In the Midst of the Jordan: The Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE). Archaeological and Historical Correlates

AREN M. MAEIR “IN THE MIDST OF THE JORDAN” ÖSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN DENKSCHRIFTEN DER GESAMTAKA...

Author: Maeir | A. M.

263 downloads 825 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

AREN M. MAEIR “IN THE MIDST OF THE JORDAN”

ÖSTERREICHISCHE

AKADEMIE

DER

WISSENSCHAFTEN

DENKSCHRIFTEN DER GESAMTAKADEMIE, BAND LXIV

Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Manfred Bietak and Hermann Hunger

Volume XXVI

ÖSTERREICHISCHE

AKADEMIE

DER

WISSENSCHAFTEN

DENKSCHRIFTEN DER GESAMTAKADEMIE, BAND LXIV

AREN M. MAEIR

“IN THE MIDST OF THE JORDAN” THE JORDAN VALLEY DURING THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE (CIRCA 2000–1500 BCE) Archaeological and Historical Correlates

With a contribution by E.S. Marcus

Vorgelegt von w. M. MANFRED BIETAK in der Sitzung am 12. Dezember 2008

Spezialforschungsbereich SCIEM 2000 „Die Synchronisierung der Hochkulturen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.“ der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften beim Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Special Research Programme SCIEM 2000 “The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.” of the Austrian Academy of Sciences at the Austrian Science Fund

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data. A Catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library.

Die verwendete Papiersorte ist aus chlorfrei gebleichtem Zellstoff hergestellt, frei von säurebildenden Bestandteilen und alterungsbeständig.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten ISBN: 978-3-7001-6602-3 Copyright © 2010 by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien Grafik, Satz, Layout: Angela Schwab Druck: Paul Gerin GmbH & Co KG, A-2120 Wolkersdorf http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/6602-3 http://verlag.oeaw.ac.at Printed and bound in the EU

CONTENTS

Preface by the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Preface

................................................................................

9

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Chapter 2: Regional Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Chapter 3: Description of Major Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

Chapter 4: Aspects of Material Culture, Trade, and Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

Chapter 5: Settlement Patterns and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

131

Appendix A: List of Sites in the Jordan Valley with Middle Bronze Age Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

179

Appendix B: Radiometric Dates from the Middle Bronze Age Jordan Valley – by Ezra S. Marcus . . . . . . . .

243

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

253

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

297

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

299

PREFACE BY THE EDITOR

This study by Aren Maeir fills a long desideratum within the SCIEM 2000 research programme – to tie together the evidence from different sites after many years of excavations and research in this region. It also serves as a companion to the joint study of Peter Fischer, Stephen Burke and Gerrit van der Kooij on the Chronology of the Jordan Valley in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.1 Aren Maeir’s study on the development and chronology of the Middle Bronze Age in the Jordan Valley is based on his dissertation on the central Jordan valley, which with the present volume have now been extended to cover the entire Jordan valley. Differing from previous studies, a fascinating picture on the spread and re-urbanisation of inner Canaan emerges. It appears that Susan Cohen’s2 suggested model for a commencement along the coast and spreading inland, does not sufficiently to explain the cultural development of the Middle Bronze Age Culture. It is evident that in the Jordan Valley there was no delay in the cultural colonization, and sites as Tel Dan/Tell el-Qadi (Laish) and Pella show that the spread of the early Middle Bronze culture most likely derived from inner Syria, reaching the northern and central parts of the Jordan Valley in an early stage of the Middle Bronze Age. The study also adds to our perception of the political development of the Jordan Valley. From an early stage of this period, Dan/Laish and Pella were the most important towns, including some of the earliest known fortifications in the Levant. From the early MB II onwards Hazor and Pella dominated the entire region and most likely, two large polities were created, which led to a scenario that no important towns could develop near those sites. In MB III, however, one sees the appearance of medium to large fortified towns such as at Tel Kinrot in the north and Tell Abu el-Kharaz and Tell Deir cAlla in the central part. Significant is also the

strong fortification of existing places such as Jericho, Tell Nimrin and Tell el-Hammam. It is the question if all those sites, except Tell Kinrot, were dependent on Pella or if they represent emerging independent centres. There are also indications that the land use in MB III was more intense than ever and that many new settlements were developed. Still obscure is the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the transition to the Late Bronze Age. Seeing Egyptian military involvement as the main reason for the end of the MB in the Jordan Valley is not a convincing explanation anymore. Different agents must have been at work. The impressive fortifications do demonstrate that there was an increased awareness of new threats and security risks. It becomes more and more clear that the transition took place only some time after the beginning of the New Kingdom and that the transition may vary regionally. Some sites are abandoned, others terminated by destruction, and others destroyed and subsequently resettled, while others display a smooth transition. The site of Hazor plays a key role in the discussion of the chronology of the Middle Bronze, as this site links the world of the Middle Bronze Age in Canaan with Mesopotamia and Egypt alike. The connection with Egypt can be established through comparisons of pottery types appearing in Hazor and Tell el-Dabca. The connection with Mesopotamia is evident from the Mari correspondence, where Hazor is mentioned repeatedly, and from the cuneiform tablets from Hazor which are connected to Mari – unfortunately in secondary contexts. Amnon BenTor presented this evidence in 2004.3 He argued that only “Greater Hazor”, which he dates from MB II onwards, after the completion of the most important construction works, could have been the focus of the Mari letters. There is some room for a debate of this point, as Aren Maeir discusses in the present volume,

1

2

P.M. FISCHER (ed.), The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu el-Kharas and Tell Deir cAlla, with contributions by Stephen Burke, Rachael Sparks and Maria Schroder for Pella, Peter M. Fischer for Tell Abu el-Kharas and Gerrit van der Kooij for Tell Deir cAlla, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 12, Vienna 2006.

3

S.L. COHEN, Canaanites, Chronologies and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze Age IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt, Winona Lake 2002. A. BEN-TOR, A. Hazor and Chronology, Ägypten & Levante 14 (2004), 45–67.

8

Preface by the Editor

but the difference of the positions is only within a limit of 20–30 years. Of particular importance is the contribution of Ezra S. Marcus in Appendix B on the radiocarbon determinations. There he discusses the available shortlived samples from the Middle Bronze Age Jordan Valley. He shows that the results from the earliest phase are more or less the same as those of the same phase at coastal sites, repeating the conclusions obtained by Aren Maeir. The beginning of this culture in Canaan in the littoral and in the Jordan Valley can be assessed at approximately from 1920 BC onwards in both areas. This would fit very well with the archaeological/historical date of the earliest imports of the Middle Bronze Age Culture to Egypt.4 The later phases of the MB need more samples. We also need more samples from the end of the Middle Bronze Age which according to results from Jericho date to the second half to the end of the 16th century BC.

4

M. BIETAK, Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age: Comments on the Present Stage of Research, 30–42 in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MB II A Ceramic Materials in Vienna 24th–26th of January 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna 2002. IDEM, Towards a Middle Bronze Age Chronol-

I hope that this study by Aren Maeir will be wellreceived in the international community of scholars on the archaeology of the Ancient Near East, and that similar studies will soon fill the gaps regarding the coastal Middle Bronze Age, in the south, in the central and the northern parts of the Levant. Finally I would like to thank the Fonds zur Förderung wissenschaftlicher Forschung for financing the research programme of SCIEM 2000 in such an exemplary way. My thanks go also to the Austrian Academy of Sciences who took a respectable share in funding of and in providing the infrastructure for this research programme and gave us all support they could.

Manfred Bietak First Speaker of SCIEM 2000

ogy, 121–146 in: P. MATTHIAE et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the International Colloquium From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine, Rome 29th November–1st December 2001, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome 2007.

PREFACE

This volume is an outgrowth of years of research that have been conducted in the Jordan valley, by numerous scholars in the past and in the present, including the present author. The idea to write this book came from Prof. Manfred Bietak, who suggested that I expand the regional study on the Middle Bronze Age (MB) of the Central Jordan Valley (MAEIR 1997a), into a general survey on the entire Jordan Valley during the MB, a work that would fit in with other regional and topical studies carried out under the aegis of the SCIEM 2000 project. Over the last two decades I have had the fortune to deal extensively with various issues related to both the MB period and the Jordan Valley. This work commenced with my participation in the excavations at Tel Beth Shean (directed by A. MAZAR [2006a; MAZAR & MULLINS 2007a]); subsequently, I was graciously given the responsibility (by A. Mazar) to publish the MB pottery from the excavations (MAEIR 2007b). This was soon followed with a decision to conduct a regional study of the Central Jordan Valley (MAEIR 1997a; my doctoral dissertation at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem), which included the analysis of the MB finds from Tel Beth Shean, a regional survey, and an extensive program of pottery provenience (published now in MAEIR & YELLIN 2007). In addition, over the years, I have had the opportunity to publish studies that are directly or indirectly related to the MB in the Jordan Valley, and in this volume I have attempted to bring together, as well as expand and update, various previously published aspects (e.g., MAEIR 1997b; 2000a; 2000b; 2000c; 2002a; 2002b; 2003a; 2003b; 2007a; MAEIR & GARFINKEL 1989; MAEIR & MULLINS in press). One should keep in mind that since these earlier studies were published, a large volume of material has appeared, both in the form of excavation reports (e.g., MARCHETTI & NIGRO 1998; 2000; FALCONER & FALL 2006; FISCHER 2006e; MAZAR & MULLINS 2007a), and numerous investigations on sundry issues (e.g., STEPANSKY 1999; GREENBERG 2002; FISCHER 2006b). Thus, I have tried to combine earlier research along with more recent work by other scholars and by myself, to produce a comprehensive as possible study of the entire Jordan Valley during the MB. It is my

hope that the result is a study which is as wide-ranging and updated as feasible. To a large extent, this book marks the end of a very interesting, and important, stage in my academic life; and while I have since moved on, and most of my current research relates to other topics (in particular, the Philistines and Sea Peoples and the excavations at Tell es-Safi/Gath), the study of the MB in the Jordan Valley will always be of central importance, and interest, to me. I would like to thank various people who have assisted in different ways in the preparation of this study: M. Bietak (for suggesting the volume and providing initial financial backing for the project); A. Mazar and J. Yellin (who were my dissertation advisors [MAEIR 1997a], which is the initial basis for this study, and have graciously guided and assisted me since the very beginning of this research); D. Cassuto, A. Dagan, S. Gur-Arieh, A. Perko, I. Shai, J. Uziel, staff members of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project (www.dig-gath.org), for assistance with various technical issues (large and small) relating to the volume; G. Avraham, L. Korniblat, and J. Rosenberg (for preparing the maps); A. and D. Ben-Tor, E. Boaretto, R. Bonfil, S. Bourke, , S. Collins, K. CovelloParan, P. Fischer, R. Greenberg, M. Iamoni, D. Ilan, , J. Kamlah, M. Luciani, A. Malamat (z”l), E.S. Marcus, I. Milevski, D. Morandi Bonacossi, R. Mullins, L. Nigro, A. Rainey, H. Sader, Y. Stepansky, and A. YasurLandau (for sharing unpublished information, providing offprints and publications, and discussing various issues). I would like to thank E.S. Marcus for agreeing to compile the list of 14C dates in Appendix B and discuss their significance. Needless to say, I take full and sole responsibility for all mistakes and omissions that appear throughout this study. Last but not least, I would like to gratefully, and lovingly, acknowledge the unquantifiable portions of love, caring, support, understanding, and fun, that I have been so fortunate to receive from my partner-inlife Adina, and our sons Noam, Uri and Netanel.

Aren Maeir Jerusalem/Ramat-Gan September 2010

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The Jordan Valley, from the Huleh Valley in the north, to the Dead Sea in the south, is one of most intensively settled and utilized regions in the Southern Levant (Fig. 1). In fact, this region can boast evidence for possibly the longest sequence of human activity outside the African continent. Commencing with sites dating to the Lower Palaeolithic Period (e.g., BAR-YOSEF & GOREN-INBAR 1993; GOREN-INBAR et al. 2002; 2004; 2006; MARTINEZ-NAVARRO, BELMAKER & BAR-YOSEF 2009), the available archaeological evidence points to a virtually continuous human occupation, up until modern times. This long-term sequence, which one might consider as “the ultimate longue durée”, should be seen in light of the unique geographical and environmental conditions in this region. The abundant water sources throughout most of the region, the varied (and for the most part, rich) bio-geographical environments, and the important local and international land transportation routes that traversed it – all combined to provide unique and ample conditions and justifications for extensive human activities over such a wide range of periods (see below as well, e.g., GREENBERG 1996: 18–27; MAEIR 1997a: 9–33). This situation is even more apparent when dealing with periods from which historical data are available. In these cases, the archaeological evidence of vibrant settlement, extensive agricultural utilization and economic activity, are complimented with the historical evidence of these, and additional, activities. Just such a situation exists in the region during the Middle Bronze Age. Throughout the entire Jordan Valley, starting from Dan in the north, through Hazor, Beth Shean, and Pella, and down to Jericho in the south, a wealth of sites are to be found, many of which are among the more significant and wellknown from this period. To a large extent, the extensive and intensive settlement activity in the region is but a reflection of the situation throughout the entire Ancient Near East during this period, an age of almost unmatched prosperity and growth. As discussed often in the past, an overriding factor behind these developments during the MB is the intensive inter-connections converging from the different portions/parts of the Ancient Near East (e.g., GERSTENBLITH 1983; DEVER 1987; ILAN 1995b; MAEIR 2000b). Another aspect which lies at the very basis of the study of this region is the “corridor-like” character of

the Jordan Valley. Due to its unique geographical setting (see Chapter 2), the Jordan Valley forms a welldefined passageway between Africa in the South, and Eurasia in the north. This corridor is manifested in many ways, such as: biogeographicaly – in which an extremely diverse range of biological species, representative of different ecological zones, meet in the Jordan Valley (see, e.g., TCHERNOV & YOM-TOV 1988); or human paleoecology (e.g. GOREN-INBAR & SPETH 2004: 2; SCHATNER & LAZAR 2009). Similarly, in the realm of inter-regional cultural connections, throughout history, one can find a meeting of elements more typical of cultures to the north and/or the south of the Jordan Valley within this region. As to the MB, the period under study, as will be discussed below, one can see that in the north, the city state of Hazor is firmly connected with the SyroMesopotamian cultural sphere (as opposed to most other cities in the Southern Levant), while sites such as Pella (in the Beth Shean Valley) and Jericho (near the southern end of the Jordan Valley) are more closely attached to the interaction spheres typical of most of the Southern Levant, with a strong emphasis on ties with Egypt. In many ways, the evidence both from, and pertaining to, the Jordan Valley is pivotal in this respect. One can hardly speak of the impressive political, economic and cultural achievements of this period in the Southern Levant, without taking into account the finds and evidence from Dan, Hazor, Beth Shean, Pella, Jericho and many other sites in the region. It is apparent that at least some of these sites fulfilled important roles during this period (not to mention that, archaeologically, they are relatively well known). For example, one only has to bear in mind the central role that the Kingdom of Hazor plays within the suggested reconstructions of the processes, connections and chronologies during the MB, to emphasize this point (e.g., MAEIR 2000b; A. BEN-TOR 2004a). Nevertheless, when one examines the developmental sequence of the MB, it is explicitly apparent that most of the sites in the Jordan Valley became leading “players” in this impressive cultural arena at a relatively late stage. This can be contrasted to the situation in the Southern Levantine littoral (at sites such as Ashkelon, Aphek, Kabri, etc.) and the Jezreel Valley (such as at Megiddo), where already during the early stages of the MB I, there are various types of

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

Fig. 1 Map of the general geographic features of the Jordan Valley with MB sites


sites, many of which played active roles in the interregional and international web of connections (e.g. MARCUS 1998). In this monograph, I will attempt to present and summarize the evidence relating to the MB throughout the Jordan Valley, discuss major trends that can be observed in the Jordan Valley during this period, point to several questions that arise from this evidence, and suggest an overall explanation for the processes observed and their significance to the study of this period in general. The Jordan Valley has been the subject of an extensive range of various types of research in the past. Among these studies several have provided general overviews of the region (or parts of the region) from geographical points of view (e.g., KARMON [1956]; BEN-ARIEH [1968]; NIR [1989]; HOROWITZ [2001]). Other studies have focused on various historical or archaeological aspects (e.g., MAEIR 1997a; SHAKED 1998; GREENBERG 2002; ZUCKERMAN 2003; BENYOSEF 2007; FALCONER & FALL 2009; IBRAHIM 2009; KAPTIJN 2009). In fact, save for GLUECK’s (1968), rather outdated study, and HOROWITZ’s (2001) more recent book, which covers only Prehistoric (and earlier) periods, there have been no attempts to produce a broad synthesis of the entire region, not from a broad historical perspective and not as pertaining to a specific period.1 As to the period which is the focus of the present study, the MB, there has been a relatively large amount of research, but again, only on a somewhat limited basis. Several studies have dealt with parts of the region during the MB (e.g., GREENBERG 1996; 2002; MAEIR 1997a; 2000b; 2002a; FISCHER 2006b). Others have concentrated on specific sites or their immediate vicinity during this period (e.g., FALCONER 1987; FALCONER & FALL 2006; 2009; ILAN 1996; A. BENTOR 2004; FISCHER 2006b; 2006e; BOURKE et al. 2006). However, there have been no studies which have attempted to view the entire Jordan Valley during this period, endeavoring to integrate the large amounts of data into a clear holistic view. This is the primary objective of the present study. Clearly, one of the more difficult aspects of a regional study is the de facto definition of the geographical limits of such a study. Although the very fact that one limits a study to a specific geographical area can be critiqued, as it would supposedly restrict

1

13

the scope of study, it is necessary on the one hand, in order to be able to deal comprehensively with large data sets, and on the other hand, to be able to place this information and its analyses within a large, more global focus. As such, it is necessary to define the limits of the study. From a geographic, spatial point of view, we have limited the study to the actual Jordan Valley and the slopes immediately adjacent to it on both sides of the valley. In the north, the border of the study has been drawn along the lines of the northern border of the modern-day State of Israel (from west to east, just to the north of the sites of Tel Dan and Tel >Abel-Mehola); in the south, the northern shores of the Dead Sea define the southern limits of the region. As far as the temporal framework, needless to say, the focus is on the MB period. Although, as will be discussed below, the exact dating of this period is a point of some controversy (and the finds from the Jordan Valley contribute to this discussion), in general the chronological framework is defined by the cultural phenomena that occur during the period and their relationship to other regions. Thus, while focusing on the MB we will relate as well, in a limited fashion, to the preceding and subsequent periods. Since the chronological nomenclature is not agreed on by all, it is important to note the periodization used in this study. I have followed, for the most part, the chronological nomenclature as suggested by STERN 1993, using the terms: EB IV, MB I–III, and LB. For the MB I, I have chosen to divide the period under discussion into three stages, early MB I, late MB I and transitional MB I/II (see Fig. 38 [Chapter 4]). Although a more elaborate division of the MB I is currently in vogue, primarily in light of the stratigraphic evidence from Aphek (e.g., BECK 1975; 1985; 2000; KOCHAVI 2000), the lack of sufficient comparative data from stratified deposits in the Jordan Valley (and in fact, from most of the Southern Levant), seems to warrant the use of a less “fine-tuned” division (following, e.g. GERSTENBLITH 1983; contra, e.g., FALCONER & MAGNESSGARDINER 1984; GARFINKEL & BONFIL 1990: 145; MARCUS 1998; COHEN 2002). It should be noted that although in previous studies dealing MB chronology, I have supported, and argued for, the “Middle Chronology”, I believe that in recent years strong arguments in favour of the “Low Chronology” have been brought forward. Thus, I would concur with a substantial low-

See WATZMAN 2007 for a popular study of diverse aspects of the Jordan Valley, from the Red Sea in the south, to the Hermon Mountains in the north.

14


ering of the chronology, as suggested for quite some time by BIETAK (e.g. 1991), although perhaps slightly revised, as suggested by WEINSTEIN (e.g. 1996). I am still not convinced that the “Ultra-Low Chronology” as suggested by GASCHE et al. (1998) is warranted, despite the quite forceful argumentation presented somewhat recently in A. BEN-TOR’S (2004a), appraisal of the relevant material from MB II Hazor. Nevertheless, clearly, the last word has not been said (see further discussion, below, Chapter 5).

Finally, one might add that this study can be seen as a trip down the Jordan River (paraphrasing Joshua 4:10 – “in the midst of the Jordan”), from its sources near Tel Dan in the north, until it empties into the Dead Sea in the south. Although this study focuses on a specific period, to a large extent I feel like “Captain” MacGregor and his well-known trip down the Jordan River, in the canoe “Rob Roy” (MACGREGOR 1869), passing through different landscapes and environments of a long-gone period.

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL INTRODUCTION

The region that is studied in this volume, the Jordan Valley, is a relatively easily defined geographical feature – it is the valley that surrounds the principal river running along the entire length of the region, i.e. the Jordan River (Fig. 1). Although it can be argued that the study of such a region is a modern, culturally-derived construct, nevertheless, the straightforward definition of this region, based on various criteria (geographical, ecological, transportation, etc.), appears to warrant its study as a separate unit; and as such, the study of a certain period, the MB.2 WILKINSON (2003: 210–214) has recently discussed the significant divergence between various “landscape configurations” in the Ancient Near East, and in particular, between rain-fed and irrigation based agricultural zones. As most of the temperate ecological/agricultural zones in the Southern Levant are rainfall dependant, the Jordan Valley stands out as one of the few zones in the region with potential irrigation-based agriculture. A study of this specific zone may reveal interesting and explicitly culturally-oriented differences in comparison to other ecological/agricultural zones in the Southern Levant. The Jordan Valley is but a small section of the colossal Syrian-East African rift, one of the largest geological rifts in the Earth’s crust (e.g. MART et al. 2005). Reaching from the Amanus Mountains in Turkey and all the way to the East African lakes in the south, the entire rift has a length of more than 6,500 km. The section which is the focus of this study, which was formed approximately 4 million years ago (e.g., HEIMANN 1990; HOROWITZ 2001), reaches a length of approximately 175 km (from Metulla in the north, to the northern shore of the Dead Sea in the south). The geological structure (Figs. 2–3) of the Jordan Rift Valley (or sometimes termed the “Dead Sea

Transform”) is usually seen as a graben that was depressed, and its shoulders which were uplifted, along a series of faults, as part of the long-term structural development of the region (e.g., HOROWITZ 2001: 71–74; BEN-AVRAHAM, GARFUNKEL & LAZAR 2008; but see other suggestions, such as SHRODER & INBAR 1995: 67). As such, there is extensive confirmation of ongoing seismic activity in the region (e.g., MARCO et al. 1996; HOROWITZ 2001: 86–88; HAMIEL et al. 2009), including historical evidence of catastrophic results (e.g., TSAFRIR & FOERSTER 1992; AMIRAN et al. 1994; ELLENBLUM 1998; MARCO et al. 2003; MARCO 2008; WECHSLER et al. 2009).3 Although at present there is no definite evidence for seismic activities and damage during the period under study (but see possible evidence at Pella and Jericho [below, Chapter 3]), due to the common appearance of earthquakes in this region, this should be considered as one of the factors effecting the development and/or decline of sites during this time frame. The Jordan Valley is traditionally divided into three parts: The Upper Jordan Valley, which includes the Huleh Valley, the Rosh Pinna Sill and the narrow Jordan Gorge; The Central Jordan Valley, which includes the Kinnarot Valley (the Sea of Galilee [Kinneret] and its immediate surroundings [including the Yarmuk Valley immediately to its south]), and the Beth Shean Valley; and finally, the Lower Jordan Valley, which extends to the northern shore of the Dead Sea (see Fig. 1).4 Although the region under study is hardly an expansive zone, and at its maximum is only several score km wide, it is an area of diverse geographic and environmental settings. Substantial changes in the geological and geomorphological settings, coupled with diverse ranges of climate, water and ecology, have turned this north-south oriented region into a zone with a very varied history of settlement. While the northernmost parts border an almost sub-alpine zone (the Hermon Massif), the southernmost reach-

2

4

Geographical Definition and Background

3

For recent overviews of the strengths and weaknesses of regional studies (and new directions of research), see, e.g., KANTNER 2008 and KOWALEWSKI 2008. See as well suggestions by NIGRO (2010a; 2010b) to identify archaeological evidence of earthquakes during the EB, at both Jericho and Khirbet al-Batrawi (and other sites in the vicinity of Jordan Valley).

The geographic description of the Jordan Valley in this chapter is based on various sources, with particular emphasis on the general surveys by SCHATTNER (1972: 176–173), ORNI & EFRAT (1980: 80–98), and HOROWITZ (2001).

16

Chapter 2: Regional Introduction

Fig. 2 Geological map of the Jordan Valley with MB sites

Geographical Definition and Background

Fig. 3 Geomorphological map of the Jordan Valley with MB sites

17

18


es are in a fully-fledged arid zone. Just about all environmental variations in between these two extremes are met in the Jordan Valley – from the temperate, through the semi-arid, to the arid. It is with these major fluctuations in mind that one must study the settlement history of this region. Not only do the environmental conditions change so dramatically over a rather short distance, producing zones of such stark differences, but due to the borderline character of the valley, the actual borders of the various environmental zones can change quite abruptly. Thus, it is clear that the wide variations of settlement types that are seen in the region during the MB, from the “mega-city” of Hazor (according to Ancient Near Eastern standards), to small scale villages/hamlets, alongside populations living nomadic lifestyles, must be seen through the lens of the environmental conditions. This is not to say that environmental conditions do not affect other regions, areas and cultures, but rather, the drastic changes exhibited throughout the region under study, enable one to see the clear cut effect that these conditions foster. In order to more fully understand and appreciate the environmental differences noted above, a brief introduction to the various geographical and environmental zones within the Jordan Valley is presented below. The Upper Jordan Valley As mentioned above, the Upper Jordan Valley is divided into two areas: the Huleh Basis, and the Korazim Plateau (with the Jordan Gorge to its east). These two areas are quite different from the other areas from a geographical and environmental point of view, and, as mentioned, the different settlement history of these respective areas throughout history, including during the MB, mirrors this. The Huleh Basin (see, e.g., GREENBERG 2002: 11–23) The boundaries of this area are quite straightforward, being almost completely demarcated by the surrounding mountainous areas. Starting from the west, it is bordered by the limestone slopes of the Naftali Range which rises quite abruptly more than 800 m above the valley bottom; On the north eastern side there is the Herman Massif, comprised of Jurassic sedimentary rock formations, while to the east one has the Upper Golan Plateau and the “Cover Basalt”. In the north, it is defined by the Metulla Hills (SNEH & WEINBERGER 2003), while to the south (see now HEIMANN et al. 2009) it is bordered by the Rosh Pinna Sill, which is at a higher altitude than the Huleh Valley (see below). Geological (HEIMANN 1985), palyno-

logical, and other bioarchaeological studies (e.g., HOROWITZ 1971; BOTTEMA & VAN ZEIST 1981; MEADOWS 2005; VAN ZEIST, BARUCH & BOTTEMA 2009) have clearly shown that the predominant topographic, hydrological and ecological conditions that existed in the Huleh until the mid-20th century (with permanent swampy zones) have been in place throughout the entire Holocene. As GREENBERG (2002) has aptly demonstrated, these conditions, and their effect on human settlement, so well-documented in recent times, should be taken into account in the reconstruction of ancient settlement patterns. Settlement and subsistence activities have always been under severe constraints in the Huleh Valley. Due to the existing, overall swampy conditions since Prehistoric times, settlement sites can be situated only on the periphery of the region (e.g., Dan, Abel Beth Ma>acha, Qiryat Shemona, Hazor, etc.), or on localized topographically-raised locations (e.g. Tel Na>ama). Most of the central parts of the Huleh Valley could not be settled due to the swampy conditions. It can be assumed that this had an effect not only on the actual location of the sites, but on other factors as well. Thus, for example, health related issues may have played an important role (e.g., Malaria and other swamp-related sicknesses). From an agricultural point of view, much of the area could not be used for the agricultural spheres common in the Southern Levant – undoubtedly requiring dependency on agricultural resources that were at geographically more distanced locations. Nevertheless, the margins of the Huleh Valley, beyond the limits of the swampy zone, were zones with high quality soils, and for the most part, sufficient water sources, with topographically advantageous positions. These peripheral zones, provided the necessary infrastructure for both settlement and sundry agricultural activities, and it is here that evidence of settlement and other activities are seen, including during the MB. The Korazim Plateau and the Jordan Gorge The Korazim Plateau is located immediately to the south of the Huleh Valley, and is in fact the source of the swampy nature of the Huleh Valley. The plateau is bordered on the north by the Huleh Valley, and on the south by the Kinnarot Valley (and the Sea of Galilee). On the west it is defined by the Hazor Foothills, which slope eastward from the Eocene and Senonian limestones of the Safed Block. The eastern limits of the plateau are conveniently defined by the foothills of the Golan Heights, which begin to rise just to the east of the Jordan Gorge.

The Kinnarot Valley

The plateau consists, in its northern part, of MidPleistocene sedimentary rocks (some of which represent the ancient shore of the “Paleo-Huleh Lake” on which important Hominin remains have been found at the site of Gesher Benot Ya>aqov [e.g., GOREN-INBAR et al. 2002; 2004; 2006; ALPERSON-AFIL et al. 2009]) which were elevated due to tectonic activity (BELITZKY 2002). These Pleistocene sedimentary levels were covered by the “Yarda Basalt” lava flow, dating to ca. 0.6 million years ago (HOROWITZ et al. 1973). The southern part of the plateau consists of a large exposure of the much earlier “Cover Basalt”, which is also partially covered by the “Yarda Basalt” (HEIMANN 1990). The predominance of basalt outcrops and basalt derived soils had a profound effect on the development of human settlement throughout the ages on the Korazim Plateau. The hard and irregular basalt, as well as topographic limitations, made the formation of settlements in this region somewhat difficult, and agricultural activities were also limited. Thus, in almost all periods, there are few settlements on the plateau (for a recent summary of the long-term settlement history of this region, see STEPANSKY 2008a). During the MB, this area is almost completely devoid of settlements. In fact, the only major site in the region, Tel Kinrot, which is settled at the very end of the MB, is located on an outcrop of sedimentary rock on the south-western side of the Korazim Plateau. There is, though, extensive evidence of burials in this zone, in particular, megalithic style burials (mostly dolmens), in most cases the local basalt being utilized as the building material for these tombs (STEPANSKY 2005a; 2008a: 276). As mentioned above, the Korazim Plateau blocked the flow of water from the Huleh Valley, originally forming the paleo-Huleh Lake. In more recent geological periods, the Jordan River channelled through the Korazim Plateau, towards the Sea of Galilee. The Jordan River cuts through the plateau, to form a very narrow and deep gorge (at times up to 100 m deep), making an abrupt ascent toward to the south (ca. 280 m over a distance of 13 km). The gorge is a formidable barrier, and all transportation routes skirt around it. The Kinnarot Valley The Kinnarot Valley includes the Sea of Galilee and its shores, the Bethsaida Valley on its north-eastern side, the Ginnosar Valley on its north-western side, and the Jordan-Yarmuk plain to the south. The Kinnarot Valley is quite easily defined by the elevated zones surrounding it: the Korazim Plateau in the north; the rapidly rising cliffs of the Golan Heights to

19

the east; the western border is defined by the series of ridges to the west of the Sea of Galilee; and finally, its southern border is defined by the area in which the south-eastern side of the Yavne’el Hills descend into the Jordan Valley (at the Harod River), forming a relatively narrow pass within the Jordan Valley itself. The Kinnarot Valley is an area that is rich in water sources but not intensively settled in most early periods (in general, see FASSBECK et al. 2003). The very narrow shores of most of the Sea of Galilee limit the development of settlement along of the shores of the sea. The rather extensive fluctuation of the sea shore, evidenced geologically and in the historical and contemporary records (e.g. SHRODER & INBAR 1995: 88–89), may have seriously curtailed settlement potential around the lake, since, in most cases, the distance between the shore and the adjacent hills was not large. Presently, there are three regions in the Kinnarot Valley which have more extensive tracts of land. On the northwest there is the fertile Ginnosar Valley, which is covered in the rich alluvial soils deriving from the eastern Upper Galilee. On the northeastern side is the Bethsaida Valley, formed by long term fluvial, estuarine and lacustrine sedimentation. This area, though, is extensively water-logged. Due to this latter problem, there is not much settlement in the Bethsaida Valley, save for a limited amount of sites. In addition, it has been suggested that the present extent of the plain only appeared in the last 2000 years or so, so that this was not an area of potential settlement during the MB (in general, see SHRODER & INBAR 1995). To the south of the Sea of Galilee is the JordanYarmuk Plain formed between the Yavne’el Ridge on the west and the Southern Golan Heights and the Northern Gilead Mountains on the east (see BENARIEH 1968). Two rivers cross this plain, the Jordan River emerging from the southern outlet of the Sea of Galilee near Kh. Kerak (Tel Beth Yerah), and the Yarmuk River flowing out from a gorge between the basaltic Southern Golan Heights and the northern slopes of the Gilead Mountains. Although both rivers carry large amounts of water, due to the fact that their respective river beds have cut deeply into the surrounding plain, the actual access to their waters was quite difficult, prior to the invention of modern pumping machines. The Jordan-Yarmuk plain is predominantly covered by lissan marl soils, which are not conducive to extensive agriculture without the use of supplementary fertilizing. The lack of expansive, wide shores around most of the Sea of Galilee, along with the unfavourable soil

20


and hydrology in other parts, seems to have limited settlement in all periods. Although during the EB a major site was founded at Beth Yerah on the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee, this site was abandoned at the end of the 3rd millennium B.C.E., and no major site was founded in the Kinnarot Valley during the MB; medium-sized sites though appear towards the end of the MB and the beginning of the LB (see ZWICKEL 2003). The Beth Shean Valley The Beth Shean Valley is a clear geographic unit that has been closely studied by NIR (1989a; see now MEILER et al. 2008 for the seismic background of the Beth Shean Valley). It is situated on both sides of the Jordan River, from the vicinity of Gesher in the north, to Wadi Malih in the south, and from the foot of the Gilboa Mountains and the Harod Valley in the west, to the foot of the Hills of Gilead to the east. As opposed to the modern political situation, it appears that one should not differentiate geographically between the western and eastern sides of the Beth Shean Valley, on the two respective sides of the Jordan River. For an environmental and physical-geographic perspective, these two sides are closely connected. The Jordan River at this point (and for that matter along its entire length), was quite often not a true geographical and political border (see, e.g., SMITH 1966: 316–318; on the general history of the Jordan River, see NOTH 1956; GLUECK 1968).5 The numerous crossing-points (whether full-fledged bridges or the numerous wading points) along the entire stretch of the river throughout the Beth Shean Valley can demonstrate this point (Fig. 11). In the relevant map of the Survey of Western Palestine (CONDER & KITCHENER 1882: sheet IX) some forty crossings (Makhdat in Arabic, Ma>aborot in Hebrew; NOTH 1956: 135–136) are marked along the course of the Jordan River (with more than twenty in the Beth Shean Valley alone). Although the Jordan River has served in the past, as well as in the present, as a political boundary (for the Roman-Byzantine periods, see NIR 1989a: 82, fig. h2), it is not a full-fledged geographical one. Clear regional similarities exist between the western and eastern sides of the Beth Shean Valley, warranting their discussion as one unit. The border between the Beth Shean Valley and the Harod Valley is usually defined based on the change in soil between the two, seen on the north-

5

south line between the modern settlements of Sedeh Nachum and Nir David. Although, as posited in an earlier study (MAEIR 1997a), one can study the Beth Shean and Harod Valleys as one contiguous zone, since the present study is limited to the Jordan Valley, the Harod Valley is not included. To the north-west of the Central Jordan Valley, from the western shores of the Sea of Galilee in the north, till the southern edge of the Issachar Hills (to the north of the Harod Valley and Beth Shean itself) in the south, is a hilly region (the Poriah, Yavne’el and Issachar Hills) that is comprised mainly of relatively young volcanic formations (Neogene/ Quarternary) with the rare appearance of older volcanic formations. Along with them appear Neogene sedimentary formations, seen in the valleys between the hills in this region, the same valleys that lead out into the Central Jordan Valley (such as N. Harod and N. Issachar). To the south of this region one enters the Harod Valley, which is comprised primarily of recent alluvial depositions. To the south of the Harod Valley rise the Gilboa Mountains. These mountains are comprised mainly of Eocene sedimentary rocks, although at the northern part there is a limited appearance of Senonian, Turonian and Upper Cenomanian sedimentary formations as well. To the south-east of the Gilboa Mountains, the north-eastern hills of the eastern Samaria are comprised mainly of Cenomanian and Turonian sedimentary rocks. This block forms the south-west and southern borders of the Central Jordan Valley. Moving to the eastern side of the Central Jordan Valley, the situation is quite similar. On the northeast, the Central Jordan Valley is bordered by the Golan Heights. Although to the north of the immediate periphery of the Central Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights are comprised almost entirely of volcanic formations, in the portions of the Golan Heights that border the Central Jordan Valley there are additional formations. Along the lower slopes of the heights there are Eocene and Neogene sedimentary formations as well. South of the Golan Heights, the region to the south of the Yarmuk (the Gilead Mountains) is comprised of formations that are very similar to those encountered in the Gilboa Mountains, namely Eocene, Senonian and Cenomanian sedimentary formations. Noteworthy is the outcropping of volcanic

For a survey of modern Jewish-Arab border relations in the Jordan Valley, see, e.g., HAVERLOCK 2010.

The Beth Shean Valley

21

Fig. 4 Schematic section of the Central/Lower Jordan Valley

rock in the north-western side of the Gilead region, a continuation of the volcanic formations seen in the adjacent regions. A clear-cut topographical border between the Central Jordan Valley and the surrounding regions mentioned above, are the fault lines that run along the entire length of the Central Jordan Valley, from north to south, on both sides of the valley. Only on the border between the Harod Valley and the Issachar Hills is there a gradual topographical transition between the regions (despite the geological and pedological change). Along the entire length of the Jordan Valley one can note two primary morphological units: the wide, and essentially flat, valley bottom, extending to the east and west towards the hilly regions, which is known as the Ghor. It should be noted that in the traditional Arabic terminology (BUHL 1977), the Ghor includes the entire valley, save for the actual area in which the Jordan flows; thus in some sources (see above) the Harod Valley is considered part of the Ghor as well. In this study, the term is applied only to the portion of the valley along the Jordan River itself, between the lower terrace and the hilly regions surrounding it (see SCHATTNER 1961). The width of the Ghor depends mainly on the position of these hills. In the immediate vicinity of the Jordan River, cutting into the Ghor, is the lower terrace, the Zor (see Fig. 4), the second morphological unit. It is on the Ghor that the majority of the sites are situated since the lower terrace is regularly flooded (NIR & BEN-ARIEH 1964 report relics of an intermediate terrace between the Ghor and the Zor). At certain points, the Central Jordan Valley extends beyond these two elements. In the Beth Shean Valley, there is an additional terrace. This terrace is very prominent on the western side of the Beth Shean Valley, but is seen as well on the eastern side, in the region of Pella. The terrace is formed from Tufa depositions from the highly salinated springs in the region. On the western side of the Central Jordan Valley, the border between this upper ter-

race and the middle (Ghor) terrace forms a topographically distinct terrace. It can be seen today for example on the eastern limits of the city of Beth Shean. To the west of the Beth Shean Valley one enters the Harod Valley. The Harod Valley serves as a channel for the waters running to the east of the central Cisjordanian watershed. The Harod Valley is comprised almost completely of Quarternary/Recent alluvial and colluvial depositions which emanate from the surrounding hills. For the most part these are “Mediterranean” in nature. One of the most prevalent elements in the Central Jordan Valley is the Lissan Marls, which are lacustrine depositions of the extinct Lissan Lake (NEEV & EMERY 1967; BEGIN et al. 1974; GOLDBERG 1995: 42–45). This formation is seen along the entire length of the Jordan Valley, and forms a major part of the Ghor. It is these deposits into which the lower terrace (the Zor) cuts, in many cases exposing earlier elements (mainly Pleistocene gravel layers). In the Kinnarot Valley, the Lissan deposits form the major part of the JordanYarmuk triangle. As one moves southwards, the Lissan is limited between the Jordan and the Zor in the center, and the hills to the east and west on the periphery. Above the Lissan Marl deposits one primarily finds more recent alluvial/colluvial deposits, save for a limited appearance of other geological elements (such as small volcanic outcrops, the sedimentary rocks of the surrounding hills, etc.). On the whole though, the recent elements are dominant. An interesting formation mentioned above is the lime Tufa (“travertine”) which forms the upper terrace in the Beth Shean Valley. The water sources on the upper Beth Shean Valley terrace contain a high percentage of lime. This is slowly deposited in the area to the west of these springs, forming a thick layer of Tufa, which in many cases overlays the Lissan marl layers. Although known mainly from the western side of the Beth Shean Valley, similar formations have been reported on the eastern side as well, in the vicin-

22


ity of Pella (NIR 1989a: 51; MACUMBER 1992). The Tufa deposits were sometimes utilized as building material in the earlier periods. This is seen quite often in the MB, LB, and Iron Age strata at Beth Shean. Various pluvial deposits are found in the Central Jordan Valley, deposited from the various riverine processes (recent or ancient) in the region. At the exits of the various wadis into the Central Jordan Valley, there are alluvial fans of lower Pleistocene and later date. Much rarer are various outcrops of other geological forms, mainly appearing on the periphery of the region (related to the formations of the surrounding areas described above). In several instances there are outcrops of basalt, of various ages. Examples of this are: in the vicinity of Tel Ubeidiyeh, at the western edge of the Golan Heights, in the region of the Naharayim Dam, along the western and southern limits of the Issachar Hills, in the vicinity of Kibbutz Gesher, near Tel Kitan, and at the north-eastern side of the Gilboa Mountains, near the site of Tel Magda. Likewise, areas with sedimentary formation (limestone and dolomite) are seen. This is noticeable along the periphery of the Central Jordan Valley, wherever it is bordered by appearances of these same formations (i.e. along the Gilead Mountains, near the Gilboa Mountains, etc.). One of these formations that is of particular importance are the chalk/gypsum deposits (part of the Pliocene age, Bira formation) found in the vicinity of Gesher (Malhamiyeh [=Manahamiya]) (SCHULMAN 1962: 30–53). These deposits were utilized in the MB and LB (and possibly later) as a source for gypsum used in the production of the local stone vessels, imitations of the contemporary Egyptian forms (BEN-DOR 1945; SPARKS 1996; BEVAN 2007: 108–110). These deposits have continued to be utilized in modern times for gypsum products, used, for example, in the construction industry (BEN-ARIEH 1965: 159; NIR 1989a: 162). In the Central Jordan Valley, there are two predominant types of soils, residual valley soils, and alluvial/colluvial soils which originate in the peripheral hilly regions. The most common type of residual soil in the region is Rendzina soils. These soils are formed on the Lissan marls or, where it appears, on the lime Tufa. They comprise over 65% of the soils of the Beth Shean Valley (NIR 1989a: 68) and appear along the entire length of the Central Jordan Valley, save for the Harod Valley. These soils, especially those related to the Lissan formation, are usually highly salinated. This is due to the salinity of the original Lissan Lake,

coupled with insufficient precipitation and high evaporation in the region which does not enable soil leaching (VAN ZEIST 1985: 200). These soils are not highly fertile and in many cases offer only marginal options for cultivation unless otherwise augmented. In addition to the Rendzina soils, there are several additional types of residual soils that are found in the region, though these other types are not as common. Terra Rosa soils are found mainly on the peripheries of the Central Jordan Valley where there are outcrops of Limestone/Dolomite. Brownish-red basaltic soils are found as well in the region in the various (though limited) exposures of volcanic rock. These soils, though, represent only a small portion of the soils in the region. The second type of soils is the alluvial/colluvial soils. These soils are brought to the region from the surrounding hilly regions, whether from the immediate surroundings or from farther a field. Several areas of alluvium originating from volcanic rocks are seen, such as in the region of Neve-Ur. The more common of these soils are the alluvial/colluvial products of Terra Rosa and Rendzina which are found in the alluvial fans of the valleys along the Central Jordan Valley. Some of these soils are brought from the sedimentary rocks on the periphery of the Central Jordan Valley, while others are brought from sources further away in the hilly regions. These soils are usually highly fertile. The clear-cut difference between the soils of the Harod Valley and the soils of the Beth Shean Valley immediately to the east was mentioned above. The soils of the Harod Valley are Mediterranean brown alluvial soils in the center of the valley, and colluvial soils (washed down from the hills to the north and south) on its sides. As noted above, on the other hand, the Rendzina soils are common in the Beth Shean Valley. Finally, an additional group of soils, seen mainly in the Beth Shean Valley and the Harod Valley, are hydromorphic soils, remnants of swamps that existed in the region until the recent past. An interesting phenomenon that was noticed at several sites is a thick alluvial deposition covering these sites. This has been noted by GAL (1991b) regarding a site near T. Menorah [Tirat Zvi (olive grove)], and by COVELLO-PARAN (2001) at the recently excavated cemetery adjacent to T. Yosef Hayeshana. At both sites a 1–3 m. thick layer of alluvial soil covered the remains. A similar phenomenon has been noted in other parts of the Jordan Valley (although regarding later sites), by KARMON (1956: 56) in the

The Lower Jordan Valley

Huleh Valley, and by VITA-FINZI (1964: 28; 1966; 1969: 83–88) in the Lower Jordan Valley. One possibile explanation of this phenomenon is that it is due to an overall change in the alluvial conditions in the Jordan rift valley, apparently in postRoman times (VITA-FINZI & DIMBLEBY 1971). This would be concurrent with a general rise in the quantity of alluvial sedimentation in the post-Byzantine period, noticed in numerous parts of Israel (see, e.g., MILLER-ROSEN 1986: 69–74). This though would not explain the fill layers covering the site near T. Menorah, since the fill covering the MB site is overlaid by a late Iron Age I site (GAL 1979; 1991b). If one assumes that the heavy sedimentation is due to a rise in the precipitation in the period between the MB and the Iron Age I period, this would contradict the various paleo-climate studies of this region (BARUCH 1986; 1990; NEEV & EMERY 1967; MILLER-ROSEN 1986: 57–74; ISSAR et al. 1992; SCHILMAN et al. 2002; BAR-MATTHEWS et al. 2003; WILKINSON 2003: 147–150; ISSAR & ZOHAR 2004; NEUMANN et al. 2007; ROSEN 2007). Two additional possible explanations to this phenomenon can be suggested, though they have yet to be tested by a pedologist in the field. 1) During the LB, the irrigation/drainage system that may have existed in the region during the MB was not fully maintained, which caused the settling of sediments in this region (on the existence of irrigation in this region in the second millennium B.C.E., see discussion below). To this one can add the ongoing depletion of the forest covering (as indicated, for example, by BARUCH 1990) and improper agricultural land-use (or cessation of use) in the surrounding hilly regions. All this together may have caused increased erosion and fill producing processes (see in general, VITA FINZI 1969: 103–111; WILKINSON 2003: 145–150). Only during the subsequent Iron Age, when the Central Jordan Valley was once again intensively resettled and the proper irrigation of this region was resumed, were the alluvial fill layers reduced (note BROSHI & FINKELSTEIN’s [1992] conclusions regarding the enormous rise in settlement and population during the Iron age). In addition, once the mountainous regions were reutilized for settlement and agriculture during the Iron Age (e.g., GAL 1992; BRAEMER 1992) the runoff and the sedimentation in the valleys below diminished. This can be compared to the phenomenon that occurred in this region in the post-Byzantine periods. Due to the lack of maintenance/destruction of the drainage/irrigation system in the Beth Shean Valley soil degradation in the higher areas and extensive swamp lands in lower areas developed, which disappeared only in the

23

early 20th century C.E. (NIR 1989a: 59; see also, e.g., REIFENBERG 1950; WILKINSON 2003: 97; cf. BEAUMONT 1985). 2) An additional explanation for this heavy sedimentation could be that it is due to deforestation that occurred in the surrounding highlands during the MB, which is supported by BARUCH’s observations (1986; 1990: 284). In light of intense settlement in the region during the MB (see discussion below) extensive deforestation, due to a rise in wood consumption would have occurred, which would then bring-on problems of soil erosion (for a similar situation in MB Syria, see VAN ZEIST & WOLDRING 1980; MILLER-ROSEN 1986: 37; WILKINSON 2003: 146; VALSECCHI 2007). Regarding the covering over of archaeological remains, one can note as well that Roman-Byzantine sherds were found under the eastern edge of the lime Tufa terrace (NIR 1989a: 51). This perhaps hints that other sites in this region were also covered over by later soil deposits (as noted already by ZORI 1957a). Needless to say, this has serious implications for the detection and reconstruction of ancient sites and settlement pattern, and must be taken in mind regarding an evaluation of the completeness of the data in any regional surface survey (see recent comments in GAL 1991b; JOFFE 1993). Similar problems regarding the results of surface surveys have been reported for example by BUTZER (1982: 261–262; in general, see as well, e.g., FALCONER 1987a: 96–98; WATERS & KUEHN 1996). The Lower Jordan Valley To the south of the Beth Shean Valley begins the Lower Jordan Valley. To the south of the Wadi Malih on the west and the and Wadi Kurn on the east, the slopes of the northeastern Samaria Mountains and the Gilead Mountains reach almost to the Jordan River itself. From this point onwards, the Jordan Valley undergoes a major transformation from a geographical and environmental perspective. For almost the entire remainder of the Jordan River until the Dead Sea, the river meanders southwards within the Lissan Marl (which itself progressively thickens and widens towards the south) in increasingly more saline soils. From the Beth Shean Valley until the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley topographically drops quite substantially from north to south, from a height of 270 mbsl (meters below sea level) at the southern end of the Beth Shean Valley, to 390 mbsl at the northern shores of the Dead Sea. The valley widens at three points. First, 19 km to the south of the Beth Shean Valley, the valley widens

24


to form the Ghor Abu ‘Ubeidah/Succoth Valley (at times referred to as the “Zerqa triangle” – see, e.g., KAPTIJN 2009), at the point where the Wadi ez-Zarqa (Yabboq) enters from the east and Wadi Farah (Tirzah) enters from the west.6 Further south, past Mt. Sartaba (to the west of the valley), the valley once again widens at the Faza>el Valley, and finally, in the vicinity of Jericho, attains a width of ca. 32 km. These places in which the valley widens are located in direct relationship to the rivers that have the strongest discharge from the surrounding hilly regions. In the Lower Jordan Valley, the differentiation between the flat upper terrace (Ghor, or Sahel in Arabic, Kikar Hayarden in biblical Hebrew), seen already in the Central Jordan Valley, and the lower terrace, the Zor (Geon Hayarden in biblical Hebrew) is more defined. The Ghor, which is the remains of the Lissan Lake seabed, remains relatively flat and featureless, relatively undissected by the rivers from the surrounding mountains. For example, in the Central Jordan Valley, this is the region in which there existed the pedological and hydrological conditions that enabled intensive agriculture in many periods (see for example already during the early Chalcolithic period, GARFINKEL, BEN-SHLOMO & KUPERMAN 2009). As one nears the actual course of the Jordan River, on both sides of the river, the Ghor turns into a desiccated “badlands”. Deep gullies are formed in the Lisan marls, on the deep slopes leading towards the actual river bed. This zone, which is the transition between the Ghor and the Zor, is known as the “Katar”. The Katar, which is exposed to a thickness of ca. 50–70 m, reaches a width of between a couple of hundred m and up to ca. 2 km (Fig. 4). The Zor, the actual narrow alluvial valley of the Jordan River, is located at times several tens of meters below the Ghor. The Zor is usually approximately 25–30 m wide, save for overflowing during specific, though rather regular winter events. On both banks of the river there are interspaced sections of dense hydrophilic forests. The river course itself meanders intricately throughout its course (for example, the actual length of the river almost doubles the actual distance between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea). South of the Beth Shean Valley, the course of the Jordan River can be divided into three distinct parts:

To the north of Wadi Rujeib, the Jordan River is relatively straight lacking meanders. The western hilly region reaches almost directly to the Zor and the western Ghor is very limited in width. From Wadi Rujeib to Wadi Nimrin the course of the river is full of meanders. In this region the width of the Ghor ranges from ca. 600 m near Wadi Malha to ca. 2 km opposite Wadi ez-Zarqa. From Wadi Nimrin till the Dead Sea, the gradient of the river becomes more substantial, and as a consequence, the flow of the river itself. Due to this, once again, there are fewer meanders. Throughout most of the Lower Jordan Valley the soils are highly saline Lissan Marls, although in the areas in which the Lower Jordan Valley widens, there are sections with alluvial/colluvial soils derived from the sedimentary rocks and soils in the mountains to the west and east of the valley, that were deposited by the numerous river beds that run into the valley. The Lower Jordan Valley is quite different from the Beth Shean Valley from a climate point of view as well. If in the Beth Shean Valley there is a fluctuation between a semi-arid to arid zone (depending on the precipitation), the Lower Jordan Valley is a permanently arid zone, save for limited areas on the eastern side (the Succoth Valley), which are in the “shadow” of the Gilead mountains and have a slightly higher average annual precipitation. Nevertheless, despite the less advantageous environmental conditions, several locations in the Lower Jordan Valley were favorable to human settlement in various periods. In most cases, this is in regions were either there is ample water provided from the rivers that outflow from the surrounding mountains (such as the Succoth Valley and the Faza>el region), or, in a related manner, where abundant springs were located (such as at Jericho). On the western side of the Lower Jordan Valley the settlement is much less intense, limited to distinct pockets in the vicinity of perennial springs (such as Ain el-Sultan, Jericho),7 while in the east, in the shadow of the Transjordanian mountains (and subsequently, more precipitation), there is a more or less continuous zone of settlement. Nevertheless, as one goes farther to the south the region becomes more and more arid and the extent of human settlement in most periods is limited.

6

7

For a recent geographical overview of the western slopes of the “Manasseh Hills”, see ZERTAL 2007: 47–50. For a review of the “Zerqa triangle” region (the Succoth Valley), see now

KAPTIJN 2009: 13–18.

See now ISSAR 2008 on the role of the spring at Jericho as an enabler of the continued settlement at this site throughout the ages.

Environmental Background

ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND Traversing the entire length of the Jordan Valley, one in fact passes through almost the entire gamut of environmental surroundings seen in the Southern Levant, save for extreme desert conditions. This wide range of environmental conditions offers a multifaceted backdrop for the development of various types of settlement systems and subsistence regimes. This is true during the various periods in which there is evidence for human settlement in the region and is clearly seen during the MB. Thus, throughout the Jordan Valley there is evidence of just about every type of settlement pattern and subsistence regime that is known in the Southern Levant during this period, from the “MegaCity” (e.g. Hazor) to scanty evidence of nomadic and semi-nomadic groups (e.g., as evidenced in various burials, such as on the Korazim plateau). Likewise, the corridor-like nature of the Jordan Valley, both from a bio-environmental and human perspective, can be seen in all periods. In general, the Levant can be seen as a striking biological crossroads as it is located on the crossroads between Africa and Eurasia. As such, due to its unique structure, the Jordan Valley has served as a main artery for these intense longrange planes of biological and environmental interaction (see, e.g., TCHERNOV & YOM-TOV 1988). In light of the above, to appreciate this variety, a brief survey of the climate, hydrology and bio-ecology of the Jordan Valley is presented here. Climate and Precipitation (Figs. 5–6) The Jordan Valley has been the focus of a wide variety of Paleo-climatic studies which enable the clear reconstruction of the climate history of this region over the last several millennia. As such, studies relevant for reconstruction of the climate of the Jordan Valley in early times have been conducted throughout the region. This includes studies in the Huleh Valley and the Sea of Galilee (BARUCH 1986; 1990; VAN ZEIST, BARUCH & BOTTEMA 2009), several sites in the Central and Southern Jordan Valley (e.g., HOPF 1983; KRONFELD et al. 1988; WILLCOX 1992), and in the Dead Sea and its environs (NEEV & EMORY 1967; 1995; BEGIN et al. 1974; ABED 1985; BARUCH 1990; NISSENBAUM 1994; NEUMANN et al. 2010). If these studies are correlated with studies from relatively adjacent zones (e.g., SCHILMAN et al. 2002; BAR-MATTHEWS et al. 2003; ISSAR & ZOHAR 2004; FAUST & ASHKENAZY 2007; NEUMANN et al. 2007; RIEHL et al. 2008; RIEHL 2009; HAJAR, KHATER & CHEDDADI 2008; KANIEWSKI et al. 2008; DECKERS et al. 2009; HAJAR et al. 2010) one can reconstruct a relatively robust picture of the climate in the Jordan Valley during the various

25

early periods, including the Middle Bronze Age (VAN ZEIST 1985). All told, it appears that although there are substantial fluctuations between periods they are not overly extreme. There is some disagreement over the details of the climate during the MB. SCHILMAN et al. (2002) believe that the early second millennium B.C.E. can be defined as a relatively arid period (SCHILMAN et al. 2002; see as well VALSECCHI 2007 for a similar assessment) followed by a more humid period more or less parallel to the Late Bronze Age. On the other hand, MIGOWSKI et al. (2006) believe that although there was a severe dry period at the end of the third millennium B.C.E., during the first half of the second millennium (parallel to the MB) there is a higher level of precipitation which continued until ca. 3500 B.P. – more or less the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Despite these differences in interpretation, it does appear that the overall differences between the conditions during the MB were not extremely different from that of today. In any case, as will be seen below, there is quite impressive evidence of extensive and intensive agricultural activities during this period. As will be discussed below, I believe that the extensive settlement activity seen in this region during the MB is due to more complex reasons than the possible fluctuations of the overall climatic conditions. Precipitation in the region is quite varied, ranging from ca. 800 mm in the northern parts of the Jordan Valley to substantially less than 200 mm (arid conditions) in the southern parts. As in modern times, it can be assumed that the border between the arid and humid zones fluctuated substantially, with the 200 mm isohyet at times moving north or south significantly, in various years. In modern times, the border between the arid and humid zones was always situated somewhere in the Central Jordan Valley between the Kinnarot Valley in the north and the Beth-Shean Valley in the south. It can be safely said that in the regions to the south of the Beth-Shean Valley there were at all times arid conditions, and settlement and agriculture in the Southern Jordan Valley were totally dependent on the existence of water sources that enabled irrigation (such as at Jericho). If one looks at the distribution of the MB settlements in Fig. 5, one can see quite clearly a very nice match between the large amount of settlements within the 200 mm isohyet (north of Wadi ez-Zarqa), as opposed to the drastic drop in the number of settlements to the south, in the region of ca. 100–200 mm of rain. Hydrology Although the Jordan River, which is the perennial river system with the highest water output in the

26


Fig. 5 Precipitation map of the Jordan Valley with MB sites


entire Southern Levant, runs throughout the Jordan Valley, one cannot relate to the Jordan Valley as a region with abundant water sources and agricultural potential. This is due to several reasons: 1) To start with, throughout large portions of the Jordan Valley, the Jordan River itself flows in a topographical depression, which makes it somewhat difficult to utilize the waters for irrigation without the use of modern pumping methods. This is particularly so in the regions to the south of the Huleh Valley. 2) The Huleh Valley has extensive areas that are covered by swamps, a situation that existed in ancient times as well. Due to this, large portions of the Huleh Valley could not be utilized for agriculture, and at the same time, made the use of the water from the Jordan River in this area difficult. 3) As mentioned above, most of the Jordan Valley is in fact in a semi-arid to arid zone, in addition, the border between the temperate and arid zones fluctuated in an abrupt manner over the years, thus, there was little long-term security for rain fed agriculture in most of the Jordan Valley. 4) Although throughout the Jordan Valley there are rivers that bring in water from the hilly regions to the west and the east of the valley, most of these rivers are not perennial, and even those that are, are either situated in deep topographic depressions, or produce water quantities that are sufficient for a limited area. One of the few regions in the Jordan Valley which benefited extensively from such a river is the delta of Wadi Farah, west of the Jordan, and the Succoth Valley, to the east of the Jordan. 5) Throughout the Jordan Valley there are only a limited amount of perennial springs. In the more arid zones (south of the Beth Shean valley), in particular along the western side of the valley, these springs enabled the existence of permanent settlements throughout the ages. Needless to say, the settlement of Jericho is an excellent example of this – where in fact, Jericho is a oasis in the desert, largely dependent on the waters of the Ain el-Sultan spring, and to a lesser extent on the waters of the wadis supplying water from the west. 6) The Beth-Shean Valley is the only region of the Jordan Valley that is truly rich in water sources. A wide range of water springs dot this region. The problem with many of these springs is that they have

8

For a general overview of the hydrology of the Jordan Valley, see now HÖTZL, MÖLLER & ROSENTHAL 2009. For a review of the utilization of the Jordanian portion of the

27

a high level of salinity making many of them unusable or only partially usable for irrigation agriculture. Although in modern times this was solved by creating a sophisticated system of water-mixing (see, e.g., NIR 1968; 1989a; for salinity problems in general, see FARBER et al. 2007) such a system did not exist in ancient times.8 7) Nevertheless, despite the drawbacks of the many springs in the Beth-Shean Valley, they did enable relatively intensive settlement and agriculture, regardless of the fact that large parts of the BethShean Valley are situated within an arid zone (particularly during dry years). There is high probability that the intensive utilization of these water sources for irrigation was one of the primary reasons for the intensive and extensive settlement in the Beth-Shean Valley during the MB. Once again, there were advantages and disadvantages to this situation. The many water springs, and related irrigation channels, required constant upkeep otherwise swampy conditions would develop. Just such a situation occurred during the Muslim conquest of the Beth Shean Valley when the Byzantine armies tried to stop the Muslim advance by blocking the irrigation channels in the valley and creating a muddy, swampy obstacle. Despite this, the Muslim armies won the day (known as Yum el-Rhadrah – “the Day of the Mud” in Arabic). As will be mentioned below, one of the reasons, and/or outcomes of the collapse of the MB settlement in the Beth Shean Valley during the late MB may be the formation of swampy conditions due to lack of care of the irrigation systems. 8) Finally, the existence of what may be the only long-distance water channel in the entire Land of Israel during this period. STEPANSKY (2006; 2008b) reports a rock-hewn water channel to the west of Hazor, which he suggests interpreting as a water channel that was used to bring water to MB Hazor. If so, this is the earliest known long-distance water channel in the region. All told, it would appear that the hydrological picture portrayed above fits in very well with the pattern of settlement seen during the MB in the Jordan Valley (e.g., Fig. 5). One can see that the most intense region of settlement in the Jordan Valley is in the area between the Sea of Galilee and the Succoth Valley with a slightly lesser intense settlement in the

Jordan River in recent times, see now VAN AKEN, MOLLE & VENOT 2009.

28


Fig. 6 Map of the Phytogeographic zones in the Jordan Valley with MB sites


Huleh Valley. In the Southern Jordan Valley, there are fewer sites, and these are situated in the immediate vicinity of local water sources. Phyto-Geography and Zoogeography (Fig. 6) The present-day Jordan Valley encompasses a wide range of phytogeographic zones and has been discussed extensively in the literature (see, e.g., ZOHARY 1973; DANIN 1988; 1995, and there further literature). Although the exact division into phytogeographic zones of the Jordan Valley is not agreed upon by all, in general, one can see that if one moves from the northern part of the Jordan Valley to the south, a clear pattern emerges. In the northern parts of the Huleh Valley one sees a temperate Mediterranean zone. From the middle part of the Huleh Valley and until the southern part of the Beth Shean Valley (near Wadi Malih), most of the Jordan Valley is defined as IranoTuranian (save for the Harod Valley which is Mediterranean), while south of Wadi Malih, most of the Jordan Valley is defined as a Sudanian zone, save for the eastern boundaries of the Jordan Valley between Wadi Rujeib and Wadi Nimrin. The consistent “aridization”, as one moves south, which is the predominant pattern seen today, seems to have existed during the second millennium B.C.E. as well (see above), and serves as a backdrop for the less intensive settlement pattern seen as one proceeds southwards within the Jordan Valley. Although here and there in the southern regions one can find pockets of more temperate-oriented plant associations, this is usually in relationship to specific sites where water is abundant locally (e.g., the river deltas of Wadi Yabis, Wadi Rujeib, Wadi ez-Zarqa [the Succoth Valley], Wadi Nimrin, and the perennial springs at Jericho and Tell Hamman), or pockets of vegetation “relics” from much earlier environments. The archaeobotanical evidence from the Jordan Valley indicates that from the third millennium B.C.E. and onwards there is extensive utilization of a wide range of agricultural products. In fact, it appears that most of the typical Mediterranean field crops and fruits (wheat, barley, olive, fig, vine, etc.) were intensively cultivated in the region (see, e.g., FALL et al. 1998; 2002). Evidence of both rain fed and irrigation agriculture are found, indicating the agricultural diversity that existed in the region, enabling the development of a multi-tiered settlement structure and a broad economic base. Of particular interest is the fact that the archaeobotanical evidence from sites in the Jordan Valley seems to indicate that during the MB there was a clear rise in the popularity of wheat and a decline in that of barley, compared with the preceding periods. FALCONER & FALL (2006: 126–127)

29

suggest that since wheat required more water than barley, this is indicative of a rise in precipitation between the EB IV and MB periods. The “corridor-like” nature of the Jordan Valley is seen in the zoological remains as well, with a wide variety of northern and southern, temperate and arid zone species in the region (TCHERNOV & YOM-TOV 1988). Archaeozoological data indicate that already during the Early Bronze Age, sites in the Jordan Valley were well-integrated into the agrarian economy typical of the Southern Levant, with a mixture of Mediterranean and arid zone domesticated animals, along with the utilization of relevant wild species (see, e.g., FALCONER & FALL 2006: 114–116). Although, for the most part, the species found in MB sites are not unexpected in comparison to other sites in the Levant, both in the MB and other periods, the growing popularity of pig consumption in MB Tell elHayyat is of interest (FALCONER & FALL 2006: 114–116). Although this could be explained as being the result of solely economic factors, the fact that pigs require much wetter surroundings than sheep/goats and cattle is another indication of the rise in the availability of water sources during the MB, particularly in comparison to the earlier EB IV. Transportation (Fig. 7) The Jordan Valley, by its very nature, has served as an important route in all periods. On the one hand, it is a natural north-south route, part of the much longer Syrian-African rift, and affords relatively easy accessibility between various portions of the Southern Levant. Due though to the fact that the southern portions of the valley, from the Dead Sea until the Southern Beth Shean Valley are in largely arid zones and that the western side of the valley is not always easy to cross, the entire Jordan Valley rarely served as the primary transportation route in the Levant. Rather, other routes, to the east, or west, were of more central importance (see, e.g., DORSEY 1991). Only the northern portion of the Jordan Valley, from the Sea of Galilee and northwards, served regularly as part of a north-south international route, connecting between the coastal route along the Israeli littoral (the so-called “Via Maris”) and the inland north-south route running in the Lebanese Baq’a and Syrian Orontes Valleys. On the other hand, the Jordan Valley is crisscrossed by numerous east-west routes, most of them of regional status, which connect between the regions to the east and to the west of the Jordan Valley. These are seen from the Huleh Valley in the north, down to the route that crosses the Jordan River to the east of Jericho in the south. As mentioned, while some of

30


Fig. 7 Map of main transportation routes in the Jordan Valley with MB sites

Historical Sources of the Second Millenium B.C.E.

these routes are of local importance, some are of inter-regional importance as well (ROLL 2009). The latter include: the route going eastward from the northern Huleh Valley over the northern part of the Golan heights and towards the Damascene Basin (ROLL 2009); the traditional Darb el-Hawarneh – a route connecting the northern Transjordan to the Acco Plain, traversing the Jordan Valley at the southern tip of the Sea of Galilee (ODED 1971; KOCHAVI 1998; ROLL 2009); the eastward continuation of the Jezreel Valley, through the Harod Valley, into the Beth-Shean Valley and from there crossing the Jordan to the central Transjordanian highlands (in the region of Irbid); the route which connects between Nablus/Shechem, through Wadi Farah, eastwards to the Valley of Succoth, and up into the Transjordanian highlands in the region of Salt or Ajlun; and finally, the route which goes from Jerusalem, through Jericho, towards the region of modern-day Amman. An important aspect is the fact that throughout most of the year, most of the Jordan River (save for the section to the north of the Sea of Galilee) is not a significant geographic obstacle. In fact, throughout most of the year, the water flow in the Jordan River enables the existence of numerous fords for crossing the river. This is one of the reasons that during most periods, the Jordan River did not serve as an important political boundary. Historical Sources of the Second Millennium B.C.E. Throughout the period that is covered in this study there are relatively few historical texts that relate directly to the Jordan Valley, whether to sites within it or to events that occurred in it. It is only with the commencement of the Egyptian New Kingdom in the mid-to-late 16th century B.C.E., and the intense Egyptian interest in Canaan in general, do the amount of texts that relate to the Jordan Valley substantially expand. Since the New Kingdom texts are by and large not within the topics discussed in this volume, they will only be mentioned where directly related to the topics under discussion. The following texts dating to the Middle Bronze Age either mention site and/or events in the Jordan Valley, or, in a few, very rare cases, were found in the Jordan Valley. The Egyptian Execration Texts: The Egyptian execration texts of the Middle Kingdom, which mention sites in the Southern Levant, have been extensively discussed in the literature (for recent discussions, and further references, see e.g., REDFORD 1992: 87–93; 2006; COHEN 2002: 47–49; RAINEY 2006a: 52–58; 2006b: 289–292). In both the earlier and later

31

groups, several toponyms have been identified as sites in the Jordan Valley. AHARONI (1979: 144–146) for example, notes Beth Shean and Rehov in the earlier group, and Laish, Abel, Hazor, Beth Shean, Rehov and Pella in the later group. If this is in fact the case, it would seem then that the region was well-known in the Egyptian world in the early second millennium B.C.E. The dating of these texts, and these site identifications, require though clarification. In the present study an MB II dating of both groups is accepted. Following THOMPSON’s (1974) summary of the palaeographic and orthographic analyses (and see SASS 1989: 45; S.J. WIMMER, pers. comm.) both groups can be dated to the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (see as well NA’AMAN 1982: 146–147). The early group can be placed in the late Dyn. 12, while the later group slightly later in the early Dyn. 13; in other words contemporary with the late MB I through early MB II. This point should be accentuated since in many studies the two groups are seen as reflecting the contrast between the EB IV and the MB I periods. According to this view, the early group can be dated to the EB IV, while the later group can be dated to the MB I (e.g. AHARONI 1979: 146; ALBRIGHT 1941: 18–19; BRIGHT 1980: 54–55, recently reiterated in REDFORD 1992: 93). This is hard to accept with the current state of research, as far as the dating (THOMPSON’S 1974; RAINEY 1994), the interpretation of the historical significance of the texts (RAINEY 1972; 2006b) as well as the overall archaeological substantiation (GERSTENBLITH 1983: 18–19). In other words, these texts are quite clearly contemporary to the mid-MB, and are irrelevant to the discussion of the EB IV/MB I transition. I fully concur with RAINEY (2006b; contra REDFORD 2006), that both the earlier and later texts portray an urban-oriented society of the late MB I and early MB II, and are not to be seen as evidence of the rural character of the previous EB IV. More so, as RAINEY (1972) has emphasized, the overall applicability of these texts as a tool for the study of the contemporary socio-economic structure is limited. Before dealing with the details that one can learn from the execration texts as to the Jordan Valley during the MB, a brief digression on the relevance of these texts is required. Recently, A. BEN-TOR (2006b) has suggested a seemingly revolutionary understanding of the relationship between the execration texts and the archaeology and history of Palestine. In his opinion, the texts do not reflect the settlement pattern in Palestine during the MB, and in fact, he believes that they reflect the settlement pattern during the EB. He goes on to claim (following WEINSTEIN

32


1975) that there were very minimal connections between Egypt and Palestine during the Middle Kingdom. I believe though that this suggestion cannot be accepted for various reasons: 1) BEN-TOR accepts identifications of various sites mentioned in the texts that are no longer viable. For example, as discussed below, Beth Shean and Rehov are most likely not mentioned in the texts; 2) Despite what he writes, both Hazor and Pella have MB I remains (see below); 3) The claim that there were few connections between Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Kingdom was incorrect when WEINSTEIN suggested this over three decades ago (1975) and in light of finds and discussions in recent decades becomes completely unacceptable (see, e.g., MARCUS 1998: 72–74; 2007; ALLEN 2008; MARCUS et al. 2008a; 2008b). For example, the locally produced Egyptian sealings and imported Egyptian Middle Kingdom pottery from Ashkelon (STAGER 2002; BIETAK & KOPETZKY 2003; BIETAK et al. 2009), imported Egyptian Middle Kingdom pottery from Tel Ifshar (PORAT 1991; PALEY & PORATH 1997; MARCUS et al. 2008a; 2008b), as well as petrographic evidence from Middle Kingdom >Ezbet Rushdi in Egypt, all demonstrate the wide and varied contacts between Egypt and the Southern Levant (e.g., MARCUS 2007: 160–163), and serve as clear proof of these intense contacts. Similarly, there is explicit Egyptian textual evidence of Egyptian involvement in, and the knowledge of, the Levant during the Middle Kingdom. In addition to the agreeably somewhat problematic Khu-Sebek text that BEN-TOR (2006b: 70–72) mentions, the Mit Rahina inscription of Amenemhet II (originally partially published in FARAG 1980 and POSENER 1982; more thoroughly by ALTENMÜLLER and MOUSSA 1991; for an in-depth discussion of this inscription and its background, see now MARCUS 2007), which explicitly discusses Egyptian activity in the Levant, has been known from over two decades. To this one can add the text from Khnumhotep III’s Mastaba at Dashur (ALLEN 2008) which dates to the reign of Senusret III, in which there is specific evidence of intensive Egyptian contacts with the Levant (see as well MARCUS 2007: 173); 4) BEN-TOR (2006b: 65) claims that the Middle Kingdom is parallel to the MB I and the beginning of the MB II parallels the commencement of the Second Intermediate Period. Based on this, he assumes that since all the relevant execration texts date to the Middle Kingdom (late 12th and early

13th Dynasties), if in fact there is reference to sites in Palestine, one must see clear MB I finds at these sites. This is unacceptable. Without going into too many details on this issue, the evidence from Tell ed-Dab’a, which BEN-TOR often cites, unmistakably demonstrates that clearly recognizable Palestinian MB I/II and early MB II finds are found in unambiguous 13th Dynasty contexts (e.g., Tell ed-Dab>a, Strata F–E/3; see, e.g. BIETAK 2001: 41, fig. 15). Thus, there is no reason to assume, a priori, that the latest execration texts (the Brussels group) can only parallel the MB I – a MB I/II date is just as likely. Accordingly then, sites which only have MB I/II or early MB II (such as Jerusalem) can be relevant in relationship to the execration texts; 5) Due to the specific nature of the texts (magical), there is no reason why one must expect only large sites to be mentioned in these texts – small sites, perhaps evidence of rural, or even nomadic groups, are mentioned as well; 6) Ben-Tor’s suggestion to date these texts to the Old Kingdom/EB III raises other problems. Many of the relevant sites are not settled in the EB III, and, as BEN-TOR himself has argued (e.g. A. BEN-TOR 1982), the connections between Egypt and Palestine during the EB III were quite minimal. In addition, the very assumption to date these texts to the Old Kingdom is problematic. If these were copies of early, Old Kingdom texts, one might expect archaic orthography in the toponyms, which in fact is not seen (see for example kbny (=Byblos), an orthography which first appears in late Middle Kingdom texts [e.g., THOMPSON 1974: 110]). Needless to say, the lack of any, currently known, Old Kingdom sources for such list of places and names in the Levant, makes this supposition quite problematic. From the above, as well as other issues that cannot be broached here, I believe one cannot accept BENTOR’s suggestion, and accept that the Middle Kingdom Execration texts do in fact relate to MB Palestine. Nevertheless, it should be stated that one should exercise caution in how one uses these sources for recreating the history and culture of Palestine during this period, and the relationship between Egypt and Palestine. With the above in mind, we can now deal with aspects that appear in the execration texts that are directly relevant to the Jordan Valley. In the earliest group of texts, it has been usually assumed that one of three sites in the Levant that are mentioned, Rehob (>a-r-h-b-u; >Arhabu [e 11–12; f 8; E 14]; which is mentioned along with its ruler, >Abdu-Hadda [‘pr-uh-t]) should be identified as Tel Rehov in the Beth


Shean Valley (e.g., ALBRIGHT 1941: 33; AHARONI 1979: 114, map 8; RAINEY 2006a: 52). Although it was previously assumed (e.g., MAEIR 1997a) that Tel Rehov was a substantial site during the MB I, the recent excavations at the site have found virtually no finds from this period (MAZAR 2008). Even if eventually some finds dating to the MB I are revealed at Tel Rehov, it is quite hard to assume that such a minor site would have been mentioned in the early execration texts, instead of, for example, the site of Pella, which is mentioned in the later texts, and substantial archaeological evidence from the MB I has now been reported (e.g., BOURKE et al. 2006).9 It has also been suggested that the toponym 3š3n (e 13–15; f 14, E 3), appearing in both groups, can be interpreted as Beth Shean (B. MAZAR 1962: 13). This, though, has been disputed on several occasions. YEIVIN (1962: 21–22) debated this on the basis of the geographic positions of the various sites in relation to Beth Shean. RAINEY (1972: 384, n. 83) raised palaeographic objections to this. Amihai MAZAR (1993c: 610) has recently added that the lack of MB I/II finds at Beth Shean encumbers this identification as well (note though that I believe that in fact there are remains [although limited] of the late MB I and early MB II at Beth Shean, see below). Thus, it would appear that sites in the Jordan Valley are not mentioned in the early execration texts. In the later texts, the picture is somewhat different – it appears that perhaps four sites are mentioned: Laish, Abel, Hazor, and Pella.10 The toponym r-∞-i (E59; RAINEY 1972: 404; 2006a: 52) is usually equated with Laish, the accepted early name of Tel Dan (Tell el-Qadi). As discussed below, the archaeological evidence for substantial MB I and MB II finds from Tel Dan fully supports the mention of this site in the later group. Also identified as being located in the Northern Huleh Valley, the toponym ma->-ka-ya (E 37; RAINEY 1972: 404; 2006a: 58), is identified as ’Abel-Beth-Ma>acah. Although not yet exca-

9

10

11

A more likely identification of the toponym Rehov in the execration texts is Tel Kabri in the western Galilee. See, e.g., PETERSON & ARAV 1992; KEMPINSKI 1991; YASUR-LANDAU, CLINE & PIERCE 2008: 67. The identification of Beth Shean and Rehov in the later group can be discounted as well, due to the same reasons as discussed above regarding the earlier group. See as well STEPANKSY 2006 on an MB burial near this site. It should be noted that Alt (1941: 33) suggested identifying the toponym `bw’m in the later execration texts (E 47) as >Abel-Beth-Ma>acah, but this is hard to accept (see, e.g.,

33

vated, DEVER’s (1986) survey of the site indicates that this site was in fact settled during the early MB II.11 Hazor, the most important MB site in the entire Jordan Valley, is mentioned in the later group as well. The toponym ˙-ƒ-r is unanimously identified as Tel Hazor (YADIN 1972; RAINEY 1972: 402; 2006a: 52, 58). The ruler of Hazor in this text is a figure named g∞i.12 As mentioned above, it is hard to accept A. BEN-TOR’s (2004a: 51, n. 4; 2006b) suggestion that the Hazor mentioned in these texts is either another site, or, does not actually indicate that the site was settled during the MB I/II. Further south, the only site in the Central Jordan Valley that appears to be mentioned in the later execration texts is Pella. The toponym p˙-r (E 8 in the later texts) is widely accepted as pertaining to the site of Pella (e.g., POSENER 1940: 68; ALBRIGHT 1941: 19; RAINEY 1972: 406; 2006a: 52, 58; SMITH 1973: 23; KITCHEN 1992: 21–23; KNAPP 1993: 39–40; ELITZUR 2004: 60–64; BOURKE et al. 2006: 9). As will be discussed below, there are substantial remains (including possible fortifications) dating to just this timeframe at the site. Sinuhe: Another well-known Egyptian text which is dated, at least in its original form, to the Middle Kingdom is the story of Sinuhe. Although in general it is irrelevant to the region under study, mention should be made of GOEDICKE’s (1992) somewhat idiosyncratic suggestion that Sinuhe did not stay in the region of Byblos. Rather, he suggests that Qedem mentioned in the text is Jericho, and the region in which he resided is to be located in either the Jordan Valley or the Jezreel Valley. Needless to say, this interpretation is not accepted by most scholars who have discussed the Sinuhe story (e.g., RAINEY 1972; LICHTHEIM 1973: 222–235; 2003; REDFORD 1992: 83–87; BÁRTA 2004; MILEVSKI 2007). It should be stressed that the text does not provide any clear toponyms in Canaan besides Byblos, and there is no evidence in the text to assume that Sinuhe was in the Jordan Valley or its vicinity rather than somewhere in Lebanon. One

12

FRITZ 1992). LIPIÑSKI (2006) and MA>OZ (2006) have both suggested to identify Tell el-Qadi as >Abel-Beth-Ma>acah; this suggestion is hard to accept, but the details of this will have to be dealt with on another occasion. There is no reason to assume that this is a non-Semitic name or even that the name is “enigmatic” (as A. BEN-TOR 2006b: 75 proposes). Although not an overly common name, Semitic names with the root >zy (=to be strong) could very likely be parallels for this – see, e.g., HESS 1993: 210. I would like to thank A. Rainey for discussing this issue with me.

34


could add that there is little, if any, evidence for an early MB I presence at Jericho (see discussion, below, Chapter 3), which would fit in with the early MK context (reign of Sesostris I) of the Sinuhe story. Egyptian Statues and Stelae: If dealing with Egyptian texts, one should mention the fragments of two Middle Kingdom statues that were found at Tel Dan. One, a headless granite statue in the style of a Middle Kingdom private statue, was found reused as a building stone in a much later, Iron Age context (BIRAN 1994: 161, fig. 120). Although SCHULMAN (1990) suggested that it might have arrived during the Middle Kingdom, it is more likely that as many other Middle Kingdom Egyptian statues in the Levant, they were exported from Egypt long after they were made in Egypt (e.g. HELCK 1976; AHRENS 2007). Thus, it most probably has no relevance for understanding the relations between Egypt and the Jordan Valley in the MB. The second is a fragment of a black Middle Kingdom statue that was found on the surface (BIRAN 1994: 161), which was originally inscribed in the Middle Kingdom and then again the Third Intermediate Period (SCHULMAN 1990: 236). Once again, it may very likely have arrived at Dan long after the MB, and thus may be completely irrelevant for our discussion. Hazor has also produced several objects of Egyptian origin that appear to date to the MB. GOLDWASSER (1989) summarizes the Egyptian finds from Hazor found by the Yadin expedition. In addition to various scarabs, she discusses the fragmentary Middle Kingdom funerary stele that was found in unstratified contexts. Although she suggestes, that due to its uniqueness in Canaan (the only private Egyptian stele from Canaan bearing an offering formula), it might indicate that the presence of an Egyptian burial at the site (GOLDWASSER 1989: 345), this is open to discussion. From the recent excavations one can now add several additional Middle Kingdom Egyptian statues that were found in later contexts, which were recently (partially) published by A. BEN-TOR (2006a; see as well 2006b: 5). Among these items, of interest is a small stone sphinx dating to the Middle Kingdom, inscribed with a cartouche of Amenemhet III (Dyn. 12), which was found in an Iron Age context. Need-

13

E. MARCUS (1998: 197) has noted a red-slipped jar handle with an incised “Egyptian” sign that was found at Hazor, Stratum XVII (YADIN et al. 1961: CLVI:27), in the same locus as some apparently early MB II pottery (ibid.: CLVI:19, 23–24, 26, 28) a stone mould for metal weapons (ibid.: CLVI:30), and a scarab (ibid: CLVI:29), which appears to be

less to say, when and how this statue reached Hazor is of interest but beyond our ability to determine. Once again, although it is tempting to suggest that this inscription, and the statues, were set up and/or arrived at Hazor during the MB and perhaps are indicative of the presence of people of Egyptian origin at Hazor during that period, this should be qualified. Although it is possible, and even highly likely, that such connections did exist and Egyptian objects and influence (and perhaps Egyptians themselves) did reach Hazor during the MB (e.g. MAEIR 2000b), until more explicit evidence of this exists (such as Egyptian objects found in clear MB II contexts),13 these objects may have also arrived at a later stage and are indicative of other types of connections between Egypt and this region. As far as the MB scarabs that have been found at Hazor, we follow D. BEN-TOR’s (2007a) assessment that almost all of the scarabs found in MB II Canaan are in fact of local production. Scarabs: BOURKE and ERIKSSON (2005) have recently discussed several Second Intermediate Period royal name scarabs and impressions that were found at Pella. Although, from a textual point of view there is little information in this glyptic evidence, it is clear that it indicates the importance of Pella and its relationship with Egypt during the late MB. This issue will be further discussed below. Likewise, a possible Egyptian royal scarab was reported from Shamir, in the Huleh Valley (RICHARDS 1992: 9–11). Jericho has also produced several Egyptian royal name scarabs as well. While there is no consensus as to the identification of all of them (for different opinions, see, e.g., KIRKBRIDE 1965: 580–581; BIETAK 1984: 482–484; TUFNELL 1984: 4–5; WARD 1987: 421–423; WARD & DEVER 1994: 108; NIGRO 2009: 373), they do indicate some degree of cultural connections between Egypt and Jericho, although following D. BEN-TOR (1997; 1998; 2007a), this should be limited to the latter parts of the MB – and not during the MB I or even early MB II (contra NIGRO 2009: 373). NIGRO (2009) has recently suggested an interesting, if somewhat problematic, reading for one of the scarabs found at Jericho. Tomb D.641, which was excavated by the Italian/Palestinian team, contained,

of the “Late Palestinian” group, based on the running spiral design that adorns it (see, e.g. D. BEN-TOR 2007a: 159). Although the possible Egyptian origin, or at least, influence, of this jar handle cannot be denied, it requires further study to ascertain this.


inter alia, two scarabs. While the excavators date this tomb and its content to the mid/late MB I, as argued below (see discussion in Chapter 3), I believe that this tomb can be dated to no earlier than the MB II. NIGRO has suggested reading the hieroglyphic signs on this scarab as >ƒmr r∆>. He suggests interpreting this as “Administrator of Jericho”, which he believes is perhaps the title of the local ruler of Jericho. If correct, this would provide a rare example of the title of a ruler in MB Canaan on an object found in Canaan. This suggestion though should be related to with some caution. D. BEN-TOR (1997; 1998) has demonstrated that most of the hieroglyphic signs on locallymade Palestinian MB scarabs are not to be read as actual inscriptions, being in most cases either pseudohieroglyphs or meaningless sequences of signs, slavishly copied by the Canaanite engravers.14 In addition, Nigro’s very suggestion to understand r∆> as Jericho (based on the reading of two signs on the scarab as rw-∆> [GARDINER 1957: 460, E23; 489, N28]) is hard to accept. While (as NIGRO 2009: 373 notes) there is some similarity between this reading and the writing of the name of Jerusalem (ru-u-s(l)m-m) in the execration texts (e.g., RAINEY & NOTLEY 2006: 58) in which the initial yeru- is replaced by the vowel A that is transposed to a r (see, e.g., AHITUV 1984: 122; VAN DER KOOIJ 2007: 23, n. 3; AHITUV & MAZAR 2000: XV) the very question is whether this possible reading is at all related to the Egyptian “group writing” commonly used in the execration texts.15 Hazor Texts: The next set of texts which relate to the Jordan Valley are the MB texts that have been found at Hazor (for general survey of the Hazor cuneiform texts, see HOROWITZ and OSHIMA 2006: 65–87; to which now add HOROWITZ 2007; HOROWITZ & OSHIMA 2007; 2010). Hazor, which is the largest MB site in Canaan (see separate discussion below, Chapter 3) has yielded the largest collection of cuneiform texts from any site in the Southern Levant. All told,

14

15

For comparison, D. BEN-TOR (2007b) convincingly argues that the MB scarabs from Byblos on which the names of Byblian rulers are written, are not made in Byblos, but rather, based on a close stylistic analysis, produced in Avaris, Egypt, by Egyptian artists, and then exported to Byblos. The scarab from Jericho, on the other hand, is clearly a local, Canaanite product (see discussion below, Chapter 2) and there is no reason to assume that the local Canaanites had the knowledge to produce an actual Egyptian inscription on this scarab. It should be noted that NIGRO’s (2009: 373) suggestion to interpret the name Jericho (in Hebrew Yericho) as being connected to Arabic (and Hebrew) “scent, perfume” is

35

15 objects with cuneiform inscriptions have been reported, of which nine date to within the MB, five date to the LB, and one who’s date could not be determined with certainty. The MB texts from Hazor apparently represent two main periods, those that are more or less contemporary to the texts from Mari which mention Hazor (from the early MB II – see discussion of the chronology below), and those that date to post-Mari, late MB. The first (earlier) group is dated to the earlier stages of the Old Babylonian period, examples being the Hazor documents just mentioned, and the Hebron tablet (ANBAR & NA’AMAN 1986–1987). The historical and cultural contexts of this group can be seen in light of the Mari correspondence and its cognates. The second group can be dated to the late Old Babylonian period, i.e. the late MB. In this group, in addition to the later texts from Hazor, one can note documents from Shechem (BÖHL 1926) and Jericho (SMITH 1934: 117). These documents are palaeographically later than the first group and can be placed (both on archaeological and palaeographic considerations) in the late MB/early LB I period. These are to be seen as the continuation of the cuneiform scribal tradition in Palestine during the post-Mari period, prior to the Egyptian domination during the LB. It should be noted that the texts from the second group, of the late Old Babylonian period are to be seen as evidence that until at least the end of the MB, there existed a flourishing Mesopotamian influenced scribal tradition in northern Palestine (HOROWITZ & SHAFFER 1992a: 32–33; W. Horowitz, pers. comm.). While southern Palestine was closely connected, both culturally and politically to Egypt, the regions of northern Palestine were in more direct contact with the northern, Syro-Mesopotamian world. Even subsequent to the destruction of Mari, the northern, Syro-

somewhat questionable. It is much more likely related to yrh = moon, and should be seen as a toponym connected to the moon god, known to have been of importance at various sites in the Jordan Valley during the third, second and first millennia B.C.E. Thus, there are sites which incorporate the lunar god’s name (such as Beit Yerah [= “house of the moon”] and Jericho), and there is ample evidence for cult of the lunar god, such as, e.g., at LB Hazor (YADIN et al. 1958: 89; YADIN 1970 [the temple in Area C]; ORNAN 2001: 17–18 [the “temple/palace” in Area A]), and at Iron Age Bethsaida (BERNETT & KEEL 1998; KEEL 1998; ORNAN 2001). On the lunar god in general, see, e.g., SCHMIDT 1999.

36


Mesopotamian influences continued to be felt in the Southern Levant. The fact that during the initial stages of the Egyptian penetration into Palestine in the LB I, northern Palestine was not adversely affected (see additional discussion below), may be due to its northern (SyroMesopotamian) inclinations (cf., WEINSTEIN 1981; NA’AMAN 1994; see as well BIENKOWSKI 1987). Returning once again to the Hazor texts, it should be noted that although these texts were not found in primary contexts, dating to the MB, their importance cannot be overstated. They demonstrate several important facts regarding Hazor, and the Northern Jordan Valley in general, during the MB. To start with, this is additional evidence of the central role of Hazor within the Syro-Mesopotamian world during the time of Mari. As noted before (e.g. MAEIR 2000b), Hazor can be related to as the southernmost outpost of the Syro-Mesopotamian cultural realm. As such, the Hazor texts inform us of the strong scribal traditions at Hazor, parallel to those seen in contemporary Syria and Mesopotamia. Likewise, they inform us of cultic, judicial, administrative and economic facets of Hazor, which are also intimately connected to Syro-Mesopotamian cultural traditions. Although the actual remains of the royal archive of the city have yet to be found, at least two of the texts (Hazor 8 and Hazor 12; HOROWITZ & OSHIMA 2006: 77–78, 83–85) may actually derive from the city’s royal archives. Perhaps the most important aspect of these texts is the manner in which they dovetail so well with the texts mentioning Hazor from Mari (see, e.g., MALAMAT 1971; BONECHI 1991, and below). The texts provide us with conclusive evidence, from the Hazor side, of its diplomatic and economic connections with Mesopotamia (including mentions of Mari and Ekallatum in Hazor 12).16 The quite impressive quantities and diversity of the luxury items described in Hazor 12 fit in very well with a supposition that Hazor played a central, and perhaps, dominant role in international connections during the Mari period.17 Hazor apparently continues to play a central role after the fall of Mari, as seen in the late MB texts from the site,

which date to the latter parts of the MB, but prior to those of the LB. The Mari Texts: The Mari texts provide a complementary viewpoint to those from Hazor, once again, illustrating the significant role that Hazor played during this period. Since these texts have been summarized in previous literature (e.g., MALAMAT 1971; 1992; 1998; BONECHI 1991) it is unnecessary to provide a detailed discussion of their contents. Nevertheless, several important points should be stressed. First of all, the very fact that over 20 letters relating to Hazor were found at Mari is of significance. In addition, the role of Hazor in aspects such as the shipment of tin (e.g., MALAMAT 1971) provide important evidence of the international role of the city.18 Just as we have seen that at Hazor there are MB cuneiform texts from during and after the Mari period, it is important to note that the texts from Mari are not from a very limited period. Although most of the texts mentioning Hazor date to the reign of ZimriLim, the earliest text (A.2760) dates to the reign of Yasmah-Addu, which could be as much as twenty years earlier. As stated previously (MAEIR 1997b: 321), the very fact that Hazor is mentioned over a period of several decades at Mari, may have chronological and cultural implications as to the date of the rise of Hazor, and when it assumed the role of a central, international polity (see discussion below). In addition to the mention of Hazor, it has been suggested in the past that Laish (=Dan) is also mentioned in one of the Mari documents (A. 1270; see MALAMAT 1971: 35–36), placed immediately before a mention of Hazor. The very fact that these two toponyms are mentioned one after the other in the same document, as well as the fact that this period is well-represented at Tel Dan (see below), is a compelling argument in favour of this identification. Although this identification has been questioned in the past (SASSON 1984: 249), the parallel texts about Hazor from Mari, and now the clearly Mari-connected texts from Hazor, as well as the archaeological evidence from Tel Dan, appear to lend credence to this identification. Nevertheless, until additional proof of this is available, the role of Dan in the inter-

16

18

17

Effectively disproving ASTOUR’s (1991) suggestion that the Hazor mentioned in the Mari texts is not the Hazor of Canaan. On the significance, and possible geopolitical interpretation of Hazor 12, see, e.g., HOROWITZ & WASSERMAN 2004; CHARPIN & ZIEGLER 2004; VAN KOPPEN 2007; and below, Chapter 5.

Hazor’s involvement in even rather “mundane” aspects, such as the arrival at Mari of a group of musicians from Hazor (e.g. MALAMAT 2003), hints as well to its prominent role at the time.


national web of relations during this period is far from clear. Ugarit(?): MARGALIT (1981; 1989: 233–234) has raised the possibility of an additional text which may refer to the Jordan Valley during the MB. He has suggested that the region of the Jordan Valley can be seen as the geographical background of the Aqht text from Ugarit. He contends that the toponyms Kinneret, Beth Yerah and Beth Shemesh (which may possibly be identified as T. Ubeidiyeh) are mentioned in the text. This is based on a suggested reading of knrt (= Kinneret). Furthermore, he believes that this can be seen as testimony of the pastoral elements in this region. If we were to accept this suggestion it would be of interest since it would provide the earlier textual reference to the pastoral components in society in this region during the MB.19 This suggestion though has been questioned. Some scholars have claimed that one cannot read knrt in the text at all (DRESSLER 1984; PARDEE 1987). More so, even if the knrt reading is accepted (as vigorously claimed by PITARD 1994), the geographic setting suggested by Margalit still remains difficult to accept. On the one hand, this word, which appears only once, does not seem to refer to a lake (Lake knrt) but rather to a town or region of that name (PITARD 1994: 36). And even if knrt does in fact refer to the Sea of Galilee, this hardly implies that the entire story occurred in this region. If at all, the region of the northern Baq’a Valley is a much more likely geographical setting for the text, in light of the probable mention of the site Hermel in this text. It would be more likely that a reference to Kinneret, can be explained in light of a general knowledge of Canaanite geography in the Syrian cultural milieu in which the Aqht text was formed.

19

For possible archaeological evidence of nomadic and/or pastoral elements in the Jordan Valley during the MB, see STEPANKY (2000; 2003; 2005), who reports on megalithic

37

Another problem with Margalit’s interpretation that can be raised is the mention of Beth Yerah. Although there is evidence of activity at the site at the time, it was not an important site and would hardly warrant a central role in this story. Thus, although one might be tempted to relate to this reference as a rare historical source mentioning the pastoral elements in the MB Jordan Valley, it is not insufficiently established to be related to as an explicit historical source. Texts from Pella?: The cuneiform tablets discovered at Pella merit mention as well. Two fragmentary tablets were found, of which unfortunately little could be read, save for possible lists of names (BLACK 1992). The tablets were found in a pit, perhaps indicating that they (and other objects found with them, see below) were placed there after they went out of use. Although originally dated to the late MB or early LB I (SMITH & POTTS 1992: 59–63), more recent studies have shown (BOURKE et al. 1994: 107, n. 32; BOURKE et al. 2006: 9) that the context should be dated securely within the LB and related to the LB “palace” (“governor’s residence”) at the site. Thus, these two texts are irrelevant for the study of the MB. Additional Mesopotamian Text: There is one additional text that was discovered in the Jordan Valley that may date to the MB. In the American excavations at Beth Shean, in the foundations of the LB Level VIII, a cylinder seal with a Sumerian inscription which was dated stylistically to the Old Babylonian period was discovered (e.g., ROWE 1930: 23, pl. 34:3; HOROWITZ & OSHIMA 2006: 47–48; JAMES & MCGOVERN 1993: 231, pl. 58a). The inscription mentions a diviner (bârû). While the Old Babylonian date of this seal is clear, one cannot be certain when this seal reached Beth Shean, and under which circumstances.

burials in the Korazim plateau which he suggests are connected to nomadic elements in the region.

CHAPTER 3: DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR MB SITES IN THE JORDAN VALLEY

As can be seen in the site gazetteer (Appendix A), there are close to 200 sites in the Jordan Valley at which MB remains have been reported. Many of these sites have only been surveyed, or at times, have been excavated in a rather limited manner. Nevertheless, there are quite a large number of extensively excavated sites within the region under study, both settlement and burial sites, which provide the archaeological “backbone” for the discussion of the MB in the Jordan Valley. In fact, some of these sites are among the most important sites in the Southern Levant, with finds that have implications far and beyond the geographic limits of the region encompassed in this study. In the following pages, the relevant finds from these major excavated sites will be reviewed. The sites will be discussed according to their geographic position (from north to south), not necessarily in order of importance. Since, for the most part, various publications on the sites have appeared, the relevant finds will be discussed in brief, primarily to serve as a background for the discussions to follow. DAN Tel Dan (Tell el-Qadi) is the most northern of the large excavated sites in the Jordan Valley, located at the northeastern corner of the Huleh Valley.20 A large site of some 20 hectares, it was settled, almost continuously, from the Late Neolithic through Roman Periods, undoubtedly due to its location at the headwaters of the Dan River, one of the main tributaries of the Jordan River. The site has been extensively excavated over the last several decades, and both general overviews (e.g., BIRAN 1994; 2008) and some detailed final reports have been published (BIRAN, ILAN & GREENBERG 1996; BIRAN & BEN-DOV 2002). In light of the extensive remains dating to the MB, this site is of major importance to the present study. Evidence of an urban phase at Dan can be observed during the EB II–III. The stratigraphic sequence, but more importantly, the impressive stone

20

Tell el-Qadi is identified, virtually by all, as Dan (see, e.g., ELITZUR 2004: 201–210, 375–376). As noted above, LIPINSKI (2006: 245–246) and MA>OZ (2006) have (separately) suggested that Tell el-Qadi is in fact Abel Beth Ma>acha, while the site of ancient Dan should be located at nearby Banias.

Stratum

Period

Major Finds

XV

EB II

Fortifications

XIV

EBIII

Fortifications

XIII

EB IV

Sherds

XII (1–2) MB I

Phase 1: Tombs (T. 23; T. 902b–d); Phase 2: T. 4244; T.1025; T. 3050

XII (3–4) MB I

Fortifications; Phase 3: T. 3126; Phase 4: T. 4242; T. 4356

XI

Urban Character with Fortifications/ MB I/II Gate; e.g. T. 1062;

X

MB II

Continuation of Urban Character; e.g. T. 4663

IX

MB III

Continuation of Urban Character; Destruction at end of Period; e.g. T. 349; 187a; 8096

VIII

LB I

Resettlement

Table 1 Relevant strata at Tel Dan

fortifications,21 indicate the central role of this site during most of the third millennium B.C.E. Little evidence exists for settlement during the EB IV save for a limited amount of sherds (Stratum XIII). This apparently indicates that there was a break in the settlement on the site during the period between the EB and MB urban phases (Table 1). Following this apparent hiatus in settlement, Dan is reoccupied in the beginning of the MB I. This stratum (Stratum XII) had four phases in the different excavated areas, and BIRAN (1994: 53) suggests a span of some 200 years for this stratum. At first, this settlement appears to have been of a dispersed character, apparently utilizing the EB fortifications as its foundations, but by the latest phases of Stratum XII the site appears to have been quite intensively settled (ILAN 1996a: 164). Three to four phases dating to this stratum were uncovered in several of the excavation

21

A full rebuttal of this suggestion is beyond the framework of the present work. GREENBERG (2002: 32–35) has quite convincingly demonstrated that the fortifications at Dan do in fact begin during the EB.

