From the Editor This issue's highlights include a glimpse into "Egyptian Jaffa," one of several administrative and military centers established by New Kingdom pharaohs in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Aaron Burke and Krystal Lords present previously unpublished evidence from Jacob Kaplan's 1955—1974 Jaffa excavations that shed new light on the initial Egyptian expansion into Canaan. Near Eastern Archaeology is especially pleased to showcase the preliminary results from this joint American-Israeli project, directed by Aaron Burke and Martin Peilstöcker, and one of many ASOR-affiliated archaeological projects working in the eastern Mediterranean. Dolmens are the topic of NEA's Forum. Numbering in the thousands, dolmens dominate Jordan's cultural landscape. Based on a GIS analysis of the distribution of dolmens, AbduUa Al-Shorman concludes that many of these served as tombs for the Early Bronze Age elite. In recent years, landscapes associated with these dolmens have been impacted by modern development. Stephen Savage brings much needed attention to the endangered Chalcolithic/Early Bronze ceremonial site at al-Murayghât—Hajr al-Mansûb. The Great Revolt in the Galilee, the topic of a new exhibit at the Hecht Museum (University of Haifa, Israel), and the New Acropolis Museum are reviewed in EieldNotes. I have viewed both exhibits and would encourage all who can to visit these two museums: the first a university-based museum that serves both the academic community and general public, the latter a magnificent tribute to the Athenian Acropolis and an absolute "must see" for all. I take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to Dr. Billie Jean Collins, who served as the managing editor of Near Eastern Archaeology from 2000 to 2009. With her unique combination of academic expertise in numerous fields relating to Near Eastern archaeology and languages, together with an uncanny ability to transform dry academic texts into engaging and readable essays, she was central to the production and success of NEA for over a decade. Her commitment and dedication to the journal, especially during the past few years, are deeply appreciated.
Ann E. Killebrew Editor, Near Eastern Archaeologj
NEAR EASTERN
RCHAEOLOGY Editor: Ann E. Killebrew Art Director: Susan L. Lingo Assistant Editors: Jennie Ebeling, Gabriele Fassbeck, Justin Lev-Tov, and Robert Schick Editorial Assistants: Ghristopher B. Gonlan and Heather D. Heidrich Editorial Committee Class of 2010 Steven Fine Beth Alpert-Nakhai Lynn Swartz Dodd Class of 2011 Marie-Henriette Gates Margreet Steiner Samuel Wolff
Class of 2012 Neil Asher Silberman Sharon Steadman Bethany Walker Class of 2013 Ann Marie Knoblauch Eric Cline K. Lawson Younger
Subscriptions Annual subscription rates are $35 for individuals and $125 for institutions. Near Eastern Archaeology is also available as a part of the benefits of some ASOR membership categories. For details, contact ASOR at (617) 358-4376. Postage for Canadian and other international addresses is an additional $20. Payments should be sent to ASOR Member/Subscriber Services, 656 Beacon St., 5th floor, Boston, MA 022152010. Fax (617) 353-6575. E-mail:
[email protected]. VISA/MG orders can be phoned in, or subscribe online atwww.asor.org/pubs/bowtoorder.html. Back issues Back issues can be ordered by contacting ASOR at the address listed above. Editor's Office All editorial correspondence should be addressed to the NEA editor: Ann E. Killebrew, e-mail: aekl 1 @psu.edu. All articles must follow NEA's instructions for contributors, available at bttp://www.asororg/ pubs/nea/back-issues/ins tructions.html. Advertising Gorrespondence should be addressed to ASOR Publications, 656 Beacon St., 5th floor, Boston, MA 02215-2010. Tel. (617) 353-6570. Fax (617) 3536575. E-mail:
[email protected]. Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. Permissions requests may be made according to the instructions provided on ASGR's web site at http://www.asor.org/pubs/ permissions.html. Postmaster Send address changes to Near Eastern Arc/iacology, ASOR Member/Subscriber Services, 656 Beacon St., 5th floor, Boston, MA 02215-2010. Periodicals class postage paid at Boston, MA and additional offices. Near Eastern Archaeology (ISSN 1094-2076) is published quarterly (March, June, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), 656 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02215-2010. Printed by The Sheridan Press, Hanover, Pennsylvania. Woman in the Window photo (cover) by Zev Radovan (www.BibleLandPictures.com) Gopyright©2010by the American Schools of Oriental Research www.asororg
Egyptians in Jaffa: A Portrait of Egyptian Presence in Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age
Aaron A. Burke and Krystal V. Lords
R
oughly forty-five miles to the northwest of Jerusalem lies one of the most important ports along the southern Levantine coast of the Mediterranean Sea: the site of Jaffa (Joppa), now surrounded by Tel Aviv's urban sprawl (fig. I ). Despite considerable excavation during the twentieth century, the excavations remained unpublished, and little was known of the types of finds from the extensive archaeological exploration of Late Brojize Age Jaffa. As a result of recent efforts to analyze and prepare the Bronze and Iron Age remaii\s of Jacob Kaplan's Jaffa excavations for publication, a rich corpus of Egyptian ceramics and other artifacts, many from LB IB contexts, have come to light.
This Egyptian ceramic assemblage provides a clearer picture of the character of the earliest Egyptian settlements in Canaan that are associated with the expansion of the hlew Kingdom empire. While much ink has beei\ spilled on the question of distinguishing Egyptian from Egyptianizing artifacts at Egyptian administrative and military sites in Late Bronze Age Canaan, evidence from Jaffa suggests that such disdiKtions are not easily made. In this context it is preferable to refer instead to Egyptian artifacts arid assemblages, noting simply whether they are imported or locally produced and stressing the importance of the context of the assemblage as defined by both textual and archaeolo^cal data.
Excavations at Jaffa Figure 1 (above), Jaffa's location made it an ideal location to serve maritime traffic up and down the Mediterranean coast and also as a conduit to trade throughout the central coastal plain and further inland. While much of the lower city is still occupied by buildings, the tell consists of a number of areas, indicated by the trees, where continued excavations remain possible. Photo by Sky View, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Jaffa has been nearly continuously inhabited since the Middle Bronze Age up to the present, thus preserving an important archaeological sequence for understanding cultural and historical developments in the southern Levantine coastal plain over the last four thousand years. In 1955, Jacob Kaplan, municipal archaeologist for the city of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, initiated long-term 1 •" II ' " i n i r i
2 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAHOLOGY 71:1 (2010)
Ill n i i i i i ' i i ' I I " mill I inMinrf iin'-iKLiiitiirifri-f»»-—
Figure 2, Aerial photographs of Jaffa like this one from 1964 reveal the extent of the absence of large structures on the tell following the British Operation Anchor in 1936. A limited interest in Jaffa by israeli immigrants as Tel Aviv grew after 1947 meant that by 1955 no new attempts to build on the tell were undertaken. Jacob Kaplan's main excavation areas, including Areas A and C, capitalized on the exposed areas of the tell in an effort to establish its stratigraphie sequence. Kaplan Archive photograph. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
excavations on the tell of ancient Jaffa with the goal of exploring its earliest phases of occupation, which are dated to the Bronze and Iron Ages (fig. 2). Kaplan could not have been more fortunate in his choice of excavation areas, and in 1956, during only the second season in Area A, he encountered stone fragments of the monumental ^ate façade inscribed with the name of Ramesses II (ca. 12641198 B.c.E.) that adorned the entrance to the Late Bronze Age Egyptian fortress {fig. 3). Remains of this inscription continued to be unearthed in 1958 (fig. 4), along with a suhstantial corpus
of Egyptian ceramics and artifacts that helong to earlier phases of Egypt's occtipation of Jaffa. Kaplan resumed excavations in Area A in 1970 in an effort to hroaden the exposure of the Late Bronze Age phases associated with Egyptian settlement; during these efforts he excavated the well-known "Lion Temple" of prohahle Iron I date, named after a lion's skull discovered on the floor
Figure 3, A view of Area A as it looks today. Excavations were begun in Area A, the largest excavation area opened by Jacob Kaplan in Jaffa, in 1955 and concluded in 1974. Kaplan's excavations in 1955, 1956, and 1958 here produced one of the largest Late Bronze Age assemblages of Egyptian ceramics excavated in Israel. In the 1990s, a re-creation of the Egyptian gate façade of Ramesses II was installed to illustrate the location of the original gate with its jambs inscribed with the royal titulary of Ramesses II, Photo by Aaron A. Burke,
•J
^íaMíiilin
Figure 4. Fragments of the Ramesses II façade were excavated by Jacob Kaplan from 1955 to 1958, with plaster still adhering to the carved portions of the inscription and decoration. Kaplan was fortunate to encounter such impressive early remains in just the first few seasons at Jaffa. In a strange twist of fate, despite fifteen years of additional work in Jaffa through 1974, he encountered few remains as early as those he excavated in the 1950s and certainly nothing as impressive. Photo by Aaron A. Burke.
Figure 5. Area A excavations continued into the 1970s under Jacob Kaplan. In addition to the various levels associated with the Egyptian occupation during the Late Bronze Age seen in the background, the excavations revealed a temple from the end of the Late Bronze Age and Iron I identified by Kaplan as the "Lion Temple." It is visible on the left side of the photo, with two column bases in the center. Photo from Kaplan Archive. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority Photographic Archive.
of the temple. Despite five more seasons in Area A, through 1974 (fig- 5), Kaplan never again reached the earliest phases he had encountered during the 1950s. After nearly two decades of work, which were accompanied by the publication of only preliminary reports, the results of Kaplan's excavations received little attention for nearly three decades.
4 N L A K l i A S T H K N A K C H A I - X M . l X i Y 7 î : i (2010)
University in Haifa. Out of a deep personal interest in archaeology, he started to participate in archaeological excavations, working first as an engineer and a draftsman. At the same time, he studied archaeology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and was granted a Ph.D. for his 1954 dissertation "The Chalcolithic and Neolithic Settlements in Tel Aviv and the Surrounding Vicinity." In addition to his excavation activities, he conducted an archaeological survey in Tel Aviv, concentrating in particular on the northern parts o{ the city, where development endangered cultural heritage sites (Kaplan 1953). Before excavating in Jaffa, Kaplan excavated various other sites in the greater Tel Aviv area and beyond, including, for example, Lod and Ramla. However, his main interest was Tel Aviv and Jaffa, and for his work he received the title and function oi "municipal archaeologist" (Bowman, Isserlin, and Rowe 1955; 231). It appears that Kaplan worked closely with the Leeds project, since a 1954 topographical map Jacob Kaplan, municipal archaeologist found in the archive of the archaeolt)gicat for Tel Aviv and Jaffa during the 19S05 museum oí Jaffa indicates how the ancient through the1970s, conducted excavations mound was to be divided. Isserlin's signature in Jaffa from 1955 to 1974. His work was on the northern portion and Kaplan's on continued by Haya Ritter-Kaplan through the early 1980s. Despite the challenges the southern half itidicate that the original of working ¡n Jaffa, Kaplan succeeded in idea was that of two expeditions working convincing the municipality to prohibit the side by side on the mound. The map was construction of buildings on the tell, a ban also signed by Yeivin, then the director of that has remained in effect until the present the Israel Department of Antiquities and day. Kaplan Archive photo. Courtesy of the Museums.
Jacob Kaplan in Jaffa Archaeological research of Jaffa starred as early as 1948, when the iiowly estabhshej Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM) issued its third excavation permit to P L. O. Guy fur his excavations in Jaffa. Guycotnpleted only two short seasons of excavations, wliose results were published in ;.^ brief report (Isserlin 1950). The main aim ot these early excavations was to locate I he remains of the Iron and Bronze Age settlements. To achieve this goal, Guy dug several long trenches and investigated an area measuring roughly 20 x 15 m, located opposite St. Peter's Church. In 1952, Bowman, Isserlin, and Rowe resumed the excavations on behalf of the University of Leeds (England) in the same excavation area (Bowman, Isserlin, and Rowe 1955). As early as 1955, Jacob Kaplan started to work in Jaffa, the site that was to become the center of his archaeological research. For the following twenty-two years, all archaeological excavations ill Jaffa were carried out solely by him, although he was later accompanied hy his wife Haya Ritter-Kaplan. Jacob Kaplan, born 1910 in Bialystok, Poland, grew up and lived in Tel Aviv before completing a degree in engineering at Technion
Israel Antiquities Authority.
Area A was the largest of Jacob Kaplan's exc areas. This area yielded the full stratigraphi sequence of the site, and it was here that he wa able to work from 1955 to 1974. Kaplan Archivi photo. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
KASTKRN ARCHAHOUXiY 71:1 (2010) 5
stratigraphy of Tel Yafo according to Jacob Kaplan Areas A, B, and Y
Level
Phases
Area
Period
Date
I
A
A
Hellenistic
2nd-Ist centur>'
B
A. Y
A
A, Y
B
A
A
A, B
Iron II
8th century
Area A east
B
A
Iron I
11th century
Area A west: Philistine sherds
A
A
LBIIB
13th century
A: Gate lintel, hinge; burned
B
A
II 111 IV
Persian
Notable Finds
(B.C.E.)
