" is statistical benchmarks for vessel percentages per type associatedthe best designator for this building. with functional class paradigms for area use and room function. In the use-surface strata of all the rooms, vessels Kent Bramlett
Given the combined floor space of Rooms 3 and 5, it is highly unlikely that a second story existed over them. If, as we have proposed, the wall between the two rooms was less than two meters high and thus not load hearing, the span would he too great to support another construction level. But there were at least two phases of use, the second marked hy the blockage of the northern doorway in the eastern wall of Room 3 and a use surface approximately ten to twelve centimeters ahove the original level. The architectural and artifactual evidence seems to suggest a palatial and certainly a cultic function. The size and construction of walls and the floor plan rule out a primarily domestic function. Was the main purpose of the structure religious or political, if the two can be separated completely? Rooms 1 and 2 have given up little evidence to help us make this distinction. Room 4 was clearly an entry hall, which might fit either palace or temple architecture, hut the two "standing
80
NEAR EASTERN AROHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
stones" definitely suggest a religious aspect to the room. But how should we interpret Rooms 3 and 5? Do they represent the cultic component of a palatial facility or do they reflect the central purpose of the structure as a temple with an entry hall and two large side chambers? Kent Bramlett's University of Toronto Ph.D. dissertation (2008) on the huilding in its archaeological and historical context argues cautiously but strongly for identifying this structure as a temple and cites comparative evidence from the Levant, especially from Israel/Palestine and Jordan. The cultic function of Room 3, central to the building's spatial features, along with the function of Room 5 as a probable vestry or favissa fot storing unused (or no longer usable) cultic artifacts, certainly gives pride of place to this interpretation. Bramlett also treats contemporary Late Bronze Age settlements in the region, reconstructing in the process proposed
New Iroo Âge (opper-Hioe Fields Discovered in Youthen Jordan
O
?ie of the most productive approaches for assessing social and political change in the archaeological record is to trace the exploitation of natural resources in the past, its extent, and the techniques used. Despite more than a century of research in the Faynan copper ore district of Jordan—the largest such resource zone in the southem Levant—it is only recently that a survey team discovered an extensive cluster of the largest copper-pit mine fields. These were found hidden in three valleys in the northwestern portion of the faynan region, below the westem slopes ofjabal al'Jariya QAJ). Here, we describe the finds and suggest that these mines be understood as part of the extensive early Iron Age (ca. 1200-900 B.C.E.) Faynan copper industry that has been investigated by our University of California, San Diego-Department of Antiquities of Jordan research team in recent years.
While conducting a regional archaeological survey of Iron Age trade routes between the copper-ore-rich Faynan region and the Edom highlands of the Jordanian plateau, our team identified hundreds of plate-like depressions, approximately seven meters in diameter on average, densely scattered in an enclosed valley oi about thirty hectares that penetrated into an extensive gravel terrace at the base ofjabal al-Jariya (JAJ-1, 30.695°N, 35.430°E). The resemblance of the new Faynan mines to the plate-like features found in survey areas A, C, and G in Israel's Timna Valley (Conrad and Rothenberg 1980), about one-hundred kilometers to the south, as well as their geological location and association with copper ore deposits, clearly indicate that the newly discovered Faynan features are blocked pit mines that provided ore for nearby Iron Age smelting sites such as Khirbat en-Nahas and Khirbat al-Jariya. Tracking the prominent signature of the Faynan mine scars on satellite imagery available on Google Earth, we located two similar mine fields approximately half a kilometer (JAJ-2, 3O.7O1°N, 35.432"E) and one kilometer GAJ-3, 30.704°N, 35.435°E) to the north, sprawling over about one quarter hectare and one hectare respectively. We have named these mine fields from south to north JAJ l.jAJ 2, and JAJ 3. In the Timna Valley, the previously "enigmatic" depressions were, until now, unique in the entire landscape of the Levant. The scarcity of archaeological finds in such mine fields and the exhaustive exploitation of ore made the interpretation of the "plate-like" features in Timna difficult, and only after years of research were they proven to be blocked mining shafts and pits (Rothenberg 2005).
This map shows the location of three newly discovered pit mine fields in the Faynan district of Jordan. The authors date them to the early Iron Age based on their proximity to the smelting sites of Khirbat al-Jariya and Khirbat en-Nahas, and on the density of other Iron Age sites found in this region. False color satellite image courtesy of ROHR, Nicosia, Cyprus.
98
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72t2 (2009)
A view looking toward the northwest of one of the copper pit mine fields {JAJ-1}. The disturbed surface is densely covered with depressions marking the location of the ancient mining pits. The depressions are identified as pit mines based on the comparison to the well-studied mines in the Timna Valley in Israel. Photo by T. E. Levy, UC-San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.
The large plate-like depressions marking the location of the ancient pit mine, as in this view of the JAJ mine Field 1, have served as traps for bright wind-blown loess sediment that today enhance the visibility of the pits in contrast to the black dolomite rocks in the surrounding area. Photo by T. B. Levy, UC-San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory. A satellite image of the eastern portion of Jabal al-Jariya copperpit mine field (JAJ-1, delineated by a dashed line). A and B are two archaeological rectangular encampments; C is a magmatic plug, part of Phenerozoic magmatism exposed in the vicinity of all three mine fields. Image courtesy of Google Earth Pro.
We suggest dating the new mining areas presented here to the early Iron Age based on their proximity to the well-dated copper smelting sites of Khirbat en-Nahas and Khirbat al-Jariya of the same period. In addition, the lack of" significant copper-related sites from other periods in the close vicinity of the Jabal al-Jariya mine fields (Hauptmann 2007) and the "Iron Age landscape" identified by Levy et al (2003) in this region add further weight to this interpretation. These mines constitute one of the largest mining fields of the ancient Levant, and probably represent one of tbe most important Iron Age mining fields in the Faynan region. Our recent discovery provides an explanation for what has been until now a noticeable discrepancy in the archaeometaliurgical evidence from Faynan and Timna: while Faynan has more evidence of Iron Age smelting activities, Timna had, until now, many more recorded mines (Hauptmann 2006).' With the new Jabal al-Jariya mining complex, our understanding of the scale and organization of mining and metallurgy during this period in southem Jordan is quickly changing.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGy 72:2 (2009)
99
The magmatic dyke, viewed here from the north, penetrates the Salib reddish sandstone and the black burj dolomite. This newly discovered evidence of Phanerosoic magmatism may be associated with rich copper mineralization in the lower Massive Brown Sandstone formation, now eroded and part of the colluvial terraces. Photo by E. Ben-Yosef, UC-San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.
The ancient pit-mine operations have dramatically changed the local landscape in this part oí the Faynan district. Unlike the numerous Iron Age shaft and tunnel mines found by Hauptmann, Weissgcrher, and a team lead by T. Levy and Mohammad Najjar in the region (Hauptmann 2007; Weisgerber 2003; Levy et al. 2003), the new pit mines are remarkably different. The pits were excavated into the colluvial slopes of the valleys in order to extract copper nodules eroded from the Cambrian ore-bearing BurjDolomite formation tbat accumulated in tbe gravels. The open pits were retilled with the gangue ot the adjacent active mines to maximize tbe exploitation of the exposed copperrich colluvium—a well-delineated and easily accessible source of naturally broken copper ore. A nearby postPrecambrian magmatic plug and associated north-south dyke of more than one and a half kilometers in length, the only Phanerozoic magmatism known in the Faynan region to date and first published bere, may imply tbat tbe ricbness of the copper mineralization in this specific locale was influenced by tbis magmatic feature (Segev and Sass 1989). The large plate-like depressions marking the location of the ancient pit mine have served as traps for bright wind-blown loess sediment that today enhance the visibility of the pits in contrast to the black dolomite rocks in the surrounding area. The ancient mining pits also naturally collect surface runoff water during the winter, making the plate-like scars of the ancient mines suitable for small-scale gardening even in tbe extreme arid zone of Faynan. Evidence of horticulture activities pursued by local semi-nomadic Bedouin tribes exi5t5 in a few of these depressions today.
•^t Renegades exploit tin ore fragments from the gravel in this pit mine in the Congo by digging large pits similar in shape to the three-thousand-year-old blocked pits recently discovered in Faynan, Jordan. Photo courtesy of Johan Spanner.
Details of ore fragments: a) embedded in a dolomite rock from the Bur] formation; and b) ore nodules from the lower sandstone unit. Photo by T. E. Levy, UC-5an Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.