40

Chapter 3: Description of Major MB Sites in the Jordan Valley

areas, although in a rather limited exposure. Most of the remains indicate rather minimal domestic dwellings built on the earlier, EB remains. Only towards the end of the period are more substantial remains found and the first fortifications are erected. ILAN (1996a: 164) discusses several tombs from the MB I phases at Dan. Tomb 23 in Area A and T. 902bd are related to the earliest phase, Phase 1, and in fact display pottery typical of the very early MB I (e.g., ILAN 1996a: figs. 4.4; 4.58–59), such as in the tombs at Hagosherim and Gesher (below). To Phase 2 he relates T.4244 from Area B and tombs T.1025 and T. 3050 from Area Y. To Phase 3 ILAN (1996a: 164) relates T.3126 from Area Y, while to the last phase of Stratum XII, Phase 4, he connects tombs T.4242 and T.4356 in Area B. All told, the rather extensive phasing and related tombs do appear to indicate the extended span of Stratum XII, and the pottery from the various tombs seems to indicate that it covers virtually the entire span of the MB I (see, e.g., BIRAN 1994: figs. 22–24). Noteworthy is the appearance in this stratum of “Levantine Painted Ware” and “Monochrome Painted Cream Ware” (e.g. ILAN 1996b: figs. 104), the former a ware common throughout the Levant and beyond during the MB I, the latter with apparent Syrian connections and influences (see, e.g., BAGH 1998; 2003; 2004). Sometime towards the end of the MB I, or during the MB I/II transition (Stratum XI), the site is refortified with impressive earth ramparts and gates (see now BURKE 2008: 250–254). Two gates were identified. One, in Area K, is the uniquely well-preserved, arched mud brick structure, which was built and, very soon after, went out of use, during the late MB I or MB I/II transition. The excellent preservation of this gate is well-known, based on the fact that it was covered over and incorporated into the ramparts. As suggested in the past (MAEIR 2000b: 40), the cancellation of this gate might be connected to the rise of Hazor at more or less the same period.22 The second gate, of which only traces were found, is located in the vicinity of the late Iron Age II gate in Area AB (BIRAN 1994: 90). As suggested in the past (MAEIR 2000b; 2002a), the ascendancy of Hazor in the MB I/II or early MB II (parallel to, or just after Stratum XI) most likely had a profound effect on Tel Dan,

22

But see: BURKE (2008: 254) who prefers to see the reasoning behind the cancellation of the gate as an attempt to prevent its collapse due to structural problems; and ILAN et al. (2008) who believe that this gate was cancelled out since

probably relegating it to a secondary role, both in local, regional, and inter-regional scales. As noted above, ILAN (1996b) discusses the painted pottery in Stratum XI, noting that the “Monochrome Painted Cream Ware” appears in large quantities in Stratum XI, with a coeval decline in the quantity of the “Levantine Painted Ware”. The apparent Syrian derivation of the former group is of interest. During the rest of the MB II (Strata X-IX), the site continued to be intensively settled, with remains found throughout the fortified enclosure. Although evidence of monumental constructions within the city were not found, possible hints to this may be seen under the foundations of the Iron Age cultic zone in Area T (ILAN 1996a: 165). Of particular importance are the many tombs from the MB, spanning the entire period, which afford a glimpse on the development of the material culture at the site throughout the MB. In his detailed analysis of these tombs, ILAN (1996a) studied the stratigraphic relationship between these tombs and the relevant strata, and managed to demonstrate the development of the mortuary practices during this period. The finds from the tombs serve as one of the backbones for the typological study of the MB in the Jordan Valley. ILAN (1996a: 251) has suggested that the foreign origin of many of the burial customs at Dan during the MB indicate strong SyroMesopotamian influences during the incipient stages of this period. A perusal of the pottery from the various stages of MB occupation at Tel Dan indicates that the site was occupied continuously for the entire MB, save for the very earliest stage of the MB, and pottery as seen for example at the cemeteries at Hagosherim, Gesher, and Tell el-Hayyat, Stratum V, is missing (although this early stage may be represented in the limited materials from T. 23 – see above). As noted above, an additional point worth noting is the clear connections that can be seen between the pottery at Tel Dan and that of MB assemblages and types from Syria (see ILAN 1996b); likewise, the relative lack of imports so typical of more southern regions of the Land of Israel should be noted, perhaps an indication that the site was by and large outside of the Mediterranean sphere of interaction.

it began to collapse due to the fact that it was made with mudbricks, a Syrian-style architectural feature, unfit for this well-watered region of the southern Levant, then replaced by the stone gate in Area AB.

Tel Na’ama

41

QIRYAT SHEMONA (SOUTH)

HAGOSHERIM

YASUR-LANDAU & GADOT (2003–2004; YASUR-LANDAU, personal communication) recently excavated a very interesting MB I site near the modern city of Qiryat Shemona. The site includes three strata dating to the MB (Table 2). The earliest, Stratum VII, dated to the mid/late MB I is of substantial interest. This level contains a wellbuilt fortification, including a 2.5 m. thick stone wall ca. 25 m. long, and an associated stone tower, within which were found at least two domestic (?) structures (see as well BURKE 2008: 304). Based on the pottery from this level, which is later than the early MB I at Hagoshrim and Gesher, and very similar to the pre-fortification Stratum XII at Dan, this is apparently the earliest MB fortification in the Northern Jordan Valley, predating those of Dan and Hazor. The end of Stratum VII was brought about in a purposeful destruction (not by fire), perhaps indicating that the site’s functions were cancelled due to political reasons. On the ruins of Stratum VII, the much less preserved Stratum VI village was built, dated to the transitional MB I/II, contemporary to Tomb 1181 at Hazor. Both this and the subsequent Stratum V were small, unfortified villages. The last MB phase at the site, Stratum V, was dated to the MB II, contemporary to Stratum 4 at nearby Hazor. The importance of this site should be stressed. The evidence for early MB activities in the Northern Jordan Valley, and in particular the fortifications – the earliest in the region during the MB, is noteworthy. In addition, the destruction of this fortified site, followed by the construction of the nearby Dan fortifications, may enlighten our understanding of the political relationship between the various sites in this region during the incipient urban stages of the MB. Just as I have suggested that the eastern gate at Dan was blocked up with the ascendancy of Hazor in the region (MAEIR 2000b: 40; above), perhaps the fortified site of Qiryat Shemona was cancelled out once Tel Dan became the dominant polity in the Huleh Valley in the mid/late MB I, supported by the evidence of the construction of the fortifications at Tel Dan, in late Stratum XII. This central role of Tel Dan continued until the ascendancy of Hazor during from the MB I/II–early MB II and onwards.

Hagosherim, situated in the Northern Huleh Valley, ca. 10 km northwest of Tel Dan, is a multi-period mortuary site which is located on the grounds of modernday Kibbutz Hagosherim, immediately to the east of Kh. Khisas (a multi-period site on which remains from the Neolithic through Roman Periods have been found). Middle Bronze Age tombs at this site were excavated by YEIVIN (1965) and COVELLO-PARAN (1996a). Of particular interest are the early MB I tombs excavated by COVELLO-PARAN, as they represent some of the earliest evidence for MB settlement in the Northern Jordan Valley. The relatively rich pottery assemblage from Tombs A and BII was dated to a very early stage of the MB I, based on parallels from sites both in the Jordan Valley (e.g., similar to Gesher and Tell el-Hayyat, Stratum V, but earlier than Dan, Stratum XII), from other Palestinian sites (e.g., Megiddo and Nahariya) and from Syria (e.g., Ebla and Hama). Significantly, some of the pottery types (such as a bottle and handle-less store jars) appear to indicate the continuation of EB IV forms into the early MB I. Among other finds at the site, one can note a storage jar decorated with “Levantine Painted Ware” motifs (COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: fig. 9:5) which is similar to a vessel from neighboring Tel Dan, Stratum XII (ILAN 1996b: figs. 2–3).

Stratum

Dating

Comments

VII

Mid/late MB I

Fortified settlement

VI

MB I/II

Village

V

MB II

Village

Table 2 Relevant strata at Qiryat Shemona (South)

KFAR SZOLD (TEL QALIL) Claire EPSTEIN (1974) published a burial cave with a relatively homogenous assemblage of pottery and other finds that can be dated to the transitional MB I/II. Similar to the burials at Ginosar (also published in EPSTEIN 1974), and later, T. 1181 at Hazor (MAEIR 1997b), these tomb groups, and related settlement-related finds from sites such as Hazor, Dan and others, are essential examples of the burgeoning settlement activities in the Northern Jordan Valley during this phase. T. NA’AMA Tel Na’ama is a small multi period site in the middle of the Northern Huleh Valley, ca. 18 km to the north of Hazor. Following modern construction in which portions of the southern side of the mound were destroyed/a small scale excavation was conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority in 1986 (GREENBERG et al. 1998). Although many periods are represented on the site, the very restricted nature of the excavations revealed but limited remains from the EB IV and MB I periods (perhaps continuing into the MB I/II transition as well). Three phases of the EB IV are followed by three poorly-preserved phases of the MB I. It should be noted that the excavators raise the possi-

42


bility that there is continuity between the EB IV and MB I levels at the site although they do not provide explicit evidence to this. Due to the very fragmentary exposure, the excavators could only date the three MB I levels in a very general manner – from mid- to late-MB I (possibly also during the early phase of this period) perhaps continuing to the MB I/II transition (contemporary with Tomb 1181 at Hazor – MAEIR 1997b). The excavators tentatively suggest the possible existence of a fortification/perimeter wall in the earliest MB I level at the site (Phase 4), which they propose to connect with the contemporary fortifications at Dan (Stratum XII; GREENBERG et al. 1996: 32–33). Due to the insufficient nature of the evidence from this phase, it is not possible to ascertain the exact function and/or date of this feature. Interestingly, the zooarchaeological finds appear to demonstrate a change in animal exploitation between the EB IV and the MB I – with a constant and subsequently substantial rise in the use of cattle in the latter period. HAZOR Hazor is, without a doubt, the most important site in the Jordan Valley during the MB, and in fact, most probably, in the Southern Levant in general. Extensively excavated since the 1950’s, extremely important remains dating to the MB have been uncovered in both the earlier excavations (e.g. YADIN 1972, and there further references) and the more recent excavations (e.g. A. BEN-TOR 2008a, and there further references). Owing to the size of the city, the extensiveness of the remains, and most importantly their significance for understanding the political, economic, cultural and chronological basis of the MB, Hazor has been centrally figured in many discussions relating to this period.

Clearly, due to the large volume of MB finds at Hazor, they can only be briefly summarized in the following paragraphs. Before we begin with the description of the MB remains at Hazor, an interesting point should be raised. Hazor is located in the southern reaches of the Huleh Valley, just to the south of the region that was covered by swamps up until modern times (GREENBERG 2002: 19–23). Although the exact date of the founding of Hazor within the MB will be discussed below, it is clear that the city was not founded in the early parts of the MB, but rather somewhere in the late MB I to early MB II. Nevertheless, the question arises why did the ascent of this site, which was soon to become the most important site in the entire Jordan Valley and one of, if not the most important sites in the Southern Levant, not commence from the very beginning of the period, such as we see at nearby Tel Dan (above)? Likewise, why was Hazor of such importance in the MB II–III and LB, but did not fulfill a similar, central role during the EB on the one hand, and during later, post-LB periods on the other? Although this clearly is a speculation, a possible explanation to these questions might be related to the changing extent of the Hula Valley swamps through ages, and in particular, the adverse health effects (and population expansion) that swamp-related malaria could have. While GREENBERG (2002: 21–23) questions the extent of such effects of malaria, one can note that based on the pollen cores from the Huleh Valley, the Huleh Lake apparently shrunk during the MB and LB (BARUCH & BOTTEMA 1991; FRUMKIN et al. 1994: 326; MACDONALD 2001: 598; VAN ZEIST, BARUCH, & BOTTEMA 2009). One wonders whether the shrinking of the Huleh Lake during the MB might have enabled Hazor to expand to the large size and impressive status that it reaches in the MB

Stratum (upper city)

Stratum (lower city)

Dating

“Pre-XVII”

?

MB I

“Early-XVII”

4 (“early”)

MB I/II

XVII

4 (“late”)

MB II

Massive fortifications, public architecture and other remains

XVI

3 (early”/”late”)

MB III

Massive fortifications and other remains; ends in destruction

MB/LB

Burials in destroyed city

LB I

Rebuilding of large city

“Post-XVI” XV

2

Comments Very limited and dispersed finds in upper (and lower ?) city Early fortifications (eastern spur); T. 1181; sporadic finds in upper and lower city

Table 3 MB and early LB stratigraphy of Hazor

43

Hazor

and LB, a situation which was not possible in earlier or later times, when the swamps were larger.23 The MB stratigraphy of Hazor can be summarized as in Table 3. The earliest MB activity at Hazor clearly dates to the late MB I (e.g., COVELLO-PARAN 1996a; 2003; 2007; MAEIR 1997b). Although A. BEN-TOR (2004a: 49–52) emphatically states that there are absolutely no MB I remains at Hazor, as previously argued (MAEIR 1997b: 332, n. 107; 2002a: 265), several distinctively MB I types can be found in the material published by Yadin many years ago (e.g., YADIN et al. 1961: pls. CCXXXV:15–19, 30–33; CCXXXVI:1–3). Even if these finds do not prove beyond doubt the establishment of “Greater Hazor” during the late MB I (contra MAEIR 1997b: 321), nevertheless, despite A. Ben-Tor’s insistence, they do clearly indicate that there was activity on site during the MB I (at least towards the end of the period). The question is though, when did Hazor become a large, fortified city – an urban entity that could have fulfilled the prominent position depicted in the Akkadian documents from Hazor and Mari (see above, Chapter 2). While MAEIR (1997b; 2002a) and COVELLO-PARAN (1996a; 2003; 2007) have suggested that the site may have started to ascend in size and stature during the transitional MB I/II, A. BEN-TOR (e.g., 1997; 2004a) has insisted that this occurred only during the MB II. In this writer’s opinion, COVELLO-PARAN’s (2007) evidence that the site was fortified during the transitional MB I/II (or at the latest, in the early MB II) would indicate that at least theoretically, Hazor may had already played a major role at this stage. A. BENTOR’s (2004a) suggestion to compare between Stratum XVII/4 on the tell and the MB I/II material found in T. 1181 and some other locations at Hazor, dating them all to the MB II, is hard to accept. As argued quite extensively in the past (MAEIR 1997b), and as can be seen in the comparative tables of pottery assembled by A. BEN-TOR (2004a: figs. 1–6), the material from Stratum XVII/4 is quite different from the earlier (in my opinion) MB I/II material (for example from T. 1181). Likewise, A. BEN-TOR

(2004a: 52–53) attempts to demonstrate that the pottery from the earliest MB activity at Hazor postdates the MB I based on a comparison to the late MB I material from Tell ed-Dab>a (Stratum F [= MB I/II] and earlier). Since, in his opinion there are no parallels between these levels at Tell ed-Dab>a and the material from Hazor, he believes that this proves that Hazor must be later than these levels (e.g., post MB I/II). I do not accept this for several reasons. To begin with, this disregards the fact that, to date, there is no comprehensive and detailed comparative typological chronology of pottery covering Egypt and the Levant during the MB. Although initial attempts have begun (e.g., BIETAK et al. 2009; BIETAK, KOPETZKY & STAGER in press) one can hardly compare a group of pottery from one site (Tell ed-Dab>a) located hundreds of kilometers from another (Hazor) on the basis of a small range of comparisons, and then reach far-reaching conclusions (such as changing the entire chronology of the ancient Near East during the second millennium B.C.E.).24 To this one can add that if at all, one should be aware that the excavator’s of Tell ed-Dab>a themselves have noted that from Stratum F=b/3 and onwards at the site (more or less parallel to the MB I/II in the Levant), the pottery at Tell ed-Dab>a develops in a trajectory that is somewhat different from that of the Southern Levant (see, e.g., discussion of the comparative development of dipper juglets in KOPETZKY 2002: 231). Needless to say, if one wishes to build a comparative typological sequence for the pottery at Hazor, it is best to do this in comparison to sites in its relative vicinity. In fact, in a detailed discussion to date of the early MB material at Hazor, based on exhaustive and extensive comparanda from sites in the Southern Levant, the early MB material at Hazor was clearly dated to the late MB I and MB I/II transition (see, in detail, MAEIR 1997b). In light of the above, there does appear to be evidence of pre-MB II activity at Hazor – both during late MB I (minimal) and during the MB I/II transition. The facts cannot be ignored! If the eastern for-

23

24

BEIN & HOROWITZ (1986) have suggested that the appearance of Papyrus in Huleh Valley should be connected to Egyptian influence during the EB. One can wonder that if in fact the papyrus in the Huleh valley was a foreign introduction, perhaps it was introduced during the MB when the Hazor kingdom began to grow, in order to supply papyrus required for the administrative needs of this kingdom.

It should be noted that several of the most chronologically significant types that were noted in the Tomb 1181 assemblage at Hazor (such as the “stepped-rim juglets” and the very unique burnished, thickened “dipper juglets, see, MAEIR 1997b: 301–305), which define it as a chronologically distinct assemblage, particularly in comparison to various late MB I and/or early MB II assemblages at Hazor and other sites, were not noted by A. BEN-TOR (2004a: figs. 1–6).

44


tifications of the lower city (Area Q) date to the MB I/II transition (a possibility that COVELLO-PARAN does not deny – at the latest, it is to be dated to the early MB II), then it is safe to say that Hazor was already well into the process of becoming a city of quite a large size during this phase. Thus, a priori, one cannot state unequivocally that the city of Hazor mentioned in the Mari archives could not date prior to an advanced stage of the MB II. Since activity at Hazor commenced in the late MB I, and seems to have started to intensify in the MB I/II transition, contacts with Mari and the Mesopotamian world could have already commenced at this stage.25 Amnon BEN-TOR’s (2004a: 55) assumption that only after the MB city of Hazor reached its “peak” – with fortifications and temples in the later phases of the MB II, did it become “worthy” of correspondence with Mari is hard to accept – many examples of sites hardly “worthy” of correspondence with large entities do exist, quite a few of which one can find, for example, among the Canaanite city states mentioned in the Amarna letters.26 Once again, this does not prove that the Hazor of the Mari letters was in fact Hazor in the MB I/II – rather, one cannot deny that this possibility does exist – and thus, it weakens the claim (A. BEN-TOR 2004a) that employs the evidence from Hazor as conclusive proof of the validity of the “Ultra-Low” Mesopotamian chronology (e.g. GASCHE et al. 1998; for further discussion, see below, Chapter 4). In any case, most of the evidence from MB Hazor can be dated to the MB II–III. As summarized previously (e.g., YADIN 1972; YADIN & BEN-TOR 1993; A. BEN-TOR 2008a), there is extensive evidence in both the upper and lower city during the MB II and III. Commencing with Stratum XVII/4, one sees public

25

26

27

I have previously noted (MAEIR 1997b: 322–323) some possible northern Syrian influences in the pottery assemblage from Hazor, Tomb 1181 – which might mirror early manifestations of these northern connections. It can be noted as well that NIGRO (2007a: 378–379), who is very familiar with the late MB I materials in Syria, agrees with a late MB I dating for the founding of “Greater Hazor”. Likewise, VAN KOPPEN’s (2007) insistence that Hazor had only a relatively minor role in the MB Syro-Mesopotamian geopolitical sphere cannot be accepted (see further discussion, below, Chapters 4–5). Recent excavations in the eastern portions of Area A in Hazor (below and in the vicinity of the cultic area with the massebot) have revealed apparent evidence of massive architectural components dating to earlier phases of MB. It may very well be that this is to be seen as earlier (MB II?) mon-

and domestic architecture (in Areas A, C, D, F, 210, L) and extensive fortifications in the lower city (e.g., the earlier gate in Area K and most probably the lower phase “D” in Area P [see MAZAR 1997a]; the ramparts in the lower city; see as well BONFIL 1997: 162–164; BURKE 2008: 265–270). Noteworthy is the stark difference between the pottery assemblages associated with these Stratum XVII/4 remains, and the earlier, late MB I and MB I/II finds discussed above (contra A. BEN-TOR 2004a). In the following phase, Stratum XVI/3, the evidence is even more extensive and impressive, and includes additional remains in both the upper and lower cities, including the earliest temple in Area H and the earliest phase of the temple/public building in Area F. In the upper city there is evidence of impressive public architecture dating to the MB, including fortifications (in YADIN’s Trench 500 and in the new Area A-5), and apparent evidence of both a palace and a large temple, situated more or less below the LB palace/temple in Area A. Based on preliminary reports on these structures, they appear to date to the late MB (A. BEN-TOR 2008b; contra BONFIL & ZARZECKI-PELEG 2007; BONFIL 2010). Most recently, an impressive MB cultic area with a large number of massebot was excavated in the upper city, in Area A (see BEN-AMI 2006; 2010; A. BEN-TOR 2008a), which may be related to the as-yet-insufficiently exposed MB palace and temple which apparently was located to the west of this cultic area.27 While evidence of other MB II–III (Strata 4–3) are found on the upper tell, little is known regarding the public architecture of these two levels. Although initially, YADIN (1972) suggested dating the “Long Temple” in Area A to the late MB and early LB, a close analysis of this structure and

umental cultic structures in this part of the site, the harbingers of the later monumental MB and LB cultic activities in Area A. It should be noted that although A. BEN-TOR (e.g., 2008b; see as well BONFIL & ZARZECKI-PELEG 2007: 40–42 for a similar view) still adheres to the identification of the LB monumental building as a “ceremonial palace”, I believe that one should identify it as a temple, as ZUCKERMAN (2003; 2007: 194–195) and others have suggested. Not only is the very term “ceremonial palace” somewhat problematic and rather unknown in this form, all the evidence that has been published so far about this structure, such as its plan (and the architectural parallels from other sites in Syria [e.g. Ebla] and Canaan [e.g. Pella]), and the finds from within (e.g., A. BEN-TOR 2006a; 2008a), all point to identifying it as a temple, albeit the largest known of its kind.

45

Tel Hadar

related architectural elements has demonstrated that it should in fact date to the LB I (BONFIL 1997).28 The impressive size of Hazor during the MB II–III (at least 80 hectare, perhaps even more [ca. 100?] if one adds to this the additional area to the southeast of the upper city that was excavated in Area Q – see A. BEN-TOR 1996: 68), the scope of its fortifications, public buildings, large scale and intricate water systems (e.g., STEPANSKY 1996; 2006; 2008b) and other remains, and, needless to say, the written evidence for close connections with the Syro-Mesopotamian sphere, all argue for the unique position and role that Hazor played during the MB. Putting aside the question of when Hazor started assuming this role, there is no doubt that the site was of paramount importance through large parts of the MB (a role which continued into the LB as well; see MAEIR 2000b, and below, Chapter 5). Being the southernmost facet of the Syro-Mesopotamian world, it served as an important trade nexus between the Southern Levant (and perhaps Egypt) and these more northern cultures. Not only was it involved in trade with inner Syria and Mesopotamia, it appears to have been incorporated, even if in a limited manner, in Mediterranean-oriented trade, as seen by the Cypriote pottery from the MB levels (e.g. JOHNSON 1982) and Minoan Kamares ware (an imported piece and a local imitation; see DOTHAN, ZUCKERMAN & GOREN 2000; but see MERRILLEES 2003: 342 who questions the Minoan origin of the imported piece). Likewise, the various objects of Egyptian Middle Kingdom origin (see above, Chapter 2), although from later contexts, may also indicate Hazor’s connection with the Egyptian-oriented parts of the Levant. On the other hand, the unique regional character of the MB pottery from Hazor, as well as certain types of Southern Levantine pottery that are not found at Hazor (or in limited quantities), such as “Red, White and Blue Ware” (MAEIR 2002b) and little if any Chocolate-on-White Ware (e.g. FISCHER 1999), seem to indicate some degree of separation between Hazor and the southern parts of the Jordan Valley (for further discussion of Hazor’s role in trade and its relationship to other sites in the Jordan Valley, see below, Chapter 5).

28

A. BEN-TOR et al. 2009 have recently discussed a group of enigmatic subterranean halls that were discovered on the upper tell of Hazor (Area A-5), which were apparently constructed during the late MB but were filled in and went out of use prior to the LB, subsequently reused in the Iron Age II. They could not offer a clear explanation of this feature.

The end of the MB at Hazor is insufficiently understood. In some areas there is evidence of a destruction at the end of the MB (such as in Areas C and H), and YADIN suggested that the town was destroyed in the late MB (YADIN 1972: 31–32; 124–125) perhaps by Ahmose (YADIN & BEN-TOR 1993: 606). YADIN (1969: 5) also suggests that there might have been a hiatus between the destruction of Stratum XVI and the subsequent LB I, Stratum XV, as seen by burials that appeared to be in between the final MB and early LB phases (Stratum “Post-XVI”). This picture is not seen in all areas of the tell, and for example, in Area A, BONFIL (1997) believes that one can see a clear continuity between the MB and early LB levels without evidence of destruction and/or abandonment (contra YADIN 1969: 5). Despite these reservations regarding some of the excavation areas in Hazor, the thick destruction level in many areas does argue convincingly that the MB at Hazor did end in a destruction, even if the cause of this destruction, and its exact date, can be debated. GINOSAR A series of cave tombs dating to various stages in the MB were excavated at Ginosar by EPSTEIN (1974). Although the adjacent site was not excavated, the tombs can be seen as being representative of MB activity on this site. Of particular importance is Tomb 4, which contained a very nice assemblage of finds dating to the MB I/II transition. In addition to serving as one of the first assemblages clearly identified with this specific stage (along with the tombs from Kfar Szold [see above] that EPSTEIN (1974) published; see as well Hazor, T. 1181 – MAEIR 1997b), it can serve as evidence for the robust level of activity in the Northern Jordan Valley during this phase, corresponding to the initial urban activities at Hazor and other sites. CAPERNAUM In the excavations of the Roman-Byzantine site of Capernaum (LOFFREDA 1984; 2008; CORBO & LOFFREDA 1985) an MB II tomb was excavated with a small assemblage of local pottery.

I would like to suggest that perhaps this is part of a subterranean tomb complex situated under the area of the city palace, similar to the subterranean tomb complex recently discovered at Qatna (see, e.g., AL-MAQDISSI et al. 2003; PFÄLZNER 2007; 2008). The fact that it was purposefully filled in would fit in with the unique nature of this feature.

46


TEL KINROT The site, situated on the north-western edge of the Sea of Galilee is best known for finds dating to earlier (EB) and later (LB, Iron Age) periods (e.g., FRITZ 1990; 1993; 2003; ZANGENBERG, MÜNGER & PAKKALA 2005; MÜNGER, PAKKALA & ZANGENBERG 2009). Nevertheless, there is evidence for a fortified settlement that sprung up at the site during the very late MB, and continued to exist until it was destroyed at the end of the LB I. Although very little has been published about this phase (Stratum VIII), the excavators mention the existence of a city wall with a glacis and pottery dating to this stage (FRITZ 1999; 2003: 36–38; BURKE 2008: 286–287). An interesting point worth noting is that hippopotamus bones and teeth were found at the site, both in the MB III, LB and Iron Age I levels (MANHART & VON DEN DRIESCH 2003: 27–28). This provides perhaps the first evidence for the existence of hippopotami in the Jordan Valley during these periods, and one can assume their utilization for food and ivory. Even if so, this does not seem to have been an industry of any importance, since there is very little evidence of a local ivory production tradition in the Jordan Valley (save perhaps during the Iron Age II; see FISCHER & HERRMANN 1995). Further discussion of the MB finds from this site will have to await a more comprehensive publication. TEL HADAR Although the earliest level at this site dates to the LB IA (Stratum VI; e.g., E. YADIN & KOCHAVI 2008), in the vicinity of the site, an as-yet-unpublished tomb dating the late MB was discovered. Yadin and Kochavi have suggested that the foundation of the Stratum VI at Tel Hadar (which was abandoned very soon after, within the LB I) is to be connected to the late MB and early LB activity at Tel Kinrot (above). TEL BETH-YERAH Tel Beth-Yerah is well-known for its extensive EB remains, being one of the “type-sites” of the EB culture of Canaan. The extensive excavations at the site, which only just recently have been sufficiently published, have provided a treasure trove of information about this site (e.g., GETZOV 2006; GREENBERG et al. 2006). While Beth-Yerah was not settled extensively during the MB, and it can be assumed that by and large, Hazor replaced it in its regional role as the primary urban entity of the Northern Jordan Valley, nevertheless, a limited amount of MB material was found at the site. In Area BS of Bar-Adon’s excavations, on the southeastern edge of the tell, Local Stratum 5, dat-

ing to the MB was discerned (GREENBERG et al. 2006: 157–168). Nestled against the reused EB fortification, where a series of simple structures, pottery kilns, and a group of primary pit burials. In the recent publication it is suggested that this is a small rural pottery production location (perhaps similar to the pottery production location at Tell el-Hayyat – see below), with a limited time span – the late MB I. The pottery assemblage rightfully indicates a late MB I date, although as noted, does include some interesting, perhaps non-local attributes (such as lack of red-burnish decoration; no straight-sided cooking pots; certain “Syrian-style” kraters). It is suggested (GREENBERG et al. 2006: 166–167) that this may indicate a group with mixed Canaanite (exemplified by the various local types of pottery) and Syrian elements (GREENBERG et al. 2006: 168). The burials were all simple primary pit burials with a small assemblage of vessels in each burial. Among others, there were several Tell el-Yahudiyeh vessels of the frühe Palästinensische gruppe (BIETAK 1989), very similar to the group from the potter’s refuse pit in Afula (ZEVULUN 1990). Thirteen vessels from this level were sampled for Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (MAEIR 1997a: 167, 171, 103; MAEIR & YELLIN 2008: 560–562), and despite the fact that this was a pottery production location, displayed rather diverse origins. Some of the vessels had a quite similar chemical profile to those from Hazor Tomb 1181, which is roughly of the same period, while others where somewhat similar to material from Tell Beth-Shean. One of the Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets was of a completely different composition, perhaps indicating local production. An interesting question regarding Beth Yerah is why the site did not return to the central role that it had held during the EB following the revival of urban culture in the region during the MB. Although NIV (1978) suggested that this was due to a rise in the level of the Sea of Galilee, which effectively covered many of the sites in the Kinnarot Valley after the EB, this cannot be accepted. Not only are there sites dating to the post-EB periods in the region (e.g., EB IV at Sha>ar Hagolan [EISENBERG 1980]; MB I at Beth Yerah), there is no geomorphological or palaeo-environmental evidence that would support this idea. This question will be discussed in the discussion of the settlement pattern in Chapter 5 below. MUNHATA During the 1964 excavations of the Neolithic site of Munhata three tombs dating to the MB were discovered (FEREMBACH, FURSHPAN & PERROT 1975). The

Tel Kitan

tombs are of interest since they are rather unique in form and contain chronologically well-defined assemblages. The three burials were pit burials which contained only portions of the skeletal material of the deceased (mainly crania and long bones). This led the excavators to suggest that these were secondary burials (FEREMBACH, FURSHPAN & PERROT 1975: 90), a method not common in MB Canaan (but see below a few secondary burials at nearby Gesher). The pottery assemblage, as mentioned, represents a rather limited time frame, the transitional MB I/II, with many similarities to the pottery assemblage of Hazor Tomb 1181 (MAEIR 1997b). As they were not aware of any adjacent contemporary settlements, it was suggested (FEREMBACH, FURSHPAN & PERROT 1975: 90) that perhaps these were the tombs of immigrants to this region during the MB I/II. GESHER Excavations at the MB I mortuary site of Gesher were conducted first by Garfinkel and subsequently by COHEN. Most recently, an extensive final report of the excavations has been published, which offers a comprehensive overview of the finds from this site (GARFINKEL & COHEN 2007). It is important to note that as of yet, there is no adjacent contemporary settlement that can be related to this cemetery and it may very well be that it was used by a non-sedentary group. Clearly the population in the excavated graves is not representative of the full spectrum of this society given that the skeletal material in the graves was only that of adults. Twenty two graves were excavated in the cemetery, of which 19 were primary and three were secondary burials. Most of the burials were single burials, including several “warrior burials”. The material culture from these tombs is of interest. The pottery indicates that these tombs should be dated to a very early stage in the MB I, perhaps parallel to the early tombs in the cemetery at Hagosherim, and Tell el-Hayyat, Stratum V. Noteworthy are pottery types that on the one hand indicate connections with the EB IV pottery traditions but at the same time are harbingers of MB I pottery forms. Even though most of the ceramic types can be seen as being very early in the MB I period, some types can be dated to slightly later stages within the MB I. Of note is the very poor technical quality of the pottery, many of the vessels being thick-walled, the pottery poorly-levigated and badly fired, and in general, somewhat “lopsided” in shape. In addition, while many similarities with early MB I pottery assemblages from other parts of the Southern Levant can be discerned, subtle differences

47

can be seen as well. Noteworthy as well are possible connections with Syrian pottery traditions (for the discussion of the pottery, see, COHEN & BONFIL 2007). The bronze implements (axes [3 duckbill, 1 socket], spearheads, a toggle pin and two nails), particularly the axes and spearheads, are types that are typical of the MB I, particularly common in the early stages of the period (GARFINKEL & COHEN 2007: 101–108). The bone beverage strainers (MAEIR 2007a) are an object type most common in Syria during the MB, and perhaps indicate Syrian cultural influences. The faunal remains are solely of caprids, which may indicate that the users of this cemetery had a pastoral lifestyle (KOLSKA HORWITZ 2007). Finally, the methods of interments are of interest. Most of the burials are of primary single burials, a burial method most common in the preceding EB IV, and less common (but hardly non-existent) in the MB in general. Likewise, the appearance of few secondary burials is more a burial type that is often found the EB IV and very uncommon in the MB (COHEN 2007a: 107; but see the later MB secondary burials at nearby Munhata, which were not noticed by COHEN: ibid.). All told, the cemetery at Gesher appears to represent the burials of a non-sedentary population in the very earliest stages of the MB I. As suggested in the past (MAEIR 1997a; 2002a; see as well COHEN 2007a: 136–137), the mixed nature of many aspects of the material culture, on the one hand early EB IV, and on the other MB I facets, indicates that the tombs in the cemetery represent the earliest phase in the appearance of the MB culture in the Jordan Valley (parallel to Hagosherim and Tell el-Hayyat, Stratum V). At this stage, perhaps somewhat differently from the development of the early MB culture along the coast (at sites such as Ashkelon, Aphek and Kabri), one sees apparent evidence of a conservative inland culture, a culture that retains earlier traditions as the new ones are being incorporated. As such, this is excellent evidence of the local indigenous elements that played a part in the appearance of the early MB culture. TEL KITAN This is a small-sized tell, located in the Northern Beth Shean Valley, which was excavated in the 1970’s by E. Eisenberg. Unfortunately, save for preliminary reports (e.g., EISENBERG 1977a; 1997b; 1993a), very little has been published on this excavation, which appears to be of some importance. From the preliminary publications and discussions with the excavator (EISENBERG 1977a; 1977b; 1993a; pers. comm.) Tel Kitan was a small rural site during the mid/late MB I. There are though various hints to the existence of a

48


sacred area already during this period (Stratum VI) which developed substantially in the subsequent MB II–III strata. An almost complete MB II–III sequence is found at this site. From the little that was published, the following can be extracted (see EISENBERG 1993a). Following the MB I stratum (Stratum VI – see above), there are two MB II–III phases, Strata V and IV. In Stratum V, a langbau temple is founded (possibly founded in Stratum VI), which is substantially expanded and rebuilt in Stratum IV (EISENBERG 1977a; 1977b). In the temples and their vicinity various cult-related finds were discovered including massebot and other finds. In many ways the temples, their dating, and the related finds, are similar to the finds at Tell el-Hayyat (see below). EISENBERG (1993a: 881; see as well BURKE 2008: 287) reports that in a Stratum IV, a mudbrick fortification, ca. two meters thick, was found on two sides of the tell. Despite the fortifications, due to the small size of the site (and the rather small size of the fortifications themselves) it is safe to say that this is a rural and not an urban site. It can be assumed that the temples at Tel Kitan and Tell el-Hayyat are examples of the rural cultic centers of the period (see, e.g., MAEIR 2003; FAUST 2005). Regarding the dating of the MB II strata, several comments are merited. At first, the excavator suggested that the site existed continuously from the MB I through to the LB I (EISENBERG 1977a; 1977b). In later publications (e.g. EISENBERG 1993a) he suggested that in fact there was a gap between the cessation of final MB stratum (IV) and the foundation of the earliest LB I stratum (III). In addition, EISENBERG (1977a; 1977b; 1993a; pers. comm.) suggests dating the final MB phase (Stratum IV) to the very end of the MB. I would in fact suggest that the dating should be revised and placed slightly earlier. The principal reasoning for this is the absence of Chocolate-on-White ware in this phase. This ware typically appears in the terminal MB phases at other sites in the region (Beth Shean, Pella, Tell el-Hayyat, Tel Abu el-Kharaz; see, e.g., FISCHER 1999: MAEIR 2007b: 286–289) and continues into the early LB. In fact, it is only found at Tel Kitan in Stratum III dating to the LB I. An earlier dating of the final MB phase has additional implications. The excavator claims that the final MB stratum was destroyed (EISENBERG 1993a: 881). As discussed below (Chapter 5), there is little evidence for late MB II destructions in the Beth Shean Valley, and at most sites one sees a relatively uninterrupted continuation between the late MB and the early LB. The lack of Chocolate-on-White pottery at Tell Kitan (com-

pared, for example to nearby Stratum R3 at Beth Shean) would seem to indicate that if indeed the MB levels at Tel Kitan were destroyed, it occurred before the end of the MB and is indicative of the complex processes that occurred in the Jordan Valley during the MB/LB transition (see below, Chapter 5). HAMADIYA N. This is a small rural site to the north of Beth Shean that was excavated by ZORI in 1962 and subsequently published by MAEIR (2000a). The site was occupied during the MB II for a relatively brief period. Due to the limited excavations and partial publication of the finds (due to the many years between the excavations and the study of the materials and their very partial preservation) very little can be said about this site. The architectural finds consist of two simply built structures which contained relatively mundane assemblages of MB II–III pottery quite similar to the pottery from nearby Beth Shean (MAEIR 2007b). Even though the information on the site is very limited, it is one of the few published excavations of a rural site in the Southern Levant in general and the Jordan Valley in particular during the MB. BETH SHEAN The site of Beth Shean has been extensively excavated over the last century, and important remains dating to the MB have been revealed. The recent excavations by the Hebrew University have clarified the stratigraphy of the site during the MB, enabling a close correlation with the finds from the earlier excavations conducted by the University of Pennsylvania. Due to the fact that the recent excavations have been just recently extensively published (MAZAR & MULLINS 2007a; MAEIR 2007b; see as well MAZAR 2006a; PANITZCOHEN & MAZAR 2009) in addition to various earlier summaries (e.g. MAZAR 2003a), I will only briefly recapitulate the MB finds from the site. The stratigraphy of the site during the MB can be summarized as in (Table 4). While the University of Pennsylvania excavations were conducted on large parts of the tell and in the surrounding areas, the Hebrew University excavations were located in specific limited areas on the tell itself. Due to the fact that most of the MB finds from the University of Pennsylvania excavations were never fully published, very little is known about these finds. Nevertheless, analysis of the unpublished plans (e.g., MAEIR 1997a: 67–68; MULLINS 2007a) and unpublished pottery (in Philadelphia and in Jerusalem; MAEIR 2007b) enable the reconstruction of a relatively viable picture of the results of the earlier excavations, and in

Rehov HU Strata

U. of Penn. Strata

Period

R6

Tombs (N. Cemetery)

MB I

Individual burials

Individual burials

MB I/II

Gap?

Gap?

R5

XI–XB

Late MB II

R4

XB

Early MB III

R3

XA

Late MB III

R2

LB IA Table 4 The stratigraphy of Beth Shean during the MB and the early LB

particular, correlate them with the Hebrew University findings. The Hebrew University excavations on the tell reached the MB levels primarily in Area R, but also, to a limited extent, in Areas L and M. In light of the dispersal of the MB finds in both excavations it would appear that MB settlement at Beth Shean was relatively small, ca. 2 hectares at most (MAZAR 2003a: 327; MAZAR & MULLINS 2007b: 15). No indication of a fortification was found in any of the excavations. The earliest evidence for activity at Beth Shean during the MB was discovered in the University of Pennsylvania excavations to the north of the tell, in the “Northern Cemetery”. OREN (1971; 1973a) published a single tomb containing typical MB I finds. On the tell itself a few tombs contained pottery dating to the MB I/II transition without any clear evidence of a relationship to the stratigraphic phases on the tell (see MAEIR 1997a: 301–305; 2007b: 296–297; MAZAR 2007A: 199). Based on the finds from these tombs and their lack of relevant stratigraphic contexts it can be assumed that during the MB I/II and early MB II, the tell served as a burial ground for local inhabitants. It is only towards the mid-late MB II that there is stratigraphic evidence for the settlement on the tell. Three strata were defined (R5/XI–XB, R4/XB, R3/XA), which span the mid-late MB II and the MB III (MULLINS 2007b: 23–30; MULLINS & MAZAR 2007: 39–111).29 In Stratum R5/XI–XB a large oval crater/depression was created (possibly originally functioning as a cult-related artificial lake) and around it a series of structures and various installations were located. Combining the plans from the Hebrew University and University of Pennsylvania excavations, one sees several structural complexes of seemingly primarily

29

It should be noted that there is additional evidence dating from the MB I/II at Beth-Shean. Several years ago, a tomb dating to the MB I/II was excavated to the southeast of Tel

49 domestic nature that are built around the depression (on the western and southern sides and possibly on the northern side as well), with an alleyway located to the south of the depression connecting between the various buildings (MAZAR & MULLINS 2007b: 12–17, figs. 1.2; MULLINS & MAZAR 2007: 40, fig. 3.1). This pattern continued in Stratum R4/XB as well, with a significant amount of architectural continuity with the previous stratum. Noteworthy in the northern part of Area R are a series of round pebbled hearths (MAZAR & MULLINS 2007b: 12–17, figs. 1.3; MULLINS & MAZAR 2007: 40, fig. 3.2). The crater seems to have been filled in during Stratum R4/XB. In Stratum R3/XA, after the depression was completely filled in, a structure and several installations were built on top of it. This created a large piazza-like area, around which there continued to exist mostly domestic structures, as seen in the previous two strata. Analysis of the finds from these three strata revealed that they cover a rather limited period of the mid-late phases of the MB II/III. The finds are for the most part of local nature with very few indications of imports. Aside from a single tomb which contained some elite items (MAZAR & MULLINS 2007b: 16, fig. 1.5) few finds of significant value or uniqueness were found, along with only a small amount of imported pottery. One Cypriote sherd (MAEIR 2007b: 291), very few Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware vessels (MAEIR 2007b: 289–291; MAEIR & MULLINS in press) and Levantine Bichrome Ware (e.g., EPSTEIN 1966; see MAEIR 2007b: 294) were reported, and the only ware which appears to be imported in quantity from other regions is the “Red, Blue and White Ware”, originating from the Levantine southern Coastal Plain (MAEIR 2002b; 2007b: 286). The relative lack of imports at Beth Shean is quite different from the situation at nearby Pella (see below). Although the excavations did not explicitly reveal this, tell-tale evidence (various cult-oriented objects) hint to the possibility that the site served as a cult center during the late MB II/III, similar to the long tradition of temples seen at the site during the LB and Iron Age I (e.g. MAZAR 2003a). The analysis of the pottery from Beth Shean (MAEIR 2007b: 293–296) demonstrates that one can discern a distinctive regionalism in the pottery of Beth Shean, its surroundings and that of the North-

Beth Shean, within the modern city of Beth Shean, under the remains of a Byzantine period house. See now M. COHEN (2008).

50


ern Jordan Valley on the one hand (as represented by Hazor), and that of the Southern Jordan Valley (e.g. Jericho) on the other. The end of the MB at Tel Beth Shean is not marked by clear cut evidence of destruction (and there may have even been a limited abandonment – see MAZAR & MULLINS 2007b: 17), but there appears to be some continuity between the phases. In fact, an Egyptian vessel, typical of upper and middle Egypt, of apparent early New Kingdom date (a “carinated vessel”), may support a claim that the MB at Beth Shean continued into the early New Kingdom (late 16th century B.C.E.; MAEIR 2007b: 279–282; MARTIN & BEN-DOV 2007: 199). Despite the above, it should be noted that there is a stark and explicit difference between the pottery traditions of the late MB and early LB at the site, indicating a very substantial change in the pottery ecology and production traditions between these two periods (MAEIR 2007b: 292; MULLINS 2007a: 393). REHOV Up until the recent excavations at Tel Rehov (Tell elSarem; e.g. MAZAR 2008) this site was assumed to be one of the largest and most important sites in the Jordan Valley during the MB (see, e.g., MAEIR 1997a; 2000b), as numerous MB finds have been reported on the site, including an Old Babylonian cylinder seal (ZORI 1962: 177, pl. 21:6), and MB pottery collected during a surface survey (MAEIR 1997a: pl. 52:1–14). Noteworthy are adjacent tombs on the periphery of the site which contain burials from the early MB I through the late MB III (e.g., ZORI 1962: 174; YOGEV 1985; GAL & ZORI 2005). Surface finds (including the remains of impressive mudbrick fortifications) seem to indicate that this was a large site during the MB. Based on these assorted finds, the present author (and others) had assumed (MAEIR 1997a: 219, 225; 2000b) that Rehov was the primary polity of the western Central Jordan Valley during the MB, situated directly across (and equidistant from the Jordan River) from Pella. It was assumed that Rehov and

30

A tentative suggestion to explain the apparent hiatus at the site between the EB and the LB might perhaps be connected to the lake/pond that was reported to the west of the tell (MAZAR 1999: 11), which apparently went out of use in the LB. Perhaps, this feature was constructed during the EB, and its existence prevented, or at least, made it difficult, to settle the site during the MB, perhaps due to marshy conditions in its immediate surroundings. It can be postulated that perhaps, only in the LB, when the environment was slightly drier, did the lake/pond dry up enabling settlement

Pella controlled the Beth Shean Valley and its environs, with a “Rehov polity” on the west and a “Pella polity” to the east. The recent excavations at the site necessitate a complete revision of this view. The lack of any stratified MB finds after more than a decade of excavation (since 1997; MAZAR 2008; pers. communication) and the apparent dating of the impressive mudbrick fortifications to the EB (MAZAR 2008: 2012),30 indicate quite convincingly that, for the present, it appears that Tel Rehov was of little, or no, significance during the MB.31 This being the case, it is highly likely that Pella was the only major polity in the Beth Shean Valley during the MB (see below). PELLA The site of Pella has been extensively excavated during the last several decades. Several summaries of the excavations in the relevant phases have appeared in recent years (e.g., BOURKE 1997; 2006; 2007; 2008a; 2008b; BOURKE et al. 2006; 2009), which offer important new information on this site. The site was settled already during the early parts of the MB I and continued, apparently without a gap, until the MB/LB transition. The deposition at Pella dating to the MB is quite impressive, in some places more than 8 meters deep. BOURKE has aptly described the MB remains as “the zenith of pre-Classical occupation at Pella” (1997: 107). The remains are seen both on the site of Pella itself and at the adjacent Tell el-Husn, which for most of the MB served as the central burial zone for the site. Due to the fact that even in the relatively new summaries of the MB remains at Pella, the discussions are somewhat dispersed, I will try to present a concise summary of the relevant evidence. The stratigraphy of the site during the MB can be summarized as in Table 5 (after BOURKE 2006; BOURKE et al. 2006: 30, table 1). Sometime during the MB I, apparently at a relatively early stage in this period, the first evidence for occupation at Pella is seen. In several areas on the tell (e.g., Area XXVIII, Phase F; Area XXXII, unnum-

31

of the site. Clearly, this suggestion can only be proven through the further analysis of this feature and its relationship to the site. For an analogous relationship between a site and an adjacent lake, one can compare the recent results at Qatna (see, e.g., CREMASCHI 2007). Although, needless to say, further excavations at the site might change this picture in the future (as BURKE 2008: 304 believes) the very fact that not a single MB sherd has been discovered in the current excavations (A. MAZAR, pers. comm.) makes this less probable.

51

Pella Excavation Phase (Area III)

Period

Comment

Pre-XB

Early MB I

Pre-Fortification; Early temple?

XB-A

MB I

Fortified; Early temple?

IX/VIII

MB I/II

Temple? Ends in earthquake?

Intramural burial phase

MB II

VII

MB II

Temple?

VIC-A

MB III

Monumental temple founded?

VB-A

LB IA/B–C

“Governer's residency”; Temple

Table 5 The stratigraphy of Pella during the MB and the early LB

bered phase) a phase dating prior to the Stratum XB fortifications was discovered. Based on the ceramic parallels (and 14C dates), BOURKE (2006: 243–44; 2008b; also BOURKE et al. 2009; see as well below, Appendix B) suggests that these early phases are parallel to, or even slightly earlier than, the earliest MB I levels at Tell el-Hayyat, very soon after the very beginning of the MB (he dates these phases to ca. 1900 BCE). In Stratum XB in Area III, a monumental mudbrick city wall (Wall 41) was constructed, which relates to a large construction situated within the area of the city to the west of Wall 41 (Wall 52), with an apparent roadway between them, as well as other associated structural fills.32 In the next phase, Phase XA, apparently very soon after, additional structures are constructed in relation to the city wall, perhaps forming a “casemate” like structure. The material from Phase XB-XA, which is compared to material from Megiddo Strata XIII-XII and Aphek, Palace and post-Palace Phases, was initially dated by Bourke to the late MB I (BOURKE 1997: 104; BOURKE et al. 2006: 21), or following the discovery of additional material and comparisons to Tell el-Hayyat, to a relatively early stage in the MB I (BOURKE 2006: 243–245). I believe that the earlier date seems more appropriate based on the pottery that has been published from these phases (e.g. BOURKE et al. 2006: fig. 10). The next phase, Stratum IX, is only poorly represented in Areas III and XXVIII, and the limited archi-

tectural and depositional remains can be dated to the transitional MB I/II. Above this, Stratum VIII is of more or less the same period. This stratum was destroyed in what appears to have been an earthquake.33 Following this stage, in Area III, and prior to the next phase, Stratum VII, there is a phase in which intra-mural burials were found. It is suggested that this phase had a very brief duration preceding the construction of the Stratum VII structures. Finds from the tombs, both ceramics, metal and other, indicate that this burial phase should be dated to the early MB II. Stratum VII is a major constructional phase, following the earthquake of Stratum VIII, and impressive evidence of leveling and construction can be seen. This includes a major rebuilding of the city fortifications and related structures. Unfortunately, major parts of this stratum have been lost to erosion in the areas where this level has been reached. This phase should be dated to the MB II. Stratum VI is divided into three phases – C, B, and A, and represents the final stages of the MB at Pella, roughly equivalent to the MB III. Although there is evidence of substantial activity in this stratum, it was badly disturbed by the major constructions related to the “Governer’s Residency” of Stratum V (LB I). In the earliest phase, Phase VIC, there is evidence of the continued use and widening of architectural elements from Stratum VII, in particular, the city wall.

32

33

It should be noted that MCLAREN (2003: 13–19) suggests dating the fortifications to the MB I/II (see as well BURKE 2008: 300–301). In addition, he raises the possibility that there is a gate in the vicinity of Wall 41 (ibid: fig. 15b). MCLAREN’s and BURKE’s later dating is based on a relatively limited ceramic corpus and does not take into account the later excavation seasons described by BOURKE (2006).

Note that BOURKE (2006: 244) raises the possibility that this might have been caused by tunneling activity related to a siege but believes that this is a less likely explanation than an earthquake.

52


During the course of this phase there is evidence of an apparent earthquake. Following this earthquake, in Stratum VIB, there is a massive reconstruction in which the city wall is substantially thickened along with various associated features. Stratum VIA, the final MB phase, is seen with various relatively minor additions to the VIB structures and features. Although based on a very limited exposure of Stratum VIA (which is badly destroyed by the LB IA palace above it), it has been suggested that this final MB level at Pella was also destroyed in an earthquake (MCNICOLL et al. 1992: 46; for possible evidence of an earthquake at MB Jericho, see above, Chapter 1). Due to the lack of sufficiently preserved contexts of the final MB deposits at Pella, BOURKE (2006: 246) hesitates to give a clear date for the end of the MB at Pella, suggesting that it is somewhere within the late MB/early LB IA range. Needless to say, this is of interest in light of the possibility that the transition between the MB and LB at adjacent Beth Shean was also slightly later than the traditional end of the MB, which is usually paralleled to the beginning of the New Kingdom in Egypt (see above). Of some importance are the slowly emerging reports on the series of temples at Pella, which apparently commence during the early stages of the MB. Following the discovery of the truly monumental stone built “Fortress Temple” in Area XXXII, which continued to be in use until the Iron Age II with a long history throughout the LB, it was initially thought to have been founded in the early LB or late MB II/III (e.g., BOURKE 2004). Recent work on the early phases of this temple and the deposits below it have demonstrated that not only is the stone temple to be dated to the MB, but apparently, there are at least two, earlier, mudbrick built temples below it, dating to much earlier stages of the MB. In fact, initial Carbon 14 dates from these earliest phases indicate that the earliest temple may have been founded in the very earliest stage of the MB I, perhaps in the 20th century B.C.E. (BOURKE 2007; 2008). This new data provides important insights on the growth of Pella from the very early stages of the MB I, and to a large extent enhances our understanding of the appearance of apparently full-fledged urban characteristics at such an early stage of the MB. In addition to the MB remains from the main mound of Pella, the many MB tombs that were exca-

34

vated over the years at nearby Tell el-Husn span the MB II–III/LB IA. Among these tombs are some with exceptionally rich finds (e.g., MCNICOLL et al. 1992; KNAPP 1993; ERIKSSON 2001), and it has been suggested that they may belong to the ruling elite of the city during the end of the MB and early LB, possibly also refugees from the Egyptian conquest of southern Palestine during the early New Kingdom (BOURKE & ERIKSSON 2005). The rich finds from Pella which include a wide assortment of local material of different types, as well as various classes of finds originating from various regions within the Southern Levant, and a relatively wide assortment of Aegyptiaca, including several scarabs with Hyksos royal names (see BOURKE & ERIKSSON 2005: BOURKE, SPARKS & SCHRODER 2006: 40–53; BOURKE 2006: 249–253) are a clear indication of the central role that Pella played in the Beth Shean Valley during the MB. It should be noted though that during the MB there are no Cypriote imports at Pella (BOURKE, SPARKS & SCHRODER 2006: 48–49), which apparently indicates that Pella was not part of the Mediterranean-oriented trade during the MB.34 Given the fact that Rehov does not seem to have been a major site during the MB (see above), it would appear that, in fact, Pella may have been the only major polity in the Beth Shean Valley during the MB, from the early MB I through to the very end of the MB III. The impressive and clear cut evidence for major activities at Pella during the early MB I, including a very well-built fortification (and apparently, the first stages of the monumental temple), require a reassessment of the date of the founding of the earliest urban political landscapes in the MB in the Central Jordan Valley and their relationship, or lack thereof, to the parallel developments in the Northern Jordan Valley and the coastal regions of Canaan (e.g., BOURKE 2006; for additional discussion, see below, Chapter 5). TELL

EL-HAYYAT

Tell el-Hayyat is a small rural site that was excavated for several seasons by FALCONER and MAGNESS-GARDINER, for which just recently the final report on the excavations has appeared (FALCONER & FALL 2006). Unfortunately, many of the details regarding the excavations and finds are lacking from the final report, which limits its usefulness for an in-depth under-

It should be noted that at nearby Beth Shean, a similar situation is seen, and only one Cypriote sherd was found in the MB pottery (MAEIR 2007b: 291).

53

Tell el-Hayyat Excavation Phase

Period

Comment

6

EB IV

Unstratified finds; No architecture

5

Early MB I

Earliest temple; Possible domestic finds

4

Late MB I

Temple; Domestic architecture; Pottery kiln

3

MB II

Temple; Domestic architecture

2

Early MB III

Temple; Domestic architecture

1

Late MB III

Poorly preserved domestic architecture

0

Post-MB Table 6 Relevant strata at Tell el-Hayyat

standing of this site.35 This site is of some importance for several reasons. To start with, it is one of the few recently excavated and published rural MB sites in the entire region, and as thus, affords an important perspective on this crucial non-urban component of MB life. In addition, the site provides a relatively robust stratigraphic sequence for much of the MB, from quite early in the MB I until late in the MB III. Besides the rural facets of this site, a small MB temple with several phases was discovered which enables us to study aspects of the religious life of non-urban MB society, something that is sorely missing in previous research. The rich set of environmental data that has been published from this site is an important addition, including information on the utilization of flora and fauna at this site. The stratigraphy of the site during the MB can be summarized as in Table 6 (based on FALCONER & FALL 2006). Although surface finds indicate some activity at the site during the EB IV, no stratified evidence from

35

To illustrate the problematic nature of this report, a few examples will suffice: 1) There is very little use of stratigraphic sections in the description of the stratigraphy and architecture, and from the few that are published (e.g. FALCONER & FALL 2006: figs. 3.3–3.7) it is hard to relate them to the published plans and discussion; 2) Likewise, the presentation of the ceramic finds (FALCONER & BERELOV 2006) provides only overall summaries of the pottery from the various levels, with little, if any details on specific contexts and assemblages. Thus, one cannot “recreate” the pottery assemblages from various contexts in the respective strata to form a better picture on the dating and/or function of the various features; 3) Despite the extensive provenience studies that were conducted on the pottery from the site (e.g., FALCONER 1987a; 1987b), this data is not integrated, in any manner, into the discussion of the site and finds; 4) Various finds from the excavations are both poorly illus-

this stage was reported. The earliest first stratified evidence is related to Stratum 5 dated to the early MB I. In this stratum, the earliest of a series of four superimposed temples is reported. The temple, a small version of the common “Syrian Temple” plan, clearly conforms to the plan and orientation of the temples in the later strata. Although no domestic structures were excavated in this phase, some apparent surfaces, as well as finds of a domestic nature (particularly when compared to those of the following strata), indicate that the domestic components of this settlement are located in the unexcavated parts of the site. In the following stratum, Stratum 4, which is dated to the MB I, the temple is rebuilt and enlarged and its enclosure wall separates it from several apparently domestic structures located to its south. In Area A, located to the south of the central excavation area, a relatively intact updraft pottery kiln dating to this phase was uncovered. Needless to say, this is a very

trated (often represented solely by low quality photographs) and despite importance, not discussed in a sufficient manner. Thus, for example, several perforated animal tibia are published (FALCONER & FALL 2006: 120, fig. 7.21) without reference to similar items from adjacent Jordan Valley sites, which have been convincingly identified as bone beverage strainers (MAEIR & GARFINKEL 1992; see now MAEIR 2007), or the apparent impression of a cylinder seal (FALCONER & FALL 2006: 120, fig. 7.24), perhaps on a bulla or clay stopper, which is poorly illustrated and not discussed (I wish to thank E. Marcus for pointing out this latter find); 5) The authors do not relate to various studies that are directly relevant to the finds from this site (e.g., GARFINKEL 1990; MAEIR 2000a; 2003a; ALBERS 2001; COHEN 2002). Thus, I cannot but disagree with MCCREERY’s (2010) positive assessment of this report.

54


important find, as it provides the only direct evidence for a pottery production location in the Jordan Valley during the MB. Based on this find, a rather large-scale provenience study was conducted on the pottery from Tell el-Hayyat and the surrounding sites, and it was demonstrated that Tell el-Hayyat apparently served as a regional pottery production center in parts of the MB (see, e.g., FALCONER 1987a; 1987b). Interestingly, after the kiln went out of use during Stratum 4, it was used as a burial for a young adult male. Stratum 3, to a large extent, is a continuation of the previous Stratum 4 with slight changes in the architectural plan of the temple and adjacent domestic structures. A similar picture is seen in the next level, Stratum 2, although the temple reaches its maximum size during this phase. During the final MB stage at Tell el-Hayyat, Stratum 1, there are limited remains of architectural elements, and apparently the temple was abandoned during this stage. Due to the fragmentary remains, it was not possible to recreate a coherent picture of the character of this stratum. According to the excavators, the pottery from the MB levels at Tell el-Hayyat spans the entire MB, from the early MB I until the very terminal MB III. Although it does appear that most of the typical stages of the MB are in fact represented at the site, within the limitations of the excavation report (see above, n. 13), I believe that some qualifications to this should be noted. Based on the published pottery from Stratum 5, FALCONER and BERELOV (2006: fig. 4.2) suggest that this phase can date to the very earliest parts of the MB I, when strong EB IV traditions are still observed. This early date seems to be supported by radiometric dates as well, with a few short-lived samples from Stratum 5 providing dates very early in the second millennium B.C.E. (FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: 62–63). The dating of this assemblage should be qualified. Although due to the lack of published information it is hard to counter their statements, the pottery with strong EB IV connections (FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: fig. 4.2: a–f, i, j) may just have likely come from the earlier EB IV activities exhibited on the site (Stratum 6) and not from actual early MB I levels. In addition, the small amount of pottery from this stratum does not include all the types seen in other assemblages dating to the earliest phase of the MB I (e.g., Hagosherim [COVELLO-PARAN 1996a] and Gesher [COHEN & BONFIL 2007]). The pottery from the later stages of the MB at Tell el-Hayyat, if it represents the entire MB sequence, presents some difficulties as well. From a perusal of the published pottery, many of pottery

types (shapes, wares, decorations, etc.) that are seen at other MB II–III sites in the adjacent parts of the Jordan Valley (e.g., Hamadiya North, Beth Shean, Pella, Abu el-Kharaz) are missing from the Tell elHayyat assemblage. For example, kraters and cooking pots common at Beth Shean are barely seen at Hayyat (compare MAEIR 2007b: 255–263 to FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: figs. 4.6–4.7). Similarly, special groups noted at many sites, such as “Red, White and Blue ware” (MAEIR 2002b; 2007b: 286) and Chocolate-on-White ware (FISCHER 1999; MAEIR 2007b: 286–289) are not reported. Although the very limited information from Tell el-Hayyat does not enable a closer analysis of this issue, one can wonder whether this does indicate gaps in the MB sequence at Tell el-Hayyat (both at the beginning and at the end of the MB), or perchance, differences in the pottery assemblage that are due to functional and/or societal variations between this and the other sites. If FISCHER’s (2006e: 330) suggestion that the settlers of Tell Abu el-Kharaz, towards the end of the MB, may have originated from Tell el-Hayyat is well-founded, then perhaps the latter was abandoned before the final stages of the MB and thus, the lack of certain pottery types at the site might be due to chronological considerations. Finally, a note should be made of the social structure of this site. Falconer and others (e.g., FALCONER 1987a; 1987b; 1994a; 1994b; FALCONER & MAGNESSGARDINER 1984; 1989a; 1989b; MAGNESS-GARDINER & FALCONER 1994) have justifiably claimed that Tell elHayyat is an excellent example of the rural component of MB settlement, one of the many villages that dotted the MB landscape. Although they have repeatedly stressed that in their opinion the rural component was the dominant, and to a large extent, the only component of MB settled life, with little, or no urban entities, this suggestion cannot be accepted, as it flies in the face of all the available evidence (see MAEIR 2003). Likewise, Falconer & Magness-Gardiner (e.g., FALCONER 1994a; 1994b; 1995; MAGNESS-GARDINER & FALCONER 1994) have argued that the evidence from Tell el-Hayyat indicates that the social and economic structure behind this village is that of an autonomous village, a theory which was recently espoused by FAUST (2005) as well. Although one cannot deny this possibility, as I have claimed before (MAEIR 2003), there is a very good chance as well that this village is an “owned” village, under the suzerainty of one of the larger settlements (Pella?) in the immediate vicinity, which existed throughout the entire MB. Although FAUST (2005: 119) emphatically states that the temple at Tell el-Hayyat is too large to

55

Tell Abu el-Kharaz

have been controlled by an external force and must represent the “religious practices of the villagers”. It is possible though that the settlement was not independent – such a scenario cannot be denied. However, the available evidence from Tell el-Hayyat and other, comparable sites, does not provide sufficient data to resolve this issue. TELL ABU

EL-KHARAZ

Tell Abu el-Kharaz is situated on the eastern side of the Jordan Valley on the banks of Wadi el-Yabis, some 4 km to the east of the Jordan River and some 5 km to the south of Pella. The excavations at the site, which began over a decade ago, which are directed by Fischer, have continued until today (see FISCHER 2006c; 2006e; 2008a; 2009; FISCHER & FELDBACHER 2009). Although the predominant finds from this site date to the EB, LB and Iron Age periods, after a long break in settlement following the last EB settlement (dating to the early EB III), the site was resettled in the latter parts of the MB (Table 7). FISCHER (2006c: 81–84; 2006e: 33–57) suggests that there are two late MB III stages on the site, Phase IV/1 and Phase IV/2. In the earlier phase (IV/1), which he dates to late in the MB, he reports that large parts of the upper tell were resettled, with the reuse of the EB fortification system. Within the city several domestic and industrial structures have been discerned, including evidence of flint production and (secondary) metallurgical production. This phase was destroyed in a conflagration which he defines as a “general catastrophe”. Very soon after (yet during the late MB according to Fischer) the town was rebuilt (Phase IV/2). A new fortification system is built, consisting of a wall which may have a “casemate” like plan (see as well BURKE

Excavation Phase

Excavator’s Period

2008: 229). In general, most of the structures and installations in this phase are of domestic character. This phase (IV/2) apparently continues uninterrupted to the next phase (V) which Fischer dates to the LB IA, where perhaps the most intensive and extensive evidence of activities during the MB and LB were found. As noted above, based on the analysis of the finds from Phases IV/1 and IV/2, Fischer suggests that both these phases should be dated to late in the MB. On the basis of the published pottery from these two phases I believe that this dating can be questioned. Although the pottery from Phase IV/1 is predominantly characterized by forms that fit in well with a terminal MB date (compared to the late MB pottery from nearby Beth Shean, see MAEIR 2007b), already in this phase there are several types that are very much at home in the early LB. Examples of this are: the “biconical jugs” from Phase IV/1 (e.g., FISCHER 2006e: fig. 269:1) which are common in the LB I of Beth Shean (MULLINS 2007a: 434–438) but absent from the late MB at the same site (MAEIR 2007b: 272–274); the lack of “folded rim” cooking pots, very typical of the late MB at Beth Shean (MAEIR 2007b: 262–263) and missing from the LB I at the same site (e.g., MULLINS 2007a: 422–424); the same is true for some other pottery types as well. While FISCHER (2006e: 365–367) does note some parallels to the pottery from Phases IV/1 and IV/2 from the MB stages at Beth Shean, as argued above, quite a few types that are typical at Beth Shean only in the LB (MULLINS 2007a) appear already in Phase IV/1 and even more so, in Phase IV/2, which, in my opinion, is a strong argument for placing the latter phase in the LB.36 Thus, I would suggest that Phase IV/1 may date to the very late MB III, or better yet, to the MB III/LB I

Suggested Period

Comment

IV/1

MB II(?)–III

MB III

May begin in late MB II; Ends in destruction

IV/2

MB III

LB IA

Ends in destruction

V

LB IA

LB IA

Table 7 The stratigraphy of Tell Abu el-Kharaz during the MB and early LB

36

One should note the possibility that regional differences in the pottery between the two sites precludes such a close comparison between the MB and LB types, but since these sites are separated by such a limited distance, this is hard to

accept. I would like to thank P. Fischer for discussing this issue with me although we have different opinions on this matter.

56


transition, no earlier that the final MB stratum at Beth Shean (R3).37 Interestingly, as FISCHER has noted, Phase IV/1 is destroyed, to be completely rebuilt in the next phase (IV/2). Accordingly, I would date Phase IV/2 to the early LB IA, parallel to the early LB levels at Beth Shean (R2; MULLINS 2007a; 2007b) and Pella (both on the tell and in the Tell elHusn cemetery). The fact that this phase (IV/2) continues, apparently uninterrupted into the next LB phase, Phase V, would also support a pattern of continuity between these two LB phases. Prior to this there was a stage (IV/1), which I would date to the very late MB or transitional MB/LB, which was destroyed. The recently published radiometric dates from the site (FISCHER 2003: 55–58) seemingly support this suggested revision; 14C analyses dating Phase V all seem to indicate that this phase is well into the LB, providing a late 16th/late 15th date, well within the traditional dates of the LB I, leaving ample time for an earlier LB phase (IV/2). Thus, I would suggest that it is Phase IV/1 which is most probably the final stage of the MB at Tell Abu el-Kharaz. The destruction of this phase is perhaps to be seen as evidence of the tumultuous and multifarious agencies in place during the end of the MB in the Jordan Valley (see discussion, below, Chapter 5). TELL

EL-HAMMAH

Excavations by Cahill, Lipton, and Tarler at this small site in the southwestern Beth Shean Valley have revealed evidence from many periods, including the MB. Although there are relatively few details about the MB finds, they do report (CAHILL & TARLER 1993: 562) the existence of MB fortifications consisting of a thick, mudbrick wall and an associated glacis, although a more precise dating within the MB was not provided. Likewise they suggest that the size of the site during the time of the fortifications was ca. 3 acres (ca. 1.2 hectares). Thus, although relatively little is know about this site, the small size of the site makes it hard to define it as an urban settlement, despite the fortifications. Perhaps, it was a rural site with a fortification (such as possibly at Tel Kitan), or

37

It should be noted that BOURKE (2006: 248) has suggested dating Stratum IV1 at Tell Abu el-Kharaz to the MB II, instead of to the MB III. I believe that FISCHER (2006e: 258–259) has correctly noted the problems with this earlier dating of Strata IV1 on the basis of the comparative pottery typology, which is strengthened by comparison to the late MB pottery from Beth Shean (MAEIR 2007). Once again, I would like to thank P. Fischer for discussing the stratigra-

perchance, it was a fortified position guarding the southwestern entrance to the Beth Shean Valley, as part of the “Pella Polity’s” control of this region (for this function in the MB, see BURKE 2008: 123–124).38 TELL DEIR >ALLA Tell Deir >Alla has been excavated since the 1960’s (e.g., FRANKEN 1969; 1992) but it was only in the excavations by VON DER KOOIJ and IBRAHIM (e.g., VAN DER KOOIJ 2006a; 2006b; VAN DER KOOIJ & IBRAHIM 1989) that substantial remains dating to the MB were discovered. The site’s settlement history during the MB is somewhat similar to that of Tell Abu el-Kharaz, with evidence of settlement only at the very end of the period. The excavators report three levels (Phases 1–3) dating to the late MB, which were reached in very limited exposures in different parts of the site. The late MB settlement at the site represents the earliest settlement at the site and it was founded on the low natural hill. In the first stage (Phase 1) there is evidence of some architectural units of seemingly domestic nature but of limited extent. In the next two levels (Phases 2–3) the site apparently expands and may have been surrounded by an earthwork (fortification) of which very little is known (see also MCLAREN 2003: 8; BURKE 2008: 355). The excavators report that the last MB level (Phase 3) suffered from a complete destruction at the end the period, and in the following period (LB I) the town was totally rebuilt with a completely different orientation. Several points regarding the finds from the MB levels at Tell Deir >Alla are worth mentioning. The pottery from these three phases seems to be of a very late MB date, since all three levels contain Chocolateon-White ware. Similarly noteworthy, on the basis of the pottery that has been published, earlier MB types (such as some of the types found in Stratum R5 at Tel Beth-Shean [e.g. “Red, White and Blue” ware, see MAEIR 2002b; 2007b]) are not present. Of particular interest are the two extraordinary metal objects found in a stone lined pit from the late MB, a bronze trident and a spearhead, both are of exceptionally high technical quality (VAN DER KOOIJ 2006b: 213, fig. 11). Both

38

phy of Tell Abu el-Kharaz with me, even though we do disagree on some of the details. The small fortified MB site reported by ZERTAL (2007: 254–255) at Jebel Khimyar, on a hill just above the Jordan Valley, 2 km southwest of modern day Mehola, and about 3 km south of Tell el-Hammah (Levant grid 19781953), might have also served as a border outpost of the Pella polity.

57

Jericho

objects were apparently “killed” prior to deposition, and it is very likely that they are indicative of some cultic activity. Although additional cult-related finds were not reported, this perhaps hints to the existence of a cult-oriented structure on the site already during the late MB, possible the predecessor of the one present during the LB (see, e.g., FRANKEN 1992). TELL NIMRIN Tell Nimrin is a relatively small site (ca. 1 hectare) located on the eastern side of the Jordan Valley, 8 km to the east of Jericho and 12 km to the north of the Dead Sea. Along with Jericho and Tell Hamman it is among the southernmost sites in the region under study. The site was excavated during the 1990’s by Flanagan, McCreery and Yassine (DORNEMANN 1990; FLANAGAN & MCCREERY 1990; FLANAGAN, MCCREERY & YASSINE 1992; 1994; 1996). It was first settled in, what the excavators define as, the early stages of the MB I, and continued to be settled continuously throughout the MB (the excavators report over 6 m of MB deposits). In the early MB I the excavators report various architectural elements that they believe hint to the existence of a small village devoid of fortifications. In the late MB (the excavators suggest dating to ca. 1600 B.C.E.) a massive fortification was built at the site, including massive stone and mudbrick tower and walls, and an associated glacis, built during two phases at least (see as well MCLAREN 2003: 8; BURKE 2008: 300). At the very end of the MB, or the beginning of the LB, the site was abandoned (FLANAGAN, MCCREERY & YASSINE 1995: 217–218). Based on the analysis of the finds (pottery, palaeobotany, etc.), the excavators suggest that the site was an agriculturally oriented site most probably not of urban nature. The appearance of such massive fortifications at such a

small site must be seen in a wider context. Perhaps, this site should be understood as a fortified border site, marking the eastern or western border of a contemporary polity that existed in an adjacent region – whether the region of Jericho or the Central Hills to the west or the Transjordanian plateau to the east. It may have served in a similar role to that of Tell elHamah in the Southern Beth-Shean Valley (see above). Similar small sites with impressive fortifications are known from other parts of the Levant, for example the site of Bir el-Hilu (149/137; AHARONI 1969; SHAVIT 2003: 105–106), a small fortified MB site to the east of Latrun in central Israel, which is positioned on the route leading towards the Central Hills just near the border between the Judean foothills and the Central Hills – probably serving as a border post for one of the polities in the region (perhaps Gezer?; for a discussion of this type of fortified site, see BURKE 2008: 124). Based on the pottery that has been published from the excavations it is hard to assess whether in fact there was an early MB I settlement on the site; this will have to await a more complete publication of the finds. JERICHO Tell el-Sultan, the ancient site of Jericho, is one of the most intensively researched and excavated sites in the Levant. Excavations at the site commenced in the late 19th century C.E., and have continued, on and off, until today. Due to the immense volume of publications on the site, but at the same time, the very problematic nature of many of them, an attempt to summarize the MB finds from the site is quite challenging. In light of the very complicated nature of the finds, I have chosen to base this summary first and foremost on the results and summaries of the current

Italian Phases

Period

Marchetti/Nigro Interpretation

IIId

EB IV

Limited stratified finds on tell; Extensive evidence in tombs

IVa 1

MB IA

First settlement on tell; Fortifica- No published evidence for early/mid MB I on tell or in tombs; tions should most probably be re-dated to late MB I (at the earliest)

IVa 2

MB IB

Domestic structures; Fortifications; Limited late MB I finds from tell and tombs; Kenyon Pre-Tomb Earliest tombs Group I(?)

IVb

MB II

Domestic structures; Fortifications; Kenyon Tomb Groups I–III Tombs

IVc

MB III

Extensive domestic quarter; FortifiKenyon Tomb Groups IV–V cations; Tombs

Va

LB I

Hiatus Table 8 Relevant strata at Jericho

Comments

58


excavations on tell (e.g., MARCHETTI 2003a; 2003b; MARCHETTI & NIGRO 1998; 2000; MARCHETTI, NIGRO & TAHA 2000; NIGRO 2007b; 2007–2008; 2009) and to add where necessary. As will be seen, I believe that some of the conclusions of the Italian team are quite off the mark, perhaps due to the lack of in-depth knowledge of the nuances of MB pottery.39 MARCHETTI (2003a) has recently suggested a comprehensive stratigraphic framework for the site of Jericho, including the MB, attempting to integrate the finds from all the different excavations. Table 8 summarizes this framework. The recent excavators (MARCHETTI 2003a: 304– 306; NIGRO 2006: 25–26; 2007–2008) insist there is an early MB I stratigraphic phase on the tell (IVa 1). MARCHETTI (2003a: 304–306) suggests to identify a small structure and alleyway as such. In addition, he proposes that one can see portions of a fortification from this phase, originally excavated by GARSTANG (1932: 11, fig. 5, pl. XXC). He dates this to the MB IA due to the fact that it is covered by GARSTANG’s “tower” (GARSTANG 1934: p. XIII) which the Italian excavators date to the MB IB (MARCHETTI 2003a: 305–306; NIGRO 2006: 26). This dating is apparently based on the dating of these features on the basis of pottery published by KENYON and HOLLAND (1983: pl. 395–396, 398–407, figs. 160, 163–167) which MARCHETTI (2003a: 305) believes can be dated to the MB IA. A perusal of these pottery plates published by KENYON and HOLLAND raises serious reservations on the validity of the dating of these features to the MB IA. All the pottery types that appear in these plates can be dated to the MB II (including some types, such as the open platters with incurved rims that do not appear prior to the very late MB I), even if some of the types (such as the straight-sided cooking pots) may appear in earlier phases as well. Completely missing from these plates are pottery types that are common in the MB I in general, and in the early MB I specifically, as can be seen at other sites

39

The problems with the dating of the MB pottery at Jericho may perhaps be related to an overemphasis, of the part of the Italian excavator’s of Jericho on comparing MB Palestinian pottery with that of MB Syria. Although there are many significant connections between the two regions, the fine-tuned localized regional patterns discerned in the pottery assemblages from MB Palestine, preclude “broadbrush” comparisons to the typological chronology of the pottery of MB Syria. This can be seen in NIGRO’s (2000; 2003a) attempts to correlate between the MB pottery of Syria and Palestine. For example, NIGRO (2000: 1194) dates

in the Jordan Valley, such as Gesher, Pella, and Tell el-Hayyat. Thus, unless additional, unpublished evidence, clearly dating to the MB IA can be associated with this stage, it is hard to accept such an early date for these features on the tell. The lack of early MB I tombs in the cemetery at Jericho (see below) likewise makes this dating of the early MB level at Jericho problematic. The next phase that the Italian excavators identify is Stratum IVa 2, which they date to the late MB I (e.g., MARCHETTI 2003a: 306–310; NIGRO 2006: 26–28). To this phase they relate a substantial fortification on the eastern side, including a large tower originally excavated by GARSTANG (1934: 129), the earliest stage of the earthen rampart, possibly the remains of monumental architecture on the top of the tell (NIGRO 2006: 25, 28), and an alleyway with a drain that was first exposed by KENYON (1981: 354–359), as well as various burials excavated by GARSTANG, KENYON, and the Italian expedition (see references in MARCHETTI 2003a: 306–310). Once again, if one looks at the pottery that is published from some of these tombs, such as Kenyon’s Tomb HAR (KENYON & HOLLAND 1983: fig. 162; see as well, e.g., WARD 1987: 520; NIGRO 2009: figs. 12–13) and the Italian Tomb D.641 (MARCHETTI 2003a: fig. 9:a–b; NIGRO 2006: figs. 40–41; 2009: figs. 16–18), there is absolutely no reason to assume that these tombs date to the mid-MB I – in fact they appear more at home in the MB I/II, and better yet in the early/mid MB II. To this one can add that of the two scarabs from Tomb D.641, one can be identified as belonging to D. BEN-TOR’s (2007a) “Late Palestinian Series”, typical of the MB II/III. Scarab TS.99.G.500 from the tomb (MARCHETTI 2003a: fig. 9:b; NIGRO 2009: fig. 23) has a lion motif common in the “Late Palestinian Series”, and in fact, with several parallels from Jericho (D. BEN-TOR 2007a: pl. 99:36–40).40 On the other hand, Scarab TS.99.G.458 from the same tomb (MARCHETTI 2003a: fig. 9:b;

40

painted material from Ginosar to an early stage of MB I, rather than towards the end of the period (see above); likewise (ibid: 1196), he dates levels from various sites from various stages of the MB I and early MB II (e.g., Ifshar, Nami, Ajjul, Hazor T.1181, Jericho, Stratum IVa, etc.), to the same chronological phase. Clearly, a much more fine-tuned ceramic typological sequence is available for MB Palestine, which would enable a more accurate dating of the relevant levels at Jericho. For critical comments on NIGRO’s (2009) interpretation of the signs on this scarab, see above, Chapter 2.

Jericho

NIGRO 2009: fig. 22) can be dated earlier, and, based on its design, appears to be a late Middle Kingdom Egyptian scarab. Similar designs grouped as “Late Middle Kingdom Egyptian Scarabs” have been noted by D. BEN-TOR (2007a: pl. 8:22, 24, 26, 38). The particular form of the sA hieroglyph at the top of this scarab (GARDINER 1957: 523, V16) is not attested on Canaanite scarabs but is quite common on Egyptian Middle Kingdom scarabs (see, e.g., examples in the Uronarti sealings – REISNER 1955: fig. 15:380–386).41 Although the latter scarab is earlier and dates to the late Middle Kingdom, and could, in theory, date to the late MB I, the other, later, scarab and the associated pottery, convincingly argue for a later date of this tomb, and arguably, the entire Phase IVa 2, which I would place in the MB II. ANTONETTI (2007) has assembled at least 21 intramural (intra moenia) burials on Tel Jericho, of which she believes at least twelve of them date to the late MB I. Most of these burials are from the earlier excavations, while burial D.641 (discussed above) is from the recent Italian excavations. In light of the discussion above, which raises serious questions as to the MB I dating of this latter burial (suggesting instead a later date within the MB II), it may very well be that all of the burials which ANTONETTI dates to the MB I should be dated later as well, since none of the pottery that ANTONETTI (2007) reviews must be dated solely to the MB I (save, perhaps, for the squat jar from “T3” of SELLIN and WATZINGER’s excavations (1913: pl. 28; ANTONETTI 2007: 340–341, fig. 3). Similarly, NIGRO (2007–2008) has argued that there is a group of of intramural, early MB tombs (including early MB I) at the site, which he argues are to be connected to the rulers of Jericho at the time, since they are located under what he suggests is the MB palace; the same reservations on the dating of the material from these tombs applies to NIGRO’s suggestion. In any case, until further evidence is published, it would appear that the earliest MB evidence from Jericho (including these intramural tombs) dates to no earlier than the very late MB I and/or the MB I/II transition. Phase IVa 2 ends in what is described as a major destruction, which NIGRO (2006: 29; 2009: 374) believes was caused by military action, although his suggestion to relate this to a campaign of Sesostris III is both lacking in historical references, and, is seem-

41

I would like to thank D. Ben-Tor for discussing these two scarabs with me. It should be noted that Marchetti’s more

59

ingly inappropriately dated, since, as discussed above, the pottery from this phase dates, at the earliest to the MB I/II or early MB II, and Sesostris III reigned somewhere in the mid/late 19th century B.C.E. (e.g., KITCHEN 2000; KRAUSS 2007), much too early for the MB I/II or early MB II. The next phase, Phase IVb, dates to the MB II (MARCHETTI 2003a: 310–312; NIGRO 2006: 29–33). In this phase the town goes through a substantial development, with the inclusion of the spring, east of the tell, within the fortified area. Apparently at this stage, the town expanded to ca. 7 hectare (MARCHETTI, NIGRO & TAHA 1998: 141). The fortification consisted of a rampart with a massive stone wall on the lower external face (which reuses part of the Phase IVa 2 mudbrick city wall), which supported a series of earth revetments supporting an upper wall. Nevertheless, it appears that the “Tower” from the previous phase continued to be used, although perhaps in a non-fortification related function. On various locations on the top and to the east of the tell, various structures, of primarily domestic character, and perhaps a fortress and/or a palace as well were exposed (e.g., MARCHETTI, NIGRO & TAHA 2000: 877–878; NIGRO 2006: 33; 2009: 366–368). According to NIGRO (2006: 33) this phase is to be seen as perhaps the most flourishing stage of the MB at Jericho, paralleled by many of the tombs from the necropolis (see below). Phase IVb is dated to the MB II on the basis of the pottery (e.g., MARCHETTI & NIGRO 1998: 129–130; MARCHETTI, NIGRO & TAHA 1998: 137–139; 2000: 878–879), parallel to Kenyon’s “Stage XII–XIII, phase lii–liii” (KENYON & HOLLAND 1983: 442–460, figs. 189–203). As they themselves admit (MARCHETTI, NIGRO & TAHA 2000: 878) this pottery may actually date to the MB III. Phase IVb was destroyed in a fire, although its character is not defined. The next level, Phase IVc, is dated to the MB III (e.g., MARCHETTI 2003a: 312–316; NIGRO 2006: 34–35). During this phase, the city once again goes through a transformation. At the beginning of this phase the city is reduced in size, and parts of the lower city that were settled in the previous phase are leveled, due to the construction of a massive (“Cyclopean”) stone retaining wall covered by a sloping embankment. This wall, originally excavated by Sellin (SELLIN & WATZINGER 1913: figs. 34–35), can be compared to similar massive stone walls at other late

detailed study of the scarabs from this tomb (MARCHETTI 2003b) was unavailable to me.

60


MB Palestinian sites, such as at Shechem and Shiloh (e.g., SEGER 1975; FINKELSTEIN 1993; see BURKE 2008: 306–312).42 During this phase there is evidence of the extensive domestic quarter which was excavated by Garstang and Kenyon, with a series of mudbrick houses with a stepped alleyway, storerooms, domestic production facilities, etc. (see summary in e.g., MARCHETTI 2003a: 312–315). Phase IVc ended in a massive destruction, which although GARSTANG (1934: 105, 122) suggested to relate to an earthquake, both KENYON (1973b: 528) and NIGRO (2006: 35) believe that it was related to a violent event. While Kenyon attributed this to the conquest of Canaan by the Egyptians in the early New Kingdom, the Italian excavators are less confident in explaining the events behind this destruction (e.g., MARCHETTI 2003a: 316; NIGRO 2006: 35; see as well BIENKOWSKI 1986: 127–128). Radiometric dates from this destruction (BRUINS & VAN DER PLICHT 1995; 2003) indicate a mid- to late 16th century B.C.E. date for this destruction (see as well Appendix B below). It should be noted that D. BEN-TOR (2007a: 157) has recently drawn attention to a scarab (cowroid), that belongs to an early New Kingdom/early 18th Dynasty type, from Jericho, Tomb G1, which is assigned to Tomb Group V by KENYON (e.g. KIRKBRIDE 1965: fig. 299:20; although TUFNELL [1984: 73] classified the tomb as belonging to Group IV]). If this is so, it would mean that the Group V tombs at Jericho lasted until the early New Kingdom, and most likely, the final phase of the MB at Jericho (Phase IVc – see above) also ended in the early New Kingdom (and not at the end of the 2nd Intermediate Period). Clearly, then, if this is accepted, the dating of the end of Jericho would be no earlier than the late 16th, or even early 15th centuries B.C.E. This situation seems to be similar to what was noted regarding the final MB phase at Beth Shean (Stratum R3), which may very well have ended in the early New Kingdom as well (see above). The tombs from the necropolis of Jericho appear to represent a similar picture regarding the settlement at Jericho during the MB (from late MB I until MB III), contrary to the suggested dating of the Italian

42

It has been suggested in the past that the construction of monumental (“Cyclopean”) stone fortifications is to be seen as a development typical of the very end of the MB (e.g., B. MAZAR 1968: 91–92; SEGER 1975; KEMPINSKI 1992: 199; NIGRO 2006: 35; BURKE 2008: 82). In light of similar, but earlier (MB II), monumental stone MB fortifications, such as the examples that have been reported from

expedition (early MB I until MB III). The tombs from Jericho have been extensively discussed in the literature and there is no reason to recap this discussion in the current study. Suffice to say that KENYON’s (1960; 1965) division of the majority of the tombs in the cemetery into five major groups has, for the most part, stood up over the last decades, even if some of the tombs that KENYON originally assigned to certain groups were moved to others (see, e.g., KEMPINSKI 1983: 151–165; BIETAK 1984: 483–485; WARD 1987; WARD & DEVER 1994: 68–71). Likewise, although there has been some discussion on the overall dating of the five groups, it is clear that, for the most part, the groups represent the MB II and MB III. There is a small group of tombs that have been dated to earlier stages of the MB, but none are earlier than the late MB I or the transitional MB I/II. Thus, Tomb K3 is placed by KENYON in a separate “Pre-Group I” definition who places it within the late MB I (KENYON 1965: 203–206; fig. 93), a definition which has been accepted by most scholars (e.g., GERSTENBLITH 1983: 35; COLE 1984: 84; TUFNELL 1984: 62; WARD and DEVER 1994: 68–70; MAEIR 1997b: 328, n. 16; COHEN 2002: 83). Likewise, several other tombs have been noted to contain possible late MB I or MB I/II material. This includes: 1) Tomb B48, which was defined by KENYON in Group I/II (KENYON 1965: fig. 95:1–9) contains earlier materials (see WARD & DEVER 1994: 69–70; MAEIR 1997b: 328, n. 16; but see BECK & ZEVULUN 1996: 70, who retain an MB II date for the entire tomb); 2) Tomb J14, which was defined as Group II (KENYON 1965: fig. 152), contains some material that can be dated to the late MB I or early MB I/II (see KEMPINSKI 1983: 155; MAEIR 1997b: 328, n. 16); 3) Tomb A34, which has four phases and was placed in Group I (KENYON 1960: 355) contains some finds, from Phases 1–2 and possibly Phase 3 as well, that appear to be earlier as well (SEE TUFNELL 1984: 59; WARD & DEVER 1994: 70; but see BECK & ZEVULUN 1996: 70 who retain an MB II date for the entire tomb). In light of the above it is clear that although a small group of tombs contains pottery dating from the late MB I and/or MB I/II, none of the tombs from the cemetery contain material culture (pottery

Jerusalem (e.g., REICH & SHUKRON 2004; 2007; 2009) and Hebron (e.g. CHADWICK 2005: 28–29), it would appear that this is a method of fortification that is common during long parts of the MB, and it should not be related to a specific historical event, or to the influx of new populations, whether Hurrian (e.g. B. MAZAR 1968: 90) or Hyksos (e.g. SEGER 1975).

Tel el-Hamman

61

Recent excavations at Tell el-Hammam by COLLINS (2007; COLLINS et al. in press) have revealed impressive evidence of a large site which is fortified in sev-

eral periods, including the EB II–III, the EB IV, the MB and the Iron Ages. While this site is of much importance and interest for understanding the MB of the Jordan Valley in general and the Southern Jordan Valley in particular, very little has been published about it, and further analysis must await the publication of additional data. The role of this site during the MB, and its relationship to other MB sites in its vicinity (e.g., Jericho, T. Nimrin) is clearly of interest. In the meantime, on the excavation website, one can note the picture of a Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware juglet, apparently of mid-MB II date.44

43

44

or other finds [e.g. scarabs, see now D. BEN-TOR 2007a: 120–121]) that warrants an earlier date within the MB I.43 Until explicit evidence of earlier MB I material is published, I believe it is safe to say that Jericho was not settled in the early and mid-MB I. Initial activities may have begun in the late MB I and the MB I/II transition, but not before. TELL

EL-HAMMAN

BECK and ZEVULUN (1996: 72) question the presence of late MB I and MB I/II finds at Jericho and believe that the earliest finds date to the early MB II.

See: http://www.tallelhammam.com/Home_Page. html. I wish to thank S. Collins for sending me a copy of the as yet unpublished summary of the excavations updated to the 2009 season (COLLINS et al. in press).

CHAPTER 4: ASPECTS OF MATERIAL CULTURE, TRADE, AND CHRONOLOGY

INTRODUCTION In this chapter, I will discuss several issues relating to the archaeology of the Jordan Valley during the MB. Following the general description of the Jordan Valley and the historical sources relating the MB (Chapter 2) and the description of the primary archaeological remains from the various sites within the region (Chapter 3), the present chapter will deal with some of the “bread and butter” aspects relating to this period. The study of these facets will enable us to fashion a more robust understanding of the processes and underlying mechanisms that occurred in the Jordan Valley during the MB (see Chapter 5), and position this region in relation to the broader picture of the MB in the Southern Levant and the Ancient Near East. In the first section, I will attempt to delineate aspects of the MB material culture that are unique to either the Jordan Valley in general, or to the regions within it. In addition, I will make an effort to survey the unique characteristics of the material culture of the respective phases during the MB, once again, whether for the entire Jordan Valley, or as manifested in the different regions within the valley. I will then present an overview of the pottery production and distribution in the Jordan Valley, with a particular emphasis on that of the Central Jordan Valley, based on an extensive archaeometric study of the MB pottery. This will then be followed by a general discussion of the evidence for inter- and intra-regional trade in the region, during the various stages of the MB. Finally, I will discuss aspects relating to the chronology of the MB in the Jordan Valley. I will review the relative and absolute chronology of the sites in the Jordan Valley, and will attempt to place this within the broader chronological context of the Southern Levant and the Ancient Near East during the MB. MATERIAL CULTURE The research on the MB period has long ago discussed two noticeable characteristics of the material culture of this period. On the one hand, due to the intense cultural and economic contacts during this period, mutually familiar attributes of the material culture of this period can be seen throughout a very wide geographic zone. Thus, pottery types that are typical of this period are found throughout the Southern Levant (and in many cases, far beyond); the

same is true for other classes of finds. In fact, in some of the earlier studies, a rather monolithic profile of the MB II ceramic assemblage of the Southern Levant was espoused (e.g., ALBRIGHT 1933; DAJANI 1960; KENYON 1969; 1973a). On the other hand, distinct regional characteristics have been observed as well, and it is possible to differentiate between certain classes of finds that are found primarily, and in some cases, solely, within defined regions. For example, this is seen in metallurgy (e.g., PHILIP 1995), stone (e.g., SPARKS 1991), glyptic art (e.g., COLLON 1985), and bone and ivory inlays (LIEBOWITZ 1977). Perhaps most predominantly, regional distinctions have been noted in the study of the MB pottery (e.g., KEMPINSKI 1974; 1983; PRICE WILLIAMS 1975; 1977; TUBB 1983; BECK 1985; DORNEMANN 1987; AL-MAQDISSI 1994; NIGRO 2000; 2002; 2003a; BRAEMER & AL-MAQDISSI 2002; NICOLLE 2002; BESANA et al. 2008). While these studies have primarily dealt with macro-regions, subtler regional patterns within the Southern Levant have been emphasized as well, and various “ceramic regions” have been proposed, such as the southern Coastal Plain, the Central Hills, the northern valleys, the Southern Jordan Valley and the Northern Jordan Valley (e.g., KEMPINSKI 1983; BECK 1985). The present author proposed delineating a pottery tradition characteristic of the Hazor region, which includes portions of north-eastern Israel and southern Syria (MAEIR 1997b), and has defined characteristics typical of the Central Jordan Valley as well (MAEIR 1997b; 2007b; first noted by GOPHNA 1979: 30). The combination of these two facets, uniformity on the one hand and regionalism on the other, is an excellent illustration of the intricate relational dynamics that existed between the various regions of the Southern Levant during the MB, and can serve, to a certain extent, to define and delineate respective political, cultural, or economic partitions during this period. Pottery In the framework of the current study it was not possible to create an in-depth typology of all the MB pottery of the entire region. This would have required an immense study in itself, which to a large extent would be a replication of much of the work done at the various sites within the region, by previous researchers.

64

Chapter 4: Aspects of Material Culture, Trade, and Chronology

In addition, a large percentage of the pottery types seen at sites in the Jordan Valley are types that are well-known and appear at sundry sites throughout the Southern Levant and beyond. Instead, I will concentrate on the discussion of pottery from two angles. The first will be a presentation and discussion of representative assemblages of pottery from the different parts of the Jordan Valley throughout the MB. These assemblages will, by and large, be characteristic of the main types that are unique to each phase and region. While not covering every type that exists in the region, these representative assemblages will aptly illustrate the most common pottery types. Following this, I will discuss specific pottery types and groups that are either chronologically and/or regionally unique, whether within the Jordan Valley, or in relation to surrounding areas. Representative Pottery Assemblages The assemblages that are discussed here are, as noted above, representative assemblages from sites throughout the Jordan Valley. The assemblages are presented in chronological (early to late) and geographical (north to south) order. I. The early MB I The earliest phase of MB I can be seen at several sites. Exemplary of this are: 1) The tombs at Hagosherim (Fig. 8; after COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: figs. 4, 9); 2) Gesher, Tombs 10, 13–14 (Fig. 9; after GARFINKEL & COHEN 2007: figs. 3.43, 3.56, 3.59); and 3) Tell elHayyat, Stratum 5 (Fig. 10; after FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: fig. 4.2). The pottery from the earliest phase of the MB I is characterized by: undecorated, coarse, thick-walled open bowls (reminiscent of EB platter bowls) and carinated bowls; squat, handleless jars with flat bases; squat jars with handles; jars and jugs with the “Levantine Painted Ware” decoration (BAGH 2002; 2003; 2004). Several noteworthy aspects can be noted in these assemblages: 1) There is very little red-burnished decoration typical of the later phases of the MB I in the Jordan Valley and other regions. This is an indication that these assemblages are in fact very early in the MB pottery sequence, earlier than the “Pre-Palace” phase at Aphek (BECK 2000). 2) Overall, a large percentage of the vessels (although it should be noted that there is an overrepresentation of material from tombs, which might skew this factor) appear to be poorly made, with thick

walls and low-temperature firing. This most probably indicates that the pottery production in the Jordan Valley was not yet oriented towards a dynamically developing socio-economic framework, but rather the very incipient stages of this period. Even types that seemingly indicate some influence from early coastal MB I forms, are fabricated in a much simpler coarser manner (e.g., COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: passim; GARFINKEL & BONFIL 1990: 146; FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: 46–49; COHEN & BONFIL 2007; COHEN 2009a). All told, the pottery of this early stage also seems to indicate some continuity between the EB IV pottery traditions and those of the earliest MB I. 3) Parallels with the ceramic traditions of inland Syria have been noted, such as the Levantine Painted Ware decoration (e.g., Figs. 8:10; 9:9; almost always on jars; e.g., BAGH 2002; 2003; 2004) and the handleless jars (e.g., Figs. 8:8–11; 9:9,11; see, e.g., TUBB 1983; YOGEV 1985: 99; COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: 82), although this is of limited extent. This is especially interesting in light of just such foreign, northern facets (influences and actual imports from Syria) found in the same region during the preceding EB IV/MB I (e.g. TADMOR 1978; GREENBERG et al. 1998: 32) and during the subsequent phase of the MB I (ILAN 1996b; MAEIR 2000b and see below). 4) Many elements point to an archaic, conservative culture. Some pottery forms appear to be reminiscent of the EB IV pottery types. For example: certain bowl types (e.g. Fig. 8:1–2; see COVELLO-PARAN’S [1996a: 73] discussion of the bowl in ibid: fig. 4:2. To this note another bowl [ibid: fig. 4:1] which can be compared to EB IV bowl types [e.g. RICHARD 2000: fig. 1:7]), attributes of some of the jars (e.g. YOGEV 1985: 99), and a unique type of bottle found at Hagosherim (Fig. 8:6; see COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: 73, 79, figs. 4:9, 9:2). 5) Noteworthy as well are the similarities between pottery from the tomb assemblages from the different parts of the Jordan valley (noted already by GARFINKEL & BONFIL 1990: 146). As can be seen in the assemblages from the Hagosherim and Gesher tombs (as discussed by COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: 82). This situation is in stark contrast to the distinct regionalism that is seen in the MB II, differentiating between the Northern, Central, and Southern Jordan Valley (see below, and e.g., MAEIR 1997a: 322–323; 1997b: 140–144). II. The mid-MB I The middle phase of the MB I is represented by the following assemblages: 1) Tomb 1025 of Tel Dan, Stratum XII (Fig. 11; after ILAN 1996a: figs. 4.104–4.105); 2) Hazor, Area BA, Strata “15–14” (Fig.

Pottery

Fig. 8 Representative assemblage of the early MB I: Tombs at Hagosherim (after COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: figs. 4, 9)

65

66


Fig. 9 Representative assemblage of the early MB I: Gesher, Tombs 10, 13–14 (after GARFINKEL & COHEN 2007: figs. 3.43, 3.56, 3.59)

12; after YADIN et al. 1961: pl. CCXXXV: 12–35);45 3) Tel Yosef (Fig. 13; after COVELLO-PARAN 2001: figs. 6–7); 4) Pella, Area III, Phase X (Fig. 14; after BOURKE et al. 2006: fig. 10); 5) Tell el-Hayyat, Stratum 4 (Fig. 15; after FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: figs. 4.4–4.5).

45

This assemblage from Hazor can serve as an example of the existence of pre-transitional MB I/II activity at Hazor, as argued previously (e.g., MAEIR 1997b; 2000; above, Chapter 3), even if the quantity of this material and the extent of the settlement at the site during this period is limited.

The pottery from this phase is typified by: 1) The appearance of relatively large percentages of red-burnished decoration (e.g., Figs. 11:3; 12: 2,10,12; 13:3) well known from other mid/late MB I sites in the Southern Levant (e.g., GERSTENBLITH 1983; BECK 2000); 2) The proliferation of high-quality production techniques, indicating a change in the modes of pottery production and distribution; 3) Fewer examples of the squat, flat bottomed, handleless jars, and the more regular appearance of more tapered jars with handles (e.g., Fig. 13:5); 4) Fewer jars are decorated in the Levantine Painted Ware tradition; this decoration is seen often on kraters and juglets.

67

Pottery

Fig. 10 Representative assemblage of the early MB I: Tell el-Hayyat, Stratum 5 (after FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: fig. 4.2)

III. The late MB I/early MB II The late MB I and MB I/II is represented by the following assemblages: 1) Kfar Szold (Fig. 16; after EPSTEIN 1974: figs. 1–4); 2) Hazor, T. 1181 (Fig. 17.1–2; after MAEIR 1997b); 3) Munhata, Tomb 641 (Fig. 18; after FEREMBACH et al. 1975: figs. 2–9); 4) Pella, Area III, Phases IX-VIII (Fig. 19; after BOURKE et al. 2006: fig. 13); 5) Jericho, Tomb K3 (Fig. 20; after KENYON 1965: fig. 95). As extensively discussed previously (MAEIR 1997b), this ceramic horizon is characterized by various specific pottery types that appear both in the Jordan Valley and beyond. This includes:

46

It should be noted that this type of dipper juglet, so typical of MB I/II sites in northern Israel (both on the northern coast, the Jezreel Valley and the Jordan Valley – see Maeir 1997b: 305), is not reported from the parallel strata at Tell ed-Dab>a (see KOPETZKY 2002). As KOPETZKY notes herself (2002: 231), from phase F=b/3 at Tell ed-Dab>a and onwards, the dipper juglets at this site follow a different developmental trajectory than those from sites in the Southern Levant. This should serve as an example of the

1) Straight necked, closed carinated bowls (Fig. 17.1:1; see, e.g., MAEIR 1997b: 299); 2) Early appearance of open carinated bowls, which become much more common in later stages of the MB (e.g., MAEIR 1997b: 299, fig. IV.2:1–4); 3) The so-called “stepped-rim juglets” (Figs. 16:11; 17.1: 11–15; see MAEIR 1997b: 301; contra ILAN 1991); 4) Dipper juglets with bulbous bodies, flaring, accentuated trefoil rims, and small flat bases (e.g., Fig. 17.1:24–27; see MAEIR 1997b: 305);46 5) The very earliest appearance, at Dan, of the Monochrome Painted Cream Ware (ILAN 1996b); 6) The earliest appearance in the Jordan Valley of imported Cypriote wares, or its imitations (JOHNSON 1982; MAEIR 1997b: 305).

caution that is needed when comparing the pottery from Tell ed-Dab>a with that of sites in the Levant in general and the Jordan Valley specifically, and needless to say, would necessitate prudence if one wishes to make inter-site chronological comparisons (as noted above, Chapter 3, regarding A. BEN-TOR’s [2004a] comparisons between the pottery of MB Hazor and Tell ed-Dab>a, and the suggested, rather drastic chronological implications of this comparison).