3rd-2nd century
A: "fortress"
5th century
A; Sidonian fortress
pre-5th century
A: Ramesses 11 gate; burned
V
A
LBIIA
14th century
A: silo; stone paving
VI
A
LBl
16th-15th cenEur>'
A: Egyptian kiln and ceramics; Bichrome ware; Y: küns
VII
A, B,Y
MBIIB-C
17th-16th century
Y: tombs, ovens
VIII
MB IIB?
unexcavated
Area J
Area C Stratigraphy Level
Period
Date (c.E.)
Level
Period
I
Byzantine
orh-/th cfnriir\'
1
Mt>dern
2
Byzantine
5th century
2
Roman
1st century c.t.
Roman/Byzantine
4th century
3
Rotiian
3rd century B.c.h.
4
Roman
3rd century
4
Persian
4th century B.C.E.
5
Roman
2nd centiir\'
5
IB
6
Roman
1st century
6
MB IIB
7
MBIIA
0 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAHOLOÜY 7Î: I (20!0)
Date
Although Kaplan dug at various locations in Jaffa, his main efforts were concentrated on three areas that were, as a result oi wars and riots, no longer covered by modern buildings. In Area A, located on the eastern part of the tell's summit, he exposed remains of the city's citadels and its gates, mainly dating to the Late Bronze Aptians. The next reference to Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age is found in the Egyptian tale The Capture of Joppa, which is preserved in Papyrus Harris 500 (see Pritcbard 1969: 22-23) and is accepted as set in the reign of Thutmose III. Although the first part of tbe document is not preserved, it is generally inferred that the Canaanite inbahitants of Jaffa had managed to rebel against rheir Egyptian overlord, leaving the Egyptian garrison and its commander outside the city. By employing a ruse that evokes
Figures 7a-b. In 2008 and 2009, the Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project, under the co-direction of Aaron Burke and Martin Peilstöcker, resumed excavations in Jaffa's Visitors' Center in Qedumim Square {Kaplan's Area C). The excavations encountered extensive building remains of a Hellenistic building preserved up to the second story, which it was revealed underlay the entire eastern half of the excavation area dug by Jacob Kaplan in 1961 and 1965 and during the 1990s by Etty Brand. Although the building's identification remains ambiguous, a doorway has been identified in every wall of the structure, suggesting that it played a largely public function. Photos by Aaron A. Burke, i
the later tradition of the Trojan horse, tbe Egyptians loaded two hundred men into haskets, which were tben delivered by another five hundred soldiers into the city, where they were given entry, surprisingly, without question. Springing from the baskets, the Egyptians retook the city; there is no report of a fight. While it is reasonable to question tbe historical veracity of this literary tradition, if it preserves a historical memory—and there is reason to believe tbat it may, which we shall discuss below—tben as early as the reign of Thutmiise 111, Jaffa had become home to a strategically located Egyptian garrison whose presence was still
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:t (2010) 11
Areas B, D, and G: The Eastern Fortification Line of Jaffa Between 1958 and 1964, Jacob Kaplan opened three small excavation areas (B, D, and G) in the northeastern part of Jaffa's tell. The initial excavation in Area B was a salvage operation in which two glacis—one mudbrick and one stone—from the late eighth or early seventh centuries B.C.E. were discovered. Following these excavations. Area D was opened just west of and further up the eastern slope of the tell ftom Area B; lastly. Area G was opened south of Area D. Kaplan hoped not only to better articulate the Iron Age defenses of Jaffa but to delineate the nature of the earlier Bronze Age ones. All three excavation areas were limited in their exposure; Area B was the largest, at just over 100 square meters, while Areas D and G were smaller: trenches 20 x 2 meters wide. These areas were highly disturbed by later building activities. Area B was actually within the Turkish bathhouse, OY hammam (the current Hammam Restaurant), and was limited to the floor area of two rooms—what Kaplan called the "Large" and "Small" rooms. The Iron Age glacis were cut by the foundations of the hammam and partially removed in order to lay the drains and floors for the building. Outside of the hammam, the disturbances in Areas D and G occurred much earlier, in the Hellenistic or Roman period, when a large portion of the tell appears to have been removed or leveled. This t)peration
cut into the earlier Iron and Bronze Age layers, all of which were fills devoid of architecture. The Middle Bronze II through Iron IIA periods are represented only by scattered pottery sherds in these areas. Kaplan's contention that there were MB II ramparts has not heen substantiated by the finds, as only one Middle Bronze Age sherd, a Cypriot Red-on-Black body fragment, has been found in Area G. Despite this fact, superposition oí the layers suggests that some of the sloping fill layers into which Kaplan excavated (and which yielded no datable finds) may he Bronze Age in date, as they run below the Iron IIB/C glacis. Considering that the construction of earthen ramparts is unknown in the Late Bronze Age in the southern Levant, it would stand to reason that any earlier purposefully deposited fill layers date to the MB II; it is possible but less likely that they date to the Iron IIA. At the end of the Iron IIB or perhaps the beginning of the Iron l i e , a mudbrick glacis was constructed that was at least 10 in high and covered the northeastern side of the tell. Whether this mudbrick glacis was constructed around the entire tell is unclear, as the only glacis discovered further to the south, in Area A, was of crushed chalk and has yet to be dated. Based on the line of the glacis in Areas B and G, however, this chalk glacis is a good candidate for the southern continuation of the Iron Age defenses. Shortly after the construction of this mudhrick glacis, a fill of over 1.5 meters was deposited over the bricks, and a second glacis was constructed, this time of large stone slabs. The ceramics found within both glacis and the fill between them suggest that the glacis were constructed, at the earliest, at the end of the eighth centur>' B.C.E. or perhaps the beginning oí the seventh century. They presumably mark the eastern boundary oí the upper town ot Jaffa
ANCIENT JAFFA
n p T » > ' n ID 8-8
"irin
I
Original illustration of excavated section from Areas B and D in Kaplan's notes. Although greater certainty exists concerning the identification of the Iron Age glacis exposed within the hammam, Kaplan's assertion, despite a limited quantity of artifacts, is likely correct that the earthen fills to the west and outside of the hammam, which are seen to lie below the later Iron Age layers of the rampart, belong to a Middle Bronze Age rampart.
By overlaying Kaplan's excavation grid and the locations of his excavation areas, it is possible to determine the precise locations of his probes with respect to the built environment. This permits, in turn, the projection of the line of fortifications around Jaffa and an estimate of the location of these defenses.
Jaffa Kaplan Exea valions Arcas B iind D
in the late Iron Age, though Iron IIB-C sherds have been found iurrhcr east below the remains oí Ottoman Jaffa's lower town. The next period of habitation represented in Areas B, D, or G is ihe Late Hellenistic or Early Roman period. At some point during ihese two periods, it appears that a portion of the tell was removed or leveled off. A massive fill layer was identified in both Areas D and G th;K cut through all the earlier layers. This fill was, in turn, cut into at some point in the Roman period, and a large faniiiir (oven) was constructed. The quantity of ceramics found in and auiund this lunnur, which was almost entirely preserved, suggests that it was part of a ceramic production center.
Scattered remains from the Early Islamic and Crusader period occupations of Jaffa overlay the massive Hellenistic-Roman layers. While there are few identifiable architectural features from any of these periods in the areas, there is a wide collection of Frankish ceramics (including Port St. Symeon polychrome Sgraffito, ProtoMaiolica, Cypriot Monochrome Sgrafïito, and Zeuxippus wares).
Kyle H. Keimer University of Califomiat Los Angeles
NEAR HASIBRN ARCHAHOLOCiY 7 i : l (2010) 1Î
being contested by a Canaanite insurgency. In light of the role that the town played as a port and a garrison in the coastal plain, the need for Egyptian troops poised to queli occasional rebellions and prepare tbe way for campaigning pharaohs is obvious. As it concerns the remainder of the population of Jaffa, references to both the 'apiru (outlaws, mercenaries) and maryannu (chariot warriors of noble rank) in The Capture of Joppa may also suggest the presence of well-known Late Bronze Age social elements in and around Jaffa during the fifteenth century B.C.E. Tbe 'apiru, who are otherwise unattested in the region until the fourteenthcentury letters from Tell el-Amarna, are characterized as a threat, with the express concern that the 'apiru might steal the maryannu s horses, if they are left outside the city. After The Capture of Joppa, the next references to Jaffa, found in the Amarna letters (mid-fourteenth century B.C.E.), indicate that the strategic value of Jaffa (identified as Yapu) included its granaries. These pharaonic granaries, which are identified by the Egyptian word ^nwty, are described in this Akkadian correspondence as the "¡unuti of tbe king" (EA 294:20). This important function tor Jaffa within the Egyptian New Kingdom empire is also attested in correspondence from Apbek dated ca. 1230 B.C.E. (Singer 1983; Horowitz, Oshima, and Sanders 2006: 3 5 - 3 7 ) . Together these references invite consideration of the relationship between Aphek and Jaffa and the unique role that each of these sites played within Egyptian
Bichrome sherds, Cypriot Base-Ring I and monochrome wares, as well as a collection of complete Egyptian vessels (1960; 122). Our initial work reveals ample dating criteria derived from Egyptian ceramic forms as well as Cypriot ceramics that corroborate Kaplan's dates for Jaffa's occupational phases during the Late Bronze Age and shed new light on an intensive Egyptian presence at the site during this period. As a result of recent publications of Egyptian ceramics from sites such as BethShean, Aphek, Tel Mor, Asbkelon, Tel Dan, and Deir el-Balah, Jaffa's corpus from Strata VI to IV is notahly one of the earliest and long-lived Egyptian ceramic assemblages in Canaan, with a contemporaneous LB I assemblage identified solely at BethShean (MuUins 2007). Furthermore, the combined textual and archaeological evidence suggests that the one phase of Stratum VI includes a large and distinctive assemblage of Egyptian ceramics that can be dated quite precisely to the Late Bronze IB, namely, to the period of Jaffa's conversion to an Egyptian base in the wake of Thutmose Ill's first campaign of ca. 1460 B.C.E. New Kingdom Egyptian pottery (including so-called Egyptianized pottery) constitutes tbe largest element of the artifact corpus, revealing the extent of Egyptian influence and ptesence in Jaffa during tbe Late Bronze Age. The range of forms includes nearly all those attested at other sites in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age, as well as a number of unique forms. Tbe vessels include an array of bowl types and sizes, small and large jars, r storage jars, imported carinated jars, so-called "flowt-rpots," and an enigmatic ceramic form often identified as part of a cult stand. Due in large part, no doubt, to the location from which the Level VI assemblage was excavated, which may be characterized as a large-scale food production area, it includes no fine wares such as Cypriot or Mycenaean vessels and certainly no ritual vessels but rather a large collection of utilitarian vessels associated first and foremost with food production and consumption.
Egyptian construction in Canaan is often noted for its lack of stone foundations.
administration of the region, which is one focus of our project's ongoing research. In addition to these texts, the only additional reference to Jaffa with possible assignment to the Late Bronze Age comes from Gezer. Jaffa is mentioned in a fragmentary letter from Gezer that may date to tbe early Late Bronze Age (see Gezer 2 in Horowitz, Oshima, and Sandets 2006; 53-55).