100
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 {2009Î
Contemporary small-scale mining activities in the Bisie region of the Congo, recently reported on in The New York Times (Polgreen 2008), provide an important model for how pit mines may have functioned in Iron Age Jordan. Extraction oí Congo tin ore was achieved from pits dug into gravel deposits. The disturbed terrace surface in the Congo show similar features to the three-thousand-year-old mine fields in both Faynan and Timna.The large mine fields recently discovered in the Faynan region should now be part of the scholarly discussion about the ethnogenesis of local social groups who carried out mining and metallurgy in Iron Age Jordan as well as an index for examining the developmental processes that led to rise, maintenance and ultimate collapse of local polities such as Edom, Israel, Judah, and other neighboring areas (Levy et al. 2008). In addition, these extensive mine fields should be factored into the assessment of the role of technological change and the exploitation of natural resources in the social evolution of Iron Age societies in the southern Levant. ,
Acknowledgements The authors thank Dr. Fawaz al-Kharaysha, Director General of the Department of Antiquity of Jordan, Dr. Barbara Porter, director of the American Center of Oriental Research, Amman and of the ELRAP Faynan-Busayra Regional Survey Group. Thank5 also to Alina Levy for participating in the 2009 survey of the Jabal al-jariya mine fields. Erez Ben-Yosef (University of Caiifornia, San Diego)
Thomas E. (University of California, San Diego)
i
Mohammad Najjar (Friends of Archaeology and Heritage Society, Amman)
Note 1. Hauptmann's attempt to explain this discrepancy (2006: 128) demonstrates the difficulty scholars have had with the "missing" mines in the archaeological record at Faynan: "At Faynan the situation is different [from Timna]. Neither a comparable number of filled shafts nor a large number of tailings seems to indicate extensive underground mining. But this does not mean that the extent of copper exploitation was less than at Timna. The contrary is the case. The amount of slag produced at Faynan suggests metal production on the scale of several thousand tons over the millennia [...] At Timna, the slag heaps indicate considerably less than this amount. There are two main reasons for the less visible evidence of ancient mining at Faynan. The first is the exploitation of ores at a greater depth, which led to more extensive underground mining activities. The second is that that exploited parts of the mineralization were backfilled so that not much of the waste was unloaded on the surface."
References Conrad, H. Cî., and Rochenberg, B., ed. 198Û ATUÍÍCÍ'S Kupfer im Timna-Tal: 4000 Jahre Bergbau und Verhüttung in der Arabah (Israel). Der Anschnitt: Beiheft 1. Veröffentlichungen aus dem deutschen Berghau-Museum Bochum 20. Bochum; Deutsches Bergbau-Museum; Tel Aviv: institute oí Mining and Metals in the Biblical World (The Arabah Expedition-Museum Haaretz). Hauptmann, A. • •- * 2006 Mining Archaeology and Archaeometallurgy in the Wadi Arabah: The Mining Districts of Faynan and Timna. Pp. 125-34 in CrossiTig the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Paitems and Interaction in the Wadi Arahah, ed. R Bicnkowski and K. Galor. Levant Supplementary Series 3. London: Council for British Research in the Levant; Oxford: Oxbow. 2007
The Archaeometallurgy of Copper: Evidence from Fuytian, JortííiTi. Natural Science in Archaeology. Berlin: Springer. Levy, T E.; Adams, R. B.; Anderson, J, D.; Najjar, M.; Smith, N.; Arbel, Y.; Soderbaum, L.; and Muniz, A. 2003 An Iron Age Landscape in the Edomite Lowlands: Archaeological Surveys along Wadi al-Ghuwayb and Wadi al-Jariya, Jabel Hamrat Fidan, Jordan 2002, Annual of the Departmeni of Antiquities of Jordan 47: 247-77. Levy, T. E.; Higham, T.; Ramsey, C. B.; Smith, N. G.; Ben-Yosef, E.¡Robinson, M.; Münger, S.; Knabb, K.; Schulze, J. P.; Najjar, M.; and Tauxe, L. 2008 High-Precision Radiocarbon Dating and Historical Biblical Archaeology in Southem Jordan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 105(43): 16460-16465. Online: http:// www.pnas.org/content/105/43/l6460.full.'sid = 002287f3Obd2-4bb5-bl23-5d8dOlbceÍ82. Polgreen, L. 2008 Congo's RicUes, Looted by Renegade Troops. The New York Times, November 16, 2008. Rothenberg, B. 2005 Explorations and Excavations in the Mines of the Timna Valley (Israel): Paleomorphology as Key to Major Problems in Mining Research. Giasni/t Srpskog arheoloSkog druStva 22: 133-48. Segev, A., and Sass, E. 1989 Copper-Enriched Syngenetic Dolostones as a Source for Epigenetic Copper Mineralization in Sandstones and Shales (Timna, Israel). Pp. 647-58 in Sediment'hosted Stratiform Copper Deposits, ed. R. W. Boyle, A. C. Brown, C. W. Jefferson, E. C. Jowett, and R. V Kirkham, Geoh^cai Association af Canada Special Paper 36. Newfoundland: Geological Association of Canada. Weisgerber, G. 2003 Spatial Organisation of Mining and Smelting at Feinan, Jordan: Mining Archaeology beyond the History of Technology. Pp. 76-89 in Mining und Metal Production through the Ages, ed. E T. Craddock and J. Lang. London: The British Museum Press.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72;2 (2009)
101
Whose Tail Did DoqBitei'Or.ilowCânÂodeotÂrt (ontributetoBioqeoqrapfiyand Paleodinatoloqy!'
T
he Egypt we know today is a land of wide deserts, one eastern and one western, which are interrupted only by the rich and well-watered
area of the narrow Nile Valley and Delta. Seeing the monuments of ancient Eg^pt against the backdrop of blowing desert sands, it is hard to think of the land as ever having been anything but a desert, save for the ebb and flow cyck of the pre-dammed Nile. However, Egypt was once a more fertile land and during a long period of time spanning the era between the late Paleolithic and the Predynastic periods and into the Pharaonic era, a number of plant and animal species now gone from the region thrived along the Nile and the wide expanses of savannah that flanked it. The bestiary represented in the myriad of decorated monuments as well as the bones excavated from archaeological sites provide windows into Egypt's ecological past. One such monument is the funerary chapel of Nefermaat, a high-ranking Fourth Dynasty official, where a scene may display a species of canid that can no longer be found in Egypt. The scene in question is located within the façade niche of Nefermaat's chapel at Meydum (29°24' N 31°09'E) near the Fayum Oasis. Nefermaat was a vizier of Snefru, the first pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty (r. 2630-2606 B.C.E.)The southern panel of the façade's western wall hosts the scene discussed here. Part of the mural depicts three canids, which, among other features, possess large black stripes along their flanks. The animals occur in a hunting scene incised in the stone and filled in with colored pastes. On the lowest part oí this panel, in Register 7, now in fairly poor condition (Harpur 2001: pl. 5), three canids are pursued hy a hunting dog that holds one of them hy the base of its tail. The painting possibly depicts a scene from Middle Egypt,
102
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72;2 (2009)
perhaps not far from Meydum. However, it is also possible that it is set in Nubia, since Snefru conducted a military campaign in this region, between the First and the Second Cataracts on Egypt's southern frontier. Thus, whichever species Nefermaat's canids belonged to, they most likely lived during the Fourth Dynasty, and geographically along the southem border of Egypt. Pétrie published a drawing of this panel made about twenty years after its discovery {1892: pl. 17). According to him, the panel at that time was still "well preserved at the base" with fully preserved pastes displaying "color of purely Egyptian origin." Thanks to this drawing, it is possible to discern more details o( the three canids than can now be seen. These features, in fact, are no longer visible on modern photographs, Some of the details of the animals are intriguing and unique. Their backs and tails are brown, their flanks display very large black stripes, and their tails have a black band near their ends, although the tips of the tails are white. The canids' heads, bellies, and legs are, like the tail tips, also white. Two of these canids have black muzzles, and two have entirely black ears. Their morphology and coloring indisputably match that of fox jackals. According to Gaillard (1933), Egyptian artists colored animals as a function of luminosity and angle of light. So, it is perhaps possible that the black coloration ot muzzles and ears oí the Nefermaat canids are a result of this practice, depicted by the artists in shadow. Indisputably, the painting is stylized, but it is nonetheless difficult to believe that the artists painted the canids in an abstract manner when the leopard, just above them in Register 6, is drawn and colored in a perfectly natural manner. Indeed, Registers 6 and 7 are probably the work of the same artist and it is not likely that he used different modus operandi within the same painting. It is equally possible that the large black stripes on their flanks are meant to depict another species of canid but were transposed onto other canids as a way of rendering chimeras. But in ancient Egypt, chimeras were generally formed from species familiar to them, in other words from species living in Egypt or in close proximity to it. So it seems that this large black stripe was actually observed on an animal living in Egypt at this time. We can postulate that the artist understood and maintained the anatomically correct bodily proportion differences between the hunting dog and the Nefretnaat canids. With its tail set high and curled, and its ears erect, the hunting dog depicted on the panel could only belong to one of two breeds, the Basenji, a little dog with height shoulder of forty to forty-five centimeters, or the Tesem (Pharaoh dog), a larger dog with shoulder height of sixty to seventy centimeters. This distinction is important, as determination of the dog's breed impacts upon the size estimates calculated for the unidentified canids. The thin silhouette of the hunting dog is incontestable evidence for its being the larger of the two