68


Fig. 11 Representative assemblage of the mid-MB I: Tomb 1025 of Tel Dan, Stratum XII (after ILAN 1996a: figs. 4.104–4.105)

Pottery

69

Fig. 12 Representative assemblage of the mid-MB I: Hazor, Area BA, Strata “15–14” (after YADIN et al. 1961: pl. CCXXXV: 12–35)

As previously argued (e.g., EPSTEIN 1974; MAEIR 1997b), this phase can be defined at quite a large number of sites throughout the Southern Levant in general, and several sites in the Jordan Valley, and appears to represent an important stage in the development and expansion of the MB culture (for further discussion, see below, Chapter 5).

IV. The early-to-mid MB II The early-to-mid MB II is represented by: 1) Hazor, Area D3, Local Stratum 4 (= early General Stratum 4 [YADIN et al. 1958: 160]; Fig. 21; after YADIN et al. 1958: pl. C:1–15); 2) Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 3 (Fig. 22; after FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: figs. 4.6.–4.8); 3) Jericho,

70


Fig. 13 Representative assemblage of the mid-MB I: Tel Yosef (after COVELLO-PARAN 2001: figs. 6–7)

Fig. 14 Representative assemblage of the mid-MB I: Pella, Area III, Phase X (after BOURKE et al. 2006: fig. 10)

Pottery

Fig. 15 Representative assemblage of the mid-MB I: Tell el-Hayyat, Stratum 4 (after FALCONER &BERELOV 2006: figs. 4.4–4.5)

71

72


Fig. 16 Representative assemblage of the late MB I/early MB II: Kfar Szold (after EPSTEIN 1974: figs. 1–4)

Pottery

Fig. 17.1 Representative assemblage of the late MB I/early MB II: Hazor, T. 1181 (after MAEIR 1997b)

73

74


Fig. 17.2 Representative assemblage of the late MB I/early MB II: Hazor, T. 1181 (after MAEIR 1997b)

Pottery

Fig. 18 Representative assemblage of the late MB I/early MB II: Munhata, Tomb 641 (after FEREMBACH et al. 1975: figs. 2–9)

75

76


Fig. 19 Representative assemblage of the late MB I/early MB II: Pella, Area III, Phases IX-VIII (after BOURKE et al. 2006: fig. 13)

Pottery

Fig. 20 Representative assemblage of the late MB I/early MB II: Jericho, Tomb K3 (after KENYON 1965: fig. 95)

77

78


Tomb B 48 [Group I–II] (Fig. 23; after KENYON 1965: figs. 95–99). The following characteristics can be noted for this stage: 1) The pottery of this phase is characterized by the disappearance of most of the characteristic features of MB I pottery (such as red-burnished decoration), and the gradual appearance of types typical of the later stages of the MB. Thus, open carinated bowls become more popular (e.g., Fig. 23:5; first appearing, rarely, in the previous stage); 2) At Jericho during this phase one sees the appearance of the so-called “Jericho goblets”/ “pedestal vases” (Fig. 23:7) which are seen in the Jordan Valley only in the region of Jericho. Although this type is found in the Central Hills and the Jezreel Valley (see MAEIR 2007b), it does not reach other parts of the Jordan Valley. 3) Massive appearance of the “Monochrome Painted Cream Ware” at Dan (Stratum XI; ILAN 1996b), which more or less replaces the earlier “Levantine Painted Ware”.

V. The mid-to-late MB II The mid-to-late MB II is represented by: 1) Dan, Tomb 4663, Stratum X (Fig. 24; after ILAN 1996a: fig. 4.91–4.92); 2) Hazor, Area D1, Local Stratum 5, and Area D3, Local Stratum 3 (= late General Stratum 4 [YADIN et al. 1958: 160]; Fig. 25; after Yadin et al. 1958: pls. XCIII:1–16; C:16–28); 3) Beth Shean, Stratum R5 (Fig. 26; after MAEIR 1997a: pls. 44–45); 4) Jericho, Tomb P 19 [Tomb group III] (Fig. 27; after KENYON 1965: fig. 194–198). The following characteristics can be noted for this stage: 1) The rolled-rim rounded cooking pot is popular at this stage (Fig. 26:22) and is seen at many sites in the Central Jordan Valley (MAEIR 2007b) but is rare at sites in the Northern Jordan Valley such as Hazor. 2) At Beth Shean one sees in this stage the appearance of the “Red, White and Blue ware” (Fig. 26:18) which continues to appear in the early MB III as well (MAEIR 2007b; see discussion below). Although imported from the southern Coastal Plain, where it

Fig. 21 Representative assemblage of the early-to-mid MB II: Hazor, Area D3, Local Stratum 4 (= early General Stratum 4 [YADIN et al. 1958: 160]; after YADIN et al. 1958: pl. C: 1–15)

Pottery

79

Fig. 22 Representative assemblage of the early-to-mid MB II: Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 3 (after FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: figs. 4.6.–4.8)

80


Fig. 23 Representative assemblage of the early-to-mid MB II: Jericho, Tomb B 48 [Group I-II] (after KENYON 1965: figs. 95–99)

Pottery

81

Fig. 24 Representative assemblage of the late MB II/early MB III: Dan, Tomb 4663, Stratum X (after ILAN 1996a: fig. 4.91–4.92)

82


Fig. 25 Representative assemblage of the late MB II/early MB III: Hazor, Area D1, Local Stratum 5, and Area D3, Local Stratum 3 (= late General Stratum 4 [YADIN et al. 1958: 160]; after YADIN et al. 1958: pls. XCIII: 1–16; C: 16–28)

Pottery

Fig. 26 Representative assemblage of the late MB II/early MB III: Beth Shean, Stratum R5 (after MAEIR 1997a: pls. 44–45)

83

84


Fig. 27 Representative assemblage of the late MB II/early MB III: Jericho, Tomb P 19 [Tomb group III] (after KENYON 1965: figs. 194–198)

appears already in the MB I, in the Jordan Valley it seems to be limited to a defined chronological span (late MB II/early MB III). 3) At Jericho one sees the appearance at this phase of the so-called “Jericho goblets”/”pedestal vases” with a “cordon” (see e.g. Fig. 27:9). 4) Continued appearance, but in smaller quantities when compared to the previous stage, of the “Monochrome Painted Cream Ware” at Dan, Stratum XI, while there is a certain rise in the amount of “Lev-

antine Painted Ware” in this stratum. In Stratum IX, both types of decorated wares completely disappear, and only a hybrid decoration on juglets appears (ILAN 1996b). VI. The early MB III The early MB III is represented by: 1) Dan, Tomb 8096b, earlier phase of Stratum IX (Fig. 28; after ILAN 1996a: fig. 4.99–4.100); 2) Hazor, Area D3, Local Stratum 2 (= early General Stratum 3 [see YADIN et al.

Pottery

Fig. 28 Representative assemblage of the early MB III: Dan, Tomb 8096b, earlier phase of Stratum IX (after ILAN 1996a: fig. 4.99–4.100)

85

86


Fig. 29 Representative assemblage of the early MB III: Hazor, Area D3, Local Stratum 2 (= early General Stratum 3 [see YADIN et al. 1958: 160]; after IBID., pls. CI–CII)

1958: 160]; Fig. 29; after IBID. 1958: pls. CI–CII); 3) Beth Shean, Stratum R4 (Fig. 30; after MAEIR 1997a: pls. 42–43); 4) Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 2 (Fig. 31; after FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: fig. 4.9); 5) Jericho, Tomb G 73 [Group IV] (Fig. 32; after KENYON 1965: figs. 234–237). Several specific characteristics can be noted: 1) More extensive appearance of later MB types, such as: open carinated bowls (with low carinations; e.g., Figs. 31:4; 32:1); cylindrical juglets (particularly at Jericho, where the piriform juglets become much less common; Fig. 32:10–11).

2) During this stage (and the following) faience vessels start appearing in relatively large quantities (as seen at Jericho; Fig. 32:12–13; see KENYON 1965: 174–175). 3) The earliest appearances of relatively large quantities of Chocolate-on-White ware (e.g., Fig. 30: 13) save for a few sherds, possibly later intrusions in Beth Shean, Stratum R5; see MAEIR 2007b). VII. The late MB III The later MB III is represented by: 1) Dan, Tombs 187a–b, later phase of Stratum IX (Fig. 33; ILAN 1996a: figs. 4.94–4.96); 2) Hazor, Area C, Stratum 3 (Fig.

Pottery

Fig. 30 Representative assemblage of the early MB III: Beth Shean, Stratum R4 (after MAEIR 1997a: pls. 42–43)

87

88


Fig. 31 Representative assemblage of the early MB III: Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 2 (after FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: fig. 4.9)

Fig. 32 Representative assemblage of the early MB III: Jericho, Tomb G 73 [Group IV] (after KENYON 1965: figs. 234–237)

Pottery

89

Fig. 33 Representative assemblage of the late MB III: Dan, Tombs 187a–b, later phase of Stratum IX (after ILAN 1996a: figs. 4.94–4.96)

90


Fig. 34.1 Representative assemblage of the late MB III: Hazor, Area C, Stratum 3 (after YADIN et al. 1960: pls. CIX–CXV)

Pottery

Fig. 34.2 Representative assemblage of the late MB III: Hazor, Area C, Stratum 3 (after YADIN et al. 1960: pls. CIX–CXV)

91

92


Fig. 35 Representative assemblage of the late MB III: Beth Shean, Stratum R3 (after MAEIR 1997a: pls. 40–41)

Pottery

Fig. 36 Representative assemblage of the late MB III: Tell Abu el-Kharaz (after FISCHER 2006e: figs. 28–29)

93

94


Fig. 37 Representative assemblage of the late MB III: Jericho, Tomb H 11 [Group V] (after KENYON 1960: figs. 205–206)

34.1–2; after YADIN et al. 1960: pls. CIX–CXV); 3) Beth Shean, Stratum R3 (Fig. 35; after MAEIR 1997a: pls. 40–41); 4) Tell Abu el-Kharaz (Fig. 36; after FISCHER 2006e: figs. 28–29); 5) Jericho, Tomb H 11 [Group V] (Fig. 37; after KENYON 1960: figs. 205–206). The pottery from the final stage of the MB is characterized by the following features: 1) Extensive appearance of Chocolate-on-White ware (e.g., Figs. 35: 6,12; 36: 4, 10, 11) throughout most of the Jordan Valley (save for rather limited appearance in the north, such as at Hazor). 2) Extensive appearance of harbingers of LB pottery traditions, such as everted sharp rimmed cooking pots (e.g., Figs. 35:4; 36:5), and open platter bowls with raised ring bases (e.g. Fig. 34.1:1–2). 3) Virtual disappearance of many earlier MB types, such as rolled-rim rounded cooking pots (e.g. MAEIR 2007b), and necked carinated bowls (e.g., KENYON 1960: 270).

4) At Jericho, one sees the disappearance of the piriform juglet, completely replaced by the cylindrical, while in the Central and Northern Jordan Valley the former is still seen. 5) Disappearance of the Red, White and Blue ware at Jordan Valley sites (MAEIR 2002b; 2007b). 6) The appearance, at Beth Shean and Pella, of a few Egyptian imports (e.g., Fig. 35.7). All told, the pottery from latest stage of the MB displays much continuity with the previous stages of this period, but on the other, indicates strong connections with the following LB. The very fact that many of the tombs in the Jordan Valley (particularly in the Central Jordan Valley) span the late MB and early LB is a clear indication of this continuity. Regional Characteristics of Pottery in the Jordan Valley Several distinct MB pottery types and/or decorations can be defined as being typical of the Jordan Valley or

Other aspects of material culture

95

have distinct patterns of distribution in relation to this region: 1) The Chocolate-on-White Ware is a local product of the Central Jordan Valley. Though the exact production centers have yet to be securely located (see additional discussion below), the overall quantity and diversity of this ware in the Central Jordan Valley is a compelling argument for a local origin.47 2) A unique “snail-like”, tripod loop base (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 10:5; BOURKE et al. 2006: 49, fig. 42:1), which is reported only from Beth-Shean and Pella.48 3) Some of the Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware from BethShean, and the examples from Beth Yerah, apparently originate from the Afula production center (situated on the western periphery of the region) and can be seen as a relatively “localized” product (from the adjacent eastern Jezreel Valley). 4) The Red, White and Blue Ware, which is a southern coastal-plain group, appears in limited quantity in the Central Jordan Valley, but does not appear further to the north in the Northern Jordan Valley (i.e., Hazor, Dan, etc.). 5) Large two-handled pithoi that are found, e.g., at Beth Shean, are common throughout large parts of the southern portions of the Southern Levant, mainly during the later phases of the MB II (for discussion, see MAEIR 2007b: 267–271). However, the four-handled pithoi that are found at Jericho (and the Central Hills region) are absent in the Central and Northern Jordan Valley 6) While the cylindrical juglet appears from the late MB II and onwards at Jericho, and eventually replaces the piriform juglet (e.g., GARSTANG 1933: 16; KENYON 1960: 268–271), the cylindrical juglet does not become as predominant in the Central and Northern Jordan Valley in the latter parts of the MB, and for sure does not completely replace the piriform types. Rather, the piriform juglets continue until the very end of the MB (see KEMPINSKI 1983: 184–185; MAEIR 2007b: 278). 7) The closed globular cooking pot with the rolled-back rim (see discussion in MAEIR 2007b: 262) is found in the Central Jordan Valley but not in the

Southern or Central Jordan Valley. It is also found in the Jezreel Valley and occasionally in the Central Hills and Coastal regions. 8) The “Jericho Goblet” (or “Pedestal Vase”), wellknown from the Jericho excavations (see discussion by KEMPINSKI 1983: 187–188; COLE 1984: 54–55; MAEIR 2007b: 255) and the Central Hills region, is not found at all in the Central and Northern Jordan Valley. On the other hand, carinated chalices on a high trumpet base (e.g., MAEIR 2007b: 254–255, fig. 4.2 [and there discussion]) are common in the Central and Northern Jordan Valley but rare in the Southern Jordan Valley. 9) The four-handled pithoi, common in the Central Hills region and Jericho, are not found in the Central Jordan Valley. 10) Although Bichrome Ware already appears in certain late MB contexts in other parts of the Levant (particularly in the southern Coastal Plain, see, e.g., EPSTEIN 1966: 113–120), very little has been reported from the Jordan Valley [save for Hazor]). 11) ANTONETTI (2008: 285–286) has suggested that two vessels from previously unpublished tombs from Jericho (from Garstang’s excavations) are types that are not typical of the Jericho region, but rather appear in northern sites only. This includes a bowl with a tripod base and a jug/jar with a single handle on the shoulder. While in fact these vessels are not common in Jericho, they do appear throughout the Jordan Valley (and in fact, in sites in central Palestine), so these two vessels are to be seen as typical MB types, common in many areas.49

47

48

I thus concur with ESSE’s (1991: 138–139) suggestion that in defining a “ceramic region”, one should take into account not only the quantity of pottery, but the amount of variation (= the components in an assemblage) as well. Thus, areas in which both a large number of samples, as well as a wider selection of typological elements of a given group appear, are suggestive of place of origin.

OTHER ASPECTS OF MATERIAL CULTURE In addition to the pottery that is typical of different phases of the MB, and in some cases, the different regions of the Jordan Valley, several classes of material culture worth mentioning can be noted. As discussed further below, during the MB there is a class of stone vessels made out of gypsum, which imitate Egyptian alabaster vessels. These vessels, which apparently are produced from raw material deriving from the gypsum quarries at Menahamiyeh (north of

49

Although it should be noted that the example from Pella was found to be of Egyptian origin based on provenience studies (BOURKE et al. 2006: 49). For the appearance of similar bowls with tripod base, see, e.g., MAEIR 1997a: pl. 2:16. For a discussion of the appearance of jug/jars with single handles on the shoulder, see, e.g., MAEIR 1997b: 305, n. 62.

96


Beth Shean), are found in large numbers throughout the Jordan Valley and in other regions of Canaan as well (see, e.g., SPARKS 1991; 2001; 2007; BEVAN 2007: 108–110; CLAMER 2007). Apparent gypsum vessel production wasters, and perhaps production-related tools, recently reported from late MB Beth Shean (MULLINS & MAZAR 2007: 99; YAHALOM-MACK, GERSHUNY & MAZAR 2007: 606, 611; PANITZ-COHEN, YAHALOM-MACK & MAZAR 2009: 752) serve as quite conclusive evidence for the local Jordan Valley production of vessels from this material. Pottery production and distribution While a comparative typological analysis of the pottery (and other classes of material culture) from the Jordan Valley enables us to propose certain “subregional” trends within the region under study, differentiating between aspects typical of different parts of the Jordan Valley (see above), such a study clearly has its limits, due to the substantial similarity between the material culture of the MB throughout the Southern Levant (see above). As has been aptly demonstrated in the past, chemical and physical provenience analytic methods can provide important insights into the origins and distribution of pottery (and other classes of materials). Thus, utilization of such perspectives can be beneficial in an attempt to determine the degree of interaction that existed between the different parts of the Jordan Valley, and between the Jordan Valley and other regions. Clearly, to conduct a thorough study of these aspects for the entire Jordan Valley, it would be necessary to carry out a program of provenience analyses on pottery from the entire Jordan Valley region. This was not available for the current research; rather, I have utilized a rather extensive archaeometric analytic program that was conducted by the present author in the Central Jordan Valley as part of a comprehensive study of the entire region (MAEIR 1997a; MAEIR & YELLIN 2007).50 In this study, utilizing Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA), 593 samples were taken, mainly from sites in the Central Jordan Valley (175

50

In the study of the pottery provenience of the Central Jordan Valley (e.g., Fig. 1) seven sub-regions have been defined (A–F) in the Central Jordan Valley, so as to enable a more subtle spatial differentiation: A – Kinnarot Valley; B – the NE Beth-Shean Valley; C – the Northern Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern

from Beth Shean, and various samples from 56 other sites) as well as 75 samples from a transitional MB I/II tomb at Hazor (MAEIR 1997b). Most, but not all of the samples were from MB II–III ceramics, with a small percent of MB I samples, along with a representative comparative group of EB IV, LB and Iron I samples as well. Although this analytic program does not enable a full and comprehensive study of the origin and production of pottery throughout the entire Jordan Valley, it can be utilized to: a) present a picture on these issues for the Central Jordan Valley; b) extrapolate regarding other parts of the Jordan Valley. While more detailed information on this program can be found elsewhere (including the raw data; see MAEIR 1997a; MAEIR & YELLIN 2007), I will present here a brief summary of the primary questions and the relevant results and interpretations. The large sample of MB pottery that was collected for this project, deriving from a large number of sites in this well-defined region, provides a unique opportunity to study the subtle connections between the various sub-regions and sites (“microprovenience”) on the one hand, as well as to differentiate between the fabric compositions found within this region and those known from other areas (“macroprovenience”) on the other hand. Although FALCONER (1987a; 1987b) and KNAPP (1987; 1989; 1993; KNAPP et al. 1988) conducted archaeometric pottery provenience studies of MB pottery from the Central Jordan Valley, these, however, were based on finds from a limited number of sites (Pella and Tell el-Hayyat).51 The present study, by using a much larger set of data has attempted to expand on some of the interpretative directions suggested in these previous studies. A variety of analytic techniques have been used for the provenancing of pottery for many decades (for recent reviews of applications and techniques, see e.g., HARBOTTLE 1982; JONES 1986: 15–89; RICE 1987: 371–405, 413–426). Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) has been one of the more commonly used methods, and as such, has been described in detail (see, e.g., HARBOTTLE 1990; GLASCOCK 1992: 11–12; KNAPP & CHERRY 1994: 5, Fig. 1.2; YELLIN 1995;

51

Beth-Shean Valley; F – the SE Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley. Note as well the provenience study conducted by DONNELLY (2006) on a very specific pottery group (the Chocolate-onWhite Ware). See discussion below.


MCGOVERN 2000: 5–7; YELLIN & ARTZY 2004: 222–225; YELLIN & MAEIR 2007). INAA studies are most often used for the determination of long-range connections (e.g., MCGOVERN 2000; MCGOVERN et al. 1994; STEPONAITIS et al. 1996; YELLIN & ARTZY 2004). Less common are INAA studies that attempt to discern aspects of intra-regional production and distribution (e.g., BISHOP 1980; RANDS & BISHOP 1980; ADANBAYEWITZ & PERLMAN 1985; 1993; FALCONER 1987a; 1978b; ADAN-BAYEWITZ & PERLMAN 1993; YELLIN & CAHILL 2004). The sample acquisition and analytic procedures that were employed in this study follow those used in the now-inactivate Archaeometry Laboratory of the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, which have been described in detail (e.g., YELLIN & METZGER 1982; YELLIN 1984a; 1994; 1995a; MAEIR et al. 1992; YELLIN & ARTZY 2004) and need not be repeated here. The primary statistical analysis used in this study is Principal Component Analysis (PCA; see, e.g., JOLLIFFE 1986; SHENNAN 1988: 245–262; BAXTER 1994), which has been used in various ceramic provenancing projects in the past (e.g., CHERRY & KNAPP 1991; GLASCOCK 1992: 17–18; KNAPP & CHERRY 1994: 38–40). The comparative data used in this study were derived from several sources. The data bank of INAA results from the Jerusalem lab was the primary

97

source. This data bank was accessed automatically for general comparisons, as well as for more specific problem-oriented comparisons. In addition, various published results from other labs were utilized, in particular data from the University of California at Berkeley laboratory (e.g., ARTZY et al. 1978; KNAPP & CHERRY 1994: Appendix); Data from the Brookhaven laboratory (e.g., MCGOVERN et al. 1994) and other laboratories (e.g., ESSE & HOPKE 1986; FALCONER 1987a; KNAPP et al. 1988) were also accessed. It has been demonstrated that such comparisons are valid in light of the fact that these laboratories are either fully inter-calibrated (e.g., YELLIN et al. 1978) or very much so (YEH & HARBOTTLE 1986; KNAPP et al. 1988).52 General Comments As mentioned above, the following pages represent choice results of the study. Analysis of all the MB II–III samples revealed one of the basic obstacles in this study, i.e., the lack of sufficiently-distinct differentiations between the sub-regions and sites within the Central Jordan Valley. Though samples from the different sub-regions do display a slightly different center of gravity in the graph, this is not sufficient to define separate groups. As demonstrated repeatedly below, the fabric compositions of the mundane, “plain wares” from the Central Jordan Valley are quite similar.

Fig. 38 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected common wares from selected sites on different geologies in the Central Jordan Valley

52

Nevertheless, it should be noted that some of the inter-laboratory comparisons require re-checking, due to changed procedures, etc. On this issue, see YELLIN & CAHILL 2004: 199, n. 10.

98


Fig. 39 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected common wares (cooking pots [CP], buff wares, selected clays) from selected sites in the Central Jordan Valley

The fact that very similar clays were used for most vessel types may further obscure intra-regional differentiation. BIENKOWSKI (1986: 105) has already noted that MB pottery of different classes is actually made of quite similar clays. Though much of the Central Jordan Valley is of a quite similar geological background, nevertheless, the sites in the region are situated on a range of different formations and soils (see discussion in MAEIR 1997a and above, Chapter 2). If one relates this to ARNOLD’s observation (1985: 58), which is based on ethnographic data, that potters usually procure their raw materials from the vicinity of the site (approximately 6–9 km radius), one may be able to differentiate between the compositions of certain sites (sufficiently distanced from one another) that are situated on varying geologies and soils. In fact, the samples from sites in the Central Jordan Valley that were situated on different geologies (Fig. 2) revealed little differentiation. Sites situated on varying soils, however, reveal a slightly clearer differentiation, though not that well-clustered (see Fig. 38). The overall impression is that the pottery from the sites in the Central Jordan Valley was not necessarily produced from raw materials found in the immediate vicinity of the sites. This can be explained in two manners. Either the potters at the respective sites chose to procure raw materials from choice locations within the Central Jordan Valley, or, alternatively, the examined pottery was produced at a limited number of production sites and not at the sites at which the samples were recovered. A similar circumstance is mentioned by KNAPP & CHERRY (1994: 80) in which analysis of ceram-

ic material from a defined region in Cyprus revealed little connection between the composition of the pottery and the bedrock geology of the sites. This study also compares a selection of presumably local ceramics (various plain, utilitarian wares, objects and clays) derived from several sites within the same general environs within the Central Jordan Valley (Fig. 39). This comparison gives the impression that although the most common compositions at the sites are quite similar, there are, nevertheless, distinct groupings among them. For example, the material from Pella can be statistically grouped together, while the material from Beth-Shean clusters into two groups, one that is relatively unique, and one that includes various materials from neighbouring Hamadiyeh North. This would seem to indicate that these groups were in fact produced at different sites, whether at those mentioned (e.g., Pella, Beth-Shean, Hamadiyeh North) or at other locations, and there appears to be a correlation between the various sites and various unique compositions. If the pottery was produced at a limited number of production sites, much more overlap between the pottery at the different sites would be expected. The fact that the Tell el-Hayyat samples are not similar to those of other sites further supports this. Although there was ceramic production at this site, Tell el-Hayyat itself might have received pottery originating from other sites as well. Composition of “Plain Wares” Most of the samples that were analyzed in this study belong to what is usually termed plain wares, in other words, the various utilitarian wares that are usually


99

Fig. 40 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected bowls (BL) from various sub-regions in the Central Jordan Valley (A – Kinnarot Valley; C – the Northern Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley)

Fig. 41 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected kraters (KR) from various sub-regions in the Central Jordan Valley (A – Kinnarot Valley; C – the Northern Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central BethShean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley; H – Hazor [T. 1181])

undecorated. This includes bowls, most kraters, the various cooking pots, storage jars, pithoi, and juglets (for typological discussions of these types, see, e.g., MAEIR 2007b). Bowls. INAA of the bowls revealed few significantly distinct compositional patterns. In fact, the main impression is the overall lack of compositional distinction within the Central Jordan Valley, both on a sub-regional as well as a typological basis (Fig. 40). As is repeatedly seen, the bowls from the different subregions do not cluster into well-defined groups; rather, there is much overlap, though each sub-

region has a slightly different “center of gravity”. Once again, this apparently indicates that there was extensive trade within the region, and/or that similar raw materials were utilized throughout. Even when one examines bowls from a limited number of sites, this pattern is observed. Kraters. The majority of the kraters have quite similar compositions. Once again, there is little subregional differentiation (Fig. 41). Cooking pots. The relatively large number of cooking pots that were analyzed from a wide range of sites within the Central Jordan Valley is of importance. It

100


is often assumed that cooking wares (as other utilitarian objects) were not items that played a role in inter-regional trade (RICE 1987: 197–200). Rather, they were either manufactured at production centers within each region (e.g., VILDERS 1993), or, in certain circumstances, at the various sites and/or households themselves. This, however, is not always the case. As demonstrated in various archaeological and ethnographic cases, cooking wares are known to have been traded over relatively extensive distances (PEACOCK 1982: 40; JONES 1986: 861–864; ADAN-BAYEWITZ 1993; ORTON et al. 1993: 227). Theoretically, compositional analysis of the cooking pots should enable determination of which of the above situations existed in the Central Jordan Valley during the MB. It has been suggested in the past that two different modes of ceramic production are evident in the MB cooking pots.53 On the one hand, a more centralized workshop production of the various round-bottomed cooking pots (e.g., Figs. 34.1:5; 35:4), while on the other hand, a localized household production of the straight-sided cooking pots (e.g., Figs. 14:2; 15:6; 22:5–8; see, e.g., SINGER-AVITZ & LEVI 1992: 11*; MAGNESS-GARDINER 1993). Such a division is supported by relatively analogous evidence from the contemporary Levantine ethnographic record (LONDON & SINCLAIR 1991; SALEM 1994; 1999). If the above supposition is correct, one would expect to see that the round-bottomed cooking pots have a limited amount of com-

positions, typical of a limited number of production centers, while the straight-sided cooking pots have a wide variation of compositions since they were produced at a wide range of sites. If the latter is the case, one might even be able to define the local compositions of the various sites themselves. The analysis indicates that most of the straight sided and round-bottomed cooking pots cluster into two groups related to their morphological types, not their geographic location (MAEIR 1997a: figs. 41–42). This supports the assumption that round-bottomed cooking pots were produced at a limited amount of sites, as mentioned above. However, the results indicate that the straight sided cooking pots were not produced at numerous households but rather at a center or centers that utilized distinct raw materials. One could claim that the straight sided cooking pots were produced at many sites but that the household potters chose similar raw materials and thus the similar compositions, but this is difficult to accept. Examination of the archaeometric data of the straight sided cooking pots only (“CP 2”; Figs. 42–43) indicates that there is little or no correlation between the compositions of these pots and the sites at which they were found. Likewise, there appear to be several, though not entirely distinct, groupings of straight sided cooking pots from various sites. If these pots were produced in households, one would expect the raw materials to have been procured from the immediate

Fig. 42 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected straight-sided cooking pots (CP 2) from various sites in the Central Jordan Valley

53

For in-depth discussions of the various modes of ceramic production, see e.g., BALFET 1981; PEACOCK 1982; ESSE 1989.


101

Fig. 43 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected straight-sided cooking pots (CP 2) from various regions in the Central Jordan Valley (C – the Northern Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley)

Fig. 44 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected storage jars (SJ) from various sub-regions in the Central Jordan Valley (A – Kinnarot Valley; C – the Northern Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley)

vicinity of each site.54 This is not so with the examples examined from the Central Jordan Valley, apparently indicating that these vessels were produced at a small number of distinct production centers. Examination of the composition of the roundbottomed cooking pots alone reveals a certain amount of patterning. On the basis of both site-by-

54

This can be supported by ethnographic evidence from modern-day Palestinian potters. Raw materials for plain, house-

site and sub-regional differentiation, a limited amount of grouping between sites in the Northern Beth-Shean Valley and the Central Beth-Shean Valley is observed (Fig. 43). Zooming-in on specific sites, one can see, for example, despite compositional overlaps, that sites such as Beth-Shean, Hamadiya (N) and Tel Kitan produce several well-

hold-produced pottery were obtained from the immediate vicinity of the respective sites (SALEM 1994; 1999: 74).

102


Fig. 45 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected pithoi (PT) from various sub-regions in the Beth-Shean and Harod Valleys (C – the Northern Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central BethShean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley)

Fig. 46 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected juglets (JT) from various sites in the Central Jordan Valley

clustered samples. Thus, it can be suggested that within the Central Jordan Valley, several different production centers produced these cooking pots, utilizing quite similar raw materials, and that the vessels from these production centers reached sites beyond their immediate vicinity. As noted often in the past, there are distinct differences (both macro- and microscopic), between the wares of the cooking pots and other types of pottery (e.g., SINOPOLI 1991: 84). Since the function of the cooking pots requires the constant withstanding of “thermal shock”, various tempering agents were

added to the wares (e.g., RYE 1976; ARNOLD 1985: 23–24; ORTON et al. 1993: 220–222). As in other regions of the Southern Levant, the cooking wares from the Central Jordan Valley are easily discernable from other types of pottery. However, the differentiation is less conspicuous in the INAA results, as can be seen from the comparisons between the cooking pots and various buff clays (Fig. 39). This may indicate (as suggested by BIENKOWSKI 1986: 106) that though the technology of different vessel types (firing, method of construction, additives, etc.) was somewhat different, the basic raw materials were of similar origin.


Storage jars. The storage jar/jug compositions reveal a sub-regional patterning. The examples from the Central Beth-Shean Valley cluster differently from the examples from the Northern Beth-Shean Valley (Fig. 44). This may indicate that different raw materials were chosen in the different regions, and that there apparently were differential trade patterns within the Central Jordan Valley. Pithoi. The compositions of the pithoi from the entire Central Jordan Valley do not display any particular patterning (Fig. 45). However, examination of the pithoi from the Beth-Shean Valley reveals a slightly more explicit structure, as a large selection of pithoi from several sites cluster together. Apart from a limited number of outliers, the three sites with the largest number of similar samples are Beth-Shean, Hamadiyeh North, and Tel Menorah. Though this would be expected at Beth-Shean and Hamadiyeh North due to their proximity, it is somewhat surprising regarding Tel Menorah, since it is situated in the southern part of the Beth-Shean Valley. This suggests either a central production center for these pithoi, or that different production centers chose similar raw materials. It should be noted that the pithos with two scarab impressions from Beth-Shean (see MAEIR 2007b: pl. 15:4) also belongs to this group. Such large vessels may have been produced by a limited number of specialist potters at a few centers (e.g. VOYATZGLOU 1974), explaining the distinct clustering. In light of the quite similar compositions of the storage jars and pithoi, one wonders whether the jars were also produced at the same specialized production centers. It should be noted that MCGOVERN (2000: 73) claimed in his INAA study of MB pottery that all the Canaanite jars with scarab impressions derived from sites in southern Palestine. If, in fact, the pithos with the scarab impressions from Beth-Shean is a local product, this is yet another indication that similar cultural, and in this case administrative, frameworks appear in northern and southern Palestine. Juglets. The compositions of the juglets also display relatively distinct groupings, defined by site (Fig. 46). One is a cluster of samples from Beth-Shean and Kh. Mezarot (situated north of Beth-Shean in Nahal Tabor), another includes additional examples from Beth-Shean and Kh. Mezarot together with a smattering of sites in the Beth-Shean Valley. The only outstanding member of this latter cluster is a Tell el-

55

103

Yahudiyeh juglet from Beit Yerah. Two additional groups include mainly material from Hazor, though interestingly, samples from Beit Yerah are included as well. These results seem to reflect several phenomena. The conspicuous groupings of the juglets, each typified by a unique composition, may indicate that these vessels were produced in a limited number of production sites. It may be that juglets, apparently produced as specialized containers for valuable liquids (BIENKOWSKI 1986: 105; ZEVULUN 1993), demanded specialized production procedures available at a limited number of qualified production centers (as suggested above regarding the pithoi). This is supported by evidence from the potter’s refuse pit at Afula (ZEVULUN 1990), where the overall majority of the finds were of one general class – Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware juglets. Thus, it can be safely assumed that this pottery production center specialized in the production of such vessels and it is highly likely that additional such centers existed in the Central Jordan Valley and its surroundings. An additional observation can be noted concerning the juglet compositions. Samples from Hazor and Beit Yerah appear to cluster together, which may indicate that there were close connections between Hazor and the Beit Yerah region in the MB I/II.55 Although the relative limited amount of samples from Hazor and the Kinnarot Valley precludes more definite conclusions at this stage, this may lend support to the argument that the region of the Kinnarot Valley was under the direct political control of the Kingdom of Hazor (see MAEIR 1997a; 2000b; see also below, Chapter 5). Compositions According to Periods Although the majority of the samples analyzed date to the MB II–III, and to a lesser extent to the MB I, a representative group of pottery from other periods was analyzed as well. These samples include material from several sites (though primarily from BethShean), dating to the EB IV, LB I, LB II (?) and Iron I. A distinctive patterning of the respective periods can be observed. The examination of these samples may enable us to glimpse at regional trends that perhaps transcend specific periods. The majority of the MB I samples, taken from several sites throughout the Central Jordan Valley, cluster together into a relatively uniform group. A similar

The Hazor samples are from Tomb 1181, dating to the MB I/II (MAEIR 1997b). The samples from Beit Yerah are from similarly-dated sherds and vessels.

104


Fig. 47 Principal component analysis of INAA of MB I pottery from various sub-regions in the Central Jordan Valley (A – Kinnarot Valley; C – the Northern Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley)

Fig. 48 Principal component analysis of INAA of MB II–III Pottery from various sub-regions in the Central Jordan Valley (A – Kinnarot Valley; C – the Northern Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley)

situation is seen with most of the EB IV and Iron Age I samples as well, although in each period there was a change in raw material selection. While cases in which a continuous use of similar raw materials over extended periods are known (e.g. KNAPP & CHERRY

56

Note that the INAA of the ceramic material from Early Arabic period kilns at Beth-Shean produced an altogether different chemical profile than the compositions obtained in the present study. This accentuates the continuous modifi-

1994: 77–78), the opposite is documented as well. Such a change can be interpreted in several ways, such as a depletion of clay sources, different technological and/or functional preferences, or other cultural reasons (see ATTAS et al. 1982).56

cation of raw materials procurement throughout the various periods. The as-yet unpublished material from the Early Arabic kilns was sampled and analyzed by Yellin and Shelach (I wish to thank J. Yellin for this information).


EB IV A limited amount of EB IV pottery from Tel BethShean was sampled for the present project. These samples were compared to results from Tel >Artal (YELLIN & PERLMAN 1984 based on the finds from HESS 1984) and Tell el-Hayyat (FALCONER 1987a; 1987b). The results indicate that despite overlapping between the Beth-Shean and >Artal samples, the majority in each group clusters separately, although these sites are not that far from one another. This seems to reflect independent production at the respective sites, though there was a limited amount of trading, or in some cases, use of similar raw materials. MB I As seen in the comparison between the non-MB II–III periods, a large portion of the MB I samples (excluding Tel Beth-Shean since the period is missing there) cluster quite closely (and are dissimilar from other periods), though they are from different sites (Fig. 47). However, if one examines the samples from this period alone, several regionally-oriented groups can be discerned. Though these groups are not decisively isolated, there is more clustering than in the MB II–III, with fewer and more distinctive chemical fingerprints from the different sub-regions of the Central Jordan Valley. This may indicate a different pattern of ceramic dispersion during the MB I. In the MB II–III (Fig. 48), there appear to have been many production sites using similar raw materials, and abundant inter-site trade. Needless to say, there is substantial additional evidence that trade and inter-

105

site and inter-regional connections intensified as the MB developed (MAEIR 1997a; 2000b; COHEN 2002; 2009b; see below). Due to both the smaller number of sites in the region during this period, as well as the less-developed connections between the sites, each region had a more unique ceramic composition. The existence of a simpler inter-site relationship during the MB I corresponds well with FALCONER’s (1987a; 1987b) and KNAPP’s (1993) suggested reconstruction of pottery-trade patterns in the Central Jordan Valley. They posited that there were a limited number of production centers, and that Tell el-Hayyat was one of, if not the center of production. Although this cannot be accepted in regard to the MB II–III (see above), our data indicates that there may be some basis to their suggestions regarding the MB I. Late Bronze Age Though a relatively negligible amount of LB pottery was analyzed, one can note that two samples dating to the LB I, one from Beth-Shean and the other from Tel Kitan, are distinct outliers from the rest of the samples. Though the small number of samples does not permit a conclusive claim that the results represent a distinct cluster typical of the LB I, the unique grouping may hint to this (see COHEN-WEINBERGER 2007). Iron I Most of the Iron I material groups into a relatively tight cluster. The ten samples are primarily from Beth-Shean, though three Iron Age I storage jars from Tel Nisa are also included. The material from

Fig. 49 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected samples of pottery families from sites in the Central Jordan Valley (BC – bichrome; Buff – buff ware vessels; Clay – clay samples; COW – Chocolate-on-White ware; CP – cooking pots; EGY – Egyptian wares; RWB – red, white and blue ware; SPCL – special finds from Beth Shean; TEY – Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware; WW – white ware)

106


Beth-Shean includes both “local” Iron I types, as well as Egyptian-style pottery. The tight clustering is further illustration of the fact that the Egyptian-style pottery was manufactured locally (see below), and that the pottery at these two sites derived either from a single production center or that several production centers utilized very similar raw materials. Special MB Pottery Groups Along with the substantial quantity of plain, apparently local pottery, various examples of special pottery groups were sampled for the study. The special groups analyzed include: Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware, Chocolate-on-White Ware (and the related “White Ware”; see MAEIR 2007b; but see reservations on this term in DONNELLY 2006: 25), Red, White and Blue Ware (MAEIR 2002b; 2007b), and Egyptian vessels. In most cases there is significant differentiation between the groups (Fig. 49). Chocolate-on-White Ware and “White Ware” These two pottery groups are, as noted in MAEIR 2007b, very similar, and appear to derive from the same pottery-production traditions and locales. In fact, most of the analyzed samples cluster together into a rather large main group with only one or two significant outlying groups. The samples in the main group, though originating from various sites and sub-regions within the Central Jordan Valley, have a relatively similar composition. Though it is not possible to establish whether these samples originated from one production center, it nonetheless indicates that similar raw materials were used. The other, smaller groups are indicative that several sites produced this ware. Thus, our results, along with FISCHER’s studies (e.g., 1999; 2000a; 2003; see as well COHEN-WEINBERGER 2007; DONNELLY 2006), provide clear evidence that the Chocolate-on-White ware is a product of the Central Jordan Valley, even if the exact location(s) is yet unknown.57 It should be noted that although GLANZMAN & FLEMING (1986: 174) noted distinct technological differences between various types of Chocolate-onWhite Ware vessels (mainly between bowls and jars), and on this basis suggested that different raw-material sources were used for each type, this was not substantiated by the INAA analysis. The various vessel types do not group into distinct, type-related compositions (but see now DONNELLY 2006 who was able to

57

DONNELLY 2006 argues now for an origin in the Beth Shean Valley (= his “Northern Jordan valley”), suggesting that

differentiate between the apparent origins of different types, classes, and fabrics, of the Chocolate-onWhite Ware). Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware Most of the Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware examples from Beth-Shean are, morphologically, local Palestinian types (see MAEIR 2007b: 289–291; MAEIR & MULLINS in press). The only exceptions are a distinctly-shaped juglet (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 34:10) and a fragment of a zoomorphic vessel (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 20:1), both believed to be of Egyptian origin based on typological comparanda. Five Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware samples from Beth-Shean were analyzed, four of which were “local” types, while the fifth (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 10:19) was a juglet apparently originating in Egypt. In addition, a Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware juglet from Beit Yerah was also sampled. The INAA results were quite distinctive (Figs. 50–51). The local Beth-Shean Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware vessels plot very closely to the compositions of the Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware production center at Afula, while the Egyptian-style Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware from Beth-Shean falls nicely within a grouping of Egyptian Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware from Cyprus, and local Egyptian wares from Tell ed-Dab>a (ARTZY & ASARO 1979; KNAPP & CHERRY 1994), as well as various Egyptian samples analyzed in Berkeley (YELLIN et al. 1990). This contradicts MCGOVERN’s claim (2000: 73) that Egyptian Tell el-Yahudiyeh vessels were not exported to the Levant. It should be noted that the single sample from Beit Yerah does not group with any of the other compositions. Together with two additional outliers from Tel Mevorakh obtained from previous analyses (YELLIN 1984b; KNAPP & CHERRY 1994), these can be viewed as evidence that Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware was produced at more than one location in the Southern Levant during the MB (see, e.g., STAGER 2002: 357). Red, White and Blue Ware Most of the seven Red, White and Blue Ware samples cluster together, with only one significant outlier. Despite certain similarities in the decorative elements and technique between the Red, White and Blue Ware and the Chocolate-on-White Ware, the respective compositions are quite disparate, indicating a non-local production for the former. On the basis of

Pella, Beth Shean and Rehov may have played a major role in its production.


107

Fig. 50 Principal component analysis of INAA of Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware (TEY) from selected sites in the Central Jordan Valley, Canaan, and Cyprus compared to local wares from Tell ed-Dabca, Egypt

Fig. 51 Principal component analysis of INAA of Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware (TEY) from sites in the Central Jordan Valley, Canaan, Cyprus and Egypt and an Egyptian carinated vessel from Beth Shean

distribution we have suggested (MAEIR 2002b; 2007b; see also STAGER 2002: 355 for the Red, White and Blue Ware from Ashkelon) that Red, White and Blue Ware originated in the southern Coastal Plain of Canaan; however, the Red, White and Blue Ware examples from Beth-Shean cluster quite closely to the compositions of Bichrome (BC) and local wares from Megiddo, and the Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware from BethShean, which, as noted above, are similar to the Afula compositions. This suggests that the Beth-Shean Red, White and Blue Ware originated in the western Jezreel Valley. Due to insufficient analytic data, it is not possible to determine whether all the Red, White

and Blue Ware originated there, or whether, as suggested above, a large portion of this ware was in fact produced in the southern Coastal Plain. Egyptian Carinated Vessel The Egyptian “carinated vessel” (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 27:13), from both a typological and macroscopic point of view, clearly originates from Upper or Middle Egypt, although the INAA results for this vessel do not match various local or Egyptian comparisons (Fig. 51). The lack of sufficient comparative INAA data from these regions is most probably the reason for the absence of a good match. As mentioned

108


above, the Egyptian origin of this vessel and one of the Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware juglets indicates that MCGOVERN’s suggestion (2000: 73) of little if any importation of Egyptian pottery to the Levant during the MB is inaccurate.

A non-local provenience for the baking tray/bread mold may possibly support the Egyptian influence suggested for this vessel, though this as well requires further study.

Special Vessels

The results discussed above have numerous implications for understanding the cultural processes in the Central Jordan Valley during the MB. In particular, the following aspects can be elucidated:

Apart from the specific special pottery families discussed above, there were a number of unique ceramic finds from Beth-Shean that warranted compositional analysis. Several distinct patterns emerged from these analyses. Most of the objects appear to have been of local production, and most appear to cluster together into two groups, although there are several substantial outliers (Fig. 49). One group includes the following: a loom weight, which one can safely assume was locally made, and thus indicates the local origin for the entire group; a drop-shaped bottle (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 17:4), which, as suggested (MAEIR 2007b: 282), was also presumed to be local; the pithos with scarab impressions (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 15:4) indicating that the impressions are the product of a local symbol system in the Central Jordan Valley (though its significance, whether administrative or decorative, is unclear); the unique loop base with snail-like protrusions (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 10:5), which seems to be a local phenomenon (MAEIR 2007b: 292–292; see above);58 and finally, though slightly offset from the rest of the group, the unique “cow bell”-shaped cylindrical vessel (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 31:8). The second group consists of two apparently cultic (or special-function) vessels, a stand (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 31:9) and a cup-and-saucer vessel (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 30:14). Though one cannot be certain of the local origin of the group, a comparison of the elemental data reveals a similarity with many of the other samples from Beth-Shean. Three other vessels, the linear-decorated juglet (MAEIR 2007b: pl. 33:14), the zoomorphic “head cup” (ibid: pl. 11:1), and the baking tray/bread mold (ibid: pl. 25:11), represent quite different compositions. The juglet does, in fact, have an unusual decoration and may be an import from a different region. If the “head cup” is non-local it may have originated in the Jericho region where most of its counterparts were discovered, though additional analyses are required.

58

It should be noted though that a bowl from Pella that is decorated in the Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware style with just such a unique loop base with snail-like protrusions was recently

DISCUSSION

1) The frameworks (“modes”) of ceramic production in the region. 2) Intra- and inter-regional trade and exchange. 3) The socio-economic structure in the region. 4) The distinctions between these aspects in the periods under discussion. Ceramic Production If one attempts to understand the production and subsequent trade and exchange of pottery, it is necessary to define the different modes/scales of ceramic production, each with its unique qualities. There is extensive archaeological literature on the classification of the varying modes of ceramic production and exchange (see, e.g., VAN DER LEEUW 1977; PEACOCK 1982; ESSE 1989; WOOD 1990). Based on ethnographic and archaeological data, four fundamental modes of ceramic production can be defined: Household production: Small-scale production conducted within individual households, serving primarily internal consumption and utilizing mainly crude production methods. Household industry: Small-scale production by a few skilled artisans (as a part-time occupation), primarily for internal consumption but geared to external as well (depending on trade patterns). This is the beginning of specialized production with the appearance of specialized techniques and ceramic types. Workshop industry: Pottery production becomes a full-time (or at least predominant) occupation, not supplementary to agricultural activities. Production is more efficient and regulated (with increasing use of the wheel), more vessels are produced with fewer potters at work, leading to production standardization. In addition, there is a more prolific appearance of ceramic types that require specialized production

reported to be of Egyptian origin, based on INAA. See BOURKE et al. 2006: 49, fig. 42:1.

Discussion

procedures. To succeed, this mode requires a trade/exchange system (both markets and middlemen) to enable the growth of both the markets and the scale of production. Large-scale industry: A mode of production that requires elaborate distribution systems and advanced production methods, far beyond those that were available in pre-classical contexts and is thus irrelevant to the present discussion. In light of the evidence for substantial improvements of the ceramic technology during the MB (see now, e.g., MARITAN et al. 2005; BEN-SHLOMO, UZIEL & MAEIR 2009; UZIEL et al. 2009), it has been suggested that full-scale workshop industries existed (WOOD 1990; FRANKEN & LONDON 1995; MORANDI BONACOSSI 2008: 111). The extensive use of the wheel and other methods that enhance the efficiency of production are indicative of this (FRANKEN 1991: 75–77; 2005: 194; BESANA et al. 2008: 137; MORANDI-BONACOSSO 2008: 111).59 In addition, the widespread standardization of pottery throughout the entire Southern Levant further supports this suggestion since such standardization could exist only in more “professional” settings. Although regional variations exist, most of the ceramics are quite similar throughout the Levant. Since, perhaps, distinct pottery production centers controlled much of the pottery production, and widespread trade/ exchange relations existed between the various regions, similar designs and methods were readily disseminated (WOOD 1990). Thus, in periods with high levels of technological development and extensive trade frameworks, these qualities would be more prominent, as opposed to the situation in less economically active periods (i.e., MB II–III as opposed to MB I; MB I as opposed to EB IV). This picture is fully supported by the compositional analysis indicating a much wider diffusion of the different types over the entire region in the MB II–III, less so in the MB I, and even less during the EB IV. In addition, the existence of workshops specializing in the production of specific pottery types geared to well-defined needs would be expected, especially during the MB II–III. This is confirmed by the compositional analysis that appears to indicate that certain

59

See though ROUX (2003; 2009) who questions whether in fact the fast wheel was used in the production of MB pottery. Even if the fast wheel was not in use during this period, the substantial changes in the pottery production technology witnessed in the MB indicates profound develop-

109

special types (juglets, pithoi, Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware) were produced at a limited number of locations. Although the specialized workshops were the main production centers, it appears that smaller-scale production (household industry) existed as well. Such a scenario is indicated by the fact that despite substantial similarity (both morphologically and chemically) among most of the ceramics from the various regions of the Southern Levant, certain pottery classes do display some differentiation (both typological and compositional) between sites, and some of the types were made with less sophisticated production methods. Since the compositional analysis indicates that the handmade straight-sided cooking pots were not produced at a large number of sites, it may very well be that they were produced at such centers, with simple time-saving methods. It is not necessary, however, to assume that such handmade cooking pots are evidence of nomadic elements in the population (e.g. HOLLADAY 1992: 589). Sufficient ethnographic evidence indicates that such production is common in sedentary village communities (e.g., LONDON & SINCLAIR 1991; SALEM 1994; 1999). Household production is probably the most difficult to identify (ESSE 1989: 87) and could not be explicitly discerned in the current project. Nevertheless, it is highly likely that it did exist. Although in the past it has been assumed that the handmade straightsided cooking pots may have been the product of the household production mode (e.g., SINGER-AVITZ & LEVI 1992: 11*; MAGNESS-GARDINER 1993), as mentioned above, this is not supported by the compositional evidence obtained in the current study. The co-existence of the three modes of ceramic production in a given society is not unusual (e.g., ESSE 1989: 91). Since a multi-tiered society is comprised of various types of subsistence, production and consumption, pottery will be produced in modes appropriate for each specific societal niche. Thus, upper-echelon urban society will demand different types of pottery and utilize different production technologies than lower echelon, rural/pastoral sectors. Needless to say, complementary utilization of the products of the various production modes insures the supply of the complete pottery repertoire required by

ments in the organizationof production, in comparison to earlier and later periods. For a discussion of the organization of pottery production in the MB as opposed to the LB, see, e.g., PANITZ-COHEN 2006: 274–285.

110


a society. When these needs were not met locally, they were satisfied through importation (RANDS & BISHOP 1980: 44). Distribution As demonstrated in the past, the analysis of ceramic distribution and composition can form the basis for a study of ancient exchange patterns (e.g. FRY 1980). The different modes of production that existed in the region, and the concurrent dispersal of ceramics, serve as an indication of the degree of intra-regional trade and exchange, especially during the MB II–III. The compositional data from the present study indicates that ceramic products from all the different subregions of the Central Jordan Valley were dispersed throughout the entire region. One can envision a lively network of trade, whether through self-marketing by the potters, or through middlemen or markets (WOOD 1990). This, of course, corresponds well with the evidence of a multi-tiered settlement pattern in this region during the MB (MAEIR 2003; see below, Chapter 5). These observations should be compared to other reconstructions of the ceramic trade patterns in this region that have been suggested in the past. On the basis of the archaeometric analysis of pottery from a restricted number of sites in the Central Jordan Valley, both FALCONER (1987a; 1987b) and KNAPP (1987; 1989; 1993; KNAPP et al. 1988) proposed reconstructions of pottery trade patterns in the region. In their view, Tell el-Hayyat was the center for MB pottery production, while Pella (as an example of a central site) was seen as a consumer of the local Tell el-Hayyat production, as well as pottery imported from other regions. Such a reconstruction is not supported by the data from the present study, perhaps due to an insufficient sampling of sites in the earlier studies. The central role that Falconer and Knapp portrayed for Tell elHayyat may stem from the fact that it was the only production site that was sampled in their respective studies. As seen from the evidence presented above, there appears to have been a much more intricate framework of pottery production and exchange, with pottery produced at numerous sites throughout the region. It is suggested that there were other such production centers (of varying sizes and classes, e.g., PEACOCK 1982) throughout the Central Jordan Valley. Though other such production locations have not yet been uncovered, indirect evidence for pottery production at several additional MB sites excavated in the Central Jordan Valley (Pella, Beth-Shean, Hamadiyeh North; see above, Chapter 3) supports this supposition. WOOD’s suggestion (1990: 71) that pottery was

only produced at a limited number of major urban centers (and not at village sites) is likewise not supported by the available data. To begin with, it is contradicted by the evidence of ceramic production at Tell el-Hayyat. The compositional patterns that have emerged from our data do not support such an interpretation as well. Rather, it appears that pottery was produced at various sites throughout the region (for similar views, see now DONNELLY 2006). Apparently, sites in the same vicinity used similar raw materials (ARNOLD’s [1985: 5] “overlapping exploitable resource territories”), resulting in a rather ambiguous chemical fingerprint for the entire Central Jordan Valley. Though one can plainly differentiate between the imported and/or special pottery groups and the local plain wares, it is the plain wares that, on the basis of the present evidence, defy a more explicit definition of the sundry points of production. Examination of the complete data-set from the Central Jordan Valley, as well as that available from specific smaller groups of pottery has not produced a clear differentiation of chemical fingerprints between sites and/or the respective sub-regions in the Central Jordan Valley. On the contrary, in most cases there is a fuzzy continuous connection between the chemical compositions. Each site has a “chemical profile” that is quite similar to its neighbors, which are, in turn, similar to their neighbors. A similar situation was seen even between sites with differing geologies or soils. Once again, this stresses that there was a substantial overlap in the use of the available ceramic raw materials throughout much of the Central Jordan Valley. The evidence does not appear to reflect a centralized distribution pattern of ceramics originating from the large centers (e.g. ILAN 1995b: 306), as the dispersal of pottery types and compositions appears much too variegated. Rather, it would seem that a much more intricate web of markets, middlemen, and, possibly, itinerant potters, all participated in the distribution of pottery (see, e.g., HODGES 1988). As demonstrated above, although there are compositional differences between the utilitarian pottery from Pella on the one hand, and that from sites in the vicinity of Rehov on the other, one sees explicit overlaps as well. Similarly, Chocolate-on-White ware from Pella displayed similar compositions to that from sites in the Rehov vicinity. In other words, sites from both sides of the Jordan River apparently procured their raw material from the same sources and shared common pottery production methods and/or distribution systems. As we suggest (below, Chapter

111

Distribution

5) that Pella was the dominant polity throughout the Central Jordan Valley, this fits in very well. The widespread dispersal of pottery types, compositions, and apparent production sites, indicates that the political power bases located in the primary sites did not control or restrain pottery production and distribution. Since the ceramic types and compositions clearly crossed the supposed boundaries of the Central Jordan Valley (both internal and external), one can assume that the pottery production and exchange systems were not highly influenced by political boundaries (they were “outward looking” as opposed to “inward looking”, e.g. RANDS & BISHOP 1980: 43).60 This does support claims (FALCONER 1987a; 1987b; ILAN 1995b: 306) that the rural MB culture had a more accentuated and possibly quite autonomous economic role. Such an interpretation fits well with the suggestion (MAEIR 2000b) that the socio-economic structure of the Central Jordan Valley can be viewed as a “segmentary state” (see below). In general, this may be an indication of a lack of any rigorous or antagonistic political boundaries during the MB, both in the Central Jordan Valley and in the Southern Levant as a whole. Further support is found in evidence for intense cultural interactions in the Southern Levant during this period (the so-called “Canaanite culture”, e.g., DEVER 1987: 165; MAZAR 1990a: 174). On the level of inter-regional relations, the compositional analysis sheds light on several aspects of the relations between the Central Jordan Valley and other regions. Despite certain indications, the present evidence can not substantiate the proposal that the Kinnarot Valley was under the political control of Hazor (MAEIR 1997a; 2000b; see below). However, this was not comprehensively examined due to insufficient comparative data from Hazor (based only on material from a single MB I/II tomb, see MAEIR 1997b). The compositional analysis seems to confirm the suggestion of limited trade relations between the Central Jordan Valley and Egypt during this period (whether through direct or secondary connections), as demonstrated by the Egyptian Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware juglet, and, tentatively, the Egyptian “carinated vessel”, and even more remotely, a possible Egyptian “baking tray” (MAEIR 2007b: 263–264). The first two items were probably traded for their contents, most probably a valuable liquid, rather than any intrinsic

60

It should be noted that certain ceramic types do not appear in bordering regions, possibly indicating some restrictions

value (as GILL [1994] has cautioned). The baking tray, if it does have foreign connections, may indicate a more direct cultural influence. Although Beth-Shean was not one of the central sites during this period (as opposed to Pella), one does find prestige items in the late MB, indicating that trade of such items was within the economic capabilities of the secondary-tier sites as well. Alternatively, such items could have been brought to the site in a ritual context to the cultic center that may have existed at Beth-Shean (see above, Chapter 3). Whatever the case, caution should be exercised not to overemphasize the relative economic role of the primary sites (e.g. KNAPP’s [1993] “gateways”), or underestimate the role of the small urban entities (e.g., FALCONER 1987a; 1987b; on this, see MAEIR 2003). Smaller urban sites such as Beth-Shean apparently had sufficient resources to partake in the trade, exchange, and demand of such prestige items. It was observed in this study that several of the special pottery groups apparently originated in adjacent regions (local Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware; Red, White and Blue Ware), most probably from specialized production centers. As stated above, the significant similarities between ceramics from different regions in the Southern Levant may be largely due to the close, ongoing connections, as corroborated by both the typological and compositional evidence for similarities within the region on the one hand, and traded items from other regions on the other. The typological and compositional distinctions between the special pottery groups and the more utilitarian wares, indicate not only that they were produced at different locations, but possibly, that distinct distribution systems existed for the different classes of pottery (e.g., FRY 1979; RANDS & BISHOP 1980: 43). The very different production modes and distribution patterns of the different classes of pottery (the utilitarian and prestige wares) may reflect, among others things, the socio-economic frameworks and constraints within MB society. This was probably true with other classes of material culture as well (ILAN 1995b: 306). A finer analysis of this issue is, however, beyond the scope of the present research. Trade in the Jordan Valley during the MB The distinctions that have been noted between the different geographical regions in the Southern Lev-

(political, cultural, etc.) on the flow of goods between the different regions.

112


ant and their political orientation are applicable to the study of the macro- and micro-economic structures (with particular emphasis on the trade patterns) of the MB Southern Levant. Although this should not be seen as an exhaustive discussion of the general trade patterns during the MB, several points of inter- and intra-regional perspectives can be developed from the above discussion. Numerous attempts have been made in the archaeological and anthropological literature to define and classify pre-modern and pre-capitalist trade and exchange (e.g. ADAMS 1974b; SABLOFF & LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY 1975; EARLE & ERICSON 1977; YANNAI 1983; KNAPP & STECH 1985; BRUMFIEL & EARLE 1987; HODGES 1988; DEVER 1995a; HOLLADAY 2001; EARLE 2002; MANNING & MORRIS 2004; SMITH 2004; KRISTIANSEN & LARSSON 2005; BEVAN 2007: 19–39). Over the last several decades it has in fact been the focus of quite a vehement debate between severely polarized schools of thought (“Substantivists” versus “Formalists”; for a general review see HODGES 1988: 1–15; SMITH 2004). Although each approach seemingly produced a conflicting interpretation of early trade and economics, it has been noted that in fact the two approaches are quite complementary (e.g., DOWLING 1979; HART 1986; HODGES 1988: 15). Thus, one should be wary of attempts to restrict interpretations of ancient trade patterns to one or the other school of thought. A legitimate approach to the study of ancient trade does not demand exclusive adherence to one of these schools (e.g. the undue criticism in this regard by MANNING et al. [1994: 226–27] vis-àvis NEGBI 1994). I would argue that constructive utilization of the various notions raised in these discussions, in regard to specific case-studies, would be the proper method of study, not inflexible adherence to a certain school of thought. Although studies of the overall trade patterns of the MB Ancient Near East do exist (e.g., LEEMANS 1960; GARELLI 1963; WARD 1966, 1971; VEENHOF 1972; ADAMS 1974b; YOFFEE 1977; KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980; LARSEN 1987; NA’AMAN 1990; KNAPP & CHERRY 1994; KNAPP 1998; OGUCHI 1999; MARCUS 1998; 2002; 2007; BUCHHOLZ 1999; HOLLADAY 2001; KRISTIANSEN & LARSSON 2005; ARUZ, BENZEL & EVANS 2008; BEVAN 2007: 32–35), insufficient focus has been placed on the specific patterns relating to the Southern Levant.

61

One can, however, list certain studies in which these topics have been elaborated. GERSTENBLITH (1983) attempts to study the relationship between Ancient Near Eastern trade and the commencement of the MB I period. CAESSENS (1990: 144–73) has collected various evidence for trade between the Southern Levant and the Aegean region, particularly in light of the finds at Kabri (e.g. KISLEV et al. 1993; NEGBI 1994; NIEMEIER 1991; NIEMEIER & NIEMEIER 2002). BIENKOWSKI (1986: 134–35) gives a rather pessimistic overview of MB trade, believing that little could actually be deduced from the available material, while ALTMAN (1996) attempts to downplay the extent of Mesopotamian-Canaanite trade relations. WARD & DEVER (1994: 42–47) and ILAN (1995b: 305–08, esp. fig. 6) have discussed (albeit briefly) the trade networks in the MB II–III Southern Levant.61 I would like to utilize their suggestions as a basis for several comments on this topic. Attempting to place the Southern Levant in relation to the trade networks of northern Syria/Mesopotamia on the one hand and Egypt on the other, ILAN (1995b) hypothesizes a system of primary and secondary gateways alongside various central places. At the center of the reconstruction is his supposition that two major trading centers (“first order gateways”) existed in the region. Hazor was positioned as the north-facing site, while Tell edDab>a in the north-eastern Nile delta fulfilled a similar role for northern Egypt and southern Canaan. Alongside these main centers, ILAN (1995b) distinguishes lower-order gateways which served as entry/exit points along the coast and towards the eastern and southern desert regions. Before I comment on Ilan’s suggestions, it must be stressed that in this discussion I will focus primarily on the MB II–III, since most of the data derives from this period. This will then serve as the backdrop for the analysis of the MB trade patterns in the Jordan Valley (for the Central Jordan Valley, see MAEIR 1997a; 2000b). Although, as stated, the current discussion emphasizes the MB II–III, much can be inferred regarding the MB I as well. Even if there are distinct differences between these phases, there is a clear continuum in the patterns of trade between the two periods. In the northern Levant, despite the fact that an important

HOLLADAY (1997: 201–03) attempted to deal with the theoretical issues of MB trade, although he concentrated on the evidence from the eastern Nile delta

Distribution

113

link in the MB I structure ceased to exist (i.e. the Old Assyrian merchant colonies), overall, the trade frameworks continued (see now evidence of this from the post-Mari texts from Tell Leilan; EIDEN 1991). With time, the locations of centers may have shifted (i.e. Babylon, Mari, Yamhad, etc.; e.g. KLENGEL 1992: 39–83), but the essential products, routes, and ultimately, the supply and demand, continued.62 In fact, a major factor behind the Hittite expansion at the end of the MB was the quest to control the existing trade routes in the region (NA’AMAN 1974; KLENGEL 1992: 80). Similarly, in the south, although after the Middle Kingdom the nature of the Egyptian involvement in the Levant changed, a close connection still existed between the two regions. The inter-relations between Canaan and the culture of the Second Intermediate Period northern Delta indicates this (e.g., HOLLADAY 1997; MCGOVERN & HARBOTTLE 1997; OREN 1997; SHAW 2001; SPARKS 2001). This said, I would like to suggest several additions and corrections to ILAN’s (1995b) model. First of all, I do think that one should beware of an over-use of the term “gateway” (and see my comments in MAEIR 1997a; 2000b). The proliferation of gateways in Ilan’s model reduces the significance of this type of settlement. Not every site which is situated on the boundaries of a political unit can be termed a gateway. Many of the sites that ILAN (1995b) calls “second/third order gateways” are simply sites in the center, or on the edge, of the small-to medium-sized political units which were typical of the MB II–III Southern Levant. Additional major trading centers should be distinguished in the Southern Levant. Accepting BUNIMOVITZ’s (1989; 1995) claim that there was a large polity in the southern Coastal Plain (see above), an additional center (besides Hazor and Tell ed-Dab>a) should be placed at Ashkelon (or possibly Sharuhen; on the MB settlement pattern and divisions of polities in the southern Coastal Plain, see now UZIEL 2008). The strong evidence for close connections between the southern Coastal Plain (and particularly from Ashkelon) and Tell ed-Dab>a supports this view. Thus, I believe it can be safe to assume that Ashkelon served as the main “gateway” for south-western Canaan throughout most of the MB (STAGER 2001; 2002;

BIETAK & KOPETZKY 2003; BURKE 2008: 125–126; BIETAK et al. 2009).63 I would suggest that the image of a two-way trade relationship between this region and northern Egypt should be preferred to the picture of an overall southern trading center at Tell ed-Dab>a. These bi-directional connections (with both southern and northern Canaan) are evinced from ceramic provenience studies (BIETAK 1991: 28, n. 4; MCGOVERN 2000; MCGOVERN et al. 1994; MCGOVERN & HARBOTTLE 1997; COHENWEINBERGER & GOREN 2004), the distribution of Egyptian and Palestinian goods (WEINSTEIN 1981; BIETAK 1991; 1995; 1997; ARNOLD et al. 1995; OREN & YEKUTIELI 1996; OREN 1997; HOLLADAY 1997; COHEN 2002: 133–134; MARCUS 2006; MLINAR 2006), not to mention the historical sources. In addition, evidence of trade with northern Palestine (e.g., RICHARDS 1992; MAEIR 2007b) and Cyprus (JOHNSON 1982) is to be found in this region. Although, undoubtedly, it served as a major center, Tell ed-Dab>a should be seen as a separate entity, not as an integral part of the Southern Levant. Although there are intimate connections between the two, the overall evidence, particularly from the MB II–III, indicates that the site belonged to an independent economic unit. As BIETAK (1991: 46–47) has noted, during the MB II–III a growing differentiation between the material culture of the site and that of southern Canaan is felt. In fact, recent studies have stressed the distinctive aspects of the Egyptian Hyksos material culture, non-Egyptian but non-Canaanite as well (REDMOUNT 1993; HALLOTE 1995; HOLLADAY 1997; MAEIR 1997a: 329, n. 39; COHENWEINBERGER & GOREN 2004). Likewise, a study of the connections between Lower Egypt and the Aegean indicates a very different pattern from that of the Levant (e.g., KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980; PHILLIPS 1991; BIETAK 2000; O’CONNOR et al. 2008). It appears that Tell ed-Dab>a developed as a cultural and economic center, inter-related with other regions of the ancient Near East, not as the southern extension of the culture of Canaan. The site served as a gateway between northern Egypt and several regions: Canaan (see above), the Aegean region and Cyprus (e.g., BIETAK 1992b; 2000; MAGUIRE 1986; 2009; WALBERG 1991a; 1991b; CLINE 1998), and Egypt and Sudan to the south (e.g., BIETAK

62

63

For royal gift exchange as seen at MB Qatna, see now PFÄLZNER 2007b.

See now BURKE 2008: 127, n. 30, who has suggested that Ashkelon may be mentioned in one of the Mari letters. If this is so, it strengthens the case for seeing Ashkelon as the main center of MB southwestern Canaan.

114


1989; LACOVARA 1997; SMITH 1998; BADER 2000; FUSCALDO 2004; 2005; 2009). An additional gateway site in northern Israel should be placed at Kabri.64 On the basis of the outstanding remains at the site (KEMPINSKI & NIEMEIER 1992; KEMPINSKI 2002), as well as the significant evidence of Aegean connections (NIEMEIER 1991; NIEMEIER & NIEMEIER 2002; for MB I trade between the Aegean and this region see KISLEV et al. 1993), it seems justifiable to claim that this site served as the central trading center of the region of north-western Canaan (i.e. the northern Coastal Plain and the Jezreel valley; see YASUR-LANDAU, CLINE & PIERCE 2008).65 From this general region there is evidence of Aegean (supra; RABAN 1991), Cypriote (SALTZ 1977; JOHNSON 1982; MAGUIRE 1987; ARTZY & MARCUS 1992; SCHEFTELOWITZ, KEMPINSKI & GERSHUNY 2002), north Syrian/Anatolian (KEMPINSKI 1989: 31–32; 1992a) and, to a limited extent, Egyptian trade (KEMPINSKI 1990; MARCUS 1991; 2007; MARCUS & ARTZY 1995). It is important to note that the late MB/early LB Bichrome ware pottery (e.g., EPSTEIN 1966; BUCHHOLZ 1999: 450–456) was previously not reported from Kabri (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY & SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002). While BIETAK (2007: 272) has now reported that a single Cypriote Bichrome sherd has now been identified from the final destruction of the MB palace at Kabri, it nevertheless is only one sherd. Since it is clear that both the Chocolate-on-White ware and the Bichrome ware already appeared in the late MB (e.g., MAEIR 2007b: 286–289; BIETAK 2007a: 271, n. 21), the very fact that only two examples of these unique and chronologically and culturally indicative wares were found at Kabri is of significance. Although BIETAK (2007) argues that Kabri was destroyed in the very early LB, this would seem rather hard to accept; if this was the case, one would expect larger quantities

64

65

66

Based on current archaeological knowledge (e.g., BROSHI & GOPHNA 1986; KEMPINSKI 1992b; 1992c; DEVER 1997), there do not appear to be any MB sites that are comparable to Kabri, from the Carmel Ridge in the south until well into present-day Lebanon in the north. Although during the early MB, Akko apparently was the dominant site in the region, once Kabri ascended in the late MB I, Akko was dominated by Kabri (see YASUR-LANDAU, CLINE & PIERCE 2008). Farther to the north, one enters the realm of other polities and economic frameworks, such as Tyre and Byblos. See KEMPINSKI 1996 for a slightly different perspective on the Aegean-Levantine trade pattern. BIETAK’s (2007: 272–275) suggestion that Tomb 902 at Kabri, which contains early LB material, is contemporary with the final stage of the palace, although a distinct possi-

of both of these wares which become more popular during the LB I.66 The Bichrome ware, as ARTZY (2002) has argued is to be seen as evidence of a “Mediterranean cultural koiné” during the late MB and early LB. While one might claim that the lack of Bichrome ware is to be seen as evidence of the limited role that Kabri played in this sphere of interaction, the relatively large selection of Cypriote imported pottery (MAGUIRE 1987; KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY & SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: 117–120), and needless to say, the Minoan frescoes at the site (e.g. NIEMEIER & NIEMEIER 2002) would argue against this. As argued in the past (e.g. NIEMEIER 1990), perhaps Kabri was destroyed before the end of the MB, prior to the extensive appearance of Bichrome ware (and Chocolate-on-White ware). This is a question that requires further research and has important chronological implications (see, e.g., NIEMEIER 1990; BIETAK 2007a). As opposed to these centers of trade, Hazor served as the gateway for the region of north-eastern Canaan, northern Transjordan and southern Syria (supra). An obvious feature of Hazor’s trade is that it is land-based, not maritime-oriented. One can assume that it was focused on the inland Syrian trade routes, while Ugarit and Byblos controlled the northern littoral routes (MARCUS 1991: 204). This is explicitly demonstrated in the archaeological evidence. Nevertheless, one can note that some Cypriote pottery was found at MB Hazor (JOHNSON 1982), which is quite different from MB Beth Shean and Pella, where almost no Cypriote pottery was found in the MB levels (e.g., ERIKSSON 2001; 2003; FISCHER 2004; MAEIR 2007b). To this one can add one or two Minoan sherds from Hazor (DOTHAN, ZUCKERMAN & GOREN 2000; see though MERRILLEES 2003). Nevertheless, the contacts with the Mediterranean were limited.

bility, is not proven from a stratigraphic point of view. In addition, his argument (BIETAK 2007a: 272) that the frescoes at Kabri date to the very end of the MB and early LB (ca. 100 years later than what was suggested by the excavators), and were still in place in the early New Kingdom, is problematic as well (he insists that one cannot connect between the frescoes at Kabri and the “Hyksos koiné” of the late 17th/early 16th century B.C.E.), since the recent excavations have demonstrated that there were frescoes in the Kabri palace (in fact, some which are very similar to the West House frescoes in Santorini/Thera) in the phase prior to the last phase (and not only in the final phase as previously assumed; see, e.g., YASUR-LANDAU, CLINE & PIERCE 2008: 71; YASUR-LANDAU personal communication; see as well SØRENSEN 2009).

Distribution

115

Previously (MAEIR 1997a: 229–30; 2000b), I have argued against KNAPP’s (1989; 1993) suggestion to identify Pella as a gateway as well. But now, in light of the fact that Pella apparently is the only large MB site in the Central Jordan Valley throughout most of the MB (and in fact, for the Southern Jordan Valley during the MB I as well),67 it is highly likely that it did serve as a gateway for trade with parts of Transjordan (and beyond) during the MB (see as BOURKE et al. 2006: 48–55), even if little physical evidence of this trade has survived.68 On the other hand, finds from, and references to, inland Syria and northern Mesopotamia indicate the focus of Hazor’s trade. As explicitly stated in the Mari texts, merchants or envoys from Mari (and other sites) travelled to Hazor and there traded with the people of Hazor (MALAMAT 1993: 68). Incidentally, this indicates that these northern representatives came to Hazor on a short-term basis and were not there for an extended period, and one should not look for a foreign “karum” at Hazor. Following NAGEL and EDER (1992: 66; contra RAINEY 1972: 387), it should be stressed that one cannot see a similarity between the commercial framework in the region and the Old Assyrian trading network in Anatolia. From the Hazor end of this trade link, one can mention the impressive list of textiles, luxury items and metals that appear in the recently published letter from Hazor (Hazor 12), can but strengthen the impression of the importance and impressive volume of this trade (HOROWITZ & WASSERMAN 2000; HOROWITZ & OSHIMA 2006: 83–85). Although ALTMAN (1996) may be correct that there was little direct trade contact between Mesopotamia itself and Canaan, as already mentioned above, I believe his supposition is based on a misconception. In fact, one of the only (if not the only) connections between the Mesopotamian and Canaanite spheres was at Hazor. I would suggest that Hazor judiciously controlled the

flow of Mesopotamian goods to Canaan and Canaanite to Mesopotamia. With Hazor serving as the apparently exclusive “valve” for this connection, there was limited direct contact beyond Hazor itself and one might interpret this as a lack of contact in general; but I believe the opposite was true – there was contact with other regions of Canaan – but it was regulated by the Hazor polity. The interaction between these sites and these respective regions can be summarized in the following manner. Hazor served as a trade node for the northern and north-eastern contacts, Pella for the eastern and south-eastern contacts (the so-called “spice route”), Kabri for the northern and western connections,69 and Ashkelon southwards. These commercial nodes were an integral part of the much more extensive pattern throughout the contemporary ancient Near East (e.g. KRISTIANSEN & LARSSON 2005: 90–96). Although extensive and farreaching trade patterns did exist, some of these regions were not intimately connected. The northern infrastructure, consisting of Mesopotamia, central and south-eastern Anatolia, northern Syria, and additional peripheral regions, was intimately connected, as evidenced by the long range of exported produce (LARSEN 1987). Likewise, the southern, Egyptian sphere had far-ranging trade connections (KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980: 268–86), reaching a variety of regions. The lack of explicit evidence for the interaction between the Syro-Mesopotamian and Egyptian spheres is well known.70 The documentary evidence supplies little confirmation of direct connections. In the Mari archive the lack of references to Egypt has been discussed extensively in the past, particularly from a chronological point of view (e.g., ALBRIGHT 1945; KITCHEN 1967). Likewise, in the contemporary Egyptian inscriptions, although there is reference to southern Syria and the Levant, it was not extended

67

69

68

COHEN’s (2002: 126) suggestion to see Beth Shean, along with Hazor, as the two gateways in inland Canaan, already from the early MB II cannot be accepted. The finds at Beth Shean, and the size of the site, not to mention that the site is intensively settled only from the late MB II, precludes this suggestion. One can assume that many of the items that were traded were of organic (and thus poorly preserved over time), such as spices and similar items from Arabia and beyond. For various spices, some probably from areas east of Arabia, reaching Egypt during the MB, see the lists of imports from the reign of Amenemhet II in MARCUS 2007: 139–142.

70

FELDMAN (2007: 57–58) believes that Kabri was not a capital of a regional power, but rather a link between the coastal trade and the inland kingdom of Hazor. This suggestion is hard to accept, due to the very different spheres of interaction that can be seen at these two sites, indicating separate political and economic entities, even if at times there was a connection between them. But see now BURKE (2008: 127, n. 30) who suggests that Ashkelon may be mentioned in one the Mari letters

116


further to the north. Even if one interprets the Egyptian involvement in western Asia during the Middle Kingdom in the maximalist way, the evidence does not point to involvement beyond Syria-Lebanon (i.e., TEISSIER 1990; GOEDICKE 1991a; NAGEL & EDER 1992; QUACK 1992). The same can be said regarding the dispersal of goods from the one region to the other. Although Egyptian trade objects have been reported from as far north as the Syrian/Turkish border (in general, see NAGEL & EDER 1992; for the region of Ebla, see SCANDONE-MATTHIAE 1979; 1984; 1987; 1997a; 1997b; RYHOLT 1998; for north-eastern Syria see GOEDICKE 1991b), such objects in any case do not reach beyond that region. The few objects that have been noted in the past from contemporary contexts in Mesopotamia (such as the statue of Khyan from Baghdad: PORTER & MOSS 1952: 396) can be seen as negligible, and possibly irrelevant (if they are related to later activities). Regarding finds of Mesopotamian origin in Egypt, the picture is much the same. Except for extremely rare objects, which in themselves are questionable (i.e., finds in the Tôd treasure: BISSON DE LA ROQUE 1953; for more recent discussions see KEMP & MERRILLEES 1980; PORADA 1982; MARAN 1987; LAFFINEUR 1988; LILYQUIST 1993; PIERRAT-BONNEFOIS 2008), once again there is little evidence for direct trade between these two regions. Despite the lack of evidence for direct contact, due to the fact that the Egyptian and Mesopotamian spheres traded with other regions (which in turn were connected to both of these regions), one would expect a certain degree of indirect trading between Egypt and Mesopotamia. The scarcity of this is in fact an interesting question. The existence of a “trade barrier” between the regions is hard to imagine. Although during different phases of the MB there may have been a lack of long-range contacts in the ancient Near East; the long-term history of such wideranging contacts is compelling. Thus I would tentatively suggest that a possible answer to this lack of trade may be the fact that the main items that were traded were in fact “invisible exports” (for other periods, see, e.g., CRAWFORD 1973; KNAPP 1991; HALDANE 1993; BOSSUYT, BROZE & GINSBURGH 2001). LARSEN (1987) has stressed the primary importance of the trade in cloth during the MB as an “invisible product”

71

The extensive evidence for weaving (and thus, most probably, garment production) in many periods and sites in the Jordan Valley might perhaps indicate that many of the garments mentioned in relationship to Hazor were in fact pro-

(see also DALLEY 1977). He notes that this was probably one, if not the most, traded product from Mesopotamia at the time. If in addition one takes into account that a large percentage of this trade may have been conducted through “middleman”, i.e., trading centers in the intermediate regions, little if any evidence of this trade would survive in the archaeological record. Both Bonechi and Malamat have suggested an Egyptian origin for some of the items mentioned in the Mari texts, i.e., the “Byblian textiles” (BONECHI 1991: 21, n. 28; see as well MAEIR 2000b: 45; VAN KOPPEN 2007: 372) and shipments of gold from Hazor (MALAMAT 1993: 68). In this connection, the mention of textiles in the correspondence between Hazor and Mari is of significance (MALAMAT 2006, including the impressive amounts of textiles in the recently published Hazor 12 letter [HOROWITZ & OSHIMA 2006: 83–85]), and one might add that the later mention of “a garment of Hazor type” (El Amarna letter 22: 41 – MORAN 1992: 53) can be interpreted similarly, i.e., designating the trading center where they were purchased (which possibly controlled the trade of that certain item), and not the original source.71 It could very well be that even more “visible” products, such as metal ores, were controlled by these middlemen. Thus a site like Hazor, having received shipments of tin from the north (DOSSIN 1970; MALAMAT 1971; 2006; BEITZEL 1997), could dispatch them to further destinations without having to mention the original source of this material. In addition evidence for possible technological and stylistic connections between Mesopotamian and Egyptian spheres (e.g. LILYQUIST 1993; see AMIET 1985: 11, fig. 5, for a possible connection even as far as Susa) can be explained as being the result of the indirect contact between these two cultural spheres (cf. KOHL 1987: 22–23). I believe that it can be useful to attempt to define the patterns of trade that can be observed in the above-noted cases. Although numerous attempts have been made to categorize the different types of trade between societies, RENFREW’s suggested typology of modes of trade (1975) is probably the most appropriate for our purposes. Despite criticism of its failure to provide a holistic view of the processes involved (e.g., YOFFEE 1981: 5–6; SCHORTMAN & URBAN

duced in the Jordan Valley. For evidence of weaving in the Jordan Valley during different periods, see, e.g., LEVY & EDELSTEIN 1972; YAHALOM-MACK 2007; FISCHER 2009.

Distribution

1987; KNAPP & CHERRY 1994: 127–128), it does offer a convenient structure to conceptualize these patterns. RENFREW (1975) suggests ten basic modes. One can observe several of these modes in the trade patterns of the MB II ancient Near East. The major centers of trade of this period can be defined as “ports of trade”. As Renfrew defines this situation: Both A and B send their emissaries A1 and B1 to central place (port of trade) which is outside the jurisdiction of either (RENFREW 1975: 43). Thus Mari, Ugarit and Byblos would fit this pattern (LEEMANS 1977: 2; cf. KNAPP & CHERRY 1994: 135–137). The Old Assyrian trade in Anatolia can be classified as the “colonial enclave” mode (as RENFREW [1975: 44] notes, although his “emissary trading” mode might fit as well). If my interpretation of the trade at Hazor is correct, this can be seen as the “central place redistribution” mode. Once again, in Renfrew’s classification: A takes his produce to P and renders it to P (no doubt receiving something in exchange, then or subsequently). B takes his produce to P and receives from P some of A’s produce (RENFREW 1975: 43). In this mode (and in the former one as well), one expects a non-linear fall-off pattern in the distribution of items. The central site, though distant from the source of an imported item, receives a disproportionate amount of items, not related to its physical distance from the point of origin. Although this would not elucidate all facets of Hazor’s trade role, it would fit in well with the reconstruction of the Hazor trading junction. The other political entities in the Southern Levant were positioned on a lower rung of the hierarchal scale of trade. Returning once again to RENFREW’s typology, it would seem that most of the trade that was conducted was of the relatively simple “down-theline” mode, i.e., trade conducted between successive adjacent sites. Accordingly, the distribution of items decreases in a regular pattern in relation to the distance from the point of origin (RENFREW 1975). This is true for most of the sites in the Southern Levant. The sites which served in the role of regional centers (such as Megiddo) can be seen in such a light. Although they served as links in the long-range trade of such items between the macro-regions (and the macro-sites), these sites still had a limited regional commercial horizon. The only exceptions to this are the largest sites (i.e., Hazor, Kabri, Ashkelon and Pella) and smaller littoral sites (Akko, Nami, etc.). At these large sites there are greater quantities of foreign items which reflect the more central economic

117

and transportation-related roles that these sites fulfilled (see as well COHEN 2002: 126–128; 2009b). At the smaller port sites, the presence of traderelated items can be explained in simpler terms. I do not believe that this is due to autonomous long-range trade relations between these sites and other regions, but to the type of trade that existed. A crucial part of the inter-regional trade during that period was maritime trade. A large portion of this trade was carried out by independent traders (MERRILLEES 1974b; KNAPP & CHERRY 1994: 142–146; CURTIN 1984, for example, have stressed [contra POLANYI 1957] the private, and not state- or temple-oriented, incentive behind much of second-millennium B.C.E. trade). These traders sailed between the different regions, trading various items that were picked up along the way (MARCUS 1998), and served in the classic middleman role (RENFREW 1975: 41). Although there is far less explicit archaeological evidence for this pattern during the MB, there is little doubt of the existence of such patterns during this period as well (e.g., MARCUS 1998: 43–45, 203–235; 2007). The small-scale MB littoral sites (as opposed to Byblos and Ugarit) had a limited role. They had very limited autonomy in determining the categories and quantities of items of trade executed. Thus, they cannot be seen as international trading centers, and for that matter, as mentioned above, their role as “gateways” was limited as well (cf. KNAPP & CHERRY 1994: 135). Since we have alluded to the possible identity of some of the items traded, a further observation is warranted. Much attention has been paid to the question of the nature of the traded goods. Was it primarily prestige/luxury goods, or was there a trade in utilitarian/bulk goods? One of the main criticisms of WALLERSTEIN (1974) was that he over-accentuated the former (e.g. SCHNEIDER 1977). More recently, various scholars have stressed the complementary importance of utilitarian goods in inter-regional trade (e.g., LARSEN 1987; KOHL 1987). This is apparent when dealing with the Southern Levant as well. Although the prestige items are the most visible, the mundane, utilitarian goods played an important part as well (MALAMAT 1993: 69). Already in earlier periods there is ample documentation for the export of agricultural surplus from the region (STAGER 1985) and this appears to have continued. In the Late Bronze Age, the Egyptians forcibly extracted such agricultural produce from the region (AHITUV 1978; NA’AMAN 1981). It can be assumed that in the MB, when the economic status of the region was more vigorous, the large surplus that existed allowed the allocation of a significant portion to exports. But due to

118


its lack of archaeological visibility this may be hard to trace. An indication of this may be the numerous “Canaanite jars” reported from MB Egypt (BIETAK 1991; ARNOLD et al. 1995; MCGOVERN & HARBOTTLE 1997; MCGOVERN 2000; COHEN-WEINBERGER & GOREN 2004; in general, see KNAPP 1991). Following the above discussion of the general framework of trade in the ancient Near East during the MB, a detailed study of the trade patterns relating to the Jordan Valley will be presented. By moving from a macro- to a micro-view, one can further elucidate these patterns. The region’s trade relations can be divided into three classes: 1) international trade relations; 2) inter-regional trade relations within the Southern Levant; 3) intra-regional trade relations within the Central Jordan Valley. International Trade I will begin with the extra-regional relations, which can be divided into international and supra-regional levels. To judge from the available evidence, the Jordan Valley played a certain role in international trade during the MB. While the kingdom of Hazor played a central role (see discussion above), the more southern regions were less active players on the international scene, as relatively few foreign objects have been discovered in MB levels in the Central and Southern Jordan Valley. It should be noted that when observing the various items that serve as evidence of trade one should take into account the difference between items of cardinal importance in these trade processes (i.e. metals, grains, wine, oil, etc.) as opposed to the flotsam and jetsam of this trade, the so-called bric-à-brac (CLINE 1995: 91). This latter class, usually consisting of small objects (such as scarabs, seals, jewellery, and other special finds), arrived as the consequence of the trade in the primary commodities, but often serve as the more conspicuous evidence of such foreign connections, despite their original relatively negligible inherent value. Although in some cases these objects were of central importance in the trade between cultures (e.g. ZACCAGNINI 1987), for the most part, their original role was trivial. Clearly, the main focus of trade was in the bulk items mentioned above. Nevertheless, they can serve as primary evidence in reconstructing these patterns of trade.72

72

Needless to say, an additional segment of the trade which is hard to reconstruct (and likewise may have played a signif-

The following is a provisional list of known imported MB II objects reported from the Jordan Valley (though some are questionable): Egyptian Egyptian Middle Kingdom statues from Dan (SCHUL1990) and Hazor (A. BEN-TOR 2006a), although some (or all) of them may have arrived to these sites after the MB. Egyptian pottery from Beth Shean (MAEIR 1997a: 116–120; 2007b) and Pella (BOURKE et al. 2006: 49). One can also note the Chocolate-on-White ware vessel, a product of the Jordan Valley, that was reported from Tell ed-Dab>a, from a terminal MB/early LB context (FISCHER 2006a). Egyptian alabaster objects from Beth Shean (BENDOR 1945; CLAMER 2007: 627–630) Pella (BOURKE et al. 2006: 45–47), and Jericho (SPARKS 1996). Egyptian ivory inland boxes (POTTS 1986; 1987), which may date to the late MB (see now as well a possible late MB II [or early LB] ivory box from Hazor – A. BEN-TOR 2009). Possible Egyptian scarabs from various sites in the Jordan Valley (e.g., Dan [KEEL 2010: 380–399], Hazor [GOLDWASSER 1989], Beth Shean [BRANDL 2007; KEEL 2010: 95–215], Pella [RICHARDS 1992; BOURKE & ERIKSSON 2005], Tell el-Hayyat [FALCONER & FALL 2006: fig. 7.23], Jericho [e.g., KIRKBRIDE 1965; WARD 1987]), although most are of local origin (D. BEN-TOR 2007a). Noteworthy are Egyptian Royal scarabs that have been reported from the dolmen field at Shamir, Pella, and Jericho (see KIRKBRIDE 1965: 580–581; RICHARDS 1992: 9–11; BOURKE & ERIKSSON 2005). MAN

Cypriote A small amount of Cypriote pottery has been reported from Beth Shean (MAEIR 1997a, 136–137; 2000b: 291) and possibly from Pella (e.g. MCNICOLL et al. 1992: 72; ERIKSSON 2001 [though possibly LB I]), perhaps indicating a limited amount of pottery exchange between the Jordan Valley and Cyprus. Although it was previously suggested that Chocolate-on-White Ware vessels had been found on Cyprus (AL-RADI 1983: 48–61; BERGOFFEN 1990), FISCHER (2006d: 105, n. 3) has shown that this was misidentified. Two cylinder seals from Pella T.62 have been classified as belonging to the “Simplified Group” of the “Cypriote Common Style” (MCNICOLL et al. 1992: 79).

icant role) is the various “invisible exports” (e.g. CRAWFORD 1973).

119

Distribution

Several reservations regarding these seals merit mention. First of all, the Cypriote origin of such seals can be questioned (BUCHANAN 1996: 187), and they may in fact originate in the Levant. The dating of these seals is likewise somewhat problematic. Pella T.62 spans the MB III/LB I and if these seals were interred in the LB I, they are irrelevant to our discussion. Though this class is usually dated on a stylistic basis to the LB II–III (e.g. BUCHANAN 1966: 186; PORADA 1948: 193–194), the early dating at Pella (no later than early LB I) as well as two such seals from Tell el-Ajjul, City II (PETRIE 1931: 7 pl.xiii:35, 54; 1934: pl.xiii:5–7) confirms an earlier origin (MCNICOLL et al. 1992: 79). Tentatively, one can add that on the basis of a late MB II dating for Tell el-Ajjul, City II (KEMPINSKI 1992b: 189–190) the seals from Pella may have been placed in T.62 already in the MB. Furthermore, this may be seen as an additional indication of connections between Pella (and the Central Jordan Valley) and Tell el-Ajjul during the terminal MB (see MAEIR 1997a). WARD and DEVER (1994: 45) have suggested that miniature “ox-hide” ingots discovered in a small painted jar that was set in the altar of Stratum 4 temple at Tell el-Hayyat (FALCONER & MAGNESS-GARDINER 1989a: 344; MAGNESS-GARDINER & FALCONER 1994: 154; FALCONER & FALL 2006: 88, fig. 6.7) may be a Cypriote import. A commentary on this is required. If these are in fact such ingots, their dating is extraordinary. The earliest “ox-hide” ingots reported in other contexts are from Crete, and date to the Late Minoan IAIB, i.e., several centuries later (GALE 1991: 199, 224). Likewise, although most of the “ox-hide” ingots that have been chemically examined seem to be of Cypriote origin (GALE 1991; KNAPP & CHERRY 1994: 162; cf. BUDD et al. 1995), the early “ox-hide” ingots from Crete were not. In fact GALE has postulated a central

73

74

Unfortunately, in the final report on Tell el-Hayyat, these unique objects were only very briefly discussed (FALCONER & FALL 2006: 88, fig. 6.7). Special note should be made of the so-called “sgraffito” ware that was found in the late MB and early LB at Hazor. This ware, of which examples of various small closed vessels have been found, is described as having black painted decoration with delicately incised patterns which reveal the light-colored clay below (see, YADIN et al. 1958: pl. CXII: 23; 1961: pls. CXCVI: 14–15; CCLX: 3; BONFIL 1997: fig. II.26:6). YADIN et al. (1958: 126), suggests possible comparisons from both Egypt (“Lisht ware”) and Syria (LB “Atchana ware”), while KEMPINSKI (1983: 114) prefers comparison with the latter, Syrian example, the so-called “Black impressed” ware from Alalakh, Stratum V. Clearly, this decoration is foreign to the Canaanite repertoire, both at

Asian origin (GALE 1991: 224–226). All told, until further data are published, it is not clear whether these objects from Tell el-Hayyat are in fact “ox-hide” ingots, and if so, what was their origin.73 Though a Cypriote provenience is conceivable, if GALE’s suggestion of a central Asian origin of the Late Minoan I examples is correct, a similar explanation might be inferred for the Tell el-Hayyat examples as well (see discussion of metal trade below). This would mean that there are items of trade that reached the Southern Levant by way of long-range trade connections, through north Syria, Mesopotamia, Iran, etc. But other possibilities, such as local or Aegean origins cannot at present be ruled out. Aegean Imported and local imitation of Middle Minoan Kamares ware from Hazor (DOTHAN, ZUCKERMAN & GOREN 2000; but see MERRILLEES 2003). Syro-Mesopotamian Pottery with possible Syrian influences, and perhaps, some actually imported from Syria, have been reported from Dan (ILAN 1996a) Hagosherim (COVELLOPARAN 1996a), Hazor (e.g., MAEIR 1997b: 299, 323),74 Beth Shean (MAEIR 1997a: 142–143; 2007). It should be noted that FISCHER (2006c: 103) suggests that Chocolate-on-White ware sherds may have been found at Qatna (LUCIANI 2008: 124 has suggested that it is most likely a local imitation of Chocolate-onWhite Ware) and Tell Hadidi (DORNEMANN 1981: 42), providing then an example of the finds with a clear Jordan Valley origin reaching inner Syrian sites.75 Stone statuary of MB Syrian origin (or perhaps, only influence), has been reported from Hazor (e.g., BECK 1989a).

75

Hazor and other sites, and might very likely represent either direct imports, or influences from Syria. Further study of this unique pottery, particularly involving provenience analyses, is a desideratum. It should be noted though that in the recently published provenience study of pottery from Qatna (MARITAN et al. 2005), no evidence of trade between Qatna and the Southern Levant during the MB was mentioned. One can add that in addition to the sherd identified as “Chocolate on White imitation” (LUCIANI 2008: 124, fig. 3:10), there is another sherd (a handle with a dark red linear painted decoration and what appears to be the pocked-marked surface, quite typical of Chocolate-on-White ware; LUCIANI 2008: fig. 2:6) that might qualify as being of the same type. I would like to thank M. Luciani for sending me a copy of this article.

120


Syrian and Babylonian cylinder seals have also been reported from Hazor (BECK 1989b [two MB Syrian seals, but from the LB II temple in Area H]), Beth Shean (ROWE 1930: 23, pl. 34:3; HOROWITZ & OSHIMA 2006: 47–48; JAMES & MCGOVERN 1993: 231, pl. 58a) [though found in Stratum VIII]; COLLON 2007 [two MB seals, one of Syrian origin, from MB Stratum R5b, and one of Anatolian Old Assyrian origin, a residual find from early Iron Age I, Stratum N3b]), Rehov (ZORI 1962: pl. 21:6 [an Old Babylonian seal]), Pella (GESE 1965 [an Old Babylonian seal]), and Jericho (PORADA 1983 [an Old Babylonian seal]). Finally, a secondary Mesopotamian cultural influence, perhaps connected to trade as well, has recently been suggested by ASCALONE (2006). He suggests that during the MB, there is evidence (at Jericho) of the appearance of a “Mesopotamian Standard” in weights, perhaps due to cultural and trade-related connections between Palestine and the SyroMesopotamian world. The lack (or at least relative paucity) of certain classes of finds is of significance as well. If one considers, for example, the distribution map of Cypriote ceramics in MB Palestine (JOHNSON 1982: 60, map 1), the relative lack of Cypriote pottery in the Central and Southern Jordan Valley is conspicuous (see as well FISCHER 2004; MAEIR 2007b: 291). Even if one takes into account the few sherds noted above, they are incomparable to the quantities found along the Coastal Plain and certain inland areas. In addition, the lack of any Aegean finds in the Central and Southern Jordan Valley only accentuates the distinctions between the trade patterns in the Central and Southern Jordan Valley and the Northern Jordan Valley on the one hand, and other regions of Canaan, especially the Coastal Plain, during the MB (contrast this with the distribution of Mycenaean pottery in the Jordan Valley in the Late Bronze Age, clearly the result of different trade patterns: see NICOLAOU 1982: 122, fig. 2; LEONARD 1994). If the Central and Southern Jordan Valley had been closely involved in the contemporaneous Mediterranean-oriented trade networks, imported objects from Cyprus and the Aegean would have been more prevalent.76 This though should be qualified. The lack of imports might be due to the existence of trade and exchange in “invisible” products which would not leave many traces in the archaeological record. Several possible “invisible” objects from the Southern

76

Levant have been mentioned above, to which one can add the various kinds of local agricultural produce (known in various periods: see MAEIR 1997a). In addition SMITH (1987: 54–55) has suggested that the toponym Pella (Pi˙ili) may indicate that the site was a center for trade in equids, since in several Semitic languages p˙l = equid (e.g. GORDON 1965: 467, no. 2033). Even such “invisible” objects, if they were exported, may have been traded through the trading networks, with little direct contract between the Central Jordan Valley and other distant regions. As noted above, I now accept KNAPP’s (1989; 1993) suggestion that Pella did in fact serve as a gateway for the Central Jordan Valley (contra MAEIR 1997a; 2000b). But based on the volume of imported finds that have been found at both Pella and sites in the region, its involvement in international and interregional trade was at a lower level than other major “gateways” of the MB (Hazor, Kabri and Ashkelon). Though the Central Jordan Valley was intensively settled and exploited during the MB, it was still on the periphery of the “world-system” – particularly in relationship to Hazor. The region was economically (and possibly to a certain extent politically) dominated by adjacent polities (mainly Hazor), which probably controlled much of the international trade. In this context, the following object from Pella merits reference. Among the objects found in T.4 at Pella, a late MB mass-burial (SMITH 1973: 172–174), a small steel item was discovered. Though not discussed in the original report (SMITH 1973), it was subsequently identified as an MB steel chisel-axe by SMITH et al. (1984). It appears that the suggested typological classification of this object is questionable, mainly due to its poor preservation (note that it is not mentioned in MIRON’s [1992] catalogues). Despite these typological doubts, I do believe that the object comes from a quite secure MB context, along with other clearly dated objects. Although MOOREY (1995: 67) questions its find-context, suggesting that it was a later intrusion, the archaeological level from which the object was recovered appears quite secure (SMITH 1973: 172–174; SMITH et al. 1984). Without a doubt, the existence of iron/steel in an MB III context in the Central Jordan Valley is quite extraordinary. Iron (or steel) objects from MB contexts in Syro-Palestine are extremely rare, and the technological and economic background of this item is of interest. Clearly, one can ask

See below on the connection between trade with Cyprus and the appearance of copper in the Levant.