The Egyptian Ceramic Corpus Jacob Kaplan assigned the Late Bronze Age strata in Area A from Strata VI to IV. The fragments of Ramesses IPs gate from Stratum IV belting, of course, to tbe thirteenth century B.C.E., and their context is clearly associated with the eastern gateway leading into Jaffa. Below this, Kaplan exposed remains of Stratum V, a phase of fourteenth-century occupation consisting of limited architectural remains and what Kaplan identified as a small silo. But an even earlier sequence of at least four phases, which were grouped together as Stratum VI, represent the LB I settlement of the sixteenth to fifteenth centuries B.C.E. These phases consist of buildings that, according to Kaplan, were constructed of mudbrick on stone foundations (Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993: 657). This suggests that Egyptians adopted Canaanite construction techniques, since Egyptian construction in Canaan is usually identified by its lack of stone foundations, as was typical of mudhrick architecture in Egypt. While Kaplan described httle about tbe nature of Stratum VI, he noted that the ceramic evidence included
M NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010)
Bowls The most frequently occurring Egyptian ceramic type in the LB assemblage at Jaffa, with approximately fifty intact or complete profiles attested, consists of bowls of shallow to medium depth with rounded or straight walls, a rounded or flat base, and a plain or everted rim (fig. 8). In Eg>'pt and Nubia, similar bowls form the main component ot almost every New Kingdom ceramic assemblage. Like Jaffa, otber sites in Canaan with Egyptian and Egyptian-style pottery groups are also inundated with the same type of bowl, which is the most commonly occurring form in every Egyptian-style corpus. The majority of these vessels derive from LB II and early Iron Age I contexts at a number of sites. Although the bowls are of a simple design that can make them difficult to distinguish from local Canaanite bowl types, the fabric, clay preparation, surface treatment, production techniques, decoration, and base type of such bowls are easily distinguished from Canaanite types. Base type is one of the most recognizable
MHA 1930
MHA2148
MHA 1925
MHA 2200
MHA 1924
MHA 1812
WHA1934
MHA 1926
MHA 2211
MHA 2206
characteristics of Canaanite and Egyptian bowls. Bases on Egyptian bowls are generally flat, round, or, rarely, a very low disk, all of which are in marked contrast to the elevated ring and developed disk bases typical of Canaanite assemblages. Nearly all of the Egyptian bowls discovered in Canaanite sites have a flat base, which is in distinct contrast to New Kingdom Egypt, where flat bases are clearly outnumbered by rounded bases. Preliminary analysis reveals that the percentage of bowls with flat versus rounded bases, as well as the diameters of the bases, corresponds to those of other Canaanite sites, including Beth-Shean, Aphek. Oeir el-Balah, Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, and Tel Mor. Egyptian bowls are also distinguished by their specialized production techniques, indicated by the presence of strong wheel marks in the form of concentric circles on the bases, which were made during a secondary trimming or when the vessel was string-cut from the wheel (Martin and Barako 2007; 142). Modifications in the orientation of the bowls' rims can be systematically tracked throughout the New Kingdom, and these are
Figure 8. Simple bowls constitute the main component of every Late Bronze Egyptian assemblage in Canaan. The same holds true for Jaffa, where at least fifty of these bowls were discovered in Area A. The corpus of simple bowls in Jaffa includes the full assortment of sizes, wall types, rim orientations, base styles, and decorative elements. These bowls range from shallow to medium in depth, have straight or rounded waits, plain, everted, or flanged rims, and flat, or more rarely, rounded bases. Decorative elements consist of a red strip of paint circling the rim, which is sometimes combined with red paint splatters across the body of the vessel. All these stylistic characteristics are used to date the vessels, and they run parallel to simple bowls in Egypt, where they also form the backbone of every New Kinçjdom ceramic corpus.
typically used to divide the vessels into two groups: plain-rimmed and everted-rim bowls. Rim orientation is indicative of the period of production: plain rims are common from the end of the Second Intermediate period (ca. 1640-1530 R.C.E.) to the be^-inning of the Twenty-First Dynasty {ca. 1069-945 B.C.t.), while everted rims do not become widespread until the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty (ca. 1530-1293 B.c.E.) in Egypt and Nubia and in the thirteenth century B.C.E. in Canaan, where that type is most common during the twelfth century B.C.E. Both styles are represented in the corpus of Egyptian bowls at Jaffa, although plain-rim Kiwis are more common. Although the majority of these vessels are undecorated, the decorative techniques used on about 10 percent of the bowls— red slip, red-painted rims, and stimetimes red splashes—provide additional chronological hallmarks. While red slip and red paint on the rims are long-standing traditions for Egyptian bowls during the Late Bronze Age, red-splash decoration, which consists of the intentional splatter of red paint across the interior and/or
exterior sides of the vessels, is distinctive and usually occurs in combination with a red-painted rim, the so-called "lipstick" decoration. The chronological range of bowls with this type of decoration is incredibly narrow, with all examples deriving from contexts in Egypt, Nubia, northern Sinai, and the Levant suggesting dates within tbe reign of Thutmose III, with a possible extension into the reign of Amunhotep 11 (ca. 1428-1402 B.C.E.) and
thus to tbe LB IB (Aston 2006). Such a date for this bowl type is corroborated in Jaffa by an assemblage of vessels whose contexts also suggest an LB IB date, as discussed below. Ovoid'Shaped Jars Slender ovtiid-shaped jars with rounded bases and slightly thickened, everted rims Figure 10. At least one example of a also occur in the assemblage (fig. 9). In Egypt, neckless storejar was found in an LB IB Nubia, and nortbern Sinai, this well-known context in Jaffa. The size and shape of type appears most frequently in contexts dating MHA 2298 neckless storage jars from the Levant recall to the Hyksos period and the Egyptian "meat jars," a common marl and Eighteenth Dynasty, although Figure 9. A particularly fine example, this slender mixed-clay vessel type of the New Kingdom a few examples dating to tbe ovoid jar originates from the 1958 excavations that first appeared in the late Eighteenth Nineteenth Dynasty (ca. 1293in Area A. Although it is a rather common shape Dynasty. Photo by Krystal V. Lords. 1176 B.C.E.) have been discovered. among Egyptian jars, this particular form and its In Canaan, the appearance of this characteristics range from the Hyksos period to vessel type during the early part of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Numerous fragments of form one of the charadditional restorable examples of this vessel have also the Late Bronze Age (LB I-IIA) acteristic Nile-silt types of been Identified. Photo by Krystal V. Lords. is within tbe same chronological the Ramesside period, where they borizon. Tbe special ovoid shape first appear in the early Nineteenth Dynasty and peak in popularity during tbe Twentieth Dynasty (ca. of this jar clearly identifies it as an Egyptian form, but evidence 1176-1069 B.C.E.). Neckless storage jars are also found in Canaan also appears in the presence of concentric circles surrounding tbe body. These markings are similar to those around the bases of in thirteenth- and twelfth-century B.C.E. contexts at Ashkelon, Beth-Shean, Deir el-Balab, Megiddo, Tel Mor, Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, tbe Eg>'ptian bowls described above and probably result from the and Tel Sera', corresponding to their Egyptian counterparts. same production technique: , secondary trimming or The earliest exemplar from Jaffa derives from a clear LB IB the vessel being string-cut context (fig. 10), discussed further below, making it tbe earliest from tbe wheel. known occurrence of this form in Canaan. It was probably accompanied by the pot stand found in the same locus. The Storage Jars other neckless storage jar also belongs to the Late Bronze Age A third ceramic form Egyptian assemblage (fig. 11); although its stratigraphie context appearing in the Egyptian is at present unclear, it is likely contemporary with the LB IB assemblage at Jaffa are assemblage. The size and shape of neckless storage jars from large neckless storage jars, the Levant recall the so-called Egyptian "meat jars," a common which are characterized marl- and mixed-clay vessel type of the New Kingdom that first by an ovoid to bag-shaped appeared in the late Eighteenth Dynasty. Although "meat jars" body, a rounded base, have never actually been discovered containing meat, several and a rolled rim (fig. 10). vessels of this type at Tell el-Amarna were clearly marked with Unfortunately, because of hieratic dockets stating tbat tbe contents were various forms of the considerable size of processed meats (Rose 2007: 130). Due to tbese jars' similarity these jars, few completely in size and shape to the "meat jars," Martin and Barako have Figure 11. Neckless storejars are a intact examples of this hypothesized that these vessels might actually be local imitations large category of storejar types, with type have survived anyot Egyptian "meat jars" rather than neckless storage jars (2007: probably as many different roles as where. In Egypt, these jars 143-45). Thanks to the LB IB stratigraphie context of the Jaffa there are variations. Photo by Krystal V. Lords.
lö NHARHA.S'lliRN Ak('HAKt)[.(^(;Y 7i:l
(2010)
examples, the connection between neckless storage jars and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian "meat jars" appears even more concrete. Nevertheless, Egyptian marl-clay types were generally not imitated in Canaan, and there is little doubt, based on its i^eneral shape, that these vessels are an Egyptian form. Carinated Jars There is at least one form within the Egyptian assemblage in Jaffa that was clearly imported. This group includes carinated ¡ars characterized by a squat, carinated body, a straight neck with a shelf rim, and a slightly convex, round, flat, disc, or ring base (ñg. 12). Despite the somewhat soft cadnation, this form of vessel is readily associated with the Egyptian family of carinated jars, especially those of the broad-necked variet>'. In Egypt, catinated jars are common in the Second Intermediate period and the liijjhteenth Dynasty; the form decreases in popularity after the reign of Thutmose III and completely disappears by the end of the dynasty. Egyptian and Nubian sites with carinated jars include Tell el-Amarna, Aniba, Buhen, Hiu, Tell el-Daba, Fadrus, Deir elMedina, and Toschke. Egyptian carinated jars also appear in the .Hiuthern Levant, where, according to Bietak, the Upper Egyptian lorm was not likely to appear earlier than the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, therefore providing an important correlation between the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the New Kingdom in Egypt (Mazar 2003: 328 n. 4). These impt)rted vessels have been discovered in LB IA to LB IIA contexts in Canaan at Tell el'Ajjul, Yoqne'am, Megiddo, BethShe a n, a n d Te 1 Dan. Chronological indicators for carinated jars include the relative height of the neck and the style of decoralion on the body. !n terms of relative height, the jars are separated into two lypes; short-necked ;md broad-necked. While short-necked carinated vessels occur from the Second Intermediate period to the early Eighteenth Dynasty, broad-necked carinated vessels appear only from the late Second
„^Ü^-Í.
„.^^^^^^
Intermediate period and are most common in the early to midEighteenth Dynasty, with an apex during the reigns of Hatshepsut (1482-1461 B.C.E.) to Thutmose III. The majority of Egyptian carinated vessels in the Levant are of the broad-necked variety. Carinated jars can also be stylistically dated according to the motifs of painted decoration that commonly encircle the vessels. Almost all of the jars are burnished and covered in a cream slip. The earliest carinated jars carry no other decoration than the slip and burnishing and appear during the Hyksos period up to the beginning of Eighteenth Dynasty, whereas the painted specimens are found in later contexts dating from the reign of Hatshepsut to the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Decorative motifs are usually painted in a dark red or brown color encircling the body and/or neck of the jar. The designs are typically geometric line patterns: horizontal stripes; bundles of vertical lines; crisscross designs; wavy Unes; and ladders. The carinated jars with vertical line bundles and crisscross ornamentation seem to he earlier than those with only horizontal bands, the latter usually being found in the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty during the reign of Thutmose III or later. A cream-colored slip and brown-painted decoration have been preserved on all three of the carinated jars from Jaffa, including one complete example of the broadnecked variety (fig. 12). The painted designs on Jaffa exemplars include crisscross patterns alternating with vertical line bundles. The complete vessel has five parallel vertical strokes followed by -
• —
Figure 12. In Egypt, carinated jars are common in the Second Intermediate period and the Eighteenth Dynasty; the form decreases in popularity after the reign of Thutmose III and completely disappears by the end of the dynasty. Their decorative motifs styiisticaliy date the imported carinated jars from Jaffa no later than the reign of Thutmose III. Photo by Krystal V. Lords.
three lines that cross over another three lines, forming an X. T h e s e two motifs a l t e r n a t e with one another around the body and hang down from one horizontal band that surrounds the neck of the vessel. The same pattern decorates the partial jar from Jaffa, but only four lines make up the vertical bundle and only two lines cross each other. The four body sherds that make up the remaining carinated jar from Jaffa illustrate the crisscross design, using three strokes as on the complete example. These specific decorative motifs stylistically date the imported carinated jars at Jaffa no later than the reign of Thutmose III.
'Tlowerpot" Vessels and "Funnels" Perhaps the most impressive collection of vessels within the LB IB Egyptian assemblage consists of twenty restorable vessels of the "flowerpot" variety (Burke and Mandell forthcoming). So named because of their distinctive shape (fig. 13), the average "flowerpot" in the Jaffa assemblage is bell-shaped, is pierced at the bottom with a flat base, and has a beveled rim (figs. 14a-c). The mouths of several are clearly lopsided, which demonstrates that they were hastily produced; haste is also evident in the characteristic finger impressions left on the sides of the base of each of the vessels, which resulted from the manner in which they were removed from the wheel. The holes through the vessel bottoms suggest that these vessels were designed to drain or strain their contents; this clearly did not include products requiring fine straining, since the holes are quite large, approximately 2 cm in diameter. The Jaffa "flowerpots" were recovered from a single locus that is interpreted as an open-pit firing associated with the Egyptian garrison kitchen. While this context does not entirely clarify the function of this vessel type, it does suggest an association with food production (see further below). Accompanying the twenty "flowerpots" were a number of other examples of a unique vessel type resembling funnels, although it is unclear if they were pierced all the way through (figs. 15, 16). Kaplan identified them as cult stands, but a closer examination of their cross-section reveals that they are not comparable to Canaanite cult stands in their production, and mtwhere is there clear evidence of Egyptian use of these items as stands.
Figure 13. Twenty "flowerpots" and a so-called "stand" were recovered from a single locus during the 1958 Jaffa excavations. This assemblage of nearly complete vessels suggests that they experienced little to no use, which is corroborated by the discovery of photos revealing their discovery within an open-firing pit. Photo by Aaron A. Burke.
Figures 14a-c. "Flowerpots," so-called because of their basic shape, are a distinctive Egyptian form that may have been related to beer and bread production. The type attested at Jaffa is of a design unique to the Eighteenth Dynasty. Each vessel features a beveled rim. pierced base, and finger impressions around the base created when the vessel was removed from the wheel. Photos by Krystal V. Lords.