breeds in question, the Tesem. Given tbat, we can then estimate the size of Nefermaat's canid as being about fortyfive centimeters in height at the shoulders, while the body length, including from nose to tip of tail, was about eightyfive centimeters. Specialists have discussed the canids depicted in this panel in the past. Pétrie (1892) was the first to describe the dog-hunting jackals, but made no mention of its prey, the Nefermaat canids. Although Pétrie did not precisely identify the jackal species being hunted by the dog, he probably meant the golden jackal (Cam's aureus) since it was the only jackal species living in Egypt at the end of the nineteenth century (Osborn and Helmy 1980: 369). However, this species generally displays a homogeneous coat, varying from pale to dark tawny, and does not possess a white spot at the tip of its tail. Harpur (2001 ) on the other hand, thinks that the Nefermaat canids are fennec foxes (Vulpes zsrda), which still live in the desert regions of Egypt (IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group 2004). Indeed, the large size of the fennec's ears is similar to that of the Nefermaat's canids. The resemblance between the fennec fox and those canids depicted in the painting ends here, however. In contrast to the latter, the fennec fox has a very small head and muzzle in relation to its ears, short legs, a short tail with a black tip, and an entirely pale coat. Moreover, the fennec fox is too small relative to the hunting dog of register seven. Osbom and Osbornová (1998: 69-71) believe that the Nefermaat canids are red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), which also
still inhabit Egypt (IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group 2004). These authors assume that the depicted canids' morphology is characteristic of a fox, while arguing that the black stripes on the flanks are abstract. Yet, red foxes also have homogeneous coats, in contrast to those in the painting, which have coats divided into three bands. There are indeed similarities between the painted canids and red foxes, since the latter similarly possess a pointed muzzle, long ears, and long slender legs. Red foxes in addition wear a coat with nearly black lower parts, almost black feet, and a long tail with a white tip. But, while there is a morphological correspondence between red foxes and the painted canids, in particular the disproportionately long tail, the size is wrong. The three other species of the genus Vulpes present in or near Egypt are Rüppell's fox (Vulpes rucppelUi), Blandford's fox {Vulpes cana), and the pale (ox [Vulpes püllida) (IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group 2004). If Rüppell's fox has long broad ears and a long tail with a dark proximal half and a white tip, as in the painting, its body is low with proportionately short legs, with a homogeneous beige to pale brown coat. Blandford's fox, for its part, has long ears and a very long tail with a dark tip, while its coat is an equally homogenous brownish-gray, fading to pale yellow on the belly. Interestingly, in some areas, the tip of the tail is white. Lastly, the pale fox, which at least today does not live in Egypt (albeit it does Inhabit neighboring regions, in middle Sudan and northern Eritrea-Ethiopia), has a morphology and coloration similar to Rüppell's fox with the exception of its legs, which are longer, and its tail, which possesses a black tip instead of a white one. In sum, we can conclude that these four foxes are too small, and that their coats are homogenous, without the characteristic dark stripes on the flanks seen in the painting.
In the lower register in this detail of the lower decoration on the south panel of the western wall in the facade niche of Nefermaat's chapel, three canids are pursued by a hunting dog that holds one of them by the base of its tail. The question ¡s, what species of canid did the artist intend to depict? Photo from Petne (1892: pl. XVII); © Oxiord Expedition to Egypt.
The five other species of canids that live in general proximity to the Nile Valley are the African wild dog {Lycaon pictus), the gray wolf (Canis lupus), the Ethiopian wolf {Canis simemis), the black-backed jackal (CünÍ5 mesomelas), and the side-striped jackal {Canis adustus; I U C N / S S C Canid Specialist Group 2004). Of these five species we can immediately exclude the African wild dog. It is true that this species, which seems to have lived in Egypt until perhaps the First Dynasty (Boessneck 1988; 28, fig. 11), has some coloring in common with the depicted canids.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72;2 (2009)
103
for example the black muzzle, as well as a white-tipped tail edged with a black band. Nevertheless, the chance similarities in the disposition of black, brown, and white coat coloration do not outweigh the differences in head morpholoCT—namely, a square muzzle and rounded ears— between them and those displayed on the painted panel. Furthermore, African wild dogs are too large in comparison to the hunting dog to fit the scene. The last four species have, like the painted canids, a pointed muzzle, long ears, long legs, and long tails. Two of them, the gray wolf and the Ethiopian wolf, do not have dark flank stripes. Moreover, the gray wolf, which still lives in the Sinai Peninsula (C. I arabs), has a homogeneous ochre to brown coat, while its tail does not have a white tip. The same is true for the Ethiopian wolf, which possesses a homogeneous reddish coat. In addition, the proximal third of the latter's tail is white while the distal two-thirds are black. Finally, these two canids are simply too large. In sum, the black stripe on the flanks of the Nefermaat canids excludes the possibility of the various fox species, as well as the golden jackal, African wild dog, gray wolf, and Ethiopian wolf. Furthermore, the size of the depicted canids relative to the hunting dog further suggests that they are probably not wolves (which are too large) and not foxes (which are too small). The two remaining species do display a clearly visihle dark stripe along their flanks, and the size of their bodies indeed corresponds to the presumed size of the Netermaat canids. However, the large black stripes running down the middle of their flanks supports identifying the Nefermaat canids as side-striped jackals. This species shares this feature with the black-hacked jackal, but the latter also possesses a dark tail with a black tip, which rules it out. Thus, the only candidate remaining for the Nefermaat canids is the side-striped jackal. This species also has a tail different from those of the Nefermaat canids, theirs being completely black with a white tip, and not brown with a black band and a white tip, and although it has a differently colored muzzle, one which, unlike in the paintings, is not black. Despite these differences in coloring, the stripe on the flank of the Nefermaat animals is so realistic that it must correspond to a true characteristic of the animal's coat, and the side-striped jackal comes closest. This conclusion is certainly remarkable given that the sidestriped jackal is not recorded in the bestiary of ancient Egypt. At present, its habitat is more than one thousand kilometers from the southern border of Egypt, in southern Sudan and Ethiopia (IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group 2004). But current biogeographical distributions are not necessarily good predictors of ancient distributions (A. Gautier, personal communication), therefore it is possible that the side-striped jackal was present during the Old Kingdom farther north than current ecological conditions suggest.
104
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
Unfortunately, skeletal remains are not helpful in this instance, as it is very difficult to identify the fragmentary and isolated remains of large canids from Egypt (Gautier and Van Neer 1989: 134). Bones of large wild canids found in Egypt are generally attributed to the golden jackal for the simple reason that this jackal is the only one still extant in the country (A. Gautier, personal communication). Significantly, the hones of golden and side-striped jackals are of the same size (Gautier 1993). We should note, in addition, that the idea of side-striped jackals having once been present in Egypt is not new. Van den Brink (1973) argued that the black-backed jackal formerly extended into Egypt but was displaced by both the side-striped and the golden jackals. The side-striped jackal is Africa's most widely distributed canid species. It is mainly found in savannahs and open plains. Largely guided by its search for fruit, it only occasionally feeds on small mammals opportunistically, when encountered (Atkinson, Macdonald, and Kamizola 2002). This species can live even in a relatively barren environment. Paleoclimatological studies establish that monsoon rainfalls retreated southward from the Sahara beginning around 5300 B.C.E., and that the savannah disappeared from Egypt around 3500 B.C.E. (Kuper and Kröpelin 2006: 806). These studies, however, took into account only the western and not the eastern desert. The eastern desert, which includes Nubia, where Snefru conducted his military campaign during the Fourth Dynasty, has not yet been welt studied. Furthermore, winds steered moist Atlantic/Mediterranean air masses to Egypt, which may have sustained lakes and playas north of the limit of monsoonal rainfall until 2000 to 1000 B.C.E. (Brookes 2003). So it is indeed possible that during the Old Kingdom Nubia again possessed open, lightly wooded plains where side-striped jackals could have lived. During that period, Nubia may even have furnished hunting grounds for the ancient Egyptians.
Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Linda Evans (Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney) for her precious aid, without which the writing of this article could not have begun. I also thank Achilles Gautier (Research Unit Palaeontology, Ghent University) who, with his usual kindness, furnished me the intormation about canid bones from archaeological sites in Egypt. Thanks also go to Jean-François Voisin (lecturer at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris) for his moral support and help in all language-related matters. The team of the Bibliothèque ChampoUion du Collège de France allowed me to pursue all of my bibliographic studies. Nicolas Manlius issy-leS'Mouiineaux
References Aticinson, R, P. D.; Macdonald, D.W; and Kamliola, R. 2002 Dietary Opportunism in Side-Striped Jackals Canis adustus SundQvall Journal of Zoobgy 257: 129-39. Boessneck, J. 1988 Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten. Munich: Beck. Brtxikes, I. A. 2003 Geomorphic Indicators of Holocene Winds in Egypt's Western Desert. Geomorphology 56: 155-66. Gaillard. C. 1933 Identification de l'oiseau AMA figuré dans une tombe de Béni-Hassan. ßMÜeiin de l'Insiicui Français d'Archéoh^e Orientale 33; 169-89. Gautier, A. 1993 The Middle Paleolithic Archaeofaunas from Bir Tarfawi (Western Desert, Egypt). Pp. 121-43 in Eg>¡?i during the Last Interglaciai. The Middle Paleolithic of Bir Tarfawi and Bir Sahara East, ed. F. Wendorf, R. Schild, A. E. Close, and Associates. New York: Plenum. Gautier, A., and Van Neer, W. 1989 Animal Remains from the Late PaleoUtKic Sequence at Wadi Kubbaniya. Pp. 119-61 in The Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya. vol. 2: Stratigraphy, Paleoeconomy and Environment, ed. A. E. Close. Dalhis: Southern Methodist University Press.
Harpur, Y. 2001 The Tombs of Nefermaat and Rahotep at Maidum: Discovery. Destruction and Reconstruction. Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom 1. Cheltenham: Oxford Expedition to Egypt. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)/Species Survival Commission (SSC) Canid Specialist Group 2004 Cünids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs, ed. C. Sillero-Zubiri, M. Hoffmann, and D, W, Macdnnalii. Gland, Switzerland: lUCN. , . . Kuper, R., and Kröpelin, S. 2006 Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: MotorofAfdca'sEvolution.Sdcnce 313(5788): 803-7. Osborn, D. J., and Helmy, 1. 1980
The Contemporary Land Mammais of Egypt (including Sirxai).
Fieldiana Ztxilogv". NS 5; Field Museum of Natural History' Publication 1309. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. Osborn, D. J., and Osbornovâ, J. 1998
The Mammals of Ancient Egypt. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Perrie. W M. F 1892 Meííum, London: David Nuti. Van den Brink, E H. 1973 Distribution and Speciatian of Some Carnivores. Mammal Review 3: 85-95.
Field O: The "Synagogue" Site THE JOINT EXPEDITION TO
By Marylinda Govaars. Marie Spiro. and L. Michaei White
CAESAREA MARÍTIMA
111 the northwest quarter of the site of Caesarea Marilima is Field O. the location known as "the synagogue site and Jewish Quarter." Although excavated in 1956 and 1962. archaeologists and scholars researching the excavation results have been limited to seeing a brush-choked patch of excavated ruins, viewing a few artifacts in museums, and to the frustrating examination of the conftising, often contradictory published preliminary reports. For whatever reason, there was no final report published and there were no published photographs, site plans, or plans of the structures. This lack of clear understanding threatened to keep the site out of the corpus of synagogue sites forever. Now comprehensive research has discovered previously unknown records from the 1962 excavations and produced a comparative study of the 1945/46. 1956/62. and 1982/84 excavation pho tographs and the complete findings from the Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima survey and excavation seasons. Included for the first time are a site plan of the excavated remains and reconstruetion drawings of the excavated structures.
EXCAVATION
REPORTS
F i a D O: THE "SYNAGOGUE" SUE
MARYLINDA GOVAARS MARIE SPIRO L MICHAEL WHTTB
S84.95, available from the David Bruwn Book Company a( http://www.oxbowbooks.com The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima Excavation Reports, Volume IX. Seríes-Edi tors Robert J. Bull and Olin J, Stor\ick. ASOR 2009. 305 Pages, 135 figures, 6 tables. ISBN 978-0-89757-077-0.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
105
REVIEWS Crossing the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arahah Edited by R Bienkowski and K. Galor. Levant Supplementary Series 3. Oxford: Oxbow, 2006. 288 pages. Cloth $90.00, ISBN 1-84217-209-3.
O:
kne of the most controversial issues in 'archaeology is the effect that modern political realities have on the manner in which the past is interpreted. Perhaps the region upon which complicated politics have the most impact is the Near East. The Wadi Arahah is a perfect example. The natural rift, running from the Dead Sea to Aqaba/Eilat, forms the border between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The valley has been viewed as an inhospitable arid environment separating the Negev and Jordanian deserts into two distinct cultural and economic regions. This interpretation and the inaccessibility of the military border has affected archaeological scholarship, hindering collaboration and discouraging viewing the Wadi Arabah as a single entity in the historic and prehistoric periods. The Wadi Arabah project was formed to challenge this view with the goal of bringing together archaeological, historical, environmental, and geological research in order to enhance the understanding of the nature and use of the Wadi Arabah. The project held a conference in November 2003, the proceedings of which formed the book under review. Bringing together research from both sides of the border, this work succeeds in the project's aims, forming a convincing argument that the wadi should be viewed as a route and a bridge rather than as a barrier. The book provides a methodical exploration of the Wadi Arabah. The major themes covered are travel and trade routes, settlement patterns, and occupation of the region through history. The evidence presented comes from a number of sources, including excavation and survey, discussion of natural resources and textual evidence, and a biblical study presenting a truly integrated interdisciplinary approach. The first group of papers provides an introduction to the region detailing geological and environmental processes. Bienkowski engages with the crux of the matter in the study, "The Wadi Arabah: Meanings in a Contested Landscape," undoubtedly one of the most impressive chapters in this book. He reviews the settlement patterns, delves into a phenomenological approach to landscape, and explores the impact of modern history. Following this are
106
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:1 (2009)
several chapters also tackling the region as a whole throughout history. Burins' "Desert Environment and Ceoarchaeology of the Wadi Arabah" complements the first chapter by expanding on Bienkowski's original discussion. EoUowing this, Haiman in "The Archaeological Surveys in the Arabah Reconsidered: Data and Metadata" discusses the familiar problems associated with archaeologists' experience when combining surveys and provides a good introduction to Avner's "Settlement Patterns in the Wadi Arabah and the Adjacent Desert Areas: A View from the Eilat Region" and MacDonald's "The Southern Chors and North-east Arabah: Resources, Sites and Routes," which discuss settlement patterns and human usage of the Wadi. Following this general introduction to the region and overview of human settlement, later chapters concentrate on aspects of specific time periods. This begins with the prehistoric period in Henry's "Cultural and Ceological Influences on Prehistoric Site Distributions in the Wadi Arabah," and Yekutieli's "Aspects of an Early Bronze Age II-III Polity in the Dead Sea Region." The economic importance of the Wadi Arabah is discussed in the next three chapters. Hauptmann's "Mining Archaeology and Archaeometallurgy in the Wadi Arahah: The Mining Districts of Faynan and Timna" and Adams's "Copper Trading Networks across the Arabah during the Later Early Bronze Age" explore the copper mines found in the Arabah, the largest mineral belt in the Levant save Cyprus. These papers focus on the impact the Faynan had during the Bronze Ages. Jasmin furthers the argLiment for the economic importance of the region with an analysis on the origins of the camel and its impact in "The Emergence and First Development of Arabian Trade across the Wadi Arabah." The historical period is then introduced with a chapter by Bartlett, "The Wadi Arabah in the Hebrew Scriptures," who discusses the evidence to be gained from a careful study of biblical text. Four chapters by Erikson-Cini, "'Down to the Sea': Nabataean Colonization in the Negev Highlands"; Hirschfeld, "The Nabataean Presence South of tbe Dead Sea: New Evidence"; Shamir, "Textiles, Basketry, Cordage and Fruits from 'En Tamar: Preliminary Report"; and Dolinka, "The Rujm Taba Archaeological Project (RTAP): Results of the 2001 Survey and Reconnaissance" follow with a robust presentation of the evidence relating to the Nabataean period. The Roman and Byzantine periods are discussed by Isaac "Roman Organization in the Fourth Century AD"; Parker, "Roman Aila and the Wadi Arabah: An Economic Relationship"; and Meshel, "Were There Cold Mines in the Eastern Arabah?" Wbitcomb concludes the discussion of the classical past with "The Wadi Arabah during the Early Islamic Period." Finally, of considerable interest is an exploration of the Bedouin communities of the recent past. Van der Steen, "Nineteenth-Century Travelers in the Wadi Arabab," and Bailey, "Relations between Bedouin Tribes on opposite Sides of the Wadi Arabah, 1600-1950," bolster the volume's claim that the presently held views of the wadi as an impassible barrier are