Distribution

whether it is a trade item, or is it an indication of a noteworthy technological ability in this region. Despite the rarity of iron in the first half of the second millennium B.C.E., textual evidence indicates a familiarity with iron in the ancient Near East throughout the MB, with examples from Karum Kanish/Kultepe (MAXWELL-HYSLOP 1972), Mari (LIMET 1984), Alalakh, Stratum VII (WISEMAN 1953: 107, no. 410), and Old Hittite Hattusha (KOŠAK 1986). Likewise, several iron objects have been noted from MB contexts in Anatolia, Egypt, Cyprus, and the Aegean (summarized in WALDBAUM 1980: 74–76; MOOREY 1995). Although iron is far from common in the MB Southern Levant, one can note that an iron arrowhead was reported from an MB context at Tel Michal (MUHLY and MUHLY 1989: 271, fig. 25, I: 38, though note reservations on the find-context). Though the dating of this object is not completely secure, on the basis of the evidence cited above, an MB dating cannot be ruled out a priori. What could be the source of this iron/steel? Though Anatolian iron sources during the first and second millennium are well known (e.g., MUHLY et al. 1985; KOŠAK 1986), iron sources do exist in the Southern Levant. The closest, and possibly most relevant source would be the iron ores located in the vicinity of Ajlun in north-eastern Jordan, some 20 km southeast of Pella. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence of the utilization of this source prior to the medieval period (COUGHENOUR 1976; STECH-WHEELER et al. 1981: 259; NOTIS et al. 1986: 276–277; but see now VELDHUIJZEN & VAN DER STEEN 1999; VELDHUIJZEN & REHREN 2007: 191 for evidence of Iron Age IIA iron production in the Jordan Valley), one must consider the possibility that the iron ore for the Pella steel object originated from a relative close source. Thus, one would not be forced to search for distant sources, and far-flung trade, to explain this object. It can be noted that LIMET (1983: 195) has suggested that the relatively common use of the West Semitic term bar-zil (= Hebrew brzl), as opposed to the more rarely used Akkadian cognate parzillum, in the iron-related texts at Mari, may indicate that iron was seen as originating from the north-west Semitic world, i.e., the Syro-Palestinian sphere. Though

77

Although it should be noted that AVNER (1993; see as well SEGAL & CARMI 1996: 98; 2004: 146) notes several 14C dates well within the MB from the copper production site at Be’er Ora (just to the north of Eilat, not far from Timna). In addition (AVNER 2002: 149; AVNER, CARMI & SEGAL 1994:

121

MUHLY et al. (1985: 76) do not accept Limet’s suggestion and posit an Anatolian source for this iron, the existence of iron ores and sporadic iron objects in the Levant indicate that Limet’s suggestion cannot be flatly rejected. Thus, there may have been a Levantine involvement in the long-range iron trade. The rarity of iron objects in the MB cannot conclusively rule out such a possibility, since the overall problem of iron corrosion (e.g. STECH-WHEELER et al. 1981: 246), and the lack of Southern Levantine documentary sources might explain such a lacuna. Nevertheless, pending further evidence, it is but a tenuous suggestion. The actual technology used in the production of this steel item from Pella is not well-known. It is not clear whether the iron bloom needed to produce this object was intentionally fabricated or whether it was an “adventitious” production from a copper smelting process (e.g. GALE et al. 1990). Likewise, was this object intentionally carburized (converted to steel) or was that fortuitous as well? From the metallurgical analysis of the Pella object (SMITH et al. 1984) both questions could not be clearly determined. Thus it does not seem that this object indicates the existence of a unique technological ability in this region during this period. It may in fact be of a serendipitous nature. Furthermore, it cannot serve as explicit evidence for trade between the Central Jordan Valley and other regions. Though the possibility cannot be denied, at present the available evidence does not support such a contention. Dealing with metallurgy, a very interesting issue that touches on some of the core issues of MB trade and technology is the question of the sources of copper during this period. The copper sources in the Arava Valley, to the south of the Dead Sea, at Faynan and Timna, have been utilized extensively during the many periods. Research at Faynan has documented extensive use during the Chalcolithic, EB (including EB IV), Iron Age I period, as well as later periods (see, e.g., LEVY et al. 2002; 2004; HAUPTMANN 2007; LEVY 2007), while at Timna there is also evidence for utilization during the very late LB (e.g., ROTHENBERG 1988; 1990; 1992; 1999). Quite conspicuously, there is no evidence that these sources were utilized throughout the MB.77

284–285), he has presented evidence that there is some MB (and LB) activity in the southern Negev and Arava. I would like to thank U. Avner for discussing these issues with me and for providing the relevant references.

122


It is usually assumed that during most of the second millennium B.C.E. (the MB and most of the LB), Cyprus became the primary supplier of copper throughout the Ancient Near East, including to the Southern Levant (e.g., KNAPP & CHERRY 1994: 161–167; MUHLY 1996: 47–50; LEVY et al. 2004: 866; MARCUS 2007: 148; KASSIANADOU & KNAPP 2004: 232–233). Although often overlooked, this may very well be the primary facet behind the contacts between Cyprus and the Southern Levant, while Cypriote pottery, which is better known (e.g. JOHNSON 1982), may have been only a secondary aspect of this trade. Just as many assume that the development of copper extraction, production, and exchange was the primary socio-economic engine for the development of Cypriote society (e.g., KNAPP & CHERRY 1994: 162–165; KNAPP 1996; PELTENBURG 1996; MUHLY 1996; KARAGEORGHIS 2002: 11; KASSIANADOU & KNAPP 2004: 232–233), metal oriented trade should most probably should be seen as one of, if not the main motive behind the development of Cypriote-Levantine trade in the MB. Nevertheless, this does need to be qualified. The earliest, clear evidence that exists for the trade in metals between Cyprus and the Levant is from the Mari archives, where the metal trade with Alashiya (which can now, without a doubt, be identified on Cyprus; e.g., GOREN et al. 2003) is mentioned (e.g., HELTZER 1989; CHARPIN 1990; MALAMAT 1998: 413; MARCUS 2007: 148). Likewise, on Cyprus, prior to the Middle/Late Cypriote transition, there is little evidence of intense contacts with the Levant (MUHLY 1996; MARCUS 2007: 147–148, n. 33; KASSIANADOU & KNAPP 2004: 232–233). Thus, it would appear that in the first centuries of the second millennium, copper from Cyprus was not a predominant source for the Levantine metal industry (see MARCUS 1998: 208–209). This would of course raise the question – which sources of copper were used instead? Since, as we have seen, the Arava sources were not extensively used after the EB IV (and there is very little evidence for exploitation of copper sources in Sinai as well [MARCUS 1998: 208–209]), what were the copper sources that were utilized prior the influx of Cypriote copper to the Levant in the mid-MB? Although one might think that the geographically proximate sources in the Arava would be used, this is not the case.

78

The use of lead in early MB copper-based artifacts is a very interesting topic demanding further research, since the

Metallurgical studies of the copper-based metallurgy of MB Canaan have demonstrated that while tin-bronze becomes more common in the latter parts of the MB, in the early MB there is extensive use of arsenical copper and lead-bronze (see, e.g., SHALEV 2000; 2002; 2007; see as well, e.g., comments by C. SHENBERG in YOGEV 1985: 112).78 In fact, until the very end of the MB, there is evidence of the existence of at least two distinct metallurgical traditions, one utilizing earlier EB arsenical copper-based metal, sideby-side with the gradual appearance of tin-bronze (PHILIP 1995; ROSENFELD, ILANI & DVORACHEK 1997; MARCUS 1998: 208). The analysis of the metal implements from MB contexts in the Jordan Valley is illustrative of this. Analysis of the metal finds from the early MB cemetery at Gesher (SHALEV 2007) has shown that the overall majority of the objects were of arsenical copper, with some addition of lead, while only a two of the objects had significant quantities of tin and could be defined as tin-bronze. On the other hand, analysis of later MB metal artifacts from Jericho (KHALIL 1989; PHILIP 1995) and Pella (PHILIP et al. 2003: 89) shows a much extensive appearance of tin-bronzes. These changes between the early and late assemblages appear to be of significance. Since the sources of tin are from regions far from the Levant, most likely in central Asia (e.g., DOSSIN 1970; MALAMAT 1971; MUHLY 1985; KASSIANADOU & KNAPP 2004: 224–225), its appearance in the Levant necessitates the existence of trade networks. While tin-bronzes do begin to appear in the preceding EB IV, they are very rare (STECH, MUHLY & MADDIN 1985; ROSENFELD, ILANI & DVORACHEK 1997), most probably due to the lack of an appropriate trade network. The same perhaps can be said about the appearance of tin-bronze in the Jordan Valley during the MB. In the early MB (exemplified at Gesher), the Jordan Valley was not well-connected to the international trade matrix which supplied tin, and only small amounts of tin-bronze artifacts are to be found. Later, as exemplified by the metal objects from Jericho, when the Jordan Valley sites are more intimately connected to the MB “world system”, tin and tin-bronzes are to be found in larger quantities. The extraordinarily impressive quantities of tin that are mentioned as being sent from Mari to Hazor (e.g., MALAMAT 1971) can be seen as illustrative of the full

reasoning behind this addition is not completely clear. See, e.g., PHILIP et al. 2003; SHALEV 2007.

123

Distribution

integration of at least the Northern Jordan Valley into tin-bronze technology in the mid-MB. Despite the above, the question of the copper sources used in the early MB is still open. If indeed Cypriote sources were not used (and note that in general, there were very few Cypriote ceramic imports in the Jordan Valley during the MB, save for Hazor; see above), the provenience of the copper used in MB metal artifacts, in the Jordan Valley specifically, and the Southern Levant in general, remains an enigma, and hopefully, future studies will be able to answer this interesting question. Recent analysis of EB and LB metal artifacts from Pella (PHILIP et al. 2003: 94) indicate copper sources from Cyprus and Anatolia; perhaps, the same was true for the MB as well. An interesting question is the role, or perhaps the lack thereof, that Jericho played during the late MB. As noted above (Chapter 3), during the MB II–III, the finds at Jericho point to it becoming a relatively large and prosperous site. One can assume that its position was related, at least in part, to the economic resources in its vicinity, resources that would then be exchanged with other regions. Just as the lack of use of the Arava copper sources was noted above, this is not the only available natural resource in the region of Jericho which was not utilized. A primary resource in this region, utilized in many periods, is the bitumen from the Dead Sea (NISSENBAUM 1978; NISSENBAUM et al. 1984). As has been shown regarding earlier periods, Dead Sea bitumen is known in Egypt (e.g., NISSENBAUM et al. 1984; CONNAN et al. 1992; SERPICO & WHITE 2000: 454–455; SERPICO 2004: 101; CONNAN & VAN DE VELDE 2010: 15–16) and one might assume that during the MB, when close connections existed between Egypt and Canaan, that Dead Sea bitumen would be widely imported into Egypt. The apparent lack of evidence for Levantine bitumen in Middle Kingdom and 2nd Intermediate Period Egypt on the one hand (and in fact, the lack of evidence for extensive use of bitumen in Egypt prior to the New Kingdom – SERPICO 2004: 101), and the lack of evidence of extensive Egyptian materials at Jericho on the other, indicates that if bitumen was used at all in Egypt during the MB, other sources of

79

The almost total lack of MB sites in and around the Dead Sea, south of Jericho, appears to strengthen the argument that the natural resources in the Dead Sea region were not extensively utilized during this period. In fact, the only evidence of MB settlement in the Dead Sea region to the south of Jericho, from the sites of Zahrat adh-Dhra> 1 (BERELOV 2006a; 2006b), Dayr >Ayn >Abata (POLITIS 1995),

bitumen were tapped (and see HARRELL & LEWAN 2002 who demonstrate that many sources of bitumen were utilized throughout Egyptian history). The question why the Levantine bitumen was not utilized is not clear. Finally, in a similar manner, one can note that there is no evidence for the utilization of other natural resources deriving from the Dead Sea region during this period, such as salt, balsam, and other materials known to have been utilized in other periods (see, e.g., NISSENBAUM 1993). Even the date palm, which was so popular in later periods that it was the basis for one of Jericho’s names in biblical times (Ir Hatmarim [= the city of the date palms – Judges 3:13]), is not represented at MB Jericho (HOPF 1983: 589). All told, it seems that Jericho was a very marginal site throughout the MB, even towards the end of the period when it was fortified in a rather impressive manner. Although there is a possibility that it did serve as a way station for the trade of various organic items that have not survived, the overall lack of other trade-related items indicates that this was, if at all, of limited importance.79 Inter-regional Trade Moving from the evidence of trade at the international level to the inter-regional level (i.e. between regions in the Southern Levant), one sees that there is quite a lot of evidence for trade and exchange activity between sites in the Jordan Valley and those in other regions of the Southern Levant. Although there are distinctive regional aspects in the MB material culture of the Southern Levant (see MAEIR 1997a: 141–146; 1997b: 322–323; 2007b: 293–296; and above, Chapter 4, for discussion of pottery regionalism), by and large, definite similarities can be seen throughout the entire region, so much so that one can but presume that intricate associations existed throughout the entire region. WOOD (1990: 58–85) has convincingly argued that the overall standardization of pottery in this period is due to the existence of an elaborate marketing system in this region. This enabled the widespread distribution of pottery vessels from various production centers, and

and the cairns in the “Dead Sea Plain” (EDWARDS et al. 2004), display very few connections with other cultural entities in the MB Southern Levant, and these sites were most likely very poorly integrated into the MB regional economics. If the Dead Sea resources had been of importance during this period, one can assume that a different level of integration would have existed.

124


subsequently, pottery styles as well. This is also seen in other realms of MB material culture. Although I have stressed the limited role of most of the Southern Levant culture in the MB international trade and exchange, a lively inter-regional trade structure existed within this culture. The MB culture in the Central Jordan Valley is representative of this, as shown by imports from other regions which reached the Central Jordan Valley, as well as exports form the Central Jordan Valley found in other regions. A partial list of this can be compiled: Various pottery types commonly found in other regions of the Southern Levant which are also found in the Jordan Valley (MAEIR 1997a: 141–145; 2007b: 286–291). This indicates either trade or cultural influences between these regions. Chocolate-on-White Ware, originating in the Jordan Valley, is found throughout the Southern Levant, and in fact, to a limited extent, even beyond, reaching Egypt (FISCHER 2006c) and perhaps Cyprus (ALRADI 1983: 48–61; BERGOFFEN 1990; but see FISCHER [2006c: 103, n. 3] who has demonstrated that this is not Chocolate-on-White Ware) and Syria (FISCHER 2006c: 103). This ware has been interpreted as a local “prestige” ware of the late MB and early LB (HENNESSY 1985; MAEIR 1997a: 129–134; 2007b: 287–289; FISCHER 1999; 2004; 2006a; DONNELLY 2001; 2006). Gypsum vessels (local imitations of Egyptian alabaster), the source of which is apparently the Menahemiya gypsum quarries in the Central Jordan Valley (to the north of Beth Shean), are found throughout the Southern Levant (BEN-DOR 1945; BEVAN 2007: 108–110; CLAMER 2007). A production center has been identified at Beth Shean (BEN-DOR 1945: 97–101, though other centers probably existed as well [SPARKS 1991: 49, n. 14]). Likewise, SPARKS (2007) and BEVAN (2007: 104, fig. 6.3) suggest that a class of travertine stone vessels, highly influenced by Egyptian types but at the same time showing some distinct differences, may indicate the existence of an additional local Levantine stone vessel production tradition. The distribution of this group indicates that if produced locally, this production was most probably located in the southern Coastal Plain (see map in BEVAN 2007: fig. 6.3). If so, the dispersal of this type throughout Canaan indicates an additional facet of inter-regional trade during the MB. A distinct class of stone bowls (and imitations in other media) is discussed by SPARKS (1991), which originate in the Jordan valley. SPARKS (ibid.: 53) in fact suggests that they were manufactured in Jericho. Although found mainly at Jericho and in the Central

Jordan Valley (Beth Shean and Pella), additional examples reached other regions, most probably through trade (see her list [ibid.: 53–54], and add an additional example from Tell es-Salihiyeh, in the Damascene basin [VON DER OSTEN 1956: 64, fig. 26: 34]). The distribution of Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware in the Jordan Valley is revealing as well (MAEIR 1997a: 134–136; 2007b: 289–291; MAEIR & MULLINS in press). The pottery workshop at Afula which produced Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware (ZEVULUN 1990) dispatched vessels to the Central Jordan Valley (e.g. Beth Yerah) and to other regions of the Southern Levant. Likewise, other Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware vessels found in the Central Jordan Valley (at Beth Shean, Pella, and Tell Zahara: see discussion in MAEIR 1997a; 2007b; MAEIR & YELLIN 2007; MAEIR & MULLINS in press) apparently originate from other parts of the Southern Levant and Egypt. It should be noted that at Hazor there are relatively few Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware vessels, which fits in well with the pattern of their distribution in Syria (AMIRAN 1957; NIGRO 2003a). Red, White and Blue Ware (for detailed discussion see MAEIR 1997a: 127–129; 2002b; 2007b: 286; above, Chapter 4), which apparently originates from the southern Coastal Plain region of Canaan, is nevertheless found at Beth Shean. Interestingly, it is not found in the Northern Jordan Valley. Recently, FISCHER (2008b) has noted a late MB jug that was found at Tell Abu el-Kharaz, which apparently originated from the Lebanese coast. This then adds an additional region in the Levant which had contact with the Central Jordan Valley. Undoubtedly additional objects can be added to this list, both produced in, and imported into the Jordan Valley, such as scarabs produced in Palestine and various metal objects. The distribution of these objects throughout the entire Southern Levant is evidence of the exchange networks that existed between the different polities in this region. Although probably intensely competitive, the close cultural relationships enhanced these trade connections. Local Trade After this review of the Jordan Valley’s external trade relationships, the evidence for intra-regional trade should be examined. The principal sphere of the regional material culture which testifies to the local trade relations is the ceramic finds. As discussed before (MAEIR 1997a; 2007b: 293–296; and see discussion of pottery distribution above), there are several such indications of local Jordan Valley

Chronology

connections. Although it was not possible to explicitly define a wide range of distinct ceramic production and trade centers in the Jordan Valley, in the regional study of the Central Jordan Valley that was conducted (MAEIR 1997a; above, Chapter 4), both the typological and archaeometric data indicated that numerous production sites existed. This in itself contradicts earlier suggestions. FALCONER (1987a; 1987b) and KNAPP (1989; 1993) had posited that a specific site (namely Tell el-Hayyat) served as a, or the, regional ceramic production site. But on the basis of a much more extensive chemical (INAA) analysis carried out in later research (MAEIR 1997a; MAEIR & YELLIN 2007; above), a different picture emerges. It is clear that the heterogeneous chemical signatures found in the region signify many production sites throughout the region; pottery was produced at numerous sties. These sites were involved in trade throughout the region, though in several cases (such as with the storage jars) a sub-regional dispersal was felt as well. In other words, a multi-faceted, multi-branched web of trade and exchange existed within the region. This picture fits in well with the reconstruction of the settlement structure in the Central Jordan Valley (MAEIR 1997a). A multi-tiered structure was suggested, including markets at regional and sub-regional levels. While there was one main polity in the region during this period (Pella), a web of hierarchic settlements existed in the region, with close cultural and economic connections between them. Likewise, similar connections were felt between the Central Jordan Valley and other parts of the Jordan Valley, as well as with other regions in the Southern Levant. Thus, although distinctive political frameworks did exist both in the Jordan Valley and other regions (for example between the Hazor, Pella and Jericho polities during the late MB), the boundaries between them were far from being hindrances to the exchange of culture and trade. It would appear that not only did the large centers of the Jordan Valley have ongoing connections, but the various levels of market structures were intimately connected as well. The evidence for the existence of a much more elaborate structure than suggested in the past is in itself an important point. Such an economic structure, in which the manufacturing and trade centers were distributed throughout the region, fits in well with the suggestion raised above that the political structures in the MB Southern Levant in general, and the Jordan Valley in particular, can be defined as “segmentary states” (MAEIR 1997a). Below, in Chapter 5, the status of the various political entities

125

in the Jordan Valley during the various stages of the MB will be discussed. CHRONOLOGY A reconstruction of a chronological framework for the MB of the Jordan Valley is one of the aims of this volume, and as such, fits in well with the general aims of the SCIEM 2000 project under whose aegis this research is being published. In the following pages, I will attempt to summarize the chronologically-related evidence from the Jordan Valley, and endeavour to place it within the larger context of the chronology of the Levant, and the Ancient Near East in general, during this period. This being said, it is important to note that while a rather robust relative chronological scheme can be reconstructed for the Jordan Valley during the entire MB, the lack of an extensive array of both radiometric dates on the one hand, and dated historical documents on the other, limits the ability to place this chronological framework within a strictly defined calendrical scheme, and as such, explicitly assist in defining the absolute chronology of the period throughout the Ancient Near East. If there was an expectation that the chronological framework constructed in this study would provide “the” answer to the chronological conundrums of the study of the Ancient Near East, then clearly one should be disappointed (see general cautionary remarks in BIETAK & HÖFLMAYER 2007: 13). But as will be demonstrated below, while broad-ranging implications on the chronology of the Ancient Near East are missing, there are nevertheless some important insights, both of local Levantine, and broader Ancient Near Eastern significance. Relative Chronology With these reservations in mind, one can now proceed to assess the chronological scheme of the Jordan Valley and its implications. As can be seen from Fig. 52, a rather robust comparative relative chronological scheme can be created for the entire Jordan Valley, from Dan in the north until Jericho in the south. While many of these sites are not settled throughout the entire MB, there are sufficiently robust sets of data from these sites to enable to create this comparative table, based primarily on a typological comparison of the ceramics from the respective sites (see above, Chapter 4, for the discussion of the development of the ceramic repertoire). Even if there are distinct regional differentiations within the Jordan Valley throughout the MB, there is sufficient similarity between the sites in the various portions of

Fig. 52 Comparative chronological table of the MB in the Jordan Valley

126 Chapter 4: Aspects of Material Culture, Trade, and Chronology

127

Chronology

the Jordan Valley, and in comparison to sites in regions beyond the Jordan Valley, to enable the construction of this quite vigorous relative framework. Several important points should be noted vis-à-vis the relative chronology. It is quite clear that already during the very earliest stages of the MB, there are several sites within the Jordan Valley at which finds typical of this stage have been found. These finds, when compared to other early MB sites in the Levant, indicate that the Jordan Valley was partaking in the cultural “reawakening” at a very early stage – perhaps as early as any of the incipient manifestations of the MB culture (such as occurring along the Levantine littoral). The fact that one sees several sites (e.g., Hagosherim, Gesher, and Tell el-Hayyat) at which there is material culture typical of this earliest stage, clearly definable when compared to the next stage in the MB I (for example at Dan in the Jordan Valley and Aphek on the coast), is clear evidence of the existence of this stage in the Jordan Valley. The existence of several stages of the MB I at several sites in the Jordan Valley, similar to the stratigraphic situation seen in other parts of the Southern Levant (e.g. COHEN 2002), indicates the relative longevity of this cultural phase. The distinctly visible and well-defined MB I/II phase, seen throughout the Jordan Valley, from Dan in the north, to Jericho in the south, can serve as a convenient chronological horizon line, which assists in comparing the sites both within the Jordan Valley and those beyond. Since from this stage most of the Jordan Valley is intensively settled, it makes the relative comparison between the sites in the region that much easier. The relative dense stratigraphic sequences seen at many sites during the MB II and MB III periods indicate both the relatively long time span, as well as the important cultural developments during this time span. Nevertheless, it is possible to see that not all sites have an identical history during the MB II–III; some sites witness more stages of building, destruction and rebuilding; while at others there are longer and more protracted developmental stages. Finally, the relative data seems to indicate that the end of the MB did not occur in a uniform manner throughout the Jordan Valley. Rather, at the respective sites, the transition between the MB and LB occurred both at different times, and due to different circumstances.

In the last decade, once again the debate has been aroused on the date of the beginning of the MB in the Southern Levant. While the standard dating accepted by most scholars dealing with the Southern Levant is in the earlier stages of the 20th century B.C.E. (e.g. DEVER 1997), BIETAK has argued for a later commencement of this period, somewhere in the very late 20th and early 19th centuries B.C.E. (e.g., BIETAK 1992a; 1997; 2002: 41–42). The finds from the Jordan Valley, couple with some evidence from other regions appears to indicate that a dating to the second half or even the late 20th century B.C.E. is to be preferred. Several reasons can be given: 1) The few 14C dates available from early MB sites in the Jordan Valley in particular (Gesher, Pella, Tell el-Hayyat; see MARCUS, this volume, Appendix B) and from the Southern Levant in general (Tel Ifshar; see MARCUS 2003; MARCUS et al. 2008a; 2008b), appear to indicate that the earliest phase of the MB dates to the second half of the 20th century B.C.E.). 2) It is more or less accepted by all that the beginning of the 12th Dynasty should be placed in the early 20th century B.C.E. (e.g., KITCHEN 1996; VON BECKERATH 1997). The temple at Izbet Rushdi, near Tell ed-Dab>a, is dated to the reign of Sesostris III, i.e., to the early/mid 19th century (BIETAK 1997). In the fills under the floors of the temple sherds of “Levantine painted ware” were found (BAGH 1998; 2002; 2003; 2004). This is significant since there appear to be two to four strata containing Levantine MB I materials at Tell ed-Dab>a (Strata I-L?), below the earliest previously reported MB I levels (e.g., Stratum H – and thus previous discussions on the date of Stratum H as representative of the early MB I are irrelevant – this was already suggested by WEINSTEIN 1996: 59).81 This seems to indicate that during the 20th century B.C.E., the MB I has already commenced in the Southern Levant and Syria (see, e.g., Marcus et al. 2008a; 2008b).

80

81

See Appendix B (by E. S. MARCUS) for a complete list and discussion of the 14C dates from MB sites in the Jordan Valley.

Absolute Chronology Having mentioned some of the cardinal aspects relating to the relative chronological scheme, I will now discuss some of the salient issues relating to the absolute chronological system for the Jordan Valley during the MB.80 I) The Beginning of the MB

For a critique of the Tell ed-Dab>a stratigraphy and chronology, see now WARBURTON (2009).

128


3) BRUINS (2007) has recently argued that 14C dates from the early MB levels at Tell ed-Dab>a are to be dated to the 20th century B.C.E., quite earlier than the date that the excavators have suggested. This though should be qualified, since, as BRUINS himself notes (2007) this high dating is based on a relatively small group of samples, and more importantly, on multi-year charcoal samples (and not single-year cultigens). Quite similarly, additional 14C dates from the early Middle Kingdom phases at Tell ed-Dab>a also seem to provide early dates as well (BIETAK & HÖFLMAYER 2007).82 4) To this one can add a few relevant 14C dates from Syria. VAN LOON (1992) published a mid-20th century B.C.E. 14C dating for the EB IV/MB I transition at Tell Selenkahiye in northern Syria. More recently, MORANDAI BONACOSSI (2008: 61–63) has provided several 14C dates that indicate that the EB IV/MB I transition at Qatna occurred around 2000 BCE. Based on this data, it would appear that as of now, that a date of no later than the second half of the 20th century B.C.E. for the beginning of the MB I should be preferred, both for the Jordan Valley, but for the Southern Levant in general. II) The MB I/II Transition

sealings found with MB I pottery in the earliest moat fill at Ashkelon (STAGER 2002; BIETAK et al. 2009), as well as the 13th Dynasty scarabs found with the MB I pottery assemblage in the Rishon Lezion cemetery (BIETAK, personal communication; in general, see LEVY 2005). 2) KUNIHOLM (1993; KUNIHOM et al. 1996) has shown that the timbers from the destruction of the so-called “Sarikaya Palace” at Açemhuyuk, in which finds impressed with the seal of Šamši-Adad I of Assyria were found, were felled in 1752 B.C.E.83 Since Šamši-Adad I’s last years overlapped with Hammurabi’s reign, it would place the latter’s reign in the second half of the 18th century B.C.E. First of all, this would fit in very well with the “Low Mesopotamian Chronology” (Hammurabi 1728–1686 B.C.E.). In addition, this can be tied-in with the connections between Hazor and Mari (during the time of Šamši Adad and Hammurabi; see this volume, Chapters 2, 3, and 5). Since these connections could not have occurred earlier that the MB I/II transition (in light of the finds at Hazor; see A. BEN-TOR 1997; 2004a; MAEIR 1997b; see discussion here, Chapters 3, 5) this would place this transition no earlier than the mid18th century, and possibly later. III) The Latter Part and the End of the MB

The MB I/II transition is dated to the early-mid 18th century by the early chronologies, and to the late 18th/early 17th by the later chronologies. In the past, this writer has defended the higher dates for this transition (MAEIR 1997b; 2002a). Nevertheless, based on an amalgamation of various points, some argued for some time, some recently stressed or newly published (e.g., BIETAK 2002; 2007), I think that at present, for the dating of the MB I/II transition, the lower chronology (but not the “ultra low” chronology) seems to be more viable. This can be argued from several points: 1) It appears that based on the Tell ed-Dab>a materials, the MB II commenced towards the end of the 13th Dynasty (and not in the late 12th), thus lowering the dates on all accounts (e.g. WEINSTEIN 1996; D. BEN-TOR 1994; 1997), though not necessarily as much as BIETAK would suggest (e.g. BIETAK 1992a), since the 13th Dynasty seems to have commenced in the first third of the 18th century B.C.E. (e.g. KITCHEN 1996). This is corroborated as well by the early 13th Dynasty

As mentioned in the discussion of the relative chronology in the Jordan Valley, it appears that the end of the MB did not occur simultaneously throughout the entire region. While the actual dates for the earliest stages of the end of the MB and the beginning of the LB throughout the Jordan Valley are hard to determine, there are a few chronological pegs which are of importance. The last MB phase at Beth-Shean, Stratum R3, which has a clearly identifiable MB material culture, is of some importance, since in this stratum an early New Kingdom Egyptian “carinated vessel” was discovered. This is of cardinal importance, since it indicates clearly, that at least at Beth Shean, the end of the MB overlaps the beginning of the New Kingdom/18th Dynasty. Although the exact date of the beginning of the 18th Dynasty is debated (ca. 1550–1530; see KITCHEN 2007; KRAUS 2007), it is clear that it dates to the mid to early second half of the 16th century B.C.E. (see now BRONK RAMSEY et al. 2010). This being the case, it would

82

83

Although M. BIETAK (personal communication) believes that the 14C dates from Tell ed-Dab>a are consistently 100 years too early.

Bietak (personal communication) has cautioned me that this is a “floating” dating and should be related to with discretion.

Chronology

appear that the MB at Beth Shean continues at least until this time, and perhaps even a decade or so later. Although this does not prove beyond a doubt that the MB continues until the time of Thutmoses III (as DEVER 1974; SEGER 1974 have suggested), it does provide hard evidence for the overlap between the MB and the New Kingdom. On the other hand, 14C dates from Jericho (BRUINS & VAN DER PLICHT 1995; 2003; but see below, Appendix B) appear to indicate that the MB at Jericho was destroyed prior to the beginning of the New Kingdom and thus this would represent a site at which the MB culture ended earlier (although see above, Chapter 3, the discussion of D. BEN-TOR’s [2007a: 157] suggestion that an early New Kingdom scarab was found in the latest Tomb Group (V) in Jericho, perhaps indicating that the MB at Jericho did last into the early New Kingdom). Amnon BEN-TOR (2004a) has recently argued that the relative chronology at Hazor strongly supports the ultra-low Mesopotamian chronology of GASCHE et al. (1998). This chronology would date the Hittite conquest of Babylon to ca. 1499 B.C.E., ca. a century later than the Middle Chronology (ca. 1595 B.C.E.). As discussed above in Chapter 3 and below in Chapter 5, I don’t accept much of A. Ben-Tor’s reasoning on the relative and absolute dating of the various MB stages at Hazor (and in particular, the early stages), as well I have questions regarding his comparison of the Hazor materials to that of Tell ed-Dab>a on the one hand, and Syro-Mesopotamia on the other. Amnon Ben-Tor argues that “Greater Hazor” could have only have commenced to exist ca. 1680 B.C.E. at the earliest. Accordingly, since there is ample evidence of the connections between Hazor and Mari, clearly Mari would have to co-exist with Hazor for a substantial amount of time. According to the Middle Chronology, Mari fell in ca. 1760 B.C.E., while according to the Low Chronology, in ca. 1696 B.C.E. And thus only the fall of Mari according to the “Ultra-Low Chronology” at ca. 1664 B.C.E. would fit Ben-Tor’s dating for the earliest date for “Greater Hazor” (ca. 1680 B.C.E.). Clearly, if one does not accept the late date of the founding of Hazor, one does not have to revert to the Ultra-Low Chronology. To this one can add that in itself, there are many problems with the Ultra-Low Chronology. Without getting into this issue in too many details, several important aspects can be raised.84 First of all, the primary foundation of this theory is a rather tentative

84

129

pottery typology of late Old Babylonian to Kassite Mesopotamia. This, as GASCHE et al. (e.g. 1998) stress themselves, is not adequately well-known. In fact, they suggest a typological-chronological scheme which is based on a very small sample of stratigraphically excavated (and published) sites in Mesopotamia. On the other hand, in areas where the typological-stratigraphic data is more extensive (such as Syria and the Southern Levant) and it can be tied in (though one must admit at times in a roundabout manner) to the Egyptian chronology, such a lowering seems quite hard to accept. One example can be given, which relates to the end of the MB in northern Syria. One can assume, almost without a doubt, that the end of Alalakh, Stratum VII and the Tell Mardikh MB sequence is due to one of the Syrian campaigns of Hattušili I. Based on historical data, it is clear that Hattušili I’s campaigns date slightly prior to Muršili’s conquest of Babylon (between ca. 10, and at most 50 years between – see, e.g., KEMPINSKI 1983). Based on the “Middle Chronology”, this would place the destruction of Alalakh, Stratum VII around 1600 B.C.E. or slightly earlier, and according to the “Low Chronology” (e.g. GATES 1987; HEINZ 1990) around 1575 B.C.E.. In both cases, it is agreed that Alalakh, Stratum VII is not the final phase of the MB (primarily through analysis of the pottery); Stratum VI is still MB. Thus, if one attempts to date this level according to the Ultra-Low Chronology, Hattušili I would have destroyed Alalakh, Stratum VII in the second half of the 16th century B.C.E. (or even near its end)! Based on Egyptian-Palestinian synchronisms, at this point the MB culture is almost at its end (and from a material culture point of view, different from, and most probably later, than Alalakh, Stratum VII, and the final MB level at Ebla). Needless to say, the dates for the end of the MB at Beth Shean, Pella and Jericho, as noted above, whether immediately before and/or after the commencement of the New Kingdom, would be too high to fit in with the Ultra-Low Chronology. In summary it can be said that although the MB sequence in the Jordan Valley has not provided many iron-clad chronological pegs which have a far reaching implication for the general Ancient Near Eastern chronological scheme, the overall relative stratigraphic sequence, and a few absolute pegs that do exist, can assist in correlating between the various chronological options.

For a recent review of the advantages and disadvantages of the different chronological systems in Mesopotamia, see now conveniently HUNGER 2009.

CHAPTER 5: SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND PROCESSES

INTRODUCTION In the following chapter, I will try to summarize and discuss the settlement patterns and processes that can be seen in the Jordan Valley throughout the MB, based on the evidence that was briefly surveyed in the previous chapters and on the relevant data collected in Appendix A (see above, Chapter 3). Due to the fact that the data that was available from most of the sites did not enable a fine-tuned division of the development of these sites throughout the MB, in general, the information in Appendix A and in the graphs below (Figs. 53–56), the division into sub-periods

(e.g., MB I, MB II, MB III) is not as detailed as discussed in this chapter (below). In any case, as can be seen quite clearly from the data in these tables, the settlement in the Jordan Valley during the MB is much more extensive than that of the periods preceding and/or following it. In order to place this discussion in a more longterm perspective, I will begin by briefly surveying the evidence for the preceding period, the EB IV, in the Jordan Valley. Following this, I will survey the various stages of the MB, and conclude with an overview of the transition between the MB and the LB.

250

200

150

100

50

0 EB II–III

EB IV

MB

MBI

MBII

MBIII

LB

LBI

LBII

Fig. 53 Distribution of sites in the Jordan Valley according to period (excluding sites of questionable dating; see Appendix A)

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 EB II–III

EB IV

MB

MBI

MBII

MBIII

LB

LBI

LBII

Fig. 54 Distribution of sites in the Jordan Valley according to period (including sites of questionable dating; see Appendix A)

132

Chapter 5: Settlement Patterns and Processes

LB, 85, 19%

EB II–III, 69, 15%

LB, 103, 18%

EB II–III, 127, 22%

EB IV, 77, 17% EB IV, 106, 18 MB, 215, 49%

MB, 249, 42%

Fig. 55 Distribution of sites in the Jordan Valley according to major period divisions (excluding sites of questionable dating; see Appendix A)

Fig. 56 Distribution of sites in the Jordan Valley according to major period divisions (including sites of questionable dating; see Appendix A)

The EB IV (Fig. 57)

hemiya (ARAV 1973a; BAHAT 1976), Beth Shean (ZORI 1962: 153; OREN 1973b), Kh. El-Hammeh (WIGHTMAN 1988), Tel Amal (FEIG 1991), Tel Artal (HESS 1984), Rehov (PORATH 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976a; 1980; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1985; ARAV 1973b; TSORI 1975; YOGEV 1985), Tiwal Esh-Sharqi (TUBB 1990) and Jericho (KENYON 1960; 1965). Likewise, there are single, rockcut tombs here and there throughout the valley, such as at Einan (EISENBERG 1985). An additional important facet are the megalithic burials in the Jordan Valley, some of which are dated to the EB IV (on the dating of these burials, see, e.g., EPSTEIN 1975; 1985; YASSINE 1985; PALUMBO 1990: 79–80; 1992; VINITZKY 1992; KAFAFI & SCHELTEMA 2005; SCHELTEMA 2008; IBRAHIM 2009: 92; POLCARO 2009). These megalithic burials include dolmens that have been dated to the EB IV at sites such as Qiryat Shemona (SHAKED 1994; 1995; 1999), Shamir (BAHAT 1972; 1973), and the Korazim plateau (STEPANSKY 2000; 2003; 2005a; 2008a).85 Likewise, there are tombs with “megalithic” features, such as at Deganiah (KOCHAVI 1973; SELIGMAN & YOGEV 1993). Settlement sites from this period have been reported from throughout the Jordan Valley as well. This includes a few sites on the mounds that had been previously settled during the EB, such as at Tel Dan (BIRAN 1994: 44–45), Tel Anafa (HERBERT 1979; 1995), Tel Na>ama (GREENBERG et al. 1998), Hazor (GREENBERG 2002: 36), Beth Yerah (GREENBERG & EISENBERG 2006: 151–157), Beth-Shean (MAZAR 2006b), Tell Umm Hammad (HELMS 1986), and Jericho (NIGRO

The period which precedes the MB, the EB IV, has received much attention in the last decades (e.g., DEVER 1973; 1992; 1995b; 2003; PALUMBO 1990; 2001; BAXEVANI 1995; GREENHUT 1995; BUNIMOVITZ & GREENBERG 2004; 2006; GREENER 2006), and in fact, the finds from various sites in the Jordan Valley have been the focus of much discussion (e.g., KENYON 1960; 1965; SHAY 1983; PALUMBO 1987; FALCONER & MAGNESS-GARDINER 1989a; 1989b; PRAG 1989; 1991; 1992; TUBB 1990; FALCONER, FALL & JONES 2001; GREENBERG 2002; FALCONER et al. 2003; NIGRO 2003b; MAZAR 2006b; IBRAHIM 2009: 91–92). Although most of the evidence for the EB IV period from throughout the Jordan Valley is derived from tombs (from the north, down to the tombs in Jericho), there is some evidence of settlement sites of different types as well. As the focus of the present study is on the MB, I will only briefly summarize the relevant data on the EB IV, and discuss how it might be relevant for understanding the appearance, and development of the subsequent period. As mentioned above, the most predominant type of site dating the EB IV in the Jordan Valley are the burial sites. A wide variety of these sites can be seen, including multi-tomb cemeteries with rock-cut shaft tombs typical of this period (e.g., GREENHUT 1995), such as at Maayan Baruch (AMIRAN 1961), Hagosherim (YEIVIN 1965; COVELLO-PARAN 1996a), Tell es-Safa (STEPANSKY 1999), Tiberias (TZAFERIS 1968), Mena-

85

Earlier dolmens are also known in the Jordan Valley, such as the EB I dolmen at Damiyeh (YASSINE 1985; IBRAHIM 2009: 92; see now POLCARO 2009 for additional EB I dol-

mens in the Succoth Valley) and the Chalcolithic or EB I dolmen field near Teleilat Ghassul (STEKELIS 1961; GILEAD 1968).

The EB IV

Fig. 57 EB IV sites in the Jordan Valley

133

134


2003b). The remains at these sites appear to be of small settlements, perhaps small villages. It is important to stress that there does not seem to be any continuity between the EB and EB IV levels at these sites.86 It would appear that these sites are similar to the rural settlement sites of this period which have been discovered throughout the Jordan Valley (see PALUMBO 2001: 241). This includes: Sha>ar Hagolan (EISENBERG 1980), Tell el-Hayyat (FALCONER & FALL 2006), and Tell Abu en-Ni>aj (e.g., FALCONER & MAGNESSGARDINER 1989a; FALCONER, FALL & JONES 2001). Once again, these sites do not continue earlier EB settlements, but rather, are settled anew during the EB IV. Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the settlement in the Jordan Valley during the EB IV is the possibility that there are some fortified sites dating to this period. Already suggested based on survey results (IBRAHIM, SAUER & YASSINE 1976: 50; PALUMBO 1990: 56), excavations at the site of Dhahret Um el-Marar demonstrate the existence of a rudimentary defensive wall (FALCONER, FALL & JONES 1998: 588; 2007: 265–266; FALCONER & FALL 2009: 100–101) surrounding this village. Tell Iktanu (PRAG 1989; 1991), although not fortified, is located on an easily defended hilltop, perhaps due to defensive purposes. Although fortified settlements during the EB IV are rare, there are several examples, such as Khirbet Iskander in the central Transjordan (RICHARD 1990; 2006),87 and Khirbet el-Mitte (ZERTAL 1996: 270–271) in the Wadi Malikh, to the west of the Southern Beth Shean Valley.88 On the whole, there appears to be very little continuity between the EB II–III settlement pattern and that of the EB IV. While without a doubt there are various aspects of continuity in various facets of the material culture, between the EB III and EB IV (e.g., DEVER 1980; PALUMBO 1990), the very different settlement pattern and drastic changes in even the choice of ecological zones, is a clear indication of the

major changes between the periods. While in recent years most scholars would argue that these changes are due to internal socio-economic processes, in which the differences are due to changes in lifestyle (e.g., DEVER 1980; 2003; PALUMBO 1990; GREENBERG 2002), it would appear that one cannot reject the possibility that some of these changes may have occurred due to the influx of new groups into the region (e.g. ZERTAL 1988), even if one does not accept earlier theories of mass migrations during this period (e.g. KENYON 1966).89 The Syrian-influenced pottery (GOREN 1996; BUNIMOVITZ & GREENBERG 2004; 2006) and metallurgy (STECH, MUHLY & MADDIN 1985)90 may very well be evidence of the arrival of elements originating in regions to the north of the Jordan Valley during the EB IV. Analyses of the pottery groups from the Jordan Valley during the EB IV have demonstrated that there is a strong degree of regionalism in this region (see, e.g., DEVER 1973; 1980). While the exact details of the regional pottery groups of this period are still being debated (and whether they have chronological significance – see RICHARD 2000; PALUMBO 1990: 80–105; 2001: 251–253), one can clearly point to regional aspects seen the Upper Jordan Valley (the so-called “Northern Group”), in the Central Jordan Valley (the so-called “North-Central Group”), and in the Southern Jordan Valley (the “Jericho/Jordan Valley Group”).91 It is clear that in all the regions one sees types from other regions, and that these regions are not limited to the Jordan Valley, but include areas to the west and east as well. The picture that emerges from this is a narrative of regionalism, but with interconnections, a pattern that can be seen in the MB as well. As will be discussed below (see as well GREENBERG 2002; 2003; COHEN 2009a), there are various hints to some degree of continuity between the cultural traditions of the EB IV and early MB I in the Jordan Valley.

86

89

87

88

Although PRAG (1991: 65) claimed that EB houses were resued in the EB IV level at Jericho, the evidence for this is far from compelling (see NIGRO 2003b). DEVER’s (2003: 49, n. 11) suggestion that the fortifications at Khirbet Iskander are in fact reused EB II walls (on the basis of a personal communication between Dever and Richards), runs contrary to the published evidence from the site that Richard has presented (RICHARD 1990; 2006). COLLINS (2007; COLLINS et al. in press), has now reported the possible reuse of EB III fortifications in the EB IV levels at Tell el-Hamman, in the Southern Jordan Valley (Appendix A, site 251).

90

91

In addition to this, an environmental crisis during this period may have contributed to these changes. For recent evidence of an extended dry phase during the EB IV from the Dead Sea region, see now FRUMKIN 2009. Note as well the two whetstones of possible Anatolian origin from the EB IV tomb at >Enan (SHIMRON 1985). See as well D’ANDREA 2008 on the production of EB IV “Trickle Ware” on both sides of the Jordan River in the Central Jordan Valley.

Settlement Pattern in the Jordan Valley in the MB – General Comments

Fig. 58 All MB sites in the Jordan Valley

135

136


Settlement Pattern in the Jordan Valley in the MB – General Comments As mentioned above in Chapter 1, the available evidence from the surveys and excavations does not enable a fine-tuned division of the periodization of all the sites in the Jordan Valley during the MB, but rather a division into MB in general (Fig. 58), MB I (Fig. 59), MB II (Fig. 61), and MB III (Fig. 63). Nevertheless, the detailed archaeological evidence that is available from the major sites, enables a finer-tuned periodization of the development of the settlement in the Jordan Valley during this period; this is divided into 6 sub-periods: 1) early MB I; 2) mid-to-late MB I; 3) late MB I/early MB II; 4) MB II; 5) MB III; 6) MB III/LB transition. In the following pages, the settlement pattern and development in these stages will be discussed. In addition, suggested reconstructions (tentative by their very nature) of the political structure in the Jordan Valley during the MB will be raised (e.g., Figs. 60, 62, 64–65) The Earliest Phase of the MB (Fig. 59) The evidence for activity during the earliest stages of the MB I is somewhat limited, but nevertheless of much importance for the understanding of the processes that occurred during this period. Although most of the available evidence points to the existence of primarily non-sedentary and/or rural entities during this stage, hints to incipient urban processes can be seen. Most of the available evidence comes from tomb assemblages, such as Tel Dan, Stratum XII, Phase 1 (BIRAN 1994; Ilan 1996a), Hagosherim (COVELLOPARAN 1996a), Ginosar, T.1 (EPSTEIN 1974), Gesher (GARFINKEL & BONFIL 1990; GARFINKEL & COHEN 2007), and Rehov (YOGEV 1985). Nevertheless, a limited amount of settlements have been reported (of apparently rural form) such as Tel Dan (ILAN 1996a: 163–164), Tel Na’ama, Phase 4 (GREENBERG et al. 1998), Tel Kitan (EISENBERG 1993a; 1993b), Pella (earliest phases of the MB I temple and pre-fortification remains – e.g., BOURKE 2004; 2008; BOURKE et al. 2006), and Tell el-Hayyat, Stratum 5 (FALCONER & FALL 2006). Many of the burials seem to continue practices of the previous period. Many tombs are reused EB IV tombs (e.g. Hagosherim [COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: 82], the Northern Cemetery of Beth Shean, T.92 [OREN 1971; 1973a: 61–67],92 and Rehov, Tomb 8 [YOGEV

92

This tomb most probably dates to this stage, although the lack of ceramic finds accompanying the metal weapons

1985: 94; see, e.g., MARCUS 1998: 200–201]). Other tombs continue to use earlier burial methods, such as the shaft-tombs and single, “warrior-burials” at Gesher, which appear to indicate continuity in burial traditions, and perhaps populations, between the late EB IV and the early MB I (PHILIP 1989: 219; GARFINKEL & BONFIL 1990: 146; ILAN 1995b: 319; MAEIR 1997b: 215–216; GARFINKEL 2001; COHEN 2007a; 2009a). Similarly, STEPANSKY (2002; 2005a; 2008a) has reported extensive use of the dolmens (first used in earlier periods) during the MB, in particular during the MB I. This is seen in the Northern Jordan Valley, in regions were many dolmens are found (e.g., the western slopes of the Golan, the Korazim Plateau, and the Ginosar Valley). This also seems to be a manifestation of earlier burials traditions continuing into the MB, perhaps of non-sedentary populations. Several trends can be seen from the pottery in the tombs. For the most part, the vessels are poorly fabricated, and in most cases, undecorated (GARFINKEL & BONFIL 1990: 142; COHEN & BONFIL 2007). Many elements point to an archaic, conservative culture. Some pottery forms appear to be reminiscent of the EB IV pottery types. For example: certain bowl types (e.g. COVELLO-PARAN’S [1996a: 73] discussion of the bowl in ibid: fig. 4:2. To this one can add another bowl [ibid: fig. 4:1] which can be compared to EB IV bowl types [e.g. RICHARD 2000: fig. 1:7]), the morphological attributes of some of the jars (e.g. YOGEV 1985:99), and a unique type of bottle found at Hagosherim (COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: 73, 79, figs. 4:9, 9:2). On the other hand, certain types, although seemingly indicating some influence from early coastal MB I forms, are fabricated in a much simpler, coarser manner (e.g., COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: passim; GARFINKEL & BONFIL 1990: 146; FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: 46–49; COHEN & BONFIL 2007). All told, the pottery of this early stage also seems to indicate some continuity between the EB IV pottery traditions and those of the earliest MB I. At the same time, one sees very little evidence of foreign wares or influences in the pottery. This is especially interesting in light of just such foreign, northern influences and actual imports from Syria found in the same region during the preceding EB IV (e.g., TADMOR 1978; GREENBERG et al. 1998: 32) and during the subsequent phase of the MB I (ILAN 1996b; MAEIR 2002a and see below). Perhaps, the

(which are typical of the early MB), makes it difficult to ascertain this.

The Earliest Phase of the MB

Fig. 59 MB I sites in the Jordan Valley

137

138


only evidence of influence on the earliest MB I pottery from afar are some pottery types found at Hagosherim which might be similar to some Syrian types (see COVELLO-PARAN 1996a). Noteworthy as well are the similarities between the pottery from the tomb assemblages from the different parts of the Jordan Valley (noted already by GARFINKEL & BONFIL 1990: 146). An example of this can be the very similar assemblages seen in the Hagosherim and Gesher tombs (as discussed by COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: 82). This situation is in stark contrast to the distinct regionalism that is seen in the MB II, differentiating between the Northern, Central and Southern Jordan Valley (see below, and e.g., MAEIR 1997a: 322–323; 1997b: 140–144; above, Chapter 4). The finds from the early MB I burials at Gesher can serve as an excellent gauge to understand some of the processes occurring in the early MB in the Jordan Valley. On the one hand, these tombs exhibit aspects that are quite reminiscent of EB IV mortuary customs (type of grave; position of skeleton), while at the same time incorporating new MB I objects and traditions (such as pottery, weapons, etc.; e.g., MAEIR 1997a: 215; GARFINKEL 2001: 157; GARFINKEL & COHEN 2007). In fact, it has been suggested (MAEIR 1997a; 2002a; COHEN 2007a; 2009a) that this is perhaps to be seen as evidence of the transitional nature of these burials and of the early MB I culture in the Jordan Valley in general. This region was somewhat peripheral during the early MB I and did not play a major role in the nascent changes occurring at this time, changes which are seen primarily along the Coastal Plain and in the Jezreel Valley (GERSTENBLITH 1980: 115; COHEN 2002: 123, 137). It would seem that during the early MB I in the Jordan Valley, there was, a continuity of earlier EB IV traditions, while at the same time there was a partial percolation of the new cultural aspects. As far as the drinking habits and ceremonies, as seen from the Gesher burials are concerned, and in particular, the appearance of metal straw-tip beverage strainers (MAEIR & GARFINKEL 1992; MAEIR 2007a), it would appear that new habits, perhaps deriving from MB Syria, were adopted in the early MB I, while those of the earlier EB IV were rejected. The drinking habits and ceremonies of the EB IV are typified by a proliferation of goblets, apparently emulating drinking customs originating in Syria (BUNIMOVITZ & GREENBERG 2004). It would seem that the community that buried its dead at Gesher during the early MB I had re-oriented its emulatory focus, vis-à-vis its drinking customs, implementing a new practice previously unknown in the region. As suggested regarding the drinking cus-

toms of the EB IV (BUNIMOVITZ & GREENBERG 2004), this custom may have also originated in Syria (as seen in the burials at Baghouz, Syria; DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1948) but was clearly of a very different nature than the older customs. Changes in other aspects of the dietary/drinking habits can be noticed in the transition between EB IV and MB I. Zooarchaeological studies have noted changes in the preferences and types of animals that were slaughtered for consumption, and have identified an apparent rise in the use of milk and milk products during the MB (CLUTTON-BROCK 1971: 43; HORWITZ 1989: 51; 2001b: 116; GRIGSON 1995: 257). At the same time, archaeobotanical studies indicate the appearance of new types of plant-derived foods during this period (KISLEV et al. 1993) and a preference of barley (HOPF 1983: 579). These changes are also evident in the pottery repertoire. As mentioned above, while during the EB IV the goblet played a major role in the pottery repertoire, this is not seen in the MB I. It can be suggested that during the MB, it was customary to drink directly from small jars or from the various jugs common during this period. It may very well be that one of the reasons for the appearance and development of jars with rounded and eventually pointed bottoms was to enable sediments to settle, which would facilitate drinking beverages from a jar with a straw, thus picking up smaller amounts of sediment. The appearance of bone straw-tip strainers in the MB I graves at Gesher is indicative of various aspects of early MB I society in the Jordan Valley. It seems that the appearance of these objects both at Gesher and at other MB sites is to be related to other changes that occurred during this period throughout Canaan, changes that affected a wide range of cultural facets. In addition, the fact that these items were made of bone and not of the more standard metal, is an additional indication of the peripheral nature of the early MB I settlement in this region. All told, it appears that during the early stages of the MB I, in all parts of the Jordan Valley, there was a rather limited dispersal of rural settlements (GREENBERG et al. 1998: 32–33). There is a possibility that Pella was already beginning to develop an urban nature, but the limited exposure of the early MB I remains limits our ability to study this site. In any case, the existence of temples at this early stage at both Pella and Tell el-Hayyat (the latter well-preserved) indicates that the “sacred landscape” of the Jordan Valley (for different views on this, see, e.g., MAGNESS-GARDINER & FALCONER 1984; MAEIR 2003; FAUST 2005; see additional discussion below), an extremely important aspect of the region during late stages of the MB, was already beginning to develop.

The Mid-to-Late MB I

Even if the urban texture of the settlement pattern in the Jordan Valley has yet to appear at this stage, these cultic foci (one, at Pella, at a site that in the very next stage has urban characteristics; the other, Hayyat, remains a rural site throughout the MB) would seem to show that the processes leading to urbanism and urban-related political structures were well under way at the very beginning of this period.93 To a certain extent, it appears that these populations are local developments of the earlier EB IV populations, whose culture slowly evolved. Although it is usually assumed that the region played an apparently peripheral role in the inter-regional connections, and only limited amount of foreign influences are felt (on the possible contemporaneity of the late EB IV/MB I cultures and the earliest MB I, and suggested explanatory frameworks, see, e.g., DUNAYEVSKI & KEMPINSKI 1973: 174, n. 30; GREENBERG et al. 1998: 32–33; MARCUS 1998: 221–223; COHEN 2007a; 2009a), this early evidence of “pre-urban trajectories” may indicate that the development of settlement pattern, political structure, and foreign connections in the early MB was not limited (as often assumed) to the Coastal Plain and Jezreel Valley. Nevertheless, the intensity of these processes should be qualified. During the early MB, various sites along coastal regions of the Southern Levant (e.g., Ashkelon, Akko, etc), as well as many other regions in northern and central Syria were full participants in the web of international connections that were being forged throughout (e.g. NIGRO 1998: 272–281). On the other hand, based on the available evidence, there is little indication of a significant settlement development in southern Syria (for a review of the primary remains, see, e.g., MAEIR 1997a: 322–323; also, e.g., SEEDEN 1986; BRAEMER 1989; BETTS et al. 1996; 2002) and inland, southern and central Lebanon (MARFOE 1998: 155–158) during this period. Possibly, the lack of a continuous intensive settlement pattern in these intermediary regions obstructed trade and other connections between inner-Syria and the Jordan Valley. As in earlier and later periods, the Jordan Valley, and in particular the northern part of it, was intimately connected with Syria, and served as a main route for this trade. Thus, although there are hints to developments in the earliest phases of the MB I, this did not begin to substantially appear until the mid- to late stages of the MB I, possibly with the

93

One should note SMITH & KOUCKY’s (1986) suggestion of the existence of a, largely marshy, water body (which they term the “Beisan Lake”) until the end of the EB, which in

139

resurgence of inter-regional, and international, trade (MAEIR 2000b). Regarding the southern portions of the Jordan Valley, the gradual spread of the MB I culture, from the coastal region inland, seems to have taken a longer time. Although there is evidence for the earliest phase of the MB I at Pella and Tell el-Hayyat, there is very little, if any, evidence of settlement in the southernmost regions of the Jordan Valley (south of the Beth Shean Valley) during the early MB I. In fact, there are very few sites south of the Beth Shean Valley that date to the MB I in general (for Tell Nimrin and Jericho see below). It would appear that settlement in the more environmentally-challenging regions of the Southern Jordan Valley were faced only at a later stage, once the population of the MB started to intensively settle wide portions of the Southern Levant. Likewise, as in many periods, the region of Jericho was intimately connected with the Central Hills region. Perhaps, the settlement in Jericho was derivative of the MB settlement in the Central Hill region which only occurred at a later stage in the MB I (or early MB II). The Mid-to-Late MB I (Fig. 59) While, as seen above, there is evidence from large portions of the Jordan Valley for sedentary settlements during the early MB I, it is only in the middle to late phases of this period that one sees more substantial evidence (or hints thereof) of significant political development and the appearance of incipient urban features in the region. As noted in Chapter 3, Dan continues to be settled during this period, and although most of the finds point to a non-urban settlement, there appears to be some evidence that the earliest phase of the MB fortification at the site can be dated to this phase (Stratum XII, Phases 3–4), prior to the construction of the full-scale ramparts and gates in Stratum XI. Apparent evidence of this exists in Area B (ILAN 1991: 3; MARCUS 1996: 192) and Area T3, above the EB fortifications (BIRAN 2002: 31–32; on the EB fortifications, see GREENBERG 2002: 32–35). It should be noted that during the later stages of Stratum XII there is a substantial rise in the amount of painted pottery of apparent Syrian influence seen at Dan (ILAN 1991: 158–162; BAGH 2003: 232–233). Recently, several important additions to our understanding of the development of the MB I cul-

their opinion did not enable the commencement of extensive settlement in the Beth Shean Valley (at the beginning of the MB) until after this lake receded.

140


ture in the Jordan Valley have been discovered, which, to a certain extent, require a reappraisal of the date of the appearance of early political development in the (Northern) Jordan Valley. In a salvage excavation outside the town of Qiryat Shemona, YASUR-LANDAU & GADOT (2003–2004; YASURLANDAU personal communication) report the discovery of a fortified, monumental building (ca. 2000 sq. m.), dating to the mid-late MB I. As note above (Chapter 3), the pottery from the earliest phase at this site (Stratum VII, with the fortification) is associated with pottery that is later than the early MB I pottery from Hagosherim, the earliest material at Dan (early Stratum XII), and Tell el-Hayyat, Stratum V, and is quite similar to the pottery in the early ramparts of Dan. After the destruction of the fortified site, it is resettled in the form of an unfortified village with an assemblage dating to the MB I/II (Stratum VI), followed by the Stratum V village, dating the MB II (parallel to Hazor, Stratum 4). It seems that this small fortified complex in Stratum VII appears either right before, or more or less the same time as the earliest fortification at Tel Dan, but is quickly destroyed, before the MB I/II stage, and prior to the appearance of the full-scale fortifications at Hazor. A possible scenario for this can be suggested. Perhaps, the Qiryat Shemona site was initially the location of some sort of political entity, but it was very quickly subsumed under the control of the growing polity located at Tel Dan, and thus this fortified site was destroyed, replaced by a village. Similarly, at a slightly later stage (early MB II), part of the fortifications at Tel Dan were put out of use (the eastern gate), perhaps due to the ascendancy of Hazor (as suggested previously in MAEIR 2000b). Another possibility is that Qiryat Shemona (S), Stratum VII represents a fortified site associated with a larger polity (Dan[?]; >Abel Beth-Ma>acha[?]). In any case though, after a rather brief existence it was destroyed, indicating intense competition in this region during this period. To this one can add as well the evidence from Tel Na>ama, Phase 4, following the suggestion by GREENBERG et al. (1998) that there is a fortification that is contemporary with Stratum XII at Tel Dan.

94

95

In addition, one should take into account the possibility that the site of >Abel Beth-Ma>acha was settled, and perhaps fortified, at this stage as well, since MB I sherds were also found there (see above, Chapter 3). Unfortunately, a definitive answer to this will have to await excavations on the site. While in the past (e.g. MAEIR 2000b: 49) I was hesitant to accept KNAPP’s (1993: 88) contention that Pella played a

All told, the fact that there are at least three fortified sites in the Northern Jordan Valley during the mid-late MB I, indicates that there were intensive socio-political activities.94 While one could claim that these are all related to the rise of a single polity (such as Dan) during this phase, it is just as likely that this is a hint of the existence of an intensive development of urban, or semi-urban entities during this phase, several of which attempt to manifest this rise with fortifications. The fact that in the very next stage (late MB I/early MB II) a “mega-site” appears in the vicinity and seemingly “swallows” all the neighbouring, incipient polities, indicates that this competition quickly ended. Up until that point, the competition between these sites may have been intense, with at least at first, the Dan polity seemingly being the dominant entity, but in itself soon subsumed by the rising kingdom of Hazor. The site at which one sees the earliest substantial evidence for urban features in the Jordan Valley is at Pella. In addition to the early MB I temples mentioned above, during the mid-MB I we see the first evidence for sizeable city walls at the site (e.g., BOURKE et al. 1998: 189–194; 2006). Although at first the early date of these fortifications was questioned and it was suggested that the fortifications at Pella date to the MB I/II at the earliest (e.g., MAGNESS-GARDINER 1997: 315; see also A. BEN-TOR 2006b: 73–74), the data from the current excavations (e.g. BOURKE et al. 2006) has provided explicit and undeniable evidence of the clearly early MB I dating of this important feature. Pella though, should be explained along slightly different lines. It may very well be that (borrowing from KNAPP 1993: 88) it is during this period (and possibly during the entire MB I) that Pella functioned as a “gateway”. The site served as the “valve” for the entrance of eastern commodities (such as spices) into the Southern Levantine world.95 These commodities most probably were then passed on from Pella towards the coast (through sites such as Megiddo), apparently having little effect on settlements in other portions of the Jordan Valley (on the maritime aspects of the trade during this period, see MARCUS 1998; 2007; STAGER 2002; AKAR 2009). As

“Gateway” role during the latter stages of the MB, in light of the lack of MB finds at Tel Rehov and the absence of substantial MB settlement in the Transjordanian highlands prior to the MB III, I now concur with BOURKE (2006: 55) who assumes that Pella did continue to fulfill such a role throughout the MB.

The Mid-to-Late MB I

mentioned above, in all likelihood, the early stages of Tell el-Hayyat (FALCONER & MAGNESS-GARDINER 1984) should be seen as evidence of a site that was subsidiary to Pella (and see, e.g., KNAPP 1993: 72). The background for the initial appearance of urbanism in the Jordan Valley is of importance. It appears that the region is affected by more intensive contacts with the outside world. In fact, as soon as these contacts commence, significant changes can be seen in the region. In addition to the actual telltale signs of these contacts, the first signs of urbanization, aspects of regional differentiation, and other processes, seem to appear. While in the past the emphasis on the impetus behind the beginning of the MB culture in Canaan was seen as maritime oriented trade along the Mediterranean, and the appearance of early MB sites along the Levantine Coastal Plain (such as at Ashkelon, Aphek, Akko, Kabri; see, e.g., MARCUS 1998; 2007; STAGER 2001; 2002), the appearance of polities and urban entities in both the Northern and Central Jordan Valley in the mid-to-late MB I indicates that additional factors are in play at this time. An important point that relates to this are the hints to Syrian-related influences seen in the material culture of the MB I. As noted before by ILAN (1995b: 501; 1996a: 250–251; 1996b: 169), it is during this stage that one sees in the Northern Jordan Valley, new, “foreign” aspects, such as new architectural (ILAN, SOLAR & COOK 2008), mortuary (e.g. ILAN 1996a: 250), metal (see, e.g., BEN-DOV 1996), and ceramic traditions (e.g. ILAN 1996b). ILAN (1995b: 501; 1996a; 1996b) has argued that this should be seen as evidence for immigration from the north during this phase, noting Syria as the most logical source (see as well physical anthropological evidence for this in, e.g., ACRECHE 1982; SMITH 1995: 69; in general, see as well MILEVSKI 2008). Although, to a large extent, I do agree as to the applicability of this explanation in general (see, e.g., CHAPMAN & HAMEROW 1997;

96

A fascinating topic, clearly demanding further attention, though beyond the confines of the present study, is a more complete understanding of the varied processes behind the widespread changes and development of pottery production technology that are witnessed during the early MB. Thus, attempts should be made to comprehend not only the actual technological changes in the production and decoration processes that occurred at this time (e.g., HOMES-FREDERICQ & FRANKEN 1986: 116–118; WOOD 1990; FRANKEN & LONDON 1995; MAEIR 2007b: 291–293), but what were the deeper economic (e.g. HENDERSON 2000: 145–147) and social (beyond the rather superficial aspects discussed by WOOD 1990)

141

BURMEISTER 2000), and in this specific case in particular, other types of contact, and in particular, that of trade, should be stressed. It can be suggested that the reason behind the appearance of new types of pottery in the Northern Jordan Valley, types that are connected with the cultures of MB I inland Syria (as well as other more sophisticated aspects of culture such as fortifications, constructed tombs, etc.), is that it is during this very phase that substantial trade between inland Syria and northern Palestine commenced. As mentioned, these trends are observed, first and foremost, in the pottery repertoire. This is evidenced in the newly appearing painted wares (Levantine Painted Ware [LPW] and the Monochrome Painted Cream Ware [MPCW] as discussed in ILAN 1996b), higherquality production techniques (the fast-wheel, thin, sharply carinated bowls, finely levigated materials, etc.), and new pottery forms (juglets, bowls, kraters, etc.).96 These connections then strengthen the case that parts of the impetus for the growth of the MB culture in Canaan are to be found in inland Syria (and not only along the coast). The very fact is that in the early MB II, when Hazor reaches ascendancy, it has intimate ties with the inland Syro-Mesopotamian cultural sphere (and less with the Levantine littoral). This may very likely indicate that this orientation is based on earlier cultural connections and influences in place during earlier stages of the MB, and in fact, perhaps during the previous EB IV period as well. One of the salient features of this stage is that one starts to see regional differentiation within the region. This regionalism, so typical of the later stages of the MB II (and the LB as well), enables one to differentiate between the Northern Jordan valley and the central parts of the region (e.g., MAEIR 1997a; 1997b). Late MB I/Early MB II (Figs. 59–61) 97 The end of the MB I and the beginning of the MB II (at times called the “MB I/II transition”) is a cultural phase that has been discussed quite extensively in the

97

implications of the introduction of these new techniques, even possibly, what were the “social agencies” (e.g. DOBRES 2000) and/or the ideological and conceptual underpinnings (e.g. ORTMAN 2000) that brought about these changes. It should be noted that the maps in Figs. 60, 62, 64, 65, are attempts to roughly reconstruct the realms of influence of the major polities in the Jordan Valley during various stages of the MB, whilst taking into account other contemporary sites outside of the Jordan Valley (without marking explicitly the territories of these latter sites). These reconstructions should be seen as but rough assessments of the territorial sizes and/or spheres of influence of the Jordan Valley polities.

142


Dan Polity

MB I/II Polities

Hazor Polity

Border

Pella Polity

Jericho Polity

Fig. 60 Map of tentative reconstruction of the late MB I/early MB II polities in the Jordan Valley

Late MB I/Early MB II

literature (see, e.g., EPSTEIN 1974; ILAN 1991; MAEIR 1997b). Major aspects of this cultural phase are the appearance of unique, defining cultural characteristics (such as, e.g., the so-called “stepped-rim juglets” – see MAEIR 1997b) and evidence throughout the Levant of a substantial development of the urban fabric. Although it is not completely clear when one can date the appearance of full-blown urban culture in all the various regions throughout the Levant (e.g. COHEN 2002), there is no doubt that major processes can be seen already during this phase. The evidence for this cultural phase in the Jordan Valley is well-known, and in fact, some of the basic criteria for defining the characteristics of this phase were first noted from sites within the region (e.g. EPSTEIN 1974; see general discussion in MAEIR 1997b). Nevertheless, the details of what exactly occurred in the Jordan Valley during the MB I/II is far from agreed upon, and in particular, the degree of urbanization, and the development of polities, is still under discussion (e.g., A. BEN-TOR 1997; 2004a; 2006a; 2006b; MAEIR 1997b; 2000b; 2002a; 2003). Due to the fact that there are a number of sites in the Jordan Valley at which finds of various types have been reported, the cultural development in this region during this phase is of importance, both for understanding the processes occurring in the region, but also for a more general understanding of the wide-ranging processes that are witnessed in the entire Southern Levant during this period. Several important assemblages from this period can be mentioned, such as Dan, Stratum XI (ILAN 1996a: 163–165), Hazor, T1181 (MAEIR 1997b), Ginosar (EPSTEIN 1974), Munhata (FEREMBACH et al. 1975), the early tombs at Tel Beth Shean (FITZGERALD 1931; MAEIR 1997b: 67), and at Jericho, Tombs J3 (KENYON 1960: 306–315; see KEMPINSKI 1983: 153), K3 (KENYON 1965: 203–206, fig. 93), and B48 (KENYON 1965: 206–211). There are three major sites in the Jordan Valley during this period. Two are in the north – Dan and Hazor, and one farther to south – at Pella. Although there a quite a few additional sites that have produced finds from this phase, they are of much small

98

It may be suggested that the evidence from the sections that were cut in the eastern ramparts of Hazor indicate that, during the late MB I and transitional MB I/II, Hazor expanded primarily the east, possibly including portion to the north that were later abandoned. Only later, during the MB II and the subsequent LB, the focus of the expansion was primarily to the north, and to a certain extent to the south (as revealed in Area Q in the 1987 excavations at

143

size. Perhaps, one can suggest that in the very southern part of the Jordan Valley, in the region of Jericho, there may be some evidence of the formation of sites, both at Jericho and at Tell Nimrin. Tentatively, the existence of two major (Dan and Pella) and perhaps two minor (Hazor and Jericho?) polities can be identified in the Jordan Valley at this time (Fig. 61). It is during this phase that the large-scale fortifications and gates were constructed at Tel Dan, and the first clear evidence for the expansion of the site during the MB is seen (BIRAN 1994: 70; ILAN 1996a: 164). At this stage, Dan is the largest site in the Northern Jordan Valley, and it can be assumed that it was the major polity in the region, at least in the initial parts of this stage. But yet within this phase, interesting changes occur at Dan – seen in the blocking of the eastern gate (BIRAN 1984). As suggested in the past (MAEIR 1997b; 2000b), I believe that this most likely mirrors the contemporary rise of Hazor, and the domination of Dan by the growing polity at Hazor. The position of Hazor presents a slightly more complicated issue. In the past, YADIN (e.g. 1972: 107– 108) and others (e.g. A. BEN-TOR 1997: 6–7) have argued that Hazor was only fortified, and attained a central role, during the next phase, in the early MB II. As I have suggested in the past (MAEIR 1997a: 317–319; 2000b; 2002a; see above, Chapter 3), Hazor was already settled in the late MB I and MB I/II, and in fact, may have already been fortified in the MB I/II. As noted above, this does not prove that Hazor was a dominant polity during the late MB I/early MB I/II. Nevertheless, the evidence from various parts of the site of pre-MB II activity questions A. BEN-TOR’s (2006b: 75; see as well 2006a) unequivocal statement that “Hazor was thus practically a ‘nonentity” in MB IIA” (= MB I [AMM]). There are pre-MB II finds found in many parts of the site and the apparently the eastern ramparts of Hazor were founded prior to the early MB II.98 All this seems to argue in favour of an early (pre-MB II, possibly late MB I, but most likely during the MB I/II) date for the founding of the city of Hazor (along with the various urban aspects of

Hazor, see A. BEN-TOR 1996: 68). A gradual evolution of the earthen ramparts at Hazor, in which the focus of expansion moved from an easterly orientation to a primarily northern one, might explain the seemingly illogical, eastern expansion of the upper tel, which protrudes, quite abruptly, in relation to the primary, northern extension. Needless to say, this subject requires further investigation and excavation.

144


the site). While Hazor reached actual ascendancy during the next stage (and see further below), the process of its “awakening” most probably was already occurring during the late MB I. This process may be the background for the gradual shift in the status of Dan. Very soon into the MB II, Dan seems to become subservient to Hazor. Perchance, the blocking of the eastern gate at Dan may be connected to these processes of change, beginning to be set in motion already in the late MB I (MAEIR 2000b: 40). As suggested in the past regarding other periods (e.g. GREENBERG 1996: 162–205; ILAN 1996a: 212–213), the ascendancy of Hazor over Dan may attest to a prevalent, longue durée trend in this region. Accordingly, during periods in which there is a gradual development of the settlement pattern and culture in the Huleh Valley, it usually commences in the north, with the focus especially at Dan. Subsequently, once the settlement and culture in the region expands, the focus and center of gravity shifts to the south, towards Hazor. A possible explanation to this recurring pattern may be changing agricultural needs as the cultural entities develop. The situation in Hazor’s environs seems to support this picture. Based on recent surveys in the region (STEPANSKY 1999; Shaked, pers. comm., and see SHAKED 1998), it can be shown that there were few sites in the hinterland of Hazor (indicating that Hazor might be defined as a “Unitary State”, see MAEIR 2000b: 39–40). The sudden rise in the size, and thus, in the population, of Hazor, along with the apparent drop in the amount of settlements in its vicinity, raises the question of what was the origin of the new population of Hazor. Several possible sources can be noted: 1) People from neighbouring settlements who, due to the emerging economic opportunities, moved to Hazor (whether voluntarily or perhaps even due to compulsory resettling), for example, this might include populations who had previously lived in the swampy lands to the north of Hazor (as the Ghawarneh tribe who lived in the Hula swamps in modern times; see, e.g., KARMON 1956: 61–66; GREENBERG 2002: 21–23); 2) The settling down of nomadic/semi-nomadic elements in this region and its surroundings, such as the apparent nomadic groups who buried their dead in the Korazim Plateau dolmens (STEPANKSY 2000; 2005; 2008); 3) Immigrants from other regions, whether from within the Southern Levant, or perhaps, from Syria, the latter which might explain some of the Syrian-related influences seen at Hazor. In any case, the meteoric rise of the city of Hazor, from the MB I/II transition and early MB II and

onwards most likely had a profound effect on the populations of the surrounding regions. A different situation seems to have existed in the Central and Southern Jordan Valley during this phase. While one sees urban characteristics at Pella from a relatively early stage of the MB I, there is very little expansion of other settlement in this region during the MB I/II (MAEIR 1997b: 219–221). It may very well be that this is due to the fact that while the Northern Jordan Valley becomes involved in trade with regions to the north, and perhaps is effected by the influx of new populations, most of the southern regions of the Jordan Valley were part of the slowly developing culture of the MB I Southern Levant (again, save for Pella). Accordingly, the social and economic influences of the urban MB I culture expanded gradually from the coastal region into the interior regions, (e.g., GERSTENBLITH 1983: 125; COHEN 2002; 2009b). While Pella did attain a developed status at this stage, very few other sites were expanded, and in fact, few demonstrate any urban characteristics until a later stage of the MB. Thus, for example, although there is some evidence for MB I/II activities at Jericho, it is to a minimal extent (the claim, by the Italian excavators, that Jericho was fortified during, and even before, the MB I/II cannot be accepted; see discussion, above, Chapter 3). It is assumed that the late appearance of the MB II culture at Jericho can be explained as relating to two factors: 1) The Southern Jordan Valley is a region which, ecologically, is more difficult to settle. Settlements would expand to such an area only after the more temperate zones were extensively settled; 2) As in many periods, the culture of MB Jericho is intimately connected with the regional culture of the Central Hills region (on this, see, e.g., MAEIR 1997b: 145; above). And in fact, it is just during the transitional MB I/II and early II that there is evidence of settlement activity in the Central Hills region. The recently excavated, early MB II, monumental fortification and water system on the south-western hill (the “City of David”) in Jerusalem can serve as an excellent example of this trend (see, e.g., REICH & SHUKRON 2004; 2007; 2009). One can assume that Jericho, to a large extent, served as a “station” on the route between the coast, the Central Hills and Transjordan, during this, and the latter parts of the MB (e.g. BIENKOWSKI 1986: 136). The only exception to this, of which, unfortunately little is known at this stage, is the evidence for a small fortified settlement of the mid/late MB I at Tell Nimrin (above, Chapter 3). Due to the fact that very little information has been published about this, to more fully understand the role and significance of

The MB II

this site we will have to await the more comprehensive publication of the finds from this site. The differences between the Northern Jordan Valley and the Central and Southern Jordan Valley at this stage can be seen in various aspects of the material culture, indicating that the regional differentiations between the various parts of the Jordan Valley explicitly seen during later stages of the MB (see below) are at least partially in place during the late MB I. Thus, for example, the painted wares common in the Northern Jordan Valley (ILAN 1996b) are rare in the Central Jordan Valley. It is during this stage, the transitional MB I/II, that one sees evidence for the appearance of the fullblown, classic MB culture, and it is during this phase that the entire region is incorporated into the MB cultural koine. The MB II (Fig. 60) During the MB II, there is an intensification of the settlement pattern in the Jordan Valley, as can be seen throughout the entire Southern Levant. In addition to the major sites that one already sees in the MB I and MB I/II, which continue into this period (e.g., Dan, Hazor, Pella), there is evidence of various sites at which there is more evidence of either first settlement, or the expansion of former settlements during this period. In the Northern Jordan Valley the most salient example is Hazor. While, as noted above, there is a debate as to the extent and intensity of the settlement at Hazor prior to the MB II, during this period there is evidence of the full-blown expansion and development of the site, with extensive fortifications, public structures and other features. Without a doubt, during the MB II (and in the following MB III), Hazor is a full-blown player in the international scene (as portrayed in the Mari letters – see above, Chapter 2), and most likely is the most dominant polity not only in the Jordan Valley, but perhaps in the entire Southern Levant (e.g. MAEIR 2000b). Recently, VAN KOPPEN (2007) has argued that the role of Hazor, particularly in relation to Syria and Mesopotamia, was much less dominant than previously assumed. He suggests that: a) the contact between Hazor and Mari was very limited (as noted already by BONECHI 1992); b) the kingdom of Hazor, during much of the MB II, was a vassal of the kingdom of Qatna. Contrary to what I have argued in the past (MAEIR 1997b), VAN KOPPEN suggests that in fact, it was not Hazor, but rather Qatna, that controlled major parts of Southern Syria during the MB. While I believe VAN KOPPEN (2007) has raised some valid, cautionary notes on the possible over-emphasis

145

of the geo-political role of Hazor during the MB, I think his reservations should be qualified as well. To start with, his assumption that the recently published letter from Hazor (Hazor 12; see HOROWITZ & WASSERMAN 2000; 2004; HOROWITZ & OSHIMA 2006: 83–85; 2010: 533) indicates that Hazor was a vassal of Qatna is a possibility (VAN KOPPEN 2007: 368), but not a mandatory interpretation – other explanations can, and have, been suggested (e.g., HOROWITZ & WASSERMAN 2004; CHARPIN & ZEIGLER 2004). In addition, if in fact this letter relates to the period of Yasmah-Addu’s (son of Šamši-Addu of Assyria) reign in Mari (as argued by HOROWITZ & WASSERMAN 2000; 2004; CHARPIN & ZIEGLER 2004; but see DURAND 2006), this is additional evidence for the Mari/Hazor connection during a slightly earlier stage (not only in the reign of Zimri-Lim of Mari; as already seen from the single letter from Mari from the Assyrian inter-regnum, that has been published in the past [A.2760; e.g. BONECHI 1991: 10]). This would of course be evidence for Hazor’s involvement in international trade and diplomacy at a slightly earlier stage. The extraordinary and exorbitant quantities of prestige items mentioned in the text cannot be ignored. Even if the letter is written by another, more dominating king (whoever this may be), to the King of Hazor, the very fact that such large amounts of expensive items are understood to be part of Hazor’s economic abilities, is a strong indication of the lofty economic and political status of the Hazor kingdom at the time. A supposed vassal role of Hazor in regard to Qatna is problematic from other aspects as well. There is very little evidence of contacts between Hazor and Qatna (save for mentions in the letters). One would expect a stronger influence of Qatna on Hazor if in fact Qatna was so dominant. Little direct material evidence for such a connection exists. In fact, as noted above, provenience studies of pottery from Qatna, although preliminary in nature (MARITAN et al. 2005; above Chapter 4), have shown no evidence of contact with Hazor. To this one can add, that although I fully agree with him that understanding the extent of Hazor’s influence on south-eastern Syria (the Damascene basis) should be viewed with caution, his suggestion that Qatna dominated this region is problematic as well (VAN KOPPEN 2007: 372–373). Lack of documentary evidence of this issue on the one hand, and the fact that the pottery from this region appears to be so similar to that of Hazor on the other hand (see MAEIR 1997b; BRAEMER & AL-MAQDISSI 2002; NICOLLE 2002), while quite different from that of Qatna and beyond

146


Fig. 61 MB II sites in the Jordan Valley

The MB II

(see, e.g., AL-MAQDISSI et al. 2002; NIGRO 2002; PAOLETTI 2005; BESANA et al. 2008), make this proposal somewhat difficult to accept. Finally, it should be added that VAN KOPPEN’s (2007: 372) confidence that Qatna controlled and restricted the connections between Hazor and Mesopotamia due to the fact that Qatna straddled the only roads leading from Southern Syria towards Mesopotamia is simply incorrect! A viable route between Hazor and Mesopotamia, not under the control of Qatna, would be the route connecting between Damascus and Palmyra, and from there to the Euphrates in the vicinity of modern Deir ez-Zor and ancient Terqa (e.g. JOANNÈS 1996). In summary, I believe that although one should heed VAN KOPPEN’s (2007) caution and not overstate the role of Hazor, seriously underestimating its geopolitical and economic role is uncalled for as well. While, as will be seen below, the settlement in the Central and Southern Jordan Valley expands during the MB II, in the Northern Jordan Valley there are relatively few sites dating to the MB II. Although there are a few relatively large sites from this period (e.g., Dan and >Abel Beth Ma>acha), in and around the immediate region of Hazor there are very few sites. As noted above, this most likely is to be explained as a result of the dominant role of Hazor, which formed what may be termed a “Unitary State”, and as a consequence, there were very few large, medium and even small scale sites in its vicinity. It can be assumed that this picture, which extends throughout the Huleh Valley, and may extend towards to Korazim Plateau (and perhaps even beyond, to the Golan Heights and the eastern, and perhaps central, upper Galilee, may reflect the size and extent of the “Kingdom of Hazor” and its region of influence.99 As argued in the past (MAEIR 1997b), both the settlement pattern of Hazor, and apparently, its material culture as well, may assist us in recreating the territory of this kingdom, which was one of the larger and more dominant polities in the Levant during the MB. YASUR-LANDAU, CLINE & PIERCE (2008) have recently compared the rise of the kingdom of Kabri to the rise of Hazor during the MB. Displaying quite a par-

99

100

101

For the MB settlement pattern in the upper Galilee, see FRANKEL et al. 2001. On the date of the final phase of MB Kabri, see above, Chapter 4. A Northern Jordan Valley origin is hard to accept for this vessel, based both on the petrographic analysis of the vessel itself (which appears to indicate a Lebanese/Syrian

147

allel pattern, both these sites do exist during the MB I, but only commence transforming into large and dominant sites during the MB I/II. Likewise, both sites rise in the shadow of a neighbouring polity (Akko in the case of Kabri; Dan in the case of Hazor) but very soon they overshadow these neighbouring entities. It is only towards the end of the MB that the similarities come to an end, with Kabri being destroyed towards the end of the MB and not resettled in the LB, while Hazor, even if it is destroyed at the end of the period, continues to flourish during the LB as well. There are some important differences between the sites. While both sites did rise to prominence in the MB I/II in the shadow of other sites, Hazor quickly turns into a “primate” site, with few other sites in its vicinity Kabri, while turning into the major site in the western Galilee, does not “override” the settlement pattern in this region, rather it becomes the largest settlement within a close-knit web of settlements of all sizes (YASUR-LANDAU, CLINE & PIERCE 2008), similar to most other large MB sites in Canaan. Likewise, if dealing with the relationship between Kabri and Hazor, it is important to note another difference between these two sites – they appear to reflect different patterns of trade and interaction during the MB. At Kabri, the finds (mainly pottery) indicate a very clear and extended web of connections. The local MB pottery is for the most part very similar to the pottery at other Canaanite coastal MB sites (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY & SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: 120), save for a very few examples which may derive from inland regions, such as the Chocolate-on-White Ware jug (KEMPINSKI, GER100 SHUNY & SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: 116, figs. 5.15, 5.62), and possibly, a Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware juglet that is suggested to have originated from the Northern Jordan Valley (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY & SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: 114, fig. 5.59:4).101 The pottery from farther regions indicates strong connections first and foremost with coastal Syria, both during the MB I and MB II (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY & SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: 220; GOREN & COHEN-WEINBERGER 2002: 440–442), contacts with Cyprus, starting in the MB I, but particularly

coastal origin; GOREN & COHEN-WEINBERGER 2002: 442), and on the basis of the typological and provenience studies of Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware from the Jordan Valley in general (which do not provide any evidence for the production of this family of pottery in the Northern Jordan Valley – see, e.g., MAEIR 2007b: 289–291; MAEIR & YELLIN 2007: 562; MAEIR & MULLINS in press; above, Chapter 4).

148


strong during the MB II and MB III (KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY & SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: 117–120), and needless to say, the evidence for the Minoan frescoes at the site in the late MB (e.g., NIEMEIER 1995; NIEMEIER & NIEMEIER 2002; see now YASUR-LANDAU, CLINE & PIERCE [2008: 71] for apparent evidence that the Minoan frescoes are earlier then the final phase of the Kabri palace. For a different view, see BIETAK 2007a). On the other hand, at Hazor there is evidence for a different, although, to a certain extent, overlapping web of connections. As noted above (Chapters 2–4), there are diverse historical and archaeological evidence for connections between Hazor and the inland SyroMesopotamian world, first and foremost as seen in the Akkadian letters between Hazor and Mari. This is seen in the material culture as well, with various aspects relating to architecture and pottery showing Syrian related influence (see also MAEIR 1997b: 322–333; 2000b). This is manifested as well in the pottery types that are found at Hazor, which on the one hand indicate some Syrian influences (see, e.g., NIGRO’s [2003a: 351–353, fig. 10] “Black-Burnished Ware” which has exact parallels from Hazor [e.g., MAEIR 1997b: 301, figs. IV.5:1–2, IV.26]) and although clearly are connected with the pottery of MB Canaan, demonstrate a clear regional differentiation from the pottery of other regions (see, e.g., MAEIR 1997a: 234–237; 1997b: 322–323; 2007b: 293–296). For example, the Chocolate-on-White Ware, so typical of the Central and Southern Jordan Valley, although found at Hazor in late MB contexts, is far from abundant (see, e.g., YADIN et al. 1958: pl. CXII:2; 1960: pl. CXV:3–6; 1961: pl. CCLX:4). Likewise, although there are some examples of Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware at Hazor, it is in relatively small quantities, somewhat similar to the relative absence of this ware in inner, central and northern Syria (see, e.g., AMIRAN 1957; NIGRO 2003a: 354–355). On the other hand, though, there is evidence for connections with the Mediterranean “sphere of interaction”. Relatively large amounts of Cypriote pottery have been found at Hazor (e.g., JOHNSON 1982: 56–58), spanning the MB I/II transition through the MB III. In addition to the bona fide Cypriote imports at Hazor, there are local imitations as well, commencing with the local imitation of Cypriote White Painted IV-VI Cross-painted jug that was found in the MB I/II Tomb 1181 at Hazor (MAEIR 1997b: 305, nn. 56–69). Somewhat surprisingly, the Cypriote pottery from Hazor represents a wider and more diverse repertoire of Cypriote types (including various White Painted Wares, along with

Composite, Red on Black, Red on Red, Red Polished, and Monochrome Wares; see JOHNSON 1982: 56–58), than that found at Kabri. At Kabri there are only White Painted Wares, along with a limited amount of Composite and Black Lustrous Wheelmade Wares (MAGUIRE 1987; KEMPINSKI, GERSHUNY & SCHEFTELOWITZ 2002: 117–120). Since both sites represent, more or less, the same timeframe in the MB, and in addition, Kabri is situated much closer to Cyprus and Cypriote-oriented trade routes, this situation is of interest. Although one could claim that this picture might change as the excavations at Kabri continue, this also might reflect different patterns of trade that these two sites had with Cyprus during the Middle Cypriote through Late Cypriote I period (see, e.g., JOHNSON 1982: 68–71; MAGUIRE 1987: 48). For example, SALTZ (1977: 65–66) has suggested that in Middle Cypriote I–II, the trade in metals between Northern Syria and the Aegean (and in particular, between Mari and Crete) skipped over Cyprus, save for, possibly, the northern coast of Cyprus, and only in the Middle Cypriote III was eastern Cyprus included into this trade pattern. Perhaps then, the richer Cypriote repertoire at Hazor reflects a connection with this north Syrian-north Cypriote trade? This clearly is a topic that requires further study. An additional aspect in which the “Mediterranean sphere of connections” is seen at Hazor is the apparent Minoan pottery (both imported and imitation; DOTHAN, ZUCKERMAN & GOREN 2000; but see MERRILLEES 2003) that has been reported from the site. This would possibly parallel the appearance of Minoan pottery at other sites in the Levant and the Minoan frescoes at Kabri (see, e.g., SØRENSEN 2009; YASUR-LANDAU 2010: 833–835), and the discovery of Minoan-style frescoes at the MB palace at Qatna, in inner, central Syria (e.g., NOVÁK & PFÄLZNER 2002: 226–231, abb. 13–16; PFÄLZNER 2008a; for a discussion of the dating of this palace, whether MB II or MB III/LB, see: NOVÁK 2004; PFÄLZNER 2007a; 2008b; MORANDI BONACOSSI 2007). One can wonder whether similar frescoes might have existed in the MB palace at Hazor, the latter which has yet to be excavated. It should be noted that even if Minoan style frescoes are not to be found in the palace at Hazor, chances are that this palace was adorned with wall paintings. A clear, non-Aegean wall painting tradition is now known from palaces in the Levant and its environs, at sites such as Mari (PARROT 1985), Tell Munbäqa (MAHULE et al. 1986: fig. 10), Tell Halawa (LÜTH 1986; 1989), in northern Syria, Tell Sakka in southern Syria (TARAQJI 1999), and most recently, at Tell Burak, between Sarepta and Sidon on the Lebanese coast

The MB II

(SADER 2006; 2009, as well as briefly mentioned in FELDMAN [2007: 40–41, n. 1] and BRYSBAERT [2008: 106]).102 As FELDMAN [2007; 2008] and BRYSBAERT [2008] have noted, wall paintings in the MB palaces in the Levant were of importance in the ideological constructs of the MB Canaanite urban ruling classes. In light of the extensive evidence for connections between Hazor and the Syro-Mesopotamian world, “Syrian-style” wall paintings may have very likely adorned the walls of the kings of MB Hazor. Finally, one can note the possible connections between Hazor and Egypt during the MB, as manifested in the various Middle Kingdom art found at Hazor, which may have arrived at Hazor during the MB (see above, Chapters 3–4). Thus, it seems that while Kabri was oriented to the Syro-Palestinian coast and to the west, Hazor benefited from a wider sphere of connections, from the west, the north, and the east and south, as would befit the lofty political status of this kingdom. Based on this wide sphere of connections, its impressive size and outstanding cultural remains, as well as the numerous references in contemporary historical sources, it appears that the overall importance of the site during the second millennium B.C.E. is unequivocal. I believe that in most studies, the size, extent and framework of the region under the control of Hazor has been underestimated. Hazor has been construed as one (albeit, possibly the principal one) of the many MB city-states in Palestine (e.g., MABRY 1985; KOTTER 1986; BUNIMOVITZ 1989; FINKELSTEIN 1992). As already argued in the past (MAEIR 1997b; 2000b), this view appears to be in need of revision (see already ILAN 1995b: 306–308) – Hazor is clearly of a magnitude which places it quite apart from the other MB polities. In sundry discussions of the Southern Levant in the MB, Hazor is frequently regarded as an integral part of the Canaanite, Southern Levantine culture. According to this view, Hazor is the largest and most substantial site in Palestine, well integrated within the cultural milieu of the Southern Levant. Such an approach can be seen, for example, in discussions of the socio-economic framework (MABRY 1985; CASSENS

102

As FELDMAN (2007: 40–41, n. 1) has first noted and is now clearly demonstrated by SADER (2009: 182–183) the wall paintings at Tell el-Burak are not Aegean in style, but are heavily Egyptian-influenced. As to the wall paintings at Tell Sakka (TARAQJI 1999), FELDMAN (2007: 40–41, n. 1; 2008: 281, n. 4) believes that they may be of Egyptian origin and/or influence, while BRYSBAERT (2008: 100–101, 155)

149

1990) and of the settlement pattern (KOTTER 1986; BUNIMOVITZ 1989; FINKELSTEIN 1992). This attitude is particularly conspicuous in studies of the material culture (especially in ceramic research) where the comparanda for the finds from Hazor are primarily from sites in Canaan. This, I believe however, is incorrect. Already proposed by NA’AMAN (1982) KEMPINSKI (1983; 1992b: 184), MALAMAT (2006), and the current author (MAEIR 1997a; 1997b; 2000b) it seems more appropriate to regard the kingdom of Hazor as the southernmost extension of the Syro-Mesopotamian world (see as well FELDMAN 2007: 58, n. 17). This is true of the political structure, the cultural milieu, and many aspects of the material culture. In fact if one compares Hazor to the Southern Levant on the one hand, and the northern Levant and the Syro-Mesopotamian world on the other, often the latter is more similar. From the historical sources at our disposal, and in particular the Mari archives, the outstanding importance of Hazor is indisputable (BONECHI 1991; MALAMAT 1992, 1998; 2006). The recent epigraphic finds from Hazor have but emphasized this point (e.g., HOROWITZ & OSHIMA 2006; above, Chapter 2). Accordingly, Hazor was the southernmost link in the long chain of large urban centers, stretching from Babylon to southern Syria. The unique economic and political status of the site vis-à-vis the other SyroMesopotamian polities is manifested in the documentary evidence. In the Mari texts Hazor may be the southernmost site mentioned.103 The Southern Levantine sphere (including Egypt) is not mentioned in the Mari archives. If the material culture of the site is examined, a similar picture can be seen. To begin with, the size of the site is quite outside the normal range of sizes of even the largest MB II sites in Canaan. While Hazor’s size is c. 80–100 hectares, most of the large sites in the Southern Levant are no larger than 20 hectares, with a few exceptions such as Ashkelon (c. 50 hectares; BURKE 2008: 126) and Kabri (c. 35 hectares; for a partial list, though requiring updating, see BROSHI & GOPHNA 1986). Its size however, is quite comparable to the large sites of MB Syria (e.g., Qatna, Carchem-

103

has suggested that they may have Mesopotamian influences, similar to the wall paintings at Mari. I would like to thank J. Kamlah and H. Sader for providing me with a copy of SADER 2009. Save for Laish/Dan (see above, Chapter 2) and perhaps, Ashkelon (see BURKE 2008: 127, n. 30).

150


ish, Ebla). Needless to say, the size of the Syrian sites has much more in common with sites in the Mesopotamian sphere. In other aspects of the material culture of Hazor (on the Syrian architectural traditions at MB Hazor, see, e.g., BONFIL & ZARZECKI-PELEG 2007), and in particular the pottery, a substantial number of Syrian elements can be noticed. This has been noted already by KEMPINSKI (1983) and was further elaborated by the present author (MAEIR 1997b: 322–323; 2000b). These comparisons between Hazor and the contemporary Syrian material culture do, however, need qualification. I have stressed (MAEIR 1997b; 2000b) the need for a cautious approach when comparing the Levantine and Syrian spheres. Instead of the oftcited, wide-ranging comparisons between the pottery of Canaan and that of sites in north Syria, a more specific regional definition of the Syrian material culture should be carefully adhered to. For example, in contrast to the commonly cited comparisons with north Syrian sites, more appropriate parallels are to be found in the less well-known central and southern inland Syrian sites (see, e.g., NIGRO 1997; 2002; 2003a; BRAEMER & AL-MAQDISSI 2002; NICOLLE 2002; BESANA et al. 2008). A case in point is the material culture of MB I/II Hazor (as represented in the pottery assemblage of T. 1181; MAEIR 1997b), which is very similar to that of south-eastern Syria (i.e. the Damascene basin; see BRAEMER & AL-MAQDISSI 2002; NICOLLE 2002). On this basis I have argued (MAEIR 1997b) that due to the similarity of the material culture in the respective regions, corresponding to the documentary evidence, it can be suggested that the Hazor polity controlled the region of south-eastern Syria, possibly as far north as the region of Yabrud. To the north of this were situated the kingdoms of Qatna, Yamhad, etc. Each of these kingdoms controlled a large region (most probably represented by a rather distinct material culture), and appropriately, these were the polities mentioned in the Mari correspondences. Even if the kingdom of Hazor did not actually control the region of the Damascene Basin, it most likely had a strong and direct influence on this region. In any case, it is quite clear that from the point of view of

104

105

Compare, for example, the meteoric rise of Abbasid Baghdad in the eighth century C.E.; see, e.g., HODGES & WHITEHOUSE 1983. ALTMAN (1996) questions the very existence of Mesopotamian-Canaanite trade during the MB. This is sim-

scale, similarity of material remains, and the documentary evidence, the Hazor polity conforms to the Syro-Mesopotamian political structure (see above, for a discussion of VAN KOPPEN’s [2007] understanding of the role of Hazor, and its relationship to the SyroMesopotamian sphere, during the MB). I believe that one can define the complex and intricate economic/geographic role of Hazor in the Levant in a rather specific manner. On the one hand it displays the distinct characteristics of a primate city (SMITH 1976: 30–32; 1990) situated within a “solar central-place system” (SMITH 1976; HODGES 1988). Such a settlement pattern is typified by a large site which administratively controls all the trade within the region under its control. As at Hazor in the MB I/II and early MB II, a center such as this can form and solidify in a relatively short period of time, quickly turning into an important social and economic center. 104 On the other hand, Hazor’s international and inter-regional role placed it in a gateway role. The site monopolized trade between the Syro-Mesopotamian and Levantine polities. Hazor controlled the flow of trade to and from the north-eastern Levant to innerSyria and northern Mesopotamia. This can explain the absence of sites to the south of Hazor in the Mari archives.105 Hazor seems to have controlled and siphoned traffic and contact between the regions to the south and the northern Syro-Mesopotamian world. It served as the “valve” between two distinctly different culture zones. Similar economic roles are known from other primate sites (BLANTON 1976: 257; HIRTH 1978). As mentioned above, the settlement pattern in the regions surrounding Hazor is indicative of this as well. In the inner circle (c. 10 km) surrounding Hazor, extremely few MB sites are known (MABRY 1985; STEPANSKY 1992; 1999; GREENBERG 2000). Farther a field, within the region that was under the direct or indirect control of Hazor, there are sites of varying sizes. None of these sites, however, were in any way similar in size, or function, to Hazor. The lack of virtually any settlement in the immediate surroundings of Hazor can be explained by the overwhelming dominance of the site. Not only did

ply contradictory to all the available evidence. There is little, if any, doubt that Hazor was the southernmost entity of the Syro-Mesopotamian economic realm, and southern Canaan was its economic hinterland (and see additional discussion above).