UHA 22291
MHA2234
18 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAB0LÜtiY7í:l (2010)
Furthermore, for all of the pieces of these vessels recovered, no Oren (1987: 97-107). Rooms adjacent to the first kiln included part or vessel has been identified that would have functioned "large quantities ot industrial waste, as well as many fragments of as the bowl atop the stand. The two most complete examples pottery stands with a tall, trumpet-shaped foot, including unfired from Jaffa, the preserved porspecimens and chunks of unused tions of which are approxiclay land in] another room mately 30 cm in height, feanearby ... a group of especially ture thick walls and wete large flower p o t s " ( 1 0 2 ) . produced in an identical With regard to the repertory fashion and fabric as the of shapes produced by the "ñowerpots." They were Egyptian potters at A-345 {the also apparently hurriedly administrative center). Oren [hrowti on a wheel and finobserves that these included ished by hand through the "tall stands on a high, trumpetaddition of a spout. When shaped hase," which apparently they are placed in tbe same included "a small bowl on orientation as the "flowertop" (pi. I), as well as "flower pots," the upper portion or pots witb beavy, frequently howl of the vessel, includperforated bases bearing deep ing its body and rim, exhibit thumb i n d e n t a t i o n s . " T b e Figure 15. The type of vessel seen here, the shape of which resembles the same production charillustration reveals a perfect a trumpet, has been identified as a vessel "stand" by Eliezer Oren at acteristics as the body and match for the Jaffa assemblage Haruba in northern Sinai. In Canaan, this vessel type has been identified rim of the "flowerpots." even to the extent that at least only in Jaffa. Fired from the same fabric and in the same manner as the The only difference is three small Egyptian bowls were "flowerpots," they are hastily produced, clunky, and, due to the use of their size; the diameter of excavated near the Jaffa vessels. limited quantities of temper, quite fragile, despite having thick walls. the mouth of the restored Still, no parallels are yet attested Photo by Aaron A, Burke. example of the funnel is, for for Jaffa's funnel-shaped vessels instance, just over half tbe among Canaan's other Late size of the mouth diameter Bronze Age Egyptian sites. of the average flowerpot. The kiwest portions of both The Egyptian Ceramic exemplars have not been Corpus in Context preserved, having been broThe evidence ior the Egyptian ken off. ceramic corpus from Late Bronze While the vessel's Age Jaffa reveals the duration appearance is suggestive and intensive nature of the of a funnel of sorts, other Egyptian presence in Jaffa during fragments recovered from tbe New Kingdom, lasting from a locus adjacent to the the mid-fifteenth through the open-firing pit in which early twelfth century B.C.E. the "flowerpots" were While this is not surprising in tound suggest that the light of textual sources for this vessels were not pierced period, the context for many of Figure 16. A number of fragments of so-called "stands" have been through (fig. 16). While the exemplars within the corpus excavated from Jaffa. As indicated by the example on the left (and others it is uncertain how these described above sheds new not shown), the vessels are not pierced through and thus were not used vessels functioned, tbe light on the nature of Egypt's for straining or draining liquids. Still, their identification as stands is discovery in an open-firing earliest presence in Canaan. problematic, due to a lack of evidence for bowls or other receptacles that pit of a nearly complete Not only is it possible to identity' would have been placed atop these vessels. Photo by Aaron A. Burke. example with the twenty an assemblage oí vessels within "flowerpots" (fig. 13), which the Jaffa corpus dated to the LB features identical production characteristics, suggests that this IB, but their context also provides unequivocal evidence for vessel type was part of a single assemblage and, in our opinion, the local production of Egyptian ceramic forms using Egyptian functioned together with the so-called "flowerpots." Evidence techniques. The archaeological context in question, wbich was in support of this conclusion comes from the ceramic assemblage encountered in the southern end of Area A excavated during the associated with two potters' kilns from the administrative center 1958 season, consists of what we have identified as an Egyptian at Haruba in northern Sinai, which was excavated by Eliezer pottery-production and kitchen facility. Our identification is
ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010) 19
GIS and Jaffa^s Cultural Landscape The use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in archaeological investigations has become commonplace over the last fifteen years. No longer thought of as a "bandwagon" phenomenon, this powerful tool is used by archaeologists and cultural resource managers for both predictive and interpretive modehng, deemed "landscape-as-now" and "landscape-as-then" studies, respectively (Lock 2003: 164). This "then" attd "now" dichotomy also extends to the data used in GIS studies that combine excavated ancient features and artifacts with modern topographic, architectural, and civil information. Since its inception in 2007, the Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project (JCHP) has incorporated GIS into both its fieldwork and publication ctmiponents hy integrating data from older excavations by Jacob Kaplan and various historical maps with new data acquired from the Israel Antiquities Authtirity (IAA) and JCHP excavations into one geographical database, or geodatabase, that can be queried for a variety of analyses. Jaffa is one of the few sites on the Levantine coast with an almost continual occupation history from the Bronze Age through the modern era, with the result that little of the material culture and architecture has been preserved. The reuse of architectural materials, as well as construction projects that leveled previous buildings and layers to bedrock, such as those undertaken in the Persian and Hellenistic
periods, left few remains from the Bronze and Iron Ages in situ. Further, archaeological excavations have been limited to the area exposed by the Anchor Project conducted by the British in 1936 and salvage excavations in areas under development, such as streets, the city market, and potential building sites. Although excavations reveal a fragmentary picture of ancient and historical Jaffa below the modern street level, the layout and extent of the city as a whole can be proposed. GIS provides a digital environment to organize the various data from each period of Jaffa's history and presents windows into Jaffa's past expansion and contraction through the millennia of occupation. Before data relating to ancient or modern features could be integrated into the database, the project needed to assess the types of available spatial data that could provide useful information about Jaffa's extent, architecture, history, and various streets and paths within the city, as well as routes leading to other urban centers. Data for the JCHP geodatabase included aerial photographs taken since World War I, satellite imagery, a modern civil plan of Jaffa in computeraided drafting (CAD) format, and digital excavation data provided by the IAA. The 2009 JCHP excavations in the Visitors' Center at Qedumim Square utilized Total Station theodolite data combined with information from rectified photographs (i.e., photographs whose 3-D coordinates are used to orient the photo) and digital drawings of architectural features within the GIS software to produce new and accurate plans ot architecture exposed by Kaplan, Brand, and the JCHP (Burke and Peilstöcker 2009; in press). The bulk of the GIS data for Jaffa's urban plan since the
Area A constituted approximately 50 percent of the excavated area opened by Kaplan and contained nearly two-thirds of the site's finds. Efforts by the JCHP to locate each of the excavation areas and plot them accurately using GIS have revealed how these excavations capitalized on the abandonn^ent of Jaffa's tell along Operation Anchor, which was blasted through the site during the British Mandate in 1936. Produced by George A. Pierce
20 N t A R KASTERN A R C H A E O L O U Y 7 î : l (2010)
late eighteenth century consists of paper maps that have been oriented in the computer to their actual location, or georectified. The features of each historical map were traced digitally in GIS, then georectified based on the modern municipality layout of Tel Aviv-Yafo. Every attempt was made to align the historical maps according to landmarks and features common between each map and the modern civil layout of Jaffa. One of tbe most accurate nineteenth-century maps is a ground plan of Jaffa's fortifications prepared by British engineer Lt. Skyring in 1842 and published one year later. This map was also rectified using known points in the cityscape. It provides tbe identification of paths outside the ciry, such as a track that would later become Yefet Street (see below) and roads leading away from Jaffa to Acre, Ramla, Jerusalem, and Gaza. Another historical map, that was prepared by Jacotin for Napoleon in 1799, is inaccurate in terms of its city outline but still proves useful in illustrating the topography of Jaffa and its hinterland, including a swampy area to the south labeled "tlaque d'eau," which may have been the location of the ancient port (see Hanauer 1903). Kaplan's fieldwork was integrated with recent IAA excavations and historical maps by georectiiying his plans in GIS. Because Kaplan included known coordinate points on a pliin of the entire roll of Jaffa that included his excavation grid, digitally manipulating this map to real-world coordinates in the computer was straightforward. EoUowing this, the top plans of the excavated areas on the tell were aligned using the excavation grid of squares ( 5 x 5 m) drawn by Kaplan. The process of digitally tracing each feature on the top plans then began. Walls were traced stone for stone, while pits and floors were outlined. Heights recorded on tbe top plan were digitized as 3-D points, which enabled the numerous wails in the portion of Area A where the Egyptian vessels were discovered to be preliminarily phased according to height and relative position above or below other walls. Work is currently underway to represent the various architectural features with their respective heights in a 3-D environment much like the current GIS work being done at Tel Beth-Shemesh. As an illustration of combining "then" and "now" GIS data, an analysis integrating georectified historical maps, CAD plans of the modern city, and digitally recorded archaeological features was performed during the 2007 excavations ot the Ganor Compound on the south side of Yefet Street (Peilstöcker and Burke 2009). During the excavations, a question arose about the proximity of the Crusader-period architecture unearthed to the city's fortifications. To answer this question, project members examined the digital top plans ot Ganor in relation to the modern civil plan and the 1843 British map. The GIS indicated that a trackway along the southern boundary of the city ran along the outside of a ditch that, with the walls and faussebray, was part of tbe city's defenses. This path and ditch later became Yefet Street, as indicated by tbe modern city plans. If, as is likely, the location of the Ottoman walls roughly approximated
Building and road outlines supplied by the municipality of Tel Aviv-Yafo were overlaid on an 1842 British map by Skyring in order to determine how the features unearthed in the Ganor Compound excavations related to Jaffa's fortifications in the Ottoman period. This process revealed that the excavation area was indeed outside the line of the Ottoman defenses and that, as suspected, Yefet Street traces the line of the defensive ditch and adjacent
their earlier counterparts (and even reused elements from the earlier walls), then the Crusader fortifications were likely located on the northern side of Yefet Street, and the architecture exposed during the Ganor excavations lay outside the city walls. This strongly suggests that the city expanded beyond its fortifications during tbe Crusader period. Several advantages to the creation of the JCHP GIS geodatabase are evident based on tbe experiences of the 2007, 2008, and 2009 excavations and extensive work with Kaplan's data. The archaet)logical information represented on top plans will be preserved in a digital format available for future queries, both predictive and analytical. Overall plans for larger areas excavated by Kaplan, such as Area A, are possible by combining tbe top plans from the successive seasons on the site. Data from more recent excavations that already have a spatial reference can easily be incorporated into the geodatabase and permit more comprehensive analyses of Jaffa's past. Archaeologists may also use the results of this virtual mapping as a guideline in future excavations by indicating wbat periods or types of remains may be encountered during fieldwork. The ongoing creation of digital data, refinement of Jaffa's stratigraphy, and further integration of old and new excavations will surely provide more opportunities to combine "landscape-as-then" and "landscape-asnow" data, gain insight into Jaffa's cultural landscapes, and preserve and present that heritage to future generations.
George A. Pierce University of Califomiüj Los Angeles
N E A R E A S T E R N ARCHAFX")LOC¡Y 7 î:l (2010) 2 !
based upon the presence of an open-firing pit with vessels found in situ, ceramic wasters, a burnishing tool, a potter's wheel, and a large quantity of restorable vessels, including examples of each of the vessel types described above. Associated with this pottery-production complex, but not discussed with the Late Bronze Age Egyptian ceramic forms mentioned earlier, are a group of large straining bowls, most of
which are identified as wasters (figs. 17a-c), that is, ceramic forms discarded because they failed to produce the desired end product. Their intended form, as revealed by at least one undistorted example, is effectively the same as that of the smaller Egyptian bowls, only larger (ca. 30 cm in diameter) and pierced through the base prior to firing while the vessel was leather-hard. The coarse and gritty fabric of these bowls was poorly levigated and
T
Figures 17a-c. The restoration of more than four complete bowl wasters and fragments of a number of others aided in the recognition of the surrounding area, which included an open-firing pit with in situ vessels, as a pottery production facility associated with the kitchen complex. Despite the large quantity of vessels restored by the Jaffa Museum's staff, these wasters were conspicuously ignored. The bowls average 30 cm in diameter, and all feature holes punched through the bottom when the vessel was leatherhard, leading to their identification as sieving bowls. The unevenness of the temperatures in the pit firing led to considerable differentiation of color across many of the vessels. Photos by Aaron A. Burke.
II
NEAR EASTHRN ARCHAHOLOGY 7Î:1 (2010)
. / •
includes a considerable quantity of sand and limestone chunks (figs. 18a-b), indicating that the vessels were hastily produced. The wheel on which vessels within this facility were thrown was recovered durinj; excavation of the square (fig. 19), as was d burnishing sherd. That these and other pcirtions (including, strangely enough, entire halves and other large parts of a number of wasters) were found here suggests, of course, that ceramic
production took place nearby. The identification of an openfiring pit proves to be the final element needed to unequivocally demonstrate this fact. Due to the state of the records from Kaplan's excavations half a century ago and the limited information on excavation plans, which do not show every feature excavated, the existence and precise location of the open-firing pit mentioned above might very
V.