in fact reflections of modern political situations, whereas until recently it was a more fluid space. There are some small flaws in this otherwise excellent work affecting the flow of the volume rather the content. Many chapters report on one site and then expand the topic forward to a regional level. On the whole, this works quite well, however, there are some chapters that seem out of place within the larger work. Dolinka in ch. 15, discussing the Rum Taba Project, introduces a new project that has just completed its preliminary survey. Although clearly relevant to the broader theme, as well as being an interesting new area of research, it suffers in comparison against the other chapters due to its introductory nature. Similarly awkward is ch. 13, a discussion of the site of En Tamar by Hirschfeld, and the separate following ch. 14 by Shamir, containing an in depth discussion of the finds. These artifacts strengthen the overall statements Hirschfeld makes about Nabataean settlement, and separating the evidence into two chapters seems literally and figuratively to remove the finds from the archaeological context. Finally, there are some absences among the contributors to the volume. As the editors themselves point out, no Jordanian archaeologists contributed to the book. The most notable omission is Dr. Mohammad Najjar of the Jordan Department of Antiquities, who, though present at the conference, felt that publication of his new research would be premature. Despite this, the book maintains a balanced tone by presenting an equal number of chapters devoted to evidence from the Jordanian and Israeli sides of the border. Some of the most recent research in the Arabah, such as that focusing on the Faynan district, was not included. Though the district is introduced in the chapters by Hauptmann and Adams, they do not discuss the entirety of the research taking place there. However, the intent of Crossing the Rift was to present data in relation to the Wadi Arabah as a whole region and specific focus on one area in particular would have been detrimental to this. It also would have been repetitive, as the recently published work by Finlayson and Mithen (2007) and Barker et al. (in press) cover the Faynan region in detail. The strength of Crossing the Rift is that it provides a larger framework within which more specific discussions like these can be structured. The book does an excellent job of introducing the region to those unfamiliar with it, as well as providing a coherent collection of much of the latest research for those with an indepth knowledge. The organization of the text into roughly chronological chapters peppered with useful tables and pictures makes it easy for readers to orient themselves. Most importantly, it provides a much needed reassessment of the Wadi Arabah and a handy collection of some of the most recent work regarding the area. It should be considered a necessary addition to any scholarly library about the Levant.
Hannah Friedman University of Leicester
References Barker, G.; Gilbertson, D.; and Mattingly, D. 2007
Archaeology and Desertification: The Wadi Fayrian ¡Mndscape Survey, Southern Jordan. Oxford: Oxbow Books and the Council for British Research in the Levant.
Finlayson, B. and Mithen, S., ed. 2007
The Early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan: Archaeological Survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and Evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site
ofWF¡6. Wadi Faynan Series 1. Levant Supplementary Series 4. Oxford: Oxbow Books and the Council for British Research in the Levant.
Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel 1300-1100 B.C.E. By Ann E. Killebrew. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Xx + 362 pages, with figures and maps. Paper $39.95, ISBN 1-58983-097-0. •', ^"H Jv_AL I
Tdentifying e t h n i c groups in the X archaeological record of Iron Age Israel in general, and the Israelites in particular, has become one of the thorniest problems anJl CTHNICITY in biblical or Levantine archaeology. Until the 1990s, the main debate in the archaeology of ancient Israel concentrated on the process of the Israelite settlement, that is, military conquest, peaceful infiltration, social revolution, evolution, and so on. The identity of the highlands settlers as Israelites was not really questioned, just like the agreement over the Philistine identity of the settlers in the southern coastal plain. This all changed in the early 1990s. While the dust seems to have settled on the debate over the process of the Israelite settlement in Canaan, a big questionmark was added, mainly as a result of the emerging minimalist school, to the term "Israelite" itself, and many scholars have refrained from using it when discussing the Iron I highland settlements. The question of identifying the Israelites in the material record came to the front and with it a host of issues relating to the identification of ethnic groups in archaeology. A plethora of studies have, consequently, attempted to tackle this complex issue, and various scholars have offered different solutions to the problem (e.g., Finkelstein, Dever, Bloch-Smith,
'eopies
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:1 (2009)
107
in fact reflections of modern political situations, whereas until recently it was a more fluid space. There are some small flaws in this otherwise excellent work affecting the flow of the volume rather the content. Many chapters report on one site and then expand the topic forward to a regional level. On the whole, this works quite well, however, there are some chapters that seem out of place within the larger work. Dolinka in ch. 15, discussing the Rum Taba Project, introduces a new project that has just completed its preliminary survey. Although clearly relevant to the broader theme, as well as being an interesting new area of research, it suffers in comparison against the other chapters due to its introductory nature. Similarly awkward is ch. 13, a discussion of the site of En Tamar by Hirschfeld, and the separate following ch. 14 by Shamir, containing an in depth discussion of the finds. These artifacts strengthen the overall statements Hirschfeld makes about Nabataean settlement, and separating the evidence into two chapters seems literally and figuratively to remove the finds from the archaeological context. Finally, there are some absences among the contributors to the volume. As the editors themselves point out, no Jordanian archaeologists contributed to the book. The most notable omission is Dr. Mohammad Najjar of the Jordan Department of Antiquities, who, though present at the conference, felt that publication of his new research would be premature. Despite this, the book maintains a balanced tone by presenting an equal number of chapters devoted to evidence from the Jordanian and Israeli sides of the border. Some of the most recent research in the Arabah, such as that focusing on the Faynan district, was not included. Though the district is introduced in the chapters by Hauptmann and Adams, they do not discuss the entirety of the research taking place there. However, the intent of Crossing the Rift was to present data in relation to the Wadi Arabah as a whole region and specific focus on one area in particular would have been detrimental to this. It also would have been repetitive, as the recently published work by Finlayson and Mithen (2007) and Barker et al. (in press) cover the Faynan region in detail. The strength of Crossing the Rift is that it provides a larger framework within which more specific discussions like these can be structured. The book does an excellent job of introducing the region to those unfamiliar with it, as well as providing a coherent collection of much of the latest research for those with an indepth knowledge. The organization of the text into roughly chronological chapters peppered with useful tables and pictures makes it easy for readers to orient themselves. Most importantly, it provides a much needed reassessment of the Wadi Arabah and a handy collection of some of the most recent work regarding the area. It should be considered a necessary addition to any scholarly library about the Levant.
Hannah Friedman University of Leicester
References Barker, G.; Gilbertson, D.; and Mattingly, D. 2007
Archaeology and Desertification: The Wadi Fayrian ¡Mndscape Survey, Southern Jordan. Oxford: Oxbow Books and the Council for British Research in the Levant.
Finlayson, B. and Mithen, S., ed. 2007
The Early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan: Archaeological Survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and Evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site
ofWF¡6. Wadi Faynan Series 1. Levant Supplementary Series 4. Oxford: Oxbow Books and the Council for British Research in the Levant.
Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel 1300-1100 B.C.E. By Ann E. Killebrew. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Xx + 362 pages, with figures and maps. Paper $39.95, ISBN 1-58983-097-0. •', ^"H Jv_AL I
Tdentifying e t h n i c groups in the X archaeological record of Iron Age Israel in general, and the Israelites in particular, has become one of the thorniest problems anJl CTHNICITY in biblical or Levantine archaeology. Until the 1990s, the main debate in the archaeology of ancient Israel concentrated on the process of the Israelite settlement, that is, military conquest, peaceful infiltration, social revolution, evolution, and so on. The identity of the highlands settlers as Israelites was not really questioned, just like the agreement over the Philistine identity of the settlers in the southern coastal plain. This all changed in the early 1990s. While the dust seems to have settled on the debate over the process of the Israelite settlement in Canaan, a big questionmark was added, mainly as a result of the emerging minimalist school, to the term "Israelite" itself, and many scholars have refrained from using it when discussing the Iron I highland settlements. The question of identifying the Israelites in the material record came to the front and with it a host of issues relating to the identification of ethnic groups in archaeology. A plethora of studies have, consequently, attempted to tackle this complex issue, and various scholars have offered different solutions to the problem (e.g., Finkelstein, Dever, Bloch-Smith,
'eopies
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:1 (2009)
107
and others). This is where Ann Killebrew's book comes in. This is a wide-ranging attempt to examine ethnic groups—not only the Israelites, but also other groups—in Iron I Israel. The book discusses the years 1300-1100 B.C.E., which means that it begins in the later phase of the Late Bronze Age, and covers the first phase of Iron Age I. It begins with a brief introduction, presenting the author's perspective and background information on the development of archaeological thinking, addressing some theoretical concepts, and giving some background data on the groups discussed. The first chapters discuss the last phase of the Late Bronze Age, prior to the emergence of the new ethnic groups that are the focus of the monograph. Chapter 1 is called "The Age of Internationalism: The Eastern Mediterranean during the Thirteenth Century B.C.E. and the 'Crisis'" and is a detailed attempt to reconstruct the economy and social conditions, mainly those pertaining to or resulting from the advanced international trade in this important period, when a long-established world order came to an end. Since it seems to me as if the material "language" of the Late Bronze Age was loaded with symbols, I think this is indeed an essential background, usually overlooked, for understanding ethnic dynamics in the thirteenth century, which had an impact on the formation of identities in the early Iron Age. Chapter 2, "Egypt at Canaan: Empire and Colonialism in the Late Bronze Age," presents the readers with what was probably the most important actor in Late Bronze Canaan, the Egyptian Empire. Canaan was under Egyptian hegemony during the Late Bronze Age, and the connection even strengthened during the thirteenth century. Killebrew stresses the importance of the Egyptian withdrawal from Canaan as a major factor in the collapse of the previous order, and she views it as a cause for the fragmentation of the population into different and new groups (e.g., p. 83) Chapter 3 deals with "Canaan and Canaanites: An Ethnic Mosaic." Killebrew presents the archaeological data from Late Bronze Canaan and concludes that the land was inhabited by a diverse population, including members of various ethnic groups, although this was not evident in most aspects of material culture, including pottery. The distinction here is not totally clear. Concluding the discussion of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan and its surroundings, Killebrew moves on to discuss the Israelites. Chapter 4, therefore, deals with what many readers will view as the central issue in a book on "biblical peoples," namely, the Israelites. The title of the chapter, "Early Israel: A 'Mixed Multitude'," reveals the author's view of Israel's origins. Killebrew opens the discussion by stating that (p. 149) "biblical Israel's roots lie in the final century of Late Bronze Age Canaan ... the disintegration of the Bronze Age empires during the thirteenth and twelfth centuries B.C.E triggered wide-scale cultural, political, and social fragmentation in the Levant, resulting in the assertion of local identities and the establishment of new social boundaries." Like most scholars today, the author views
108
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
the emergence of Israel as a gradual process that included various "peoples whose origins are largely indigenous and can only be understood in the wider Mediterranean context" (p. 149). And she concludes that "Ancient Israel's mixed multitude is defined here as a collection of loosely organized and largely indigenous, tribal, and kin-based groups whose porous borders permitted penetration by smaller numbers from external groups" (p. 184). The discussion elaborates on previous works, and the idea that Israel was composed of groups with diverse origins is, in one way or the other, widely accepted today (though Killebrew is among those who stress the indigenous component). One of Killebrew's important conclusions is that one can speak of Israel in the Iron I, a point to which I shall return later. Chapter 5 deals with "The Philistines: Urban Colonists of the Early Iron Age." The Philistines were immigrants from somewhere within the Aegean world who settled on the southern coastal plain of Israel. They were one of the most important groups in the period under discussion, as they appear to have been both very strong politically and economically, and are very noticeable archaeologically (because they came from a totally different background). The chapter reviews the information regarding the Philistines, discusses the various theories regarding the Philistines' arrival, and scrutinizes the archaeological data from Philistine sites. The chapter ends with a synthesis, which is updated and detailed. Einally, ch. 6, "Identifying the Egyptians, Philistines, Canaanites, and Early Israel, is a brief summary of the information discussed earlier in the text. The book is an important contribution to the study of Israel's Iron I. It is, first and foremost, an updated and critical review of the evidence on what is, as we have seen above, a central issue in the archaeological, historical, and biblical research literature. It discusses the various groups which operated in Canaan in the Iron I, thus giving the discussion a good context, which studies concentrating solely on the emergence of Israel might overlook (but, see below). The book itself is very detailed in most of its chapters, as it carefully reviews and discusses the majority of the relevant data. This is probably most noticeable in the discussion of ceramics. Killebrew is an expert on pottery and pottery technology, and the discussion in various places is much more than a critical and updated review. Another point that is worth commenting on is that, according to Killebrew, one can speak of Israel in the Iron I. As stated above, this is one of the most heavily discussed issues in the archaeology of ancient Israel today. While a consensus until the early 1990s, this is debated by many today. Moreover, until a few years ago, it seemed as if the majority of scholars tended to adopt a skeptical approach to the issue, and questioned the attribution of the term "Israelite" to the Iron I highlands villages (e.g., Finkelstein). It appears, however, that an interesting and important shift is beginning, as most specialists today accept (once again) this connection
(e.g., Dever, Bloch-Smith, Miller, Levy, and Holl, among others). Killebrew's study is an important contribution to this shift. Notably, many of the points discussed in the book will be challenged by other scholars; I, for example, disagree with a number of issues (e.g., regarding the collared-rim jar, its place of "origin", and so on), but such differences are inevitable in so detailed a work, and a short review is not the place to address them. The book has some drawbacks. The discussion of ethnicity, for example, is too brief, and generally speaking, I feel that a book on ethnicity should be more "anthropologically oriented." More attention, for example, should have been paid to the process of identity formation. In a similar vein, while the work gives attention to all groups—a potential advantage—the interaction between the groups should have received much more discussion. After all, boundaries and boundary maintenance is to a large extent the name of the game, and by concentrating on each group it seems that an important aspect of ethnicity was lost. I also find it urifortunate that the book concludes with the year 1100 B.C.E., since much of the important interaction that shaped the discussed groups and their identities took place only later in the Iron I. All in all, however, the discussed book is an updated, detailed, and critical review of much of the discussion on the Iron I. The intended readership apparently lies with biblical scholars, students, and interested lay people. However, the breadth of the book means that also professional archaeologists will have to address it, and therefore Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity will become essential reading for everyone.
Avraham Faust Bar lian Universivy
Can There Be a Philosophy of Archaeology? Processual Archaeology and the Philosophy of Science CAN THERE BE * PHILOSOPHY ot ARCHAEOLOGY?
By William Harvey Krieger. Lantham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006. Xi + 145 pages, with plates. Cloth $75.00, ISBN 0-7391-1249-X.