The MB II

the site serve as the urban-commercial center, but the rural agricultural activities in the vicinity of the site were based there as well, actually retarding the growth of the lower-ranking sites. Similar situations are known from other highly dominant (primate) central sites as well (for discussions of primate sites see BLANTON 1976: 255–257; SMITH 1990: 33–39). In the past, most scholars have assumed that to the north of Hazor, the city of Dan was the capital of a contemporary MB kingdom (BUNIMOVITZ 1989; FINKELSTEIN 1993; KOTTER 1986; MABRY 1985; cf. ILAN 1995b: 307). I would suggest that only during the MB I was Dan an independent political entity. As soon as Hazor attained the lofty political position portrayed in the Mari archives, Hazor dominated the city of Dan and incorporated it into its kingdom. Simultaneously the kingdom of Hazor sequestered control over the trade in this region. Since it can be assumed that the meteoric rise of Hazor in the MB I/II or early MB II is related to the cardinal role that it played in contemporary trade (although the exact reasons behind this are obscure, see ILAN 1995b: 307), such a tight grip on the trade networks would be understandable. A comparison of the size and importance of the two sites supports this claim. The proximity (20 km) of such a large site (Hazor) to Dan implies the dominance of the former over the latter, which is also supported by various geographical models of settlement hierarchy (e.g. SMITH 1976). A further endorsement of this has been recently demonstrated using computerized weighted Thiessen polygon simulations (MAEIR 1997a: 262–68). The extraordinary size and status of Hazor hindered the development and/or existence of any site that could compete with the regional role of Hazor. A hint of the subservient role of the polity of Dan may also be indicated from the finds at Tel Dan. In his discussion of the painted pottery of MB Dan, ILAN (1996b) notes the pottery types in the various levels that can be related to north Syrian types, which in his opinion suggests a clear connection between the site and the north Syrian world. If one inspects the appearance of these groups in the MB levels at Dan, one can see that the overall majority dates to the MB I or early MB II. After the early MB II there are substantially fewer examples of such Syrian-like pottery. ILAN (1996b; pers. comm.) also notes the total absence of other types of non-local pottery groups, such as Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware, Red, White and Blue Ware (on this ware, see MAEIR 2002b; 2007b; above, Chapter 4) and Chocolate-on-White Ware pottery, which originate, for the most part, in the Southern

151

Levant. This indicates that in the earlier parts of the MB, Dan had trade contacts with the outside world. Later on, in the MB II–III, these connections were severed (or at least, curtailed). At MB II–III Hazor, alternatively, the various types of imported pottery are prevalent, possibly indicative of the above-mentioned dominance of Hazor over Dan. As noted in other instances of trade in primate cities, extensive evidence of foreign trade is found in the primate city itself, while very little reaches the surrounding subordinate regions (BLANTON 1976: 255–257; HODGES 1988). A similar tendency is seen in the metallurgical finds from Tel Dan. A relative diminution in the quantities of metal finds in burial contexts between the MB I and MB II–III at Dan has been noted by ILAN (1995b: 307). Although ILAN (ibid.) suggests that this can be explained in light of an overall decline in trade in the latter part of the MB, alternatively, I would suggest that it can be seen as evidence for limitations in access to prestige trade-goods at Dan, a limitation imposed by the kingdom of Hazor on its periphery. As mentioned above, I have also suggested (MAEIR 1997b; 2000b; above) that the well known MB gate at Dan, which was intentionally covered over in antiquity (BIRAN 1984) may have been blocked due to the ascendancy of Hazor. I suggest that as part of an attempt to consolidate its political power, the kingdom of Hazor made various efforts to dominate its environs politically, including the Dan polity (which already existed early in the mid-MB I, see BIRAN 1994). One of the manifestations of such a domination would undoubtedly be sequestering the control of trade between this region and the inner-Syrian world (implementing a so-called “K=7, administrative hierarchy” structure, see e.g. SMITH 1976). One can speculate that the sealing of this gate might be interpreted as an act (both symbolic and functional) of severing the independent trade and cultural relationships between Dan and the Syrian world. This gate was clearly the gate that faced the road to Damascus (Dan’s “Damascus Gate?”). On the other hand, the southern gate at the site, which faced Hazor, continued to be used throughout the MB II–III (evidence of this gate is mentioned briefly in BIRAN 1994: 90). Such a pattern of the administrative “swallowingup” of sites and their catchment zones by a large central site is well known. It is seen in situations in which there is a large central site which politically controls an extensive region. This central site extends its hold over the entire subservient region,

152


dominating external (and especially trade) contacts (KIPP & SCHORTMAN 1989; in general see SMITH 1990; HODGES 1988). WILKINSON (1994: 501–503) has discussed a similar pattern in north-eastern Syria. Several sites substantially expanded during the midthird millennium B.C.E. (such as Leilan and Titrish Höyük) and incorporated smaller centers located on their peripheries. The role of Hazor stands in contrast with the organizational framework of the Southern Levant. This is manifested in the distribution of sites (see below), but is evident in the political domain as well. In the south the political and cultural frameworks are smaller and are oriented towards the Egyptian sphere of influence, both in the MB I, when the Egyptian Middle Kingdom was exerting influence on the Levant (regardless of the exact definition of this influence, e.g., WEINSTEIN 1975; FARAG 1982; MARCUS 1991; 2007; D. BEN-TOR 1994; ALLEN 2008; MARCUS et al. 2008a; 2008b) and during the MB II–III, when the northern Delta was closely connected with Canaan (e.g., BIETAK 1991; HOLLADAY 1997; MCGOVERN & HARBOTTLE 1997; OREN 1997; MCGOVERN 2000). This orientation is demonstrated in the distribution of Egyptian and Egyptianized finds in the Levant. While there are numerous such finds in the south, few have been reported from the north-eastern parts of Palestine. Egyptian objects found in the Central Jordan Valley which date to the late MB are to be seen in this light (on the trade in the region, see discussion, above, Chapter 4). They demarcate the northernmost region of direct contact with the Egyptian cultural sphere. Farther to the north one enters the Syro-Mesopotamian sphere of influence. Egyptian objects that have been found more to the north are to be explained in a different light. These objects may be evidence of court connections between Egypt and various royal houses in the Southern Levant, though many may in fact reflect later, unrelated activities (on this issue, see, e.g., HELCK 1976). On the whole it appears that the Hazor polity was on a completely different scale from the other polities of the Southern Levant. It can also be assumed that the physical size of its territories was of a much larger magnitude. The fact that even during the Late Bronze Age, when the Egyptian domination of Canaan was ever-present, Hazor still played a predominant role and had influence over a large region

106

(as portrayed in the el-Amarna letters: see, e.g., NA’A1986: 476–78; BIENKOWSKI 1987; HESSE 2008) is indicative of its lofty position during the MB. Thus, one can postulate that the Hazor polity can be defined as a “Unitary State”, while the smaller, Southern Levantine political units are more appropriately defined as “segmentary states” (e.g. SOUTHALL 1956; for an elaboration of this point regarding the MB Levant, see MAEIR 1997a: 183–184).106 Further to the south, in the Jordan Valley, the settlement pattern is somewhat different. To the south of the Sea of Galilee one sees more sites that are settled, and/or expand in the MB II. Several examples of this can be noted. At Beth Shean, although there is some evidence for activity during the MB I and MB I/II (see Chapter 3), substantial stratigraphic evidence of settlement on the site is found only in the MB II (MAZAR & MULLINS 2007b; MAEIR 2007b). While the exact dating of the founding of this settlement is hard to define, it is clearly within the MB II – not at the earliest stage of this period, but on the other hand, not in the MB III (see MAEIR 2007b: 296–298). Beth Shean during the MB II (MB III) is in fact quite small and is estimated at ca. 0.4 hectare only; thus, it is apparent that it was only a small and relatively unimportant settlement at the time. Although at the end of the MB I/II Pella apparently suffers from a major blow (apparently an earthquake), it soon recovers and once again, in Stratum VII, there is evidence for the rebuilding of the site, and Pella continues to thrive during the MB II. When one compares Pella to other sites in the Central Jordan Valley during the MB II, it appears that Pella continues to be the central site in the Central Jordan Valley. Apparent evidence of public architecture at Pella, including the apparent earlier phases of the later monumental temple, is to be seen as evidence of this. As opposed to the situation in the regions surrounding Hazor, in the Central Jordan Valley there are quite a few sites of varying sizes during this period. In fact, it would appear that the settlement pattern in the regions under the influence of Pella is quite similar to the settlement pattern seen in most other regions of Canaan during this period (e.g., MABRY 1985; BROSHI & GOPHNA 1986; BUNIMOVITZ 1993; ILAN 1995b), that of a major site surrounded by a matrix of smaller, subordinate sites of varying sizes. MAN

But see PFOH (2008; 2009) who argues in general that one should speak of “patronange systems”, and not city states, in the early Levant.

The MB II

Hazor Polity

MB II Polities Border

Pella Polity

Jericho Polity

Fig. 62 Map of tentative reconstruction of the MB II polities in the Jordan Valley

153

154


To the south of the Beth Shean Valley, during MB II there is still a relatively sparse settlement pattern. As opposed to the MB III when several new sites appear in the Succoth Valley and further to the south, there are relatively few sites dating to the MB II. While FISCHER (e.g. 2006e) would date the earliest MB at Tell Abu el-Kharaz to the MB II, as discussed above (Chapter 3), I believe that the earliest MB activity at this site should be dated to the MB III only. Tell Nimrin (see Chapter 3) continues in the MB II as well, but very little is know about this site. It is the settlement at Jericho during the MB II that displays a stark difference from that of the previous periods. As argued above (Chapter 3), the first substantial settlement activity at Jericho occurs in the MB II (and not in the MB I as suggested recently by, e.g., MARCHETTI 2003a; NIGRO 2006; 2009). It is during the MB II that the first well-dated evidence of fortifications, houses, and apparent public structures are seen at Jericho, along with the extensive use of the cemetery (e.g., KENYON 1960; 1965). As noted above, the very substantial lacuna in the settlement pattern in the areas to the north of Jericho during this period seems to hint that the growth of the settlement at Jericho during the MB II is not directly connected to the settlement pattern in the Central Jordan Valley (and the “Pella Polity”). Rather, it may very well be that the growth of Jericho should be seen in association with the settlement expansion in the Central Hills region of Canaan during the MB II, as observed at several sites (e.g., Shiloh, Jerusalem and Hebron). This supposition is supported by material remains as well. For example, in the pottery from Jericho, one sees similarities between the assemblages from Jericho and various Central Hills sites, but less so similarities between the Jericho ceramic assemblage and that of sites in more northern regions of the Jordan Valley (see, e.g., MAEIR 1997a: 293–295; above, Chapter 4). In summary it would seem that during the MB II one can define three polities throughout the Jordan Valley (Fig. 62). In the north there is the major polity of Hazor, with its international connections with the Syro-Mesopotamian world, and its apparent control of vital aspects of the Southern Levantine economy (such as the import of tin; see below). In the regions under the control of the kingdom of Hazor

there is a relatively sparse settlement, perhaps due to the character of this polity – a “Unitary Kingdom”. This settlement pattern would fit in with the so-called “concave rank-size” distribution pattern (e.g., JOHNSON 1977; 1980; PAYNTER 1981), indicating the existence of one “primate” city and many much smaller settlements, in which there is a high degree of interdependence between the large city and the small sites (see, e.g., FALCONER 1994a; 2001; MAEIR 1997a: 225–234).107 Further to the south, in the Central Jordan Valley, Pella appears to be the dominant site during the MB II. No other large site exists in this region and the public architecture (including a temple) should be seen as evidence of its lofty status. In any case, the settlement pattern in the region of Pella is completely different. In the Central Jordan Valley one sees a wide dispersal of sites of different types, from small rural sites (e.g., Tell el-Hayyat and Tel Kitan) through medium sites, (e.g. Tel Beth Shean) during this period. As mentioned above, it would seem that the settlement pattern in the Central Jordan Valley is similar to settlement pattern seen in other parts of MB II–III Palestine (as opposed to the pattern around Hazor).108 From the perspective of “ranksize” analysis, this settlement pattern would produce a “convex” pattern, typical of relatively non-integrated settlement systems, as seen in most of the Southern Levant during the MB (e.g., FALCONER 1994a; 1994b; 2001). In the Southern Jordan Valley, the only relatively major site during this period is Jericho. There are very few other contemporary sites in the Southern Jordan Valley and one can assume that if there existed some polity at Jericho, it was of very limited influence and of small extent. As noted above, it most likely was connected to the polities in the Central Hills region.

107

108

It should be noted that the Hazor polity’s realm of influence may have extended further to the north and northeast, beyond that which is marked in Fig. 62.

EXCURSUS A: URBAN/RURAL RELATIONSHIPS JORDAN VALLEY DURING THE MB

IN THE

Time and again, it has been pointed out that the archaeological research of the Levant has placed too much emphasis on the urban settlement components, and to a large extent, has overlooked the very important and very predominant rural aspects. Justifiably, there has been substantial critique of much of

Compare ZERTAL (2007: 78–81) who notes an “explosion” of late MB settlement in the eastern Manasseh hills.

Excursus A: Urban/Rural Relationships in the Jordan Valley during the MB

155

the early research, which AHLSTRÖM (1982: 35) has accused of being a “tell-minded archaeology”. Over the last several decades, there has clearly been an increased awareness of the need to study the smaller sites as well. In addition, emphasis has recently been placed on regional studies, in which the various classes, types, and sizes of sites are studied in a more integrated, holistic manner (e.g., SCHWARTZ & FALCONER 1994a; MAEIR et al. 2003). This being said, it would be unwarranted to overemphasize the rural component and underestimate the importance of the urban setting. Although one cannot truly understand the ancient cultures without the study of the rural component, the urban component is of no less importance. Several studies in the last decade or so have emphasized the importance of the rural component during the MB. In fact, it has been suggested in some of these studies, that the rural component is to be understood as the permanent constituent in the settlement pattern of both this and other periods, as opposed to the “transient” urban settlements (e.g., PALUMBO 1990; JOFFE 1991; 1993; for a critical discussion of these opinions, see GREENBERG 2003). Similarly, LONDON (1992) argues that the large mounds, usually interpreted as fullfledged urban entities, served solely as sites at which the ruling elite and their immediate subordinates resided. Accordingly, the majority of the population lived in the smaller, mainly rural, sites where most of the economic activities were conducted. It is precisely this perspective that I would like to dispute. I have no intention of claiming that the rural component of ancient settlement patterns is not important. Rather, I strongly believe that the above-mentioned (and other) recent studies that have accentuated the rural aspect (often due to current fads in archaeological interpretation) have, in fact, relegated the urban component to a subsidiary position, which is unwarranted.109 This point is argued based on data relating to the Jordan Valley during the MB. A striking example, I believe, of the over-emphasis on the rural component, can be found in Falconer’s

studies of the Jordan Valley during the MB (e.g., FAL1987a; 1987b; 1994a; 1994b; MAGNESS-GAR110 DINER & FALCONER 1994), in which he posits that all the MB sites in the Jordan Valley (and for that matter in most of the Land of Israel) were villages and not cities.111 According to this view, all the site-functions that one encountered in the archaeological record were carried out in various manifestations of the village-type settlement. Based on the results and interpretations of the regional study of the Jordan Valley during the MB (e.g., MAEIR 1997a; 2000b; 2003; this volume), I believe that this view is seriously flawed. It is based on an essential misconception – the question of the comparative size of the respective sites. FALCONER (1987a; 1987b) compares the sizes of the MB sites in the Jordan Valley in particular, and in the Southern Levant in general, to the sizes of several ancient Mesopotamian cities. Due to the relatively minuscule size of the Southern Levantinian sites, he suggests that they should not be understood as urban structures, but rather as village-based entities. Such a comparison does not seem viable. It is mistaken to assume one can determine a site’s function on the basis of a comparison between the sizes of different settlement entities in disparate cultures and settlement constellations. If one accepts Falconer’s opinion, only one city (Hazor) would have existed in the entire Land of Israel during the MB (on the political and economic role of Hazor, see below). The implausibility of comparing the sizes of ancient sites in the Southern Levant with those of Mesopotamia has already been noted by DEVER (1993). Contrary to Falconer, DEVER intuitively suggests that the approximate size of an urban unit in the MB Levant is 6–8 hectare (1993: 99–100). Although he does not demonstrate the validity of this suggestion, it does seem to withstand scrutiny (for a discussion, see MAEIR 1997a: 230–232; 2003). On this basis, one can reconstruct a sufficient number of urban centers in the various regions of the country, each fulfilling a distinct regional and supraregional role.

109

111

110

It should be noted that other studies, while focusing on the rural components of MB society, have stressed their relationship with the urban settlements of the period, e.g. GOPHNA & BECK 1981. THOMPSON (1979; 1999: 125–126) has voiced a similar opinion, claiming that there were no cities in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant. The following rebuttal applies to his opinion as well.

CONER

Note that in more recent studies, Falconer seems to have moderated his views and now, while emphasizing the rural component, recognizes the existence of an urban framework in the MB Southern Levant (e.g., FALCONER & SAVAGE 1995; FALL, LINES & FALCONER 1998; FALL, FALCONER & LINES 2002; FALCONER & FALL 2009).

156


In examining the settlement pattern in the Southern Levant during the MB, one must assume the existence of urban centers alongside the rural entities. MABRY (1985), BUNIMOVITZ (1989; 1992a), and this author (e.g., MAEIR 1997a; 2003; see above) have discussed in detail the multi-scaled components of this framework. It is absolutely clear that there were multi-tiered settlement patterns on the sub-, intra-, and inter-regional levels, and there is no way in which one can comprehend these hierarchal structures unless one assumes varying levels of functional diversity among sites of different sizes. As in any classic settlement pattern (e.g., CHRISTALLER 1966; HODDER & ORTON 1976; C.A. SMITH 1976), this hierarchy includes upper-echelon sites (of varying sizes) that played a central regional role, alongside smaller sites that fulfilled any of a variety of subsidiary roles. Although the smaller sites did have functions, beyond supplying their immediate subsistence needs (e.g., pottery production for regionally-oriented consumption [FALCONER 1987b]), they were subordinate to the larger sites from a political and economic point of view (on the economic structure of the MB Southern Levant, see MAEIR 2000b; HOLLADAY 2001; for further discussion, see above, Chapter 4). It has been repeatedly demonstrated in numerous instances that within a given settlement framework, sites with similar functions may be of varying sizes (for comments on this problem, see, e.g., RENFREW & LEVEL 1979). When dealing with settlement patterns and types in the Levant (especially regarding the Southern Levant), one must take into consideration the specific regional framework. Despite their supposedly minuscule sizes, the urban centers of this region fulfilled roles in relation to their surroundings quite similar to those fulfilled by the much larger urban centers of the Syro-Mesopotamian world. It is reasonable to assume that if a site performs urban functions, it should be regarded as an urban entity, regardless of its size (e.g., BLANTON 1976: 250–253; M.S. SMITH 1989). In the geographical literature, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the functional differentiation of settlements is a remarkably complex issue, even within the same cultural framework (e.g. MOSER & SCOTT 1961), not to mention when different cultures are compared. Clearly, a somewhat vague comparison between Syro-

112

DESSEL (1999), for example, although stressing the rural component during the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I, does not negate the existence of urban sites during the MB

Mesopotamian and Levantine urban patterns cannot withstand close scrutiny. As has been pointed out in the past, settlement size is not the only criteria that can, and should, be used to define a settlement as being urban in nature. In fact, it can be argued that overall size is not a valid criterion in many cases. The best criterion by which to define a city is most probably functionality. Thus, a settlement should be defined as a city on the basis of the specialized functions that it fulfills in relation to its surroundings, and the extent of social stratification and specialization that is observed within (for recent discussions, see, e.g., MCINTOSH & MCINTOSH 1993: 625; KNAPP 1997: 56). Therefore, to reiterate an attempt to define whether there were urban entities within the social and economic structure of the MB Southern Levant cannot be based solely on a comparison with site-sizes in other urban cultures. Furthermore, if one opts for FALCONER’s (1987a) approach, according to which the numerous sites are, for the most part, to be seen as self-sufficient entities, the entire inter-site relationship system among the MB sites in the Southern Levant (hinted to, for example, from historical sources such as the Mari letters) would be untenable. This claim is also in complete contradiction to later historical sources from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages.112 A case in point could be the comparison between the urban centers of the Middle Kingdom/Second Intermediate Period (contemporaneous with the MB) in Egypt and Nubia. As O’CONNOR demonstrates, while the major (and especially royal) urban sites in Egypt were extremely large (100–225 hectares), the unquestionably urban sites in Kerma (and for that matter some of the smaller Egyptian urban sites as well) were ca. 6–13 hectares in size (O’CONNOR 1991: 156). This seems to be comparable to the situation in the Southern Levant discussed above. ZACCAGNINI (1989: 53) claims that village-based (as opposed to urban) settlement frameworks flourished in areas that could not support intense irrigated cereal cultivation. I believe that this supposition hardly applies to the Southern Levant, particularly in the later, better documented periods, where there is ample evidence of urban structures without the existence of irrigation agriculture. In any event, there

and Late Bronze Age. Note, however, that the urban character of many of the Iron Age II sites has also been questioned (e.g., AHLSTRÖM 1982; LONDON 1992).

157

Excursus B: “Sacred Landscape” and the Urban/Rural Matrix

most probably was some sort of irrigation agriculture in the Jordan Valley during the MB (MAEIR 1997a),113 which only strengthens the argument that an urbancentered socio-economic system existed in the region. Despite these reservations, FALCONER’s (1987a) thesis regarding the centrality of the rural economic framework in the Southern Levant can be useful. As shown, for example, by WELLS (1984), the economic functions of larger settlements are often fulfilled in smaller settlements as well. Thus, while it appears foolhardy to discard the role of urban structures in the ancient Levant, there is no doubt that the central role of rural settlements must be recognized. In this view, the rural sites in the region were part of a prevalent urban/rural framework. It would seem that rather than stress the predominance of one mode of existence at the expense of the other, the urban/rural matrix should be seen as complementary parts of one system. At different times, depending on the socio-economic situation, the respective components would be amplified and/or reduced accordingly.114 An example of this phenomenon can be seen in GRAFFAM’s (1992) discussion of such a relationship under conditions of societal collapse. He notes that when a state-based society collapses, it is never sweeping; rather, the rural components of the society are intensified to offset the negative trends. Similarly, DESSEL (1999) has suggested a similar interpretation regarding the role and function of rural sites during the transition between the Late Bronze and Iron I periods in the Southern Levant. He stresses that various functions traditionally seen as urbanbased also existed in the rural sphere. Finally, it should be noted that MAGNESS-GARDINER (1994), followed by FAUST (2005) have argued that one can differentiate between different classes of villages in the MB Southern Levant, and have claimed that one can identify the village in the Jordan Valley as belonging to different classes (“autonomous”/”independent”; “owned”; “communal”; etc.). While these reconstructions, which are based on comparisons to the archaeological finds and historical sources from

113

See now KAPTIJN (2009: 322–337) who argues for the existence of irrigation agriculture in the Southern Jordan Valley as early as the Iron Age and possibly in the Early Bronze Age as well. For irrigation agriculture at MB Mari, see LAFONT 2000; for evidence of the intensification of irrigation techniques in the Hawran (southern Syria) during the MB, see BRAEMER et al. 2009: 48. For the identification of

other periods might be valid, I believe that the available evidence from the MB villages in the Jordan Valley hardly allows such well-defined and clear distinctions between villages of different types. None of the excavated or surveyed villages in the region have been sufficiently excavated to allow such a fine-tuned socioeconomic differentiation between the various rural sites. At Tell el-Hayyat, besides the temple, only two structures, of apparent domestic character were exposed (e.g. FALCONER & FALL 2006); from Hamadiyeh North, barely two structures, most probably but a small portion of a village of unknown size, were exposed; likewise, at Tel Kitan, where almost no information is available on the village; and finally, the village that was surveyed at Kfar Ruppin (GOPHNA 1979) is just that – a basic plan of a village, without any substantial details. Thus, I believe that such fine-tuned socio-economic differentiations between types of villages in the MB must await further archaeological data (see additional comments on this issue below). EXCURSUS B: “SACRED LANDSCAPE” URBAN/RURAL MATRIX

AND THE

An additional facet of urban/rural dynamics can be observed through the study of the “Sacred Landscape” (ALCOCK 1993; CRUMELY 1999; MAEIR 2003; PAPPI 2007). By focusing on the regional distribution of cultic remains in the Central Jordan Valley one can try to define the placement and roles of the various cultic sites in the region, and to incorporate them into the overall cultural context of the Jordan Valley in the MB. ALCOCK’s (1993: 142–172) definitions of “centralized” and “rural” cults are useful. Centralized cults are cults within urban centers, while the rural cults constitute a wide variety of cultic sites in nonurban settings. As surveyed previously (MAEIR 1997a; 2003), cultic remains dating to the MB were found at the following sites in the Central Jordan Valley: Pella, where there is evidence of a large-scale cultic center apparently founded at an early stage in MB I (see Chapter 3, above); Tel Beth-Shean, which yielded assorted evidence of cultic activities (MAEIR 1997a: 76; 2007b;

114

ancient irrigation based on archaeobotanical and GIS perspectives, see, e.g., MITHEN et al. 2008; MADELLA et al. 2009; HARROWER 2010. The distinctions between town and village are not always self-evident, as can be seen in the Medieval and early Modern periods in the Middle East as well (e.g., LAPIDUS 1969; BAER 1982).

158


MAZAR & MULLINS 2007b; Chapter 3, above); Tell elHayyat, with a temple that was in use throughout most of the MB (MAGNESS-GARDINER & FALCONER 1994; FALCONER & FALL 2006; above, Chapter 3); Tel Kitan, with an MB temple (EISENBERG 1993a; MAEIR 1997a: 218–224; above, Chapter 3); and the “Kfar Ruppin site”, which has apparent evidence of a temple (GOPHNA 1979). In other words, these cultic foci are situated at different types of sites: large, central sites (Pella), mid-size sites (Beth-Shean), and smaller rural sites (Hayyat, Kitan, and the “Kfar Ruppin site”). Cultic centers at the large and medium-size MB sites throughout the Southern Levant are wellknown (e.g., MAZAR 1991; KATZ 2000; 2009) however will not be discussed here. Similarly, several rural cultic remains (both temples and less-defined cultic foci) have been reported from sites outside the Jordan Valley.115 As mentioned above, the ritual matrix in the Central Jordan Valley is comprised of both urban and rural cults, and it conforms nicely to ALCOCK’s (1993) attempts to construct a “Sacred Landscape”. In her study, she demonstrates that there is a constant and very complex interplay between urban and rural ritual elements. These relationships can serve as excellent gauges of stability and change, political and economic influences and other factors. Precisely these directions of inquiry are what is relevant in the present study. Starting from quite a similar premise, MAGNESSGARDINER and FALCONER’s (1994) discuss the role of the temple at Tell el-Hayyat within the Central Jordan Valley regional rural/urban matrix. It appears, however, that two of the basic premises of their analysis are debatable. First, they over-emphasize the importance of the site. I see no reason why Tell el-Hayyat

115

These include: a small temple at Givat Sharett, near Beth Shemesh (BAHAT 1993); a temple and at least three structures in which cult-related paraphernalia were found at the Rephaim Valley sites (Nahal Rephaim and Manahat), near Jerusalem (EDELSTEIN, MILEVSKI & AURANT 1998: 15–16; EISENBERG 1993b: 91–92); and an apparent MB I temple from Kefar Shemaryahu (KAPLAN 1971: 305, fig. 11; VAN DEN BRINK 2000: 46–47). To these examples can be added the MB temple at Nahariya (BEN-DOR 1950; DOTHAN 1956) and the recently discovered MB temple at el-Khawarij in the Wadi er-Rayyan (Wadi Yabis; in the vicinity of the village of Halawa, ca. 7 km to the east of the Jordan Valley and ca. 8 SSE of Pella; DONNELLY, FRASER & LOVELL 2010; for the excavations at el-Khawarij in general, see LOVELL 2007; for the initial report on MB finds, see LOVELL et al. 2007); all these structures seem to be in a class of their own. Not built

should be interpreted as playing a central role within the Central Jordan Valley. The site is one of many small- to medium-sized sites in the region (MAEIR 1997a; 2000b). The only outstanding aspect is that it was excavated! Such small-scale ritual buildings in small-size settlements are a common phenomenon in the Southern Levant in ancient as well as in modern times. The existence of such a temple cannot be used as a barometer for site-centrality or for importance. As in the modern-day Middle East, where even the smallest of settlements most often has a mosque (BAER 1982: 9; GROSSMAN 1994: 41), temples in rural settings in the Bronze Age Levant should be seen in a similar light. In addition, MAGNESS-GARDINER & FALCONER (1994; see as well FAUST 2005) claim that the finds from the Tell el-Hayyat temple reflect the social, economic and ritual needs of a rather autonomous village community. Although buttressed by an impressive array of data, I believe that this supposition has not been proven. In fact, this interpretation seems to be an offshoot of Falconer’s over-emphasis of the rural component that was questioned above. Conversely, it can be argued that in fact, the existing evidence from this temple may indicate external control/influence at the site. Perhaps more importantly, the co-existence of the Tell el-Hayyat temple with the large temple at Pella, would hardly allow the miniscule temple at Tell elHayyat to have a central regional role. Even if in the early MB the temple at Pella would not have been of an outstanding size, at least from the later parts of the MB, the Pella temple is of extraordinary size, perhaps the largest known temple in the MB Southern Levant! There is therefore no reason to elevate the Tell el-Hayyat temple to a regional role.

in an urban setting, nor part of a rural site, they seem to have no direct connection to any of the MB settlements in their vicinities. It can be suggested that the MB temple found at el-Khawarij in fact belongs to a third class of ritual site, that of the rural temple, which was not located within a settlement site, perhaps serving, inter alia, as a “border temple”. A similar class of temples found in the ancient Cypriote landscape has been defined and discussed and it has been suggested that these may be an analogy of the biblical bamah (WRIGHT 1992; see also KNAPP 1993: 58–59). KNAPP (1999) has stressed the importance of the Cypriote rural temples within the general cultural, social and economic framework (for a discussion of these and other MB temples, including questioning the cultic identification of some of them, see KATZ 2000; 2009).

Excursus B: “Sacred Landscape” and the Urban/Rural Matrix

159

As often noted in the past (e.g., KNAPP 1988; TRIG1990; POLLOCK 1999: 173–195; RAPPAPORT 1999: 313–343), cultic/ideological frameworks are frequently utilized to legitimize the power structures of political authorities. I would suggest that a similar situation existed in the Central Jordan Valley, and as a result of this, the urban- and rural-based cults are in fact closely interrelated. The quite similar cultic material culture found at urban and rural sites is telling, as evidenced for example by the similar architecture and cultic paraphernalia both at sites in the Central Jordan Valley and at other MB sites. These overt similarities in cultic material remains at both small and large sites permits one, I believe, to assume that there were strong ritual/ideological relationships among the various classes of sites (e.g., RENFREW 1994: 53–54). It should be stated that in fact there are no written documents from the MB Southern Levant mentioning direct connections and dependence between the rural and urban sites vis-à-vis the cultic facets. Nevertheless, based on the many parallels both from roughly contemporary cultures in the region (e.g. during the Iron Age II, see MILLER [2000: 76–79]) for a discussion of the local and regional cults during this period), from disparate cultures (e.g. Hindu temples, see FULLER 1988: 63), as well as from cultures “closer to home” (e.g. modern Western religions), it is highly likely that the local largely rural cultic sites were intimately connected, and to a large extent subservient, to their very similar, albeit larger urban counterparts. Such a connection would then be a reflection of political domination, the inter-related cultic/ideological framework serving as a legitimizing force of such dominance.116 Needless to say, this is intimately connected with the multi-tiered socio-economic, political and settlement structure throughout the Southern Levant in general and the Jordan Valley in particular during the MB

(e.g., ILAN 1995b; MAEIR 1997a; 1997b; 2000b). The highly hierarchal, non-egalitarian structure of MB society is evidenced, for example, by the impressive “public works” (fortifications, temples, palaces), however their function is explained (e.g., DEVER 1987; BUNIMOVITZ 1992b; FINKELSTEIN 1992; UZIEL 2010). In addition, the substantial rise in the choice and availability of prestige items, as well as what appears to be differential access to these symbols of prestige is indicative of these trends (e.g. MAEIR 1997b). A case in point demonstrating the limited access to prestige items are the metal weapons of the period. Although there is archaeological and documentary evidence of the widespread use, and the international trade, in bronze weapons and tools (e.g., DOSSIN 1970; MAEIR 2000b), relatively few examples have actually been found in the MB strata and tombs in the Southern Levant. PHILIP (1991: 89) and ILAN (1995b: 313) have argued that this should be seen as evidence of elite regulation and control of these resources.117 In light of the above, it can be assumed with some degree of certainty that during the MB, ideological/cultic frameworks existed that served primarily to promote and legitimize elite dominance in MB society.118 Furthermore, it is to be expected that the cultic matrix/sacred landscape would mirror the socio-economic and political structure. The recently discovered MB temple at el-Khawarij to the south-southeast of Pella (mentioned above), which DONNELLY, FRASER and LOVELL (2010) have suggested interpreting as a “border temple” of the Pella polity (supposedly defining the south-eastern limits of the Pella polity), only strengthens the case for a direct relationship between the ruling polity’s dominance (in this case Pella), and the subservient status of the various cultic foci within its domain (in this case the temples at Tell el-Hayyat [serving as a village temple] and el-Khawarij [serving

116

118

GER

117

It should be stressed that the appearance of similar elements in the cultic (or, for that matter, any cultural) matrices of the urban and rural spheres (which in most cases can be classified as representing, respectively, the elite and subordinate segments of society) should not necessarily be seen as evidence of direct political and cultural domination. In fact, various similarities can be the result of attempts by the “popular” to emulate the “elite” culture. To a large extent, however, emulation is no more than an indirect facet of subordination (see, e.g., BAINES & YOFFEE 2000). The limited accessibility of weapons during the MB has rightfully been contrasted with the wide availability of metal weapons during the preceding EB IV period. The more egalitarian social structure of the latter period may have enabled a less-restricted access to these prestige items (ILAN 1995a).

The existence of such ideological frameworks in the MB has been suggested in the past (e.g., ILAN 1992: 263); this suggestion is further strengthened by the many parallels from numerous ancient and modern societies (e.g., KNAPP 1988; DILLEHAY 1990; TRIGGER 1990; KOLB 1994). ALPERTNAKHAI (2001: 112–115) has noted the clear differentiation between the rural and urban cult during the Middle Bronze II. Although, as opposed to this study, she in fact stresses the differences between the ideological realms of these rural and urban religious frameworks, it nevertheless does support our contention that the various components of the “sacred landscape” of this period mirror the urban/rural functional division of this time.

160


Fig. 63 MB III sites in the Jordan Valley

The MB III

as a “border temple”]).119 This structure would hardly support a supposition that the existence of a temple indicates the existence of an autonomous village at Tell el-Hayyat. Thus, Pella, as the large political and economic center in the Central Jordan Valley would have a larger centralized cult, while the smaller sites, which were dominated by this larger center, would have cultic foci closely associated with the cults practiced at the central site.120 The MB III (Fig. 63) Although in the past (MAEIR 1997a; 2007b) I have been hesitant to define a separate cultural phase for the final phase of the MB (the “MB IIC” of, e.g., SEGER 1974), and following KEMPINSKI (1983), I preferred using the term “late MB IIB”, in the present study I have opted to discuss the final phase of the MB as a separate phase (MB III). This is not due to the fact that I believe that it is a distinctly different stage from the MB II (which I still believe is not the case), but rather due to the fact that in the Jordan Valley there are several sites at which there are important developments during this period. In this section of the discussion I will try to point out a few important developments that can be seen at some of the sites in the Jordan Valley, along with some aspects in the material culture that appear during this period. At the same time though, I will point out the many continuities between the MB II and the MB III. In the Northern Jordan Valley it appears that the Hazor polity retains its size and relative importance throughout the MB III. As in the MB II, besides the “primate” city of Hazor, there are very few other sites in the region. Besides Tel Dan and apparently, Tel >Abel Beth-Ma>acha in the very northern reaches of the Huleh Valley, there is little evidence for the appearance of any sites which in any way would alter the relative role of Hazor (Fig. 64). And in fact, in the

119

120

For a brief discussion of the concept of a border temple, and its possible application to the MB temples in the Jordan Valley, see MAEIR 2003: 64. It should be noted that while the existence of temples demarcating borders between polities has been argued, e.g., by DE POLIGNAC 1995: 32–41 (for ancient Greece) and EDLUND-BERRY 2006 (for ancient Etruria), MALKIN (1996) has questioned the validity of this definition (at least as concerning Greece). Nevertheless, one must take into account the possibility that such sites may have served as foci of “popular cults”, which, to a certain extent, might have deviated from the norms of the “official” cults practiced in the larger urban sites. Examples of popular “dissent” over dominant ideolo-

161

excavations at Hazor (e.g., YADIN 1972; YADIN & BENTOR 1993; A. BEN-TOR 2008a), the finds dating to the MB III (Stratum 3) are as impressive, if not more, in comparison to those dating to the MB II, including remarkable public architecture and fortifications, a rich repertoire of cultic foci, and the continuing evidence of a thriving urban culture. Of importance is the fact that, for all intents and purposes, the Stratum 3 remains are a direct continuation of the Stratum 4 remains. This is seen, inter alia, in the cultic and domestic architecture. Perhaps the only site at which there is any indication of some change in the role of Hazor and its relationship to its surroundings during the MB III is Tel Kinrot (Fig. 65). As noted above (Chapter 3), after a gap in settlement since the end of the EB III, Tel Kinrot is settled once again, and fortified, in the late MB. This fortification includes a wall and a glacis, but little additional data has been published about this phase (FRITZ 1999; 2003: 36–38). It is not clear whether the late MB activity at Tel Kinrot is to be seen as the appearance of a new polity just to the south of the kingdom of Hazor, perhaps even “biting off” part of Hazor’s territory; or perchance, this site might be a fortified site connected to Hazor, serving as a barrier and/or lookout towards the southern approaches of its territories.121 In the Central Jordan Valley as well, there is evidence of continuity on the one hand, but new developments as well. As discussed in Chapter 3, during the MB III, the site of Tel Kitan (or at least, the temple) is abandoned, and only rebuilt during the early LB. As will be discussed below, a similar phenomenon is also seen at Tell el-Hayyat. At Beth Shean, there appears to be direct continuity between the MB II and MB III levels. This is seen in both the architecture and the pottery traditions (e.g., MULLINS & MAZAR 2007; MAEIR 2007b: 296–297). The

121

gies, often manifested in quite subtle means, are well known from various cultures (e.g. SCOTT 1990). The definitions and differences of possibly similar “popular” and “official” cults in the Iron Age II have been the focus of numerous studies (e.g., DEVER 1995c: 40–48; MCNUTT 1999: 176–177; MILLER 2000: 62–105; DAVIAU 2001). It can be assumed that these discussions are relevant to the MB and LB as well, particularly in light of the evidence for continuity in the “popular” religious traditions between the Bronze and Iron Ages (see, e.g., VAN DER TOORN 1996) Perhaps, the fortified remains of Tel Kinrot, Stratum II (8th century B.C.E.) served a similar function during the Iron Age IIB as well.

162


Hazor Polity

MB III Polities Border

Pella Polity

Jericho Polity

Fig. 64 Map of tentative reconstruction of the MB III polities in the Jordan Valley – Alternative 1

The MB III

Hazor Polity

MB III Polities Border

Kinrot Polity

Pella Polity

Deir Alla Polity

Jericho Polity

Fig. 65 Map of tentative reconstruction of the MB III polities in the Jordan Valley – Alternative 2

163

164


only hint to possible developments at the site during the late MB are the rich burials that were discovered to north of the tell (on Tel Istaba), which contain numerous finds dating to the late MB and early LB (OREN 1973a). Similar tombs with rich finds, spanning the late MB and early LB are known from throughout the Central Jordan Valley, such as at Pella (e.g., MCNICOLL et al. 1992: 69–75) and various tombs from the vicinity of Tel Rehov (e.g., GAL & ZORI 2005). At Pella there is important evidence for this period. Not only are there numerous rich burials from this phase (e.g., MCNICOLL et al. 1992; KNAPP 1993; ERIKSSON 2001), indicating, not only the prosperity at the site during this period, but also various aspects of foreign connections (e.g., ERIKSSON 2001; BOURKE & ERIKSSON 2005) seen at the site. Of particular significance is the appearance of the large scale monumental temple at Pella during this period. Apparently the largest temple of its kind known from the MB Levant, this impressive stone structure stands out as one of the most impressive structures built in the entire Levant during this period (e.g. BOURKE 2004). While continuing to function until the Iron Age, the very fact that it was first constructed during the MB III is another indication of both the prosperity and important role of Pella during this period. BOURKE (2006: 246) notes that in the immediate vicinity of Pella there is evidence of much activity during the MB III as can be seen in other nearby regions.122 Just to the south of Pella, at Tell el-Hayyat, the MB III is only poorly represented in the scant remains of Stratum 1 (FALCONER & FALL 2006: 42–43). Although, clearly, there is activity at the site during this period, it appears that the temple at the site, which had been founded in the very early MB I was no longer functioning, and the very character of the site appears to have changed. One wonders whether there is a connection between the appearance of the monumental temple at Pella at this very time with the disappearance of the small rural temples at Tell el-Hayyat and Tel Kitan. As suggested before (MAEIR 2003; see discussion above, contra FAUST 2005), I believe that the temple at Tell el-Hayyat should be viewed as indicating subservience to the Pella polity; similarly, the disappearance of the Tell el-Hayyat and Tel Kitan temples in the MB III, in the shadow the nearby monumental temple at Pella may reflect political dominance as well.

122

Further to the south, several new sites appear during the MB III, and at Tell Abu el-Kharaz and Tell Deir >Alla there is important evidence from this period. Following a long gap after the destruction of the EB settlement, Tell Abu el-Kharaz is settled once again in Stratum IV. The excavator divides this phase into two strata, IV1 and IV2, which he believes both date to the late MB (FISCHER 2006c: 81–84; 2006e: 33–57). As noted above (Chapter 3), I suggest that only the earlier stratum, Stratum IV1 dates to the MB III, while Stratum IV2 can be dated to the LB IA. In any case, after a long break, during the MB III, at Tell Abu el-Kharaz there is evidence of town planning, fortifications, domestic production and economic activity during the MB III. Likewise, at Tell Deir >Alla there is evidence of three phases that date to the very end of the MB (e.g., VAN DER KOOIJ & IBRAHIM 1989; VAN DER KOOIJ 2006a; 2006b). In the earliest phases (1–2), there is evidence of domestic architecture, but in the final MB phase (Phase 3), there is evidence of an impressive earthwork fortification at the base of the tell. In addition, telltale evidence (in the form of unique metal objects) indicates that cultic activities (perhaps a temple) existed on the site during the MB III. As argued above (Chapter 3), it appears that all three phases date to the MB III. The very fact that these two sites were settled anew during this period and they both indicate the renewed, intense utilization of the Succoth Valley (previously not intensively settled during the MB), is of importance. FISCHER (2006e: 68–70) raises several possible explanations for the appearance of these sites during the MB III, including: 1) the influx of populations from the more heavily populated areas in the Central Jordan Valley; 2) the influx of new populations from other parts of the Southern Levant; and finally, 3) the influx of population from nearby Pella and Tell el-Hayyat. Although it is difficult to conclusively decide which, if any, of these suggestions is correct, I would believe that the argument that population pressures caused the settlement of this region has much validity to it. As will be discussed below, there maybe evidence of population pressure and land overuse in the Central Jordan Valley during the late MB. If so, attempts to settle in regions that were previously relatively unutilized are quite logical. I would thus posit that it is likely that both Tell Abu el-Kharaz and Tell Deir

This is based on the “Pella Hinterland Survey” which has only been very partially published. See WATSON 1996; 2001.

The MB/LB Transition

>Alla were settled by people deriving from the regions in the Jordan Valley just to the north of the Succoth Valley (see as well BOURKE 2006: 246–247). The fact that, by and large, the material culture of these two sites is very similar to that of sites such as Pella and Beth Shean may strengthen this suggestion. The possibility that Tell Abu Kharaz was a “border settlement” of the Pella polity should be seriously taken into consideration (see BOURKE 2006: 247; also BRAMLETT 2009). Thus, one should take into account two possible reconstructions for the size of the Pella polity during the MB III: extensive as in the previous period (Fig. 64; compare to Fig. 63), or small bordering on a new polity (Tell Deir >Alla) to the south (Fig. 65). Moving further to the south, one sees an interesting development at Tell Nimrin as well (above, Chapter 3). During the MB III, the site is apparently fortified with an impressive stone fortification. Although very few details on this have been published, one can suggest that there may be a connection between the appearance of these fortifications and both the new sites that appeared to the north (Tell Abu el-Kharaz and Tell Deir >Alla), as well as the significant enlargement of the fortifications of Jericho during this very phase. Although it is hard to define, Tell Nimrin was either an independent polity and these fortifications are to be seen as evidence of inter-city rivalry (as suggested in Fig. 65), or perhaps, Tell Nimrin can be seen as a settlement under the rule of the city of Jericho, and the fortifications should be seen as reflecting the similar developments in contemporary Jericho (as suggested in Fig. 64). A similar dilemma as to the role of the newly discovered late MB site at Tell elHammam (COLLINS 2007; COLLINS et al. in press) can be also noted. The southernmost evidence in the Jordan Valley for the MB III is found at Jericho. As discussed above (Chapter 3; e.g., MARCHETTI 2003a: 312–315), during the MB III there is impressive evidence for urban development at Jericho. In addition to the very impressive stone fortifications built during this period (Phase IVc), there is evidence of a well-planned urban setting, including domestic and public architecture. Even if the size of site was apparently reduced during this period, the overall finds indicate a period of prosperity and political expansion. This is seen in the adjacent cemeteries as well, with many

123

For a variety of opinions on the MB/LB transition, see, e.g., WEINSTEIN 1981; 1991; BIENKOWSKI 1986; HOFFMEIER

165

tombs rich in finds from MB III (e.g., KENYON 1960; 1965; BIENKOWSKI 1986). This combined evidence, including large and impressive fortifications, and overall prosperity as seen in the material culture, indicates a pattern similar to that which is seen at other sites in the Central and Southern Jordan Valley during the MB III. The MB/LB Transition (Figs. 63, 66) One of the most debated and interesting aspects relating to the MB in the Levant in general and in the Jordan Valley in particular is the transformation between the culture of the MB and that of the LB. A wide variety of material correlates and related interpretations have been discussed in this regard, all of which have implications for understanding the processes that were in place during the period which overlaps the end of the MB and the beginning of the LB. Although many of the suggested explanations on the underlying mechanisms that can explain the MB/LB transition have opted for monolithic explanations (e.g. military conquest, demographic changes, etc.),123 the data from sites in the Jordan Valley appear to suggest a much more complicated, multi-causal process. To illustrate this, I will quickly review the relevant finds from the major sites which have late MB and early LB remains and attempt to define the events and processes that were in action in each and every site, and in the region in general. Although Tel Dan does not have much evidence pertaining to the MB/LB transition, a limited amount of finds relevant to this question have been reported. Following the ascendancy of Hazor in the early MB, Dan appears to have lost its central role in the Northern Jordan valley (see above). Nevertheless, the site continued to exist throughout the MB. According to the excavator (e.g., BIRAN 1994: 104), Stratum IX, which represents the final stage of the MB, was destroyed in a fire. He suggests that this was the result of a military campaign carried out by one of the Egyptian Pharaohs of the early 18th Dynasty. As can be seen both from the published pottery from this stratum (BIRAN 1994: 102, fig. 69), as well as the finds from the tombs that are stratigraphically related to this level (ILAN 1996a: 244–245), stylistically, technologically and typologically, this phase clearly belongs to the MB cultural tradition.

1989; 1990; 1991; DEVER 1990; 1998; BUNIMOVITZ 1992a; NA’AMAN 1994; MAEIR 1997a: 269–276.

166


Fig. 66 LB sites in the Jordan Valley


Immediately on top of this destruction level, and according to the excavator, dating to very soon after the end of the MB, evidence (though not extensive) of the earliest LB Stratum was discovered (Stratum VIII). Although the published evidence precludes a more accurate dating, the excavator suggests that it should be dated to the very earliest stages of the LB (BIRAN 1994: 105). Nevertheless, both in the earliest phases of the LB, as well as in later stages, there appears to be a clear decline in the extent and intensity of settlement at the site. Once again, based on the presently available evidence, the finds from Stratum VIII clearly display an LB tradition (e.g. BIRAN 1994: 107, fig. 72), quite different from the technological and stylistic modes of the previous levels. All told, several points can be summarized vis-à-vis the MB/LB transition at Dan: 1) the final MB level appears to have been destroyed. The exact dating (second half of 16th/early 15th centuries B.C.E.?), and in fact, the very cause of this destruction is not clear; 2) The earliest LB finds, even if representing a phase quite closely dated to the very beginning of this period, seem to indicate a significantly smaller, and less intensively settled site, subsequent to the end of the MB; 3) Pottery from the final MB level, Stratum IX (and related tombs) is typically MB pottery, while in Stratum VIII the pottery technology has clearly changed. As discussed above, Hazor is the most important, and largest, MB site in the entire Jordan Valley (and for that matter, in the entire Southern Levant). It is clear that the major role of Hazor continues during the LB as well, evidenced both in the extensive archaeological evidence and in the varied historical documents (e.g., YADIN 1972; BIENKOWSKI 1991). Clear evidence for a calamitous ending of MB Hazor has been reported in the excavations (YADIN 1972: 31–32; 124–125). Evidence of extensive burning is reported at the end of the last stage of the MB at this site, and it can be assumed that this was the result of a largescale destruction), perhaps caused by Ahmose (YADIN & BEN-TOR 1993: 606). Subsequent to the final MB level, but prior to the earliest evidence for extensive building activities throughout the site in the LB I, there may have been a hiatus between the destruction of Stratum XVI and the subsequent LB I, Stratum XV. This is seen by burials that appear to be placed in between the final MB and early LB phases (Stratum “Post-XVI”; YADIN 1969: 5). This picture does not appear in all areas of the tell, and for example, in Area A, BONFIL (1997) believes that one can see a clear continuity between the MB and early LB levels without evidence of destruction and/or abandonment (contra

167

YADIN 1969: 5). Despite these reservations regarding some of the excavation areas in Hazor, the thick destruction level in many areas does argue convincingly that the MB at Hazor did end in a destruction, even if the cause of this destruction, and its exact date in the MB/LB transitional period, can be debated. Whatever the case, it is clear that all of the evidence from Hazor indicates that there is much continuity between the MB and LB at Hazor (as seen in the architecture, cult, prosopography, etc.). Nevertheless, the very dramatic destruction of various elements at late MB Hazor, most probably by violent means, undoubtedly had a profound effect on the city and its political status. If in fact there is a hiatus between the final MB and early LB rebuilding, one can wonder whether this was manifested as well by a temporary cessation in the dominant role of Hazor (even if this was re-instated after a short time, since it is clear that during the LB, Hazor was once again a very dominant polity, even under Egyptian suzerainty [e.g. BIENKOWSKI 1991]). Perhaps, the evidence of late MB fortifications at nearby Tel Kinrot on the one hand, and of early LB activities at Tel Hadar on the other (including apparent fortifications and tombs; e.g., KOCHAVI 1993; 1994; E. Yadin & Kochavi 2008) are to be seen as related to the events leading up to, and immediately after, the fall of MB Hazor. As mentioned above (Chapter 3), Tel Kitan is not settled at the very last stages of the MB. Thus, although there is a settlement in the early LB I (seen for example through the rich repertoire of Chocolateon-White Ware vessels), this site does not provide evidence for the processes of the MB/LB transition – rather, of its results. Moving southwards, the finds from Beth Shean are of importance for understanding the MB/LB transition. Although in later periods Beth Shean was a site of somewhat central importance, as noted above, during the MB period, its role was apparently somewhat minimal. As noted above (Chapter 3), very little evidence of activity dating from the MB I through the mid-MB II–III has been found at the site. The substantial settlement activity only begins towards the end of the MB II–III, represented on the site by three strata, R5–R3 (MAZAR & MULLINS 2007b; MAEIR 1997a; 2007b). The transition between the MB and LB periods at Beth Shean is of importance, since it appears to epitomize this transition in the entire Beth Shean Valley (as seen, for example, at Pella as well [see below]). The last MB stratum, R3, has the most extensive remains of the three MB strata at Beth Shean (see above, Chapter 3). Among the finds from this level,

168


the following can be noted. There is a high percentage of terminal MB types, and in addition, several types that indicate the forms and technology of the subsequent LB repertoire. Nevertheless, there exists a stark difference between the MB and LB pottery. Overall, the technology of the Strata R3 and R2 pottery are very different (MAEIR 2007b: 292; MULLINS 2007a: 393). Furthermore, although in the southern portion of R3 there was evidence of a fire at the end of this stage, overall, this level did not end in a general destruction. As to the dating of the final MB level at Beth Shean, as mentioned above (Chapter 3), the pottery assemblages from all three of the MB strata (R5–R3) are comparable to other MB II–III assemblages. On the whole, it appears that the developmental sequence in these levels does not represent a significant amount of time. A rough estimate would be approximately 100 years. The 14C dating is far from sufficient. The few samples taken are from multi-year charcoal, and not of much utility. Nevertheless, they do seem to indicate that the three levels do in fact cover the latter part of the MB (MAEIR 2007b: 297; MAZAR & MULLINS 2007b). Although the radiometric dating does not help much, the finds from Stratum R3 may assist us in defining the date of this phase. Several points converge. 1) The pottery, although distinctly MB, does display some elements, especially technological, that are precursors of the LB pottery. Thus, there could not be a long time between the end of Stratum R3 and the beginning of the LB (MULLINS 2007a: 393). 2) The scarabs from this level are all of “Hyksos” types. There is no indication of New Kingdom types and influences. Thus, Stratum R3 could not have continued too long into the New Kingdom period (see MAEIR 2007b: 297–298; Brandl 2007: 590–592).124 3) Another find of particular interest was an imported Egyptian vessel (a so-called “carinated jar”). This vessel is a distinct upper Egyptian form and has an Egyptian fabric (Marl C). The same general form appears in Egypt in the terminal Second Intermediate Period, but exact parallels exist from the early New Kingdom (MAEIR 2007b: 279–282, 297). Thus, it is most likely that this vessel reached MB Beth Shean, after the beginning of the 18th Dynasty (MAEIR 2007b: 297; contra MAEIR 1997a: 172). Besides being a rare example of bona fide Egyptian imports from this

124

period, it is of importance for the dating of the end of the MB at Beth Shean. In other words, the finds from R3 seem to indicate that this stratum came to an end somewhere after the beginning of the New Kingdom, perhaps in the second half of the 16th century B.C.E. If so, this dating of the final stage of the MB at Beth Shean is later than the traditional date of the end of the MB at most sites. As stressed already for the earlier phases of the MB, Pella continues to play a crucial role for understanding the MB/LB transition. The excavations at Pella, like those at Beth Shean, have provided ample evidence for the final stages of the MB and the early stages of the LB. As at Beth Shean, this is not only limited to the remains that were discovered on the tell itself, but is abundantly seen in the adjacent cemeteries at Tell el-Husn. As mentioned above (Chapter 3), the site attains an urban character during the MB I, and there is continuous evidence of settlement in the MB II and LB, including five MB II–III phases (Stratum XI). The MB III is represented by three phases (IVC–A) with a very thick deposit and impressive architectural remains. According to the excavators, Pella suffered devastation as the result of earthquakes twice during the MB III, ending both Strata VIC and VIA (e.g., MCNICOLL et al. 1982: 46; BOURKE 2006: 244–245). Due, though, to the very limited exposure of the final MB III phase (VIA), as noted above, it is hard to determine whether the end of this final phase was in fact the result of an earthquake. It should be noted that in the very next phase at Pella (Stratum VB) a large public building was built, which had been identified as a “Governor’s palace” or the abode of the kings of Pella (BOURKE 2006: 245–249). This, along with the rich tombs with finds spanning the MB/LB transition, appears to indicate an overall continuity at Pella between these periods. The dating of the transition is not completely clear, as the available radiometric dates, coupled with the comparative typological analyses of the finds, indicates that the final MB phases span, more or less, the 16th century B.C.E. (BOURKE 2006: 245–252). At Tell el-Hayyat there is but limited evidence dating to the MB III, and the site was not resettled in the LB I. There is no evidence for a destruction of the final MB phase, and it can be assumed that the site was abandoned sometime during this phase. Tell Abu el-Kharaz was first settled in the MB (after a long gap) during the MB III (see above). FISCHER

See now BRANDL 2009 who reports an additional MB scarab and two MB sealings from later contexts at Beth Shean.


(2006c; 2006d; 2006e) has suggested two phases that date to the MB III, Strata IV/1 and IV/2, both of which end in a destruction.125 As argued above (Chapter 3), I would suggest that Stratum IV/1 dates to the MB III, while Stratum IV/2 dates to the LB I. Nevertheless, both of these levels ended in destructions. Thus, it would appear that at Tell Abu el-Kharaz there is evidence, at least on a local scale, for an apparent violent end of the MB. A somewhat similar picture is seen at Tell Deir >Alla. First settled in the late MB III, it suffered a complete destruction at the end of the MB, and when the site was rebuilt during the LB I, it was on a completely different orientation. It appears then that at Tell Deir >Alla there is also quite convincing evidence for a catastrophic break between the two periods. The site of Jericho provides quite striking evidence for the processes that were in play during the late MB. As mentioned above, the site was settled from the early MB II and through the MB III, and in the final MB level (Phase IVc), there is impressive evidence of fortifications, public and private architecture and rich finds from the affiliated cemeteries. Phase IVc ended in a massive destruction, which although GARSTANG (1934: 105, 122) suggested to relate it to an earthquake, both KENYON (1973a) and NIGRO (2006: 35) believe that it was related to a violent event. While KENYON attributed this to the Egyptians in the early New Kingdom, the Italian excavators are less confident in explaining the events behind this destruction (e.g., MARCHETTI 2003a: 316; NIGRO 2006: 35; see as well BIENKOWSKI 1986: 127–128). Radiometric dates from this destruction (BRUINS & VAN DER PLICHT 1995; 2003) indicate a midto late 16th century B.C.E. date for it. In contratst to all the other medium-to-large sites in the Jordan Valley, following the late MB destruction, the site was not resettled in the LB I, but only later, during the LB II (BIENKOWSKI 1986). Although there have been various attempts to lower the date of the MB III destruction at Jericho and place it within the LB (e.g., WOOD 1970; BIMSON 1981), there is no basis at all for such claims, as the material culture of the final MB phase at Jericho (Phase IVc) is comparable to late MB material from other sites in the region, both in the Jordan Valley and beyond, and there is no evidence of

125

One can wonder what is the correlation between the two late MB destruction levels noted at Pella (Strata VIC and VIA) and the two destructions at Tell Abu el-Kharaz (Strata IV1 and IV2). If they are connected this may have

169

early LB I fossille directeurs (such as the typical local pottery with its unique morphological and technical facets [see, e.g., MULLINS 2007a], lack of early LB Cypriote imports and/or New Kingdom Egyptian materials). To this one can add the very clear radiometric datings that place the end of the MB at Jericho in the mid-late 16th century B.C.E. (BRUINS & VAN DER PLICHT 1995; 2003; see Appendix B, below). Even if one takes into account D. BEN-TOR’s (2007a: 157) recent suggestion to identify an early 18th Dynasty scarab from the latest tombs, which might very well indicate that the MB at Jericho continued into the late 16th, or even perchance, even the early 15th centuries B.C.E., there is hardly any other evidence for some sort of substantial activity at Jericho during the LB I. This survey of evidence pertaining to the MB/LB transition in the Jordan Valley has shown several issues: 1) It would appear that not all of the late MB strata at sites in the Jordan Valley end simultaneously. While the MB strata at some sites appear to terminate during or towards the end of the MB, others may end later. 2) There is no evidence for destruction at the end of the MB at all sites in the Jordan Valley. While the finds at most sites do seem to indicate evidence of destructions at the end of the MB, several sites provide evidence of different processes. Thus, Beth Shean continues into the LB without an apparent destruction, and Tell el-Hayyat is abandoned at the end this period. 3) At the sites where there is evidence of destruction, various agencies may be behind this, whether warrelated or seismic (such as suggested for Pella). 4) Most of the larger sites in the Jordan Valley display a strong degree of continuity between the MB and the LB, even after the late MB destructions. Only one of these larger sites, Jericho, is not reoccupied in the LB I, and one other, Tell Deir >Alla, displays a different orientation of planning between the two periods. 5) Quite a few of the small sites in the Jordan Valley do not show continuity between the MB and LB, such as at Tel Kitan, Tell el-Hayyat, and Tell Nimrin (e.g. FLANIGAN, MCCREERY & YASSINE 1992).

chronological implications, and perhaps then they are all caused by the same events (earthquakes? conquests?); or perchance, they are unconnected. Further study of this issue is needed.

170


6) In the material culture there is evidence of continuity between the MB and LB. In addition to the general morphological continuity between the periods (e.g., MAEIR 2007b; MULLINS 2007a), the Chocolate-on-White ware clearly appears in both periods (e.g., FISCHER 1999; MAEIR 2007b). 7) Nevertheless, clear-cut differences between the material culture of the MB II and LB can be seen. For example, an overall, distinct technological change is seen between the MB II and LB ceramics (MAEIR 2007b; MULLINS 2007a) and new types of Cypriote imports are seen in the region during the LB I (JOHNSON 1982). As far as the dating of the terminal MB in the Jordan Valley, the following can be said: 1) The radiometric dates from several sites (Beth Shean, Pella, Tell Abu el-Kharaz, Jericho) indicate a mid-to-late 16th century B.C.E. date for end of the relevant MB III strata (Appendix B, below). 2) At most of the sites there is no evidence of finds that post-date the end of the Egyptian Second Intermediate Period. 3) Nevertheless, some indication of continuity into the early New Kingdom is seen. As noted above, at Beth Shean there is evidence that appears to indicate that the final MB phase (Stratum R3) overlaps with the initial stages of the Egyptian New Kingdom. Likewise, at Jericho, an early New Kingdom scarab from the latest MB tombs series argues for an overlap of the final MB activities at Jericho with the very early 18th Dynasty (D. BENTOR 2007a: 157). 4) In any case, there is no evidence that the terminal MB levels at any of the sites in the Jordan Valley continue beyond the very beginning of the New Kingdom. From all the above we can see that the MB/LB transition was not a uniform process. It would seem that various sites in the Jordan Valley ended at different stages, and it is spread out over a rather extended period, perhaps straddling the late 17th century through the late 16th/early 15th centuries B.C.E. While some sites were destroyed in apparent violent destructions (e.g., Dan, Hazor, Tell Abu el-Kharaz, Tell Deir >Alla, and possibly Jericho), others may have been destroyed by earthquakes (e.g., Pella, and possibly Jericho).

126

Another aspect in which this variation is seen is in the continuation, or lack thereof, in the roles of the sites that did continue to exist after the MB. While some sites appear to have gone through a long and slow process of decline, starting already in the MB and continuing into the LB (such as at Tel Dan), other sites appear to have retained their roles and character in both periods (e.g., Hazor, Pella, and Tell Abu el-Kharaz). On the other hand, although Beth Shean continues between the MB and LB, during the early LB the site apparently goes through a change, becoming an Egyptian administrative center. An important point that is seen is that the rural MB sites appear to be severely effected in the MB/LB transition. Quite a few of the excavated rural MB sites ceased to exist in the late MB and/or early LB, such as Tell el-Hayyat, Tel Kitan, and Tel Nimrin.126 It would seem that if one compares the rural settlement of the MB to that of the LB, in the latter there is a more intensive settlement pattern than during the former period. Finally, as mentioned above, there are some very dominant aspects of the material culture that indicate important changes on the economic level. This is seen particularly in the pottery technology (but also in wares and forms), where a major difference between the MB and LB technological traditions are seen. Without a doubt these modifications mirror significant changes in the modes of production and distribution of pottery in the two periods, which clearly demarcate the differences between the periods. All of the above seems to indicate that during the century or so of the late MB and early LB, profound and diverse changes occurred in the Jordan Valley. It would be a mistake to attempt to explain this wide variety of changes and events through the lens of a monolithic underlying mechanism. Rather, it is suggested that several overlapping, and at times very different, processes were simultaneously in motion. I would like to suggest that the MB/LB transition can only be understood as a combination of three major factors: 1) Egyptian military activity; 2) Socio-demographic processes (immigration); 3) Demographic/economic decline. Although all of these processes have been suggested in previous research on the MB/LB transition, what I am stressing here is that one must look at this transition as a multifaceted process, one which has

To this one could also perhaps add: Hamadiya North and Kfar Ruppin (Maqban ponds) which may have been abandoned in the late MB as well.


distinct regional characteristics in the different parts of the Southern Levant As noted above, the definition and understanding of the processes relating to the transition between the MB and the LB in the Levant has been under scrutiny for many decades (see, e.g., WEINSTEIN 1981; 1991; BIENKOWSKI 1986; HOFFMEIER 1989; 1990; 1991; DEVER 1990; 1998; BUNIMOVITZ 1992a; 1994; NA’AMAN 1994; MAEIR 1997a: 269–276). On the one hand, the date of the transition has been discussed, ranging from the first half of the 16th century, to well into the 15th century. Likewise, its causes have been variously explained. Explanations vary between Egyptian conquests, internal unrest, societal collapse, or the arrival of new ethnic elements. Without delving into too much detail into these arguments, it is evident that there are many relevant and convincing arguments on all sides. For example, to totally deny an Egyptian military involvement in this process is hard to accept. On the other hand though, it seems unlikely that military conquest can be seen as a monolithic explanation which can fully elucidate the intricate processes that occurred. It is my belief that one must look for a more complex explanation of a very compound situation. It should be seen as an intricate matrix of internal and external processes that jointly formed the background and rationale for the transition between the two periods. I believe that not only was it a composite process, but that regional variation existed as well (as suggested by BUNIMOVITZ 1992a; 1994). A matrix of factors formed the background for the changes that occurred in the MB/LB transition. Based on the evidence reviewed above, I believe that one can define different processes in the different parts of the Jordan Valley. In the Northern Jordan Valley, the MB seems to end in a series of destructions, along with the founding of a few new sites, both before and after the end of the MB. Nevertheless, in the early LB, Hazor returns to its role as the major polity in the region, a role that it retains despite the Egyptian control of the region throughout the LB. In the Central Jordan Valley there appears to be a lot of continuity as well. While some sites decline and

127

KAPTIJN (2009: 326) notes that PETIT, in an as of yet unpublished survey (but see initial reports on this survey in KAPTIJN et al. 2005; PETIT et al. 2006; HOURANI et al. 2008), has located a small percentage of MB sherds at a few sites in the “Zerqa triangle” region (= Succoth Valley). This includes the sites of Tell al-Qøs, al-Kharåbeh N, and Tell Dåmiyah

171

disappear (such as Tell el-Hayyat, Tel Kitan), the major sites continue to exist. While Pella is destroyed in the late MB, in the very early LB it is fully refurbished, and all signs indicate that it continues in the role of the primary (if perhaps, only) polity in the Central Jordan Valley. It can be assumed that the new sites in the Succoth Valley (Tell Abu el-Kharaz and Tell Deir >Alla) are related to Pella.127 On the other hand, Beth Shean appears to have gone through a major transformation. Although there is little evidence of a break between the MB and LB at the site, major changes are seen in the pottery repertoire, and it would seem that early in the LB the site came under a strong Egyptian influence, perhaps already becoming an Egyptian administrative center. Moving to the south, the picture is very different. Jericho and perhaps Tell Nimrin as well, are destroyed at the end of the MB III, and are not resettled in the early LB. In fact, in the early LB there are no major (or for that matter, minor) sites in the Southern Jordan Valley. If in fact the destruction at Jericho is the result of conquest (and not an earthquake), this indicates a very different pattern for this region as opposed to the Central and Northern Jordan Valley. It may very well be that in the Southern Jordan Valley, a stronger Egyptian presence was felt at the end of the MB, which was manifested in military destructions. Perhaps, due to the fact that the Southern Jordan Valley was closer to regions under direct Egyptian control, or due to changes in economic factors (and related trade), the region of Jericho was not resettled until later in the LB. How then can we explain the different trends seen in the various parts of the Jordan Valley? In other words, can circumstances, other than those suggested in the past, be integrated into the matrix of causes suggested for this transition? I would like to suggest that viewed from a longterm regional perspective, an additional factor should be taken into account, one that can add to the breadth of the explanation of this transition. I would like to raise the possibility that perhaps, during the MB/LB transition, a process of regional carrying capacity failure occurred. In other words, what may

(with very MB few sherds), Tell al-Hammeh and Meidan (a slightly larger amount of MB sherds, mostly from the later MB). Kaptijn notes (based on Petit) that the small amount of sherds most probably indicates limited settlement activities, and in fact, the only significant settlement was located at Tell Deir >Alla.

172


have occurred is a situation of regional resource depletion. It would appear that this factor should be taken into account in the general discussions on the character of the MB/LB transition in the Southern Levant, and specifically, at least for certain regions in the Jordan Valley. Though periodic fluctuations are well-documented in the Jordan Valley, it is only rarely that there is a drastic change in the overall settlement pattern. Utilizing ecological terminology, in most periods the settlement systems in the Jordan Valley were highly resilient (e.g. HOLING 1973). Despite fluctuations, they continued to function in quite a satisfactory manner. Only at crucial points when the changes were overwhelming did the systems collapse. I believe such a scenario may have existed in the MB/LB transition. The study of the carrying capacity of human populations has been utilized previously in archaeology (e.g., HASSAN 1978; 1981: 161–175; CHAMBERLAIN 2006: 19–22), and its relevance for the explanation of societal change has been observed (e.g. TAINTER 1990: 44–51). In spite of theoretical and methodological problems in the use of this method (e.g., HASSAN 1981: 164–166; PORTUGALI 1988: 15–17; TAINTER 1990: 50–51; CHAMBERLAIN 2006: 66–67), it can serve as a gauge for the intensity of a culture’s activities and its relationship with the environment (see, e.g., ROSEN & FINKELSTEIN 1992; FINKELSTEIN 1995b). The basic method for measuring this is through the estimation of the population of a region, in relation to its available subsistence sources.128 To demonstrate this issue, I will concentrate for the moment on the settlement pattern in the Central Jordan Valley (see MAEIR 1997a). The latter part of the MB is one of the apogees of settlement in the entire history of the Central Jordan Valley. The amount of sites during this period (more than 150) and settled area is unparalleled in most other periods. Perhaps, due to an excessive rise in the regional population during the terminal MB, the maximum carrying capacity was reached (or almost reached) in the Central Jordan Valley, beyond which there was a shortage of subsistence resources. Although FINKELSTEIN (1995a: 355) has suggested that such a condition never occurred in ancient Palestine, I believe that such a situation should be considered.

This can be demonstrated by attempting to calculate the amount of population that existed in the Central Jordan Valley during this period. Taking into account the total number of sites in the Central Jordan Valley during the MB II–III and their presumed sizes, a total of at least 105 settled hectares is reached (see MAEIR 1997a: 272–277 for details).129 On the basis of the commonly used coefficient of approximately 200 people per-hectare (see BROSHI 1993) one reaches an estimate of 21,000 people in the region (although note difficulties with such estimates, e.g., LONDON 1992; POSTGATE 1994b; ZORN 1994; SCHREIBER & KINTIGH 1996; CHAMBERLAIN 2006: 127–128; GEVA 2007). This estimate does not take into account the non-sedentary population that existed in the region. From archaeological/historical and ethnographic studies on the relationship between sedentary and non-sedentary components of society (in the MB and other periods) it is clear that one cannot refer to a fixed ratio between these populations (e.g., ROWTON 1973b; GRIGG 1974: 112; MATTHEWS 1978; LABIANCA 1990; ANBAR 1991; CRIBB 1991; FINKELSTEIN 1995b; CHAMBERLAIN 2006: 58–80). The variability of the situations, not to mention the fluidity at any given time, thwarts such an attempt. This can be determined only on the basis of concrete data, which is missing in this case. Thus, besides assuming that one has to add to the population figure mentioned above, little can be said. On the other hand, there is a possibility that not all the sites in the Central Jordan Valley dated to the MB II–III were in fact settled simultaneously. HORNE (1993) for example has demonstrated that in a quite similar ecological environment in Iran, 12–28% of the sites in a given region are abandoned at all times. Thus, if one subtracts twenty percent from the above figure, we reach a population of at least 16,800. This figure though should be qualified. This twenty percent is not only sites of the same period but of all periods! Thus, since there are sites in the Central Jordan Valley that are settled in other periods but not in the MB, we can quite clearly lower the percentage of abandoned sites. Of the ca. 150 sites settled during the late MB (see MAEIR 1997a), there are 63 sites that were not active during that period but were functioning in other portions of the third and second millennium B.C.E. Thus, although one must undoubtedly

128

129

See now a very impressive and detailed study of the carrying capacity of the “Zerqa triangle” region (Succoth Valley) in the Lower Jordan Valley with an emphasis on the Iron Age, Mamluk, and Modern periods, in KAPTIJN 2009: 339–377.

In MAEIR 1997a: 273, a total of 117 settled hectares were calculated for the Central Jordan Valley. Since the site of Rehov can be removed from this figure due to lack of MB finds (Rehov’s size is ca. 12 hectare), the figure goes down to ca. 105 hectare.


take into account that a certain amount of the MB II–III sites were not settled simultaneously, it would be mistaken to subtract the ca. 20% from the MB II–III sites alone. The abandoned sites of the other periods must be taken into account as well. As a working hypothesis, I would suggest that one should subtract 10% from the number of sites dating to the MB II–III. Thus, the population figure can be calculated (on the basis of the figures above) as being at ca. 18,900. Finally, one must take into account a certain amount of undiscovered sites. BROSHI and GOPHNA (1986: 88, n.1) maintain that approximately twenty percent of the actual sites have not yet been discovered. I noted above, that due to the intensity of the research in this region this figure should be substantially lowered. One must still take into account a certain amount of undiscovered sites, though probably only small sites. I would suggest that an additional five percent of undiscovered settled area existed in the region. All told a figure in the vicinity of ca. 20,000 is reached, which represents the approximate population of the region towards the end of the MB. Turning now to the size of the region, there are approximately 450 sq. km (45,000 hectare) in the region (see MAEIR 1997a: 272–277). Of this, some 25,000 hectares are potential irrigation agriculture zones, 15,000 are dry-farming zones, while some 5,000 are marginal regions appropriate for transhumance alone. Due to the high agricultural potential of the region, presumably the primary subsistence strategy was dry and irrigated farming. ADAMS (1981) has demonstrated that 1.5 hectares of irrigated agricultural land are needed to support one person per annum.130 WEISS (1986 and there additional bibliography) on the other hand has shown that in regions in which dry-farming was practiced, three hectares of land were needed to supply one person per annum. On this basis, the agricultural carrying capacity of the Central Jordan Valley would allow a population of ca. 21,600. This is calculated on the basis of (25,000 * 15 = 1,666) + (15,000 * 30 = 500). Thus, the population of the Central Jordan Valley at the end of the MB had reached proportions that were nearing, or at the very limit, of the region’s maximum carrying capacity. Although undoubtedly a lack of subsistence resources in the Central Jordan Valley could be alle-

130

173

viated by the import of produce from other regions and/or shifting some of the production to alternative forms of subsistence, it still would leave the area in a non-stable economic and social position, due to dependency on external factors. HASSAN (1981: 167) has stressed that in fact, a population will rarely reach an actual point of critical carrying capacity (where resources are insufficient for the population). Even if this is the case regarding the Central Jordan Valley in the late MB, the population had evidently reached a point which was very near the critical point. In such a situation, all that would be needed to upset such a delicate balance was a new factor, e.g. Egyptian military activity, societal unrest, etc. As emphasized by ADAMS (1974a: 1) and others (e.g. GIBSON 1974), a strict adherence to a fallow system is imperative for the upkeep of an irrigation agricultural infrastructure. Failure to upkeep it can bring about swift agricultural collapse. And as GIBSON (1974) has noted, when a governmental structure faces economic stress and must press for additional income, very often one sees the cessation of fallow systems. Thus, by attempting to face the demands of a new situation, a society may be bringing about its own termination. KNAPP (1993) has explained this situation from a different perspective. He stressed that at Pella, the developed MB culture continued to exist uninterrupted in the LB I, while a true decline can be seen only during the LB II at Pella. He suggests that the population growth and intensity were the reasons for the outstanding development of the MB culture, while the impact of Egyptian imperial policy reversed this trend, as manifested in the LB II. I believe though that KNAPP’s scenario does not adequately explain the MB/LB transition. Whereas the decline in the material culture is exhaustively perceived in the LB II, explicit changes are already distinguished in the earliest stages of the LB. These changes are seen in the settlement pattern but are particularly distinct in the pottery assemblages. As mentioned above, at Beth Shean, as at other sites, a distinct and in fact rapid change is seen in the pottery (contra KNAPP 1993: 81). Although KNAPP (1993: 84) restates ARNOLD’s (1979) suggestion that major socio-political or cultural changes are only manifested in pottery output after a minimum period of two generations, the changes in pottery technolo-

See, e.g., WHITEHEAD et al. 2008, for the use of the modeling of hydrological capacities as a method to assess population levels.

174


gy in the Beth Shean Valley during the MB/LB transition appear to contradict this. The changes in pottery production occurred at an early stage of the LB. It has been argued that a shift from wheel-thrown mass-produced pottery (during the MB) to hand-made coarse wares (in the LB) reflects a rather drastic change in both production and marketing (KNAPP 1988: 96–102; FRANKEN 1992: 149–152). Due to shrunken markets and demands, potters reverted to simpler methods of fabrication, i.e. far less use of the fast-wheel and inferior selection of clay and pottery firing. In addition, the framework of pottery production may have very likely changed (PEACOCK 1982: 6–11). While a substantial part of the MB pottery was produced at efficiently organized workshops, the technology of the LB pottery hints at the existence of simpler production facilities both at the workshop and the household level.131 The appearance of these changes at such an early stage of the LB indicates that significant social and economic changes were already in full-swing. Even in regions of the Southern Levant not directly affected by external factors (such as the Central Jordan Valley) this phenomenon is recognized. Thus, the explanation suggested for the MB/LB transition in the Central Jordan Valley needs to take such factors into account. I believe KNAPP’s scenario fails to do just this. I believe that the explanation suggested here can more adequately elucidate this transition. Due to new factors appearing at the time (such as the Egyptian domination), the ever-growing demands of the late MB political structures in the region could not be met by the existing subsistence levels. Due to these heightened needs, a disruption of the former subsistence pattern occurred. In such a situation, if one pressed for a rise in production from a given and limited amount of land (such as by limiting fallowing periods), without an appropriate technological advance, it could have disastrous results, and would quickly lead to a systems collapse. BUNIMOVITZ (1989) has argued for a systemic approach to the collapse of the MB culture, though stressing other aspects. Though it may very well be that the problem of carrying capacity was non-existent in other regions at this critical juncture, he did argue for regional differentiation in the factors

behind this collapse. By adding this factor, in the specific context of the Central Jordan Valley, to the complex matrix of factors that Bunimovitz lists for the entire Southern Levant, one can but enhance his suggestion.132 Such a systemic approach to the MB/LB transition seems to be the only proposal that deals with the broad range of issues at hand. Various suggestions that focus on a limited set of considerations are much less fecund. Whether one concentrates on a single major factor (e.g., WEINSTEIN 1981; NA’AMAN 1994) or prefers to single out several factors (e.g. FALCONER 1994a: 326–329 who has suggested a framework that I believe is too hazy and simplistic), these proposals do not appear adequate. Implementing systemic explanations to elucidate long-term, complex processes appears to be very fruitful (for a systemic explanation of the collapse of the EB culture, see, e.g., ESSE 1989b). The evidence for the somewhat decaying subsistence conditions that existed during the LB may perhaps be explained as being due to a lack of upkeep of a proper agricultural framework. If one adds to this the tight Egyptian governmental control over the agricultural utilization of the Jezreel and Beth Shean valleys (NA’AMAN 1988b), it led to the slow dilapidation of the economic resilience of the region. This collapse is not to be understood as a total downfall of the former socio-economic structure. Apparently, society in the Central Jordan Valley quickly diminished in size, withdrawing to fewer sites and into a more restricted economic structure. The overall political structures continue to exist but they were substantially smaller. In such a setting, the larger sites (such as Pella, Beth Shean) continue to exist while smaller ones loose their economic foothold and disappear (e.g. Tell el-Hayyat). At those larger sites, an immediate change can be observed in the material culture, and in particular the pottery, since the pottery production facilities have either stopped functioning (such as at Tell el-Hayyat), or they would have to quickly adjust to new market situations. A further corroboration that this collapse was substantial but did not dismantle the former economic structures can be seen through the Egyptian

131

132

It is interesting to note that at Qatna one does not see a break between the MB and LB ceramic technologies (IAMONI 2010).

BUNIMOVITZ’s (1994) suggestion that a problem of population depletion existed in LB Canaan, and that that this had an adverse effect on the socioeconomic structure fits in very well with the scenario that we are suggesting here.

Summary

levies on the region. To meet the demands of the Egyptian imperial control the agricultural output from the region continued, though apparently at a lower level of production (as evidenced by the LB grain storage facilities at Beth Shean, see JAMES & MCGOVERN 1993: 238). An additional factor that may lead to societal decline is a lapse in the upkeep of irrigation agriculture, which can lead to the appearance of swamps, malaria, etc. This phenomenon was witnessed in the Central Jordan Valley subsequent to the Arab conquest, and similar events have been documented in other parts of the world as well (e.g. BRAUDEL 1972: 64). Such a situation, due to the collapse of the binding political structures, might have contributed to the LB decline as well. In summary, the evidence from Beth Shean and the Beth Shean Valley may offer an additional regional factor to be taken into account in the explanation of the MB/LB transition. SUMMARY I will now try to briefly summarize the settlement pattern and processes in the Jordan Valley during the MB. Up until quite recently it was common knowledge that the “reawakening” of the MB culture in the Southern Levant commenced along the Coastal Plain (with international maritime trade serving as its motivating engine), and only subsequently, throughout the later phases of the MB I, and into the MB II, did this culture slowly spread inland to other parts of Canaan (for a recent elaborate statement along these lines, see, e.g., COHEN 2002). This understanding of the underlying mechanisms behind the beginning of the MB appears in need of revision in light of the evidence for early MB culture in the Jordan Valley. As we have seen, there are several sites throughout the Jordan Valley, from Dan and Hagosherim in the north, to Gesher, Pella and Tell el-Hayyat further to the south, were evidence exists for early MB cultural facets in the very earliest stages of the MB I. Radiometric dates from Pella and Tell el-Hayyat indicate that these early MB levels may date to the 20th century B.C.E., as early as any of the incipient MB levels in the entire Southern Levant. While one could argue that these early MB cultural manifestations are evidence of non-sedentary groups living in the Jordan Valley who were influenced by sedentary (or even urban) MB cultural entities along the coast, this does not seem to be the case. The hints to urban-related characteristics at Pella (the earliest phases of the Pella temple and possible fortifications) and the temple at Tell el-Hayyat (which although in a rural setting

175

shows close connections with urban-oriented cultic traditions – MAEIR 2003) indicate that the processes of re-urbanization were already in place in the Jordan Valley at these early stages of the MB. To this one can add that the evidence for Syrian influence in the MB I pottery of the early MB, particularly in the Northern Jordan Valley, indicates that while the Levantine littoral trade patterns may have played an important role in the process of re-urbanization of Canaan in the early MB (e.g., MARCUS 1998; COHEN 2002), other factors were at work as well – most probably influences from urban entities and cultures in inner central and northern Syria. At a slightly later stage in the MB I (“mid-MB I”), the process of re-urbanization in the Jordan Valley developed even further. Although, without a doubt, there is no evidence for as an intensive and extensive settlement process as seen, for example, in the Coastal Plain (e.g., GOPHNA & AYALON 1980; GOPHNA & BECK 1981; COHEN 2002; MARCUS 2002), nevertheless, in throughout the Jordan Valley there is adequate/clear evidence of activity at quite a few sites during this stage. For example, Tel Dan and Tel Na’aman in the north, Tel Kitan, Pella and Tell elHayyat in the Central Jordan Valley, and even Tell Nimrin in the south. It is at this stage that there is the earliest evidence for fortified settlements in the region. First and foremost one should note Pella, where there is now clear evidence of fortifications at this stage. To this, one can add the possibility that Tel Dan was fortified before the MB I/II transition, as well as Tel Na>ama. During this time frame there is evidence for at least three cultic foci in the Central Jordan Valley, at Tel Kitan, Pella and Tell el-Hayyat. Although at present there is no evidence for this in other parts of the Jordan Valley (undoubtedly due, to a certain extent, to a lack of excavations), clearly, this mirrors the existence of a sophisticated, and multi-tiered settlement pattern, combining urban, rural, and without a doubt, nomadic populations. Although the latter part of the population (the nomadic) of the Jordan Valley is not as well-known, archaeological evidence hinting to their existence can be noted, both for the MB I and other parts of the MB. This is seen in particular in the evidence of cemeteries in the region that do not appear to be affiliated with settled sites, such as the megalithic burials (some dated to the MB) on, and near, the Korazim plateau (e.g. STEPANSKY 2000; 2003; 2005a; 2008a), the Gesher cemetery (GARFINKEL & COHEN 2007), and perhaps, the tombs near Rehov (YOGEV 1985; GAL & ZORI 2005). Hints to the existence of semi-sedentary populations can perhaps be

176


pointed out from just beyond the limits of our study region, at the recently published site of Zahrat adhDhra> I, located on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, in the vicinity of Bab ahd-Dhra>, where possible evidence of semi-sedentary occupation has been reported (BERELOV 2006a; 2006b, though dated to the MB II–III). Needless to say, the rich historical (e.g., ROWTON 1973a; 1974b; 1974; 1976; KUPPER 1975; SHARON 1975; MATTHEWS 1978; PITARD 1996; LIVERANI 1997; NICOLLE 2004), archaeological (e.g., CRIBB 1991; BARYOSEF & KHAZANOV 1992; VAN DER STEEN 1995; 2004; AHITUV & OREN 1998; BARNARD & WENTRICH 2007) and ethnographic (e.g., KHAZANOV 1984; LABIANCA 1990; BARFIELD 1993) evidence for the important role that the nomadic and semi-nomadic components of society played during the MB, and in fact all periods, leaves no doubt that one must keep these parts of society in mind, even if they are archaeologically much less-visible. To this one can add that there is excellent archaeological and ethnographic evidence that the Jordan Valley served as a corridor, and location of certain seasonal activities, for nomadic and semi-nomadic groups who moved between the Transjordanian and Cisjordanian highlands.133 It is very likely that some of the facets of cultural development, or conservatism, which are seen during the MB, can be attributed to these parts of society. For example, the mixture of EB IV and MB burial practices at the early MB I Gesher cemetery (MAEIR 2002a; 2007a; GARFINKEL & COHEN 2007; COHEN 2009a) may serve as an example of this. Towards the later parts of the MB I, and the transition between the MB I and MB II, the trend towards re-urbanization is accentuated. At this time, more and more sites exhibit traits indicating urban characteristics, and in general, evidence for a more diversified and complex society is seen. The full scale fortifications at Tel Dan, followed not long afterwards by the first fortifications at Hazor (the latter either in the MB I/II transition or during the very early MB II), which as we have suggested above may be intimately connected (the latter at the expense of the former), is but an example of this trend. The continuing growth of Pella, and nearby Tell el-Hayyat, is part and parcel of this. The rise in the number of sites dating to the late MB I and/or MB I/II throughout the Jordan Valley is clear evidence of this. Possible

133

See, e.g., VAN DER STEEN [1995; 1996; 1999; 2004] who demonstrates the pivotal role that nomadic groups played in the Central and Lower Jordan Valley during the Late

first burials on Tel Beth Shean, the earliest MB at Jericho (the latter which may very well be tied in to developments in the Central Hills region of Canaan) all point to that it is during this period that the Jordan Valley appears to truly commence integration into the MB world system. While not from secure contexts, the Middle Kingdom Egyptian finds from Hazor may hint to this, not to mention the possibility that the earliest texts from Mari relating to Hazor may date to this stage. It would appear that the political structure in the Jordan Valley changes at this time, with the rather rapid rise of the Hazor polity in the north. Even if the exact date of its rise is debated (see above), it is clear that by the early MB II, Hazor is the dominant site in the Northern Jordan Valley. As suggested above, I believe this had an immediate effect on sites in the region, such as the possible cancellation of the eastern gate at Tel Dan. In addition, from this phase onwards throughout the rest of the MB, Hazor turns into a “primate city” with very few other settlements in its immediate vicinity. This settlement pattern in the entire Northern Jordan Valley (from Dan in the north until the Korazim plateau in the south) stays the same until the end of the MB. The appearance of earthwork fortifications at Tel Dan, and slightly later, at Hazor, is another indication of the strong northern influences seen in the Jordan Valley at this time. As argued by KEMPINSKI (1992a), and more recently by BURKE (2008: 160–161), the appearance of these fortifications can be seen as strong evidence of cultural connections with the north-Syrian/Mesopotamian cultural realm (the “Amorite cultural koiné” according to BURKE 2008: 160). Further to the south, it appears that Pella retains its position as the primary site in the Central Jordan Valley, as there are no comparably large, or highly developed, sites in the region. I suggest that from the late MB I, through the MB II, Pella unequivocally retains this role. It is only during the MB III that, perhaps, changes in its role, or at least, in the amount of large-sized sites in the region, are seen. In the Southern Jordan Valley, the picture is less clear. Only two sites of any significance are known from this period, Tel Nimrin, and the very early stages of the MB settlement at Jericho. It would appear that during the late MB I and MB I/II this region is either

Bronze and Iron Ages; for nomads and their activities in the Northern Jordan Valley, see, e.g., KARMON 1956: 60–61.

177 loosely connected to the Pella polity, or perhaps, an independent polity, of a non-urban character, existed in this region. In the following period, the MB II, the settlement in the Jordan Valley further expands. While there is no major change in the political divisions in the Northern and Central Jordan Valley and the Hazor and Pella polities retain their predominant role (although more sites are settled during this period [see below]), in the Southern Jordan Valley, Jericho appears to have become a full-fledge urban entity, with large scale fortifications, public architecture and unequivocal evidence of prosperity (as seen particularly in the very rich tombs). During the MB II there are more and more settlements of varying sizes in the Central Jordan Valley. Examples of this are Beth Shean and, apparently, Tell el-Hammah (for the mid-range sized settlements), and Hamadiya North (as an example of a small rural site). These settlements undoubtedly indicate a socioeconomic expansion occurring at this time, which will continue to develop into the MB III as well. As there are no sites in the Central Jordan Valley that appear to compete with Pella for dominance over the region, it can be assumed that the medium to small sites in the region were integrated into the Pella polity. Some sites, such as Tell el-Hammah, may even have served as fortified settlements guarding the borders of this polity’s territory. Hazor continues it dominant role, commenced either in the late MB I and MB I/II, and all would agree that it is to the MB II that one would date most (or, according to some, all) of the Mari/Hazor correspondence. Needless to say, most of the monumental public architecture of MB Hazor is founded at this time, including most of the fortifications, many of the temples and other public buildings. In addition, it is during this period that Hazor reaches it maximal size – a standing that continues well into the LB II. The size and impressive character of Hazor must be understood with its role in international trade and diplomacy as a background (MAEIR 2000b). As noted above, during the MB III there are several interesting developments in the region. While I still adhere to the opinion that, by and large, the MB III is a direct continuation of the MB II (e.g.,

134

COLLINS (2007; COLLINS et al. in press) has presented initial reports of impressive MB fortifications at Tell el-Hammam in the Southern Jordan Valley (opposite Jericho to the east of the Jordan, just above the Jordan Valley itself). Although

KEMPINSKI 1983; MAEIR 2007b), and that most aspects of the material culture demonstrate this clear and uninterrupted continuity, there are a few interesting occurrences during the MB III in the Jordan Valley that indicate that some interesting developments did occur during this part of the MB. First and foremost among the new occurrences is the appearance in the MB III, throughout the Jordan Valley, of several new sites. In the north this includes the fortified site at Tel Kinrot, situated on the periphery of the Hazor kingdom. In the Central Jordan Valley this period is witness to the appearance of two, relatively large, fortified sites, Tell Abu el-Kharaz and Tell Deir >Alla. Other developments seen in this period are the construction of major public architectural features at several existing sites. This includes the monumental temple at Pella, perhaps the largest temple in the entire Southern Levant during this period, and the massive fortifications seen at sites such as Jericho and Tell Nimrin.134 The material culture of this period serves as evidence for the flourishing socio-economic structure. Many tombs with extremely rich finds from the late MB III indicate the prosperity of this period. Evidence of imported items is seen during this period, including bona fide imports from Egypt (at, e.g., Beth Shean, Pella, and Jericho). Interestingly, there is very little evidence for imports from Cyprus in the Central and Southern Jordan Valley (FISCHER 2004; MAEIR 2007b), while Cypriote (and perhaps Minoan) objects reach Hazor in the north. The appearance in this region of several locallyproduced classes of “elite materials” is also an indication of the socio-cultural developments. Prime examples of this are the Chocolate-on-White ware (e.g., FISCHER 1999; 2003; DONNELLY 2001; 2006; MAEIR 2007b) and the locally-produced gypsum stone vessels (SPARKS 1991; 1996; 2001; 2007; BEVAN 2007: 108–110; CLAMER 2007: 627–632). Both of these classes of objects not only serve as relatively high value objects in the region itself, but appear at sites throughout the Southern Levant. A very interesting point is the appearance of bona fide Egyptian objects at MB III Beth Shean and Pella, which serve as evidence for contact between upper

details on the dating of these fortifications were not available, it may very likely be related to the fortifications seen at MB III T. Nimrin and Jericho.

178


and lower Egypt and this region during the late Second Intermediate period, and perhaps even into the early New Kingdom. Side by side with this, finds at Pella (such as scarabs and other finds; see, e.g., RICHARDS 1992; MAEIR 1997b; BOURKE & ERIKSSON 2005) indicate a connection between Pella and southwestern Canaan at this time, perhaps a connection between the polities of Sharuhen (apparently, the dominant polity in the Northwestern Negev at the time) and Pella. In fact, one can wonder whether refugees from that region reached the Central Jordan Valley in the late MB, and this might explain some of the settlement expansion at this period. While, by and large, there are not many changes at Hazor and the region under its influence during the MB III, the appearance of a new fortified site at Tel Kinrot during this period is interesting. I believe that this can be explained as either an attempt by the Hazor kingdom to fortify its southern approaches – and Tel Kinrot is perfectly located to serve in this role, as it overlooks the entire Sea of Galilee (and beyond) from a very topographically advantaged position, serving as an excellent entrance point for the southern approaches of the Hazor polity, or, overlooking the southern regions of this kingdom. Another possibility, though in my opinion less likely, is that this new city can be seen as a new urban entity competing with Hazor. Since there is no indication for a weakening of Hazor during the MB III, this is harder to accept. In any case, both scenarios would indicate the existence of threats and/or new factors that are in place in this region, perhaps the threat of military invasions. The impressive fortifications at Jericho and nearby Tell Nimrin seem to indicate that a well-defined polity existed at Jericho during the late MB, perhaps fortifying and defining itself opposed to the Pella kingdom to its north, and perhaps towards polities in the Canaanite Central Hill regions as well. The intense settlement, particularly in the Central Jordan Valley during the MB III is of note. Not only are there many settlements, but new regions, which in previous parts of the MB were barely utilized (the Succoth Valley; and a few sites in the southern most parts of the Valley, such as Tell el-Hammam)135 are now settled. As suggested above, there is a possibility

135

ZERTAL et al. (2009) recently reported finding a few MB sherds at the Iron Age IIB fortified site of Kh. >Aujah el-

that during the MB III, the burgeoning population in the Central Jordan Valley came close to reaching the maximum carrying capacity of this region. The end of the MB in the Jordan Valley, and the transition to the LB can be viewed as a multi-faceted, and rather drawn out process. On the one hand, there are several sites that appear to have been abandoned during various stages of the MB III (such as Tel Kitan, Tell el-Hayyat, and perhaps Tell Nimrin). Other sites in the region were quite violently destroyed, some apparently by conquest (Hazor? Tell Abu el-Kharaz? Jericho?), while others perhaps were destroyed by earthquakes (Pella? Jericho?). Still others, such as Beth Shean, do not seem to have suffered destruction at this time. While, as noted above, some of the sites are abandoned or destroyed during the MB III, the transition to the LB appears occurs at Beth Shean only after the beginning of the Egyptian New Kingdom, later than the usual date for the end of the MB. Another point that demonstrates the diversity of phenomenon during the MB/LB transition is that while many of the major sites do continue into the LB, even after destructions, quite a few sites, particularly the small ones (such as Tell el-Hayyat and Tell Nimrin) but a large site as Jericho as well, do not continue into the LB. All this evidence seems to point to the multi-causal processes that were in place during the MB/LB transition. Even if there is no direct evidence that the Egyptian military involvement in Canaan may not have been felt directly throughout the entire the Jordan Valley, one must take into account that some sites may have been destroyed in these early Egyptian campaigns. And even if not, this undoubtedly had an effect on the entire region. At the same time, possible influxes of new populations may very well have had deep effects. But one must not deny the possibility that internal socio-economic issues played a major part as well. It would appear that one can only explain the demise of the MB culture and the transformation in the LB culture as being the result of many, mostly gradual changes, some of external, and some of internal origins. Some of these changes were slow to occur, but some, such as changes in pottery technology, occurred at surprisingly rapid paces.

Foqa (Israel grid 1879/1574) just outside of the Jordan Valley, ca. 10 km NE of Jericho.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABED, A.M.

AHRENS, A.

1985

2007

Paleoclimates of the Upper Pleistocene in the Jordan Rift, 81–93, in: A. HADIDI (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 2, Amman.

A Journey’s End: Two Egyptian Stone Vessels with Hieroglyphic Inscriptions from the Royal Tomb at Tell Mišrife/Qatna, Ägypten & Levante 16, 15–36.

ABEL, M.

AKAR, M.

1933–1938 Geographie de la Palestine, Paris.

2009

ACRECHE, N. 1982

Cranial Variation between EB IV and MB II: Discriminant Analysis, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Jerusalem.

ADAMS, R.M. 1974a Historic Patterns in Mesopotamian Irrigation Agriculture, 1–6, in: T.E. DOWNING and M. GIBSON (eds.), Irrigation’s Impact on Society, Anthropological Papers 25, Tucson.

ALBERS, G. 2001

1974b Anthropological Perspectives on Ancient Trade, Current Anthropology 15, 239–258. 1981

The Role of Harbour Towns in the Re-Urbanization of the Levant in the Middle Bronze Age (1800–1600 BC): Perspectives from Eastern Cilicia and the Amuq Plain of Hatay, paper presented at the ArchAtlas Workshop - Routes and Landscapes in Eurasia: Exchange and Movement from Prehistory to the Present, Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Saturday, 7th March 2009.

Heartland of Cities, Chicago.

Die Tempelabfolge von Tell el-Hayyat und Ihre Bedeutung für die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Pälastina, 15–20, in: R. BOEHMER and J. MARAN (eds.), Lux Orientis, Archaeologie Zwischen Asien und Europa: Festschrift für Harald Hauptmann zum 65. Geburstag, Rahden.

ADAN-BAYEWITZ, D.

ALBRIGHT, W.F.

1993

1924–1925 The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 6, Cambridge, MA.

Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade, Ramat-Gan.

AHARONI, Y. 1957

The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in the Upper Galilee [In Hebrew], Jerusalem.

1969

Rubute and Ginti-Kirmil, tum 19, 137–145.

1979

The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (A.F. RAINEY, Trans.; 2nd ed.), Philadelphia.

Vetus

1928

Among the Canaanite Mounds of Eastern Galilee, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 29, 1–8.

1933

The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, Ia: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth Campaign, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 13, 55–127.

1941

New Egyptian Data on Palestine in the Patriarchal Age, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 81, 16–21.

1945

An Indirect Synchronism between Egypt and Mesopotamia ca. 1730 B.C., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 99, 9–17.

Testamen-

AHARONI, Y., and AMIRAN, R. 1953

Archaeological Survey: A Trip in the Upper Galilee [In Hebrew], Yediot 17, 126–137.

AHITUV, S.

ALCOCK, S.

1978

Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of Canaan, Israel Exploration Journal 28, 93–105.

1993

1984

Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, Jerusalem.

AL-MAQDISSI, M. 1994

AHITUV, S., and MAZAR, A. 2000

Introduction [in Hebrew], IX–XVII in: S. AHITUV and A. MAZAR (eds.), The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period, Jerusalem. The Origin of Early Israel - Current Debate: Biblical, Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, Beer-Sheva XII, Beersheva.

AHLSTRÖM, G.W. 1982

Where Did the Israelites Live? Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42, 133–138.

Le Bronze Moyen du Levant Septentrional, Étude Céramologique, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Paris, Université de Paris I.

AL-MAQDISSI, M., MATOIÄN, V., and NICOLLE, C. (eds.) 2002

AHITUV, S., and OREN, E.D. (eds.) 1998

Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece, Cambridge.

Céramique de l’âge du Bronze en Syrie, I: La Syrie du Sud et la Valée de l’Oronte, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 161, Beirut.

AL-MAQDISSI, M., DOHMANN-PFÄLZNER, H., PFÄLZNER, P., and SULEIMAN, A. 2003

Das koenigliche Hypogaeum von Qatna: Bericht über die syrisch-deutsche Ausgrabung im NovemberDezember 2002, Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesselschaft zu Berlin 135, 189–218.

254

Bibliography

ALPERSON-AFIL, N., SHARON, G., KISLEV, M., MELAMED, Y., ZOHAR, I., ASHKENAZI, S., RABINOVICH, R., BITON, R., WERKER, E., HARTMAN, G., FEIBEL, C., and GOREN-INBAR, N. 2009 Spatial Organization of Hominin Activities at Gesher Benot Ya>akov, Israel, Science 326, 1677–1680. ALPERT-NAKHAI, B. 2001 Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel, ASOR Books 7, Boston. AL-RADI, S. 1983 Phlamoudhi Vounari: A Sanctuary Site in Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 65, Göteborg. ALT, A. 1941 Herren und Herrensitze Palästinas im Angang des Zweiten Jahrtousends v. Chr., Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 64, 21–39. ALTENMÜLLER, H., and MOUSSA, A. 1991 Die Inschrift Amenemhets II. aus dem Ptak-Tempel von Memphis. Ein Vorbericht, Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 18, 1–48. ALTMAN, A. 1996 Reconsideration of the Trade Relations between Mesopotamia and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, Michmanim 9, 39–56. AMIET, P. 1985 Quelques Témoins des Contacts de Suse avec les Pays du Levant au IIIe et IIe Millénaires, 9–15, in: J.-M. DURAND and J.-R. KUPPER (eds.), Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges Offerts a Maurice Birot, Paris. AMIRAN, D., ARIEH, E., and TURCOTTE, T. 1994 Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macro-Seismic Observations since 100 B.C.E., Israel Exploration Journal 44, 260–305. AMIRAN, R. 1957 Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware in Syria, Israel Exploration Journal 7(2), 93–97. 1959 A Late Assyrian Stone Bowl from Tell el-Qitaf in the Bet-She>an Valley, >Atiqot (English Series) 2, 129–132. 1961 Tombs of the Middle Bronze Age I at Ma>ayan Barukh, >Atiqot (English Series) 3, 84–92. 1977 Pottery from the Chalcolithic Site near Tell Delhamiya [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 13, 34–56. AMIRAN, R., and COHEN, C. 1977 Excavations at Tell Beth-Yerah, Israel Museum News 12, 61–62. ANBAR, M., and NA’AMAN, N. 1986–1987 An Account Tablet of Sheep from Ancient Hebron, Tel Aviv 13–14, 3–12. ANBAR, M. 1991 Les Tribus Amurrites des Mari, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 108, Fribourg. ANTONETTI, S. 2007 Intra Moenia Middle Bronze Age Burials at Tell es-Sultan: A Chronological Perspective, 337–356, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vien-

na, 28th May–1st June 2003, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9, Vienna. 2008

Unpublished Middle Bronze Age Tomb Equipments from Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho, in the Vatican Museums, 279–292, in: H. KUEHNE, R. CZICHON and F. KREPPNER (eds.), The Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near, 29 March–3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin, Volume II. Ancient Near East Social and Cultural Transformation. The Archaeology of Transitional Periods and Dark Ages. Excavation Reports, Wiesbaden.

ARAV, R. 1973

Tombs at Ein Hanatziv [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 47, 5.

ARNOLD, D. 1979

Comment on W.Y. Adams ‘On the Argument from Ceramics to History’, Current Anthropology 20, 735.

1985

Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge.

ARNOLD, D., ARNOLD, F., and ALLEN, S. 1995

Canaanite Imports at Lisht, the Middle Kingdom Capital of Egypt, Ägypten & Levante 5, 13–32.

ARTZY, M. 2002

The Aegean, Cyprus, the Levant and Bichrome Ware: Eastern Mediterranean Middle Bronze Age Koine? 1–20, in: E.D. OREN and S. AHITUV (eds.), Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines, Beer-Sheva vol. 15, Beersheva.

ARTZY, M., and MARCUS, E. 1991

The MBIIa Coastal Settlement at Tel Nami, Michmanim 5, 5*–16*.

1992

Stratified Cypriote Pottery in MB IIa Context at Tel Nami, 103–110, in: G. IOANNIDES (ed.), Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis, Nicosia.

ARTZY, M., PERLMAN, I., and ASARO, F. 1978

Imported and Local Bichrome Ware in Megiddo, Levant 10, 99–111.

ARUZ, J., BENZEL, J., and EVANS, J. (eds.) 2008

Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., New York.

ASCALONE, E. 2006

Tell es-Sultan/Jericho Weight Systems. New Evidence of Weights from Inner Palestine During the Early and Middle Bronze Age, 161–183 in: M.E. ALBERTI, E. ASCALONE and L. PAYRONEL (eds.), Weights in Context: Bronze Age Weighing Systems of Eastern Mediterranean. Chronology, Typology, Materials and Archaeological Contexts. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Roma 22nd–24th November 2009, Rome.

ASTOUR, M. C. 1991

The Location of HaËurå of the Mari Texts, Maarav 7, 51–65.

ATRASH, W. 2009

Khirbat Dalhamiyah: Preliminary Report, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121. Online: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_ eng.asp?id=1106&mag_id=115.

Bibliography ATTAS, M., FOSSEY, J., and YAFFE, L. 1982

Variations of Ceramic Composition with Time: A Test Case Using Lakonian Pottery, Archaeometry 24, 181–190.

AVNER, U. 1993

Be>er Ora, Copper Production Site, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12, 115

2002

Studies in the Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Population During the 6th–3rd Millennia B.C. [In Hebrew with English Summary], Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

AVNER, U., CARMI, I., and SEGAL, D. 1994

Neolithic to Bronze Age Settlement of the Negev and Sinai in Light of Radiocarbon Dating: A View From the Southern Region, 265–300, in: R. KRA and O. BARYOSEF (eds.), Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, Tucson.