Figures 18a-b. Analysis of the sections of the bowl wasters reveals a hasty and poor selection of materials for use with these large straining bowls. Little chaff occurs, but great quantities of sand and chunks of limestone are found throughout, often having burst during the firing process. The firing appears to have been short but at a very high temperature, which may have contributed to the vessels' failures. Photo by Aaron A. Burke.
ill-RN ARCHAEOLOGY 73: t (2010) 23
Figure 19. This half of a potter's wheel was associated with several other elements indicating the existence of a ceramic workshop that was part of the Egyptian garrison kitchen complex. The intense compression of the halves of the wheel ground clay residues into the wheel's surface. Photo by Krystal V. Lords.
well have been permanently lost. Thankfully, however, photographs still exist showing a latge number of the so-called "flowerpots" within what appears to be an open-firing pit in an adjoining locus witbin the same excavation square (figs. 20, 21). One photograph shows a number ot ct)mplete "flowerpots" m situ that, although now broken, were stacked within the shallow pit and separated by what appear to be brick-shaped ceramic spacers. While twenty "flowerpots" and at least one "stand" were recovered from this locus (see above), none of the spacets pictured was retained. Nevertheless, this important evidence enables us to conclude that the area was clearly associated with Egyptian ceramic production and is thus a unique contribution to our knowledge of Egyptian New Kingdom settlement in Canaan «.luring the Late Bronze Age, since no comparable facility has
Figure 20. This photo of the openfiring pit during Kaplan's 1958 excavations reveals that the twenty "flowerpots" and one trumpetshaped "stand" recovered from the site were produced locally. This constitutes the first evidence for an Egyptian ceramic production area in Canaan during the New Kingdom and is the earliest evidence of such production, which occurred during the LB IB. Photo from Kaplan Archive. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority Photographic Archive.
24 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 7 i; I (2010)
MHA 2309
been recovered from excavations of any New Kingdom sites in Canaan. Further underscoring the significance of this discovery is the fact that Egyptian iconographie evidence for the production of "flowerpots" often associates the firing of "flííwerpots" with food production (Bourriau, Nicholson, and R(5se 2000: 136). The association between the firing of "flowerpots" and food
production finds support in the range of forms that have been recovered from the living surfaces around this open-firing pit, all of which relate to food production and its storage, two of the three main categories of Egyptian-style vessels in the Late Brtmze Age assemblage (Killebrew 2005: 68-77). This invites us to consider further the nature of food production in this area and the relationship of the various vessels to each other. In addition to ihe "flowerpots," which are associated either with bread or, more likely, beer production (or both; Burke and Mandell forthcoming), the appearance of the waster bowls with pierced bases indicates a substantial need for vessels used to strain foods or sieve liquids. Within the limits of the excavation, however, only one neckless storejat was recovered along with what was likely to have been the pot stand that supported it (fig. 22), suggesting that it is unlikely to have been associated with beer production, as was the probable Lise of the "flowerpots." Instead, the neckless jars, as indicated in Egypt, are sometimes associated with the storage of meat; since these jars were found as single exemplars, not occurring in ,L;roups, this seems as likely an explanation as any for their use in this area. Less ambiguous, perhaps, is the presence of several examples of carinated jars, the fabric of which suggests that they were imported from Egypt. Although the content of these jars in the Levant has yet to be investigated, residue analysis on Egyptian exports to Nubia show that the carinated jars held dom-fruits Lind honeycombs, both of which are integral in the production of Egyptian bread and beer (Holthoer 1977: 133). Because few of the small Egyptian bowls found in Area A, which are clearly associated with food consumption, were
uncovered during the 1958 excavations, the immediate context of the assemblage discussed above does not support its identification as a consumption area. Of all the vessels recovered from the area around the firing pit, the most difficult to explain are the so-called "stands," funneled in shape, which appear to be neither stands nor funnels. That these vessels lack a cultic function, despite previously suggested identifications, and are therefore not cult stands, is made clear by the complete absence of other cultic paraphernalia in this area and the absence of bowls (or other vessels) to sit atop the hase. Altogether, two nearly complete examples and fragments of no fewer than four other such vessels were recovered. Nothing, however, appears to explain their function alongside twenty beer jars of the "flowerpot" variety, six strainer bowls, a neckless storejar and stand, a small ovoid jar, and four examples of imported carinated jars. Despite the challenges associated with connecting the function of such a variety and quantity of vessels, all of which were found within 20 square meters, the sheer number of utilitarian vessels associated with this food production area are evocative of a substantial kitchen producing food for a large number of Egyptians, whom we may tentatively identify as the Egyptian garrison of the LB IB (ca. 1460 and 1400 B.C.K.). Thus we suggest that the earhest New Kingdom garrison kitchen was located on the leeward side of Jaffa, just inside the eastern gate, near the monumental gateway of Raniesses IL Because it appears that the kitchen and its firing pit were put out of use in a sudden event that caused the abandonment of vessels in the pit and a number of restorable examples to be found
Figure 21. A close-up photo of the Egyptian open-firing pit reveals the use of spacer bricks and other elements that separated the "flowerpots" when they were fired. The kiln's immediate proximity to a large collection of Egyptian ceramics of other forms, most of Vkfhich are thought to have been produced locally, suggests the direct association between the firing of the so-called "flowerpots" and food production. Photo from Kaplan Archive. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority Photographic Archive.
smashed on floors around the area, the circumstances associated with what we would identify as a destruction of Egyptian Jaffa during the LB IB merit comment. Despite royal monuments recording Eighteenth Dynasty conquests and the many later depictions ot Egyptians conquering towns in the Levant, which date largely to the LB IIB (thirteenth century B.C.E.), little is known of early Canaanite efforts to resist Egypt's conquests and maintenance of its empire (Burke 2009). The battle oí Megiddo between Thutmose III and a coalition of Canaanite kings appears
Figure 22. This pot stand, which belongs to the Egyptian LB IB assemblage from Jaffa, may have been used with the neckless storejar excavated from the same locus. Its cross-section reveals that it was made from both the same fabric and fired in a similar manner as the "flowerpots" and other locally produced Egyptian wares. Photo by Aaron A. Burke.
26 N E A R E A S T E R N A R C H A B O U X i Y 7 K Í (2010)
as but the largest single effort to resist Egypt at a rather early stage in tbe formation of its empire. Along with the evidence from the archaeological context of the LB IB Egyptian ceramic assemblage deriving from Jaffa's destruction and the tale of The Capture of Joppa, which relates a brief phase ot the Canaanite retaking oí Jaffa during the same period, Egyptian domination during the fifteenth centur>' R.C.H. can scarcely be portrayed as a fail accompli. If resistance persisted during Thutmose's reign and the reigns of his successors, we can only hope to learn about such events
from archaeological excavations, given the lack of historical documentation. Although no historical sources record the destruction of Jaffa while it was under Egyptian control, the well-known literary tale of The Capture of Joppa, the historicity of which has been debated, appears to illustrate the volatile circumstances surrounding Canaanite attempts to disrupt Egyptian rule during the fifteenth century.
Jaffa's Aegyptiaca Although the bulk of the evidence for Egyptian occupation of Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age consists of ceramics, a variety of New Kingdom Egyptian artifacts reveal that life in Jaffa was far from spartan for its Egyptian community. Ae^ptiaca include three scarabs and a faience lotus-style bowl (fig. 23), all dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty, and a fi-agment of an inscribed Ramessideperiod statue (fig. 24; see also pp. 7-9). Archaeological evidence oi possible relations between Egypt and Jaffa just prior to and during the Amarna period comes from the discovery of three scarabs of Amunhotep III (ca. 1392-1354 B.C.E.). Two of the scarabs, one with the king's prenomen (personal name) and the other commemorating a lion hunt of the king, come from a secondary-use context in the walls of the late Nineteenth Dynasty fortification in Area A (Sweeney 2003: 54). The third scarab, discovered in a small temple in the same area, was engraved with the name of Tiy, the great royal wife of Amunhotep III (Sweeney 2003: 59). Weinstein has suggested that commemorative scarabs were distributed as gifts to foreign rulers and Egyptian officials residing in the Levant at sites such as Jaffa (1998: 235).
the statue reliably date the piece to the Ramesside period. First, the clothing type, pose, and height of the hack pillar on the statue are typical of this era, and the beginning of the offering formula contains a dative n, which is first attested in the Ramesside period (Eranke 2003; 43). Based on the superior quality of the srone and inscription, we can safely conclude that the statue represents an Egyptian official who held a high-ranking position. Although it is probable that the statue was accidentally broken, the block as it now appears is probably the result of its reshaping for use as building material.
Another piece oí aegyptiaca consists of fragments of a small faience howl with a lotus-style decoration, also discovered in Area A (fig. 23). These shallow vessels, normally with a rounded base, are one of the most familiar vessel types of New Kingdom Egypt, with a peak in popularity during the reign of Thutmose III. The method of manufacture tor these bowls was relatively simple: a sheet of self-glazFigure 23. A faience lotus-style bowl of the Eighteenth Dynasty was found during the 1958 season. This style of bowl reached its peak in ing faience paste was laid over a hemipopularity during the reign of Thutmose Ml, to whom is attributed the spherical form, cut to shape, then fired initial Egyptian conquest of Jaffa. Although the use of these bowls (Nicholson and Peltenburg 2000: 182). remains uncertain, their decorative motifs, as with the Jaffa example, A design was then added in black paint often include marsh plants, animals, and fish, but most frequently the (usually manganese), often consisting of lotus-bud motif. Photo by Krystal V. Lords. marsh plants, animals, and fish, with the most frequently occurring motif heing the lotus bud, like those found decorating the example from Jaffa. Conclusion The precise use of faience lotus bowls remains uncertain; a purely The new findings from our efforts to publish Jacob Kaplan's domestic use has heen suggested, but since they are attested excavations in Jaffa, particularly with regard to locally produced mostly in temples and tombs in Egypt, others believe that faience Egyptian ceramics and the collection oí aegyptiaca, suggest a clear bowls were used to present votive offerings (Pinch 1993; 280). association with an Egyptian population, with limited evidence Another Egyptian object discovered at Jaffa is an inscribed tor Jaffa's Canaanite inhabitants. It is so clear, in fact, that we quartzite statue fragment (fig. 24)- The statue is of a man wearing suggest that using terms such as Egyptian and Egyptianizt^d, as is a tunic tied at the neck, with his left arm raised to his chest. A often done, in an attempt to qualify the uncertainty regarding the back pillar is positioned directly behind the man, ending just ethnic affiliations of those for whom such artifacts were produced below where the head would be situated; it is inscrihed with only obfuscates the apparent cultural and ethnic association that the typical Egyptian hip dj nswt, or offering formula. The exact existed between this assemblage, those who produced it, and the context of the statue has heen lost, but certain characteristics of
ERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010) 27
1
population for which it was intended. That Canaanites may or may not have been involved in the production of such vessels for Egyptians in Jaffa—and we see no clear evidence to associate the production of these vessels hy Canaanites for Canaanites at any site—is effectively irrelevant, especially in light of the clear association of such vessels with sites connected with Egyptian administration and military presence in Canaan, as in Egypt. The assemblage oi so-called Egyptianizing artifacts is not evenly distributed across sites in Canaan; it occurs essentially exclusively at sites in the coastal plain and along the major highway and its secondary corridors. Even if one could prove that Canaanites played a role in the production oí Egyptian-style artifacts, their role is unlikely to have been any different from that of Asiatics in Eg>'pt, who fulfilled a number of positions in Egyptian society. That these terms continue to play a role in the discussion of Egyptian ceramic forms in Canaan is, however, solely an effort to hedge bets against the remote possibility that Canaanites emulated Egyptian elites in their desire to associate themselves with Egyptian power, which would thus explain the quantity of aegyptiaca and Egyptian ceramic forms found at sites in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age (as asserted by Higginhotham 2000). As others have concluded, the evidence to date does not support this hypothesis (Hasel 1998: 116-17;Morris 2005: 9-17; Killebrew 2005: 54; Martin and Barako 2007: 152-53), and the evidence
20 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73; I (2010)
Figure 24. A fragment of a Ramesside Egyptian statue, made of imported quartzite and inscribed with a htp dj nswt formula, was identified in the Jaffa Museum storerooms. It was accessioned by museum staff as an artifact that had lost its provenance, but its relationship to Jaffa is suggested by the date of its discovery, which was during the spring of 1975, after the last season of excavation in Jaffa. We conclude that this object's provenance is likely Jaffa and that it was reused as a building stone and fell from an excavated section after the winter rain. Photo by Krystal V. Lords.
from Jaffa, a first-tier Egyptian administrative center and garrison, only further undermines any attempt to separate Egyptians from distinctive elements of Egyptian material culture, even when those items are produced locally. For this reason, terms such as Egyptianizing and Egyptianized should be abandoned in favor of the straightforward identification of Egyptian ceramic forms as either locally produced, imported, or imitated, as is regularly done with Cypriot and Mycenaean forms that also occur in the Late Bronze Age assemblages of Canaan. Jaffa's population during the Late Bronze Age was undoubtedly cosmopolitan, as might he expected for a major Egyptian fortress, frequented by ships bearing emissaries from lands ringing the eastern Mediterranean, and housing a Canaanite population who likely provided for many of the basic needs of the Egyptian garrison.
