WM'S PERIPHERY:
swBset pummeily in Broader Context
Khirbet Summeily at the end of excavations in July 2014. Violet dots mark the findspots of bullae found in Phase 5 or in sub-floor foundation deposits of Phase 4. Green
dots mark the findspots of bullae in later phases. North is generally toward the top of the page. Photograph by W. Isenberger and D. Farrow for the Hesi Regional Project.
■lames W. Hardin, Christopher A. Rollston, and Jeffrey A. Blakely
~T'JH iirbet Summeily is located on the ancient road connect-
ing Gaza with Hebron, about 22 km east o f Gaza and
-A about 4 km west o f Tell el-Hesi (fig. 1). Summeily is in
the borderland, a small site being slightly larger than one acre.
To the east is the heartland o f Judah and to the west is the heart­
land ofPhilistia. The Hesi Regional Project began excavation at
Summeily in 2011. The major reason fo r excavating Summeily
was to understand the nature and function o f a small, rural
Iron Age site in a border region. Neighboring Tell el-Hesi had
been excavated by Sir Flinders Petrie and Frederick Jones Bliss
between 1890 and 1892, and then by the Joint Archaeological
Expedition to Tell el-Hesi between 1970 and 1983. Thus much
was known about its substantial architectural remains o f the
Late Bronze Age, Iron Age I and Iron Age II.
Tell el-Hesi was the source of some im portant epigraphic finds.
For example, Bliss found an Amarna tablet (EA 333) at Hesi, a
rather interesting letter shedding substantial light on Late Bronze
Age Egyptian hegemonic activities, intelligence gathering, and
espionage. To be precise, the Akkadian letter is from an official
named Paapu who reports (to an Egyptian official) that two Ca-
naanite vassals named Shipti-Balu and Zimredda “are acting
disloyally,” arming themselves against those loyal to the king of
Egypt. Paapu, however, is also aware of the fact that Shipti-Ba lu
mm
has leveled a countercharge, namely, that the real traitor to Egypt
is Paapu (Moran 1992). It is a priceless document, attesting to the
importance of Tell el-Hesi during the Amarna Age (the fourteenth
century b . c . e .). The epigraphic finds from Hesi, though, are not
just Late Bronze Age. For example, a bulla from Hesi was found
with the following inscription: “Belonging to Mattanyahu (son
of) Ishmael” (O’Connell 1977). No doubt this Iron Age bulla once
sealed a papyrus document, a document that, sadly, long ago per­
ished. But all is not lost, as the script of the bulla itself is definitely
Old Hebrew and it can be dated securely to the late eighth century
or the early seventh century. In addition, hailing from an even ear­
lier horizon in the eighth century is an incised sherd, with letters
also definitely those of the Old Hebrew script (Hardin, Rollston,
Blakely 2012). So, Tell el-Hesi has been the source of a fair amount
of discussion, coming in the wake of the expeditions there.
It was assumed that these sorts of markers of officialdom would
be absent from Summeily. Prior to excavation, it seemed reason­
able to propose that Summeily was located in a pasturage, or agri­
cultural hinterland, connected with the center in some fashion, but
very much in the periphery. We sought four-roomed houses along
with domestic and agricultural implements at Summeily. Three sea­
sons of excavation have revealed something quite different. There is
a large architectural complex, certainly not residential. Associated
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 77:4 (2014) 299
with this architectural com­ were found in contexts point­
plex are artifacts of a cultural ing to usage in Phase 5, and it
nature, an altar, a chalice, and is believed that all six bullae
a large zoomorphic head. Mul­ originated in a single context in
tiple scarabs with the standard Phase 5, probably some sort of
Egyptian motifs (e.g., falcon, office facility and that the con­
ankh, mace) have been recov­ struction of Phase 4 dispersed
ered from the site as well. In ad­ them across our excavated area.
dition, and of particular impor­ Based on preliminary analysis
tance, six clay bullae have been of pottery and archaeomag-
Figure 1. Map of the Hesi region showing the
excavated. Two have complete netism samples, Phase 5 dates
archaeological sites in the immediate vicinity of Tell
seal impressions, two have frag­ el-Hesi in yellow and the modern villages in green. from the late eleventh through
The location of Khirbet Summeily is marked with the mid-tenth centuries b .c .e ., the
mentary seal impressions, and
magenta star. Drawn under the direction of the authors
the impressions of two are en­ by W. Isenberger for the Hesi Regional Project. same general period as Tell
tirely abraded. All were found el-Hesis three large tripartite
on the sifting screens, but only buildings from Bliss’ City V.
two were recognized as bullae at that point. Of the remaining four, The bullae are anepigraphic, that is, no letters are present.
one was so blackened with fire that at the time of the sifting, it was Epigraphic stamp seals and bullae are preserved in the Levant in
thought to be pottery; and three were thought at the time of the rather substantial numbers in the eighth and seventh centuries
sifting to be burned bone, but Ed Maher, our faunal specialist, im­ b .c . e . (and later). Anepigraphic bullae are attested even earlier

mediately recognized that they were fragmentary, burnt bullae. The than this. Bullae were used to “seal” things, a box (of commodi­
bullae, zoomorphic figure, the scarabs, and the associated architec­ ties), a bag (of commodities), or a document (such as papyrus).
tural structure(s) are from Summeily Phases 5-3. Four of the bullae Among the finest ancient discussions of the process of sealing a

Figure 2 (above). An anepigraphic bulla (1 3 x 1 7 mm at a likely orientation)

excavated at Khirbet Summeily in 2014 from a sub-floor foundation deposit
for Phase 4 (Object Number 301).
Figure 3 (below). An anepigraphic bulla (14 x 16 mm at a likely orientation)
excavated at Khirbet Summeily in 2014 from Phase 5 (Object Number 318).
Both bullae cleaned by S. Grieve of East Carolina University and photographed by
N. E. Greene of the University of Wisconsin-Madison using RTI technology
for the Hesi Regional Project.