AVSHALOM-GORNI, D., and GETZOV, N. 2003

Tell el-Wawiyat, Israel 115, 1*–2*.

Excavations

and

Surveys

in

BADER, B. 2000

Tell el-Dab>a XIII, Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel CTon Keramik des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts Vienna.

BAER, G. 1982

Fellah and Townsman in the Middle East: Studies in Social History, London.

BAGH, T. 1998

Ezbet Rushdi and the 12th Dyn. Levantine Connection, Ägypten & Levante 8, 47–49.

2002

Painted Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age: Levantine Painted Ware, 89–101, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna.

2003

The Relationship between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware and Khabur Ware and the Chronological Implications, 219–237, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May-7th of May 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna.

2004

Levantine Painted Ware from the Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Sidon, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 20, 40–57.

BAHAT, D. 1967

Tel Ron [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 22–23, 7.

1972

The Date of the Dolmens near Kibbutz Shamir, Israel Exploration Journal 22, 44–46.

1973

The Dolmen Field at Shamir [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 13, 58–63.

1976

A Middle Bronze Age I Cemetery at Menahemiya, >Atiqot (English Series) 11, 27–33.

1985

Finds From Gonen, >Atiqot (English Series) 17, 193–194.

255

BAINES, J., and YOFFEE, N. 2000 Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth: Setting the Terms, 13–17, in: J. RICHARDS and M. VAN BUREN (eds.), Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge. BALFET, H. 1981 Production and Distribution of Pottery in the Maghreb, 257–269, in: H. HOWARD and E. MORRIS (eds.), Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 120, Oxford. BAR-ADON, P. 1952 Notes and News: Beth Yerah, Israel Exploration Journal 2, 142. 1954 Notes and News: Beth Yerah, Israel Exploration Journal 4, 128–129. 1955 Khirbet Kerak (Beth Yerah), Revue biblique 62, 85–88. 1956 Sinobri and Beit Yerah in Light of the Historical Sources and Archaeological Finds [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 4, 50–55. 1957 Beth Yerah [In Hebrew], >Alon 5–6, 29–30. 1973 Rare Cylinder-Seal Impressions from Beth-Yerah [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 11, 99–100. BARFIELD, T. J. 1993 The Nomadic Alternative, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. BAR-MATTHEWS, M., AYALON, A., GILMOUR, M., MATTHEWS, A., and HAWKESWORTH, C. 2003 Sea-Land Oxygen Isotopic Relationships from Planktonic Foraminifera and Speleotherms in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and Their Implication for Paleorainfall during Interglacial Intervals, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 67, 3181–3199. BARNARD, H., and WENDRICH, W. (eds.) 2007 The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism, Cotsen Advanced Seminars 4, Los Angeles. BARUCH, U. 1986 The Late Holocene Vegetational History of Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), Israel, Paléorient 12, 37–48. 1990 Palynological Evidence of Human Impact on the Vegetation as Recorded in Late Holocene Lake Sediments in Israel, 283–293, in: S. BOTTEMA, G. ENTJES-NIEBORG and W. VAN ZEIST (eds.), Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape, Proceedings of the INQUA/BAI Symposium on the Impact of Ancient Man of the Landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean Region and the Near East, Groningen, Netherlands, 6–9 March 1989, Rotterdam. BARUCH, U., and BOTTEMA, S. 1991 Palynological Evidence for Climatic Changes in the Levant ca. 17,000–9000 B.P, 11–18, in: O. BAR-YOSEF and F. VALLA (eds.), The Natufian Culture of the Levant, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. BAR-YOSEF, O., and GOREN-INBAR, N. 1993 The Lithic Assemblage of >Ubeidiya, a Lower Palaeolithic Site in the Jordan valley, Qedem 34, Jerusalem. BAR-YOSEF, O., and KHAZANOV, A. (eds.) 1992 Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives, Monographs in World Archaeology 10, Madison.

256

Bibliography

BAXEVANI, E.

BEN-AMI, D.

1995

2006

Mysterious Standing Stones: What Do These Ubiquitous Things Mean?, Biblical Archaeology Review 32, 38–45.

2010

The Middle Bronze Age Cultic Enclosure at Hazor, 520, in: P. MATTHIAE, F. PINNOCK, L. NIGRO and N. MARCHETTI (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, 5 May –10 May 2009, “Sapienza”, Università di Roma. Volume 3 – Islamic Session; Posters Session, Wiesbaden.

The Complex Nomads: Death and Social Stratification in EBIV Southern Levant, 85–95, in: S. CAMPBELL and A. GREEN (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, Oxbow Monograph 51, Oxford.

BAXTER, M. 1994

Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology, Edinburgh.

BÁRTA, M. 2004

Sinuhe, Patriarchs, and the Bible, Prague.

BEAUMONT, P. 1985

Man-Induced Erosion in Northern Jordan, 291–296, in: A. HADIDI (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 2, Amman.

BEN-ARIEH, Y. 1993

BEN-AVRAHAM, Z., GARFUNKEL, Z., and LAZAR, M. 2008

BECK, P. 1975

The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA at Tel Aphek, Tel Aviv 2, 27–84.

1985

The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from Aphek, 1972–1984: First Summary, Tel Aviv 12, 181–203.

1989a Chapter 10: Stone Ritual Artifacts and Statues from Areas A and H, 322–338, in: Y. YADIN, Y. AHARONI, R. AMIRAN, A. BEN-TOR, M. DOTHAN, and T. DOTHAN, Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation, 1957–1958, Text, Jerusalem. 1989b Chapter 9: Cylinder Seals from the Temple in Area H, 310–321, in: Y. YADIN, Y. AHARONI, R. AMIRAN, A. BENTOR, M. DOTHAN, and T. DOTHAN, Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation, 1957–1958, Text, Jerusalem.

The Changing Landscape of the Jordan Valley, in: D. NIR (ed.), Studies in Geography, Scripta Hierosolymitana vol. XV, no. 3, Jerusalem. Geology and Evolution of the Southern Dead Sea Fault with Emphasis on Subsurface Structure, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 36, 357–387.

BEN-DOR, I. 1945

Palestinian Alabaster Vases, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 11, 93–112.

1950

A Middle Bronze Age Temple at Nahariya, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 14, 1–41.

BEN-DOV, R. 1996

A Syrian Socketed Spearhead from Tel Dan [In Hebrew with English Abstract], Eretz Israel (J. Aviram Volume) 25, 65–66.

BEN-SHLOMO, D., UZIEL, J., and MAEIR, A.M. 2009

Pottery Production at Tell es-Safi/Gath: A Longue Durée Perspective, Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2258–2273.

2000a Area B: Pottery, 93–133, in: M. KOCHAVI, P. BECK and Y. YADIN (eds.), Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B. The 1972–1976 Seasons, Monograph Series 19, Tel Aviv.

BEN-TOR, A. 1982

2000b The Middle Bronze IIA Pottery Repertoire: A Comparative Study, 239–254, in: M. KOCHAVI, P. BECK and Y. YADIN (eds.), Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B. The 1972–1976 Seasons, Monograph Series 19, Tel Aviv.

The Relations between Egypt and the Land of Canaan during the Third Millennium B.C., Journal of Jewish Studies 23, 3–18.

1992

Tel Hazor, 1992, Israel Exploration Journal 42, 254–260.

1996

The Yigal Yadin Memorial Excavations at Hazor: Aims and Preliminary Results of 1990–1992 Seasons [In Hebrew with English Abstract], Eretz Israel 25, 67–81, 89*–90*.

1997

Introduction, 1–14, in: A. BEN-TOR and R. BONFIL (eds.), Hazor V, Jerusalem.

1999


2000


BECK, P., and ZEVULUN, U. 1996

Back to Square One, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304, 64–75.

BEGIN, B., EHRLICH, A., and NATHAN, Y. 1974

Lake Lisan, the Pleistocene Precursor of the Dead Sea, Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Israel 63, 1–30.

BEIN, A., and HOROWITZ, A.

2004a Hazor and Chronology, Ägypten & Levante 14, 45–67.

1986

2004b Notes and News: Tel Hazor, 2004, Israel Exploration Journal 54, 230–235.

Papyrus – a Historical Newcomer to the Hula Valley, Israel?, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 47, 89–95.

BEITZEL, B. 1997

Did Zimri-Lim Play a Role in Developing the Use of Tin-Bronze in Palestine, 121–144, in: G. YOUNG, M. CHAVALAS and R. AVERBACK (eds.), Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on his 80th Birthday, Bethesda, MD.

BELITZKY, S. 2002

The Structure and Morphotectonics of the Gesher Benot Ya>aqov Area, Northern Dead Sea Rift, Israel, Quartenary Research 58, 372–380.

2006a The Sad Fate of Statues and the Mutilated Statues of Hazor, 5–16, in: S. GITIN, J. WRIGHT and J. DESSEL (eds.), Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of W. G. Dever, Winona Lake, IN. 2006b Do the Execration Texts Reflect an Accurate Picture of the Contemporary Settlement of Palestine?, 63–87, in: Y. AMIT, E. BEN ZVI, I. FINKELSTEIN and O. LIPSCHITS (eds.), Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman, Winona Lake, IN.

257

Bibliography 2008a Hazor, 1769–1776, in: E. STERN (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volume 5, Supplementary Volume, Jerusalem. 2008b The ‘White Building’ is a Temple: Responses to Bonfil and Zarzecki-Peleg, Israel Exploration Journal 58, 94–99. 2009

A Decorated Jewellery Box from Hazor, Tel Aviv 36, 5–67.

BEN-TOR, A., and RUBIATO, M. 1996

The Renewed Excavations of Tel Hazor, 1990–1995 [In Hebrew], Qadmoniot 29, 2–18.

BEN-TOR, A., ZIEGLER, D., and AVRUTIS, V. 2009

An Archaeological Riddle at Tel Hazor [In Hebrew with English Abstract], Eretz Israel 28, 54–70, 283*.

BERGMAN, A., and BRENDSTATER, R. 1941

Archaeological Surveys in the Beth Shean Valley [In Hebrew], Yediot 8, 85–90.

BERGOFFEN, C. J. 1990

Two ‘Chocolate-on White’ Vessels from Enkomi, Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, 51–54.

BERNETT, M., AND KEEL, O. 1998

Mond, stier und kult am stadttor. Die Stele von Betsaida (etTell), Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 161, Fribourg.

BESANA, R., DA ROS, M., and IAMONI, M. 2008

BEN-TOR, A., and ZUCKERMAN, S.

Excavations on the Acropolis of Mishrifeh, Operation J. A New Early Bronze Age III - Iron Age III Sequence for Central Inner Syria. Part 2: The Pottery, Akkadica 129(2), 129–179.

2007

Tel Hazor 2007, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 119, Online: http://www. hadashot -esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=622&mag _id=112.

BETTS, A., EAMES, S., HULKA, S., SCHRODER, M., RUST, J., and MCLAREN, B.

2008

Tel Hazor 2008: Preliminary Report, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 120, Online: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp? id=943&mag_id=114.

BEVAN, A.

2009

Tel Hazor 2009: Preliminary Report, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121, Online: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp? id=1256&mag_id=115.

BEN-TOR, D. 1994

1997

The Historical Implications of Middle Kingdom Scarabs Found in Palestine Bearing Private Names and Titles of Officials, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 294, 7–22. The Relations between Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Kingdom as Reflected by Contemporaneous Canaanite Scarabs, Israel Exploration Journal 47, 162–189.

2007a Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 27, Fribourg. 2007b Scarabs of Middle Bronze Age Rulers of Byblos, 177–188 in: S. BICKEL, S. SCHROER, R. SCHURTE and C. UEHLINGER (eds.), Bilder als Quellen/Images as Sources: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts and the Bible Inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Sonderband I, Fribourg.

1996

2007

The Jordan Valley during the Iron Age I: Aspects of Its History and the Archaeological Evidence for Its Settlement [In Hebrew with English Summary], Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Haifa, Haifa.

BIENKOWSKI, P. Jericho in the Late Bronze Age, Warminster.

1987

The Role of Hazor in the Late Bronze Age, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 119, 50–61.

BIETAK, M. 1984

Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt, American Journal of Archaeology 88, 471–485.

1989

Archäologischer Befund und Historische Interpretation am Beispiel der Tell el-Yahudiyeh-Ware, 7–34, in: S. SCHOSKE (ed.), Akten des Vierten Internationalen Ägyptologen-Kongresses, München 1985, Band 2, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Beihefte Band 2, Hamburg.

1991

Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 281, 27–72.

1992a Die Chronologie Ägyptens und der Beginn der Mittleren Bronzezeit-Kultur, Ägypten & Levante 3, 29–37. 1992b Minoan Wall-Paintings Unearthed at Ancient Avaris, Egyptian Archaeology 2, 26–28. 1995

The Trade of Egypt with the Eastern Mediterranean during the Hyksos Period, Paper Presented at: Trade and Cultural Connections in Eastern Mediterranean Basin during the Second and First Millennium BCE, Colloquium in Memory of Aharon Kempinski, Jerusalem, Nov. 23, 1995.

1997

Avaris, Capital of the Hyksos Kingdom: New Results of the Excavations, 87–139, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia.

2000

Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell el-Dab>a and the Aegean World – A Guide to the Perplexed, A Response to Eric H. Cline, Annual of the British School in Athens 95, 185–205.

2002

Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age: Comments on the Present State of Research, 30–42, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze

BERELOV, I. 2006a Occupation and Abandonment of Middle Bronze Age Zahrat adh-Dhra> 1, Jordan: The Behavioural Implications of Quantitative Ceramic Analyses, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1493, Oxford. 2006b Signs of Sedentism and Mobility in an Agro-Pastoral Community during the Levantine Middle Bronze Age: Interpreting Site Function and Occupation Strategy at Zahrat adh-Dhra> 1 in Jordan, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25, 117–143.

Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean, Cambridge.

1986

BEN-YOSEF, D. 2007

Studies of Bronze Age Occupation in the Wadi al>Ajib, Southern Hauran, Levant 28, 27–39.

258

Bibliography Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna.

1994

Biblical Dan, Jerusalem.

1998

Sacred Spaces: Of Standing Stones, High Places and Cult Objects at Tel Dan, Biblical Archaeology Review 24 (5), 38–45,70.

2007a Bronze Age Paintings in the Levant: Chronological and Cultural Considerations, 269–300, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th May–1st June 2003, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9, Vienna.

2008

Dan, 1686–1689, in: E. STERN (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volume 5, Supplementary Volume, Jerusalem.

2007b Towards a Middle Bronze Age Chronology, 121–146, in: P. MATTHIAE, L. NIGRO, L. PEYRONEL and F. PINNOCK (eds.), Proceedings of the International Colloquium From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine, Rome 29th November–1st December 2001, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome. M. BIETAK (ed.) 2003

The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–-EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna.

BIRAN, A., and BEN-DOV, R. 2002

Dan II: A Chronicle of the Excavations and the Late Bronze Age “Mycenaean” Tomb, Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem.

BIRAN, A., ILAN, D., and GREENBERG, R. 1996

Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs, Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem.

BISHOP, R. 1980

Aspects of Ceramic Compositional Modeling, 47–65, in: R.E. FRY (ed.), Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, Society for American Archaeology Papers 1, Washington, D.C.

BIETAK, M., DORNER, J., and JÁNOSI, P.

BISSON DE LA ROQUE, F.

2001

1953

Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris. Vorbericht Tell el-Dab>a/>Ezbet Helmi mit einem Beitrag von Angela von den Driesch und Joris Peters, Ägypten & Levante 11, 27–119.

1992

BIETAK, M., and HÖFLMAYER, F. 2007

Introduction: High and Low Chronology, 13–23, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th May–1st June 2003, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9, Vienna.

BIETAK, M., KOPETZKY, K., and STAGER, L.E.

Le Trésor de Tôd, Documents de Fouilles 11, Cairo.

BLACK, J. Two Cuneiform Tablets, 299–301, in: A. MCNICOLL, P. EDWARDS, J. HANBURY-TENISON, J. HENNESSEY, T. POTTS, and R. SMITH, Pella in Jordan 2: The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982–1985, Mediterranean Archaeology, Supplement, Sydney.

BLANTON, R.E. 1976

Anthropological Studies of Cities, Annual Review of Anthropology 5, 249–264.

BONECHI, M.

in press Stratigraphie Comparée Nouvelle: The Synchronisation of Ashkelon and Tell el-Dab>a, in: J.-C. MARGUERON, P. DE MIROSCHEDJI and J. THALMANN (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd ICAANE Conference, Paris, May 2002, Winona Lake, IN.

BONFIL, R.

BIETAK, M., KOPETZKY, K., STAGER, L.E., and VOSS, R.

1997

Area A, 15–176, in: A. BEN-TOR and R. BONFIL (eds.), Hazor V, Jerusalem.

2010

The palace in the upper city of Hazor as an expression of a Syrian architectural paradigm, 521–522, in: P. MATTHIAE, F. PINNOCK, L. NIGRO and N. MARCHETTI (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, 5 May -10 May 2009, “Sapienza”, Università di Roma. Volume 3 – Islamic Session; Posters Session, Wiesbaden.

2009

Synchronisation of Stratigraphies: Ashkelon and Tell el-Dab>a, Ägypten & Levante 18, 49–60

1991

BIMSON, J.J. 1981

Redating the Exodus and Conquest (2nd ed.), Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 5, Sheffield.

BIRAN, A. 1971

Laish/Dan – Secrets of a Canaanite City and an Israelite City [In Hebrew], Qadmoniot 13, 2–10.

1984

The Triple Arched Gate of Laish at Tel Dan, Israel Exploration Journal 34, 1–19.

1986

The Dancer from Dan, the Empty Tomb and the Alter Room, Israel Exploration Journal 36, 168–187.

1990

The Middle Bronze II Ramparts of Tel Dan [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 21, 56–65.

Relations Amicales Syro-Palestiniennes: Mari et Hasor au XVIIIe siècle av. J.C., Mémoires de Nouvelles Assyriologiques Breves et Utilitaires 1, 9–22.

BONFIL, R., and ZARZECKI-PELEG, A. 2007

The Palace in the Upper City of Hazor as an Expression of a Syrian Architectural Paradigm, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 348, 25–47.

BOSSUYT, A., BROZE, L., and GINSBURGH, V. 2001

On the Invisible Trade Relations between Mesopotamian Cities during the Third Millennium B.C., Professional Geographer 53, 374–383.

Bibliography BOTTEMA, S., and VAN ZEIST, W. 1981

Palynological Evidence for Climatic History of the Near East 50000–6000 B.P., 115–132, in: J. CAUVIN and P. SANLAVILLE (eds.), Préhistoire du Levant, Paris.

BOURKE, S.J. 1997

Pre-Classical Pella in Jordan: A Conspectus of Ten Years Work (1985–1995), Palestine Exploration Quarterly 129, 96–115.

2006

Pella and the Jordanian Middle and Late Bronze Age (Response to Chapter IV), 243–256, in: P.M. FISCHER (ed.), The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Deir Alla, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern MediterraneanVienna.

2007a Pella in Jordan 2007: Early Settlements, Mudbrick Temples and the Iron Age Palatial Residence, The Near Eastern Archaeology Foundation Bulletin 51, 103. 2007b Dating the cultic assemblages from the Bronze Age fortress temple complex at Pella in Jordan, Progress report for AINGRA05013, http://www.ainse.edu.au/ __data/assets/pdf_file/0015/19203/r_05013.pdf (retrieved last on 29 May 2010). 2008a Progress Report for AINGRA05013: Dating the Cultic Assemblages from the Bronze Age Fortress Temple Complex at Pella in Jordan, URL: www.ansto.gov.au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0015/19203/r_05013.pdf. 2008b Further Exploration of the Bronze Age Temple Precints at Pella: The 2007 Field Season, Paper presented at the 6thInternational Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, 5th–10th May, 2008. BOURKE, S.J., and ERIKSSON, K. 2005

Pella in Jordan, Royal Name Scarabs and the Hyksos Empire: A View from the Margins, 325–330, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN and A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. II, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven.

BOURKE, S.J., LOVELL, J., SEATON, P., SPARKS, R., MAIRS, L., and MEADOWS, J. 2007

Preliminary Report on a Fourth Season of Renewed Excavations at Teleilat Ghassul by the University of Sydney, 1999, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 51, 35–80.

BOURKE, S.J., SPARKS, R., and SCHRODER, M. 2006

Pella in the Middle Bronze Age, 9–58, in: P. FISCHER (ed.), The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Deir Alla, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 12, Vienna.

BOURKE, S. J., SPARKS, R., SOWADA, K., and MAIRS, L. 1994

Preliminary Report of the University of Sydney’s Fourteenth Season of Excavations at Pella (Tabaqat Fahl) in 1992, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38, 81–126.

BOURKE, S., ZOPPI, U., MEADOWS, J., HUA, Q., and GIBBINS, S. 2009

The Beginning of the Early Bronze Age in the North Jordan Valley: New 14C Determinations from Pella in Jordan, Radiocarbon 51(3), 905–913.

259

BÖHL, F. D. L. 1926 Die bei den Ausgrabungen von Sichem gefundenen Keilschrifttafeln, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 49, 321–327. BRAEMER, F. 1989 Prospections en Syrie du Sud: Epoque Preromaine, 113–117, in: Contribution Française a l’archéologie Syrienne, Damascus. BRAEMER, F. 1992 Occupation du Sol dans la Région de Jérash aux Périodes du Bronze Récent et du Fer, 191–198, in: M. ZAGHLOUL, K. >AMR, F. ZAYADINE and R. NABEEL (eds.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 4, Amman. BRAEMER, F. 2002 Le Rempart de Bosra au IIe Millenaire avant Notre Ere, Syria 79, 65–74. BRAEMER, F., and AL-MAQDISSI, M. 2002 Chapitre II: La Céramique du Bronze Moyen dans la Syrie du Sud, 23–50, in: M. AL-MAQDISSI, V. MATOIÄN and C. NICOLLE (eds.), Céramique de l’âge du Bronze en Syrie, I: La Syrie du Sud et la Valée de l’Oronte, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 161, Beirut. BRAEMER, F., GENEQUAND, D., DUMOND MARIDAT, C., BLANC, P.M., DENTZER, J.-M., GAZAGNE, D., and WECH, P. 2009 Long-Term Management of Water in the Central Levant: The Hawran Case (Syria), World Archaeology 41, 36–57. BRAMLETT, K. 2009 Review of FISCHER 2006b, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 353, 109–111. BRANDL, B. 2007 Chapter 8: Canaanite and Egyptian Scarabs from Area R, 582–605, in: A. MAZAR and R.A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem. BRANDL, B. 2009 Chapter 12A: Scarabs, Seals, Sealings and Seal Impressions, 636–684, in: N. PANITZ-COHEN and A. MAZAR (eds.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume III: The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S, Jerusalem. BRAUDEL, F. 1972 The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, Vol. I (S. Reynolds, Trans.), New York. BRAUN, E. 2004 Early Beth Shan (Strata XIX–XIII): G.M. Fitzgerald’s Deep Cut on the Tell, University Museum Monograph 121, Philadelphia BRIGHT, J. 1980 A History of Israel (3rd ed.), Philadelphia. BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates, Radiocarbon 51, 337–360. BRONK RAMSEY, C., DEE, M.W., ROWLAND, J.M., HIGHAM, T.F.G., HARRIS, S.A., BROCK, F., QUILES, A., WILD, E.M., MARCUS, E.S., and SHORTLAND, A.J. 2010 Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Science 328, 1554–1557.

260

Bibliography

BRONK RAMSEY, C., HIGHAM, T.F.G., OWEN, D.C., PIKE, A.W.G., and HEDGES, R.E.M. 2002 Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 31, Archaeometry 44(3) Supplement, 1–149. BROSHI, M. 1993

The Population of Iron Age Palestine, 14–18, in: A. BIRAN and J. AVIRAM (eds.), Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology: Supplement. Pre-congress Symposium: Population, Production and Power (Jerusalem, June 1990), Jerusalem.

BROSHI, M., and FINKELSTEIN, I. 1992

The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 287, 47–60.

BUHL, F. 1977

BUNIMOVITZ, S. 1989

1992b The Middle Bronze Age Fortifications in Palestine as a Social Phenomenon, Tel Aviv 19, 221–234. 1993

The Changing Shape of Power in Bronze Age Canaan, 142–149, in: A. BIRAN and J. AVIRAM (eds.), Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology: Supplement. Precongress Symposium: Population, Production and Power (Jerusalem, June 1990), Jerusalem.

1994

The Problem of Human Resources in Late Bronze Age Palestine and its Socioeconomic Implications, UgaritForschungen 26, 1–20.

1995

On the Edge of Empires: Late Bronze Age (1500–1200 BCE), 320–331, in: T. E. LEVY (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London.

Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements and Population, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 261, 73–90.

BRUINS, H. 2007

Charcoal Radiocarbon Dates of Tell el-Dab>a, 65–78, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th May–1st June 2003, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9, Vienna.

The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study of Socio-cultural Change in a Complex Society, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation [In Hebrew with English Summary], Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University.

1992a The Beginning of the Late Bronze Age in Palestine: Problems in Demarcation and Terminology [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 23, 21–25.

BROSHI, M., and GOPHNA, R. 1986

Al-Ghawr, 1048, in: B. LEWIS, C. PELLAT and J. SCHACHT (eds.), Encyclopedie de l’Islam, Nouvelle Édition II (C–G), Leiden.

BRUINS, H., and VAN DER PLICHT, J.

BUNIMOVITZ, S., and GREENBERG, R.

1995

Tell es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon Results of the Short-lived Cereal and Multiyear Charcoal Samples from the End of the Middle Bronze Age, Radiocarbon 37, 213–220.

2004

1996

The Exodus Enigma. Nature 382, 213–14.

2008

2003

Assorting and Synchronising Archaeological and Geological Strata with Radiocarbon: The Southern Levant in relation to Egypt and Thera, 35–42, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the second Millennium B.C. II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna.

BURMEISTER, S.

BRUMFIEL, E.K., and EARLE, T.K. (eds.) 1987

Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge.

BRYSBAERT, A. 2009

The Power of Technology in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean: The Case of the Painted Plaster, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 12, London.

BUCHANAN, B. 1966

Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum, Vol. 1: Cylinder seals, Oxford.

BURKE, A.

2000

Ugarit, Zypern und Agais: Kulturbeziehungen im Zweiten Jahrtausend v. Chr, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 261, Münster.

BUDD, P., POLLARD, A., SCAIFE, B., and THOMAS, R. 1995

Oxhide Ingots, Recycling and the Mediterranean Metals Trade, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8, 1–32.

“Walled Up to Heaven”: The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies in the Levant, Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 4, Winona Lake, In. Archaeology and Migration: Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration, Current Anthropology 41, 539–567.

BUTZER, K. 1982

Archaeology as Human Ecology: Method and Theory for a Contextual Approach, Cambridge.

CAESSENS, G. 1990

A History of Northwest Palestine in the Middle Bronze II– Late Bronze I Period, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

CAHILL, J. 2006

BUCHHOLZ, H.-G. 1999

Revealed in Their Cups: Syrian Drinking Customs in Intermediate Bronze Age Canaan, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 334, 19–31.

The Excavations at Tell el-Hammah: A Prelude to Amihai Mazar’s Beth-Shean Valley Regional Project, 429–460, in: A.M. MAEIR and P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake, IN.

CAHILL, J., and TARLER, D. 1993

Hammah, Tell el-, 561–562, in: E. STERN and A. LEWIN(eds.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2, Jerusalem. SON-GILBOA

261

Bibliography CHADWICK, J. 2005 Discovering Hebron: The City of the Patriarchs Slowly Yields its Secrets, Biblical Archaeology Review 31, 24–33, 70–71. CHAMBERLAIN, A. 2006 Demography in Archaeology, Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge. CHAPMAN, J., and HAMEROW, H. (eds.) 1997 Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation, British Archaeological Reports International Series 664, Oxford. CHARPIN, D. 1990 Une Mention d’Alasya dans une Lettre de Mari, Revue Assyrologique 84, 125–127. CHARPIN, D., and ZIEGLER, N. 2004 Une Lettre de Šamši-Addu Découverte à Hazor?, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2004(4), 84. CHERRY, J., and KNAPP, A.B. 1991 Quantitative Provenance Studies and Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: Some Preliminary Reflections, 92–119, in: N. GALE (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Jonsered. CHRISTALLER, W. 1966 Central Places in Southern Germany (C.W. Baskin, Trans.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ. CLAMER, C. 2007 The Stone Vessels, 626–638, in: A. MAZAR and R.A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem. CLINE, E.H. 1995 Egyptian and Near Eastern Imports at Late Bronze Age Mycenae, 91–115, in: W.V. DAVIES and L. SCHOFIELD (eds.), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium B.C., London. 1998 Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell ed-Dab>a and the Aegean World – A Guide for the Perplexed, Annual of the British School at Athens 93, 199–219. CLUTTON-BROCK, J. 1971 The Primary Food Animals of the Jericho Tell from the Proto-Neolithic to the Byzantine Period, Levant 3, 41–55. COHEN, M. 2008 A Middle Bronze Age IIA–B Tomb at Bet She>an [In Hebrew with English abstract], >Atiqot 59, 11*–20*, 195. COHEN, S. 2002 Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt, Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant Vol. 3, Winona Lake, IN. 2006 Notes and News: Tel Zahara, 2006, Israel Exploration Journal 56, 220–227. 2007a Chapter 11: Gesher in MB IIA context, 131–137, in: Y. GARFINKEL and S. COHEN (eds.), The Middle Bronze IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 62, Boston.

2007b Notes and News: Tel Zahara, 2007, Israel Exploration Journal 57, 229–236. 2008

Notes and News: Tel Zahara, 2008, Israel Exploration Journal 58, 237–243.

2009a Continuities and Discontinuities: A Reexamination of the Intermediate Bronze Age-Middle Bronze Age Transition in Canaan, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 354, 1–13. 2009b Cores, Peripheries, and Ports of Power: Theories of Canaanite Development in the Early Second Millennium B.C.E., 69–75, in: J.D. SCHLOEN (ed.), Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, Winona Lake, IN. COHEN, S., and BONFIL, R. 2007

Chapter 5: The Pottery, 77–99, in: Y. GARFINKEL and S. COHEN (eds.), The Middle Bronze IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 62, Boston.

COHEN, S., and LIPHSCHITZ, N. 2007

The organic materials, 115–117, in: Garfinkel, Y. and Cohen, S. (eds.), The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 62, Boston.

COHEN, S., and WIECKOWSKI, W. 2008

Tel Zahara (Israel), Seasons 2006–2007, Bioarchaeology of the Near East 1, 68–72.

COHEN-WEINBERGER, A. 2007

Chapter 6A: The Petrography of the Late Bronze Age Pottery, 548–553, in: A. MAZAR and R.A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem.

COHEN-WEINBERGER, A., and GOREN, Y. 2004

Levantine-Egyptian Interactions during the 12th to the 15th Dynasties Based on the Petrography of the Canaanite Pottery from Tell ed-Dab>a, Ägypten & Levante 14, 69–100.

COLE, D.P. 1984

Shechem I: The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery, American Schools of Oriental Research Excavation Reports, Winona Lake, IN.

COLLINS, S. 2007

Tall el-Hammam: A Key Witness to the Archaeology and History of the Southern Jordan Valley, Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations from the ‘06/’07 Excavation Season, Papers Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research, November, 2007, Boston, MA.

COLLINS, S., HAMDAN, K., and BYERS, G. in press Tall al-Hammam: Preliminary Report on Four Seasons of Excavation (2006–2009), Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. COLLON, D. 1985

A North Syrian Cylinder Seal Style: Evidence of NorthSouth Links with >Ajjul, 57–68, in: J.N. TUBB (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honor of Olga Tufnell, London.

262 2007

Bibliography Chapter 7B: Two Middle Bronze Age Cylinder Seals, 578–581, in: A. MAZAR and R.A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem.

CONDER, C., and KITCHENER, H. 1882

The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology, Volume II, Sheets VII–XVI, Samaria, London.

CONNAN, J., NISSENBAUM, A., and DESSORT, D. 1992 Molecular Archaeology: Export of Dead Sea Asphalt to Canaan and Egypt in the Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age (4th–3rd Millennium BC), Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 56, 2743–2759. CONNAN, J., and VAN DE VELDE, T. 2010 An Overview of Bitumen Trade in the Near East from the Neolithic (c. 8000 BC) to the Early Islamic Period, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 21(1), 1–19. CORBO, V. 1983 Gli Ultimi Giorni di Cafarnao: Rapporto preliminaire dopo la XV campagna di scavo 6 giugno–16 luglio 1983, Liber Annuus 33, 373–390. CORBO, V., and LOFFREDA, S. 1985 Resti del Bronzo Medio a Cafarnao, Relazione preliminaire all XVIII campagna, 4 maggio–6 luglio 1985, Liber Annuus 35, 375–390. COUGHENOUR, R. 1976 Preliminary Report on the Exploration and Excavation of Mugharet el Wardeh and Abu Thawab, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 21, 71–78. COVELLO-PARAN, K. 1996a Middle Bronze Age IIA Burials Caves at Hagosherim, >Atiqot 30, 71–83. 1996b Gesher, Karantina [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 104, 49–51. 1996c Tel Hazor, the Eastern Spur, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 19, 1. 2001 Middle Bronze Age IIA Burials at Tell Yosef, >Atiqot 42, 139–157. 2003 Tel Hazor, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 115, 4*–5*. 2007 Tel Hazor: Areas Q (the Eastern Spur) and N, >Atiqot 55, 17*–42*. CRAWFORD, H. 1973 Mesopotamia’s Invisible Exports in the Third Millennium B.C., World Archaeology 5, 232–241. CREMASCHI, M. 2007 Qatna’s Lake: A Geoarchaeological Study of the Bronze Age Capital, 93–104, in: D. MORANDI BONACOSSI (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria, Studi Archeologici su Qatna 01, Udine. CRIBB, R. 1991 Nomads in Archaeology, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge. CRUMLEY, C.L. 1999 Sacred Landscapes: Constructed and Conceptualized, 269–276, in: W. ASHMORE and A.B. KNAPP (eds.),

Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, Social Archaeology, London. CURTIN, P.D. 1984

Cross-cultural Trade in World History, Cambridge.

D’ANDREA, M. 2008

Trickle Painted Ware: An Early Bronze IV Specialized Pottery Production in Palestine and Transjordan, Vicino Oriente 14, 85–103.

DAJANI, A.K. 1960

Middle Bronze Age Pottery, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 4–5, 99–113.

DALLEY, S. 1977

Old Babylonian Trade in Textiles at Tell al Rimah, Iraq 39, 155–159.

DANIN, A. 1988

Flora and Vegetation of Israel and Adjacent Areas, 129–157, in: Y. YOM-TOV and E. TCHERNOV (eds.), The Zoogeography of Israel: The Distribution and Abundance at a Geographical Crossroads, Dordrecht.

1995

Man and the Natural Environment, 24–39, in: T.E. LEVY (ed.), The Archaeology of Society on the Holy Land, London.

DARSOW, W. 1940

Tell el-Oreme am See Genezareth, Mitteilungen des deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 9, 132–145.

DAVIAU, P.M. 2001

Family Religion: Evidence for the Paraphernalia of the Domestic Cult, 199–299, in: P.M. DAVIAU, J. WEVERS and M. WEIGL (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Biblical Studies in Honor of Paul-Eugène Dion, Vol. II, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, Vol. 325, Sheffield.

DAYAN, Y. 1963

Archaeological Survey in the Huleh Valley [In Hebrew], Kibbutz Dan.

DAYAN, Y. 1965 DE

Tel Slavim [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 15, 11–12.

CONTENSON, H.

1964

1953 Survey in the Yarmuk and Jordan Valleys, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 8–9, 30–46.

DECKERS, K., RIEHL, S., JENKINS, E., ROSEN, A., DODONOV, A., SIMAKOVA, A. N., and CONARD, N. J. 2009

DE

Vegetation Development and Human Occupation in the Damascus Region of Southwestern Syria from the Late Pleistocene to Holocene, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 18, 329–340

POLIGNAC, F.

1995

Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State, trans. J. Lloyd, Chicago.

DESSEL, J. 1999

Tell >Ein Zippori and the Lower Galilee in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: A Village Perspective, 1–32, in: E.M. MEYERS (ed.), Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, Winona Lake, In.

263

Bibliography DEVER, W.G.

DOLLFUS, G., and KAFAFI, Z. (eds.)

1973

The EB IV–MB Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 210, 37–63.

1988

1974

The MBII Stratification in the Northwest Gate Area of Shechem, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 216, 31–52.

2001

1980

New Vistas on the “EB IV–MB I” Horizon in SyriaPalestine, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237, 31–59.

Chocolate-on-White Ware: Towards a Definition 15 Years on from Hennessy, 249–258, in: A. WALMSLEY (ed.), Australians Uncovering Ancient Jordan, Fifty years of Middle Eastern Archaeology, Sydney.

2004

Chocolate-on-White ware: Tomb and Tall Typology at Pella, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 8, 97–108.

2006

Chocoloate-on-White Ware, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney.

1986

>Abel-Beth-Ma>acah: “Northern Gateway of Ancient Israel”, 207–222, in: L. GERATY and L. HERR (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies [Horn Festschrift], Berrien Springs.

1987

The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era, Biblical Archaeologist 50, 148–177.

1990

’Hyksos,’ Egyptian Destructions, and the End of the Palestinian Middle Bronze Age, Levant 22, 75–81.

1992

Pastoralism and the End of the Urban Early Bronze Age in Palestine, 83–92, in: O. BAR-YOSEF and A. KHAZANOV (eds.), Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives, Monographs in World Archaeology, Madison.

1993

The Rise of Complexity in the Land of Israel in the Early Second Millennium B.C.E., 98–109, in: A. BIRAN and J. AVIRAM (eds.), Biblical archaeology today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology: Supplement. Pre-congress Symposium: Population, Production and Power (Jerusalem, June 1990), Jerusalem.

Abu Hamid: Village de 4e Millénaire de la Vallée du Jordain, Amman.

DONNELLY, P.

DONNELLY, P., FRASER, J., LOVELL, J. 2010

A Border Temple in the Wadi er-Rayyan in the Jordan Valley Reaches, Paper presented at the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, London, April 2010.

DORNEMANN, R.H. 1981

The Late Bronze Age Pottery Tradition at Tell Hadidi, Syria, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241, 29–47.

1987

Some Observations on the Geographical Extent of Cultural Areas in Syria and the Transjordan, 275–278, in: A. HADIDI (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan III, Amman.

1990

Preliminary Comments on the Pottery Traditions at Tell Nimrin, Illustrated from the 1989 Seasons of Excavation, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 34, 153–181.

DORSEY, D.

1995a Orienting the Study of Trade in Near Eastern Archaeology, 111–119, in: S. GITIN (ed.), Recent Excavations in Israel, a View to the West: Reports on Kabri, Nami, MiqneEkron, Dor, and Ashkelon, Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia and Conference Papers, No. 1, Dubuque.

1970

1995b Social Structure in the Early Bronze IV Period in Palestine, 282–296, in: T.E. LEVY (ed.), The Archaeology of Society on the Holy Land, London.

DOTHAN, M.

1995c ”Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?” Part II: Archaeology and the Religions of Ancient Israel, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 298, 37–58. 1997

2003

Settlement Patterns and Chronology of Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age, 285–301, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia. The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period, 43–60, in: A.M. MAEIR, S. DAR and Z. SAFRAI (eds.), The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1121, Oxford.

1991

DOSSIN, G.

1956

Mapuche Ceremonial Landscapes, Social Recruitment and Resource Rights, World Archaeology 22, 223–241.

2000

The Excavation at Nahariyah: Preliminary Report (Seasons 1954/55), Israel Exploration Journal 6, 14–25. Kamares Ware at Hazor, Israel Exploration Journal 50, 1–15.

DOWLING, J. 1979

The Goodfellows vs. the Dalton Gang: The Assumptions of Economic Anthropology, Journal of Anthropological Research 35, 292–308.

DRESSLER, H. 1984

The Evidence of the Ugaritic CTA 19 (KTU 1.19): A Reconsideration of the Kinnereth Hypothesis, Vetus Testamentum 34, 216–221.

DRUKS, A. 1971

DOBRES, M.

DU

2000

1948

Technology and Social Agency: Outlining an Anthropological Framework for Archaeology, London.

La Route de l’étain en Mesopotamie au Temps de Zimri-Lin, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie Orientale 64, 97–106.

DOTHAN, T., ZUCKERMAN, S., and GOREN, Y.

DILLEHAY, T. 1990

The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel, ASOR Library of Biblical and Near Eastern Archaeology, Baltimore.

Tel Kittan [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 39, 17.

MESNIL DU BUISSON, L.C. Baghouz, l’ancien Corsôte, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 3, Leiden.

264

Bibliography

DUNAYENVSKI, I., and KEMPINSKI, A. 1973 The Megiddo Temples, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina Vereins 89, 161–187. DURAND, J.-M. 2006

La date des textes de Hazor, Nouvelles Archéologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2006 (4 décembre), 88–89.

EARLE, T.K. 2002

Bronze Age Economics: The Beginnings of Political Economics, Boulder.

EARLE, T.K., and ERICSON, J.E. (eds.) 1977

Exchange Systems in Prehistory, Studies in Archaeology, New York.

1992a An EBI Stamp Seal from Tel Kitan [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 23, 5–8. 1992b Kittan, Tel [In Hebrew], 791–795, in: E. STERN (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 2 Jerusalem. 1993a Kitan, Tel, 878–881, in: E. STERN and A. LEWINSONGILBOA (eds.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 3, Jerusalem. 1993b Nahal Rephaim – A Bronze Age Village in Southwestern Jerusalem [In Hebrew], Qadmoniot 26, 82–95. EISENBERG, E., GOPHER, A., and GREENBERG, R. 2002

EDELSTEIN, G. 1964

T. el-Oreime [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 11, 10–11.

EDELSTEIN, G. 1975

Ayelet Hashachar [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 54–55, 2–3.

EDELSTEIN, G., MILEVSKI, I., and AURANT, S. 1998

The Rephaim Valley Project, Villages, Terraces, and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 3, Jerusalem.

EDLUND-BERRY, I.E.M. 2006

Ritual Space and Boundaries in Etruscan Religion, 116–132, in: N. T. DE GRUMMOND and E. SIMON (eds.), The Religion of the Etruscans, Austin. EDWARDS, P., FALCONER, S., FALL, P., ARIOTTI, A., and SWOVELAND, T. 2004 Archaeology and Environment of the Dead Sea Plain: Preliminary Results of the Third Season of Investigations by the joint La Trobe University/Arizona State University Project, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 48, 181–201. EIDEN, J. 1991

The Tell Leilan Archives 1987, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie Orientale 85, 109–135.

EISENBERG, E. 1973 1975 1976a 1976b 1977a 1977b 1980 1985 1987 1988

Kh. Neter [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 47, 5–6. Tel Kitan [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 54–55, 8–10. Tel Kitan [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 57–58, 14–16. The Temples at Tel Kitan [In Hebrew], Qadmoniot 9 (36), 105–109. The Temples at Tell Kittan, Biblical Archaeologist 40, 77–81. Tel Kitan [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 61–62, 15. Shaar HaGolan [In Hebrew] Hadashot Archaeologiot 73, 12. A Burial Cave of the Early Bronze Age IV (MBI) Near >Enan, >Atiqot (English Series) 17, 59–74. Tel Shalem [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 89, 30–31. Tel Shalem [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 92, 20–22.

Tel Te >o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports No. 13, Jerusalem.

ELITZUR, Y. 2004

Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History, Jerusalem.

ELLENBLUM, R. 2003

Frontier Activities: The Transformation of a Muslim Sacred Site into the Frankish Castle of Vadum Iacob, Crusades 3, 83–98.

ELLENBLUM, R., MARCO, S., AGNON, A., ROCKWELL, T., and BOAS, A. 1998

Crusader Castle Torn Apart by Earthquake at Dawn, 20 May 1202, Geology 26, 303–306.

EPSTEIN, C. 1966

Palestinian Bichrome Ware, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, Leiden.

1974

Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Kefar Szold and Ginosar [In Hebrew with English Summary], >Atiqot (Hebrew Series) 7, 13–39, 2*–6*.

1975

The Dolmen Problem in Light of Recent Excavations [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 12, 1–8.

1976

Kiryat Shmona [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 56, 5–6.

1985

Dolmens Excavated in the Golan, >Atiqot 17, 20–58.

EPSTEIN, C., and GUTTMAN, S. 1972

The Golan Survey, 243–298, in: M. KOCHAVI (ed.), Judaea, Samaria and the Golan: Archaeological Survey, 1967–1968 [In Hebrew], Jerusalem.

ERIKSSON, K. 2001

Historical Transitions Revealed in Tomb 62, Some Implications of the Late Cypriot Pottery in a Middle/ Late Bronze Age Tomb at Pella in Jordan, 239–248, in: A. WALMSLEY (ed.), Australians Uncovering Ancient Jordan, Fifty years of Middle Eastern Archaeology, Sydney.

2003

A Preliminary Synthesis of Recent Archaeological Observations on the Relations between Cyprus and other Eastern Mediterranean Societies during the Late Middle Bronze–Late Bronze II periods, 411–429, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna.

ESSE, D.L. 1989a Village Potters in Early Bronze Age Palestine: A Case Study, 77–92, in: A. LEONARD, Jr. and B. BEYER (eds.),

Bibliography Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene Kantor, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47, Chicago. 1989b Secondary State Formation and Collapse in Early Bronze Age Palestine, 81–96, in: P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (ed.), L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze Ancien: Bilan et Perspectives des Recherches Actuelles, British Archaeological Reports International Series 527, Oxford. 1990 Tel Yaqush – 1989 [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 95, 24. 1991 Subsistence, Trade, and Social Changes in Early Bronze Age Palestine, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 50, Chicago. ESSE, D.L., and HOPKE, P. 1986 Levantine Trade in the Early Bronze Age: From Pots to Peoples, 327–339, in: J. OLIN and M. BLACKMAN (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium, Washington, DC. FALCONER, S.E. 1987a Heartland of Villages: Reconsidering Early Urbanism in the Southern Levant, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1987b Village Pottery Production and Exchange: A Jordan Valley Perspective, 251–259, in: A. HADIDI (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 3, London. 1992 Hayyat, Tel el-, 481–482, in: E. STERN (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 2, Jerusalem. 1994a The Development and Decline of Bronze Age Civilization in the Southern Levant: A Reassessment of Urbanism and Ruralism, 305–333, in: C. MATHERS and S. STODDART (eds.), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8, Sheffield. 1994b Village Economy and Society in the Jordan Valley: A Study of Bronze Age Rural Complexity, 121–142, in: G. M. SCHWARTZ and S. E. FALCONER (eds.), Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, Washington, DC. 2001 The Middle Bronze Age, 271–289, in: B. MACDONALD, R. ADAMS and P. BIENKOWSKI (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan, Levantine Archaeology 1, Sheffield. FALCONER, S.E., and BERELOV, I. 2006 Ceramic and Radiocarbon Chronology for Tell elHayyat, 44–64, in: S.E. FALCONER and P. FALL (eds.), Bronze Age Rural Ecology and Village Life at Tell el-Hayyat, Jordan, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1586, Oxford. FALCONER, S.E., and FALL, P. 2006 Bronze Age Rural Ecology and Village Life at Tell el-Hayyat, Jordan, (with contributions by I. BERELOV and M. METZGER), British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1586, Oxford. 2009 Settling the Valley: Agrarian Settlement and Interaction along the Jordan Rift during the Bronze Age, 97–108, in: E. KAPTIJN and L.P. PETIT (eds.), A Timeless Vale: Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit Van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Archaeological Studies Leiden University 19, Leiden.

265

FALCONER, S.E., FALL, P., METZGER, M., and LINES, L. 2003 Bronze Age Rural Economic Transitions in the Jordan Valley, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 58, 1–17. FALCONER, S.E., FALL, P., and JONES, J. 1998 Winter 1996/97 Excavations in the Northern Jordan Valley: The Jordan Valley Village Project, American Journal of Archaeology 102(3), 588–589. 2001 The Jordan Valley Village Project: Excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni>aj, 2000, American Journal of Archaeology 105, 438–439. 2007 Life at the Boundation of Bronze Age Civilization: Agrarian Villages in the Jordan Valley, 261–268, in: T. E. LEVY, P.M.M. DAVIAU, R.W. YOUNKER and M. SHAER (eds.), Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, London. FALCONER, S.E., and MAGNESS-GARDINER, B. 1983a 1982 Excavations of the Tell el-Hayyat Project, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 27, 87–103. 1983b Recherches Archéologiques a Tell el-Hayyat dans le Nord de la Vallée du Jourdain, 1982–1983, Syria 60, 306–310. 1984 Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Tell elHayyat Project, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 255, 49–74. 1989a Bronze Age Village Life in the Jordan Valley: Archaeological Investigations at Tell el-Hayyat and Tell Abu en-Ni>aj, National Geographic Research 5, 335–347. 1989b Hayyat, (Tell el), 254–261, in: E. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ and J. HENNESSY (eds.), Archaeology of Jordan, II1: Field Reports, Surveys and Sites A-K, Akkadica Supplementum VII, Leuven. 1993 Hayyat, Tell el-, 591–593, in: E. STERN and A. LEWINSON-GILBOA (eds.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. II, Jerusalem. FALCONER, S.E., and SAVAGE, S.H. 1995 Heartlands and Hinterlands: Alternative Trajectories of Early Urbanization in Mesopotamia and the Southern Levant, American Antiquity 60, 37–58. FALL, P., LINES, L., and FALCONER, S.E. 1998 Seeds of Civilization: Bronze Age Rural Economy and Ecology in the Southern Levant, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88, 107–125. FALL, P., FALCONER, S.E., and LINES, L. 2002 Agricultural Intensification and the Secondary Products Revolution along the Jordan Rift, Human Ecology 30, 445–482. FARAG, S. 1980 Une Inscription Memphite de la XIIe Dynastie, Revue d’égyptologie 32, 75–82. FARBER, E. VENGOSH, A., GAVRIELI, I., MARIE, A., SULLEN, T.D., MAYER, B., POLAK, A. and SHAVIT, U. 2007 The Geochemistry of Groundwater Resources in the Jordan Valley: The Impact of the Rift Valley Brines, Applied Geochemistry 22(3), 494–514. FASSBECK, G., FORTNER, S., ROTTLOFF, A., and ZANGENGERG, J. (eds.) 2003 Leben am See Gennesaret: Kulturgeschichtliche Entdeckungen in einer biblischen Region, Mainz.

266

Bibliography

FAUST, A. 2005

The Canaanite Village: Social Structure of Middle Bronze Age Rural Communities, Levant 37, 105–125.

1993

FAUST, A., and ASHKENAZY, Y. 2007

Excess in Precipitation as a Cause for Settlement Decline along the Israeli Coastal Plain during the Third Millennium BC, Quaternary Research 68, 37–44.

1999

FEIG, N. 1991

Burial Caves of the Early Bronze Age IV at Tel >Amal, >Atiqot 20, 119–128.

FELDMAN, M.H. 2007

2008

Frescoes, Exotica, and the Re-Invention of the Northern Levantine Kingdoms During the Second Millennium B.C.E., 39–65, in: M. HEINZ and M.H. FELDMAN (eds.), Representations of Political Power: Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake, IN. Knowing the Foreign: Power, Exotica, and Frescoes in the Middle Bronze Age Levant, 281–286, in: R.D. BIGGS, J. MYERS and M.T. ROTH (eds.), Proceedings of the 51st Recontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago July 18–22, 2005, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 62, Chicago.

2000a

2000b

2003 2004

FEREMBACH, D., FURSHPAN, A., and PERROT, J. 1975

Une Sepulture Collective du Bronze Moyen II AB a Kh. Minha (Munhata), Israel, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 21, 87–117.

2006a

FINKELSTEIN, I. 1992

1993

Middle Bronze Age ‘Fortifications’: A Reflection of Social Organization and Political Formations, Tel Aviv 19 (2), 201–220.

2006b

The History and Archaeology of Shiloh from the Middle Bronze Age II to Iron Age II, 371–393, in: I. FINKELSTEIN, S. BUNIMOVITZ and Z. LEDERMAN (eds.), Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv.

2006c

1995a The Great Transformation: The ‘Conquest’ of the Highlands Frontiers and the Rise of the Territorial States, 349–365, in: T.E. LEVY (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London.

2006d

1995b Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology of the Negev, Sinai and Neighboring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 6, Sheffield. 2005

Hazor at the End of the Late Bronze Age: A Reassessment, Ugarit-Forschungen 37, 341–350.

FINKELSTEIN, I., and ZILBERMAN, Y. 1995

Site Planning and Subsistence Economy: Negev Settlements as a Case Study, 213–226, in: S.W. HOLLOWAY and L.K. HANDY (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 190, Sheffield.

2006e

2008a 2008b

FISCHER, P.M. 1991a A Possible Late Bronze Age Sanctuary at Tell Abu alKharaz, Transjordan, Journal of Prehistoric Religion 5, 42–47. 1991b Tell Abu al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1989, First Season Preliminary Report from Trial

2009

Soundings, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 35, 67–104. Tell Abu al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1991, Second Season Preliminary Excavation Report, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 37, 279–305. Chocolate-on-White Ware: Typology, Chronology, and Provenance: The Evidence from Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313, 1–29. The Jordan Valley and Cyprus: Chocolate-on-White and White Slip Wares, 51–58, in: P. ÅSTROM and D. SÜRENHAGEN (eds.), Periplus: Festschrift für Hans-Günter Buchholz zu seinem achtzigsten Geburstag am 24, Dezember 1999, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 127, Jonsered. A Synthesis of Ten Campaigns at Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley: The Early, Middle, Late Bronze and Iron Ages, 447–470, in: P. MATTHIAE, L. PEYRONEL and F. PINNOCK (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd, 1998, Rome. Chocolate-on-White Ware: Further Observations and Radiocarbon Dates, Ägypten & Levante 13, 51–68. Coast Contra Inland: Tell el->Ajjul and Tell Abu alKharaz during the Late Middle and Late Bronze Ages, Ägypten & Levante 14, 249–263. Chocolate-on-White Ware from Tell el-Dab>a, 87–95, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN and A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines, Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. II, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven. P.M. FISCHER (ed.), The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu alKharaz and Tell Deir Alla, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 12, Vienna. The Rise and Fall of Middle and Late Bronze Age Societies of Tell Abu al-Kharaz, 59–197, in: P.M. FISCHER (ed.), The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Deir Alla, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 12, Vienna. Essence of the Studies of Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Deir >Alla, 227–241, in: P.M. FISCHER (ed.), The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Deir Alla, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 12, Vienna. Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 11, Vienna. Tell Abu al-Kharaz: A Bead in the Jordan Valley, Near Eastern Archaeology 71(4), 196–213. A Middle Bronze Age III Jug from the Lebanese Coast at Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley, 87–92, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), The Bronze Age in Lebanon: Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 17, Vienna. Textile Production at Tell >Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley, 109–117, in: E. KAPTIJN and L.P. PETIT (eds.), A

267

Bibliography Timeless Vale: Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit Van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Si#xty-Fifth Birthday, Archaeological Studies Leiden University 19, Leiden. FISCHER, P. M., and FELDBACHER, R. 2009

The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1991: Preliminary Excavation Report on the Eleventh Season of Excavation at Tall Abu al-Kharaz, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 53, 139–151.

2005

FRANKEN, H.J., and IBRAHIM, M.M. 1977–1978 Two Seasons of Excavations at Tell Deir >Alla, 1976–1978, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 22, 57–80. FRANKEN, H.J., and LONDON, G. 1995

FISCHER, P.M., and HERRMANN, G. 1995

A Carved Bone Object from Tell Abu al-Kharaz in Jordan: A Palestinian Workshop for Bone and Ivory?, Levant 27, 145–163. Tell el->Ajjul 1999, A Joint Palestinian-Swedish Field Project: First Season Preliminary Report, Ägypten & Levante 10, 211–226.

FITZGERALD, G.M. 1930

The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan, the Pottery, Philadelphia.

1931

Beth Shean Excavations 1921–1923: The Arab and Byzantine Levels, Publications of the Palestine Sections of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. III, Philadelphia.

1935

The Earliest Pottery of Beth-Shan, Museum Journal 24, 5–22.

1939

A Sixth Century Monastery at Beth-Shan, Publications of the Palestine Section of the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania IV, Philadelphia.

FLANAGAN, J.W., and MCCREERY, D.W. 1990

First Preliminary Report of the 1989 Tell Nimrin Project, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 34, 131–150.

FLANAGAN, J.W., MCCREERY, D.W., and YASSINE, K.N. 1992

Preliminary Report of the 1990 Excavation at Tell Nimrin, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 36, 89–111.

1994

Tell Nimrin Preliminary Report on the 1993 Season, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38, 205–244.

1996

Tell Nimrin Preliminary Report on the 1995 Season, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 40, 271–292.

1978

Kinneret und Ginnosar, Voruntersuchung fur eine Ausgrabung auf dem Tell el->Oreme am See Genezareth, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina Vereins 94, 32–45.

1990

Kinneret: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Tell el->Oreme am See Gennesaret 1982–1985, Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina Vereins 15, Wiesbaden.

1992

Abel-Beth-Maacah (Place), 10, in: D.N. FREEDMAN (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary I: A–C, New York.

1993

Kinneret: Excavations at Tell el->Oreimeh (Tel Kinrot) 1982–1985 Seasons, Tel Aviv 20, 187–215.

1999

Kinneret: Excavations at Tell el-Oreimeh (Tel Kinrot), Preliminary Report on the 1994–1997 Seasons, Tel Aviv 26, 92–115.

2003

Kinneret – Übersicht über die Stadtgeschichte aufgrund von Ausgrabungen und Schriftquellen, 33–42, in: G. FASSBECK, S. FORTNER, A. ROTTLOFF and J. ZANGENGERG (eds.), Leben am See Gennesaret: Kulturgeschichtliche Entdeckungen in ener biblischen Region, Mainz /Rhein.

FRITZ, V., and MÜNGER, S. 2002

1992

2009

Stable Isotopes of a Subfossil Tamarix Tree from the Dead Sea Region, Israel, and Their Implications for the Intermediate Bronze Age Environmental Crisis, Quaternary Research 71(3), 319–328.

FRUMKIN, A., CARMI, I., ZAK, I., and MAGARTIZ, M. 1994

Middle Holocene Environmental Change Determined from the Salt Caves of Mount Sedom, Israel, 315–322, in: O. BAR-YOSEF and R. KRA (eds.), Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimiates of the Eastern Mediterranean, Tucson.

FRY, R.E. (ed.)

Excavations at Tell Deir >Alla, I: A Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of the Early Iron Age Pottery, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, Leiden.

1980

1991

A History of Pottery Making, 62–85, in: P. BIENKOWSKY (ed.), Treasures from an Ancient Land: The Art of Jordan, Glasgow.

1988

1992

Excavations at Tell Deir >Alla: The Late Bronze age sanctuary, Louvain.

1969

Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen in Kinneret (Tell el->Oreme) 1994 und 1995, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina Vereins 112, 81–99.

FRUMKIN, A.

Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, Jerusalem.

FRANKEN, H.J.

Vorbericht ber die Zweite Phase der Ausgrabungen in Kinneret (Tell el->Oreme) am See Gennesaret 1994– 1999, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina Vereins 118, 2–32.

FRITZ, V., and VIEWEGER, D.

FRANKEL, R., GETZOV, N., AVIAM, M., and DEGANI, A. 2002

Why Painted Pottery Disappeared at the End of the Second Millennium BCE, Biblical Archaeologist 58, 214–222.

FRITZ, V.

FISCHER, P.M., and SADEQ, M. 2000

A History of Pottery and Pottery in Ancient Jerusalem: Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, British Academy Monographs in Archaeology, London.

Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, SAA Papers 1, Washington, DC

FULLER, C. The Hindu Temple and Indian society, 49–66, in: M.V. FOX (ed.), Temple in Society, Winona Lake, IN.

FUSCALDO, P. 2004

The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of Avaris at >Ezbet Helmi, Areas H/III and H/VI Part I: The

268

2005

2009

Bibliography “Classic” Kerma Pottery from the 18th Dynasty, Ägypten & Levante 12, 167–186 The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of Avaris at >Ezbet Helmi, Areas H/III and H/VI Part II: The “Classic” Kerma Pottery from the Second Intermediate Period and the 18th Dynasty, Ägypten & Levante 14, 111–120. The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of Avaris at >Ezbet Helmi, Areas H/III and H/VI Part III: The “Classic” Kerma Pottery from the Second Intermediate Period and the 18th Dynasty, Ägypten & Levante 18, 107–28.

GAL, Z. 1979 An Early Iron Age Site Near Tel Menorah in the BethShan Valley, Tel Aviv 6, 138–145. 1980 Ramat Issachar: Ancient Settlements in a Peripheral Area [In Hebrew with English Summary], Tel Aviv. 1991a The Period of the Israelite Settlement in the Lower Galilee and the Jezreel Valley, Maarav 7, 101–115. 1991b A Note on the Settlement Pattern of the MBII Jezreel and Beth Shan Valleys, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 284, 29–31. 1992 Lower Galilee during the Iron Age, American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series, Winona Lake, In. GAL, Z. and ZORI, N. 2005 A Middle Bronze IIB–Late Bronze Age I Burial Cave at >En Nashab, in the Bet She>an Valley, >Atiqot 49, 17–31. GALE, N.H. 1991 Copper Oxhide Ingots: Their Origin and Their Place in the Bronze Age Metals Trade in the Mediterranean, 197–247, in: N.H. GALE (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Jonsered. GALE, N.H., BACHMANN, H.G., ROTHENBERG, B., STOS-GALE, Z. A., and TYLECOTE, R.F. 1990 The Adventitious Production of Iron in the Smelting of Copper, 182–191, in: B. ROTHENBERG (ed.), The Ancient Metallurgy of Copper, Researches in the Arabah 1959–1984, Vol. 2, London. GARDINER, A. 1957 Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs (3rd ed.), Oxford. GARELLI, P. 1963 Les Assyriens en Cappadoce, Paris. GARFINKEL, Y. 1993 The Yarmukian Culture in Israel, Paléorient 19(1), 115–134. GARFINKEL, Y., BEN-SHLOMO, D., and KUPERMAN, T. 2009 Large-Scale Storage of Grain Surplus in the Sixth Millennium BC: The Silos of Tel Tsaf, Antiquity 21, 309–25. GARFINKEL, Y., and BONFIL, R. 1990 Graves and Burial Customs of the MBIIa Period in Gesher [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 21, 132–147, 106*. GARFINKEL, Y., and COHEN, S. (eds.) 2007 The Middle Bronze IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 62, Boston.

GARSTANG, J. 1932 Jericho: City and Necropolis, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19, 3–22, 35–54. 1933 Jericho: City and Necropolis, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 20, 3–24. 1934 Jericho: City and Necropolis (Fourth Report), Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21, 99–136. GASCHE, H., ARMSTRONG, J., COLE, S., and GURZADYAN, V. 1998 Dating the Fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second Millennium Chronology, Mesopotamian History and Environment Series II, Memoirs 4, Ghent. GATES, M.-H. 1987 Alalakh and Chronology Again, 60–86, in: P. ÅSTRÖM, (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part 2, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature PocketBook 57, Gothenburg. GERSTENBLITH, P. 1983 The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 5, Winona Lake, In. GESE, H. 1965 Ein Rollsiegel der Spateren Mittlebronze aus Pella, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina Vereins 81, 166–179. GETZOV, N. 2006 The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations 1994–1995, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 28, Jerusalem. GEVA, H. 2007 Estimating Jerusalem’s Population in Antiquity: A Minimalist View [In Hebrew with English Abstract], Eretz Israel 28, 50–65, 11*. GIBSON, M. 1974 Violation of Fallow and Engineered Disaster in Mesopotamian Civilization, 7–19, in: T.E. DOWNING and M. GIBSON (eds.), Irrigation’s Impact on Society, Anthropological Papers 25, Tucson. GILEAD, D. 1968 Burial Customs and the Dolmen Problem, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 100, 16–26. GILL, D.W. 1994 Positivism, Pots and Long-distance Trade, 99–107, in: I. MORRIS (ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge. GIVEON, R. 1961 An Egyptian Seal from Kfar Ruppin [In Hebrew], Yediot 25, 249–250. GLANZMAN, W.D., and FLEMING, S.J. 1986 Technology: Fabrication Methods, 164–177, in: P. MCGOVERN (ed.), The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan: The Baq>ah Valley Project, University Museum Monographs, Philadelphia. GLASCOCK, M.D. 1992 Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics, 11–26, in: H. NEFF (ed.), Chemical Char-

Bibliography acterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, Monographs in World Archaeology, No. 7, Madison. GLUECK, N. 1951

Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV [Two Volumes (Text, Plates) and Pap], Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven.

1968

The River Jordan, New York.

GOEDICKE, H. 1991a Egyptian Military Activity in ‘Asia’ in the Middle Kingdom, Revue d’Egyptologie 42, 89–94. 1991b The Perimeter of Egypt’s Political Interests in the (Late?) Middle Kingdom, Bulletin de la société d’égyptologie de Genève 15, 39–42. 1992

Where did Sinuhe Stay in “Asia”, Chronique d’Egypte 67, 28–40.

GOLANI, A., and KOHN-TAVOR, A. 2005

Tel Rehov, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 117 (www. hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=264&mag _id=110)

GOLDBERG, P. 1995

The Changing Landscape, 40–57, in: T.E. LEVY (ed.), The Archaeology of Society on the Holy Land, London.

GOLDSCHMIDT, S. 1973

Synagogue Remains at the Mound of Kefar Qarnaim [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 11, 39–40.

GOLDWASSER, O. 1989

Chapter 9: Some Egyptian Finds from Hazor: Scarabs, Scarab Impressions and a Stele Fragment, 339–345, in: Y. YADIN, Y. AHARONI, R. AMIRAN, A. BEN-TOR, M. DOTHAN, and T. DOTHAN, Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation, 1957–1958, Text, Jerusalem.

GOPHNA, R. 1979

A Middle Bronze Age II Village in the Jordan Valley, Tel Aviv 6, 28–33.

GOPHNA, R., and AYALON, E. 1980

Survey of the Central Coastal Plain, 1978–1979: Settlement Pattern of the Middle Bronze Age IIA, Tel Aviv 7, 147–151.

GOPHNA, R., and BECK, P. 1981

The Rural Aspect of the Settlement Pattern of the Coastal Plain in the Middle Bronze Age II, Tel Aviv 8, 45–80.

GORDON, C.H. 1965

Ugaritic Textbook, Analecta Orientalia 38, Rome.

GOREN-INBAR, N., WERKER, E., and FEIBEL, C. 2002

The Acheulian Site of Gesher Benot Ya>aqov: The Wood Assemblage, Oxford.

GOREN-INBAR, N., ALPERSON, N., KISLEV, M., SIMCHONI, O., MELAMED, Y., BEN-NUN, E., and WERKER, A. 2004

Evidence of Hominin Control of Fire at Gesher Benot Ya>aqov, Israel, Science 304, 725–727.

269

GOREN-INBAR, N., BELITZKY, S., GOREN, Y., RABINOVICH, R., and SARAGUSTI, I. 2006 Gesher Benot Ya>akov – the ‘Bar’: An Acheulian Assemblage, Geoarchaeology 7 (1), 27–40. GOREN-INBAR, N., and SPETH, J. 2004 Introduction, 1–4, in: N. GOREN-INBAR and J. SPETH (eds.), Human Paleoecology in the Levantine Corridor, Oxford. GOREN, Y. 1996 The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 303, 33–72. GOREN, Y., BUNIMOVITZ, S., FINKELSTEIN, I., and NA’AMAN, N. 2003 The Location of Alashiya: New Evidence from Petrographic Investigation of Alashiyan Tablets from elAmarna and Ugarit, American Journal of Archaeology 107, 233–255. GRAFFAM, G. 1992 Beyond State Collapse: Rural History, Raised Fields, and Pastoralism in the South Andes, American Anthropologist 94, 882–904. GREENBERG, R. 1988 The Settlement in the Huleh Valley during the Early Bronze Age II–III, Unpublished Master’s Thesis [In Hebrew with English Summary], Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1996 The Hula Valley from the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age to the end of the Middle Bronze Age IIa: a Study in Regional Archaeology, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation [In Hebrew with English Summary], Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 2002 Early Urbanizations in the Levant: A Regional Narrative, New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology, London. 2003 Early Bronze Age Megiddo and Bet Shean: Discontinuous Settlement in Sociopolitical Context, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16, 17–32. GREENBERG, R., and EISENBERG, E. 2006 Chapter 5: Area BS: The Bar-Adon Excavations, Southeast, 1951–1953, 117–234, in: R. GREENBERG, E. EISENBERG, S. PAZ and I. PAZ (eds.), Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound, Volume I, Excavation Reports 1933–1986, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 30, Jerusalem. GREENBERG, R., EISENBERG, E., PAZ, S., and PAZ, I. 2006 Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound, Volume I. Excavation Reports 1933–1986, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 30, Jerusalem. GREENBERG, R., HORWITZ, L., LERNAU, O., MIENIS, H., KHALAILY, H., and MARDER, O. 1998 A Sounding at Tel Na>ama in the Hula valley, >Atiqot 35, 9–35. GREENBERG, R., and KEINAN, A. 2009 Israeli Archaeological Activity in the West Bank 1967– 2007: A Sourcebook, The Westbank and East Jerusalem Archaeological Database Project, Jerusalem GREENBERG, R., and PAZ, S. 2004

An EB IA–EB III Stratigraphic Sequence from the 1946 Excavations at Tel Beth Yerah, Israel Exploration Journal 54, 1–23.

270

Bibliography

GREENBERG, R., and PAZ, Y.

HARTAL, M.

2005

1989

The Early Bronze Age Fortifications of Tel Bet Yerah, Levant 37, 81–103.

GREENER, A. 2006

Intermediate Bronze Age Burial and Society in the Land of Israel, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Ramat-Gan, BarIlan University.

HARTAL, M., and SMITHLINE, H. 2008

GREENHUT, Z. 1995

EB IV Tombs and Burials in Palestine, Tel Aviv 22, 3–46.

GRIGG, D. 1974

The Agricultural Systems of the World: An Evolutionary Approach, Cambridge.

GRIGSON, C. 1995

Plough and Pasture in the Early Economy of the Southern Levant, 245–268, in: T.E. LEVY (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London.

GROSSMAN, D. 1994

Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and its Offshoots in Ottoman Palestine [In Hebrew], Jerusalem. Vegetation Changes during the Late Pleistocene and Holocene in Lebanon: A Pollen Record from the Bekaa Valley, The Holocene 18(7), 1089–1099.

HAJAR, L., HAÏDAR-BOUSTANI, M., KHATER, C., and CHEDDADI, R. 2010

Environmental Changes in Lebanon during the Holocene: Man vs. Climate Impacts, Journal of Arid Environments 74(7), 746–755.

1978

Demographic Archaeology, 49–103, in: M. SCHIFFER (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1, New York.

1981

Demographic Archaeology, Studies in Archaeology, New York.

HAUPTMANN, A. 2007

Direct Evidence for Organic Cargoes in the Late Bronze Age, World Archaeology 24, 348–360.

2010

Mortuary Archaeology and Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8, 93–122.

1990

The seismicity along the Dead Sea Fault during the last 60,000 years, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99(3), 2020–2026.

HARBOTTLE, G. 1982

Chemical Characterization in Archaeology, 13–51, in: J. ERICSON and T. EARLE (eds.), Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, New York.

1990

Neutron Activation Analysis in Archaeological Chemistry, 58–91, in: K. YOSHIHARA (ed.), Chemical Applications of Nuclear Probes, New York.

HARRELL, J., and LEWAN, M. 2002

Sources of Mummy Bitumen in Ancient Egypt and Palestine, Archaeometry 44, 285–293.

HARROWER, M. J. 2010

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Hydrological Modeling in Archaeology: An Example from the Origins of Irrigation in Southwest Arabia (Yemen), Journal of Archaeological Science 37(7), 1447–1452.

Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 11, Archaeometry 32(2), 211–237.

HEIMANN, A. 1985

The Geology of the Banias Plain and the Northern Hula Valley, with an Emphasis on Travertine Sediments, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

1990

The Development of the Dead Sea Rift and its Margins in Northern Israel during the Pliocene and the Pleistocene [In Hebrew with English Summary], Jerusalem.

HEIMANN, A., ZILBERMAN, E., AMIT, R., and FRIESLANDER, U. 2009

HAMIEL, Y., AMIT, R., BEGIN, Z. B., MARCO, S., KATZ, O., SALAMON, A., ZILBERMAN, E. and PORAT, N. 2009

Chapter Eight. Pioneers and Refugees: Arabs and Jews in the Jordan River Valley, 189–216, in: W.I. ZARTMAN (ed.), Understanding Life in the Borderlands: Boundaries in Depth and in Motion, Athens, GA.

HEDGES, R., HOUSLEY, R., BRONK, C., and VAN KLINKEN, G.

HALLOTE, R.S. 1995

The Archaeometallurgy of Copper: Evidence from Faynan, Jordan, Berlin.

HAVERLOCK, R.S.

HALDANE, C. 1993

Tahunat et Tabkha, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 119, Online: http://www. hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=593&mag _id=112.

HASSAN, F.A.

HAJAR, L., KHATER, C., and CHEDDADI, R. 2008

Northern Golan Heights: The Archaeological Survey as a Source of Regional Survey [In Hebrew with English Summary], Qazrin.

Northward Migration of the Southern Diagonal Fault of the Hula Pull-Apart Basin, Dead Sea Transform, Northern Israel, Tectonophysics 476(3–4), 496–511.

HEINZ, M. 1990

Tell Alalakh/Atchana: die schichten VII–XVII, Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Neukirchen-Vluyn.

HELCK, W. 1976

Ägyptische Statuen im Ausland – ein Chronologisches Problem, Ugarit-Forschungen 8, 101–115.

HELMS, S. 1984

Excavations at Tell um Hammad esh-Sharqiya in the Jordan Valley 1982, Levant 16, 35–54.

1986

Excavations at Tell um Hammad, 1984, Levant 18, 25–50.

HELTZER, M. 1989

The Trade of Crete and Cyprus with the East, Minos 24, 7–15.

HENDERSON, J. 2000

The Science and Archaeology of Materials: An Investigation of Inorganic Materials, London.

Bibliography HENNESSY, J. 1985

Chocolate-on-White Ware at Pella, 100–112, in: J.N. TUBB (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, London.

HENNESSY, J., EDWARDS, P., WALMSLEY, A., BOURKE, S.J., and TIDJ.

MARSH,

1989

Pella (Tabaqat Fahl), 406–441, in: D. HOMÈS-FREDERand J. HENNESSY (eds.), Archaeology of Jordan, II2, Field Reports: Sites L-Z, Akkadica Supplementum VIII, Leuven. ICQ

HENNESSY, J., MCNICOLL, A., WATSON, P., RANDLE, L., and WALMSLEY, A. 1983

Preliminary Report on the 1983 Season of the Sydney/Wooster Joint Expedition to Pella (spring session), Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 27, 363–373.

HENNESSY, J., POTTS, T., MCNICOLL, A., and WALMSLEY, A. 1981

Preliminary Report on a Second Season of Excavation at Pella, Jordan, Winter, 1980, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 25, 267–309.

HERBERT, S.C. 1979

Tel Anafa 1978: Preliminary Report, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 234, 67–83.

1995

Tel Anafa I, i-ii: Final Report on Ten Years of Excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman settlement in Northern Israel, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series No. 10, Part 1, Ann Arbor, MI.

HESS, O. 1984

Middle Bronze I Tombs at Tel >Artal, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253, 55–60.

1990

Finds from a Cemetery in Nahal Tavor [In Hebrew with English Summary], >Atiqot (Hebrew Series) 10, 157–159, 36*.

HESS, R.S. 1993

Amarna Personal Names, American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series, Winona Lake, IN.

HESSE, K. 2008

Late Bronze Age Maritime Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: An Inland Levantine Perspective, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Uppsala, Uppsala University.

HIRTH, K.G. 1978

Interregional Trade and the Formation of Prehistoric Gateway Communities, American Antiquity 43, 35–45.

HODDER, I., and ORTON, C. 1976

Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, New Studies in Archaeology, Cambridge.

HODGES, R., and WHITEHOUSE, D. 1983

Mohammed, Charlemagne and the Origins of Europe: Archaeology and the Pirenne Thesis, Ithaca, N.Y.

HODGES, R. 1988

Primitive and Peasant Markets, New Perspective on the Past, Oxford.

HOFFMEIER, J.K. 1989

Reconsidering Egypt’s Part in the Termination of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine, Levant 21, 181–193.

1990

271

Some Thoughts on William G. Dever’s ‘Hyksos,’ Egyptian Destructions, and the End of the Middle Bronze Age, Levant 22, 83–89. 1991 James Weinstein’s ‘Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/ Late Bronze IA Transition’: A Rejoinder, Levant 23, 117–124. HOLING, C. 1973 Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 1–23. HOLLADAY, J.S., Jr. 1992 Maskhuta, Tell el-, 588–592, in: D.N. FREEDMAN (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume IV: K–N, New York. 1997 The Eastern Nile Delta during the Hyksos and PreHyksos Periods: Toward a Systemic/Socioeconomic Understanding, 183–252, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia. 2001 Toward a Paradigmatic Understanding of Long-Distance Trade in the Ancient Near East: From the Middle Bronze II to Early Iron II – A Sketch, 136–198, in: P.M. DAVIAU, J. WEVERS and M. WEIGL (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Biblical Studies in Honor of Paul-Eugène Dion, Vol. II, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, Vol. 325, Sheffield. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ, D., and HENNESSY, J. 1986 Archaeology of Jordan I: Bibliography, Akkadica Supplementum VIII, Leuven. HOPF, M. 1983 Appendix B: Jericho Plant Remains, 576–621, in: K.M. KENYON and T. HOLLAND, (eds.), Excavations at Jericho V: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds, London. HORNE, L. 1993 Occupational and Locational Instability in Arid Land Settlement, 43–53, in: C.M. CAMERON and S.A. TOMKA (eds.), Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge. HOROWITZ, A. 1971 Climatic and Vegetational Developments in Northeastern Israel during Upper Pleistocene-Holocene Times, Pollen et Spores 13, 255–278. 2001 The Jordan Rift Valley, with contributions by A. FLEXER, A. GINZBURG, Z. BEN-AVRAHAM, and Z. GARFUNKEL, Exton, PA. HOROWITZ, A., SIEDNER, G., and BAR-YOSEF, O. 1973 Radiometric Dating of the Ubeidiya Formation, Nature 242, 186–187. HOROWITZ, W. 2007 Old Babylonian Period Tablets from Hazor: The Earliest Writings of the Cuneiform Southwest, Paper presented at the conference “Origins of Early Writing Systems”, October 5–7, 2007, University of Peking, Beijing. HOROWITZ, W., and OSHIMA, T. 2005 An Old-New Discovery at Hazor [In Hebrew], Qadmoniot 38, 13–14. 2006 Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times (S. Sanders, Collaborator), Jerusalem.

272

Bibliography

2007

Hazor 15: A Letter Fragment from Hazor, Israel Exploration Journal 57, 34–40.

2010

Hazor: A Cuneiform City in Canaan. A Retrospective and Look Forward, 531–538, in: P. MATTHIAE, F. PINNOCK, L. NIGRO and N. MARCHETTI (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, 5 May–10 May 2009, “Sapienza”, Università di Roma. Volume 3 – Islamic Session; Posters Session, Wiesbaden.

2009, “Sapienza”, Università di Roma. Volume 1. Near Eastern Archaeology in the Past, Present and Future. Heritge and Identity. Ethnoarchaeological and Interdisciplinary Approach, Results and Perspectives. Visual Expression and Craft Production in the Definition of Social Relations and Status, Wiesbaden. IBRAHIM, M.M. 2009

HOROWITZ, W., and SHAFFER, A. 1992

An Administrative Tablet from Hazor: A Preliminary Edition, Israel Exploration Journal 42, 21–33.

HOROWITZ, W., and WASSERMAN, N. 2000

2004

An Old Babylonian Letter from Hazor with Mention of Mari and Ekallatum, Israel Exploration Journal 50, 169–174.

IBRAHIM, M., SAUER, J., and YASSINE, K.

From Hazor to Mari and Ekallatum: A Recently Discovered Old-Babylonian Letter from Hazor, 335–344, in: C. NICOLLE (ed.), Nomades et Sédentaires dans le Proche-Orient Ancient: Compte rendu de la XLVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 10–13 juillet 2000), Amurru 3, Paris.

ILAN, D.

1976

1989

Diachronic Changes in Rural Husbandry Practices in Bronze Age Settlements from the Refaim Valley, Israel, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 121, 44–54.

2001

Chapter 7: Animal Remains from Efrata, 110–118, in: R. GONEN, Excavations at Efrat: A Burial Ground from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports Vol. 12, Jerusalem.

HÖTZL, H., MÖLLER, P., and ROSENTHAL, E. (eds.) The Water of the Jordan Valley: Scarcity and Deterioration of Groundwater and Its Impact on the Region’s Development, Heidelberg.

HOURANI, F., KAPTIJN, E., PETIT, L., KOOIJ, G. 2008

AL-GHUL,

O., and

VAN DER

Dayr >Alla Regional Project: Settling the Steppe Third Campaign 2006, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 52, 427–43.

HOUSLEY, R.A. 1994

’Stepped-Rim’ Juglets from Tel Dan and the ‘MB I–II (MBIIA–B) Transitional Period, Israel Exploration Journal 41, 229–238.

1992

A Middle Bronze Age Offering Deposit from Tel Dan, Tel Aviv 19, 247–266.

1995a Mortuary Practices at Tel Dan in the Middle Bronze Age: A Reflection of Canaanite Society and Ideology, 117–139, in: S. CAMPBELL and A. GREEN (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, Oxbow Monograph 51, Oxford. 1995b The Dawn of Internationalism: The Middle Bronze Age, 297–319, in: T.E. LEVY (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London. 1996a The Middle Bronze Age Tombs, 163–329, in: A. BIRAN, D. ILAN and R. GREENBERG, Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs, Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem. 1996b Middle Bronze Age Painted Pottery from Tel Dan, Levant 28, 157–172. ILAN, D., SOLAR, G., and COOK, G. 2008

Eastern Mediterranean Chronologies: The Oxford AMS Contribution, 55–73, in: O. BAR-YOSEF and R. KRA (eds.), Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, Tucson.

HUNGER, H. 2009 How Uncertain is Mesopotamian Chronology, 145–52, in: D.A. WARBURTON (ed.), Time’s up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini: Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg, November 2007, Initiated by Jan Heinemeier & Walter L. Friedrich, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Vol. 10, Athens. MB–LB Pottery from the Eastern Palace of Qatna. Tradition and Variation in the Ceramic Horizon of a Mid Second Millennium Syrian Metropolis, 333–349, in: P. MATTHIAE, F. PINNOCK, L. NIGRO and N. MARCHETTI (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, 5 May–10 May

The Triple-Arched Mudbrick Age of Middle Bronze Age Tel Dan: New Excavations, New Insights and the Dilemmas of Restoration, Paper Presented at the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May, 2008.

ILAN, D., VANDIVER, P., and SPAER, M. 1993

An Early Glass Bead from Tel Dan, Israel Exploration Journal 43, 230–234.

ISSAR, A.S. 2008

IAMONI, M. 2008

The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1975, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 222, 40–66.

1991

HORWITZ, L.K.

2009

The Jordan Valley during the Early Bronze Age, 81–96, in: E. KAPTIJN and L.P. PETIT (eds.), A Timeless Vale: Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit Van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Archaeological Studies Leiden University 19, Leiden.

A Tale of Two Cities in Ancient Canaan: How the Groundwater Storage Capacity in Arad and Jericho Decided Their History, 137–143, in: W. DRAGONI and B.S. SUKHIJA (eds.), Climate Change and Groundwater, Geological Society, London, Special Publications 288, London.

ISSAR, A.S., GOVRIN, Y., GEYH, M. A., WAKSHAL, E., and WOLF, M. 1992

Climate Changes during the Upper Holocene in Israel, Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 40, 219–223.

273

Bibliography ISSAR, A., and ZOHAR, M.

KAPLAN, M.F.

2004

1980

Climate Change: Environment and Civilization in the Middle East, Heidelberg.

The Origin and Distribution of Tell el-Yehudiyeh Ware, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 42, Göteborg.

JAMES, F.

KAPTIJN, E.

1966

2009

The Iron Age at Beth-Shan, Philadelphia.

JAMES, F.W., and MCGOVERN, P.E. 1993

The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII, Philadelphia.

Life on the Watershed. Reconstructing Subsistence in a Steppe Region Using Archaeological Survey: A Diachronic Perspective on Habitation in the Jordan Valley, Leiden.

JIRKU, A.

KAPTIJN, E., PETIT, L. P., GROOTVELD, E., HOURANI, F., KOOIJ, G., and AL-GHUL, O.

1938

2005

Der See Tiberias in vor- und Fruhgeschichtlicher Zeit, Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 18, 24–40.

JOANNES, F. 1996

Routes et Voies de Communication dans les Archives de Mari, Amurru 1, 322–361.

Dayr >Alla Regional project: Settling the Steppe. First Campaign 2004, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49, 89–99.

KARAGEORGHIS, V. 2002

Early Cyprus: Crossroads of the Mediterranean, Los Angeles.

JOFFE, A.H.

KAREEM, J.

1991

Early Bronze I and the Evolution of Social Complexity in the Southern Levant, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 4 (1), 3–58.

1993

Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze I and II Southern Levant: Complementarity and Contradiction in a SmallScale Complex Society, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 4, Sheffield.

1917

1993

JOHNSON, G.A. 1977

Aspects of Regional Analysis in Archaeology, Annual Review of Anthropology 6, 479–508.

1980

Rank-Size Convexity and System Integration: A View from Archaeology, Economic Geography 56, 234–247.

VAN DER

Settlement Patterns in the Jordan Valley, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Freie Universität, Berlin.

KARGE, P. Rephaim, Paderborn.

KARMON, Y. 1956

The Northern Huleh Valley: It’s Natural and Cultural Landscape [In Hebrew], Jerusalem.

KASSIANIDOU, V., and KNAPP, A.B. 2004

Archaeometallurgy in the Mediterranean: The Social Context Mining, Technology and Trade, 215–221, in: E. BLAKE and A.B. KNAPP (eds.), The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, Oxford.

JOHNSON, P.

KATZ, J.

1982

2000

The Archaeology of Cult in Middle Bronze Age Canaan: The Sacred Area of Tel Haror, Israel, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

2009

The Archaeology of Cult in Middle Bronze Age Canaan, Piscataway, NJ.

The Middle Cypriote Pottery Found in Palestine, Opuscula Atheniensia 14, 49–72.

JOLLIFFE, I. 1986

Principal Component Analysis, New York.

JONES, R. 1986

Greek and Cypriote Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies, (J. BOARDMAN, H. CATLING, C. MEE, W. PHELPS, and A. POLLARD, collaborators), Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 1, Athens.

KEEL, O. 1997

Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Katalog Band I: Von Tell Abu Farag bis cAtlit, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 13, Freiburg.

1998

Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible, JSOT Supplement Series 261, Sheffield.

2010

Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Katalog Band I: Von Bahan bis Tel Eton, with contributions by D. Ben-Tor, B. Brandl and R. Wenning, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 29, Friburg.

KAFAFI, Z., and SCHELTEMA, H. 2005

Megalithic Structures in Jordan, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5, 5–22.

KANIEWSKI, D., PAULISSEN, E., VAN CAMPO, E., AL-MAQDISSI, M., BRETSCHNEIDER, J., and VAN LERBERGHE, K. 2008

Middle East Coastal Ecosystem Response to Middle-toLate Holocene Abrupt Climate Change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(37), 13941–13946.

KANTNER, J. 2008

The Archaeology of Regions: From Discrete Analytical Tookit to Ubiquitous Spatial Perspective, Journal of Archaeological Research 16(1), 37–81.

KELNER, R. 1945

Two Inscriptions on Sherds [In Hebrew], Qedem 2, 11–14.

KAPLAN, J.

KEMP, B.J., and MERRILLEES, R.S.

1965a Hamadiyah, Hadashot Archaeologiot 13, 16–17.

1980

1965b Hamadiyah, Revue biblique 72, 543–544. 1971

Mesopotamian Elements in the Middle Bronze II Culture of Palestine, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 30, 293–307.

Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt (E. EDEL, Collaborator), Mainz /Rhein.

KEMPINSKI, A. 1974

Canaan (Syria-Palestine) during the Last Stage of the MB IIb (1650–1550 B.C.), Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-

274

Bibliography tion [In Hebrew with English Abstract], The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

1983

1989

1990

1991

Syrien und Palästina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittlebronze IIB-Zeit (1650–1570 v. Chr.), Ägypten und Altes Testament, Wiesbaden. Some Samples of Pottery from Tomb 498 [In Hebrew with English Summary], 31–35, X–XI, in: A. KEMPINSKI (ed.), Excavations at Kabri: Preliminary Report of 1988 Season, Tel Aviv. Tomb 984 in Area B [In Hebrew with English Summary], 32–38, XII–XIII, in: A. KEMPINSKI and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds.), Excavations at Kabri: Preliminary Report of 1990 Season * 5, Tel Aviv. The Beginning of the Renewed Urbanization in the Northern Akko Valley during the Middle Bronze IIa Period [In Hebrew with English Abstract], Michmanim 5, 21–34.

1992a Dan and Kabri – A Note on the Planning of Two Cities [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 23, 76–81.

KENYON, K.M., and HOLLAND, T. 1982

KENYON, K.M., and HOLLAND, T. 1983

1996

2002

Minoan Merchants and Artisans on the Levantine Coast at the End of the Middle Bronze Age [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 25, 252–256. Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, Monograph Series 20, Tel Aviv.

1989

Chapter 5: Pottery, III. Middle Bronze Age, 109–175, in: A. KEMPINSKI, Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, Monograph Series 20, Tel Aviv.

KEMPINSKI, A., and NIEMEIER, W.-D. 1992

1984 1989

1965

Excavations at Jericho, Vol. II: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–58, London.

1966

Amorites and Canaanites, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1963, London.

1969

The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata at Megiddo, Levant 1, 25–60.

The Political Impact of Trade in Chiefdoms, American Anthropologist 91, 370–385.

KIRKBRIDE, D. 1965

Appendix E: Scarabs, 580–655, in: K.M. KENYON (ed.), Excavations at Jericho, Vol. II: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–58, London.

KISLEV, M., ARTZY, M., and MARCUS, E. 1993

Import of an Aegean Food Plant to a Middle Bronze IIa Coastal Site in Israel, Levant 25, 145–154.

KITCHEN, K.A. 1967

Byblos, Egypt and Mari in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Orientalia 36, 39–54.

1992

The Egyptian Evidence on Ancient Jordan, 21–34, in: P. BIENKOWSKI (ed.), Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan, Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7, Sheffield.

1996

The Historical Chronology of Egypt: A Current Assessment, Acta Archaeologica 67, 1–13.

2007

Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Ancient Chronology I), The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, A Current Assessment, 39–52, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th May–1st June 2003, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9, Vienna.

KENYON, K.M. Excavations at Jericho, Vol. I: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–54, London.

Nomads and the Outside World, Cambridge.

KIPP, R.S., and SCHORTMAN, E.M.

Excavations at Kabri: Preliminary Report of 1991 Season * 6 [In Hebrew and English], Tel Aviv.

1960

The Composition and Technology of Ancient Copper Alloy Artefacts from Jericho and Related Sites, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University College, London.

KHAZANOV, A.

KEMPINSKI, A., GERSHUNY, L., and SCHEFTELOWITZ, N. 2002

Excavations at Jericho, Vol. V: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds, London.

KHALIL, L.

1992b The Middle Bronze Age, 159–210, in: A. BEN-TOR (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, New Haven. 1992c The Middle Bronze Age in Northern Israel, Local and External Synchronisms, Ägypten & Levante 3, 69–73.

Excavations at Jericho, Vol. IV: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds, London.

KLENGEL, H. 1992

Syria 3000 to 300 B.C.: A Handbook of Political History, Berlin.

KNAPP, A.B.

1973a Chapter III: Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age, 77–116, in: I. EDWARDS, C. GADD, N. HAMMOND and E. SOLLBERGER (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. II, Part 1: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1800–1380 B.C. (3rd ed.), Cambridge.

1987

Pots, PIXE, and Data Processing at Pella in Jordan, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 266, 1–30.

1988

Ideology, Archaeology and Polity, Man (New Series) 23, 133–163.

1973b Chapter XI: Palestine in the Time of the Eighteenth Dynasty, 526–556, in: I. EDWARDS, C. GADD, N. HAMMOND and E. SOLLBERGER (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. II, Part 1: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1800–1380 B.C. (3rd ed.), Cambridge.

1989

Complexity and Collapse in the North Jordan valley: Archaeometry and Society in the Middle-Late Bronze Age, Israel Exploration Journal 39, 129–148.

1991

Spice, Drugs, Grain and Grog: Organic Goods in Bronze Age East Mediterranean Trade, 21–67, in: N. GALE (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Jonsered.

1981

Excavations at Jericho, Vol. III: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell, London.

275

Bibliography 1993

Society and Polity at Bronze Age Pella: An Annales Perspective, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 6, Sheffield.

1997

The Archaeology of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Society: The Study of Settlement, Survey, and Landscape, Department of Archaeology Occasional Paper No. 4, Glasgow.

1999

Ideational and Industrial Landscape on Prehistoric Cyprus, 229–251, in: W. ASHMORE and A.B. KNAPP (eds.), Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, Social Archaeology, London.

Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna. KOPPEL, R. 1932

KOŠAK, S. 1986

KNAPP, A.B., and CHERRY, J. F. 1994

Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus: Production, Exchange and Politico-Economic Exchange, Monographs in World Prehistory no. 21, Madison, WI. Ceramic Production and Social Change: Archaeometric Analysis of Bronze Age Pottery from Jordan, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1, 57–113.

1992

Prehistoric Production and Exchange, Institute of Archaeology Monograph 25, Los Angeles.

KOCHAVI, M. 1963

Khirbet Kadish – Kadesh Naphtali [In Hebrew], Yediot 27, 165–172.

KOCHAVI, M. 1973

A Built Shaft Tomb of the Middle Bronze Age I at Degania A [In Hebrew], Qadmoniot 6, 50–53.

1993

The Land of Geshur Project, 1992, Israel Exploration Journal 43, 185–190.

1994

The Land of Geshur Project, 1993, Israel Exploration Journal 44, 137–141.

1998

The Ancient Road from the Bashan to the Mediterranean, 25–48, in: T. ESKOLA and E. JUNKKAALA (eds.), From the Ancient Sites of Israel: Essays in Archaeology, History and Theology in Memory of Aapeli Saarisalo (1896–1986), Helsinki.

KOCHAVI, M., BECK, P., and YADIN, E. (eds.) 2000

Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B. The 1972–1976 Seasons, Monograph Series 19, Tel Aviv.

Spatial Aspects of the Urban Development of Palestine during the Middle Bronze Age, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

KOUCKY, F.L.

KNAPP, A.B., and STECH, T. (eds.) 1985

The Gospel of Iron, 125–135, in: H. HOFFNER and G. BECKMAN (eds.), Kaniššuwar: A Tribute to Hans Güterbock on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, Assyriological Studies 23, Chicago.

KOTTER, W.R. 1986

KNAPP, A.B., DUERDEN, P., WRIGHT, R., and GRAVE, P. 1988

Der Tell >Oreme und die Ebene Genesareth, Biblica 3, 298–308.

The Environs of Pella: Roads, Fords, and Occupational Sites, 199–204, in: A. MCNICOLL, P. EDWARDS, J. HANBURYTENISON, J. HENNESEY, T. POTTS, and R. SMITH, Pella in Jordan 2: The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982–1985, Mediterranean Archaeology, Supplement, Sydney.

KOWALEWSKI, S.A. 2008

Regional Settlement Pattern Studies, Journal of Archaeological Research 16(1), 225–285.

KRAUSS, R. 2007

An Egyptian Chronology for Dynasties XIII to XXV, 173–190, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th May–1st June 2003, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9, Vienna.

KRISTIANSEN, K., and LARSSON, T. 2005

The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations, Cambridge.

KRONFELD, J., VOGEL, J., ROSENTHAL, E., and WEINSTEIN-EVRON, M. 1988

Age and Paleoclimatic Implications of the Bet Shean Travertines, Quaternary Research 30, 298–303.

KOHL, P.L.

KUNIHOLM, P., KROMER, B., MANNING, S., NEWTON, M., LATINI, C., and BRUCE, M.

1987

1996

The Use and Abuse of World Systems Theory: The Case of the Pristine West Asian State, 1–35, in: M. SCHIFFER (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 11, San Diego.

KOLB, M. 1994

KUNIHOLM, P. 1993

Monumentality and Rise of Religious Authority in Precontact Hawai’i, Current Anthropology 34, 521–547.

KOLSKA HORWITZ, L. 2007

Chapter 9: The Faunal Remains, 125–129, in: Y. GARFINKEL and S. COHEN (eds.), The Middle Bronze IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 62, Boston. The Dipper Juglets of Tell el-Dab>a, A Typological and Chronological Approach, 227–244, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material,

A Date-List for the Bronze Age and Iron Age Monuments Based on Combined Dendrochronological and Radiocarbon Evidence, 371–373, in: Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors, Studies in Honor of Nimet Ozgüç, Ankara.

KUPPER, J.-R. 1957

KOPETZKY, K. 2002

Anatolian Tree Rings and the Absolute Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean, 2220–718 B.C., Nature 381, 780–783.

Les Nomades en Mésopotamie au Temps des Rois de Mari, Bibliotèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, Fascicule CXLII, Paris.

LABIANCA, Ø.S. 1990

Sedenterization and Nomadization: Food System Cycles at Hesban and Vicinity in Transjordan, Hesban 1, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

276

Bibliography

LACOVARA, P.

LIEBOWITZ, H.A.

1997

1977

Egypt and Nubia during the Second Intermediate Period, 69–82, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia.

LAFFINEUR, R. 1988

LILYQUIST, C. 1993

Réflexions sur Trësor de Tod, Aegaeum 2, 17–30.

LAFONT, B. 2000

Irrigation Agriculture in Mari, 129–146, in: R. JAS (ed.), Rainfall and Agriculture in Northern Mesopotamia, Uitgaven vn het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 88, Istanbul.

LAPIDUS, I.M. 1969

Bone and Ivory Inlay from Syria and Palestine, Israel Exploration Journal 27, 89–97. Granulation and Glass: Chronological and Stylistic Investigations at Selected Sites, ca. 2500–1400 B.C.E., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 290–291, 29–94.

LIMET, H. 1984

Documents Relatifs au fer à Mari, Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 3, 191–196.

LIPINSKI, E. 2006

Muslim Cities and Islamic Societies, 47–74, in: I.M. LAPIDUS (ed.), Middle Eastern Cities, Berkeley.

On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 153, Leuven.

LARSEN, M.T.

LIVERANI, M.

1987

1997

Commercial Networks in the Ancient Near East, 47–56, in: M. ROWLANDS, M. LARSEN and K. KRISTIANSEN (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge.

LEEMANS, W. 1960

”Half-Nomads” on the Middle Euphrates and the Concept of Dimorphic Society, Altorientalische Forschungen 24, 44–48.

LOFFREDA, S. 1984

Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period, Leiden.

Vasi in Vetro a in Argilla Trovati a Cafarnao nel 1984, Liber Annuus 34, 354–408.

LENZEN, C., KAREEM, J., and THORPE, S.

LOFFREDA, S.

1987

2008

The Jisr Sheikh Hussein Project, 1986, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31, 313–319.

LEONARD, A., Jr. 1994

An Index of the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from SyriaPalestine, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 114, Jonsered.

LONDON, G. A., and SINCLAIR, M. 1991

LEVY, S., and EDELSTEIN G. 1972

Fouilles de Tel >Amal (Nir David), Revue biblique 79, 325–367.

LEVY, T. E. 2007

Journey to the Copper Age: Archaeology in the Holy Land, San Diego.

LEVY, T. E., ADAMS, R., HAUPTMANN, A., PRANGE, M., SCHMITTSTRECKER, S., and NAJJAR, M. 2002

Early Bronze Age Metallurgy: A Newly Discovered Copper Manufactory in Southern Jordan, Antiquity 76, 425–437.

LEVY, T.E., ADAMS, R., NAJJAR, M., HAUPTMANN, A., ANDERSON, J., BRANDL, B., ROBINSON, M.A., and HIGHAM, T. 2004

2005

An Ethnoarchaeological Survey of Potters in Jordan, 420–428, in: L.G. HERR, L.T. GERATY, Ø.S. LABIANCA and R.W. YOUNKER (eds.), Madaba Plains Project 2: The 1987 Season at Tell el->Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies, Berrien Springs, Mi.

LONDON, G. A. 1992

Tells: City Center or Home?, Eretz Israel 23, 71*–79*.

LOVELL, J.L. 2007

The Wadi Rayyan Archaeological Project (WRAP): Investigating the Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age transition, 457–466 in: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 9, Amman.

LOVELL, J.L., THOMAS, D.C., MILLER, H., ELIAS, C., WESSELINGH, K., KURZAWASKA, A., MCRAE, I.K., ELIAS, C., OBEIDAT, E., and ABU SHMAIS, A. 2007

Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom: New Excavations and 14C dates from Khirbat en-Nahas (Jordan), Antiquity 78, 865–879.

LEVY, Y.

Cafarnao VI: Tipologie e Contesti Stratirgrafici della Ceramica (1968–2003): Descrizione e Documenti, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 48, Milano.

The Third Preliminary Report on the Wadi Ar-Rayyan Archaeological Project: The Second Season of Excavations at al-Khawarij, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 51, 103–140.

LUCIANI, M. The Necropolis of the Middle Bronze IIA–B Period from the Area of the Rishon LeZion Sands, 59–68, in, M. FISCHER (ed.), Yavneh, Yavneh-Yam and Their Neighborhood: Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Judean Coastal Plain, Tel Aviv [In Hebrew with English Abstract].

2008

The Late MB to Early LBA in Qatna with Special Emphasis on Decorated and Imported Pottery, 115–126, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY (eds.), The Bronze Age in Lebanon: Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 17, Vienna.

LICHTHEIM, M.

LÜTH, F.

1973

1981

Ancient Egyptian Literature, a Book of Readings, Vol. I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms, Berkeley.

Grabungen auf dem Tell B, 39–48, in: W. ORTHMANN (ed.), Halawa 1977–1979, Bonn.

277

Bibliography LÜTH, F. 1989

Tell Hallawa B, 85–100, in: W. ORTHMANN (ed.), Halawa 1980–1986, Bonn.

MA>OZ, U. 2006

Dan is Baniyas, Teldan is Abel-Beth-Ma>acha, Archaostyle Scientific Research Series 2, Qazrin.