Acknowledgements '1 he work tor this article was supported by a grant from the Shelby White-Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, the International Institute at tbe University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as the W. E Albright Institute for Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, where Aaron Burke was the Annual Professor in the fall of 2009. Lords's contribution to this work was supported by a Craduate Summer Research Mentorship from UCLA in 2009. The authors would like to thank the staff of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who made access to the materials ptissible, including Arieh Rochman-Halperin and Sylvia Krapiwko of the Rockefeller Museum archives, as well as Yael Barshak in the photographic archives. Additionally, we would like to thank Naama Meirovitz of the Old Jaffa Development Company for providing access to the materials at the Jaffa Museum of Antiquities and Orit Tsuf for her guidance in early stages of our orientation to the Kaplan collection.
Hasel, M. G. 1998. Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern Levant, ca. 13OO~1185 B.C. Probleme der Ägyptologie 10, Leiden: Brill. Higginbotham, C. R. 2000. Egyptianization and Hüte Emulation in Ramesside Palestine: Governance and AcconimodatJmi on the Imperial Periphery. Culture and History of the Ancient Near Ease 2. Leiden: Brill. Holthoer, R. 1977. New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites: The Pottery. With a contribution by H.-A. Nordstrom. The Scandinavian Joint Expedición to Sudanese Nubia 5:1. Stockholm: Scandinavian University Btmks. Horowitz, W, T. Oshima, and S. L. Sanders. 2006. Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the hand of Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Isserlin, B. S. J. 1950. Some Archaeological News from Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 82: 92-101. Kaplan, J. 1953. Archaeological Survey on [he Left Bank of the Yarkon River IHebrew]. Eretz-hrael 2: 157-60. . 1959. Tilt: Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa [HebrewL Tel Aviv: Masada. . 1960. Notes and News: Jaffa. Isrtiei Exploration Joumiil 10: 121-22. . 1971. The Yannai Lino. Pp. 201-5 in Roman Frontier Studies 1967:
Note
Proceedings of the 7th Iniernaiional Congress Held at Tet Aviv, ed. S.
I. Etforts CO publish Kaplan's excavations in Jaffa, notably the tiiids belonging from the Persian to Byzantine periods, are underway by Orit Tsuf, who is also funded by the White-Levy Program for Arcbacological Publications. Islamic iii;ucrials will be published by Katherine Strange Burke.
Applebaum. Tel Aviv: Students' Organization of Tel Aviv University. . 1972. The Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Biblical Archaeoh^st 35: 66-95. —
References Anonymous. 1990. Noces and News: Obituary for Jacob Kaplan, ¡srael
Exphrmion Journal 40: 228. Aston, D. A. 2006. Making a Splash: Cetamic Decoration in che Reigns of Thutmosis III and Amenophis ¡I. Pp. 65-74 in vol. 1 of Tmit;imes: .Stiitliiis in Honour of Manfred Bietak, ed. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab. Oriencalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149. Leuven: Peeters. B:ir-Nnthan, R. 2002. The Jacob Kaplan and Haya Ritcer-Kaplan Legacy. hladashoi Arkheubgiyoi 114: 104*-9*. Bourriau, J. D., P T. Nicholson, and P J. Rose. 2000. Pottery. Pp. 121-47 in Ancient Egyptian Maieriah and Technology, ed. P T. Nicholson and I. Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University' Press. Bowman, J., B. S. J. Isserlin, and K. R. Rowe. 1955. The University of Leeds, Department of Semirics Archaeological Expedition Co Jaffa 1952. Proceedings o/i/ie Leeds Philosophical Society 7: 231-50. Burke, A. A. 2009. More Light on Old Reliefs: New Kingdom Egyptian Siege Tactics and Asiatic Resistance. Pp. 57-68 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lau-rence E. Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Burke, A. A., and A. R. Mandell. Forthcoming. Egyptian "Flowerpots" from Kaplan's Area A Excavations: Cultural and Historical Implications in Sttííií'es on the History and Archaeology of Jaffa I, ed. M. Peilstöcker and A. A. Burke. The Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project 1; Monumenca Archaeologica. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Burke, A. A., and M. Peilscocker 2009. Notes and News: The Jaffa Visitors' Centre, 2008. Israel Expkmuion Jounuil 59: 220-27. Franke, D. 2003. The Middle Kingdom Offering Formulas: A Challenge. journal of Egyptian Archaeology 89: 39-57. Hanauer, J. E. 1903. The Traditional "Harbour of Solomon" at Jaffa. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 355-56.
. 1975. Further Aspects of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 91:II Fortifications 1-17.
Kaplan, J,, and H. Ritter-Kaplan. 1993. Jaffa. Pp. 655-59 in vol, 2 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeoh)^cal Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stem. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta; New York: Simon & Schuster. Killebrew, A. E. 2005. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Arc/iaeologicaí Study of Egyptians, Cunuiinites, P/iilistines, and Early Israel 1300-1 iOO B.C.E. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies 9. Aclama: Society of Biblical Literature, Lock, G. R. 2003. L'sing Computers in Archaeology: Towards V'irliííií Pasts. London: Routledge. Martin, M. A. S., and T. J. Barako. 2007. Egyptian and Egyptianiecd Pottery. Pp. 129-65 in Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959-1960, ed. T J. Barako. IAA Reports 32. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Auchority. Mazar, A. 2003. Beth Shean in the Second Millennium B.C.E, : From Canaanite Town to Egyptian Stronghold. Pp. 323-40 in The Sync/ironisation of Civilisations in the Eastern .Mediterranean in tiie Secojid Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000-EwroCon/erence, Haindorf, 2nd of May-7th of May 2001, ed. M, Bietak. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4; Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Morris, E. F. 2005. The Architt'ctwre o/Jmperiiiüsm; Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt's New Kingdom. Probleme der Ägyptologie 22. Leiden: Brill. Miillins, R. A. 2007. The Late Bronze Age Potter\. Pp. 390-547 in Excavatiom atTelBeth'Shean 1989-1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, ed. A. Mazar and R. A. Mullins. Bech-Shean Valley Archaeologica! Project Z. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Nicholson, P T., and E. J. Pelcenburg. 2000. Egyptian Faience. Pp. 177-94 in Ancient Eg;yfJtÍ£in Müteriíjís and ^èchl^olog^', cd. P T Nicholson and I. Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University' Press. Oren, E. D. 1987. The "Ways of Horus" in North Sinai. Pp. 69-119 in Egypt,
¡\ (2010) 29
Israel, Sinai: Arcliacological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period, ed. A. F Rainey. Tei Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Pritchard. J. B., ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. .3rd ed. with suppl. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Peilstöcker, M., and A. A. Burke. 2009. Yafo, Ganor Compound: Preliminary Report. Hadashol Arkheolo^yol 121. Online; hrtp://www.hadashüC-esi. org.U/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1049&mag_id = 115. Accessed on
Rose, F J. 2007. The Eighteent/i Dynasty Pottery Corpus from Amarmi. Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 83. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Singer, 1. 1983. Takuhlinu and Haya: Two Governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10: 3-25. Sweeney, D. 2003. A Lion-Hunt Scarab and Other Egyptian Objects from the Late Bronze Fortress at Jaffa. Tel Aviv 30: 54-65. Weinstein, J. M. 1998. Egypt and the Levant iti the Reign of Amenhotcp
February' 16, 2010. . Forthcoming. Preliminary Report for the 2007 Ganor Compound Excavations. In Studies on the History and Archaeology of Jaffa J, ed. M. Peilstöcker and A. A. Burke. The Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project 1; Monumenta Archaeotogica, Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Pinch, G. 1993. Votive Offerings to Hathor. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Ashmolean Museum.
III. Pp. 223-36 in Amenhotep HI: Perspectives on His Reign, ed. D. B. O'Cotmor and E. H, Cline. Ann Arhor: University of Michigan Press.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Aardn A. Burke is proiessor üt Near Eastern Archaeokigy in the Near Eastern Languages and Cultures Department at the University of California, Los Angeles. He earned his Ph.D. from The University' of Chicago in 2004, writing on fortifications and defensive strategies in the Levant during the Middle Briinze Age. Since 2007 he co-directs excavations and research ofThe Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project in Jaffa, Israel. His recent research addresses Late Bronze Age Jaffa through the study of Jacob Kaplan's unpublished excavation records and renewed excavations in Jaffa.
Krystal V. Lords is a Ph.D. candidate in tbe Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at UCLA. She earned a B.A. and M.A. in Egyptology from UC Berkeley and is currently an Editorial Assistant for the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology'. Her research interests include social and cultural identity, ceramic analysis, and interactions between Egypt and the Levant during the New Kingdom. She has surveyed and excavated at several sites in Egypt and Israel.
30 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2OiO)
m\m\
IIMII
Trends, Tools, Techniques, and
Jordan's Stonehenge: The Endangered Chalcolithic/ Early Bronze Age Site at al'Murayghat-Hajr al-Mansûb Stephen H. Savage
Following reports from these early travelers, especially Irby and Mangles (1817-1818) and Conder (1881), archaeologists have continued to examine many of these structures. Recent discussions include Dubis and Savage 2001; Herr 2002; Han 2002; Kafafi and Scheltema 2005; Mortensen and Thuesen 1998; and Palumbo 1998. Many dolmen fields have been mapped, and a few individual dolmens have been excavated. The function of dolmens is still a matter of discussion among archaeologists. Later in this issue ofNEA, Al-Shorman notes that dolmens are thought of as being "habitations, altars, or offering places..., winter camps for transhumant groups..., places for exploiting varied environmental zones..., or tombs" (2010, 46-47).
Introduction
New methods of archaeological analysis have been used to study the relationship between dolmens and their natural settinj^s, in rchaeologists define a "ceremonial landscape" as a group of hopes of helping to determine how these enigmatic structures stone and/or earthworks ccmstructed on a scale large enough functioned. Al-Shorman's spatial analysis of dolmen sites in Jordan to effectively create a landscape. Perhaps the best knoum indicates that they share some common traits: hillside terrace example is Stonehenge, with its great circle of standing stones sur- locations where large megalithic stones are readily available. rounded by earthworks. A ceremonial landscape effectively creates Enough dolmens contained skeletal remains to suggest to Prag that views from specific places toward other places that are considered "the dolmens of Jordan ... are the normal form for disposal of the to be important due to their natural location or associations with dead of a large part of the population over a long period" (1995, ritual activities, such as mortuary or sacrificial rites or astronomi- 83). However, Al-Shorman's study casts some doubt on Prag's cal functions. The ceremonial landscape of Chalcolithic and Early general conclusion, on the basis of the low number of Early Bronze Bro7\ze Age Jordan (table 1) is unique in the Near East, although I habitation sites (fifty-one in the Jordan Archaeological Database it bears a striking resemblance to tlrnt of Western Europe and the and Information System IJADIS)]) compared to dolmens (about twenty thousand). Al-Shorman suggests that a population of British Isles during a similar period. Perhaps, for that reason, early this size is beyond the carrying capacity of the region in the Early travelers to Jordan were impressed by the thousands of dolmens Bronze Age. However, twenty thousand dolmens built over a (prehistoric monuments of two or more upright stones supporting a period of four hundred years means only fifty a year, which does horizontal stone slab, which may have functioned as tombs or sites not seem to require a large population. Moreover, the JADIS of primary iruerment prior to secondary burial elsewhere), menhirs database underrepresents the number of habitation sites from the (standing stones), stone circles, and alignments. Early Bronze I period. Many sites are simply labeled Early Bronze Age on account of the difficulty of determining specific subperiods based on ceramic evidence, since diagnostic sherds from the Early Table 1. Approximate Chronology of the Chalcolithic Bronze I period were either not found or not recognized. There are Period and Early Bronze Age in Jordan many more sites in the later Early Bronze Age subperiods, so it is possible that the landscape could have supported a larger number Archaeological Period Duration (years B.C.E.) of people. It is also possible that dolmens were used as temporary burial places. The large, charnel house burial places at Bab edhharly Bronze IV 2300-2000 Dhra (Schaub and Rast 1989) contain many secondary burials: interments where the body is first buried elsewhere, with the bones Early Bronze III 2700-2300 being bundled together and placed in a secondary location for Early Bronze II permanent burial 3000-2700
A
Early Bronze I
3600-3000
Chalcolithic
4500-3600
Al-Shorman further notes that some of the other possible interpretations of dolmens may not be testable due to the lack of data and that further survey and excavation are needed. Thus, it is especially troubling that archaeologists are now faced with the rapid destruction of Jordan's megalithic heritage. Kafafi and • .>-r
Î2 NEAREASÏERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010)
'fik..^
Ifpll
Theories in Archaeology Today Scheltema have lamented that, "Whereas nineteenth-century visitors spoke about thousands of dolmens, suggesting that modernday Jordan was at that time still the most densely dolmen-covered part of the Mediterranean, considerably less than a thousand in all seem to remain fairly intact nowadays" (2005, 8). Rapid population expansion following the first and second Iraq wars have spurred an unprecedented pace of urban and infrastructure development in Jordan. Dolmen fields are under attack directly by urban expansion, as well as by stone and gravel quarries. Examples include the Damiyah dolmen field, which is currently endangered by a travertine quarry (Gerit van der Kooij, personal communication; Scheltema 2008, 115), Rawdah, Adehmeh and the dolmen field at al-Murayghât {Scheltema 2008, 115; Dubis and Savage 2001; Savage and Rollefson 2001). Dolmens that had stood in Tila' al-'Ali, in western Amman, along Sharra Street, have very recently been removed for construction of a multistory commercial and residential building.
two concentric circles of fallen menhirs are within line of sight of almost all the extant dolmens at the site. The larger site is spread across an area containing agricultural fields, which indicates some soil depth. Other, unplanted areas near the road from Ma'in reveal approximately 1.5 m of gray, midden-like soil containing numerous artifacts. The site is located partly within a large gravel quarry whose excavation is currently destroying the hills upon which the dolmen field is located and northeast of a more recent gravel quarry that threatens to expand into the western edge of the site. Ceramic evidence demonstrates that al-Murayghât was occupied during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, though there are indications that it was used over a much longer period of time. An Epipaleolithic component in the stone tools (Savage and Rollefson 2001) indicates when the site was first used; the dominant ceramic forms are from the EB I. Other researchers have indicated that a Chalcolithic component and possibly an EB III/IV component are present as well, although a surface collection I conducted in 2000 did not identify ceramics from these periods. A small Roman/Byzantine component is also present. The site is currently cultivated, and, in summer months, it is occupied by migratory pastoralists. It is therefore subject to damage from agriculture, erosion, vandalism, and, especially, by the expansion of gravel quarries located to the southwest and northeast of the site. This article will describe the discovery of the site, its configuration and artifact assemblage, and discuss the impact on the site of ongoing grave! quarrying in the vicinity.