A:
s Krieger points out, during the 1960s Lwhen the "new" or "processual" archaeology emerged in the United States, small numbers of archaeologists and philosophers began to take a sustained interest in philosophical issues identifiable in archaeological research. Processualists,
including Lewis R. Binford, Fred Plog, John Fritz, Patty Jo Watson, and Charles Redman, prescribed the use of the hypotheticodeductive method and Hempel's deductive-nomological model of explanation as the means for turning archaeology into a real science. Later investigators—philosophers of science and archaeologists— introduced newer philosophical models of explanation as well as other methods for conducting scientific research. Arguments continue to this day over which, if any, philosophical models describe, or can be applied in, archaeological research. The philosophy of archaeology remains today a recognizable specialty, treating topics such as models of explanation, models of inference, argument by analogy, discovery and confirmation, the structure of archaeological theory, the nature and functions of archaeological laws, and scientific method. Authored by a philosopher who also does fieldwork in Israel, Can There Be a Philosophy of Archaeology? seeks to show that archaeology, having both natural- and social-science dimensions, "puts an interesting spin on standard philosophical problems" (p. x). Krieger describes his project as follows: This work will provide concrete examples of how a study of problems central to archaeology can provide philosophers of science a new way to approach philosophical issues. At the same time, these examples should prove to even the most theoretically shy "dirt archaeologists" that a study of contemporary philosophy of science will strengthen the epistemological foundations of their relatively young science, (p. x) However, the book's immediate origin is a doctoral dissertation in philosophy, and so it retains a philosophical style of discourse that is unlikely to appeal to "dirt archaeologists." The grist for Krieger's philosophical mill is processual archaeology's early expressions, some of which were larded with invocations of Hempelian models of explanation. Curiously, Krieger regards these models as the main constituent of processual theory (e.g., p. 66). Because the Hempelian models have been superseded in philosophy, Krieger concludes that the new archaeology's theoretical program has failed (p. 69). However, this claim is hard to sustain. American archaeologists now mainly practice what Michelle Hegmon (2003) calls "processualism plus." This term highlights the fact that many, but not all, substantive anthropological theories introduced by new archaeologists—for example, a systemic model of culture and a cultural-ecological framework—inform much research to this day (see also O'Brien, Lyman, and Schiffer 2005). Moreover, these kinds of theories had a much greater influence on the conduct of processual research than did any philosophical models. Because Krieger apparently uses the term "theory" to denote philosophical, not archaeological, theories, he overlooks the new archaeology's enduring theoretical contributions. And then there is the matter of laws, in science and in archaeology. Krieger claims that: (1) laws in science are rare (p.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
109
(e.g., Dever, Bloch-Smith, Miller, Levy, and Holl, among others). Killebrew's study is an important contribution to this shift. Notably, many of the points discussed in the book will be challenged by other scholars; I, for example, disagree with a number of issues (e.g., regarding the collared-rim jar, its place of "origin", and so on), but such differences are inevitable in so detailed a work, and a short review is not the place to address them. The book has some drawbacks. The discussion of ethnicity, for example, is too brief, and generally speaking, I feel that a book on ethnicity should be more "anthropologically oriented." More attention, for example, should have been paid to the process of identity formation. In a similar vein, while the work gives attention to all groups—a potential advantage—the interaction between the groups should have received much more discussion. After all, boundaries and boundary maintenance is to a large extent the name of the game, and by concentrating on each group it seems that an important aspect of ethnicity was lost. I also find it urifortunate that the book concludes with the year 1100 B.C.E., since much of the important interaction that shaped the discussed groups and their identities took place only later in the Iron I. All in all, however, the discussed book is an updated, detailed, and critical review of much of the discussion on the Iron I. The intended readership apparently lies with biblical scholars, students, and interested lay people. However, the breadth of the book means that also professional archaeologists will have to address it, and therefore Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity will become essential reading for everyone.
Avraham Faust Bar lian Universivy
Can There Be a Philosophy of Archaeology? Processual Archaeology and the Philosophy of Science CAN THERE BE * PHILOSOPHY ot ARCHAEOLOGY?
By William Harvey Krieger. Lantham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006. Xi + 145 pages, with plates. Cloth $75.00, ISBN 0-7391-1249-X.
A:
s Krieger points out, during the 1960s Lwhen the "new" or "processual" archaeology emerged in the United States, small numbers of archaeologists and philosophers began to take a sustained interest in philosophical issues identifiable in archaeological research. Processualists,
including Lewis R. Binford, Fred Plog, John Fritz, Patty Jo Watson, and Charles Redman, prescribed the use of the hypotheticodeductive method and Hempel's deductive-nomological model of explanation as the means for turning archaeology into a real science. Later investigators—philosophers of science and archaeologists— introduced newer philosophical models of explanation as well as other methods for conducting scientific research. Arguments continue to this day over which, if any, philosophical models describe, or can be applied in, archaeological research. The philosophy of archaeology remains today a recognizable specialty, treating topics such as models of explanation, models of inference, argument by analogy, discovery and confirmation, the structure of archaeological theory, the nature and functions of archaeological laws, and scientific method. Authored by a philosopher who also does fieldwork in Israel, Can There Be a Philosophy of Archaeology? seeks to show that archaeology, having both natural- and social-science dimensions, "puts an interesting spin on standard philosophical problems" (p. x). Krieger describes his project as follows: This work will provide concrete examples of how a study of problems central to archaeology can provide philosophers of science a new way to approach philosophical issues. At the same time, these examples should prove to even the most theoretically shy "dirt archaeologists" that a study of contemporary philosophy of science will strengthen the epistemological foundations of their relatively young science, (p. x) However, the book's immediate origin is a doctoral dissertation in philosophy, and so it retains a philosophical style of discourse that is unlikely to appeal to "dirt archaeologists." The grist for Krieger's philosophical mill is processual archaeology's early expressions, some of which were larded with invocations of Hempelian models of explanation. Curiously, Krieger regards these models as the main constituent of processual theory (e.g., p. 66). Because the Hempelian models have been superseded in philosophy, Krieger concludes that the new archaeology's theoretical program has failed (p. 69). However, this claim is hard to sustain. American archaeologists now mainly practice what Michelle Hegmon (2003) calls "processualism plus." This term highlights the fact that many, but not all, substantive anthropological theories introduced by new archaeologists—for example, a systemic model of culture and a cultural-ecological framework—inform much research to this day (see also O'Brien, Lyman, and Schiffer 2005). Moreover, these kinds of theories had a much greater influence on the conduct of processual research than did any philosophical models. Because Krieger apparently uses the term "theory" to denote philosophical, not archaeological, theories, he overlooks the new archaeology's enduring theoretical contributions. And then there is the matter of laws, in science and in archaeology. Krieger claims that: (1) laws in science are rare (p.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
109
62) and (2) archaeological laws are "difficult, if not impossible to define" (p. ix). One need only peruse any introductory chemistry, physics, or biology textbook to confute the first claim. The problem is that Krieger overlooks the kind of scientific generalizations widely known as "experimental laws." As a result, Krieger's usage of "law" is apparently confined to abstract, high-level theoretical laws or theories, such as the kinetic theory of heat or natural selection, which often posit entities or processes unobservable at the time they were formulated. It is debatable whether high-level generalizations are uncommon in science (I think not), but there is no doubt that experimental laws abound. Moreover, philosophers of science such as Merrilee Salmon (1982) have shown that experimental laws perform essential service in explanations of empirical phenomena. And, in response to the second claim, I maintain that archaeology is no exception: decades of research in experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology, undertaken by processualists and behavioralists, have generated a plethora of experimental laws that accord well with the requirements of most archaeological models of inference and explanation. A multitude of experimental laws can be found, for example, in works on the manufacture and use processes of lithic, ceramic, and bone artifacts. In addition to its idiosyncratic usages of theory and law, this book also contains a sprinkling of scholarly lapses, such as: (1) according to Krieger, Binford in his classic 1962 paper was propounding Hempelian models (p. 2), yet Binford neither cites Hempel in that paper nor uses Hempelian terms; (2) the terms "hypothesis," "inference," "assumption," and "explanation" are not rigorously defined, and are often used interchangeably; (3) kinship systems and marital residence patterns are conflated (p. 59); and (4) the culture-historical approach is described as devoid of explanatory interests (p. 31,37-38), even though processualists, such as Binford and Flannery, took pains to highlight the defects of the difïusionist principles that served in countless culture-historical explanations. The problem here, as elsewhere in the book, is that Krieger relies mainly on the programmatic statements of partisans to generalize about changes in the practice of archaeology—without having studied in detail actual archaeological practice. Finally, several case studies are unconvincing, either as critiques of processualism or as exemplars of philosophical issues. For example, Krieger raises questions about Hill's inference of room functions at Broken K, a thirteenth-century pueblo site in east-central Arizona. In the 1968 account of his study that Krieger engages. Hill presented the room-function inferences in a hypothesis-testing format (although he used different formats in other accounts). Drawing upon Hopi and Zuñi ethnographies. Hill hypothesized that large rooms with firepits and other features were used for diverse habitation activities, whereas small, featureless rooms functioned mainly for storage. In arguing that these inferences rely entirely on ethnographic analogy and thus entail a fatal circularity, Krieger discounts Hill's analyses of artifacts and ecofacts on the room floors merely because the functional hypotheses' test implications were also derived from ethnographic accounts. What seems crucial in
110
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
the Broken K case is that ethnographic data and archaeological analyses together furnished lines of evidence that are consistent with the basic functional inferences. In addition. Hill properly treated the anomalies—for example, extra-large habitation rooms—as possibly resulting from behavioral change. Tellingly, of the many informed critiques aimed at Hill's Broken K study, none has found fault with the room-function inferences. In another case study, this one from Syro-Palestinian archaeology, Krieger takes up the question as to "whether there is sufficient evidence from the archaeological record to connect certain assemblages with the reigns of Kings David and Solomon" (p. 112). He frames this inquiry as a philosophical issue dealing with "the proper relationship between value judgments and scientific explanation" (p. 115). As the example plays out, however, it becomes evident that the issue is a familiar one in archaeological methodology: solving the problem of weighting different lines of evidence—for example, textual, ceramic, architectural, and radiocarbon—in fashioning a given inference. Solving this problem in any specific case requires not philosophical analysis, but rigorous application of the principles of formation processes of the archaeological and historical records along with local expertise (Schiffer 1987). As a partisan contributor to the philosophy of archaeology for more than three decades, I came away from this book somewhat disappointed, for I disagree with Krieger's framing of many issues and with his analyses and conclusions. Nonetheless, by showing that the philosophy of archaeology remains a lively subject, Krieger may succeed in the worthwhile project of luring other philosophers of science into studying archaeological research.