MABRY, J.B. 1985

The Socioeconomic Geography of Agrarian City-States in the Middle Bronze Age II of Palestine: The Urban-Rural Hierarchy, Unpublished Paper.

MABRY, J.B., and PALUMBO, G. 1989

Climatic Changes in Jordan through Time, 595–601, in: B. MACDONALD, R. ADAMS and P. BIENKOWSKI (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan, Levantine Archaeology 1, Sheffield.

MACGREGOR, J. 1869

The Rob Roy on the Jordan, Nile, Red Sea and Gennesareth, etc.: A Canoe Cruise in Palestine and Egypt, and the Waters of Damascus, London.

MACHULE, D., KARSTENS, K., KLAPPROTH, H.-H., MOZER, G., PAPE, W., WERNER, P., MAYER, W., MAYER-OPIFICIUS, R., and MACKENSEN, M. 1986

Ausgrabungen in Tall Munbaqa 1984, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 118, 67–146.

MACUMBER, P. 1992

2002b Red, White and Blue Ware: A Little-Known Group of Painted Pottery of the Middle Bronze II Period, 228–240, in: E.D. OREN and S. AHITUV (eds.), Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines, Beer-Sheva 15, Beersheva. 2003

Survey in the Wadi el-Yabis (Irbid District, Jordan), 91–97, in: D. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ and J. HENNESSEY (eds.), Archaeology of Jordan, II.1, Field Reports, Leuven.

MACDONALD, B. 2001

2002a Perspectives on the Early MB II Period in the Jordan valley, 261–267, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna.

The Geology and Geomorphology of the Wadi Hammeh-Wadi Jim Region, North-Western Jordan, 205–214, in: A. MCNICOLL, P. EDWARDS, J. HANBURYTENISON, J. HENNESEY, T. POTTS, and R. SMITH, Pella in Jordan 2: The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982–1985, Mediterranean Archaeology, Supplement, Sydney.

2007a Chapter 9: The Bone Beverage Strainers, 119–123, in: Y. GARFINKEL and S. COHEN (eds.), The Middle Bronze IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 62, Boston. 2007b The Middle Bronze Age II Pottery, 242–289, in: A. MAZAR and R.A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel BethShean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem. MAEIR, A.M., DAR, S., and SAFRAI, Z. (eds.) 2003

Plant Water Availability and Analytical Microscopy of Phytoliths: Implications for Ancient Irrigation in Arid Zones, Quaternary International 193 (1–2), 32–40.

The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1121, Oxford.

MAEIR, A.M., and GARFINKEL, Y. 1992

Bone and Metal Straw-Tip Beer-Strainers from the Ancient Near East, Levant 24, 218–223.

MAEIR, A.M., and MULLINS, R.A. in pressThe Tell el-Yaduhiyeh Ware from Beth Shean and the Central Jordan Valley, in: M. BIETAK and R. CZERNY (eds.), Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware, Vienna. MAEIR, A.M., and YELLIN, J. 2007

MADELLA, M., JONES, M. K., POWERS-JONES, A., and MOORE, M. 2009

Does Size Count? Urban and Cultic Perspectives on the Rural Landscape during the Middle Bronze Age II, 61–69, in: A.M. MAEIR, S. DAR and Z. SAFRAI (eds.), The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1121, Oxford.

Chapter 6B: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Selected Pottery from Tel Beth Shean and the Central Jordan Valley, 554–571, in: A. MAZAR and R.A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem.

MAEIR, A.M., YELLIN, J., and GOREN, Y.

MAEIR, A.M.

1992

1997a The Material Culture of the Central and Northern Jordan Valley in the Middle Bronze Age II: Pottery and Settlement Pattern, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

MAGNESS-GARDINER, B. 1993

Spatial Analysis of Pottery in Domestic Units at Tell el-Hayyat, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Washington, D.C., November 1993.

1997

The Middle Bronze Age of Transjordan, 303–326, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Publications 96, Philadelphia.

1997b T.1181, Area L, Hazor: A Multiple Interment Burial Cave of the MBIIA/B Period, 295–340, in: A. BEN-TOR and R. BONFIL (eds.), Hazor V, Jerusalem. 2000a Hamadiyah-North: A Rural MBII Settlement in the Beth Shean Valley, >Atiqot 39, 31–42. 2000b The Political and Economic Status of MBII Hazor and MBII Trade: An Inter- and Intra-Regional View, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 132, 37–58. 2000c Sassanica Varia Palaestiniensia: A Sassanian Seal from T. Istaba, Israel, and other Sassanian Objects from the Southern Levant, Iranica Antiqua 35, 159–183.

A Re-Evaluation of the Red and Black Bowl from Parker’s Excavations in Jerusalem, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11, 39–53.

MAGNESS-GARDINER, B., and FALCONER, S. 1994

Community, Polity and Temple in a Middle Bronze Age Levantine Village, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7, 127–164.

278

Bibliography

MAGUIRE, L.

MARAN, J.

1986

The Middle Cypriot Pottery from Tell el-Daba>, Egypt, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Edinburgh.

1987

1987

Imported Cypriot Pottery from Middle Bronze Age Levels at Kabri, 44–51, in: A. KEMPINSKI (ed.), Excavations at Kabri: Preliminary Report of 1986 Season, Tel Aviv.

MARCHETTI, N.

2009

Tell el-Dabca XXI: The Cypriot Pottery and Its Circulation in the Levant, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 33, Vienna.

MALAMAT, A. 1971

Syro-Palestinian Destinations in a Mari Tin Inventory, Israel Exploration Journal 21, 31–38.

1992

Mari and Hazor: The Implication for the Middle Bronze Age Chronology, Ägypten & Levante 3, 121–123.

1993

Mari and Hazor – Trade Relations in the Old Babylonian Period, 66–70, in: Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology: Supplement. Pre-Congress Symposium: Population, Production and Power (Jerusalem, June 1990), Jerusalem.

1998

2003

Mari and its Relations with the Eastern Mediterranean, 411–418, in: M. LUBETSKI, C. GOTTLIEB and S. KELLER (eds.), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Ttribute to Cyrus H. Gordon, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 273, Sheffield. Musicians from Hazor at Mari, 355–357, in: P. MARet al. (eds.), Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli, Wiesbaden.

RASSINI

2006

Trade Relations between Mari and Hazor (State of Research, 2002), 351–355, in: S. GITIN, J. WRIGHT and J. DESSEL (eds.), Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of W.G. Dever, Winona Lake, IN.

Die Silbergefässe von et-Tôd und die Schachtgräberzeit auf dem Griechischen Festland, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 62, 221–227.

2003a A Century of Excavations on the Spring Hill at Tell esSultan, Ancient Jericho: A Reconstruction of its Stratigraphy, 296–321, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna. 2003b Due Scarabei in Steatite del Bronzo Medio I Finale da Tell es-Sultan, antica Gerico, Ricerche di Egittologia e di Antichità copte 5, 9–22. MARCHETTI, N., and NIGRO, L. (eds.) 1998

Scavi a Gerico, 1997, Relazione Priliminaire Sulla Prima Campagna di Scavi e Prospezioni Archeologische a Tell esSultan, Palestina, Quaderni de Gerico 1, Rome.

2000

Excavations at Jericho, 1998: Preliminary Report on the 2nd Season of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys at Tell esSultan, Palestine, Quaderni de Gerico 2, Rome.

MARCHETTI, N., NIGRO, L., and SARIE>, I. 1998

Preliminary Report on the First Season of Excavations of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, April–May 1997, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 130, 121–144.

MARCHETTI, N., NIGRO, L., and TAHA, H. 2000

Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Excavations of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, 1998, 869–901, in: P. MATTHIAE, A. ENEA, L. PEYRONEL and F. PINNOCK (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998, Vol. I, Rome.

MALKIN, I.

MARCO, S.

1996

2008

Territorial Domination and the Greek Sanctuary, 75–82, in: P. HELLSTRÖM and B. ALROTH (eds.), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1993, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Boreas – Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilisations 24, Uppsala.

MARCO, S., HARTAL, M., HAZAN, N., LEV, L., and STEIN, M. 2003

MANHART, H., and VON den DRIESCH, A. 2003

Bronze- und Eisenzeitliche Tierwelt nach den Knochenfunden vom Tell el-Oreme am See Gennesaret und ihre kulturhistorische Bedeutung, 25–30, in: G. FASSBECK, S. FORTNER, A. ROTTLOFF and J. ZANGENGERG (eds.), Leben am See Gennesaret: Kulturgeschichtliche Entdeckungen in einer biblischen Region, Mainz am Rhein.

MANNING, J., and MORRIS, I. (eds.) 2004 1994

The Fatal Shore, the Long Years and the Geographical Unconscious, Considerations of Iconography, Chronology, and Trade in Response to Negbi’s ‘The “Libyan Landscape” from Thera: A Review of Aegean Enterprises Overseas in the Late Minoan IA period, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7, 219–235.

Archaeology, History and Geology of the A.D. 749 Earthquake, Dead Sea Transform, Geology 31, 665–668.

MARCO, S., STEIN, M., AGNON, A., and RON, H. 1996

Long-Term Earthquake Clustering: A 50,000-Year Paleoseismic Record in the Dead Sea Graben, Journal of Geophysical Research 101(B3), 6179–6192.

MARCUS, E.S. 1998

Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the Middle Bronze IIA Period, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oxford University.

2002

The Southern Levant and Maritime Trade during the Middle Bronze IIA period, 241–263, in: S. AHITUV and E.D. OREN (eds.), Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines, Beer-Sheba 15, Beersheba.

2003

Dating the Early Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: A Preliminary Comparison of Radiocarbon

The Ancient Economy: Evidence and Models, Stanford, CA.

MANNING, S., MONKS, S., NAKOU, G., and DE MITA, F., Jr.

Recognition of Earthquake-Related Damage in Archaeological Sites: Examples from the Dead Sea Fault Zone, Tectonophysics 453(1–4), 148–156.

Bibliography and Archaeo-Historical Synchronizations, 95–110, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna. 2007 Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription, Ägypten & Levante 17, 137–190. MARCUS, E.S., and ARTZY, M. 1995 A Loom Weight from Tel Nami with a Scarab Seal Impression, Israel Exploration Journal 45, 136–149. MARCUS, E.S., PORATH, Y., SCHIESTL, R., SEILER, A., and PALEY, S. 2008a The Middle Kingdom Egyptian Pottery from Middle Bronze Age IIa Tel Ifshar, Ägypten & Levante 18, 203–219. MARCUS, E.S., PORATH, Y., and PALEY, S. 2008b The Early Middle Bronze Age IIa Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations, Ägypten & Levante 18, 221–244. MARFOE, L. 1998 Kamid el-Loz 14: Settlement History of the Biq>a up to the Iron Age (R. HACHMANN, Rev.), Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertemskunde 53, Bonn. MARGALIT, B. 1981 The Geographical Setting of the AQHT Story and its Ramifications, 131–158, in: G.D. YOUNG (ed.), Ugarit in Retrospect: 50 years of Ugarit and Ugaritic, Winona Lake, In. 1989 The Ugaritic Poem of Aqht, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 182, Berlin. MARITAN, L., MAZZOLI, C., MICHIELIN, V., MORANDI BONACOSSI, D., LUCIANO, M., and MOLIN, G. 2005 The Provenance and Production Technology of Bronze Age and Iron Age Pottery from Tell Mishrifeh/ Qatna (Syria), Archaeometry 47, 723–744. MART, Y., RYAN, W., and LUNINA, O. 2005 Review of the Tectonics of the Levant Rift System: The Structural Significance of Oblique Continental Breakup, Tectonophysics 395, 209–232. MARTIN, M., and BEN-DOV, R. 2007 Egyptian and Egyptian-Style Pottery at Tel Dan, Ägypten & Levante 17, 191–203. MARTINEZ-NAVARRO, B., BELMAKER, M., and BAR-YOSEF, O. 2009 The Large Carnivores from >Ubeidiya (Early Pleistocene, Israel): Biochronological and Biogeographical Implications, Journal of Human Evolution 56(5), 514–524. MATTHEWS, V.H. 1978 Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari Kingdom (ca. 1830–1760 B.C.), ASOR Dissertation Series No. 3, Cambridge, MA. MAXWELL-HYSLOP, K. 1972 The Metals amutu and aši>u in the Kültepe Texts, Anatolian Studies 22, 159–162. MAZAR, A. 1990a Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000–586 B.C.E., The Anchor Bible Reference Library, New York.

279

1990b The Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean in 1989–1990 [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 21, 197–211, 108*. 1993a Beth Shean in the Iron Age: Preliminary Report and Conclusions of the 1990–1991 Excavations, Israel Exploration Journal 43, 201–229. 1993b Beth-Shean: Tel Beth-Shean and the Northern Cemetery, 214–223, in: E. STERN and A. LEWINSON-GILBOA (eds.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land I, Jerusalem. 1993c The Excavations at Tel Beth Shean in 1989–1990, 606–619, in: Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990, Jerusalem. 1993d Iron Age Beth Shean in the Light of the Excavations in 1990–1991 [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 24, 130–147. 1994

Four Thousand Years of History at Tel Beth-Shean [In Hebrew], Qadmoniot 27, 66–83.

1997a Area P, 353–389, in: A. BEN-TOR and R. BONFIL (eds.), Hazor V, Jerusalem. 1997b Four Thousand Years of History at Tel Beth-Shean: An Account of the Renewed Excavations, Biblical Archaeologist 60, 62–76. 1999

The 1997–1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: Preliminary Report, Israel Exploration Journal 39, 1–42.

2003a Beth Shean in the Second Millennium B.C.E.: From Canaanite Town to Egyptian Stronghold, 323–339, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna. 2003b Three 10th–9th Century B.C.E. Inscriptions from Tel Rehov, 171–184, in: C. DEN HERTOG, U. HÜBNER and S. MÜNGER (eds.), Saxa Loquentur: Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels: Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz zum 65, Geburstag, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 302, Münster. 2006a Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume I: From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period, Jerusalem. 2006b Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age, 105–118, in: S. GITIN, J. WRIGHT and J.P. DESSEL (eds.), Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of W.G. Dever, Winona Lake, IN. 2007a Chapter 3, Appendix I: A Note on the Middle Bronze Age Burials in Area M, 199–200, in: A. MAZAR and R.A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem. 2007b Interpretation of Radiocarbon Dates from Area R, 718–721, in: A. MAZAR and R.A. MULLINS (ed.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean, 1989-1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem. 2008

Rehov, Tel, 2013–2018, in: E. STERN (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 5: Supplementary volume, Jerusalem.

280

Bibliography

MAZAR, A., and MULLINS, R.A. (eds.) 2007a Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem. MAZAR, A., and MULLINS, R.A. 2007b Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview, 1–22, in: A. MAZAR and R.A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel BethShean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem. MAZAR, B. 1962 The Valley of Beth-Shean in Biblical Times [In Hebrew], 9–20, in: The Beth Shean Valley: The 17th Archaeological Convention, Jerusalem. 1968 The Middle Bronze Age in Palestine, Israel Exploration Journal 18, 65–97. MAZAR (MAISLER), B., STEKELIS, M., and AVI-YONAH, M. 1952

The Excavations at Beth Yerah (Khirbet el-Kerak) 1944– 1946, Israel Exploration Journal 2, 165–173, 218–229.

MCCREERY, D.W. 2010 Review of FALCONER and FALL 2006, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 357, 92–95. MCCREERY, D.W., and FLANAGAN, J. 1990 Tell Nimrin Excavation, ACOR Newsletter 2, 5. MCGOVERN, P.E. 2000 The Foreign Relations of the “Hyksos”: A Neutron Activation Study of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 888, Oxford. MCGOVERN, P.E., BOURRIAU, J., HARBOTTLE, G., and ALLEN, S.J. 1994

The Archaeological Origin and Significance of the Dolphin Vase as Determined by Neutron Activation Analysis, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296, 31–43.

MCGOVERN, P.E,, and HARBOTTLE, G. 1997

”Hyksos” Trade Connections between Tell edl-Dab>a (Avaris) and the Levant: A Neutron Activation Study of the Canaanite Jar, 141–157, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia. MCINTOSH, S., and MCINTOSH, R. 1993 Cities with Citadels: Understanding Urban Origins along the Middle Niger, 622–641, in: T. SHAW, P. SINCLAIR, B. ANDAH and A. OKPOKO (eds.), The Archaeology of Africa: Food, Metals and Towns, One World Archaeology 20, London. MCLAREN, P. 2003 The Military Architecture of Jordan during the Middle Bronze Age: New Evidence from Pella and Rukeis, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1202, Oxford. MCNICOLL, A., BALL, W., BASSETT, S., EDWARDS, P., MACUMBER, P., and PETOCZ, D. 1984 Preliminary Report on the University of Sydney’s Fifth Season of Excavation at Pella in Jordan, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 28, 55–86. MCNICOLL, A., EDWARDS, P., HANBURY-TENISON, J., HENNESEY, J., POTTS, T., and SMITH, R. 1992 Pella in Jordan 2, Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement, Sydney.

MCNICOLL, A., HENNESSY, J., and SMITH, R. 1980

The 1979 Season at Pella of the Decapolis, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 240, 63–84.

MCNICOLL, A., HENNESSY, J., WALMSLEY, A., and POTTS, T. 1982

A Third Season of Excavations at Pella, 1980/81, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 26, 343–363.

MCNICOLL, A., SMITH, R. H., and HENNESSY, B. 1982

Pella in Jordan 1: An Interim Report on the Joint University of Sydney and the College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1979–1981, Canberra.

MCNUTT, P. 1999

Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel, Library of Ancient Israel, Louisville.

MEADOWS, J. 2005

The Younger Dryas Episode and the Radiocarbon Chronologies of the Lake Huleh and Ghab Valley Pollen Diagrams, Israel and Syria, Holocene 15, 631–636.

MEILER, M., SHULMAN, H., FLEXER, A., RESHERF, M., and YELLINDROR, A. 2008

A Seismic Interpretation of the Bet She>an Basin, Israel Journal of Earth Science 57(1), 1–19.

MELLAART, J. 1962

Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey in the Yarmuk and Jordan Valley for the Point Four Irrigation Scheme, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 6–7, 126–157.

MERRILLEES, R.S. 1974

Trade and Transcendence in the Bronze Age Levant, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 39, Göteborg.

2003

The First Appearance of Kamares Ware in the Levant, Ägypten & Levante 13, 127–142.

MIGOWSKI, C., STEIN, M., PRASAD, S., NEGENDANK, J., and AGNON, A. 2006

Holocene Climate and Cultural Evolution in Late Prehistoric-Early Historic West Asia, Quaternary Research 66, 421–431.

MILEVSKI, I. 2007

The Historical and Archaeological Levantine Background of Sinuhe Examined Anew, Revista del Instituto de Historia Antigua Oriental 14.

MILLER, P. 2000

The Religion of Ancient Israel, Library of Ancient Israel, Louisville.

MILLER-ROSEN, A. 1986

Cities of Clay: The Geoarchaeology of Tells, Prehistoric Archaeology and Ecology, Chicago.

MIRON, E. 1992

Axes and Adzes from Canaan, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung XI, Band 19, Stuttgart.

MITCHELL, P.D., NAGAR, Y., and ELLENBLUM, R. 2006

Weapons Injuries in the 12th Century Crusader Garrison of Vadum Iacob Castle, Galilee, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16 (2), 145–155.

281

Bibliography MITHEN, S., JENKINS, E., JAMJOUM, K., NAUMAT, S., NORTCLIFF, S., and FINLAYSON, B. 2008

Experimental Crop Growing in Jordan to Develop Methodology for the Identification of Ancient Crop Irrigation, World Archaeology 40(1), 7–25.

MITTMAN, S. 1970

Beitrage zur Siedlungs- und Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes, Wiesbaden.

MLINAR, C. 2006

Palästinensische Skarabäen aus einem Grab der frühen Hyksoszeit in Tell el-Dab>a, 87–95, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN and A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines, Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. II, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 149, Leuven.

Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem. 2007b Reflections on Levels XI–IX of the University Museum Excavations, 23–38, in: A. MAZAR and R.A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem. MULLINS, R.A., and MAZAR, A. 2007

The Stratigraphy and Architecture of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Strata R-5–R-1A, 39–199, in: A. MAZAR and R.A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel BethShean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem.

NA’AMAN, N. 1974

Syria at the Transition from the Old Babylonian Period to the Middle Babylonian Period, Ugarit-Forschungen 6, 265–274.

MORANDI BONACOSSI, D.

1977

Yeno>am, Tel Aviv 4, 168–177.

2007

1981

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan, Israel Exploration Journal 31, 172–185.

1982

Eretz Israel in the Canaanite Period: The Middle Bronze Period and the Late Bronze Period (2000– 1200 B.C.E) [In Hebrew], 129–256, in: I. EPH>AL (ed.), The History of Eretz Israel, Vol. I, Jerusalem.

1986

The Canaanite City States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes [In Hebrew], Tarbiz 55, 463–488.

1988

Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age, 177–185, in: M. HELTZER and E. LIPINSKI (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.), Leuven.

1990

The Assyrian Colonies in Anatolia and the Assyrian Trade in the Beginning of the Second Millennium BCE [In Hebrew], 21–41, in: B. KEDAR, T. DOTHAN and S. SAFRAI (eds.), Commerce in Palestine throughout the Ages: Studies, Jerusalem.

1994

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine, Levant 26, 175–187.

2008

The Amarna Texts between Historical Research and Archaeological Finds: 120 Years to the Discovery of the Amarna Archive [In Hebrew], Zmanim 101, 4–12.

MOOREY, P.R.S. 1995

2008

From Gulf to Delta and Beyond, Beer-Sheva VIII, BeerSheva. Qatna and its Hinterland during the Bronze and Iron Ages: A Preliminary Reconstruction of Urbanism and Settlement in the Mishrifeh Region, 65–90, in: D. MORANDI BONACOSSI (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria, Studi Archeologici su Qatna 01, Udine. Excavations on the Acropolis of Mishrifeh, Operation J. A New Early Bronze Age III – Iron Age III Sequence for Central Inner Syria. Part 1: Stratigraphy, Chronology and Architecture, Akkadica 129(1), 55–127.

MORAN, W.L. (ed. and trans.) 1992

The Amarna Letters, Baltimore.

MOSER, C., and SCOTT, W. 1961

British Towns: A Statistical Study of Their Social and Economic Differences, Edinburgh.

MÜNGER, S., PAKKALA, J. and ZANGENBERG, J. 2009

Kinneret Regional Project – The 2008 Season, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il.

MUHEISIN, M. 1987

A Survey of Prehistoric Cave Sites in the Northern Jordan Valley, 503–523, in: A. GARRARD and H. GEBEL (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1986, Part II, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, Oxford.

NAGEL, W., and EDER, C. 1992

Altsyrien and Ägypten, Damaszener Mitteilungen 6, 1–108.

MUHLY, J.

NEEV, D., and EMERY, K.

1996

1967

The Significance of Metals in the Late Bronze Age Economy of Cyprus, 45–59, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS and D. MICHAELIDES (eds.), The Development of the Cypriot Economy from the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day, Nicosia.

NEGBI, O. 1994

MUHLY, J., MADDIN, R., STECH, T., and ÖZGEN, E. 1985

Iron in Anatolia and the Nature of the Hittite Iron Industry, Anatolian Studies 35, 67–84.

MULLINS, R.A. 2007a Chapter 5: The Late Bronze Age Pottery, 390–547, in: A. MAZAR and R. A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel

The Dead Sea: Depositional Processes and Environments of Evaporates, Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Israel 41, Jerusalem. The “Libyan Landscape” from Thera: A Review of Aegean Enterprises Overseas in the Late Minoan IA Period, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7, 73–112.

NEUMANN, F., SCHÖLZEL, C., LITT, T., HENSE, A., and STEIN, M. 2007

Holocene Vegetation and Climate History of the Northern Golan Heights (Near East), Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 16, 329–346.

282

Bibliography

NEUMANN, F.H., KAGAN, E.J., LEROY, S.G., and BARUCH, U. 2010

Vegetation History and Climate Fluctuations on a Transect Along the Dead Sea West Shore and Their Impact on Past Societies over the Last 3500 Years, Journal of Arid Environments 74 (7), 756–764.

NICOLAOU, K. 1982

The Mycenaeans in the East, 121–126, in: A. HADIDI (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, I, Amman.

NICOLLE, C. 2002

Chapitre III: La Céramique de l’âge du Bronze en Damascène, 51–64, in: M. AL-MAQDISSI, V. MATOIÄN and C. NICOLLE (eds.), Céramique de l’âge du Bronze en Syrie, I: La Syrie du Sud et la Valée de l’Oronte, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 161, Beirut.

la Valée de l’Oronte, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 161, Beirut. 2003a The Smith and the King of Ebla, Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware, Metallic Wares and the Ceramic Chronology of Middle Bronze Syria, 345–363, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna. 2003b Tell es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300–2000 BC) Settlement vs Necropolis – A Stratigraphic Periodization, Contibuti e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 9, 121–158. 2006

NICOLLE, C. (ed.) 2004

Nomades et Sedentaires dans le Proche-Orient Ancien: Compte Rendu de la XLVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris, 10–13 juillet 2000, Paris.

NIEMEIER, W.-D. 1990

New Archaeological Evidence for the 17th Century Date of the ‘Minoan Eruption’ from Israel (Tel Kabri, northern Galilee), 120–126, in: D. HARDY and A. RENFREW (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III, Vol. 3: Chronology, London.

1991

Minoan Artisans Travelling Overseas: The Alalakh Frescoes and the Painted Plaster Floor at Tel Kabri (Western Galilee), 189–201, in: R. LAFFINEUR and L. BASCH (eds.), Thalassa, l’Egée Prehistorique et la Mer: Actes de la Troisième Rencontre Égéenne Internationale de l’Université de Liège, Aegaeum, Liège.

1995

Minoans and Canaanites: Aegean Frescoes in the Levant, Paper Presented at Trade and Cultural Connections in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin during the Second and First Millennium BCE: Colloquium in Memory of Aharon Kempinski, Jerusalem, Nov. 23, 1995.

NIEMEIER, B., and NIEMEIER, W.-D. 2002

Chapter 6: The Frescoes in the Middle Bronze Age Palace, 254–298, in: A. KEMPINSKI, Tel Kabri: The 1986– 1993 Excavation Seasons, Monograph Series 20, Tel Aviv.

NIGRO, L. 1998

Ebla and the Ceramic Provinces of Northern Syria in the Middle Bronze Age: Relationships and Interconnections with the Pottery Traditions of Upper Mesopotamia, 271–304, in: M. LEBEAU (ed.), About Subartu: Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, Vol. 1 – Landscape, Archaeology, Settlement, Subartu IV,1, Turnhout.

2000

Coordinating the MB I Pottery Horizon of Syria and Palestine, 1187–1212, in: P. MATTHIAE, A. ENEA, L. PEYRONEL and F. PINNOCK (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998, Vol. II, Rome.

2002

Chapitre IV: The Middle Bronze Age Pottery Horizon of Northern Inner Syria on the Basis of the Stratified Assemblages of Tell Mardikh and Hama, 97–128, in: M. AL-MAQDISSI, V. MATOIÄN and C. NICOLLE (eds.), Céramique de l’âge du Bronze en Syrie, I: La Syrie du Sud et

Results of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell esSultan: At the Dawn of Urbanization in Palestine, 1–40, in: L. NIGRO and H. TAHA (eds.), Tell es-Sultan/ Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley: Site Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development, Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan 2, Rome.

2007a Towards a Unified Chronology of Syria and Palestine at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, 365–89, in: MATTHIAE, P., NIGRO, L., and PINNOCK, F. (eds.), From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium B.C. in Syria-Palestine, Rome. NIGRO, L. (ed.) 2007b Byblos and Jericho in the Early Bronze I: Social Dynamics and Cultural Interactions, Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine and Jordan 4, Rome. 2007–2008 Le tombe construite sulla “Spring Hill e i signori di Gerico nel II millennio a.C., 277–307, in: G. BARTOLONI and G.M. BENEDETTINI (eds.), Atti del Convegno Internazionale: Sepolti tra i vivi – Buried Among the Living. Evidenze ed interpretazione di contesti funerari in abitato, Roma 26–29 Aprile 2006, Scienze dell’Antichità. Storia Archeologia Anthropologia 14/1. Rome. 2009

The Built Tombs on the Spring Hill and the Palace of the Lords of Jericho (>ÏMR RÔ>) in the Middle Bronze Age, 361–376, in: J.D. SCHLOEN (ed.), Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, Winona Lake, In.

2010a Tell es-Sultan/Jericho and the Origins of Urbanization in the Lower Jordan Valley: Results of Recent Archaeological Research, 459–481, in: P. MATTHIAE, F. PINNOCK, L. NIGRO and N. MARCHETTI (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, 5 May–10 May 2009, “Sapienza”, Università di Roma. Volume 2. Excavations, Surveys and Restorations: Reports on Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East, Wiesbaden. 2010b Between the Desert and the Jordan: Early Urbanization in the Upper Wadi az-Zarqa river – the EB II–III fortified town of Khirbet al-Batrawy, 432–458, in: P. MATTHIAE, F. PINNOCK, L. NIGRO and N. MARCHETTI (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, 5 May–10 May 2009, “Sapienza”, Università di Roma. Volume 2. Excavations, Surveys and Restorations: Reports on Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East, Wiesbaden.

283

Bibliography NIR, D. 1968

OGUCHI, H. La Vallée de Beth-Chéane, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Études, Études et Mémoires, Paris.

1989a Beth-Shean Valley: The Region and its Challenges on the Fringe of the Desert [In Hebrew], Tel Aviv. 1989b Geomorphology of Eretz Israel [Edition no. 2, in Hebrew], Jerusalem. NIR, D., and BEN-ARIEH, Y. 1964

Relics of an Intermediate Terrace between the “Ghor” and the “Zor” in the Central Jordan valley, Israel Exploration Journal 14, 1–8.

1999

Trade Routes in the Old Assyrian Period, Al-Rafidan 20, 85–106.

OLAMI, Y. 1951

Kh. Delhamiyeh [In Hebrew], >Alon 3, 7.

ONN, A. 1988–1989 Tell el-Wawiyat, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 7–8, 181–183. ONN, A., GREENBERG, R., SHAKED, I., and RAPUANO, Y. 1995

NISSENBAUM, A.

Tell el-Wawiyat (Tel Tannim) – 1993, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 15, 10–12.

OREN, E.D.

1978

Dead Sea Asphalts: Historical Aspects, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 62, 837–844.

1993

The Dead Sea: An Economic Resource for 10,000 Years, Hydrobiologia 267, 127–141.

1973a The Northern Cemetery of Beth Shean, Philadelphia.

Sodom, Gomorrah and the Other Lost Cities of the Plain – a Climatic Perspective, Climatic Change 26, 435–446.

1973b The Early Bronze IV Period in Northern Palestine and its Cultural and Chronological Setting, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 210, 20–36.

1994

NISSENBAUM, A., SERBAN, A., AMIRAN, A., and ILAN, O. 1984

1971

1997

Dead Sea Asphalt from the Excavations in Tel Arad and Small Tel Malhata, Paléorient 10, 157–161.

NIV, D. 1978

The Geology of the Kinneret [In Hebrew], 15–26, in: Kinneret: The Lake and Watershed, Merhavia. Der Jordan in der alten Geschichte Palästinas, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina Vereins 72, 123–148.

NOTIS, M., PIGOTT, V., MCGOVERN, P., KIU, K., and SWANN, C. 1986

The Archaeometallurgy of the Iron IA Steel, 272–278, in: P. MCGOVERN (ed.), The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan: The Baq>ah Valley Project, University Museum Monographs, Philadelphia.

The “Kingdom of Sharuhen” and the Hyksos Kingdom, 253–283, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia.

OREN, E.D., and YEKUTIELI, Y. 1996

NOTH, M. 1956

A Middle Bronze I Warrior Tomb at Beth-Shan, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina Vereins 87, 109–139.

The Middle Bronze Age Defense System at Tel Haror [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 25, 15–26.

ORNAN, T. 2001

The Bull and Its Two Masters: Moon and Storm Deities in Relation to the Bull in Ancient Near Eastern Art, Israel Exploration Journal 51, 1–26.

ORNI, E., and EFRAT, E. 1980

Geography of Israel (3rd ed.), Jerusalem.

NOVAK, M.

ORTMAN, S.

2004

2000

The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna, Ägypten & Levante 14, 299–317.

NOVAK, M., and PFÄLZNER, P. 2002

Ausgrabungen in Tall Misrife-Qatna 2001. Vorbericht der deutschen Komponente des Internationalen Kooperationsprojektes, Mitteilungen des deutschen Orientalischen Gesellschaft 134, 207–246.

O’CONNOR, D. 1991

Early States along the Nubian Nile, 145–165, in: W. DAVIES (ed.), Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, London.

Conceptual Metaphor in the Archaeological Record: Methods and Example from the American Southwest, American Antiquity 65, 613–645.

ORTON, C., TYERS, P., and VINCE, A. 1993

Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge.

PALEY, S., and PORATH, Y. 1997

Early Middle Bronze Age IIa Remains at Tel el-Ifshar, Israel: A Preliminary Report, 269–278, in: E.D. OREN (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia.

O’CONNOR, D., BIETAK, M., ARUZ, J., BEZEL, K., FITTON, J., ARNOLD, D., DE CALLATAŸ, F., and LACOVARA, P.

PALUMBO, G.

2008

1987

”Egalitarian” or “Stratified” Society? Some Notes on Mortuary Practices and Social Structure at Jericho in EB IV, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 267, 43–59.

1990

The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant: Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a ‘Dark Age’, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale III, Rome.

Egypt, the Levant, and the Aegean from the Hyksos Period to the Rise of the New Kingdom, 108–122, in: J. ARUZ, J. BENZEL and J. EVANS (eds.), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., New York.

ODED, B. 1971

Darb el-Hawarneh: An Ancient Route [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 10, 191–197.

284

Bibliography

PALUMBO, G. 2001

The Early Bronze Age IV, 233–269, in: B. MACDONALD, R. ADAMS and P. BIENKOWSKI (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan, Levantine Archaeology 1, Sheffield.

MICHAELIDES (eds.), The Development of the Cypriot Economy from the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day, Nicosia. PETERSON, J.L., and ARAV, R. 1992

PALUMBO, G. (ed.) 1994

JADIS: The Jordan Antiquities Database and Information System – A Summary of the Data, Amman.

PALUMBO, G., MABRY, J., ABU ABILEH, M., AVELINNO, E., BIEWERS, M., CONATI, C., KANA’AN, R., and MAMMINI, S. 1993

The Wadi el-Yabis Survey and Excavations Project: Report on the 1992 Season, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 37, 307–324.

Rehob (place), 660–661, in: D.N. FREEDMAN (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume V: O–Sh, New York.

PETIT, L.P., KAPTIJN, E., HOURANI, F., GROOTVELD, E., KOOIJ, G., and AL-GHUL, O. 2006

VAN DER

Dayr ‘Alla Regional Project: Settling the Steppe. Second Campaign 2005, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 50, 179–188.

PETRIE, F. 1931

Ancient Gaza I: Tell el Ajjul, London.

PANITZ-COHEN, N.

PFÄLZNER, P.

2006

2007a Archaeological Investigations in the Royal Palace of Qatna, 29–64, in: D. MORANDI BONACOSSI (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria, Studi Archeologici su Qatna 01, Udine.

Processes of Ceramic Change and Continuity: Tel Batash in the Second Millennium BCE as a Test Case, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

PANITZ-COHEN, N., and MAZAR, A. (eds.) 2009

Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume III: The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S, Jerusalem.

PANITZ-COHEN, N., YAHALOM-MACK, N., and MAZAR, A. 2009

Chapter 16: Various finds: Clay, Stone, Ivory, Bone and Faience Objects and Vessels, 742–763, in: N. PANITZCOHEN and A. MAZAR (eds.), Excavations at Tel BethShean 1989–1996, Volume III: The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S, Jerusalem.

PAOLETTI, V. 2005

Eine Keramikassemblage aus der frühen Benutnzungszeit, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 137, 79–89.

PAPPI, C. 2007

The Religious Landscape of Qatna during the Mari Period, 319–328, in: D. MORANDI BONACOSSI (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria, Studi Archeologici su Qatna 01, Udine.

2007b Das System des “kommerzialisierten Geschenkaustausches” im 2. Jahrtausend v.Chr. in Syrien, 109–123, in: H. KLINKOTT, S. KUBISCH and R. MÜLLER-WOLLERMANN (eds.), Geschenke und Steuern, Zölle and Tribute: Antike Abgabenformen in Anspruck und Wirklichkeit, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, Leiden. 2008a Between the Aegean and Syria: The Wall Paintings from the Royal Palace of Qatna, 95–118, in: D. BONATZ, R. CZICHON and F. JANOSCHA KREPPNER (eds.), Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne, Wiesbaden. 2008b The Royal Palace at Qatna : Power and Prestige in the Late Bronze Age, 219–232, in: J. ARUZ, K. BENZEL and J.M. EVANS (eds.), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., New York. PFOH, E. 2008

Dealing with Tribes and States in Ancient Palestine: A Critique of the Use of State Formation Theories in the Archaeology of Israel, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 22(1), 86–113.

2009

Some Remarks on Patronage in Syria-Palestine During the Late Bronze Age, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 52, 353–381.

PARDEE, D. 1987

Epigraphic and Philological Notes, Ugarit Forschungen 19, 199–217.

PARROT, A. 1956

Mission archéologique de Mari, Tome 2.3. Le palais: peintures murales, Institut français d’archéologie de Beyrouth, Paris.

PHILIP, G. 1989

PAYNTER, R. 1981

Social Complexity in Peripheries: Problems and Models, 115–141, in: S. VAN DER LEEUW (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Complexity, Albert Egges van Giffen Institut voor Prae- en Protohistorie, Cingula VI, Amsterdam.

PEACOCK, D. 1982

Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in SyriaPalestine, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 526, Oxford.

1991a Cypriot Bronze Work in the Levantine World: Conservatism, Innovation and Social Change, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 4, 59–107. 1991b Tin, Arsenic, Lead: Alloying Practices in Syria-Palestine Around 2000 B.C, Levant 23, 93–104. 1995

Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, Longman Archaeology Series, London.

The Same but Different: A Comparison of Middle Bronze Age Metalwork from Jericho and Tall ad-Dab>a, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5, 523–530.

PELTENBURG, E.

PHILIP, G., CLOGG, P., and DUNGWORTH, D.

1996

2003

From Isolation to State Formation in Cyprus, c. 3500–1500 B.C., 17–43, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS and D.

Copper Metallurgy in the Jordan Valley from the Third to the First Millennia BC: Chemical, Metallo-

285

Bibliography graphic and Lead Isotope Analyses of Artefacts from Pella, Levant 35, 71–100. PHILLIPS, J. 1991

Egypt and the Aegean during the Middle Kingdom, 319–333, in: S. SCHOSKE (ed.), Akten des vierten International Ägyptologen kongresses München 1985, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kulture Beihefte Band 4, Hamburg.

1976b Nahal Tabor [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 59–60, 64. 1976c Tel Artal [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 59–60, 64. 1980

Ein Hanatziv [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 73, 40.

1981

Ein Hanatziv [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 76, 14.

1982

Tel Hammam – 1981 [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 80–81, 8.

1983

Ein Hanatziv [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 82, 15–16.

1985

Ein Hanatziv [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 86, 14–15.

PIERRAT-BONNEFOIS, G. 2009

The Tôd Treasure, 65–67, in: J. ARUZ, J. BENZEL and J. EVANS (eds.), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., New York.

PITARD, W. 1994

The Reading of KTU 1.19:III:41: The Burial of Aqhat, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 293, 31–38.

PITARD, W. 1996

An Historical Overview of Pastoral Nomadism in the Central Euphrates Valley, 208–293, in: J. COLESON and V. MATTHEWS (eds.), “Go to the Land I Will Show You”: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, Winona Lake, In.

POLANYI, K. 1944

PORATH, Y. 1991

Tel Hefer/Ifshar - Site from the Beginning of the Middle Bronze IIa in the Sharon [In Hebrew with English Abstract], Michmanim 5, 11–20, 36*.

PORTER, B., and MOSS, R.L. 1952

The Great Transformation, Boston.

Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, VII, Nubia, the Deserts, and Outside of Egypt, Oxford.

POLCARO, A.

PORTUGALI, Y.

2009

1988

EB I Settlements and Environment in the Wadi AzZarqa Dolmens and Ideology of Death, 31–48, in: J. CÓRDOBA, M. MOLIST, M. PÉREZ, I. RUBIO and S. MARTÍNEX (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3–8 2006, Vol. 3, Madrid.

POLITIS, K. 1995

Excavations and Restorations at Dayr ‘Ayn ‘Abat’a, 1994, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 39, 477–491.

POSENER, G. 1940

Ancient Mesopotamia: The Eden that Never Was, Cambridge.

1982

1982

1983

The Cylinder Seals of the Late Cypriote Bronze age, American Journal of Archaeology 52, 178–198. Remarks on the Tôd Treasure in Egypt, 285–303, in: M. DANDAMAYEV, M.T. LARSEN and J.N. POSTGATE (eds.), Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of I. M. Diakonoff, Warminster. Appendix G: Cylinder Seal from Jericho, 774–776, in: K.M. KENYON and T. HOLLAND, Excavations at Jericho, Volume V: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds, London.

1994

Ein Hanatziv [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 34–35, 7.

1972

Tombs near Ein Hanatziv [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 44 10.

1974

Tel Rehov [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 51–52, 16.

1976a Ein Hanatziv [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 59–60, 64–65.

How Many Sumerians per Hectare? - Probing the Anatomy of an Early City, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4, 47–65.

POTTS, T. 1986

An Ivory-Decorated Box from Pella (Jordan), Antiquity 60, 217–219.

1987

A Bronze Age Ivory-Decorated Box from Pella (Pahel) and its Foreign Relations, 59–71, in: A. HADIDI (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan III, Amman.

1988

Preliminary Report on the Eighth and Ninth Seasons of Excavations by the University of Sydney at Pella (Tabaqat Fahl), 1986–1987, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 32, 115–149.

PORATH, P. 1970

A New Royal Inscription of the XIIth Dynasty, Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12, 7–8.

POSTGATE, N.

PORADA, E. 1948

Princes et Pays dans l’Egypte et de Nubie, Brussels.

POSENER, G.

POLLOCK, S. 1999

Theories of Population and Settlement and Their Significance to Demographic Research in Palestine [In Hebrew], 4–32, in: S. BUNIMOVITZ, M. KOCHAVI and A. KASHER (eds.), Settlements, Population and Economy in Ancient Palestine, Tel Aviv.

POTTS, T., COLLEDGE, S., and EDWARDS, P. 1985

Preliminary Report on the Sixth Season of Excavation by the University of Sydney at Pella in Jordan (1983/ 84), Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 29, 181–210.

PRAG, K. 1989

Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Iktanu, Jordan, 1987, Levant 21, 33–45.

286

Bibliography

1991

Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Iktanu and Tell al-Hammam, Jordan, 1990, Levant 23, 55–66.

1992

Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in the South Jordan Valley: Archaeology, Environment and Ethnology, 155–160, in: M. ZAGHLOUL, K. >AMR, F. ZAYADINE and R. NABEEL (eds.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 4, Amman.

2006

REDMOUNT, C.A. 1993

PRICE WILLIAMS, D. 1975

1977

An Examination of Middle Bronze Age II Typology and Sequence Dating in Palestine, with Particular Reference to the Tombs of Jericho and Fara (south), Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, London, Institute of Archaeology. The Tombs of the Middle Bronze Age II Period from the ‘500’ Cemetery at Tell Fara (South), Occasional Publication 1, London.

QUACK, J.F. 1992

Minoan and Canaanite Harbours, 129–146, in: R. LAFFINEUR and L. BASCH (eds.), Thalassa, L’Égée Prehistorique et la Mer: actes de la Troisième Rencontre Égéenne Internationale de l’Université de Liège, Aegaeum, Liège. The Kinneret Survey, 1958, Unpublished Manuscript, Archives of the Israel Antiquities Authority [In Hebrew], Jerusalem.

RAINEY, A.F. 1972

The World of Sinuhe, Israel Oriental Studies 2, 369–408.

1994

Remarks on Donald Redford’s “Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 295, 81–85.

2006

Sinuhe’s World, 277–299, in: A.M. MAEIR and P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times” (Ps 78:2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake, In.

RAINEY, A.F., and NOTLEY, R. 2006

The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, Jerusalem.

2007

The History of the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem [In Hebrew with English Abstract], Eretz Israel 28, 165–172, 15*.

2009

The Recent Discovery of a Middle Bronze II Fortification in the City of David, Jerusalem, City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 4, 13*–33*.

REICH, R., SHUKRON, E., and LERNAU, O. 2007

Resource Procurement Zones and Patterns of Ceramic Exchange in the Palenque Region, Mexico, 19–46, in: R.E. FRY (ed.), Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, Society for American Archaeology Papers 1, Washington, D.C.

Recent Discoveries in the City of David, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Journal 57, 153–169.

REIFENBERG, A. 1950

The Struggle between the Desert and the Sown: The Development of the Agricultural Culture in the Land of Israel and its Neighbors [In Hebrew], Jerusalem.

REIMER, P.J., BAILLIE, M.G.L., BARD, E., BAYLISS, A., BECK, J.W., BLACKWELL, P.G., BRONK RAMSEY, C., BUCK, C.E., BURR, G.S., EDWARDS, R.L., FRIEDRICH, M., GROOTES, P.M., GUILDERSON, T. P., HAJDAS, I., HEATON, T.J., HOGG, A.G., HUGHEN, K.A., KAISER, K.F., KROMER, B., MCCORMAC, F.G., MANNING, S.W., REIMER, R.W., RICHARDS, D.A., SOUTHON, J.R., TALAMO, S., TURNEY, C.S. M., VAN DER PLICHT, J., and WEYHENMEYER, C.E. 2009

IntCal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51, 1111–1150.

REISNER, G. 1955

Clay Sealings of Dynasty XIII from Uronarti Fort, Kush 3, 26–69.

RENFREW, C. 1975

Trade as Action at a Distance, 3–59, in: J. SABLOFF and C. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY (eds.), Ancient Civilisation and Trade, School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, Albuquerque.

1994

The Archaeology of Religion, 47–54, in: C. RENFREW and E.B. ZUBROW (eds.), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge.

RANDS, R., and BISHOP, R. 1980

The History of the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem, Levant 36, 211–223.

REICH, R., and SHUKRON, E.

RABANI, B. 1958

Tell el-Maskhuta: Hyksos Pottery, Bulletin de Laison du Groupe International d’Étude de la Céramique Égyptienne 17, 2–17.

REICH, R., and SHUKRON, E. 2004

Eine Erwahnung des Rieches von Aleppo in den Achtungtexten?, Göttinger Miszellen 130, 75–78.

RABAN, A. 1991

A Response to Anson Rainey’s “Remarks on Donald Redford’s “Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 301, 77–81.

RAPPAPORT, R.

RENFREW, C., and LEVEL, E.

1999

1979

Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity, Cambridge.

RAPUANO, Y. 2001

Tel Dover, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 113, 19*–21*.

Exploring Dominance: Predicting Polities from Centers, 145–167, in: C. RENFREW and K. COOKE (eds.), Transformations: Mathematical Approaches to Culture, New York.

RICE, P.M.

REDFORD, D.B.

1987

1992

RICHARD, S.

Execration and Execration Texts, 681–682, in: D.N. FREEDMAN (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume II: D–G, New York.

1990

Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, Chicago. The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and its Vicinity; Fourth Preliminary Report, Bulletin of the

287

Bibliography

Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10, 1–30.

American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 26, 33–58. 2006

Early Bronze Age IV Transitions: An Archaeometallurgical Study, 119–132, in: S. GITIN, J. WRIGHT and J.P. DESSEL (eds.), Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of W. G. Dever, Winona Lake, In.

2009

The Potter’s Wheel in Middle Bronze II in the Southern Levant: Technological Study of the Beth Shean Ceramics. The Arkeotek Journal 3(4), http://www.thearkeotekjournal.org/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=109&Itemid=9&id_article=12.

RICHARDS, F.V.

ROWE, A.

1992

1930

The Topography and History of Beth-Shan, Philadelphia.

1940

The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan, part I: The Temples and Cult Objects, Philadelphia.

Scarab Seals from a Middle to Late Bronze Age Tomb at Pella in Jordan, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 117, Fribourg.

RIEHL, S. 2009

Archaeobotanical Evidence for the Interrelationship of Agricultural Decision-Making and Climate Change in the Ancient Near East, Quaternary International 197(1–2), 93–114.

RIEHL, S., BRYSON, R., and PUSTOVOYTOV, K. 2008

Changing Growing Conditions for Crops during the Near Eastern Bronze Age (3000–1200 BC): The Stable Carbon Isotope Evidence, Journal of Archaeological Science 35(4), 1011–1022.

ROWTON, M. 1973a Autonomy and Nomadism Orientalia 42, 247–258.

Between Damascus and Megiddo: Roads and Transportation in Antiquity across the Northeastern Approaches to the Holy Land, 1*–20*, in: L. DI SEGNI, Y. HIRSCHFELD, J. PATRICH, and R. TALGAM (eds.), Man Near a Roman Arch: Studies Presented to Prof. Yoram Tsafrir, Jerusalem.

ROSEN, A. 2007

Civilizing Climate: The Social Impact of Climate Change in the Ancient Near East, Landham, MD.

ROSEN, B., and FINKELSTEIN, I. 1992

Subsistence Patterns, Carrying Capacity and Settlement Oscillations in the Negev Highlands, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 124, 42–58.

ROSENFELD, A., ILANI, S., and DVORACHEK, M. 1997

Bronze Age Alloys from Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 857–864.

ROTHENBERG, B. 1988

The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna, Researches in the Arabah, 1959–1984, Vol. 1, London.

1999

Archaeo-Metallurgical Researches in the Southern Arabah 1959–1990. Part 2: Egyptian New Kingdom (Ramesside) to Early Islam, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131, 149–175.

Enclosed Nomadism, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 17, 1–30.

1976

Dimorphic Structure and Topology, Oriens Antiquus 15, 17–31.

RYE, O. 1976

1998

ROUX, V. 2003

A Dynamic Systems Framework for Studying Technological Change: Application to the Emergence of the

Hotebibre, a Supposed Asiatic King in Egypt with Relations with Ebla, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 311, 1–6.

SAARISALO, A. 1927

The Boundary between Issachar and Naphtali, Annales Academiae Scientiarium Fennicae, Series B, Volume 21, No. 3, Helsinki.

SABLOFF, J., and LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, C. (eds.) 1975

Ancient Civilisation and Trade, School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, Albuquerque.

SADER, H. 2006

A Middle Bronze Age Palace with Wall Paintings at Tell el-Burak, Lebanon, 61, in: Abstracts of Papers Presented at The 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3–8, 2006, Madrid.

2009

Palace Architecture in Tell el-Burak-Lebanon: Some Evidence for Egyptian-Mesopotamian-Levantine Interconnections, 177–185, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean Held in November 2008 in Beirut, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises Hors-Série VI, Beirut.

The Ancient Metallurgy of Copper, Researches in the Arabah 1959–1984, Vol. 2, London. The Beginnings and the Development of Early Metallurgy and the Settlement and Chronology of the Western Arabah, from the Chalcolithic Period to Early Bronze age IV, Levant 24, 141–157.

Keeping Your Temper under Control: Materials and Manufacture of Papuan Pottery, Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11, 106–137.

RYHOLT, K.

ROTHENBERG, B., and GLASS, J. 1992

Asia,

1974

ROTHENBERG, B. (ed.) 1990

Western

1973b Urban Autonomy in a Nomadic Environment, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32, 201–215.

ROLL, I. 2009

in

SALEM, H.J. 1994

The Palestinian Traditional Pottery, Orient Express 1, 18–20.

SALEM, H. 1999

Implications of Cultural Tradition: The Case of Palestinian Traditional Pottery, 66–82, in: T. KAPITAN (ed.), Archaeology, History and Culture in Palestine and the Near

288

Bibliography East: Essays in Memory of Albert E. Glock, ASOR Books, Vol. 3, Atlanta, GA.

SCHREIBER, K., and KINTIGH, K. 1996

SALTZ, D.L. 1977

The Chronology of the Middle Cypriote Period, Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, 51–70.

SASS, B. 1989

The Egyptian Middle Kingdom System for Writing Foreign Names and the Beginning of the West-Semitic Alphabet [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 20, 44–50.

SASSON, J.M. 1984

Zimri-Lim Takes the Grand Tour, Biblical Archaeologist 47, 246–255.

SCANDONE MATTHIAE, G. 1979

Un Oggeto Faraonico della XIII dinastia dalla “Tomba del Signore dei Capridi”, Studi Eblaiti 1, 119–128.

1984

La Statuaria Regale Egiziana del Medio Regno in Siria: Motivi di una Presenza, Ugarit-Forschungen 16, 181–188.

1987

The Mace of Pharaoh Hotepibra and the Connections between Egypt and Syria-Palestine in the XIIIth Dynasty, 49–58, in: S. SHA>ATH (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Palestine II, Aleppo.

SCHULMAN, A. 1990

A Cylinder Seal in the “Hyksos” Style (MBII) from Ebla, Contibuti e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 6, 181–190.

1962

The Lower Jordan Valley: A Study of Fluviomorphology of an Arid Zone, Jerusalem.

SCHATTNER, I. 1972

Israel, Land of (Geographical survey), Physiography, 123–181, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 9, Is-Jer, Jerusalem.

1994a Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, Washington DC. 1994b Rural Approaches to Social Complexity, 1–9, in: G.M. SCHWARTZ and S.E. FALCONER (eds.), Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, Washington, DC. SCOTT, J. 1990

Subduction, Collision and Initiation of Hominim Dispersal, Quaternary Science Reviews 28 (19–20), 1820–1824.

Domination and the Arts of Resistance: The Hidden Transcript, New-Haven.

SEEDEN, H. 1986

Bronze Age Village Occupation at Busra: AUB Excavations on the Northwest Tell 1983–84, Berytus 34, 11–81.

SEGAL, D., and CARMI, I. 1996

Rehovot Radiocarbon Date List V, >Atiqot 29, 79–106.

SEGAL, D., and CARMI, I. 2004

SCHATNER, U., and LAZAR, M. 2009

The Geology of the Central Jordan Valley, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation [In Hebrew], Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

SCHWARTZ, G.M., and FALCONER, S.E. (eds.)

SCHATTNER, I. 1961

An Enigmatic Egyptian Prescence at Tel Dan, 235–244, in: B. SCHMITZ and A. EGGEBRECHT (eds.), Festschrift Jurgen von Beckerath zum 70. Geburstag, Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beitrage 30, Hildesheim.

SCHULMAN, N.

SCANDONE MATTHIAE, G. 1997

A Test of the Relationship between Site Size and Population, American Antiquity 61, 573–579.

Rehovot Radiocarbon date List VI, >Atiqot 123–148.

SEGER, J. D. 1974

The Middle Bronze II C Date of the East Gate at Shechem, Levant 6, 117–130.

SCHELTEMA, H. G.

SEGER, J. D.

2008

1975

Megalithic Jordan. An Introduction and Field Guide, Amman.

SCHILMAN, B., AYALON, A., BAR-MATTHEWS, M., KAGAN, E., and ALMOGI-LABIN, A. 2002

Sea-Land Paleoclimate Correlation in the Eastern Mediterranean Region during the Late Holocene, Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 51, 181–190.

The MBII Fortifications at Shechem and Gezer: A Hyksos Retrospective, Eretz Israel 12, 34*–45*.

SELIGMAN, J., and YOGEV, O. 1993

An Early Bronze Age IV Built Tomb at Deganya A, >Atiqot 22, 71–75.

SELLIN, E., and WATZINGER, C.

SCHMIDT, B.

1913

1999

SERPICO, M.

Moon, 585–593, in: K. VAN DER TOORN, B. BECKING and P. VAN DER HORST (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden.

2004

SCHNEIDER, J. 1977

Was There a Pre-Capitalist World System?, Peasant Studies 6, 20–29.

Jericho: die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Leipzig. Natural Product Technology in New Kingdom Egypt, 96–120, in: J. BOURRIAU and J. PHILIPS (eds.), Invention and Innovation: The Social Context of Technological Change, 2: Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East, 1650–1150 B.C., Oxford.

SCHORTMAN, E. M., and URBAN, P. A.

SERPICO, M., and WHITE, R.

1987

2000

Modeling Interregional Interaction in Prehistory, 37–95, in: M. SCHIFFER (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11, San Diego.

48,

Resins, Amber and Bitumen, 430–474, in: P. NICHOLand I. SHAW (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge.

SON

289

Bibliography SHAKED, I.

SINGER-AVITZ, L., and LEVI, Y.

1994

Qiryat Shemonah, Giv’at Shehumit, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12, 3–4.

1992

1995

Qiryat Shemonah, Giv’at Shehumit, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 14, 7–9.

1998

1999

The Settlement Pattern and the Road System in the Hula Valley during the 10th–13th Centuries, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan. Qiryat Shemonah, Giv’at Shehumit, Hadashot Arkheologiyot - Excavations and Surveys in Israel 109, 4–5.

SHALEV, S. 2000

Metal Artifacts: Archaeometallurgy, 278–287, in: M. KOCHAVI, P. BECK and E. YADIN (eds.), Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B, The 1972–1976 Seasons, Monograph Series 19, Tel Aviv.

2002

Chapter 8: Metal Artefacts, 307–318, in: A. KEMPINSKI, Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, Monograph Series 20, Tel Aviv.

2007

Chapter 7: Metallurgical Analysis, 109–114, in: Y. GARFINKEL and S. COHEN (eds.), The Middle Bronze IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 62, Boston.

An MB IIA Kiln at the Nahal Soreq Site [In Hebrew with English Summary], >Atiqot 21, 9*–14*, 174.

SINOPOLI, C. M. 1991

Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, New York.

SION, O. 2000

Bet She>an, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 112, 40*–42*.

SMITH, C.A. 1976

Regional Economic Systems: Lining Geographic Models and Socioeconomic Problems, 3–63, in: C. SMITH (ed.), Regional Analysis, Vol. I: Economic Systems, Studies in Anthropology, New York.

1990

Types of City-Size Distributions: A Comparative Analysis, 20–42, in: A. VAN DER WOUDE, A. HAYAMI and J. DE VRIES (eds.), Urbanization in History: A Process of Dynamic Interactions, Oxford.

SMITH, G.A. 1966

The Historical Geography of the Holy Land (H. H. ROWLEY, Introduction; Reprint of Revised Edition no. 25), London.

SHARON, M.

SMITH, M.

1975

1989

Cities, Towns, and Urbanism: Comment on Sanders and Webster, American Anthropologist 91, 454–460.

2004

The Archaeology of Ancient State Economies, Annual Review of Anthropology 33, 73–102.

The Political Role of the Bedouins in Palestine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, 11–30, in: M. MA>OZ (ed.), Studies on Palestine during the Ottoman Period, Jerusalem.

SHAVIT, A.

SMITH, P.

2003

1995

Settlement Patterns in Israel’s Southern Coastal Plain during the Iron Age II [In Hebrew with English Summary], Unpublished Dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

SHAW, I. 2001

Egyptians, Hyksos and Military Technology: Causes, Effects or Catalysts?, 59–71, in: A. SHORTLAND (ed.), The Social Context of Technological Change, Egypt and the Near East, 1650–1550 BC. Proceedings of a Conference held at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, 12–14 September 2000, Oxford.

SHAY, T. 1983

1988

Quantifying Archaeology, Edinburgh.

SHIMRON, A. E. 1985

SMITH, R.H. 1973

Pella of the Decapolis, Vol. I: The 1967 Season of the College of Wooster Expedition to Pella, Wooster.

1981

Preliminary Report on a Second Season of Excavation at Pella, Jordan, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 25, 311–326.

1983

Preliminary Report on the 1983 Season of the Sydney/Wooster Joint Expedition to Pella (Spring Season), Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 27, 363–373.

1985

Excavations at Pella of the Decapolis, 1979–1985, National Geographic Research 1, 470–489.

1987

Trade in the Life of Pella of the Decapolis, 53–58, in: A. HADIDI (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan III, Amman.

Burial Customs at Jericho in the Intermediate Bronze Age: A Componental Analysis, Tel Aviv 10, 26–37.

SHENNAN, S.

People of the Holy Land from Prehistory to the Recent Past, 58–74, in: T.E. LEVY (ed.), The Archaeology of Society on the Holy Land, London.

The Petrography and Origin of Two Whetstones from the Tomb near ‘Enan, >Atiqot (English Series) 17, 83–89.

SHRODER, J., Jr., and INBAR, M.

SMITH, R.H., and KOUCKY, F.L.

1995

1986

Geologic and Geographic Background to the Bethsaida Excavations, 65–98, in: R. ARAV and R. FREUND (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, Bethsaida Excavations Project 1, Kirksville, Mi.

SIEVERSTEN, U. 2006

Neue Forschungen zur Chronologie der Mittelbronzezeit in Westsyrien im kulturellen Kontext des levantinisch-ostmediterranen Raums: Eine Zwischenbilanz, Damaszener Mitteilungen 15, 9–65.

Lake Beisan and the Prehistoric Settlement of the Northern Jordan Valley, Paléorient 12(2), 27–36.

SMITH, R.H., MCNICOLL, A., and HENNESSY, J. 1981

The 1980 Season at Pella of the Decapolis, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 243, 1–30.

SMITH, R.H., MADDIN, R., MUHLY, J., and STECH, T. 1984

Bronze Age Steel from Pella, Jordan, Current Anthropology 25, 234–236.

290

Bibliography

SMITH, R.H., and DAY, L.P. 1989 Pella of the Decapolis, vol. 2: Final Report on the College of Wooster Excavations in Area ix, the Civic Complex, 1979–1985, Wooster. SMITH, R.H., and POTTS, T. 1992 The Middle and Late Bronze Ages, 35–81, in: A. MCNICOLL, P. EDWARDS, J. HANBURY-TENISON, J. HENNESSEY, T. POTTS, and R. SMITH, Pella in Jordan 2: The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982–1985, Mediterranean Archaeology, Supplement, Sydney. SMITH, S. 1934 Report on Tablet from Jericho, Annals of Anthropology and Archaeology 21, 116–117. 1998 Nubia and Egypt: Interaction, Acculturation, and Secondary State Formation from the Third to First Millennium B.C., 316–334, in: J. CUSICK (ed.), Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, Carbondale. SNEH, A., and WEINBERGER, R. 2003 Geology of the Metulla Quadrangle, Northern Israel: Implications for the Offset along the Dead Sea, Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 52, 123–138. SØRENSEN, A.H. 2009 An Update on the Chronological Value of Minoica in the Levant and Cyprus, 267–273, in: D.A. WARBURTON (ed.), Time’s up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini: Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg, November 2007, Initiated by Jan Heinemeier & Walter L. Friedrich, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 10, Athens. SOUTHALL, A. 1956 Alur Society, Cambridge. SPARKS, R. 1991 A Series of Middle Bronze Age Bowls with Ram’sHeads Handles from the Jordan Valley, Mediterranean Archaeology 4, 45–54. SPARKS, R. 1996 Egyptian Stone Vessels in Syro-Palestine during the Second Millennium B.C. and Their Impact on the Local Stone Vessel Industry, 51–66, in: G. BUNNENS (ed.), Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Near East: Papers Read at a Symposium Held at the University of Melbourne, Department of Classics and Archaeology (29–30 September 1994), Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 5, Louvain. SPARKS, R. 2001 Palestinian Stone Vessels: The Evidence from Pella, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 7, 259–264. SPARKS, R. 2007 Stone Vessels in the Levant, Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 8, Leeds. STAGER, L. 2001 Port Power in the Early and the Middle Bronze Age: The Organization of Maritime Trade and Hinterland Production, 625–638, in: S. WOLFF (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 59, Chicago.

2002

The MB IIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and its Implications for the “Port Power” Model of Trade, 353–362, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna.

STECH, T., MUHLY, J. 1985

Metallurgical Studies on Artifacts from the Tomb near ‘Enan, >Atiqot (English Series) 17, 75–82.

STECH-WHEELER, T., MUHLY, J., MAXWELL-HYSLOP, K., and MADDIN, R. 1981

Iron at Taanach and Early Iron Metallurgy in the Eastern Mediterranean, American Journal of Archaeology 85, 245–268.

STEKELIS, M. 1961

La Necropolis Megalìtica de Ala-Safat, Ampurias 22–23, 49–129.

1962

Survey of Dolmen Fields near Shamir and Chorazim [In Hebrew], Mitekufat Haeven 3, 33–39.

STEPANSKY, Y. 1992

Archaeological Survey in the Region of Tel Hazor [In Hebrew], 29–30, in: Eighteenth Archaeological Conference in Israel: Abstracts, Tel Aviv.

1996

Rock-Hewn Channels near Tel Hazor: The Earliest Water Conduit in Eretz Israel? [In Hebrew with English Summary], >Atiqot 28, 1*–7*, 195.

1999

The Periphery of Hazor during the Bronze Age: A Regional-Archaeological Study, Unpublished Master’s thesis [in Hebrew with English Abstract], Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University.

2000

Map of Kefar Nahum, Survey, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 112, 9*–11*.

2003

Map of Kefar Nahum, Survey, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 115, 7*–9*.

2005a The Megalithic Culture of the Corazim Plateau, Eastern Galilee, Israel: New Evidence for a Chronological and Social Framework, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5, 39–50. 2005b Tel Avel Bet Ma>akha, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 117 (www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng. asp?id=94&mag_id=110). 2008a Between Hazor and Kinneret: The Corazim Plateau in Biblical Times [In Hebrew], 271–289, in: S. BAR (ed.), In the Hill-Country, and in the Shephelah, and in the Arabah (Joshua 12, 8): Studies and Researches Presented to Adam Zertal in the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Manasseh Hill-Country Survey, Jerusalem. 2008b Rock-Hewn Channels near Tel Hazor: Evidence of a Middle Bronze Age Long-Distance Water-Carrier?, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 24, 51–76. STEPANSKY, Y. and BARDA, L. 2006

Tel Hazor: Survey of the Bypass Road, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 118 (www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_ detail_eng.asp?id=399&mag_id=111).

291

Bibliography STEPONAITIS, V., BLACKMAN, M., and NEFF, H. 1996

Large-Scale Patterns in the Chemical Composition of Mississippian Pottery, American Antiquity 61, 555–571.

TADMOR, M. 1978

1990

Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Tiwal EshSharqi, London.

TUFNELL, O. 1984

A Cult Cave of the Middle Bronze I near Qedesh, Israel Exploration Journal 28, 1–30.

Studies on Scarab Seals, Vol. II: Scarab Seals and Their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Warminster.

TAINTER, J.

TUFNELL, O., and WARD, W.

1990

1966

The Collapse of Complex Societies, New Studies in Archaeology, Cambridge.

TARAQJI, A.F. 1999

Novelles décourvertes sur les relations avec l’Égypte à Tell Sakka et à Keswé, dans la région de Damas, Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie 144, 27–43.

Relations between Byblos, Egypt and Mesopotamia at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.: A Study of the Montet Jar, Syria 43, 165–241.

TZAFERIS, V. 1968

A Middle Bronze Age I Cemetery in Tiberias, Israel Exploration Journal 28, 15–19.

TARLER, D., LIPOVITZ, G., and CAHILL, J.

TZORI, N.

1985

Tel el-Hama – 1985 [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 87, 21–22.

1988


1958a Cult Figurines in the Eastern Plain of Esdraelon and Beth-Shean [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 5, 52–54.

1990


TCHERNOV, E., and YOM-TOV, Y. 1988

Zoogeography of Israel, 1–6, in: Y. YOM-TOV and E. TCHERNOV (eds.), The Zoogeography of Israel: The Distribution and Abundance at a Geographical Crossroads, Dordrecht.

TEISSIER, B. 1990

The Seal Impression Alalakh 194: A New Aspect of Egypto-Levantine Relations in the Middle Kingdom, Levant 22, 65–73.

THOMPSON, T.L.

1958b Neolithic and Chalcolithic Sites in the Valley of BethShan, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 90, 44–51. USSISHKIN, D. 1996a Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1994–1996: Third Preliminary Report, Tel Aviv 24, 6–72. 1996b The Fortified Enclosure of the Kings of the House of Omri at Jezreel [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 25, 1–14. USSISHKIN, D., and WOODHEAD, J. 1992

Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1990–1991: Preliminary Report, Tel Aviv 19, 3–56.

1994

Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1992–1993: Second Preliminary Report, Levant 26, 1–48.

1997

Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1994–1996: Third Preliminary Report, Tel Aviv 24, 6–72.

1974

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 133, Berlin.

1979

The Settlement of Palestine in the Bronze Age, Beihefte zum Tubinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B Nr. 34, Wiesbaden.

2008

1999

The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel, London.

The Southern Coastal Plain of Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, BarIlan University, Ramat-Gan.

2010

Middle Bronze Age Ramparts: Functional and Symbolic Structures, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 142(1), 24–30.

UZIEL, J.

TRIGGER, B. 1990

Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behaviour, World Archaeology 22, 119–132.

UZIEL, J., BEN-SHLOMO, D., ILAN, D., SHAI, I., and MAEIR, A.M. 2009

TSAFRIR, Y., and FOERSTER, G. 1992

The Dating of the “Earthquake of the Sabbatical Year” of 749 C.E. in Palestine, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55(2), 231–235.

TSIONI, G. 2006

VALSECCHI, V. 2007

Tel Tanim (Tell el-Wawiyat) (A), Excavations and Surveys in Israel 118.

TSORI, N. 1975

Middle Bronze I and Early Iron I Tombs near Tel Rehov in the Beth-Shean Valley [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 12, 9–17.

TUBB, J.N. 1983

The MBIIa Period in Palestine: Its Relationship with Syria and its Origin, Levant 15, 49–62.

Middle Bronze Age II Pottery Production in the Western Shephelah: Comparing Methods from Tel Nagila, Tell es-Safi/Gath, and Tel Burna, Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies 25, 141–62. Vegetation and Environmental Changes during the Middle-Late Holocene at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna: Climate Versus Land-Use, 105–114, in: D. MORANDI BONACOSSI (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria, Studi Archeologici su Qatna 01, Udine.

VAN AKEN, M., MOLLE, F., and VENOT, J.-P. 2009

Squeezed Dry: The Historical Trajectory of the Lower Jordan River Basin, 20–46, in: F. MOLLE and P. WESTER (eds.), River Basin Trajectories: Societies, Environments

292

Bibliography butions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9, Vienna.

and Development, Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series 8, Wallingford. VAN DEN

BRINK, E.

VAN

2000

A Middle Bronze Age IIA Burial Pit at Kefar Shemaryahu, >Atiqot 39, 43–47.

1992

VAN DER

KOOIJ, G.

2006a The Jordan Valley and the vicissitudes of life at Deir >Alla during the Bronze and Iron Ages, 41–50, in: L. NIGRO and H. TAHA (eds.), Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley: Site Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Ariha 7th–11th February 2005 by the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage – Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, UNESCO Office – Ramallah, Rome “La Sapienza” University, Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan 2, Rome 2006b Tell Deir >Alla: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Chronology, 199–226, in: P.M. FISCHER (ed.), The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Deir Alla, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 12, Vienna. 2007

Names of Jerusalem, 23–27, in: Z. KAFAFI and R. SCHICK (eds.), Jerusalem before Islam, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1699, Oxford.

VAN

LOON, M.

ZEIST, W.

1985

VAN

Picking Up the Threads...: A Continuing Review of the Excavations at Deir Alla, Jordan, Leiden.

VAN DER

LEEUW, S.

1977

Towards a Study of the Economics of Pottery Making, 68–76, in: B. VAN BEEK, R. BRANDT and W. GROENMANVAN WANTERINGE (eds.), Ex Horreo, Cingula IV, Amsterdam.

Holocene Palaeoecology of the Hula Area, Northeastern Israel, 29–64, in: E. KAPTIJN and L.P. PETIT (eds.), A Timeless Vale: Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit Van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Archaeological Studies Leiden University 19, Leiden.

ZEIST, W., and WOLDRING, H.

1980

Holocene Vegetation and Climate of North-Western Syria, Palaeohistorica 22, 111–125.

VEENHOF, K. 1972

Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology, Leiden.

VELDHUIJZEN, H. A., and REHREN, T. 2007

VAN DER KOOIJ, G., IBRAHIM (ed.) 1989

Past and Present Environments of the Jordan valley, 199–204, in: A. HADIDI (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 2, Amman.

ZEIST, W., BARUCH, U., and BOTTEMA, S.

2009

VAN

The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria, Ägypten & Levante 3, 103–107.

Slags and the City. Early Iron Production at Tell Hammeh, Jordan, and Tel Beth-Shemesh, Israel, 189–201, in: S. LA NIECE, D.R. HOOK and P.T. CRADDOCK (eds.), Metals and Mines – Studies in Archaeometallurgy, London.

VELDHUIJZEN, X., and VAN DER STEEN, E. 1999

Iron Production Center Found in the Jordan Valley, Near Eastern Archaeology 62, 195–199.

VILDERS, M.M. 1993

Some Remarks on the Production of Cooking Pots in the Jordan valley, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 125, 149–156.

VAN DER

STEEN, E.

VILLIERS, L.

1995

Aspects of Nomadism and Settlement in the Central Jordan Valley, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 127, 141–158.

1980

First Report on Paleolithic Sampling at Abu el-Khas, Pella, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 24, 163–167.

1996

The Central East Jordan Valley in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 302, 51–74.

1983

Final Report on Paleolithic Sampling at Abu el-Khas, North, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 27, 27–44.

1999

Survival and Adaptation: Life East of the Jordan in the Transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131, 176–192.

2004

Tribes and Territories in Transition: The Central East Jordan Valley in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: A Study of the Sources, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 130, Louvain.

VAN DER

TOORN, K.

1996

Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life, Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 7, 7, Leiden.

VAN

KOPPEN, F.

2007

Syrian Trade Routes of the Mari Age and MB II Hazor, 367–374, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th May–1st June 2003, Contri-

VINITZKY, L. 1992

The Date of the Dolmens in the Golan and the Galilee – A Reassessment, Tel Aviv 19, 100–112.

VITA-FINZI, C. 1964

Observations on the Late Quaternary of Jordan, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 96, 19–33.

1966

The Hasa Formation: An Alluvial Deposition in Jordan, Man 1, 386–390.

1969

The Mediterranean Valleys: Geological Changes in Historical Times, Cambridge.

VITA-FINZI, C., and DIMBLEBY, G. 1971 VON

Medieval Pollen from Jordan, Pollen et Spores 13, 415–420.

BECKERATH, J.

1997

Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten: die Zeitbestimmung der Ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr, Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 46, Mainz.

293

Bibliography OSTEN, H.H.

WEINSTEIN, J.M.

Svenska Syrienexpedition 1952–1953 I: Die Grabung von Tell es-Salihiyeh, Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, Lund.

1975

Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 217, 1–16.

1981

The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241, 1–28.

WALBERG, G.

1991

1991a The Finds at Tell el-Dab’a and Middle Minoan Chronology, Ägypten & Levante 2, 115–118.

Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze IA Transition in Palestine, Levant 23, 105–115.

1996

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: How the High Chronology Became the Middle Chronology, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304, 55–63.

2003

A new set of Radiocarbon dates from the Town site, 638648, in: W.E. RAST and R.T. SCHAUB (ed.), Bâb edh-Dhrâ: Excavations at the town site (1975–1981), Winona Lake.

VON DER

1956

VOYATZOGLOU, M. 1974

The Jar Makers in Thrapsano in Crete, Expedition 16, 18–24.

1991b A Gold Pendant from Tell El-Dab’a, Ägypten & Levante 2, 111–112. WALDBAUM, J.C. 1980

The First Archaeological Appearance of Iron and the Transition to the Iron Age, 69–98, in: T. WERTIME and J. MUHLY (eds.), The Coming of the Age of Iron, New Haven.

WEISS, H. 1986

WALLERSTEIN, I. 1974

The Modern-World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, Studies in Social Discontinuity, New York.

WARBURTON, D.A. 2009

Chronology, Stratigraphy, Typology and Tell el-Dab>a, 139–144, in: D.A. WARBURTON (ed.), Time’s up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini: Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg, November 2007, Initiated by Jan Heinemeier & Walter L. Friedrich, Athens.

WELLS, P.S. 1984

Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World 2200–1900 B.C.: Studies in Egyptian Foreign Relations during the First Intermediate Period, Beirut.

1987

Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context, American Journal of Archaeology 91, 507–532.

2009

Studies on Scarab Seals III: Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context: An Essay on Middle Bronze Age Chronology, San Antonio, TX.

Estimating Location and Size of Historical Earthquake by Combining Archaeology and Geology in Umm-ElQanatir, Dead Sea Transform, Natural Hazards 50, 27–43.

WHITEHEAD, P., SMITH, S.J., WADE, A.J., MITHEN, S.J., FINLAYSON, B.L., SELLWOOD, B., and VALDES, P.J. 2008

WARD, W.A., and DEVER, W.G. 1994

Farms, Villages and Cities: Commerce and Urban Origins in Late Prehistoric Europe, Ithaca.

WECHSLER, N., KATZ, O., DRAY, Y., GONEN, I., and MARCO, S.

WARD, W.A. 1971

The Origins of Tell Leilan and the Conquest of Space in Third Millennium Mesopotamia, 71–128, in: H. WEISS (ed.), The Origins of Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C., Guilford, Conn.

Modelling of Hydrology and Potential Population Levels at Bronze Age Jawa, Northern Jordan: A Monte Carlo Approach to Cope with Uncertainty, Journal of Archaeological Science 35(3), 517–529.

WIGHTMAN, G. 1988

An EB IV Cemetery in the North Jordan Valley, Levant 20, 139–159.

WATERS, M., and KUEHN, D.

WILKINSON, T.

1996

1994

The Structure and Dynamics of Dry-Farming States in Upper Mesopotamia, Current Anthropology 35, 483–520.

2003

Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East, Tucson, Az.

The Geoarchaeology of Place: The Effect of Geological Processes on the Preservation and Interpretation of the Archaeological Record, American Antiquity 61, 483–497.

WATSON, P. 1996

Pella Hinterland Survey 1994: Preliminary Report, Levant 28, 63–76.

2001

The Cave of Refuge at Pella: Evidence and Tradition, 113–120, in: A. WALMSLEY (ed.), Australians Uncovering Ancient Jordan, Fifty Years of Middle Eastern Archaeology, Sydney.

WATZMAN, H. 2007

A Crack in the Earth: A Journey Up Israel’s Rift Valley, New York.

WEINOGRADOV, Z. 1960

Tel Ubeidiyeh – Ancient Yenoam [In Hebrew], Teva va’Aretz 3, 89–96.

WILLCOX, G. 1992

Archaeobotanical Investigations at Pella (1983), 253–256, in: A. MCNICOLL, P. EDWARDS, J. HANBURYTENISON, J. HENNESSEY, T. POTTS, and R. SMITH, Pella in Jordan 2: The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982–1985, Mediterranean Archaeology, Supplement, Sydney.

WISEMAN, D. 1953

The Alalakh Tablets, Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2, London.

WOOD, B.G. 1990

The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 103, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 4, Sheffield.

294

Bibliography

WOOD, L. 1970

The Date of the Exodus, 67–86, in: J. BARTON PAYNE (ed.), New Perspectives on the Old Testament: Papers Presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec. 26–28, 1968, Waco, TX.

WRIGHT, G. 1992a Ancient Building in Cyprus, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden.

YANNAI, A. 1983

YAQOBI, A. 1985

1985

YADIN, E., and KOCHAVI, M.

1988

Hadar, Tel, 1756–1757, in: E. STERN (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 5, Supplementary Volume, Jerusalem.

YADIN, Y.

The History of the Maoz Haim Region [In Hebrew], Maoz Haim.

YASSINE, K.

1992b The Cypriot Rural Sanctuary, An Illuminating Document in Comparative Religion, 269–283, in: G. IOANNIDES (ed.), Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis, Nicosia. 2008

Studies on Trade between the Levant and the Aegean in the 14thto 12th Centuries BC, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oxford University.

The Dolmens: Construction and Dating Reconsidered, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 259, 63–69.

YASSINE, K., SAUER, G. The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1975 (Part Two), 189–207, in: K. YASSINE (ed.), Archaeology of Jordan: Essays and Reports, Amman.

YASUR-LANDAU, A. 2010

Chapter 62: Levant, 832–848, in: E.H. CLINE (ed.), Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, Oxford.

1969

Excavations at Hazor, 1968–1969: Preliminary Communiqué, Israel Exploration Journal 19, 1–19.

1970

Symbols of Deities at Zinjirli, Carthage and Hazor, 199–231, in: J. SANDERS (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, Garden City, NY.

2003–2004 4000-Year-Old Monumental Building Unearthed, The Annual Report of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 1, 3.

1972

Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms, Schweich Lectures 1970, London.

2008

1975

Hazor “The Head of All Those Kingdoms” [In Hebrew], Tel Aviv.

YEH, S.J., and HARBOTTLE, G.

YADIN, Y., AHARONI, Y., AMIRAN, R., DOTHAN, T., DUNAYEVSKY, I., and PERROT, J. 1958

Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955, Jerusalem.

1960

Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956, Jerusalem.

YADIN, Y., AHARONI, Y., AMIRAN, R., DOTHAN, T., DUNAYEVSKY, I. 1961

Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation, 1957–1958, Text, Jerusalem.

YADIN, Y., and BEN-TOR, A. 1993

YASUR-LANDAU, A., CLINE, E., and PIERCE, G.

1986

Hazor, 594–606, in: E. STERN, A. LEWINSON-GILBOA and J. AVIRAM (eds.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 2 [English edition (no. 2)], Jerusalem. Chapter 12: The Textile Industry, 661–669, in: A. MAZAR and R. A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel BethShean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem.

YAHALOM-MACK, N., GERSHUNY, L., and MAZAR, A. 2007

Chapter 9A: The Metal Objects: Catalogue and Discussion, 606–620, in: A. MAZAR AND R. A. MULLINS (eds.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Jerusalem.

Intercomparison of the Asaro-Perlman and Brookhaven Archaeological Ceramics Analytical Standards, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Articles 97, 279–291.

YEIVIN, S. Archaeology in Israel (November 1951–January 1953), American Journal of Archaeology 59, 163–167.

1962

Beth-Shean and its Temples in the Period of Egyptian Domination [In Hebrew], 21–30, in: The Beth Shean Valley: The 17th Archaeological Convention, Jerusalem.

YEIVIN, S., and MAISLER, B. 1943–1944 A Provisional Report on an Exploration of the Northern Jordan Valley [In Hebrew], Yediot 10, 98–102. 1945

A Second Provisional Report on the Exploration of the Northern Jordan Valley [In Hebrew], Yediot 11, 17–21.

YEIVIN, Z. 1965

YAHALOM-MACK, N. 2007

Middle Bronze Settlement Patterns in the Western Galilee, Journal of Field Archaeology 33, 59–83.

1955

Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957–1958, Plates, Jerusalem.

YADIN, Y., AHARONI, Y., AMIRAN, R., BEN-TOR, A., DOTHAN, M., DOTHAN, T. 1989

YASUR-LANDAU, A., and GADOT, Y.

Early Tombs at Kibbutz Hagoshrim [In Hebrew], Yediot 30, 98–109.

YELLIN, J. 1984a Gamma-Ray Spectral Map of Standard Pottery, Radiochemica Acta 35, 107–119. 1984b Provenance of Selected LBA and MBA Pottery from Tel Mevorakh by Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis, 87–103, in: E. STERN (ed.), Excavations at Tel Mevorakh II, Qedem 18, Jerusalem. 1994

Origin of the Lamps from Masada, 107–124, in: Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports, Jerusalem.

295

Bibliography 1995

Neutron Activation Analysis: Impact on the Archaeology of the Holy Land, Trends in Analytical Chemistry 14, 37–44.

1996

The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, Vol. II: The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert [In Hebrew], Haifa.

2007

The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, Vol. 2: The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, Leiden.

YELLIN, J., and ARTZY, M. 2004

Ceramic Provenance: NAA, 221–238, in: Y. KAHANOV and E. LINDER (eds.), The Ma’Agan Mikhael Ship: The Recovery of a 2400–Year-Old Merchantman, Final Report Volume II, Jerusalem.

ZERTAL, A., BEN-YOSEF, D., COHEN, O., and BE>ERI, R. 2009

YELLIN, J., and CAHILL, J. 2004

Rosette-Stamped Handles: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis, Israel Exploration Journal 54, 191–213.

ZEVULUN, U. 1990

Tell el-Yahudiyeh Juglets from a Potter’s Refuse Pit at Afula [In Hebrew with English Summary], Eretz Israel 21, 174–190, 107*.

1993

What Was the Purpose of the Piriform Juglets?, 46, in: The Nineteenth Archaeological Conference in Israel, Lecture Abstracts [In Hebrew], Jerusalem.

YELLIN, J., and MAEIR, A.M 2007

Four Decades of Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and its Contribution to the Archaeology of the Ancient Land of Israel, Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 56, 123–132.

Kh. >Aujah el-Foqa (Ataroth): An Iron Age Fortified City in the Jordan Valley, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 141(2), 104–123.

YELLIN, J., and METZGER, A.

ZINGBOYM, O.

1982

2009

Spectral Line Shape Fitting in Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery, Analitica Chimica Acta 139, 187–195.

mag _id=115.

YELLIN, J., and PERLMAN, I. 1984

Laboratory Analysis of Selected Pottery from Tell Artal, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253, 58–60.

Shamir: Final Report, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121. Online: http:// www. hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1164&

ZOBEL, H.-J. 1966

Abel-Mehola, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 82, 83–108.

YELLIN, J., PERLMAN, I., ASARO, F., MICHEL, H., and MOSIER, D.

ZOHARY, M.

1978

1973

Comparison of Neutron Activation Analysis from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and the Hebrew University, Archaeometry 20, 95–100.

YOFFEE, N. 1977

The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period, Bibliotecha Mesopotamica 5, Malibu.

1981

Explaining Trade in Ancient Western Asia, Monographs on the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2, Fasc. 2, Malibu.

ZORI, N. 1957a An Ancient Site in Swamp Soil in the Valley of Jezreel, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 89, 82–84. 1957b Beth Shean [In Hebrew], >Alon 5–6, 16–19. 1962

YOGEV, O. 1985

A Middle Bronze Age Cemetery South of Tel Rehov, >Atiqot (English Series) 17, 90–113.

ZACCAGNINI, C. 1987

1989

Aspects of Ceremonial Trade in the Near East during the Late Second Millennium BC, 57–65, in: M. ROWLANDS, M. LARSEN and K. KRISTIANSEN (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge. Asiatic Mode of Production and Ancient Near East: Notes Towards a Discussion, 1–126, in: C. ZACCAGNINI (ed.), Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East, Budapest.

ZANGENBERG, J., MÜNGER, S., and PAKKALA, J. 2005

Excavations on the Sea of Galilee: The 2004 Season of the German-Finnish-Swiss Expedition to Tel Kinrot, Jahrbuch des deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes 9/10, 77–91.

ZERTAL, A. 1988

The Settlement Pattern of the Middle Bronze I (Intermediate Bronze) Period in Northern Samaria, the Northern Jordan Valley and in the Beth Shean Valley [In Hebrew], 4, in: The Fourteenth Archaeological Conference in Israel: Lecture Abstracts, Jerusalem.

Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East, Geobotanica Selecta Band III, Stuttgart.

An Archaeological Survey of the Beth-Shean Valley [In Hebrew], 135–198, in: The Beth-Shean Valley: The 17th Archaeological Convention, Jerusalem.

1966a Hamadiya [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archeologiot 18–19, 16. 1966b Hamadiyeh [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archaeologiot 18–19, 16. 1966c A Site Near Afiqim [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archeologiot 17, 23–24. 1967a Abel-Meholah [In Hebrew], Yediot 31, 132–135. 1967b An Ancient Settlement on the Shore of the Yarmukh [In Hebrew], Kinrot 3, 43–44. 1970

Delhamiyeh [In Hebrew], Hadashot Archeologiot 33, 14–15.

1972

Tel Yosef in Antiquity [In Hebrew], Tel Yosef.

1977

The Land of Issachar Archaeological Survey [In Hebrew], Jerusalem.

1980

“Beth Shan and Her Daughters” (Joshua 17:11) [In Hebrew], 306–323, in: Ben-Zion Luria Festschrift, Jerusalem.

ZORN, J.R. 1993

Mesopotamian-Style Ceramic “Bathtub” Coffins from Tell en-Nasbeh, Tel Aviv 20, 216–224.

1994

Estimating Population Size of Ancient Settlements: Methods, Problems, Solutions, and a Case Study, Bul-

296

Bibliography letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 295, 31–48.

2008

Fit for a (not-Quite-So-Great) King: A Faience LionHeaded Cup from Hazor, Levant 40(1), 115–125.

ZUCKERMAN, S.

ZWICKEL, W.

2003

The Kingdom of Hazor in the Late Bronze Age: Chronological and Regional Aspects of the Material Culture of Hazor and its Settlements [In Hebrew with English Abstract], Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

2003

2007

‘...Slaying of Oxen and Killing Sheep, Eating Flesh and Drinking Wine...’: Feasting in Late Bronze Age Hazor, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 139 (3), 186–204.

Städte, Gräber, Handelsrouten – Die Bronzezeit am See Gennesaret, 18–24, in: G. FASSBECK, S. FORTNER, A. ROTTLOFF and J. ZANGENGERG (eds.), Leben am See Gennesaret: Kulturgeschichtliche Entdeckungen in einer biblischen Region, Mainz am Rhein.

APPENDIX A: LIST OF SITES IN THE JORDAN VALLEY WITH MIDDLE BRONZE AGE REMAINS Key: Size (in Dunam [1 Dunam=0.1 Hectare]): A>1 B = 1–3 C = 4–10 D = 11–29 E = 50–100 F ≥ 100 Periods: + Minimal surface survey finds ++ Well represented in surface survey and/or excavation finds +++ Extensive surface survey and/or excavation finds ? Uncertain data – No evidence Site #:

1

Name: Arad Qibilya/Marj Qatil Region: N. Hula Elevation: 210 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ? MB II: ? LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: GREENBERG 1996: 134–135 Comments: Site #:

Levant Grid: 20402989 Size: B/1.0

MB III: LB II:

? –

2

Name: Abel Beit Ma>achah Levant Grid: 20462960 Region: N. Hula Size: F/100 Elevation:414 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: +++ MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: ++ LB I: + LB II: ++ Excavation/Survey: AHARONI; ALBRIGHT; DAYAN; DEVER; GREENBERG Bibliography: E.g., ALBRIGHT 1924–25:16; ABEL 1933–1938: 233; DAYAN 1963; DEVER 1986; GREENBERG 1996; 2002:62; STEPANSKY 2005b Comments: Site #: Name: T. Dan Region: N. Hula Elevation:210 Periods: EB II–III: ++

3 Levant Grid: 21122949 Size: A

EB IV:

–

180

Appendix A: List of Sites in the Jordan Valley with Middle Bronze Age Remains

MB (general): +++ MB I: + MB II:+++ MB III: +++ LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; ALBRIGHT; BIRAN; ILAN Bibliography: E.g., ALBRIGHT 1924–25: 16–18; DAYAN 1963: 22; BIRAN 1971; 1986; 1990; 1994; 1998; 2008; BIRAN et al. 1996; GREENBERG 1996: 66–71; 2002: 62; ILAN 1991; 1992; 1995a; 1996a; 1996b; ILAN et al. 1993; BIRAN & BENDOV 20022; KEEL 2010: 388–399 Comments: Site #:

4

Name: Kh. Da>ah Levant Grid: 21062934 Region: N. Hula Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; GREENBERG Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 22; GREENBERG 1988: 154 Comments: Site #:

5

Name: Khisas/Khisas South Levant Grid: 20822923 Region: N. Hula Size: C/5 Elevation: 110 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; GREENBERG Bibliography: DAYAN 1963; GREENBERG 1996: 123; 2002: 63 Comments: Note MB I “duckbill” axe that was found at site Site #:

6

Name: T. Qat>an Region: N. Hula Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? LB: ? LB I: ? Excavation/Survey: DAYAN Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 25 Comments: Site #:

Levant Grid: 21092918 Size: A

MB III: LB II:

? ?

7

Name: Hagosherim Region: N. Hula Elevation: 100 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV:


+++


181

MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: SHAKED; YEIVIN; COVELLO-PARAN Bibliography: YEIVIN 1965; COVELLO-PARAN 1996a; GREENBERG 1996: 123; 2002:63 Comments: Site #:

8

Name: Tahunat et-Tabkha/es-Sitt Levant Grid: 21022915 Region: N. Hula Size: C/10 Elevation: 105 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: SHAKED; HARTAL & SMITHLINE Bibliography: GREENBERG 1996: 125; 2002: 64; HARTAL & SMITHLINE 2007 Comments: HARTAL & SMITHLINE report MB sherds and evidence of the quarrying of a water reservoir in bedrock Site #:

9

Name: T. Kotlit Region: N. Hula Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ? MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: – LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: DAYAN Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 24 Comments: Site #:


MB III: LB II:

– –

10

Name: T. el-Wawiyat Levant Grid: 20572910 Region: N. Hula Size: C/10 Elevation: 95 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; ONN; GREENBERG; SHAKED; AVSHALOM-GORNI & GETZOV Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 25; ONN 1988–1989; ONN et al. 1995; GREENBERG 1988: 154; 1996: 123–124; 2002: 64; AVSHALOM-GORNI & GETZOV 2003; TSIONI 2006 Comments: Site #: Name: Ein >Aqed Region: N. Hula Elevation: 360 Periods: EB II–III: +++

11 Levant Grid: 20242907 Size: D/20

EB IV:

–

182


MB (general): ++ MB I: – MB II: ++ MB III: LB: – LB I: – LB II: Excavation/Survey: SHAKED Bibliography: GREENBERG 1996: 124; 2002: 64 Comments: Site #:

12

Name: Kfar Szold (NE 2) Region: N. Hula Elevation: 260 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ? MB II: ? LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: HARTAL Bibliography: HARTAL 1989: 85 Comments: Site #:


MB III: LB II:

? –

13

Name: Kfar Szold (NE 1) Region: N. Hula Elevation: 230 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ? MB II: ? LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: HARTAL Bibliography: HARTAL 1989: 84–85 Comments: Site #:

++ –

Levant Grid: 21272901 Size: B/3

MB III: LB II:

? –

14

Name: Qiryat Shemona South Levant Grid: 20402900 Region: N. Hula Size: A Elevation: 80 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: +++ MB II: ++ MB III: – LB: ++ LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: AHARONI; EPSTEIN; YASUR-LANDAU & GADOT Bibliography: EPSTEIN 1976; YASUR-LANDAU & GADOT 2003–2004 Comments: Site #: Name: Kfar Szold Region: N. Hula Elevation: 85 Periods: EB II–III: ? MB (general): MB I: ++

15 Levant Grid: 21112888 Size: A

EB IV: ++ MB II:

– ++

MB III:

++


183

LB: + LB I: + LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; EPSTEIN; SHAKED Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 26; EPSTEIN 1974; GREENBERG 1996: 125, 87 Comments: Site #:

16

Name: Kh. >Ein Zagha Levant Grid: 21112887 Region: N. Hula Size: C/3 Elevation: 115 Periods: EB II–III: ++ EB IV: ? MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; GREENBERG Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 26; GREENBERG 1988: 152; 1996: 126; 2002: 64 Comments: Site #:

17

Name: W. Bureighit/Kh. Ha>ashan Levant Grid: 20582883 Region: N. Hula Size: C/5 Elevation: 80 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: SHAKED Bibliography: GREENBERG 1996: 126; 2002: 64 Comments: Site #:

18

Name: T. Ron/Sh. Yusuf Levant Grid: 20802876 Region: N. Hula Size: C/10 Elevation: 86 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: AHARONI & AMIRAN; BAHAT; GREENBERG Bibliography: AHARONI & AMIRAN 1953: 131; BAHAT 1967; GREENBERG 1988: 152; 1996:126; 2002: 65 Comments: AHARONI & AMIRAN report EB; BAHAT reports EB and EB IV; GREENBERG reports EB I, EB II (?) and EB IV Site #:

19

Name: T. Anafa/T. el-Akhdar Region: C. Hula Elevation: 91 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: ++ MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + LB: + LB I: ?

Levant Grid: 21052869 Size: D/30

MB III: LB II:

? ?

184

Appendix A: List of Sites in Jordan Valley with MB Remains

Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; WEINBERG; HERBERT Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 23; HERBERT 1979; 1994; GREENBERG 1988: 152; 1996: 126–127; 2002: 65; KEEL 1997: 640–643 Comments: GREENBERG questions EB II–III Site #:

20

Name: Givat Sipar/Kh. es-Saman Region: East Hula Elevation: 218 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ? MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: – LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: DAYAN Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 25 Comments: Site #:


MB III: LB II:

– –

21

Name: T. Na>ama/T. Kh. en-Na>ima Levant Grid: 20592868 Region: C. Hula Size: D/30 Elevation: 80 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: +++ MB (general): +++ MB I: +++ MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: + LB II: + Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; AHARONI & AMIRAN; DAYAN; GREENBERG Bibliography: ALBRIGHT 1924–25:18–24; ABEL 1933–1938:354; AHARONI & AMIRAN 1953: 130–131; DAYAN 1963: 24; GREENBERG 1988:152; 1989; 1996:127,74–85; 2002: 37–38, 65; GREENBERG et al. 1998 Comments: ALBRIGHT identified with Yeno>am, ABEL with Yanoah Site #:

22

Name: Shamir (Cave) Region: West slopes of the Golan Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ? MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: – LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: DAYAN Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 23 Comments: Site #:


MB III: LB II:

– –

23

Name: Sheikh M>hammed Region: West slopes of the Golan Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ? MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: – LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: DAYAN


MB III: LB II:

– –


185

Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 25 Comments: Site #:

24

Name: Shamir (Dolmens) Levant Grid: 21152846 Region: West slopes of the Golan Size: C/10 Elevation: 250 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEKELIS; BAHAT; GREENBERG; ZINGBOYM Bibliography: STEKELIS 1962; BAHAT 1972; 1973; RICHARDS 1992: 11–12, fig. 1, pl. XIII:56; GREENBERG 1996: 129; 2002: 66–67; ZINGBOYM 2009 Comments: RICHARDS reports a previously unpublished Apophis scarab (royal scarab; Dyn. 15) from a dolmen at Shamir; apparently from this site Site #:

25

Name: Yardinon Dam/esh-Sheikh Mahmud Levant Grid: 21282844 Region: West slopes of the Golan Size: C/10 Elevation: 250 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: BAHAT; GREENBERG Bibliography: BAHAT 1985; GREENBERG 1996: 129; 2002: 66–67 Comments: Site #:

26

Name: Wadi Qasab Levant Grid: 21122798 Region: West slopes of the Golan Size: D/10–20 Elevation: 200 Periods: EB II–III: ++ EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: SHAKED Bibliography: GREENBERG 1996: 130; 2002: 67 Comments: Site #:

27

Name: N. Hamdal/W. el-Handhal Region: West slopes of the Golan Elevation: 100 Periods: EB II–III: ++ EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: – LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: SHAKED

Levant Grid: 21072778 Size: C/10

MB III: LB II:

– –

186


Bibliography: GREENBERG 1996: 130; 2002: 67 Comments: Site #:

28

Name: T. Re>emim/T. er-Rumman Levant Grid: 20482774 Region: C. Hula Size: D/30 Elevation: 75 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: – LB II: + Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; GREENBERG Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 25; THOMPSON 1979: 77; GREENBERG 1988: 154; 1996: 131; 2002: 68 Comments: 1 km north of T. el-Mallaha (below); GREENBERG (2002:68) regards as part of the latter Site #:

29

Name: T. el-Mallaha Levant Grid: 20472772 Region: C. Hula Size: D/30 Elevation: 75 Periods: EB II–III: ++ EB IV: ? MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: ++ MB III: ? LB: + LB I: + LB II: + Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; GREENBERG Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979: 77; STEPANSKY 1999: 20; GREENBERG 2002: 67–68 Comments: Site #:

30

Name: Darbashiyya Levant Grid: 21122770 Region: West slopes of the Golan Size: D/15 Elevation: 240 Periods: EB II–III: ++ EB IV: ++ MB (general): ++ MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: SHAKED; BEN-EFRAIM Bibliography: GREENBERG 1996: 130–131; 2002: 67 Comments: Site #:

31

Name: Daraja Levant Grid: 21022744 Region: C. Hula Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979: 78 Comments: Unclear identification and periodization


Site #:

187

32

Name: T. Shahaf/T. Abalis Levant Grid: 20692743 Region: C. Hula Size: C/5–10 Elevation: 82 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; SHAKED; GREENBERG Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 27; GREENBERG 1996: 132; 2002: 68; STEPANSKY 1999: 21 Comments: GREENBERG (2002:68) claims no pre-Iron Age finds on tell, save for sherd scatter with Chalcolithic and EB I sherds. STEPANSKY reports MB Site #:

33

Name: N. Eliezer East Levant Grid: 20452731 Region: C. Hula Size: C/10 Elevation: 146 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: SHAKED Bibliography: SHAKED 1998: 42; STEPANSKY 1999: 22 Comments: Site #:

34

Name: Gadot (1) Levant Grid: 20932710 Region: S. Hula Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: ? MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979: 77 Comments: Unclear identification and periodization Site #:

35

Name: Maqbarat/Hammam Banat Ya>qub Levant Grid: 20912708 Region: S. Hula Size: C/10 Elevation: 70 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: SHAKED Bibliography: STEPANSKY 1999:23; GREENBERG 2002: 68 Comments: GREENBERG (2002:68) claims only EB I

188 Site #:


36

Name: Murfata ed-Durijat Region: West slopes of the Golan Elevation: 120 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: HARTAL Bibliography: HARTAL 1989:115–116 Comments: Site #:


MB III: LB II:

? –

37

Name: Ayelet Ha>shachar Levant Grid: 20452698 Region: S. Hula Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: + MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: YADIN; COVELLO-PARAN Bibliography: YADIN 1974: 74–75; COVELLO-PARAN 1996c; 2003; 2007; STEPANSKY 1999: 26–27 Comments: Burial and other finds in the Kibbutz; related to the site of Hazor (below) Site #:

38

Name: T. es-Safa Levant Grid: 20542697 Region: S. Hula Size: A Elevation: 180 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ++ MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: EDELSTEIN; STEPANSKY Bibliography: EDELSTEIN 1975; STEPANSKY 1992; 1999: 27; 2008a: 273; GREENBERG 1996: 134; 2002: 69 Comments: Burials east of Hazor; possibly dating to MB as well Site #:

39

Name: Hazor Levant Grid: 20352692 Region: S. Hula Size: F/800 Elevation: 246 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: ++ MB (general): +++ MB I: ++ MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: GARSTANG; DOTHAN; YADIN; A. BEN-TOR; A. BEN-TOR & ZUCKERMAN; FRANKEL et al. Bibliography: E.g., YADIN 1972; 1975; YADIN et al. 1958; 1960; 1961; 1989; YADIN & BEN-TOR 1993; A. BEN-TOR 1992; 1996; 1997; 1999; 2000; 2004b; 2006a; 2008a; 2008b; GREENBERG 1996: 71–72; 2002: 69; T. DOTHAN et al. 2000; FRANKEL et al. 2001: 45; ZUCKERMAN 2003; 2007; 2008; A. BEN-TOR & ZUCKERMAN 2007; 2008; 2009; BENAMI 2010 Comments: Size of site in MB may exceed 800 dunams.