This article focuses on the site of al-Murayghât (a.k.a. el-Megheirat, el-Mareighât, Mugheirat), which has been called "Jordan's Stonehenge" {Harrison, personal communication) because of the striking character of its dolmen field and configuration of menhirs and megalithic structures. Although unique, the site is currently in imminent danger of complete destruction from rapidly expanding gravel quarries. Al-Murayghât is a large site southwest of Ma'in consisting of a series of circles and rectangles of standing stones {menhirs) with cobblestone floors, an expansive menhir and dolmen field that extends over 80 ha (ca. 198 acres), and a sherdAithic scatter Early Reports from al-Murayghât that stretches across approximately 25 ha {ca. 62 acres; fig. 1). The first description of al-Murayghât comes from Charles Irby The dolmen field is concentrated mostly on hills to the west of and James Mangles, two commanders in the British Royal Navy the central knoll, but there are also dolmens on the hills to the who, in 1817 and 1818, were the first Westerners to openly visit south and north. The ceremonial center of the site occupies a the interior of the Levant since the Crusader period. Eollowing low denuded hill with very little soil between bedrock terraces; Nelson's defeat of Napoleon's naval forces at the Battle of the Nile (1798) and William Sidney Smith's successful defense of Acco in 1799, the Royal Navy had acquired such a level of prestige with the O t t o m a n Empire that Irby and Mangles were able to secure permission to tour the region. Like many Royal Navy officers of the time, they probably went to sea in
Al-Murayghat and the Hajr al-Mansub OuickBird image draped over ASTER 30m OEM inciuaes copyngrited matenai ol DigitalGioDe inc . Ai< Rights Reserved.
1 h n fH Uortt QÍ iiTirtur
Figure 1. Three-dimensional view of the al-Murayghât region showing distribution of dolmen field and active gravel quarries near the site.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010) 33
(Pill (PI their early teens, if not before, following a brief general education (see O'Brian 1995). Once at sea, as "young gentlemen," they were expertly trained in a specific set oí skills, including gunnery, ship handling, command, and celestial navigation. They learned to write good, detailed reports. Their ideas about ancient history, however, were infonned by the Old Testament, based on Ussher's six-thousand-year cbronology; their cultural outlook was framed by late Georgian and pre-Victorian mores and the indisputable supremacy of the Royal Navy. Although they had the permission of high Ottoman officials to travel in the region, the trip was full of incidents—as Irby and Mangles moved further into the interior, the fractious tribes paid less attention to Ottoman authorities. It was a dangerous journey, the adventure of a lifetime. Their report, published in a series of extended "letters," remains a fascinating read. On June 9, 1818, Irhy and Mangles crossed the Wadi Wala, moving northward, and noted the standing stones there. They camped that night near Ma'in and rode down toward the hot springs the following morning:
Pill lead to the ascertaining of the form of some of the weapons and warlike apparel mentioned in Scripture. It is worth noticing, that however remote may he the period to which these sepulchers are to be referred, the stature of those contained in them, is so far from gigantic, that it seems to have amounted to no more than the middle size of modern times. Not only this rocky eminence, upon which we first observed them, is covered over on all sides with these barbarous structures, hut some few are scattered in the fields upon a lower level, and a great many upon the sides of the surrounding hills, insomuch that not less than fifty were in sight at one time. (Irby and Mangles 1985,465-66)
Irby and Mangles apparently did not stop long at the site, and they did not record its name. Nevertheless, they observed several salient features about it that make it clear that it was al-Murayghât. First, they recognized the isolated menhir to the east of the site as marking its We engaged a guide from our tents, boundary. It is a famous stone named by the who undertook to carry us to the ' .., the Mareighât group local tribes and marked with tribal glyphs, sources of hot-water; our route was but that information was not recorded for is perhaps the most S. W.; in less than half an hour we another sixty-three years. They recorded reached another tall stone, set up extraordinary and the presence of many dolmens arranged apparently as a boundary mark, like on the hills surrounding a central hillock, suggestive monument yet those in the Wady-eï-Wale [Wadi although they did not seem to bave gone up Wala]. The direct track is continued described in Moab* onto it but traveled around it on the north from this first, round the southern side instead of taking the established track on side of a rocky knoll rising to some the south. Instead, attracted by the dolmens, they followed the narrow, dry watercourse that separates height, and in a great measure detached the central knoll of al-Murayghât from the taller hills where from the surrounding hills. Some remarkable most of the dolmens are located (this path can still be traced objects, of which we got a glimpse, induced us to pass today; fig. 1 clearly shows the road to the south of the central round on the other side of this knoll; they are rude knoll and the path Irby and Mangles took to the north of it). Their sepulchral monuments of the same nature with those ideas about the dolmens were quite speculative, including that we discovered on our road from Szalt [Salt] to the they contained burials under flat stones laid at the bottom. Our Jordan on our last tour; yet, as the former are rude 2000 and 2001 investigations (see further below) showed that throughout, without any mark whatever of the tool the dolmens rest primarily on bedrock. Irby and Mangles did not about them, whereas the others have universally a mention the structures on the central knoll. door in one of the smaller ends, it is possible that Claude Reignier Conder recorded a more extensive description they may date from a remoter period, or have of the site in 1881. Conder was a major (later colonel) in the belonged to a still ruder people. Their proportions British Army attached to the Survey of Western Palestine on vary considerably, as does their aspect, though the behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund. He was a keen observer, construction is uniform; one flat stone is laid in at the a skilled surveyor, and an artist; he spoke Arabic and wrote bottom, and this there can be little doubt covers the extensively on the archaeological sites of the southern Levant. He recorded the name of the site as "El Mareighât ... 'the things grave of the deceased; and, as there is no appearance smeared,' with oil, or blood, or other thick liquid" (Conder 1889, of the tombs ever having heen violated, it probably 184), which he connected to an ancient practice of anointing or protects them to this day. They would be a highly smearing menhirs, either with blood or with oil, the former being interesting object for excavation, as it might possibly a ceremonial custom of the pre-lslamic Arabs, the latter a very
ancient practice in connection with menhirs. Although he had already visited many dolmen fields in Jordan, Conder thought that "the Mareighât group is perhaps the most extraordinar\- and suggestive monument yet described in Moah" (Conder 1889, 189). His description of the site is worthy of extensive quotation: The site of el Mareighât includes rude-stone monuments extending over an area of about a mile east and west, and half a mile north and south, on the ground at the top of the steep bank north of the 'Ain ez Zerka [Zarqa Ma'in]. These include a large series of menhirs, surrounded on west, north, and east by dolmens, a single menhir further east called Hajr el Mansûb ("the erected stone"), and a winepress east again; while other dolmens occur north of the "erected stone," and hollow chamhers in the cliff, north of the principal menhir centre. ... The single menhir, Hajr el Mansûb, or "the erected stone," is the most evidently artificial of all the rude-stone monuments found as yet east of Jordan. Its rounded top and the groove cut in one side, show, as does its rectangular crosS'section, the handiwork of man. It is 8 feet high, 4'/2 feet wide at the base, and varies in thickness from 23 inches to 15 inches. The groove is 3 feet 9 inches from the ground, 9 inches wide, and 1 Vi deep. The bearing along one side of the stone is 48°, or about north-east. There are several tribe-marks on the stone, two on the southeast face, above the groove, being those of the 'Abbâd ('Adwân) and of the Khadir ('Anazeh), while the "raven's foot," or "trident" of the Jibbûr (Beni Sakhr), also occurs with others. These might be easily mistaken for some kind of letter or rune, but there is no doubt as to their meaning and origin, while close inspection shows the marks to be recent. West of the Hajr el Mansûb there are two low knolls at the top of the bank, which falls to the spring 1,000 feet beneath; from them, and from the Hajr, the spring can be seen. These knolls extend westwards about half a mile, and are covered with dolmens. On the south and west sides of the western knoll, and all round the eastern, these occur, and some are very fine examples. There are none on the north of the west knoll; the total number was counted to be about seventy. Immediately west of the west knoll there is a sort of little plateau about a quarter of a mile square, and rather lower than the plateau of the Hajr el Mansûb.
It is surrounded by a sort of amphitheatre of low spurs, on all sides but the south, where it reaches the brink of the great slope or bank of the ravine. In the middle of this little theatre rises another small and very rocky knoll, and its summit is crowned by a group of very conspicuous menhirs, while round the foot of the knoll runs a circle of smaller menhirs about 300 yards in diameter. The boundary of the plateau on the east is marked by a line of menhirs running approximately north and south, and there are traces of another line running westwards from this, along the brink of the valley bank at the south edge of the little plateau. East of the group on the knoll there are three or more alignments of menhirs running parallel, approximately north and south. The plateau on the south side of the knoll is strewn with other small menhirs without any order, and on the northwest side of the 300 yards circle, close to the menhirs, there is a dolmen standing alone. The hill spurs to the north, and to the west of the plateau, are also strewn with dolmens, and it was calculated that, including the seventy on the two knolls west of the Hajr el Mansûb, and those north of it, there are at least 150 dolmens at this site. The menhir groups, as above described, thus form a circle 300 yards diameter, and a square about 500 yards side, or more. Those on the top of the knoll are about 5 feet high, the tallest being 6 feet. They seem to have been arranged in a little circle 15 paces (40 feet) in diameter. The three alignments io the east are 12 paces apart, and 20 paces long north and south, and are about 50 yards from the group on the Mareighât knoll. The row on the south side of the plateau is traceable about 30 yards, the stones often touching each other. The tallest is 6 feet, and the average about 3 feet. North of the circle, in the side of the hill, is a little cliff pierced with three chambers well cut. The western was 3 feet wide, 4 feet to the back, the central one 6 feet by 7 feet, the eastern 2 feet by 3 feet. These resemble the chambers found elsewhere with dolmens. (See el Kurmiyeh, and el Kalûà.) This spur has about 40 dolmens on its west side, and 20 on the east, which are included in the former total estimate of 150 dolmens. There are, beside the dolmen adjoining the circle on the north-west, two hollows in the flat rock, each 1 Vz feet in diameter, and 6 inches deep. (Conder 1889, 185-89)
m
m
m m\
m
Later Observations at al-Murayghât
then, al-Murayghât bas been visited by several archaeologists in order to document tbe site's condition and further damage to it Nelstm Glueck considered the Hajr al-Mansûb and al-Murayghât by the quarry. In addition, satellite images from tbe 1960s onward as two distinct sites, assigning them site numbers 81 and 82 in have been acquired, wbich bave enabled the project to monitor the first volume of his Explorations in Eastern Palestine (1934, 33; 1939, 137). He spelled Conder's "el Mareighât "as "el-Megheirât." the expansion not just of the original quarry but of two others as Beyond mentioning the stone and the dolmen field, Glueck well. Below I will present a brief summary of our fieldwork, starting confined his observations to noting that Mallon, Koeppel, and with the Hajr al-Mansûb, then continuing to the central core at Neuville collected a number of Chalcolithic sherds (Mallon, al-Murayghât and tbe dolmens. Finally, I will discuss the ongoing Koeppel, and Neuville 1934, 155, pi. 63:4-9) and that de Vaux quarrying activity at tbe site. had collected "a large number of EB IV-MB I sherds" (Glueck 1939, 137-38). The next recorded visit to the site occurred in the early 1990s, when Harrison reported that Chalcolithic sherds were dominant, with a possible EB presence (1997, 29). In 1999, Savage, Harrison, Griffith, Elder, and Graham visited the site and confirmed Chalcolithic sherds (and one possible EB ledge handle) near the middle of the central knoll. The EB IV-MB I (now referred to as EB III-EB IV; see Harrison 1997, 29) sherds found in the region may be associated with the dolmen and menhir field, as these structures are sometimes associated with the EB IV period (although more often with the EB I, which was borne out by our subsequent work at tbe site). The reuse of an important Chalcolithic ceremonial site by people nearly two millennia later clearly points to the continuing significance of the place. Palumbo (1994, 2:58) gave "El Mugheirat" the site number 2111002 in the JADIS database; the "Hajar el-Mansub" was assigned number 2212012 (2:90). In both cases, Palumbo noted that the locations provided were only approximate. Georeferenced QuickBird imagery provided by Digital Globe for this study indicates that al-Murayghât was located in JADIS more than 3 km northeast of its real location, while che Hajr al-Mansûb was more than 5.5 km too far to the northeast, on the other side of Ma'in.