Michael Brian Schiffer University of Arizona
References Binford, L.R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28: 217-25. Hegmon, M. 2003 Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity 68: 213-43. Hill, J. N., and Hevly, R. H. 1968 Pollen at Broken K Pueblo: Some New Interpretations. American Antiquity Í3: 200-210. O'Brien, M. J.; Lyman, R. L.; and Schiffer, M. B. 2005 Archaeology as a Process: Processualism and its Progeny. Salt Lake City, UT University of Utah Press. Salmon, M. H. 1982 Philosopliy and Archaeology, Studies in Archaeology, New York: Academic Press. Schiffer, M. B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
A Companion to the Ancient Near East ANCIENT NEAR EAST
Edited by Daniel C. Snell. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Xix + 504 pages, 15 figs, 5 maps. Paper $124.95, ISBN 0-631-23293-1.
A;
Companion to the Ancient Near East, ..Blackwell's third addition to irs Companions to the Ancient World series, has the peculiarity of not being, in actuality, a companion ro another book. This volume is meant to stand on its own as a comprehensive overview of Near Eastem civilization, providing a survey of hoth the history of the ancient Near East and tbe sources tor studying tbe period. The book consists of thirty-two chapters of about fifteen pages each written by thirty different authors, including the editor, Daniel C. Snell, who contributed several chapters. The volume is organized thematically into five parts, namely, "The Shape of the Ancient Near East," "Discourses and Methods." "Economy and Society," "Culture." and "Heritage of the Ancient Near East." The Companion also includes a fifty-eight-page collective bibliography in addition to the short hibtiographic recommendations for (urtber reading found at the end of each chapter. There are t>nly fifteen figures and five maps in the entire volume: twelve ot the illustrations are included in Marian Feldman's chapter on Mesopotamian art; three plans can be found in Sally Dunham's treatment ot ancient Near Eastem architecture; two very general maps of the Near East are placed in tbe "Introduction;" and three more specific maps are included in Carlos Cordova's chapter on ancient Near Eastem environment. The very short introduction by the editor serves the purpose of succinctly defining the spatial and temporal scope of the volume. Geographically, the book embraces a notion of the Near East clearly centered on Mesopotamia and some of Its adjacent regions, including Syria-Palestine, Iran, and Anatolia. Egypt is acknowledged as a special case; while not necessarily included in the discipline of Near Eastern studies, it is tied culturally, historically, and in the public mind witb the rest of tbe ancient Near East. This warranted its inclusion in the book wherever possible, but with the caveat that the majority of the authors in the book are experts in Mesopotamia, not Egypt. With such a broad scope, it is hardly surprising tbat tbe volume does not offer a comprehensive coverage of all these regions. Whereas Mesopotamia is extensively discussed, most other areas receive only cursor>' treatments. Egypt is tbe focus of two chapters (15 and 17) and is prominently treated in another (ch. 12), but only
mentioned sporadically in the rest. Syria-Palestine gets a chapter (ch. 30) and some passing mentions in others. Anatolia proper is mainly treated in Gary Beckman's chapter on Hittite religion (ch. 25). Iran before the Achaemenid Empire is almost completely ignored and then only mentioned in passing (most notably in chs. 3 and 6). Chronologically, the Companion covers the time span from the Neolithic to the campaigns of Alexander the Great. Curiously, no effort was made to use a single, unified chronology throughout the book, and the different authors follow their own preferences. While most opted to use the Middle Chronology, there are exceptions, and the lack of agreement on a chronological framework detracts from the unity of the volume. Indeed, lack of unity is perhaps tbe book's most serious shortcoming. The editor introduces the book by saying, in reference to the cbapters, that "these essays stand alone and need no introduction," (p. xviii) and this is indeed tbe case. Each chapter is self-contained; and there does not seem ro be a unifying thread ro bring all of these essays dealing wirh such diverse subjects together into tbe comprehensive overview of the ancient Near East that tbe book promises. In general, the selection of themes for the individual chapters seems rather arbitrary and, as a consequence, the division ot the book into sections is random at best. Part III, "Economy and Society," for example, includes chapters on the environment, nomadism, cities and countryside, money and trade, law, social tensions, gender roles, and warfare, while Part IV, "Culture," deals with the transmission of knowledge, literature, architecture, art, medicine, cosmology, the institution of kingship, and religion. One is left wondering what possible criteria could have prompted such a separation. Are gender roles, social tensions or the law, for example, not encompassed by the category "culture," or topics such as kingship and religion by the categiJry "society"? It is hard to avoid the suspicion that either "culture" is being used here in a careless manner, as a catch-all category, or that its usage reflects an underlying conception of culture that owes more to nineteenth-century elitist notioris of refined accomplishment and "high" culture than to modem anthropological theory. Adding to the problem, some of tbe titles for the sections are poorly cbosen. Most readers, for example, will be disappointed by Part II, "Discourses and Methods." This section consists of three chapters: "Archaeology and the Ancient Near East: Methods and Limits" by Marie-Henriette Gates, "The Languages of the Ancient Near East" by Gonzalo Rubio, and "Tbe Historian's Task" by Daniel Snell. Whereas the chapters hy Gates and Snell provide an interesting insigbt into the nature of some of the current debates in the discipline, they are not the overview of theoretical and methodological approaches that one would expect from a section with this title. Furthermore, Rubio's chapter on languages is just a descriptive account of the basic elements of ancient Near Eastem languages and hardly mentions any of tbe metbodologies employed in tbeit study; as a result it feels oddly out of place in a section devoted to "Discourses on Methods."
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:2 (2009)
111
In spite of these problems, however, there is mucb to like about this book. Most chapters offer compelling and authoritative synopses of the subjects under consideration. The first section of tbe book, "The Shape of the Ancient Near East." for example, consists of four chapters in which Mario Liverani, Augusta McMahon, Mark Chávalas, and Paul-Alain Beaulieu address the question of unity and diversity In the ancient Near East. They offer a historical outline that ably summarizes the major events in the region between 10,000 and 300 B.C.E. Some chapters offer outstanding outlines of very general topics. Essays like Marian Feldman's on Mesopotamian art or Sally Dunham's on architecture are a good example. In them, tbe authors eschew tbe impossible task of providing a ctjmprehensive treatment of such vast subjects in the few pages available to them and concentrate instead on providing the reader with the general principles underlying Near Eastern art and architecture, and on prt>perly illustrating these principles with meaningful examples. The resulting essays are compelling, well-written, and easy to follow. Another high point of the book is the inclusion of a section dealing with "Heritage of the Ancient Near East." This section, Part V. brings together some of the most interesting chapters in the book. Here we find essays on "The Invention of the Individual," "Ethnicity," "Public versus Private in tbe Ancient Near East," "Democracy and Freedom," "Monotheism and Ancient Israelite Religion," and "The Decipherment of the Ancient Near East." These chapters attempt to demonstrate the relevance of many of the cultural developments of the ancient Near East to the modern Western world. The authors make bold statements on very controversial subjects, and while many will disagree with their approaches, assumptions, and conclusions, the fact that an attempt was made should he commended. The excellent quality of most of the essays that make up the Companion, however, is not enough to deliver the comprehensive overview tbat the cover promises. The lack of thematic and chronological unity and tbe haphazard organization of the book are largely to blame for this. The reader interested in a general synopsis of the ancient Near East would profit more fi"om hetter-organized, more complete overviews such as Jack Sasson's Civilizations of the Ancient Near East or Michael Roaf's Cultural Atiûs, to name but two. Tbe major strength of A Companion to the Ancient Near East lies in the fact tbat the individual chapters are written by leading scholars in the field. These essays offer well-documented, stimulating introductions to a wide range of subjects in Near Eastern studies. The authors make arcane subjects accessible to the general reader and provide scholars in related fields compelling, refreshingly outspoken synopses of very complex issues.
Gabriel H. Pizzomo University of Pennsylvania
American Schools of Oriental Research
2009 ANNUAL MEETING
November 18-21 Astor Crowne Plaza
NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA For more information: http : //www. asor. org/
112
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72;2 (2009)