Site #:

40

Name: Nahal Hazor Levant Grid: 20352690 Region: S. Hula Size: B–C/1–5 Elevation: 220 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: STEPANSKY 1999: 25–26 Comments: A small concentration of sherds in a plowed field Site #:

41

Name: Mughar Teitaba Levant Grid: 20522682 Region: S. Hula Size: D/50 Elevation: 220 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: STEPANSKY 1999: 28–29; 2008a: 273 Comments: A group of EB IV shaft tombs with possible reuse in MB Site #:

42

Name: Gesher Benot Yaq>ob Levant Grid: 20902688 Region: S. Hula Size: A Elevation: 80 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979: 86 Comments: Unclear identification and periodization Site #:

43

Name: Ein Yarda (W) Levant Grid: 20522680 Region: S. Hula Size: C/5–10 Elevation: 200 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: STEPANSKY 1999: 29–30 Comments: A small concentration of sherds at the base of slope on the southern bank of Nahal Mahanayim Site #:

44

Name: Mezad >Ateret/Vadum Iacob

Levant Grid: 20902678

189

190


Region: S. Hula Size: D/30 Elevation: 80 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: ELLENBLUM et al. 1998; ELLENBLUM 2003; STEPANSKY 1999: 30–31; MITCHELL et al. 2006 Comments: Early sherds and possible architecture under the Crusader period castle Site #:

45

Name: Kh. Qatna Levant Grid: 20402665 Region: Korazim Plateau Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979: 86; STEPANSKY 1999: 31 Comments: Site #:

46

Name: Kh. es-Seiyara Levant Grid: 20812673 Region: Korazim Plateau Size: D/10–20 Elevation: 130 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979: 86; STEPANSKY 1999: 31–32 Comments: Site #:

47

Name: >Ein Mantur (N) Levant Grid: 20812643 Region: Karozim Plateau Size: D/15 Elevation: 140 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: STEPANSKY 1999: 35 Comments: Small site with pottery and architecture, possibly connected to >Ein Mantur (S) (below) Site #:

48

Name: T. Qazab/Ya>af Region: Korazim Plateau Elevation: 310

Levant Grid: 20262642 Size: D/13


191

Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; AHARONI Bibliography: DAYAN 1963: 26; THOMPSON 1979: 86; STEPANSKY 1999: 32–33 Comments: Although in earlier surveys MB sherds were reported, STEPANSKY did not find any evidence of pre-Persian period material Site #:

49

Name: >Ein Mantur (S) Levant Grid: 20812639 Region: Karozim Plateau Size: C/5 Elevation: 130 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: STEPANSKY 1999: 35 Comments: Small site with pottery and architecture, possibly connected to >Ein Mantur (N) (above) Site #:

50

Name: Kfar Hanasi (SW) Levant Grid: 20722637 Region: Karozim Plateau Size: A Elevation: 265 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: STEPANSKY 1999: 34–35; Comments: Dolmen with double burial chamber with MB pottery and metal finds Site #:

51

Name: E.P. 144 Levant Grid: 21132632 Region: West slopes of the Golan Size: C/5 Elevation: 144 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: EPSTEIN & GUTMAN Bibliography: EPSTEIN & GUTMAN 1972: 272 Comments: Site #:

52

Name: Kh. el-Hamman Region: Karozim Plateau Elevation: –15 Periods:


192


EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: STEPANSKY 1999: 37 Comments: Tell site with earlier (EB, MB) and later (Hellenistic) materials Site #:

53

Name: Tuba Dolmen field Levant Grid: 20682628 Region: Korazim Plateau Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: STEPANSKY 2003; 2005a; 2008a: 276 Comments: STEPANSKY argues for use of large dolmen field during EB IV and MB I, connecting them to the “seminomadic” inhabitants of nearby Kh. Berekh Site #:

54

Name: T. Nes Levant Grid: 20282626 Region: Korazim Plateau Size: D/25 Elevation: 381 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979: 86; STEPANSKY 1992a Comments: Site #:

55

Name: Kh. Shukr Levant Grid: 20672618 Region: Karozim Plateau Size: D/15 Elevation: 265 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: STEPANSKY 1999: 38–89 Comments: Small site with pottery and architecture, mainly Chalcolithic Site #:

56

Name: Kareh Desheh Dolmens Region: Ginosar valley Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: +



MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: STEPANSKY 2000: 10*; 2008a: 276 Comments: A large dolmen field with hundreds of dolmens, including several with EB IV and MB I finds Site #:

57

Name: et-Tell Levant Grid: 20942574 Region: Bethsaida valley Size: A Elevation: –165 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; JIRKU; EPSTEIN & GUTMAN Bibliography: ALBRIGHT 1928: 27; JIRKU 1938; EPSTEIN & GUTMAN 1972: 276; ZWICKEL 2003:22, n. 9 Comments: ZWICKEL 2003 questions whether there is in fact MB and LB on site Site #:

58

Name: Kh. Berekh/Es-Shegerat el-Mubarakat Region: Korazim Plateau Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: – MB III: LB: – LB I: – LB II: Excavation/Survey: STEPANSKY Bibliography: STEPANSKY 2000; 2003; 2005a; 2008a: 276 Comments: Site #:

Levant Grid: Size: A

20202564

– –

59

Name: Kfar Nahum Levant Grid: 20402530 Region: Ginosar valley Size: A Elevation: –206 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: – Excavation/Survey: CORBO & LOFFREDO Bibliography: CORBO 1983: 388; LOFFREDA 1984; 2008; CORBO & LOFFREDA 1985 Comments: MB burial under later remains Site #:

60

Name: T. Kinrot Region: Korazim Plateau Elevation: –125 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: MB (general): +++ MB I: – MB II:


? –

MB III:

+++

193

194


LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: KARGE; ALBRIGHT; BEA; WINN & YAKAR; RABANI; FRITZ; ZANGENBERG, MÜNGER & PAKKALA Bibliography: E.g., KARGE 1917; ALBRIGHT 1924–25: 24; KOPPEL 1932; DARSOW 1940; EDELSTEIN 1964; RABANI, 1958: site #4; FRITZ 1978; 1992; 1993; 1999; 2003; GREENBERG 1996; STEPANSKY 2000: 10*–11*; FRITZ & MUENGER 2002; ZANGENBERG, MÜNGER & PAKKALA 2005; MÜNGER, PAKKALA & ZANGENBERG 2009 Comments: Site #:

61

Name: Kfar >Aqab Levant Grid: 21162521 Region: Bethsaida valley Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: EPSTEIN & GUTMAN Bibliography: EPSTEIN & GUTMAN 1972: 280 Comments: Site #:

62

Name: Shuqayyif Levant Grid: 21352513 Region: W. slopes of the Golan Size: D/40 Elevation: 54 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: + LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: EPSTEIN & GUTMAN Bibliography: EPSTEIN & GUTMAN 1972: 281 Comments: Site #:

63

Name: Ghayur Abu Shusha Levant Grid: 19792509 Region: Ginosar valley Size: A Elevation: –123 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ++ MB (general): +++ MB I: ++ MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: EPSTEIN; AHARONI Bibliography: EPSTEIN 1974; THOMPSON 1979: 95; ALON 5–6 (1957): 11 Comments: Large settlement with burials Site #:

64

Name: Sheikh Khadr Region: Bethsaida valley Elevation: –191 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II:


– ?

MB III:

?


LB: – LB I: – LB II: Excavation/Survey: EPSTEIN & GUTMAN Bibliography: EPSTEIN & GUTMAN 1972: 282 Comments: MB uncertain Site #:

–

65

Name: T. Raqat Levant Grid: 19962458 Region: West bank of the Sea of Galilee Size: C/5.5 Elevation: –122 Periods: EB II–III: ++ EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; JIRKU; RABANI; AHARONI; PRAUSNITZ Bibliography: ALBRIGHT 1924–25: 26; JIRKU 1938; YEIVIN 1955a; RABANI 1958, site 139; ALON 5–6 (1957):11 Comments: Site #:

66

Name: N. Raqat/W. el->Amis Levant Grid: 19832452 Region: West bank of the Sea of Galilee Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: + LB II: + Excavation/Survey: AHARONI; RABANI Bibliography: ALON 3 (1951): ALON 7; 5–6 (1957): 10; RABANI 1958, site 140 Comments: Site #:

67

Name: Kafr Harib Cliffs Levant Grid: 21172396 Region: SW slope of the Golan Size: B Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: EPSTEIN & GUTMAN Bibliography: EPSTEIN & GUTMAN 1972:290; MAEIR 1997a: site # 1 Comments: Site #:

68

Name: Kh. Qadish/Kadish Region: Kinnarot Valley Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + LB: + LB I: + Excavation/Survey: SAARISALO; KOCHAVI

Levant Grid: 20242379 Size: D/20.0

MB III: LB II:

+ +

195

196


Bibliography: KOCHAVI 1963; MAEIR 1997a: site # 2 Comments: Site #:

69

Name: Beit Yerah/Kh. el-Kerak Levant Grid: 20402356 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: C Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: ++ MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; MAZAR et al.; BAR-ADON; GUY & KANTOR; GREENBERG; GETZOV Bibliography: E.g., ALBRIGHT, 1924–25:27–31; MAZAR et al. 1952; YEIVIN 1955b; BAR-ADON 1952; 1954; 1955; 1956; 1957; 1973; AMIRAN & COHEN 1977; KAPLAN 1980: fig.100:b; ESSE 1991; ZEVULUN 1991:189, n.36; MAEIR 1997a: site # 3; GREENBERG & PAZ 2004; 2005; GREENBERG et al. 2006; 2010; GETZOV 2006 Comments: Although the site is known primarily for EB remains, there is EB IV, MB I and MB I/II on site. BARADON 1954 claimed MB fortifications – but this is without basis Site #:

70

Name: Kh. Kush/el-Mansurah Levant Grid: 20212338 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: B Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: SAARISALO; WEINOGRADOV; Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:131; MAEIR 1997a: site # 4 Comments: Z. WEINOGRADOV (pers. comm.) claims that there is MB as well Site #:

71

Name: “Station XIII”? Levant Grid: 20332334 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: B Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ? MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: YEIVIN & MAISLER Bibliography: YEIVIN & MAISLER 1945:19–20; THOMPSON 1979:131; MAEIR 1997a: site # 5 Comments: Apparently equals Umm es-Sudur (below) Site #:

72

Name: Um es-Sudur Region: Kinnarot Valley Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: LB: – LB I:

Levant Grid: 20342332 Size: B

+ + –

MB III: LB II:

+ –


197

Excavation/Survey: RABANI? Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:132; MAEIR 1997a: site # 6 Comments: This may be “Station XIII” (above) as well as THOMPSON 1979: site 2023.11; Z. WEINOGRADOV (pers. comm.) claims that Um es-Sudur = el-Manshiye, and that there may be MB and LB, and also notes that in the 1950’s an MB burial was found at the site Site #:

73

Name: T. >Ubeidiyeh/el->Abeidiyeh Levant Grid: 20192328 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: E/50.0 Elevation: –200 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: + Excavation/Survey: AHARONI; MAEIR Bibliography: AHARONI, 1957:126–127; WEINOGRADOV 1960; MAEIR 1997a: site # 7 Comments: AHARONI (1957) identified with Yenoam; NA’AMAN (1977) does not accept this suggestion Site #:

74

Name: Beit Zera> Levant Grid: 20422326 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: A Elevation: –200 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: ? LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: Unknown Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:132; MAEIR 1997a: site 8 Comments: Z. WEINOGRADOV (pers. comm.) reports EB IV tombs near Kibbutz, but no MB Site #:

75

Name: T. Doveir (Kh. ed-Duweir) Levant Grid: 20922322 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: C/5.0 Elevation: –170 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; YEIVIN & MAISLER; GLUECK; EPSTEIN & GUTMAN; MAEIR Bibliography: ALBRIGHT, 1924–1925:31; YEIVIN & MAISLER 1943–44:99–100; 1945:20–21; GLUECK 1951:140–141; EPSTEIN & GUTMAN 1972:292; MAEIR 1997a: site # 9 Comments: Varying opinions on the periods represented at site. Mainly LB and Iron. A single Chocolate-on-White ware sherd from site was picked up on site. To the south and below the tell there is a large site, with earlier, and primarily later remains (e.g. RAPUANO 2001) Site #:

76

Name: >Ubeidiyeh (S) Region: Kinnarot Valley Elevation: –210 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV:


?

198


MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: YEIVIN & MAISLER; Bibliography: YEIVIN & MAISLER 1945:19–20; THOMPSON 1979:131; MAEIR 1997a: site # 10 Comments: Unclear identification and periodization Site #:

77

Name: N. >Anin Levant Grid: 20242318 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: B Elevation: –220 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:133; MAEIR 1997a: site # 11 Comments: THOMPSON 1979: site 2031.21 Site #:

78

Name: Kh. >Anin Levant Grid: 20152314 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: C/6.0 Elevation: –150 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: ? MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: SAARISALO Bibliography: SAARISALO 1927:73–75; MAEIR 1997a: site # 12 Comments: Unclear identification and periodization Site #:

79

Name: Sh. Muzghit/el-Mezeighit Levant Grid: 19992308 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: B/2.0 Elevation: 100 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: SAARISALO; GAL Bibliography: GAL 1980:56; MAEIR 1997a: site # 13 Comments: Site #:

80

Name: Menahemiya (MB II) Region: Kinnarot Valley Elevation: –200 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ? MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ?


MB III:

?


199

LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: Unknown Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:134; MAEIR 1997a: site # 14 Comments: Questionable whether MB; perhaps EB IV tomb. No mention in IAA archive Site #:

81

Name: Ashdot Ya>akov (SE 1) Levant Grid: 20652302 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: B/1.2 Elevation: –210 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:135; MAEIR 1997a: site # 15 Comments: Connected to group of unnamed sites (THOMPSON 1979: sites 2022.03; 2023.28, 30, 32), which IAA archive defines as Delhamiyeh, Gush 15104 Site #:

82

Name: Yarmuk (1) Levant Grid: 20652302 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: B/1.2 Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979: 135; Comments: Unclear identification and periodization Site #:

83

Name: Ashdot Ya>akov (SE 2) Levant Grid: 20652300 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: A/0.4 Elevation: –210 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:135; MAEIR 1997a: site # 16 Comments: Connected to group of unnamed sites (THOMPSON 1979: sites 2022.03; 2023.28, 30, 32), which IAA archive defines as Delhamiyeh, Gush 15104 Site #:

84

Name: Yarmuk (2) Region: Kinnarot Valley Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II:

Levant Grid: 20652300 Size: A/0.4

+ ?

MB III:

?

200


LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979: 135 Comments: Site #:

LB II:

–

85

Name: Kh. Halukim Levant Grid: 20662300 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: ? Elevation: –210 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: – MB III: – LB: + LB I: – LB II: + Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1966c; 1967b; THOMPSON 1979:135; MAEIR 1997a: site # 17 Comments: Brief description of site by ZORI with MB I vessels Site #:

86

Name: Yarmuk (3) Region: Kinnarot Valley Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979: 135 Comments: Site #:

Levant Grid: 20662300 Size: ?

MB III: LB II:

? –

87

Name: Kh. ed-Deir Levant Grid: 20052295 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: B/2.0 Elevation: 25 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: GAL Bibliography: GAL 1980:59; MAEIR 1997a: site # 18 Comments: Site #:

88

Name: Kh. Biqa>/Beqa> Levant Grid: 20332289 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: B/2.0 Elevation: –210 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: SAARISALO; ZORI; PORATH; MAEIR


201

Bibliography: SAARISALO 1927:71; THOMPSON 1979:161–162; MAEIR 1997a: site # 19 Comments: Site near T. Delhamiya with small amount of MB Site #:

89

Name: T. Delhamiyeh/ed-Delhemiyeh Levant Grid: 20362289 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: C/7.0 Elevation: –210 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: – LB II: + Excavation/Survey: MAISLER & YEIVIN; OLAMI; ZORI; MAEIR; ATRASH Bibliography: MAISLER & YEIVIN 1943–44:99; OLAMI 1951:7; STEKELIS 1967; ZORI 1970; AMIRAN 1977; MAEIR 1997a: site # 20; ATRASH 2009 Comments: Most of the reports deal with Chalcolithic, Iron Age or later finds Site #:

90

Name: Ashdot Ya>akov (S) Levant Grid: 20492282 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: A Elevation: –190 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:161; MAEIR 1997a: site # 21 Comments: THOMPSON 1979: site 2022.09; in IAA archive listed as tombs Site #:

91

Name: Kh. el-Kuneya/Ha->Iy Levant Grid: 20362279 Region: Kinnarot Valley Size: B Elevation: –200 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MAEIR Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:162; MAEIR 1997a: site # 22 Comments: MB finds from this site situated in Beth Gordon; WEINOGRADOV (pers. comm.) claims the existence of both a settlement and cemetery at site Site #:

92

Name: el-Baqurah (N) Region: NE Beth Shean Valley Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al.


MB III: LB II:

+ –

202


Bibliography: IBRAHIM, et al. 1976:48, 54; MAEIR 1997a: site # 23 Comments: Site #:

93

Name: Kh. Hagal Levant Grid: 19982276 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: C/10.0 Elevation: 310 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; GAL; MAEIR Bibliography: GAL 1980:51; 1991a:30–31; MAEIR 1997a: site # 24 Comments: Site #:

94

Name: Baqurah Levant Grid: 20552276 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: A Elevation: –225 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al. 1976: 49, site 13; PALUMBO 1994: 2.40 Comments: May be the same as el-Baqurah (N) (above) Site #:

95

Name: Giv>at Gamal/el-Muntar Levant Grid: 20222259 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: B/1.0 Elevation: –120 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:145; MAEIR 1997a: site # 25 Comments: Site #:

96

Name: Kh. Shahal Tahtit Levant Grid: 19762255 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: C/10.0 Elevation: –32 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; GAL Bibliography: ZORI 1977:122; GAL 1980:27–29; 1991a:38–39; MAEIR 1997a: site # 26 Comments:


Site #:

203

97

Name: Jisr el-Majame/el-Mujamia Levant Grid: 20322255 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –232 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: YEIVIN & MAISLER; IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: YEIVIN & MAISLER 1945:198; IBRAHIM et al. 1976:48. 54; MAEIR 1997a: site # 27 Comments: Site #:

98

Name: Veterinary station/Jisr el-Mujamia Levant Grid: 20322254 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: C/5.0 Elevation: –220 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ? MB II: ++ MB III: ++ LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; PORAT; MAEIR; COVELLO-PARAN Bibliography: ZORI 1962:137; COVELLO-PARAN 1996b; MAEIR 1997a: site # 28 Comments: Substantial MB remains; PORATH reports (in IAA archive) MB tombs; most likely part of the same site as Jisr el-Majame/el-Mujamia (above) Site #:

99

Name: Mofaz (tombs) Levant Grid: 20152252 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –150 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:163; MAEIR 1997a: site # 29 Comments: THOMPSON 1979: site 2022.14; no mention of MB in IAA archive Site #:

100

Name: Mofaz (el-Faz) Levant Grid: 20152250 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: B/2.0 Elevation: –150 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:148; MAEIR 1997a: site # 30 Comments: Many MB sherds; combination of THOMPSON (1979:163–164) sites 2022.19–20

204 Site #:


101

Name: Kh. >Akhin (>Ain el-Haiyeh?) Levant Grid: 19852249 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: 50 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; GAL Bibliography: ZORI 1977:130; GAL 1980:18; 1991a:40–41; MAEIR 1997a: site # 31 Comments: Site #:

102

Name: N. Tabor (terrace) Levant Grid: 19982247 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: C/10.0 Elevation: 80 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; GAL Bibliography: ZORI 1977:135; GAL 1980:18; 1991:46; MAEIR 1997a: site # 32 Comments: ZORI >s “power line site”, “Wadi Daud” according to GAL; most probably is THOMPSON 1979: site 1922.18. Seems connected to N. Tabor (tombs; below) Site #:

103

Name: T. Yaqush/Giv>at Hamoqshim Levant Grid: 20242244 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: A Elevation: –216 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: + LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; ESSE Bibliography: ZORI 1962:138–139; ESSE 1990:24; MAEIR 1997a: site # 33 Comments: ESSE reported pit with late MB/early LB pottery Site #:

104

Name: T. Shamat/e-Shamadin Levant Grid: 20322244 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: D/16.0 Elevation: –245 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: ? MB II: + MB III: +++ LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:137; MAEIR 1997a: site # 34 Comments: ZORI indicates possible fortification and substantial MB pottery; MAEIR survey found substantial quantities of MB III pottery


Site #:

105

Name: Kh. Mezarot/Mazar Levant Grid: 20122241 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: C/10.0 Elevation: –195 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): ++ MB I: – MB II: ++ MB III: ++ LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:195; MAEIR 1997a: site # 35 Comments: Equals THOMPSON 1979: sites 2022.21–23, 34; MB site with tombs in vicinity Site #:

106

Name: Munhata/Minha Levant Grid: 20182240 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: A Elevation: –220 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: ++ MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; PERROT Bibliography: ZORI 1962:138–139; FEREMBACH et al. 1975; GARFINKEL 1993:17; MAEIR 1997a: site # 36 Comments: MB I/II tombs as well as some additional unpublished MB I/II sherds Site #:

107

Name: T. er-Rayy (N) Levant Grid: 20782239 Region: NE Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –167 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al. 1976:49, site 30; PALUMBO 1994: 2.40; MAEIR 1997a: site # 37 Comments: May equal e-Sh. Hussein Site #:

108

Name: T. Zan (W)/ez-Zanbaqiye Levant Grid: 20282238 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: D/25.0 Elevation: –227 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): – MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: SAARISALO 1927:73–75; ZORI 1962:138; MAEIR 1997a: site # 38 Comments: No MB in earlier surveys, some possible seen in MAEIR survey Site #:

109

Name: T. er-Rayy (S)


205

206


Region: NE Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –180 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al. 1976:49, site 28; PALUMBO 1994:2.40; MAEIR 1997a: site # 39 Comments: May equal e-Sh. Hussein Site #:

110

Name: T. Shoshan/T. Zan (E)/esh-Sheikh Levant Grid: 20332235 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: D/30.0 Elevation: –230 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:88; ZORI 1962:138; MAEIR 1997a: site # 40 Comments: Site #:

111

Name: Kh. Ma>ad Levant Grid: 20752235 Region: NE Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al.1976:49. 54; MAEIR 1997a: site # 41 Comments: Site #:

112

Name: N. Tabor (E) [“Gesher”] Levant Grid: 20232231 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –230 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: +++ MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: PORATH; GARFINKEL; MAEIR; COHEN Bibliography: PORATH 1976b; HESS 1990; GARFINKEL & BONFIL 1990; MAEIR & GARFINKEL 1992; MAEIR 1997a: site # 42; 2007a; GARFINKEL & COHEN 2007 Comments: Early MB I tombs. Called “Gesher” by GARFINKEL (and subsequent excavations and publications) – despite substantial distance from Kibbutz Gesher Site #:

113

Name: Kh. Zivan/ez-Zawiyan



Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: C/5.0 Elevation: 92 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:149–150; MAEIR 1997a: site # 43 Comments: Site #:

114

Name: e-Duq Levant Grid: 20402222 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: A/0.6 Elevation: –220 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:194; MAEIR 1997a: site # 44 Comments: Possibly part of T. Kitan Site #:

115

Name: Oil Line Site Levant Grid: 20352220 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –215 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:141; MAEIR 1997a: site # 45 Comments: Large Chalcolithic site with a few MB sherds Site #:

116

Name: Ein Hayadid/>Ain el-Malhah Levant Grid: 19942219 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: 170 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; ZORI; GAL Bibliography: ZORI 1962:148–149; GAL 1980:51; 1991a:54–55; MAEIR 1997a: site # 46 Comments: Different periods according to ZORI and GAL Site #:

117

Name: T. Kitan/Musa/esh-Sheikh Kasim Levant Grid: 20422218 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: C/10.0 Elevation: –217

207

208


Periods: EB II–III: ++ EB IV: ? MB (general): +++ MB I: +++ MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; PORAT; DRUKS; EISENBERG Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:86; ZORI 1962:141; DRUKS 1971; EISENBERG 1975; 1976a; 1976b; 1977a; 1977b; 1992a; 1992b; 1993a; MAEIR 1997a: site # 47 Comments: Site #:

118

Name: T. es-Sakhineh Levant Grid: 20702218 Region: NE Beth Shean Valley Size: C Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: GLUECK 1951:240; IBRAHIM et al. 1976:49, 54; PALUMBO 1994: 2.40; MAEIR 1997a: site # 48 Comments: GLUECK did not report early sherds Site #:

119

Name: Ba>lat es-Saqi Levant Grid: 20252216 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: E/64.0 Elevation: –215 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:168; MAEIR 1997a: site # 49 Comments: Large site according to THOMPSON, no corroboration in IAA archive Site #:

120

Name: T. al-Mudawar Levant Grid: 20772193 Region: NE Beth Shean Valley Size: C/7.6 Elevation: –160 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: GLUECK Bibliography: GLUECK 1951:240–241; THOMPSON 1979:192; MAEIR 1997a: site # 50 Comments: Site #:

121

Name: Givat Qumi/Kumieh Region: Harod Valley Elevation: 102 Periods:



209

EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:179–180; MAEIR 1997a: site # 51 Comments: THOMPSON claims EB IV and MB; no evidence of this! Site #:

122

Name: a-Zawir Levant Grid: 18902191 Region: Harod Valley Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MAEIR Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:180; MAEIR 1997a: site # 52 Comments: No evidence for this site in IAA archive; is situated in an open field – apparently non-existent! Site #:

123

Name: Ein Yizra>el/>Ain el Meiyteh Levant Grid: 18192184 Region: Harod Valley Size: C/5.0 Elevation: 18 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR; WOODHEAD Bibliography: ZORI 1977:19; MAEIR 1997a: site # 53 Comments: WOODHEAD (pers. comm) reports no MB in survey Site #:

124

Name: T. Yizra>el/Zeri>n Levant Grid: 18102183 Region: Harod Valley Size: B Elevation: 105 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: + LB II: + Excavation/Survey: ZORI; YOGEV; USSISHKIN & WOODHEAD Bibliography: ABEL 1933–34:364–365; ZORI 1977:19–23; USSISHKIN 1996a; 1996b; USSISHKIN & WOODHEAD 1992; 1994; 1997; MAEIR 1997a: site # 54 Comments: ZORI published MB sherds and scarab; MB levels not found in excavations Site #:

125

Name: T. el-Qeseibeh Region: NE Beth Shean Valley Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: –

Levant Grid: 20802180 Size: C

210


MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; MELLAART; IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: GLUECK 1951:243; MELLAART 1962: 142–143, site 18; IBRAHIM et al. 1976:49, 54; PALUMBO 1994: 2.39; MAEIR 1997a: site # 55 Comments: Site #:

126

Name: >Ein Harod (A) Levant Grid: 18622176 Region: Harod Valley Size: B/1.0 Elevation: –50 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1977:67–68; MAEIR 1997a: site # 56 Comments: Possibly THOMPSON 1979: site 1821.08 Site #:

127

Name: T. D>eu>el/T. Ishmael (B) Levant Grid: 20322175 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: C/10.0 Elevation: –240 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): – MB I: – MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:141–142; MAEIR 1997a: site # 57 Comments: MB II in survey Site #:

128

Name: “Kfar Yehezqel” Levant Grid: 18482174 Region: Harod Valley Size: B Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1977:69, 72; MAEIR 1997a: site # 58 Comments: Possibly THOMPSON 1979: site 1821.07 Site #:

129

Name: T. Issachar/Asha/esh-Shekh Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Elevation: –185 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): +

Levant Grid: 20042174 Size: C/10.0


211

MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:87; ZORI 1962:150–151; MAEIR 1997a: site # 59 Comments: Site #:

130

Name: Gidona Levant Grid: 18412171 Region: Harod Valley Size: C/7.2 Elevation: –20 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1977:24; MAEIR 1997a: site # 60 Comments: Site #:

131

Name: >Ein Harod (B) Levant Grid: 18622171 Region: Harod Valley Size: B/2.0 Elevation: –50 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1957a; 1977:67–68, 70–71; MAEIR 1997a: site # 61 Comments: THOMPSON 1979: site 1821.09 Site #:

132

Name: Tahunat el-Kherba/el-Khurbeh Levant Grid: 18592169 Region: Harod Valley Size: B/2.0 Elevation: –50 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MAEIR Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:182; MAEIR 1997a: site # 62 Comments: THOMPSON 1979: site 1821.15; possibly related to Ein Harod A–B. Location was surveyed and no site found, apparently a mistake by THOMPSON Site #:

133

Name: Giv>at Yonatan Region: Harod Valley Elevation: 240 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: MB (general): + MB I: – MB II:


– +

MB III:

+

212


LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI; ESSE Bibliography: ZORI 1977:8–10; THOMPSON 1979:182; ESSE 1991:189; MAEIR 1997a: site # 63 Comments: THOMPSON 1979: site 1821.14; large EB site according to IAA archive Site #:

134

Name: T. Slavim/el-Ferr Levant Grid: 18852162 Region: Harod Valley Size: D/25.0 Elevation: –69 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: DAYAN; ZORI; ESSE; MAEIR Bibliography: TZORI 1958a:53; ZORI 1972:22, 1977:83, DAYAN 1965; ESSE 1991:189; MAEIR 1997a: site # 64 Comments: Apparently equals THOMPSON 1979: site 1821.13 (Kh. Shamot) Site #:

135

Name: T. Yosef Fields Levant Grid: 18702160 Region: Harod Valley Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1977; MAEIR 1997a: site # 65 Comments: ZORI notes a structure and pottery dating to MB but with little details Site #:

136

Name: Har Shaul Levant Grid: 18552157 Region: Harod Valley Size: C Elevation: 302 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1977:6, 8; THOMPSON 1979:183; MAEIR 1997a: site # 66 Comments: Site #:

137

Name: T. Yosef Hayeshana/T. esh-Sheikh Levant Grid: 18812152 Region: Harod Valley Size: E/50.0 Elevation: –55 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): +++ MB I: +++ MB II: ++ MB III: ++ LB: + LB I: + LB II: + Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR; COVELLO-PARAN


213

Bibliography: TZORI 1958a; ZORI 1972:14–22; 1977:26–27; MAEIR 1997a: site # 67; COVELLO-PARAN 2001 Comments: MB I cemetery found 100m east of tel, excavated in 1993 by COVELLO-PARAN. Includes over 7 tombs with clear MB I material, simple pit burials covered by 1–2m of alluvium Site #:

138

Name: Hefzibah Reservoir Levant Grid: 19102152 Region: Harod Valley Size: B Elevation: –85 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: DAYAN? Bibliography: MAEIR 1997a: site # 68 Comments: Site, apparently found when the Hefzibah reservoir was dug, the finds are in the Beit Sturman Museum (Kibbutz Beth Ha-Shita). No indication who found the material and exact location uncertain Site #:

139

Name: T.P. 696 Levant Grid: 18762151 Region: Harod Valley Size: A Elevation: –60 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: +++ MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: GAL; COVELLO-PARAN; MAEIR Bibliography: MAEIR 1997a: site # 69 Comments: New site found SW of T. Yosef, 3m below surface. MB tomb found, probably related to T. Yosef. Nearby, a Neolithic village excavated Site #:

140

Name: Huneizer Levant Grid: 19992143 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: D/30.0 Elevation: –170 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:196; MAEIR 1997a: site # 70 Comments: Site #:

141

Name: Kh. Hasida/e-Soda/>Ain es-Soda Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Elevation: –240 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + LB: – LB I: –


MB III: LB II:

+ –

214


Excavation/Survey: ZORI; KAPLAN Bibliography: ZORI 1962:142; KAPLAN 1965a; 1965b; MAEIR 1997a: site # 71 Comments: Large Neolithic site with a few MB sherds Site #:

142

Name: Hamadiya (N) Levant Grid: 19962140 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: C/8.0 Elevation: –120 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:196; 1966a; 1996b; THOMPSON 1979:186; MAEIR 1997a: site # 72; 2000b Comments: Small size MB rural site excavated by ZORI, published by MAEIR Site #:

143

Name: T. Arba>in Levant Grid: 20572140 Region: NE Beth Shean Valley Size: D/15.0 Elevation: –199 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: + Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; MELLAART; IBRAHIM et al.; FALCONER Bibliography: GLUECK 1951:244–245; MELLAART 1962:142–143; IBRAHIM et al. 1976:49. 54; FALCONER 1987b:253; LENZEN et al. 1987: 316; PALUMBO 1994: 2.38; MAEIR 1997a: site # 73 Comments: GLUECK notes Chocolate-on-White ware sherds as well Site #:

144

Name: Kh. e-Sheikh Salih Levant Grid: 20082139 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: D/17.0 Elevation: –234 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:88–89; ZORI 1962:142; MAEIR 1997a: site # 74 Comments: ZORI 1962 did not publish MB from site, but MB collected later at site (IAA archive and MAEIR survey) Site #:

145

Name: T. Huga (Barta>a) Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Elevation: –240 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? LB: – LB I: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR


MB III: LB II:

? –


215

Bibliography: ZORI 1962:142; MAEIR 1997a: site # 75 Comments: Site #:

146

Name: Hamadiya (South)/Kh. e-Tuwal Levant Grid: 19922134 Region: NW Beth Shean Valley Size: C/6.0 Elevation: –184 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: – MB II: ++ MB III: ++ LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; PORATH Bibliography: ZORI 1962:195; THOMPSON 1979:186–187; MAEIR 1997a: site # 76 Comments: Site surveyed by ZORI; tomb excavated by PORATH (IAA archive) Site #:

147

Name: T. Zahara/Tellul ez-Zahara Levant Grid: 19292131 Region: Harod Valley Size: B/2.5 Elevation: –95 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): +++ MB I: + MB II: +++ MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR; COHEN Bibliography: ZORI 1962:184; MAEIR 1997a: site # 77; COHEN 2006: 220–222; 2007b: 231; 2008; COHEN & WIECKOWSKI 2008 Comments: ZORI (IAA archive) reported a rare Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware (a basket-handle juglet) from the site. Recent excavations by COHEN have revealed MB II burials and apparent evidence of a rural site during the MB. ZORI did not report pre-MB finds Site #:

148

Name: T. Ißtaba/N. Cemetery/el-Mastubeh Levant Grid: 19772126 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –110 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: + MB III: +++ LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: ROWE; ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:153; OREN 1971; 1973a; 1973b; MAEIR 1997a: site # 78; 2000c Comments: Site #:

149

Name: Beth-Shean (Emhof Monastery) Region: C Beth Shean Valley Elevation: –120 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + LB: – LB I: –


MB III: LB II:

+ –

216


Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: FITZGERALD 1939; ZORI 1980:309; THOMPSON 1979:188; MAEIR 1997a: site # 79 Comments: MB remains under Byzantine remains; probably THOMPSON 1979: site 1921.21 Site #:

150

Name: T. Ißtaba/Kh. Hamam/el-Hammam Levant Grid: 19832124 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –120 Periods: EB II–III: ++ EB IV: ++ MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI; PORATH Bibliography: ZORI 1962:152; PORATH 1982; MAEIR 1997a: site # 80 Comments: Apparent continuation of T. Ißtaba tombs Site #:

151

Name: Kh. el-Marqa>ah Levant Grid: 20732124 Region: Size: A Elevation: –170 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: GLUECK 1951: 248, site 128; IBRAHIM et al. 1976: 49; PALUMBO 1994: 2.39; MAEIR 1997a: site # 83 Comments: Site #:

152

Name: T. er-Refeif Levant Grid: 20822124 Region: Size: A Elevation: –98 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al. 1976: 49, site 41; PALUMBO 1994: 2.39; MAEIR 1997a: site # 95 Comments: Site #:

153

Name: T. >Amal/T. el->Azi Levant Grid: 19262123 Region: Harod Valley Size: D/25.0 Elevation: –103 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: +++ MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; EDELSTEIN; FEIG Bibliography: ZORI 1962:184–185; THOMPSON 1979:187; LEVY & EDELSTEIN 1972; FEIG 1991; MAEIR 1997a: site # 81


217

Comments: THOMPSON notes MB; FEIG reported several MB I vessels Site #:

154

Name: T. Beth-Shean/T. el-Husn Levant Grid: 19752123 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: D/15.0 Elevation: –115 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: +++ MB (general): +++ MB I: ? MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: ROWE & FITZGERALD; YADIN & GEVA; MAZAR Bibliography: E.g., ROWE 1930; 1940; FITZGERALD 1930; 1935; JAMES 1966; OREN 1973a; MAZAR 1990b; 1993a; 1993b; 1993c; 1993d; 1994; 1997b; 2003a; 2006a; 2006b; 2007a; 2007b; JAMES & MCGOVERN 1993; MAEIR 1997a: site # 82; 2007b; BRAUN 2004; MAZAR & MULLINS 2007a; 2007b; PANITZ-COHEN & MAZAR 2009; KEEL 2010: 95–215 Comments: Site #:

155

Name: Beth-Shean (Shikun A) Levant Grid: 19702120 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: A Elevation: –120 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1980:309; MAEIR 1997a: site # 83 Comments: Site #:

156

Name: Kh. esh-Sheikh Mohammed Levant Grid: 20472118 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: C Elevation: –260 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: ? MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: ++ MB III: ++ LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; MELLAART; DE CONTENSON; IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: GLUECK 1951:248–251; MELLAART 1962: 144, site 23; DE CONTENSON 1964:36; THOMPSON 1979:195–196; IBRAHIM et al. 1976:49, 54; LENZEN et al. 1987: 317; KAREEM 1993: 82–83; PALUMBO 1994: 2.39; MAEIR 1997a: site # 85 Comments: GLUECK stresses substantial MB finds Site #:

157

Name: T. Socho/e-Shokh/esh-Shok Region: C Beth Shean Valley Elevation: –90 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): ++ MB I: – MB II: + LB: + LB I: ?


MB III: LB II:

+ ?

218


Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:185; MAEIR 1997a: site # 86 Comments: Report of possible fortification (IAA archive) Site #:

158

Name: T. Shoqeq (esh-Shemedin) Levant Grid: 19372114 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B/3.0 Elevation: –80 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:185–186; MAEIR 1997a: site # 87 Comments: ZORI reports Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware vessel Site #:

159

Name: Beth Shean (E) Levant Grid: 19772114 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: – MB II: ++ MB III: ++ LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: SION Bibliography: SION 2000 Comments: MB burial under Byzantine to Medieval levels Site #:

160

Name: T. Ashtori/el-Malha Levant Grid: 19942113 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B/1.0 Elevation: –205 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: + Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; PORATH; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:89; ZORI 1962:171; MAEIR 1997a: site # 88 Comments: PORATH reports MB II–III (IAA archive) Site #:

161

Name: T. Zofim Levant Grid: 20322111 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B/1.0 Elevation: –243 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: – MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI; YAAQOBI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:155; YAQOBI 1985:16–17; MAEIR 1997a: site # 89


219

Comments: Some maps identify the site as T. Devoh Site #:

162

Name: T. Madras/e-Madrasa Levant Grid: 20262109 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: A/0.8 Elevation: –240 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:89; ZORI 1972:170; MAEIR 1997a: site # 90 Comments: Site #:

163

Name: Beth Shean (Shiqun Vav) Levant Grid: 19652108 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B/1.2 Elevation: –125 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: – MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; IAA Bibliography: ZORI 1962:187, 191; MAEIR 1997a: site # 91 Comments: Also referred to as Muntar el-Avitz; equals THOMPSON 1979: sites 1921.32–33; MB II–III village recently excavated by IAA (unpublished) Site #:

164

Name: T. Nisa (tombs)/el-Menshiyeh Levant Grid: 19882107 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: A Elevation: –200 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:191; MAEIR 1997a: site # 92 Comments: THOMPSON 1979: site 1921.34; ZORI (IAA archive) suggests that it is the cemetery of T. Nisa Site #:

165

Name: T. Nisa/el-Menshiyeh Levant Grid: 19882105 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: D/15.0 Elevation: –195 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: ++ MB III: ++ LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; PORATH; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:89; ZORI 1962:171–172; MAEIR 1997a: site # 93 Comments: Possible evidence of MB fortification

220 Site #:


166

Name: T. Nimrod (B)/Nimrud Levant Grid: 20242103 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: D/28.5 Elevation: –235 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:169; MAEIR 1997a: site # 94 Comments: ZORI reports sherds spread over a large area, site probably smaller. MAEIR survey did not locate the site; A. YAQOBI (pers. comm.) reports that the site was probably destroyed in recent years Site #:

167

Name: T. Nimrod (A)/Nimrud Levant Grid: 20232100 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: C/6.4 Elevation: –237 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:169; MAEIR 1997a: site # 96 Comments: Site #:

168

Name: Givat Hachazavim Levant Grid: 20322092 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: C/4.0 Elevation: –255 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:192; MAEIR 1997a: site # 97 Comments: Site #:

169

Name: W. Hammeh (19) Levant Grid: 20712091 Region: 000 Size: A Elevation: –104 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: MCNICOLL Bibliography: MCNICOLL et al. 1984: 82; PALUMBO 1994: 2.37 Comments:


Site #:

221

170

Name: Hovari Levant Grid: 20232087 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –240 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:168; THOMPSON 1979:220; MAEIR 1997a: site # 98 Comments: MB II–III sherds discovered following earthmoving operations; equals THOMPSON 1979: site 2020.04; Not located in MAEIR survey, apparently destroyed by modern agriculture Site #:

171

Name: >Ein Hanatziv Levant Grid: 19742086 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –125 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: +++ MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: ++ LB I: – LB II: ++ Excavation/Survey: ZORI; ARAV; P. PORATH; Y. PORAT Bibliography: ZORI 1962:173; PORATH 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976a; 1980; 1981; 1983; 1985; ARAV 1973b; THOMPSON 1979:212–213; MAEIR 1997a: site # 99 Comments: PORATH reports limited use of tombs in MB II–III Site #:

172

Name: W. Hammeh (08) Levant Grid: 20712084 Region: Size: A Elevation: –129 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: – MB III: – LB: ++ LB I: – LB II: ++ Excavation/Survey: MCNICOLL Bibliography: MCNICOLL et al. 1984: 82; PALUMBO 1994: 2.37 Comments: Site #:

173

Name: W. Hammeh (03) Levant Grid: 20662083 Region: Size: A Elevation: 100 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: MCNICOLL Bibliography: MCNICOLL et al. 1984:82; PALUMBO 1994: 2.37 Comments:

222 Site #:


174

Name: T. Karpas (el-Qarantina) Levant Grid: 20282079 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: C/4.0 Elevation: –250 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): ++ MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ++ LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:89; ZORI 1962:156; MAEIR 1997a: site # 100 Comments: No MB from earlier surveys Site #:

175

Name: T. Magda/Kh. Majda>a/el-Mujedda Levant Grid: 19352078 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: C Elevation: –60 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:192; 1977:35; THOMPSON 1979:214; MAEIR 1997a: site # 101 Comments: Large, mainly later site; THOMPSON notes MB tombs near site Site #:

176

Name: T. Qataf (A) Levant Grid: 20262076 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: C/10.0 Elevation: –242 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): – MB I: + MB II: – MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:86; AMIRAN 1959; ZORI 1962:158; ZORN 1993:218–219. fig. 3; MAEIR 1997a: site # 102 Comments: Mesil el-Jazal according to BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; no MB in earlier surveys Site #:

177

Name: T. Artal/Tell esh-Sheikh Daud Levant Grid: 20302076 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: D/14.0 Elevation: –239 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: +++ MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: ? MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; PORATH; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:86; ZORI 1962:156–157; PORATH 1976c; HESS 1984; MAEIR 1997a: site # 103 Comments: Small EB IV site immediately to the east of site


Site #:

223

178

Name: Ein Neshev/Nishabi/>Ain Nusrah Levant Grid: 19732075 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: A Elevation: –170 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: – MB II: ++ MB III: ++ LB: ++ LB I: ++ LB II: Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:174; THOMPSON 1979:215; MAEIR 1997a: site # 104; GAL & ZORI 2005; KEEL 2010: 572–573 Comments: Rich MB III (MB III/LB I) burial. THOMPSON 1979: sites 1920.15–17 Site #:

179

Name: Hareches/el-Karem Levant Grid: 20292075 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B/2.0 Elevation: –275 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: + Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:86; GIVEON 1961; ZORI 1962:157; THOMPSON 1979:221; MAEIR 1997a: site # 105 Comments: Kfar Ruppin inhabitants report MB tombs on the site (two vessels from the site [one MB I] in the Kibbutz Kfar Ruppin collection). THOMPSON 1979: site 2000.07,13 Site #:

180

Name: T. Masad Levant Grid: 20272073 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: C/4.0 Elevation: –275 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): ++ MB I: – MB II: ++ MB III: ++ LB: ++ LB I: ++ LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:86; TZORI 1958a; 1962:159–161; RAHMANI 1959; MAEIR 1997a: site # 106 Comments: Note MB III/LB I tomb and MB/LB figurine Site #:

181

Name: T. Rehov/T. es-Sarem Levant Grid: 19702070 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: F/120.0 (MB?) Elevation: –116 Periods: EB II–III: ++ EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR; MAZAR Bibliography: E.g., ABEL 1933–1938:433–434; ALBRIGHT 1924–1925:39; BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:88; KELNER 1945; ZORI 1962:176–178; MAEIR 1997a: site # 107; MAZAR 1999b; 2003b; 2008

224


Comments: Prior to excavations, thought to be a large MB site. MB pottery and artifacts found in surveys on site. In current excavations (by A. MAZAR), there is no evidence of MB. Note Old Babylonian style seal found by ZORI Site #:

182

Name: Khisa Levant Grid: 20252070 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: A/0.5 Elevation: –245 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:161; MAEIR 1997a: site # 108 Comments: Barely noticeable site Site #:

183

Name: Kh. Zarom/Giva>h Gimel Levant Grid: 20342069 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: A/1.5 Elevation: –240 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: – MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:87; ZORI 1962:161; MAEIR 1997a: site # 109 Comments: Site destroyed by modern military activity Site #:

184

Name: Kfar Rehov/Sheikh ar-Rihab Levant Grid: 19662067 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: A/0.4 Elevation: –125 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:195; MAEIR 1997a: site # 110 Comments: Possibly equals Rehov (S); THOMPSON 1979: sites 1920.18–19 Site #:

185

Name: Rehov South (tombs) Levant Grid: 19702067 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –130 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ++ MB (general): ++ MB I: ++ MB II: ++ MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: YOGEV; PORATH; GOLANI & KOHN-TAVOR Bibliography: YOGEV 1985b; MAEIR 1997a: site # 111; GOLANI & KOHN-TAVOR 2005 Comments: Most probably related to T. Rehov


Site #:

225

186

Name: Pella/Tabqat Fahl Levant Grid: 20782064 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: E/80.0 Elevation: –60 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: ++ MB (general): +++ MB I: +++ MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; HENNESSY; SMITH; MCNICOLL; POTTS; BOURKE Bibliography: E.g., SMITH 1973; 1981; 1983; 1985; SMITH et al. 1981; 1983; 1984; 1989; MCNICOLL et al. 1980; 1981; 1982; 1984; 1992; HENNESSY 1985; HENNESSY et al. 1981; 1983; 1989; POTTS et al. 1985; POTTS 1986; 1987; 1988; PALUMBO 1994:2.35 (site 2020.002); BOURKE 1997; 2006; 2007; 2008a; 2008b; BOURKE et al. 2006; 2007; 2009; MAEIR 1997a: site # 112 Comments: KOUCKY (1992:202) notes group of unexcavated MB II and LB tombs 1 km west of the tell Site #:

187

Name: Kh. Rachav/Sheikh ar-Rihab Levant Grid: 19702063 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: D/12.6 Elevation: –125 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; PORATH; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:176; THOMPSON 1979:216; MAEIR 1997a: site # 113 Comments: ZORI, IAA archive, and MAEIR survey do not note early material, while THOMPSON (1979: site 1920.20) did Site #:

188

Name: T. Saharon/Sh. Muhammed el-Kabu Levant Grid: 20122063 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B/2.0 Elevation: –238 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:168; THOMPSON 1979:222; MAEIR 1997a: site # 114 Comments: ZORI and IAA archive do not note early material, while THOMPSON (1979: site 1920.14) did Site #:

189

Name: Abu el-Khas Levant Grid: 20802060 Region: Size: 60 Elevation: 45 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: VILLIERS 1980:163–167; 1983: 27–44; PALUMBO 1994: 2.36 Comments:

226


Site #: 190 Name: T. el-Husn Levant Grid: 20812060 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: 10 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: – MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; HENNESSY; SMITH; MCNICOLL; POTTS; BOURKE Bibliography: E.g., SMITH 1981; 1983; 1985; SMITH et al. 1981; 1983; 1984; MCNICOLL et al. 1982; 1992; HENNESSY 1985; HENNESSY et al. 1981; 1983; POTTS et al. 1985; MAEIR 1997a: site # 115; BOURKE et al. 2006 Comments: Large, multi-period cemetery connected to Pella Site #: 191 Name: Sde Eliyahu (pool) Levant Grid: 19852057 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:176; THOMPSON 1979:168; MAEIR 1997a: site # 116 Comments: Exact location unknown Site #: 192 Name: T. Nofer/Debaib e-Nur Levant Grid: 19622056 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: C Elevation: –60 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962: 176; MAEIR 1997a: site # 117 Site : MB sherds were found by ZORI on western side Site #: 193 Name: T. Zaqqum Levant Grid: 20692056 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: C Elevation: –140 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al. 1976:49, 54; PALUMBO 1994: 2.38; MAEIR 1997a: site # 118 Comments: Site #: 194 Name: T. Teomim/Tellul eth-Thum



227

Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: D/12.0 Elevation: –120 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ++ MB II: + MB III: ++ LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ALBRIGHT 1924–1925:43; BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:88; ZORI 1962:175; MAEIR 1997a: site # 119 Comments: Earlier surveys did not report MB, MAEIR survey did Site #:

195

Name: T. Trumot/Kh. el-Humra Levant Grid: 19652052 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: A/0.5 Elevation: –125 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:174–175; THOMPSON 1979:216; MAEIR 1997a: site # 120 Comments: THOMPSON 1979: site 1920.22 Site #:

196

Name: T. Ro>eh/e-Ru>yan/er-Ri>aan Levant Grid: 19922050 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: A/0.6 Elevation: –196 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): ++ MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:89; ZORI 1962:167; MAEIR 1997a: site # 121 Comments: ZORI conducted a small excavation on site Site #:

197

Name: Kh. Neter/Debib el-Antar Levant Grid: 19702048 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –150 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI; ARAV; EISENBERG; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:167; EISENBERG 1973; MAEIR 1997a: site # 122 Comments: Earlier work did not report MB; possible from MAEIR survey, although site is almost completely destroyed Site #:

198

Name: Maqban Area Ponds/Kfar Ruppin Levant Grid: 20322046 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: C/10.0

228


Elevation: –280 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: – MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; GOPHNA Bibliography: ZORI 1962:193–194; GOPHNA 1979; MAEIR 1997a: site # 123 Comments: Excavation by GOPHNA of small MB II–III village Site #: 199 Name: T. Tsofarim/es-Sofrani/el-Khaneizir Levant Grid: 19912039 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B/1.0 Elevation: –195 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:166; THOMPSON 1979:217; MAEIR 1997a: site # 124 Comments: ZORI and IAA archive do not note MB material, THOMPSON does; MAEIR survey did not locate site which has apparently been destroyed Site #: 200 Name: T. el-Hayyat Levant Grid: 20472038 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: C/5.0 Elevation: –240 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: +++ MB (general): +++ MB I: +++ MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; MELLAART; IBRAHIM et al.; FALCONER Bibliography: GLUECK 1951:259; MELLAART 1962:144–145; IBRAHIM et al. 1976:49–51; FALCONER & MAGNESS-GARDINER 1983a; 1983b; 1984; 1989a; 1989b; FALCONER 1987a; 1987b; 1994a; 1994b; MAEIR 1997a: site # 125; FALCONER & FALL 2006 Comments: Site #: 201 Name: Tirat Zvi (olive grove) Levant Grid: 19952037 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B/1.0 Elevation: –210 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; GAL Bibliography: ZORI 1962:190–191; GAL 1979; 1991b; MAEIR 1997a: site # 126 Comments: Large quantities of MB sherds in fills below Iron Age I site. Z. GAL (pers. comm.) claimed that there was MB I and MB II–III sherds, although the material was examined by the present author and this was not clear Site #: 202 Name: T. Menora/Tell Abu FarajLevant Grid:

19942035


229

Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: D/15.0 Elevation: –199 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: ? MB III: + LB: + LB I: + LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; GOLDSCHMIDT; ZORI; GAL; MAEIR Bibliography: BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:89; ZORI 1962:164–165; GOLDSCHMIDT 1973; 1983b; THOMPSON 1979:216–217; GAL 1979; 1980:54–55; BEN-ARIEH 1983a; MAEIR 1997a: site # 127 Comments: THOMPSON 1979: sites 1920.28–29; possibly related to Tirat Zvi (olive grove) site (above) Site #:

203

Name: Tirat Zvi (tombs) Levant Grid: 19982032 Region: C Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: ++ MB (general): ++ MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:189; MAEIR 1997a: site # 128 Comments: Perhaps the cemetery of T. Menorah (above) Site #:

204

Name: T. Gema/Jema>in Levant Grid: 20522017 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: B/3.5 Elevation: –270 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: + LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:162; MAEIR 1997a: site # 129 Comments: Site #:

205

Name: T. e-Merrazeh (S) Levant Grid: 20472013 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: C Elevation: –240 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MABRY & PALUMBO Bibliography: MABRY & PALUMBO 1989:94; MAEIR 1997a: site # 130 Comments: Site #:

206

Name: T. Malquah/Makhouz Region: S Beth Shean Valley


230


Elevation: –120 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: LB: – LB I: – LB II: Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:174; MAEIR 1997a: site # 131 Comments: Site #:

+ –

207

Name: Malqoah (tombs) Levant Grid: 19602010 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:219 Comments: THOMPSON 1979: site 1920.36; no accurate location; does not appear in the IAA archives Site #:

208

Name: N. Bezek (E) Levant Grid: 20172010 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: C/5.0 Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962: 193 (?); MAEIR 1997a: site # 132 Comments: Possibly ZORI 1962: site 159 (293) Site #:

209

Name: T. e-Ma>ajameh Levant Grid: 20332010 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –264 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; IBRAHIM et al.; MABRY & PALUMBO Bibliography: GLUECK 1951:260; IBRAHIM et al. 1976:49, 51; MABRY & PALUMBO 1989:95; MAEIR 1997a: site # 133 Comments: Glueck reported possible MB; MABRY & PALUMBO noticed only EB IV Site #:

210

Name: Kh. Alal/el-Aliyah Region: S Beth Shean Valley Elevation: –210 Periods:



231

EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI Bibliography: ZORI 1962:164–165; MAEIR 1997a: site # 135 Comments: Site #:

211

Name: T. el-Meqbereh Levant Grid: 20572007 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: 70 Elevation: –190 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: +++ MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; MABRY; IBRAHIM et al.;PALUMBO Bibliography: GLUECK 1951: 261–275; MELLAART 1962:144–145; MABRY & PALUMBO 1989:94; PALUMBO et al. 1993; PALUMBO 1994: 2.36 (site 2020.005); MAEIR 1997a: site # 136 Comments: GLUECK connected between this site and T. el-Meqbereh (E) (below) Site #:

212

Name: T. el-Meqbereh (E)/W. el-Yabis Levant Grid: 20602007 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: C Elevation: –118 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: – LB II: + Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; MELLAART; IBRAHIM et al.; MABRY & PALUMBO Bibliography: FISCHER 1991a; 1991b; MABRY & PALUMBO 1989:94; MAEIR 1997a: site # 137 Comments: Site #:

213

Name: T. Shalem/er-Ridhghah Levant Grid: 19982006 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: C/10.0 Elevation: –199 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER; ZORI; EISENBERG; MAEIR Bibliography: ALBRIGHT 1924–1925:43–44; BERGMAN & BRENDSTATER 1941:89; ZORI 1962:163–164; EISENBERG 1987; 1988; MAEIR 1997a: site # 138 Comments: Site #:

214

Name: Tell Abu el-Kharaz Region: S Beth Shean Valley Elevation: –116 Periods:

Levant Grid: 20612006 Size: E/80

232


EB II–III: +++ EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: – MB II: – MB III: +++ LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: FISCHER Bibliography: E.g., FISCHER 1991a; 1991b; 1993; 1999; 2000a; 2000b; 2003; 2004; 2006c; 2006e; 2008; 2009; FISCHER & FELDBACHER 2009; MAEIR 1997a: site # 139 Comments: Site #:

215

Name: T. Malqat/Muliqa Levant Grid: 20052002 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: B/1.5 Elevation: –225 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ++ MB I: + MB II: + MB III: ++ LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MAEIR Bibliography: ZORI 1962:163; MAEIR 1997a: site # 140 Comments: ZORI (IAA archives) reports several complete MB II–III vessels, probably from a tomb Site #:

216

Name: T. Maqbarat Levant Grid: 20512002 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: C/10 Elevation: –238 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al. 1976: 49, site 63; MABRY & PALUMBO 1988: 278, site 12; 1989:94; PALUMBO 1994: 2.36 Comments: Site #:

217

Name: W. el-Yabis Levant Grid: 20721998 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MABRY & PALUMBO Bibliography: MABRY & PALUMBO 1989:94; MAEIR 1997a: site # 141 Comments: A group of small sites, mainly caves, with a little MB material Site #:

218

Name: T. ed-Deir Region: S Beth Shean Valley Elevation: -196 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: –



MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: + LB II: + Excavation/Survey: MITTMAN Bibliography: THOMPSON 1979:236; MITTMAN 1970:132; MAEIR 1997a: site # 142 Comments: THOMPSON 1979: sites 1920.37 and 1919.01, although with wrong grid location Site #:

219

Name: T. el-Habza Levant Grid: 19861987 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: A/0.5 Elevation: –190 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MITTMAN Bibliography: MITTMAN 1970:130–131; MAEIR 1997a: site # 143 Comments: Site #:

220

Name: T. el-Beidha Levant Grid: 19781986 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: C/10.0 Elevation: –160 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: ZORI; MITTMAN Bibliography: MITTMAN 1970:130; ZORI 1977:38; MAEIR 1997a: site # 144 Comments: Site #:

221

Name: T. e-Sheikh Hussein Levant Grid: 19881986 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: A/0.6 Elevation: –165 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MITTMAN Bibliography: MITTMAN 1970:130–131; MAEIR 1997a: site # 145 Comments: Site #:

222

Name: T. Abu e-Zus (Abu Sus) Region: S Beth Shean Valley Elevation: –244 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: +


MB III:

+

233

234


LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: ZORI; EL-CONTENSON; ZOBEL; MAEIR Bibliography: DE-CONTENSON 1964:41–42; ZORI 1967a; 1977:38–41; ZOBEL 1966; MAEIR 1997a: site # 147 Comments: ZOBEL reports continuous settlement from EB II–III to Iron Age II, not verified in other works. MB material found in MAEIR survey Site #:

223

Name: Makhdat Abu e-Zus Levant Grid: 20341977 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: B Elevation: –300 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al.; MABRY & PALUMBO Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al. 1976:49, 54; MABRY & PALUMBO 1989:95; MAEIR 1997a: site # 146 Comments: Site #:

224

Name: T. el-Hama/el-Hummeh Levant Grid: 19731977 Region: S Beth Shean Valley Size: D/22.0 Elevation: –98 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): +++ MB I: – MB II: + MB III: +++ LB: ++ LB I: ++ LB II: ++ Excavation/Survey: ALBRIGHT; DE-CONTENSON; MITTMAN; ZORI; TARLER et al.; MAEIR Bibliography: DE-CONTENSON 1964:40–41; MITTMAN 1970:129–130; ZORI 1977:37; TARLER et al. 1985; 1988; 1990; CAHILL & TARLER 1993:562; MAEIR 1997a: site # 148; CAHILL 2006; GREENBERG & KEINAN 2009: 36 Comments: MB III fortification. ZERTAL (2007:236) notes site (Wadi el-Hammeh) with some MB II sherds 0.5 km to SW of T. el-Hama – perhaps connected to the tell site Site #:

225

Name: T. Abu-Habil (N) Levant Grid: 20451972 Region: Succoth Valley Size: C Elevation: –252 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: + MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; MELLAART; DE-CONTENSON; IBRAHIM et al.; MABRY Bibliography: GLUECK 1951:275–276; DE-CONTENSON 1960; MELLAART 1962:137–138; IBRAHIM et al. 1976:49, 51; MABRY & PALUMBO 1989:94; MAEIR 1997a: site # 149 Comments: Only GLUECK reported MB Site #:

226

Name: Subeireh Region: Succoth Valley Elevation: –60 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV:

Levant Grid: 20771964 Size: C

–


MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al.; MABRY & PALUMBO Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al. 1976:50, 54; MABRY & PALUMBO 1989:94; MAEIR 1997a: site # 150 Comments: MABRY & PALUMBO note MB Site #:

227

Name: T. Abu el-Aqrib/en-Naqra Levant Grid: 20431942 Region: Succoth Valley Size: C Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al.1976:49, 54; MAEIR 1997a: site # 151 Comments: Site #:

228

Name: T. el-Kharaz Levant Grid: 20701940 Region: Succoth Valley Size: ? Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MUHEISIN Bibliography: MUHEISIN 1987:520 (site 44); MAEIR 1997a: site # 152 Comments: No other mention of site, may be a mix-up with T. Abu-el Kharaz (above) Site #:

229

Name: T. Huneidah Levant Grid: 20731936 Region: W slopes of the Gilead Size: A Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): ? MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: GLUECK 1951: 279; IBRAHIM et al. 1976: 49, 54 Comments: Site #:

230

Name: Maqbarat es-Sleikhat Region: Succoth Valley Elevation: –123 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: –


MB III:

–

235

236


LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al. 1976: 50, site 79; PALUMBO 1994: 2.35 Comments: Site #:

231

Name: T. Zor el-Meqbereh Levant Grid: 20291920 Region: Succoth Valley Size: B/3.5 Elevation: –304 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; IBRAHIM et al.; DOLFUS & KAFAFI Bibliography: GLUECK 1951:284–285; IBRAHIM et al. 1976: 49, 54; DOLFUS & KAFAFI 1988; PALUMBO 1994: 2.33 Comments: Site #:

232

Name: T. Abu Hamid Levant Grid: 20371914 Region: Succoth Valley Size: E/56 Elevation: –245 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al. 1976: 50, site 85; YASSINE et al. 1988; PALUMBO 1994:2.33 Comments: Site #:

233

Name: T. el-Feshush/Abu Fash Levant Grid: 20411879 Region: Succoth Valley Size: A Elevation: –295 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB: + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: ? LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; DE-CONTENSON; IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: GLUECK 1951: 295; DE-CONTENSON 1964: 36; IBRAHIM et al. 1976: 50, 54; THOMPSON 1979: 264; PALUMBO 1994: 2.33 Comments: Site #:

234

Name: W. Hissou Region: W. slopes of the Gilead Elevation: Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? LB: + LB I: ?

Levant Grid: 20751875 Size: ?

MB III: LB II:

? ?


Excavation/Survey: MUHEISIN Bibliography: MUHEISIN 1987: 520 (site 32) Comments: Site #:

235

Name: T. Seqa>ah Levant Grid: 20331855 Region: Succoth Valley Size: A Elevation: –320 Periods: EB II–III: ? EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: MUHEISIN 1987: 520, site 27; PALUMBO 1994: 2.33 Comments: Site #:

236

Name: Handaquq (tombs) Levant Grid: 20671850 Region: Succoth Valley Size: A Elevation: –75 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MUHEISIN Bibliography: MUHEISIN 1987: 520 (site 34) Comments: Site #:

237

Name: T. el-Qos Levant Grid: 20861835 Region: Succoth Valley Size: A Elevation: –195 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: – MB III: – LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: IBRAHIM et al. 1976: 50, site 102, PALUMBO 1994: 2.32 Comments: Site #:

238

Name: T. en-Nekheil (S) Levant Grid: 20531811 Region: Succoth Valley Size: A Elevation: –268 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: YASSINE et al. 1988: 190, site 108; PALUMBO 1994: 2.33 Comments:

237

238 Site #:


239

Name: T. Deir >Alla Levant Grid: 21081773 Region: Succoth Valley Size: A Elevation: –155 Periods: EB II–III: ++ EB IV: – MB (general): +++ MB I: – MB II: – MB III: +++ LB: +++ LB I: +++ LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: FRANKEN; VAN DER KOOIJ & IBRAHIM Bibliography: E.g., FRANKEN 1969; 1992; YASSINE et al. 1988: 191, site 164; VAN DER KOOIJ & IBRAHIM 1989; PALUMBO 1994: 2.62; VAN DER KOOIJ 2006a; 2006b; KAPTIJN 2009: 25–26 Comments: Large site with fortifications in late MB Site #: 240 Name: el-Msattarah Levant Grid: 20921756 Region: Succoth Valley Size: A Elevation: –200 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: + MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: YASSINE et al. 1988: 191, site 146; PALUMBO 1994: 2.31 Comments: Site #: 241 Name: T. er-Rikabi Levant Grid: 20751754 Region: Succoth Valley Size: A Elevation: –255 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: ? MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MELLAART; IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: MELLAART 1962: 164, site 37; YASSINE et al. 1988: 191, site 130; PALUMBO 1994: 2.30 Comments: Site #: 242 Name: >Ain el-Bassah Levant Grid: 20341735 Region: Succoth Valley Size: A Elevation: –340 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: YASSINE et al. Bibliography: YASSINE et al. 1988: 191, site 129; PALUMBO 1994: 2.31 Comments: Site #: 243 Name: T. Umm Hammad el-Sharqi



239

Region: Succoth Valley Size: D/30 Elevation: –277 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: +++ MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MELLAART; IBRAHIM et al. Bibliography: MELLART 1962: 129–146; YASSINE et al. 1988: 191, site 132; PALUMBO 1994: 2.30; KAPTIJN 2009: 27–28 Comments: Site #:

244

Name: T. Umm Hammad el-Gharbi Levant Grid: 20461722 Region: Succoth Valley Size: A Elevation: –287 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: +++ MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: MELLAART Bibliography: MELLART 1962: 136–146; HELMS 1984; 1989; PALUMBO 1994: 2.30; KAPTIJN 2009: 27–28 Comments: Site #:

245

Name: Dameyah el-Jadideh Levant Grid: 20351683 Region: Succoth Valley Size: A Elevation: –300 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: + MB II: + MB III: + LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: YASSINE et al. Bibliography: YASSINE et al. 1988: 191, site 161; PALUMBO 1994: 2.30 Comments: Site #:

246

Name: Ala Safat Region: Succoth Valley Elevation: –335 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? LB: + LB I: ? Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: PALUMBO 1994: 2.30 Comments: Site #:


MB III: LB II:

? ?

247

Name: es-Suknah Region: S. Jordan Valley Elevation: –60


240


Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: Bibliography: MUHEISIN 1987: 519; PALUMBO 1994: 2.29 Comments: Site #:

248

Name: T. Nimrin Levant Grid: 20921453 Region: S. Jordan Valley Size: A Elevation: –185 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: + MB (general): +++ MB I: +++ MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: YASSINE et al.; FLANAGAN et al. Bibliography: YASSINE et al. 1988: 192, SITE 182; DORNEMANN 1990: 153–182; FLANAGAN & MCCREERY 1990; MCCREERY & FLANAGAN 1990; FLANAGAN et al. 1992: 89–106; 1994; 1996; PALUMBO 1994 Comments: Site #:

249

Name: Jericho/T. el-Sultan Levant Grid: 19201420 Region: S. Jordan Valley Size: A Elevation: –250 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: +++ MB (general): +++ MB I: + MB II: +++ MB III: +++ LB: +++ LB I: – LB II: +++ Excavation/Survey: GARSTANG; KENYON; MARCHETTI, NIGRO & TAHA Bibliography: E.g., KENYON 1960; 1965; 1981; KENYON & HOLLAND 1982; 1983; BIENKOWSKI 1986; MARCHETTI 2003a; 2003b; MARCHETTI & NIGRO 1998a; 1998b; 2000; MARCHETTI et al. 2000; NIGRO 2003a; 2006; 2007; 2007–2008; 2010a Comments: Site #:

250

Name: T. el-Tahun Levant Grid: 21321390 Region: S. Jordan Valley Size: D/30 Elevation: –225 Periods: EB II–III: + EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: – MB II: + MB III: + LB: + LB I: + LB II: – Excavation/Survey: YASSINE et al. Bibliography: YASSINE et al. 1988: 192, site 189; PALUMBO 1994: 2.59 Comments: Site #:

251

Name: T. el-Hamman Region: S. Jordan Valley



241

Elevation: –208 Periods: EB II–III: +++ EB IV: +++ MB (general): +++ MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: – LB I: – LB II: – Excavation/Survey: GLUECK; YASSINE et al.; PRAG; COLLINS Bibliography: GLUECK 1951: 378–382; YASSINE et al. 1988: 192, site 191; PALUMBO 1990: 166; PRAG 1991; COLLINS 2007; COLLINS et al. in press Comments: Recent excavations by COLLINS have revealed large site with extensive EB I–III (fortified), EB IV (fortified?), MB (including large fortifications), gap in LB, settled again in Iron Age II–III (fortified). In the past, usually identified as biblical Abel haš-Šittim; COLLINS suggests identifying as biblical Sedom/Sodom Site #:

252

Name: el-Jazayir Levant Grid: 21171388 Region: S. Jordan Valley Size: A Elevation: –208 Periods: EB II–III: – EB IV: – MB (general): + MB I: ? MB II: ? MB III: ? LB: + LB I: ? LB II: ? Excavation/Survey: YASSINE et al. Bibliography: YASSINE et al. 1988: 192, site 193; PALUMBO 1994: 2.60 Comments:

APPENDIX B: RADIOCARBON DETERMINATIONS FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE JORDAN VALLEY Ezra S. Marcus 136

INTRODUCTION The application of radiocarbon analysis to the MB chronology of the Levant, let alone to a specific subregion like the Jordan Valley, is a relatively new development in archaeological research in this region. Although new radiocarbon determinations appear from time-to-time of samples from on-going and occasionally older excavations, it is only recently that a sufficient data set has begun to emerge, enabling these results to be incorporated meaningfully into general discussions of MB chronology and process (BRUINS & VAN DER PLICHT 1995; 1996; 2003; MARCUS 2003; FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: 62–64; BOURKE 2006; BOURKE et al. 2009; FISCHER 2006a; MARCUS et al. 2008; MARCUS, PORATH & PALEY 2008). Among the more important developments that have spurred the increase in sampling for radiocarbon are the development of AMS radiocarbon, the improved precision of the radiocarbon method, which has made it more efficacious in historical periods, and the powerful statistical tools enabled by computer programs such as OxCal (BRONK RAMSEY 2009). The following is a review of the current state of the MB radiocarbon dataset for the Jordan Valley and its contribution towards providing “absolute” or calendrical ranges for this period.

butions.137 Assays on long-lived samples (i.e., wood and charcoal) have been excluded as they may represent old wood. While these may occasionally provide a useful terminus post quem and be consistent with the short-lived samples, their potential long lifespan and inestimable reuse render them unreliable for the chronological precision required in historical periods. At first glance, this dataset is unbalanced both with regards to the number of sites and the number of samples per phase and site. In particular, note the absence of samples from many of the key MB sites such as Dan, Hazor and Beth Shean.138 In three instances, radiocarbon determinations are the result of the excavator’s initiative (Gesher, Tell el-Hayyat and Pella), but most of the radiocarbon assays are the result of problem-oriented research initiatives, such as the MB I139 radiocarbon project carried out under the auspices of SCIEM2000 (MARCUS 2003) and BRUINS’S and VAN DER PLICHT’S work on Jericho (1995; 1996; 2003), which were designed to best apply these methods to chronological questions.140 Sampled Sites Gesher

Table 9 and Fig. 67 represent, respectively, the currently available radiocarbon assays of short-lived (single-year cultigens) samples from MB sites in the Jordan Valley and their calibrated probability distri-

A single radiocarbon determination was carried out from this early MB I cemetery. Unfortunately, there is some confusion in the literature regarding this sample. Initial reports described the sample as being “wood from the socket of a spearhead from Tomb 13” (GARFINKEL & BONFIL 1990: 132; author’s transla-

136

139

THE RADIOCARBON DATASET

137

138

Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa, Israel All determinations discussed here were calibrated using OxCal 4.1.5 (BRONK RAMSEY 2009) employing the IntCal09 curve (REIMER et al. 2009). See MAZAR (2007b) for the results of five radiocarbon determinations from charred olive wood and charcoal from MB Beth-Shean, all of which demonstrate the problem of using long lived samples.

140

Note that this author maintains the traditional nomenclature of MB IIA–IIB/C, but has adopted the MB I–II/III scheme solely for the consistency of the volume. The MBIIA C14 project, which was carried out under the auspices of SCIEM2000 headed by M. Bietak, focused on the first half of the Middle Bronze Age and therefore no attempt was made to obtain samples for the latter half of the period; that is project still to be done. In the course of this project, numerous excavators were queried and extant collections were sought, but ultimately there was a dearth of suitable samples. See MARCUS 2003, 101–103 for an outline of the protocols employed for sample selection.

Table 9 The MB Radiocarbon Data set for the Jordan Valley. All calibration done on OxCal 4.15 (BRONK RAMSEY 2009) based on the IntCal 09 curve (REIMER et al. 2009)

244 Appendix B: Radiocarbon Determinations from the Middle Bronze Age Jordan Valley

Appendix B: Radiocarbon Determinations from the Middle Bronze Age Jordan Valley

OxCal v4.1.5 BRONK RAMSEY (2010); r:5 Atmospheric data from REIMER et al (2009);

Gesher OxA-1955 R_Date(3640,70) Tell el-Hayyat AA-1236 R_Date(3460,100) AA-1239 R_Date(3600,60) AA-1238 R_Date(2930,80) AA-1237 R_Date(3280,100) VERA-2037 R_Date(3555,40) OxA-10986 R_Date(3470,36) VERA-2038 R_Date(3530,60) VERA-2038W R_Date(3565,30) OxA-10987 R_Date(3497,37) VERA-2039 R_Date(3495,35) OxA-10988 R_Date(3502,37) VERA-2040 R_Date(3500,35) OxA-10989 R_Date(3523,39) Pella OzG 611 R_Date(3630,40) OzG 613 R_Date(3470,40) OzJ 035 R_Date(3560,60) Jericho GrN-18539 R_Date(3312,14) GrN-18542 R_Date(3288,20) GrN-18543 R_Date(3331,18) GrN-18544 R_Date(3312,15) GrN-19063 R_Date(3240,18) GrN-19064 R_Date(3375,25) 2500

2000

1500

Calibrated date (calBC)

Fig. 67 Probability distribution of the MB Jordan Valley radiocarbon data set

1000

245

246


tion from the original Hebrew) and “wood representing part of a handle from a bronze spearhead” (HEDGES et al. 1990: 229; HOUSLEY 1994: 66). However, the recently published final report (GARFINKEL & COHEN 2007) describes the lone sample as being “from wood in association with a bronze axe” (p. 3) and subsequently as “twine on socket OxA 1955 3640 ±70 bp”, albeit clearly indicated as being from the Tomb 13 spearhead (page 102, table 6.2). Although an argument might be made that wood for a spearhead is unlikely to be made of old hardwood (WARD & DEVER 1994: 57), clearly if the sample were twine it would more likely be temporally contemporaneous with the manufacture of the spear. Although the initial excavations by Garfinkel should be credited with having submitted one of the first MB I samples for radiocarbon dating, it does not appear that the renewed excavations at Gesher saw the recovery of samples for radiocarbon determinations to have been of importance. Otherwise, attempts might have been made to sample the twine or wood from two additional spearheads (COHEN & LIPHSCHITZ 2007).141 Tell el-Hayyat This site has six principal phases from the Early Bronze Age IV through the end of the Middle Bronze Age (FALCONER & BERELOV 2006; see this volume, Chapter 3). Two sets of AMS radiocarbon determinations are available for this site from Phases 5 and 4, both of which are ascribed to the Middle Bronze Age I (FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: 46–52). The first, which was submitted by the excavators in the 1980s to the University of Arizona AMS laboratory, includes four assays from Phases 5 and 4. The second set was carried out as part of the author’s MB I radiocarbon project (MARCUS 2003) and includes four samples, two each from Phase 5 and 4 that were split and sent to two laboratories: the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) and the Viennese Environmental Radiocarbon Accelerator (VERA). In one instance, a sample (VERA-2038) was subjected to a second measurement, which is presented here for the first time. The two sets cannot be compared in any detail, as other than the assignment to general phases, no other stratigraphic information is

141

In the context of the aforementioned SCIEM2000 sub-project, two samples of ovicaprid bones from Gesher tombs 10 and 13 were submitted to VERA. Unfortunately, on two attempts each, no collagen survived the sample pretreatment.

included regarding the earlier set. As the results are from a single laboratory, the anomalous results from AA-1238 cannot be resolved. Moreover, some of the larger errors, i.e., ±100, produce calibrated ranges of little meaning. In contrast, the second set offers an excellent inter-laboratory comparison and the opportunity to combine the results of identical samples (Table 9 and Figs. 67, 68). Pella BOURKE (2006: 243–244, table 1; 2007; BOURKE et al. 2009: 907–909, tables 1 and 2) has reported three radiocarbon determinations from the MB I levels at Pella (Table 9). However, details as to the nature of the material sampled and the precise chronological horizon are still awaited.142 Jericho BRUINS and VAN DER PLICHT (1995; 1996; 2003) carried out a study of the end of MB Jericho, using long and short-lived samples (Table 9). GENERAL DISCUSSION The Middle Bronze Age I The Tell el-Hayyat dataset is the largest and most informative suite of determinations obtained thus far, with seven measurements from Phase 5 and four from Phase 4 (Fig. 68). The consistency between the ORAU and VERA results are excellent and even the slightly higher additional measurement of VERA2038W is consistent over a 2 sigma range. Combining the determinations from identical samples from each individual locus provides greater precision and slightly shorter and more meaningful calendrical ranges. While, based on the combined measurements of L.067, Phase 5 could have begun as early as 1942 BCE (Figs. 68, 69), unless this phase lasted 40 years or more, perhaps the upper bound for the harvest of the wheat in L.102 date provides a more probable terminus post quem of 1906 BCE (Figs. 68, 70). Prior to the additional measurement of VERA-2038W, the combined average of L.067 had an upper bound of 1916 BCE. Ideally, additional measurements should be carried out in other laboratories to increase preci-

142

Note the slight difference in the reported values of the measurements published in 2006 and 2009; the latter ones have been used here.

247

Appendix B: Radiocarbon Determinations from the Middle Bronze Age Jordan Valley OxCal v4.1.5 BRONK RAMSEY (2010); r:5 Atmospheric data from REIMER et al (2009);

Phase 5 AA-1236 R_Date(3460,100) AA-1239 R_Date(3600,60) L102 VERA-2037 R_Date(3555,40) OxA-10986 R_Date(3470,36) L067 VERA-2038 R_Date(3530,60) VERA-2038W R_Date(3565,30) OxA-10987 R_Date(3497,37) Phase 4 AA-1237 R_Date(3280,100) L092 VERA-2039 R_Date(3495,35) OxA-10988 R_Date(3502,37) L074 VERA-2040 R_Date(3500,35) OxA-10989 R_Date(3523,39) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000


Fig. 68 Probability distribution of the radiocarbon determinations from MB I Phases 5 and 4 at Tell el-Hayyat

sion. In any event, the trimodal probability distribution of L.067 (Fig. 69) weighs more towards the 1921–1877 BCE range in 1 sigma. Phase 4 dates more probably in the 19th century BCE and is no higher than 1983 BCE (Figs. 68, 71–72). Note that the earlier AA series for both phases is largely consistent with the more recent and more precise suite of determinations, but that is not surprising given the broader calibrated ranges. If we were to assume that the entire suite of new determinations from Phase 5 represented the same harvest, their combination would result in an upper bound of 1922 BCE (Fig. 73). Similarly, the combination of all of the new data from Phase 4 would provide an upper bound of 1889 BCE (Fig. 74). Incorporating the stratigraphic sequence into a Bayesian model, using the boundary function for dis-

crete phases, which slightly truncates the ends of the distributions, offers a 2 sigma range of 1921–1780 BCE for Phase 5 and 1884–1759 BCE for Phase 4 (Fig. 75). Thus, in any way of manipulating the data, it is much more likely that Phase 5 began in the latter half of the 20th century followed by Phase 4 in the 19th century. Therefore, an “early start” for Tell el-Hayyat around 2000 BCE is not supported by this suite of dates (contra FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: 62–63). That having been said, the beginning of MBA settlement of the Jordan Valley and the southern Levantine coastal plain appears to have been largely contemporaneous (MARCUS 1998; 2003; MARCUS et al. 2008; BOURKE 2006: 243–244; this volume, Chapter 4), albeit at different scales and pace, demographically and spatially.

248

Appendix B: Radiocarbon Determinations from the Middle Bronze Age Jordan Valley OxCal v4.1.5 BRONK RAMSEY (2010); r:5; Atmospheric data from R EIMER et al (2009);

L067 R_Combine(3537,22)

Radiocarbon determination (BP)

3700

68.2% probability 1921 (42.5%) 1877calBC 1842 (15.5%) 1822calBC

3600

1796 (10.2%) 1782calBC 95.4% probability 1942 (54.3%) 1866calBC

3500

1849 (41.1%) 1774calBC X2-Test: df=2 T=2.1(5% 6.0)

3400

3300

3200 2000

1900

1800

1700


Fig. 69 Probability distribution of three combined radiocarbon determinations of Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 5, L.067

OxCal v4.1.5 BRONK RAMSEY (2010); r:5; Atmospheric data from R EIMER et al (2009);

L102 R_Combine(3508,27)


3700

68.2% probability 1885 (12.4%) 1868calBC

3600


3500

X2-Test: df=1 T=2.5(5% 3.8)

3400 3300 3200 3100 2000

1900

1800

1700

1600


Fig. 70 Probability distribution of two combined radiocarbon determinations of Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 5, L.102

The three Pella dates (Table 9; Fig. 67) are a welcome addition to the radiocarbon dataset and suggest date ranges consistent with those produced for Tell el-Hayyat Phases 5 and 4 (cf. BOURKE 2006: 243–244). However, further sampling and submission to multiple laboratories would increase precision and offer more meaningful calibrated ranges to the chronological discourse. The low precision of the lone Gesher date produces a calibrated range too great to be of use for the dating Tomb 13, apart from demonstrating that it is not inconsistent with other early MBA sites (Table 9; Fig. 67).

The subject of the relationship between the EB IV and the MB I cultures has recently been rekindled in the course of the analysis and publication of Gesher (COHEN 2007a, 136–137; 2009a) and Tell el Hayyat (FALCONER & BERELOV 2006; see this volume, Chapters 4–5). While this issue requires more consideration of the stratigraphic and ceramic parameters by which this relationship is assessed than can be dealt with here, the potential contribution of radiocarbon does not seem to have been fully explored. BOURKE (2006: 243–244, table 1) suggests that the transition occurred sometime between 2100–1900 BCE. Unfor-


tunately, there is a paucity of radiocarbon determinations on short-lived EB IV material. The exceptions are a single sample on olive stones from Bâb edh-Dhrâ>: P-2573; 3770±60 BP = 2457–2026 BCE, 2 sigma (WEINSTEIN 2003, table 22.2) and a suite of determinations from Tell Abu en-Niaj (BRONK RAMSEY et al. 2002: 82). As this author noted in his comments to those determinations, at least a 200 year gap exists between the last phase of EB IV settlement at that site and the beginning of MB I settlement at Tell el-Hayyat. This gap has been confirmed by determinations on identical samples at VERA and will be published elsewhere. Thus, regardless of seeming ceramic similarities and suggested stratigraphic overlap, there is a sore need for radiocarbon sampling to bridge what may be a temporal divide between these two cultures. The Middle Bronze Age III Despite the extensive excavations all along the Jordan Valley corridor of sites that existed during the second half of the Middle Bronze Age, there is a surprising absence of radiocarbon determinations. The one light near the southern end of this corridor is a focused study that sought to precisely date the end of MB Jericho (BRUINS & VAN DER PLICHT 1995; 1996; 2003). Although this work incorporated both long- and short-lived samples, only the latter will be discussed here. The samples derive from the terminal destruction of MB Jericho and include various grains (wheat and barley). Although the calibrated ranges overlap in 2 sigma ranges, two of the samples, GrN-19063 and GrN-19064 seem, respectively, to be slightly later and earlier than the remaining four (Table 9; Fig. 67). The higher sample might represent a residual seed; the calibrated ranges of the former one favor a significantly lower date range, albeit again overlapping with the bulk of the samples in a 2 sigma range (Figs. 67, 76). Combining all but GrN-19063 results in a date of 1631–1531 BCE for the end of Jericho (Fig. 77); the upper bound is lowered by 7 calendar years if GrN-19064 is removed. If replicated by additional samples, GrN-

143

Note that the inclusion of GrN-19063 in any combination with nearly all the other five measurements results in a fail-

249

19063 might hint at a longer lifespan for MB Jericho (Table 9; Figs. 67, 76).143 CONCLUSIONS This first summary and analysis of the MB radiocarbon chronology demonstrates that a significant contribution can be made by focused, repetitive sampling and submission to multiple laboratories. As a result of work up until now, sufficient data exists to produce an independent “absolute” calendrical framework for the MB I and some direction regarding the termination of MB II–III. Ideally, excavators should seek to obtain samples for combined averages that can reach the levels of precision reflected in the calibration curve (±10–20 radiocarbon years). Once such approaches become de rigueur, radiocarbon will offer a new temporal meter stick for a myriad of processual questions in the Jordan Valley. Acknowledgements I want to express my appreciation to Aren Maeir for the invitation to make a small contribution to his volume, even if it did force me to type MB I and MB II–III more than once. The MB IIa Radiocarbon Project, which produced some of the data discussed here was made possible by a generous grant from the Jubily Fund of the City of Vienna, Austrian Academy of Sciences. I thank Professor Manfred Bietak for his invitation to participate in the SCIEM2000 project, his assistance in obtaining the necessary funding, and his constant support and encouragement. I also thank Dagmar Melman and Angela Schwab for their extraordinary administrative assistance and encouragement throughout. Christopher Bronk Ramsey and Tom Highham at ORAU and Walter Kutschera and Eva Wild at VERA provided input throughout my research. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the excavators, whose labors produced the samples I submitted, in this case Steven Falconer (Tell el-Hayyat). Even though no successful results emerged from the Gesher samples, I thank Y. Garfinkel (Gesher) for kindly giving me access to the animal bone collection, which I searched with the aid of L.K. Horowitz.

ure of the c2 test; the only exception is a combination of GrN19063 and GrN-18542 passes.

Appendix B: Radiocarbon Determinations from the Middle Bronze Age Jordan Valley OxCal v4.1.5 BRONK RAMSEY (2010); r:5; Atmospheric data from R EIMER et al (2009);

L092 R_Combine(3498,26)


3700


3600


3500

X2-Test: df=1 T=0.0(5% 3.8)

3400 3300 3200 3100

2000

1900

1800

1700

1600


Fig. 71 Probability distribution of two combined radiocarbon determinations of Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 4, L.092 OxCal v4.1.5 BRONK RAMSEY (2010); r:5; Atmospheric data from REIMER et al (2009);

L074 R_Combine(3510,27)


3700


3600


3500

X2-Test: df=1 T=0.2(5% 3.8)

3400 3300 3200 3100 2000

1900

1800

1700

1600


Fig. 72 Probability distribution of two combined radiocarbon determinations of Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 4, L.074 OxCal v4.1.5 BRONK RAMSEY (2010); r:5; Atmospheric data from REIMER et al (2009);

Phase 5 R_Combine(3526,17)

3700 Radiocarbon determination (BP)

250


3600


3500

1851 (58.5%) 1772calBC X2-Test: df=4 T=5.2(5% 9.5)

3400

3300

3200

2000

1900

1800

1700


Fig. 73 Probability distribution of five combined radiocarbon determinations of Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 5

251

Appendix B: Radiocarbon Determinations from the Middle Bronze Age Jordan Valley OxCal v4.1.5 BRONK RAMSEY (2010); r:5; Atmospheric data from REIMER et al (2009);

Phase 4 R_Combine(3504,19)


3700


3600


3500

X2-Test: df=3 T=0.3(5% 7.8)

3400

3300

3200

2000

1900

1800

1700


Fig. 74 Probability distribution of four combined radiocarbon determinations of Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 4

OxCal v4.1.5 BRONK RAMSEY (2010); r:5 Atmospheric data from REIMER et al (2009);

Hayyat Sequence Phase 5 Beg Boundary 5 Phase L102 R_Combine(3508,27) L067 R_Combine(3537,22) Phase 5 end Boundary Phase 4 Beg Boundary Phase 4 Phase L092 R_Combine(3498,26) L074 R_Combine(3510,27) Phase 4 end Boundary

2400

2300

2200

2100

2000

1900

1800

1700

Modelled date (BC) Fig. 75 A Bayesian sequence of Phases 5 and 4 at Tell el-Hayyat

1600

Appendix B: Radiocarbon Determinations from the Middle Bronze Age Jordan Valley OxCal v4.1.5 BRONK RAMSEY (2010); r:5; Atmospheric data from REIMER et al (2009);

GrN-19063 R_Date(3240,18)



3300

1475 (12.1%) 1462calBC 95.4% probability 1605 (4.4%) 1581calBC 1536 (91.0%) 1446calBC

3200

3100

3000 1650

1600

1550

1500

1450

1400


Fig. 76 Probability distribution of GrN-19063, a slightly lower date from the destruction of MB Jericho

3500

OxCal v4.1.5 BRONK RAMSEY (2010); r:5; Atmospheric data from REIMER et al (2009);

MB III Jericho destruction R_Combine(3318,8) 68.2% probability


252

1624 (25.9%) 1606calBC 1576 (42.3%) 1537calBC

3400

95.4% probability 1631 (33.7%) 1601calBC 1594 (61.7%) 1531calBC X2-Test: df=4 T=8.3(5% 9.5)

3300

3200

1750

1700

1650

1600

1550

1500


Fig. 77 Probability distribution of five combined radiocarbon determinations from the destruction of MB Jericho

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1 Map of the general geographic features of the Jordan Valley with MB sites Fig. 2 Geological map of the Jordan Valley with MB sites Fig. 3 Geomorphological map of the Jordan Valley with MB sites Fig. 4 Schematic section of the Central/Lower Jordan Valley Fig. 5 Precipitation map of the Jordan Valley with MB sites Fig. 6 Map of the phytogeographic zones in the Jordan Valley with MB sites Fig. 7 Map of main transportation routes in the Jordan Valley with MB sites Fig. 8 Representative assemblage of the early MB I: Tombs at Hagosherim (after COVELLO-PARAN 1996a: figs. 4, 9) Fig. 9 Representative assemblage of the early MB I: Gesher, Tombs 10, 13-14 (after GARFINKEL & COHEN 2007: figs. 3.43, 3.56, 3.59) Fig. 10 Representative assemblage of the early MB I: Tell elHayyat, Stratum 5 (after FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: fig. 4.2) Fig. 11 Representative assemblage of the mid-MB I: Tomb 1025 of Tel Dan, Stratum XII (after ILAN 1996a: fig. 4.104, 4.105) Fig. 12 Representative assemblage of the mid-MB I: Hazor, Area BA, Strata “15–14” (after YADIN et al. 1961: pl. CCXXXV: 12–35) Fig. 13 Representative assemblage of the mid-MB I: Tel Yosef (after COVELLO-PARAN 2001: figs. 6, 7) Fig. 14 Representative assemblage of the mid-MB I: Pella, Area III, Phase X (after BOURKE et al. 2006: fig. 10) Fig. 15 Representative assemblage of the mid-MB I: Tell elHayyat, Stratum 4 (after FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: fig. 4.4, 4.5) Fig. 16 Representative assemblage of the late MB I/early MB II: Kfar Szold (after EPSTEIN 1974: figs. 1–4) Fig. 17 1-2: Representative assemblage of the late MB I/early MB II: Hazor, T. 1181 (after MAEIR 1997b) Fig. 18 Representative assemblage of the late MB I/early MB II: Munhata, Tomb 641 (after FEREMBACH et al. 1975: figs. 2–9) Fig. 19 Representative assemblage of the late MB I/early MB II: Pella, Area III, Phases IX-VIII (after BOURKE et al. 2006: fig. 13) Fig. 20 Representative assemblage of the late MB I/early MB II: Jericho, Tomb K3 (after KENYON 1965: fig. 95) Fig. 21 Representative assemblage of the early-to-mid MB II: Hazor, Area D3, Local Stratum 4 (= early General Stratum 4 [YADIN et al. 1958: 160]; after IBID. 1958: pl. C: 1–15) Fig. 22 Representative assemblage of the early-to-mid MB II: Tell el-Hayyat, Phase 3 (after FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: fig. 4.6.–4.8) Fig. 23 Representative assemblage of the early-to-mid MB II: Jericho, Tomb B 48 [Group I–II] (after KENYON 1965: figs. 95–99)

Fig. 24 Representative assemblage of the late MB II/early MB III: Dan, Tomb 4663, Stratum X (after ILAN 1996a: fig. 4.91, 4.92) Fig. 25 Representative assemblage of the late MB II/early MB III: Hazor, Area D1, Local Stratum 5, and Area D3, Local Stratum 3 (= late General Stratum 4 [YADIN et al. 1958: 160]; after IBID. 1958: pls. XCIII: 1–16; C: 16–28) Fig. 26 Representative assemblage of the late MB II/early MB III: Beth Shean, Stratum R5 (after MAEIR 1997a: pls. 44, 45) Fig. 27 Representative assemblage of the late MB II/early MB III: Jericho, Tomb P 19 [Tomb group III] (after KENYON 1965: fig. 194–198) Fig. 28 Representative assemblage of the early MB III: Dan, Tomb 8096b, earlier phase of Stratum IX (after ILAN 1996a: fig. 4.99, 4.100) Fig. 29 Representative assemblage of the early MB III: Hazor, Area D3, Local Stratum 2 (= early General Stratum 3 [see YADIN et al. 1958: 160]; after IBID.: pls. CI, CII) Fig. 30 Representative assemblage of the early MB III: Beth Shean, Stratum R4 (after MAEIR 1997a: pls. 42, 43) Fig. 31 Representative assemblage of the early MB III: Tell elHayyat, Phase 2 (after FALCONER & BERELOV 2006: fig. 4.9) Fig. 32 Representative assemblage of the early MB III: Jericho, Tomb G 73 [Group IV] (after KENYON 1965: figs. 234–237) Fig. 33 Representative assemblage of the late MB III: Dan, Tombs 187a-b, later phase of Stratum IX (ILAN 1996a: fig. 4.94–4.96) Fig. 34 I-II: Representative assemblage of the late MB III: Hazor, Area C, Stratum 3 (after YADIN et al. 1960: pls. CIX, CXV) Fig. 35 Representative assemblage of the late MB III: Beth Shean, Stratum R3 (after MAEIR 1997a: pls. 40, 41) Fig. 36 Representative assemblage of the late MB III: Tell Abu el-Kharaz (after FISCHER 2006e: figs. 28, 29) Fig. 37 Representative assemblage of the late MB III: Jericho, Tomb H 11 [Group V] (after KENYON 1960: figs. 205, 206) Fig. 38 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected common wares from selected sites on different geologies in the Central Jordan Valley Fig. 39 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected common wares (cooking pots [CP], buff wares, selected clays) from selected sites in the Central Jordan Valley Fig. 40 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected bowls (BL) from various sub-regions in the Central Jordan Valley (A – Kinnarot Valley; C – the Northern BethShean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley) Fig. 41 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected kraters (KR) from various sub-regions in the Central Jordan Valley (A – Kinnarot Valley; C – the Northern

298

List of Figures Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley; H – Hazor [T. 1181])

Fig. 53 Distribution of sites in the Jordan Valley according to period (excluding sites of questionable dating; see Appendix A)

Fig. 42 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected straight-sided cooking pots (CP 2) from various sites in the Central Jordan Valley

Fig. 54 Distribution of sites in the Jordan Valley according to period (including sites of questionable dating; see Appendix A)

Fig. 43 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected straight-sided cooking pots (CP 2) from various regions in the Central Jordan Valley (C – the Northern Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley)

Fig. 55 Distribution of sites in the Jordan Valley according to major period divisions (excluding sites of questionable dating; see Appendix A)

Fig. 44 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected storage jars (SJ) from various sub-regions in the Central Jordan Valley (A – Kinnarot Valley; C – the Northern Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley) Fig. 45 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected pithoi (PT) from various sub-regions in the BethShean and Harod Valleys (C – the Northern BethShean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley) Fig. 46 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected Juglets (JT) from various sites in the Central Jordan Valley Fig. 47 Principal component analysis of INAA of MB I pottery from various sub-regions in the Central Jordan Valley (A – Kinnarot Valley; C – the Northern Beth-Shean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley) Fig. 48 Principal component analysis of INAA of MB II-III pottery from various sub-regions in the Central Jordan Valley (A – Kinnarot Valley; C – the Northern BethShean Valley; D – the Central Beth-Shean Valley; E – the Southern Beth-Shean Valley; G – the Harod Valley) Fig. 49 Principal component analysis of INAA of selected samples of pottery families from sites in the Central Jordan Valley (BC – Bichrome; Buff – Buff Ware Vessels; Clay – Clay Samples; COW – Chocolate-on-White Ware; CP – Cooking Pots; EGY – Egyptian Wares; RWB – Red, White and Blue Ware; SPCL – Special Finds from Beth Shean; TEY – Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware; WW – White Ware) Fig. 50 Principal component analysis of INAA of Tell elYahudiyeh Ware (TEY) from selected sites in the Central Jordan Valley, Canaan, and Cyprus compared to local wares from T. ed-Dab’a, Egypt Fig. 51 Principal component analysis of INAA of Tell elYahudiyeh Ware (TEY) from sites in the Central Jordan Valley, Canaan, Cyprus and Egypt and an Egyptian carinated vessel from Beth Shean, Fig. 52 Comparative chronological table of the MB in the Jordan Valley

Fig. 56 Distribution of sites in the Jordan Valley according to major period divisions (including sites of questionable dating; see Appendix A) Fig. 57 EB IV sites in the Jordan Valley Fig. 58 All MB sites in the Jordan Valley Fig. 59 MB I sites in the Jordan Valley Fig. 60 Map of tentative reconstruction of the late MB I/early MB II polities in the Jordan Valley Fig. 61 MB II sites in the Jordan Valley Fig. 62 Map of tentative reconstruction of the MB II polities in the Jordan Valley Fig. 63 MB III sites in the Jordan Valley Fig. 64 Map of tentative reconstruction of the MB III polities in the Jordan Valley – alternative 1 Fig. 65 Map of tentative reconstruction of the MB III polities in the Jordan Valley – alternative 2 Fig. 66 LB sites in the Jordan Valley Fig. 67 Probability distribution of the MB Jordan Valley radiocarbon data set Fig. 68 Probability distribution of the radiocarbon determinations from MB I Phases 5 and 4 at Tell el-Hayyat (individual and combined identical samples by locus) Fig. 69 Probability distribution of three combined radiocarbon determinations of Phase 5, L.067 from Tell el Hayyat Fig. 70 . Probability distribution of two combined radiocarbon determinations of Tell el Hayyat Phase 5, L.102 Fig. 71 Probability distribution of two combined radiocarbon determinations of Tell el Hayyat Phase 4, L.092 Fig. 72 Probability distribution of two combined radiocarbon determinations of Tell el Hayyat Phase 4, L.074 Fig. 73 Probability distribution of five combined radiocarbon determinations of Tell el Hayyat Phase 5 Fig. 74 Probability distribution of four combined radiocarbon determinations of Tell el Hayyat Phase 4 Fig. 75 Bayesian sequence of Phases 5 and 4 at Tell el-Hayyat Fig. 76 Probability distribution of GrN-19063, the slightly lower date from the destruction of MB Jericho Fig. 77 Probability distribution of five combined radiocarbon determinations from the destruction of MB Jericho (GrN-19063 excluded)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Relevant strata at Tel Dan

Table 6 Relevant strata at Tell el-Hayyat

Table 2 Relevant Strata at Qiryat Shemona (South)

Table 7 The stratigraphy of Tell Abu el-Kharaz during the MB and early LB

Table 3 MB and early LB stratigraphy of Hazor Table 4 The stratigraphy of Beth Shean during the MB and early LB Table 5 The stratigraphy of Pella during the MB and early LB

Table 8 Relevant strata at Jericho Table 9 The MB Radiocarbon Data set for the Jordan Valley. All calibration done on OxCal 4.1.5 (BRONK RAMSEY 2009) based on the IntCal09 curve (REIMER et al. 2009)

In the Midst of the Jordan: The Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE). Archaeological and Historical Correlates

East of the Jordan

The Roman Army in Jordan

Jordan: Living in the Crossfire

The Age of Bronze

The Crimes of Jordan Wise

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

The Age of Bronze

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

The geometry of Jordan and Lie structures

Jordan, Robert - Conan the Magnificent

Robert Jordan - Conan The Unconquered

Robert Jordan - Conan The Magnificent

Jordan, Robert - Conan the Unconquered

Robert Jordan - Conan The Magnificent

Historical Dictionary of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Jordan in the 1967 War (Cambridge Middle East Library)

Robert Jordan - Conan The Unconquered

Jordan in the 1967 War (Cambridge Middle East Library)

Robert Jordan - Conan The Indomitable

The Rough Guide to Jordan

Robert Jordan - Conan The Indomitable

Darya Of The Bronze Age

Jordan, 2nd Edition (Creation of the Modern Middle East)

In the Midst of the Jordan: The Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE). Archaeological and Historical Correlates

East of the Jordan

The Roman Army in Jordan

Jordan: Living in the Crossfire

The Age of Bronze

The Crimes of Jordan Wise

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

The Age of Bronze

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

The geometry of Jordan and Lie structures

Jordan, Robert - Conan the Magnificent

Robert Jordan - Conan The Unconquered

Robert Jordan - Conan The Magnificent

Jordan, Robert - Conan the Unconquered

Robert Jordan - Conan The Magnificent

Historical Dictionary of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Jordan in the 1967 War (Cambridge Middle East Library)

Robert Jordan - Conan The Unconquered

Jordan in the 1967 War (Cambridge Middle East Library)

Robert Jordan - Conan The Indomitable

The Rough Guide to Jordan

Robert Jordan - Conan The Indomitable

Darya Of The Bronze Age

Jordan, 2nd Edition (Creation of the Modern Middle East)

Recommend Documents