Al-Murayghât and the Moab Archaeological Resource Survey The Moab Archaeological Resource Survey (MARS) project was established to collect settlement, archaeological, and environmental data from the western part of the Madaba Plain in the highlands of central Jordan. The field program for this long-term project includes detailed mapping, surface collections, and test excavations at known archaeological sites and pedestrian survey of the western Madaba Plain to discover additional sites. The project bas concentrated its research to date at Kbirbet Qarn al-Qubish, an EB I-IIl fortiiied agricultural village northwest oí Madaba, and at al-Murayghât. Investigations at al-Murayghât were carried out in 2000 and 2001. During tbe 2000 field season, we mapped the locations of the menhirs on the central knoll and conducted a controlled, random, stratified surface collection in 10 m squares. We recorded and photographed seventy-five dolmens. During the 2001 season we photographed tbe Hajr al-Mansûb, recorded an additional twenty-five dolmens and photographed tbe ongoing quarry operations to the northeast of the site. Since
Î6 N E A R ÎÎA.STERN A R C H A E O L O O Y 7 Î : 1
T h e Hajr al'Mansûb Although Conder describes an olive press of a later period as the eastern edge of al-Murayghât, the Hajr al-Mansûb is the probable boundary of the ceremonial complex, a fact recognized as early as Irby and Mangle's first description of tbe site. From the location of the Hajr one can see virtually all the dolmens still extant at tbe site. There is nothing at al-Murayghât to indicate any connection with olive processing, so Conder's olive press probably postdates al-Murayghât. The stone still stands in the middle of a wheat field south of the quarry near the intersection of two important tracks: tbe road from Madaba to tbe Ma'in hot springs and the road down to the floor of tbe Zarqa Ma'in. There has been considerable soil erosion near the base of the stone in the past century, which may have rendered it unstable (compare figs. 2-4). Conder's original drawing (fig. 2) and his description quoted above indicate that the groove in the stone was 3 ft by 9 in from the surface. Figure 3 shows tbe reverse side of tbe stone, but the groove can still be seen; it is now five or more feet above the surface. Figure 4. which was taken before February 2004, shows that the stone was leaning at that time. Figure 3 was taken in July 2007 and shows the stone in a more upright position. His Excellency Ambassador H. G. Scheltema (personal communication), formerly tbe Dutch Ambassador to Jordan, indicated that local farmers bad recently set the stone upright again. This is a clear indication of its continued importance to the local population (especially when compared to other areas, sucb as the Wadi Wala, where tbe menhirs near Khirbet Iskander that were mentioned by Irby and Mangles have been deliberately toppled in recent years). Scheltema notes that "Jaussen and Savignac pointed out tbe phallic form of the standing stone." But, he continues, "the clearly incised semi-circular groove on one side of tbe stone could, on the other hand, also have had an anthropomorphic meaning" (2008, 102).
The Central Core of the Site Tbe low bedrock hill that dominates the site was the focus of our research effort in 2000 (fig. 5). There are several structures tm the hill made up of outlines of megalithic rocks (probably columns or column bases), wirb cobblestone floors (figs. 6 and 7); some of the standing stones are more than 2 m high. The initial impression of tbe site is that the megaliths form a series of concentric circles focused on a central ring (now all knocked down) about 10 m in diameter at the top of tbe site. Conder's report is somewhat
Figure 2. Conder's (1998, 186) drawing of the Hajr al-Mansüb.
Figure 3. Tim Harrison at the Hajr al-MansCib in July 2007. Tlie groove on the other side is visible, but it is clearly higher from the present ground surface than it was in Conder's time. Photograph by Andrew Harrison; used by permission.
A Figure 4, The Hajr al-Mansûb in 2004 Photograph by H. G. Scheltema; used by permission.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 7Î;1 (lOiO)
Î7
[fHí ambiguous on this point, first describing a circle of smaller menhirs 300 yd. in diameter, then stating that the menhir groups he described form a circle 300 yd. in diameter. In 2000, the local farmers told us they had set up stones around a driveway they built up to the central core. The casual visitor to the site is struck by the stones set up along the driveway, leading to the interpretation that the other standing stones are part of a series of smaller concentric rings within the larger one; the clear presence of two concentric rings at the top of the knoll reinforces this impression. However, Conder does not seem to mean one circle 300 yd. in diameter but that there were groups of menhirs in an area of this size. Rather than a series of concentric circles of standing stones, there is a group of large structures on the central core of the site, which became more apparent as we examined and mapped the individual standing stones. Most are located on the top and tbe less steep western side of the central hill. The standing stones form a series of structures; at least eleven can be discerned. There were probably others, hut the area on the west side of the central hill that lies between a modern catchment basin and the discernable structures has been the location of a Bedouin encampment. It is
possible that evidence of additional structures was removed from this area when the surface was cleared for their tents. Outside the Bedouin encampment, where there is a wide area of relatively flat soil or bedrt)ck, the stones tend to be arranged in large ovals. However, because the bedrock is stepped, when structures were placed near one of the steps, they are frequently rectangular, with the long walls running parallel to the bedrock steps. The stones tend to be higher on the lower steps. Most of the structures have rough cobblestone pavements. At the highest part of the central hill there is evidence of a unique structure {fig. 8). Here two concentric circles appear to form a central "shrine" with a cobble pavement. These stones have fallen, but it is clear that they once supported a small circular structure. The outer ring of stones is approximately 8-10 m in diametet, the inner ring about 4 m across. Almost all of the dolmens mapped at the site are within line of sight of this central
Figure 5. The central core of al-Murayghât, with structures mapped in 2000 superimposed on a QuickBird 2 m resolution satellite image from March 200Ó.
gttaiGlobe, Inc., All Rights Reserved N E A R E A S T E R N A R C H A E O L O G Y 7^:1 (2010)
Figure 6. Structures on the central knoll at al-Murayghât. They have megalithic pillars and a rough floor of wadi cobbles laid on bedrock, Photograph by H. G. Scheltenna; used by permission.
Figure 7. One of the stone pillars at ai-Murayghât. The stones were pried from bedded limestone outcrops in the hills west of the central knoll. Photograph by H. G. Scheltema; used by permission.
feature, indicating its importance to the ceremonial/ritual regime at al-Murayghât. hi spite of the proximity oí the stones that make up the uprights on the central part of the site to the layered hedrock across the small wadi used by Irby and Mangles, it is clear that considerable effort must have been expended to pry them out of the bedrock terraces and to bring them down the western hill, across the wadi, and up onto the central hill of the site. Since the sherd and Iithic scatter is spread across an area of about 25 ha, but the megalithic structures themselves are restricted (excepting the Hajr al-Mansûb, a special boundary stone) to an area of about 1.6 ha (ca. 4 acres) on the central hill, it is clear that this part of the site represented a place of special meaning to the inhabitants of the atea. In conjunction with the large dolmen fields that face the central hill, it clearly appears to form a ceremonial precinct.
the south, and seven on or near the hill northeast of the central hill (placing them north of the Hajr al-Mansûb; see fig. 1). All but one of the dolmens are of the same type, with back and top stone slabs (see Dubis and Savage 2001). Most of the dolmens have rock-slab floors (in fact, bedrock), though a few have earthen floors, and one has a cobblestone floor. Most have open entrances, but one has a slab on the right side (looking in) that may have been a blocking stone. With few exceptions, the dolmens face east, northeast, or southeast, which can be explained by the side of the slope on which they were built: notie faces into the hill. Several have a stone "circle" that fences them offfromthe rest of the field, and Dolmen 17, shown in figure 9, has a double circle around it. Many of the dolmens are damaged. Some are in a state of complete ruin, while others have one side collapsed, and many are missing their capstones. We have found very few artifacts associated with the dolmens we have investigated to date. Dolmens Ceramics are especially rare. Lithic material in their vicinity tends The MARS survey has mapped approximately one hundred to be nondiagnostic, although there often were large chert cobble/ dolmens in the area around al-Murayghât (in 1881, Conder cores in association with the dolmens. Other lithic artifacts in the estimated there were 150). Most of them are located on the vicinity of some of the dolmens include flakes, scrapers, ad hoc slope of the hill immediately to the west of the central hill, across blades, and other manufacturing debris. Unfortunately, most of the small wadi. The exceptions include a single dolmen on the the dolmens were built on bedrock, and their floors were clean. southwest slope of the central hill itself, two on the hill further to We noted no human remains near them. The lack of diagnostic Í E A R E Á S T Í Í R N ARCHAEOLOGY 7Î:1 (2010) 19
Ipil
IMII
frill I
IHI
Figure 8. The ceremonial core of al-Murayghat; the two rings of concentric stones at the highest point are shown under the arrow. All of the dolmens are within line of sight of this feature. Photograph by H. G. Scheltema; used by permission.
artifacts makes estimating their age problematic. Based on the ceramic evidence from the rest of the site, an EB I date is likely; however, other researchers have reported EB IV material from al'Murayghât, so a later date cannot be ruled out. Ceramics As noted above, previous visits to al-Miirayghât by a number of archaeologists have resulted in the identification of several different ceramic components. These include sherds from the Chalcolithic, EB I, EB 111, and EB IV periods. Our controlled surface collection recovered ceramics from EB I, EB II/III (?), Roman/Byzantitie, Ottoman, and modern periods (fig. 10; Savage and Rollefson 2001, 225-28). The EB 1 period clearly dominates the ceramic assemblage. Most of the diagnostic pieces are from bowls/platters or jars. Bow! types include wide, shallow basin forms and small serving bowls of simple profile and deeper forms with a more complicated rim profile; some of these have finger or stick impressions below the rim. Diameters range between 15 cm and 30 cm for the EB 1 types. A single sherd from a bowl with a slightly outcurving rim may date to the EB 11/111 period. Jars include typical holemouth forms, some with finger impressions above the shoulder; these tend to have openings in the 25 cm range, which implies a relatively large jar. Other jar fonns include Figure 9. Two dolmens from al-Murayghât. Photograph by H. G. Scheltema; used by permission.
40 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 7Î: I (2010
smaller, restricted forms with slightly outcurving rims in the 15 to 20 cm diameter range and rolled rim storage jars. The ceramic assemblage at al-Murayghât is dominated by small jars and bowls, with the occasional storage vessel; "lime coated" sherds seem entirely lacking. Ledge-handled jars are well-represented at the site. According to Amiran (1970, 35-40), the plain type (also called "duck-billed" and sometimes "axe-blade") is most characteristic of the EB I period. Duck-billed forms are well-represented at al-Murayghât (fig. 10:1-4). Interestingly, several additional treatments on this form might suggest a developmental sequence during the EB 1 period. Figure 10:1 illustrates a plain duck-bill form. Figure 10:2 is also duck-billed in shape, but the edge of the handle has been incised with a series of shallow grooves, and the top has tingcrpinch marks where it was molded to the rest of the jar. The handle illustrated in figure 10:3 is also of duck-bill shape, with incised marks around the edge that are deeper and more pronounced than those from 10:2. Small finger-pinch marks are also visible on the top, near the body of the jar. In figure 10:4, the edge of the duckbill handle is decorated with shallow impressions, possibly made
m
m
m\
ml
with a finger, but more likely with a small stick; as with 10:2 and 3, there are small finger-pinch marks near the vessel wall. Tbe handle illustrated in 10:5 may represent a very late EB I form, as
AM '00 GSC/a/1 S.3 EB 1 Ledge Handle with Incised edge
AM '00 GSC/8/1 S.2 EB ! Ledge Hondte plain 'duck bill'
AM '00 GSC/e/1 S, 4 EB I Ledge Handle with shallow I n d e n t a t i o n s
the finger- or thumb-indented form is more typical of EB II. Amiran lumps all tbe incised and indented varieties into one type, her Type 2, the thumb-indented type, which she dates to tbe EB I period.
AM '00 GSC/8/1 S. 5 EB I Ledge Handle with deeply Incised edge
AM '00 GSC/8/1 S. 6 EB I Ledge Hondle with shallow finger Impressions
AM '00 410/9070 S.2 EB I J a r
c AM '00 470/8020 S.I EB I Snail J a r
\ AM '00 410/8070 S.I EB I Bo*l
7
AM '00 410/8100 S.I EB I Snail Jo,r
AM '00 380/7990 S.I EB 1 Bowl AM '00 440/7990 S.i EB I