Figure 4. String holes were preserved on a bulla with no visible seal impressions
(Object Number 282). Two pairs of holes are shown here, one pair near the top
quartering from the upper left to lower right and the second pair, also near the top,
from upper right towards the lower left. The bulla's dimensions are 28 x 18 mm at
maximum points and perpendicular to each other. Cleaned by S. Grieve of East
Carolina University and photographed by B. J. Hartzell for the Hesi Regional Project.

300 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 77:4 (2014)

 papyrus document is that of the book of Jeremiah (Jer 32:9-15).
According to this text, two copies of a legal document (in this case,
a deed of purchase) were drawn up, one was referred to as the
“open copy” and it was not sealed, while the second was consid­
ered the official copy and it was sealed. The sealing process would
require a string and small lumps of soft clay. A seal (e.g., of those
parties who were part of the agreement) would be impressed into
the soft clay, thus, leaving an impression in the lump of clay. This
impressed clay is referred to as a bulla (pi. bullae). A document
“sealed” in this fashion would not be opened (i.e., the seal would
not be broken) unless there was some legal reason to do so (e.g.,
some sort of a court case in which the contents of the document
were at issue). Preserved bullae will sometimes still have preserved
the impressions of the papyrus scroll they were intended to seal,
and rarely the “string hole” (in the middle of the clay bulla) will be
preserved as well. O f the bullae found at Summeily, the small string
hole of one of them is preserved very nicely. The precise material
that the Summeily bulla “sealed” is still in the process of analysis. It
is possible that papyrus documents were indeed involved. Regard­
less, though, the practice of sealing is an elite activity.
Ultimately, we believe that the aggregate material culture re­
mains that have been discovered at Summeily demonstrate a level
of politico-economic activity that has not been suspected recently
for the late Iron Age I and early Iron Age IIA. This is especially the
case if one integrates data from nearby Hesi. It is our contention
that, when taken together, these reflect a greater political com­
plexity and integration across the transitional Iron I/IIA landscape
than has been appreciated recently, as scholars have tended to
dismiss trends toward political complexity (e.g., state formation)
occurring prior to the arrival of the Assyrians in the region in the
later eighth century b .c .e . However, based on our work in the Hesi
region, we believe these processes began much earlier. The precise
definition of a “state” and the indicators thereof is the subject of
debate. But in any case, a num ber of the characteristics typical of
“full-blown states” are demonstrable already in the Hesi region
by the early Iron Age II. Also of relevance is the fact that the
epigraphic record for the Levant during Iron Age IIA includes
m onum ental inscriptions such as the Byblian Shipitbaal Inscrip­
tion (Phoenician), the Tel Dan Stele (Aramaic), the Mesha Stela
(Moabite), and the Tell Fakhariyeh Bilingual Statue (Aramaic
and Akkadian). M onumental inscriptions such as the Ahiram
Sarcophagus Inscription hail from even earlier periods (namely,
the tenth century). In addition, Old Hebrew inscriptions from the
ninth century have been found at sites such as Arad (in the south)
and Tel Rehov (in the north). Now, of course, the cumulative finds
from Summeily must be integrated into this totality as well.2
References
Hardin, J. W., C. A. Rollston, and J. A. Blakely. 2012. Biblical Geogra­
phy in Southwestern Judah. NEA 75 (1): 20-35.
Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
O’Connell, K.G., S.J. 1977. An Israelite Bulla from Tell el-Hesi. Israel
Exploration Journal 27: 197-99.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

James W. Hardin (foreground) was trained by the Lahav Regional Project, start­
ing in 1986, and recently published a volume on Iron II houses at Tel Halif. His
academic home is in the Departm ent of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cul­
tures and the Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University. He co­
directed the Hesi Regional Survey from 2004 through 2010 and now co-directs
the new excavations at Khirbet Summeily, a part of the Hesi Regional Project.

Jeffrey A. Blakely (background) has studied the Hesi region for 40 years, first as part
of the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi, next as part of the Hesi Region­
al Survey, and most recently as Co-Director of the Hesi Regional Project with James
Hardin. Madison, Wisconsin, is his home. He has written on a wide variety of sub­
jects relating to the Hesi region extending from biblical times to the Mandate Period.

Christopher A. Rollston was trained in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy and Hebrew Bible at Johns
Hopkins University. He teaches at George Washington University, Department of Classical and
Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations and has published widely in the field of epigraphy. He
is also co-editor ol BASOR and editor of MAARAV. He is the epigrapher for the Hesi Regional
Project as well as many other projects in the region.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 77:4 (2014) 301

Copyright of Near Eastern Archaeology is the property of American Schools of Oriental
Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.