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present previously unpublished evidence from Jacob Kaplan's 1955—1974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 pre-
liminary results from this joint American-Israeli project, directed by Aaron
Burke and Martin Peilstöcker, and one of many ASOR-affiliated archaeologi-
cal 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 lan-
guages, 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 Class of 2012
Steven Fine Neil Asher Silberman
Beth Alpert-Nakhai Sharon Steadman
Lynn Swartz Dodd Bethany Walker
Class of 2011 Class of 2013
Marie-Henriette Gates Ann Marie Knoblauch
Margreet Steiner Eric Cline
Samuel Wolff 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 02215-
2010. Fax (617) 353-6575. E-mail: asorsubs@bu.edu.
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 instruc-
tions 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) 353-
6575. E-mail: asorpubs@bu.edu. 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/iac-
ology, 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
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.
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.
1 •" II ' " i n i r i
2 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAHOLOGY 71:1 (2010)
Aaron A. Burke and Krystal V. Lords
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
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
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 of Egyptian ceramics and artifacts that helong to earlier phases of
^ate façade inscribed with the name of Ramesses II (ca. 1264- Egypt's occtipation of Jaffa. Kaplan resumed excavations in Area
1198 B.c.E.) that adorned the entrance to the Late Bronze Age A in 1970 in an effort to hroaden the exposure of the Late Bronze
Egyptian fortress {fig. 3). Remains of this inscription continued Age phases associated with Egyptian settlement; during these
to be unearthed in 1958 (fig. 4), along with a suhstantial corpus 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)

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
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
Jacob Kaplan, municipal archaeologist
for Tel Aviv and Jaffa during the 19S05
through the1970s, conducted excavations
in Jaffa from 1955 to 1974. His work was
continued by Haya Ritter-Kaplan through
the early 1980s. Despite the challenges
of working ¡n Jaffa, Kaplan succeeded in
convincing the municipality to prohibit the
construction of buildings on the tell, a ban
that has remained in effect until the present
day. Kaplan Archive photo. Courtesy of the
Israel Antiquities Authority.
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
found in the archive of the archaeolt)gicat
museum oí Jaffa indicates how the ancient
mound was to be divided. Isserlin's signature
on the northern portion and Kaplan's on
the southern half itidicate that the original
idea was that of two expeditions working
side by side on the mound. The map was
also signed by Yeivin, then the director of
the Israel Department of Antiquities and
Museums.

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 (B.C.E.) Notable Finds

I A A Hellenistic 2nd-Ist centur>'
B A. Y 3rd-2nd century A: "fortress"
II A A, Y Persian 5th century A; Sidonian fortress
B A pre-5th century
111 A A, B Iron II 8th century Area A east
B A Iron I 11th century Area A west: Philistine sherds
IV A A LBIIB 13th century A: Gate lintel, hinge; burned
B A 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 C Stratigraphy Area J

Level Period Date (c.E.) Level Period Date

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)

 Although Kaplan dug at various locations in Jaffa, his main
efforts were concentrated on three areas that were, as a result oi 3-D Scanning of Artifacts
wars and riots, no longer covered by modern buildings. In Area
A, located on the eastern part of the tell's summit, he exposed from Jaffa
remains of the city's citadels and its gates, mainly dating to the
Late Bronze A<ie, the Iron Age, and the Persian and Hellenistic In the fall of 2009, supported by a grant from the Faculty
¡leriods. Located toward the west and opposite St. Peter's Church Senate of the University of California, Los Angeles, The
(in Qedumim Square), Kaplan opened Area C and unearthed Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project initiated a process of 3-D
remains mainly of the Roman and Byzantine periods, hi Area B, digitization of artifacts from Kaplan's excavations. While
located inside an old bathhouse (the Hammam) in the vicinity many 3-D scanners available on the market are complicated
of the Jaffa Museum, he identified a section of the site's earthen t(i use and expensive, for this project we employed a low-cost
rampart fortifications, the earliest phase of which, he concluded, desktop scanner huilt by NextEngine® that operates with a
dated to the Middle Bronze Age. reasonably priced desktop PC. The main goal of this project is
As shown in the tables on page 6, Kaplan established a to increase the efficiency of data collection and dissemination
stratigraphy for his main excavation areas and listed the local of artifact data by implementing a process of 3-D scanning that
stratigraphy ot additional areas such as Area J. has the potential of extracting a number of data byproducts
He continued to dig in various areas until 1981 (for a list of or derivatives with which high costs are often associated for
his excavations, see Bar-Nathan 2002), assisted by his wife Haya excavation projects.
Ritter-Kaplan, who was also an archaeologist. The Tel Aviv The most obvious byproduct is the actual 3-D model
municipality's high regard for Kaplan's work and the archaeology of an object, which can be embedded and manipulated
of Jaffa is indicated by the fact that he was provided with a facility within 3-D environments and, ultimately, displayed online.
in Jaffa to serve as a laboratory and storage facility; since 1961, it Although widely acknowledged as the next generation of data
has served as an archaeological museum. Here Kaplan established collection in archaeology, 3-D scanning has yet to be given
an archaeological exhibit with numerous finds from his excavations real consideration by even well-established projects. It is not
throughout greater Tel Aviv and Jaffa. These finds illustrate in difficult to see, however, that the collection of 3-D artifact data
chronological t>rder the history of the region from late prehistory will be among the factors that distinguish "old" excavations
thrtiugh the Byzantine period. Kaplan himself served as director of from "new," even more so than the years in which excavations
I he museum, which belonged to the Eretz-Israel Museum, one of were conducted. The reason for this is simple: the collection of
Tel Aviv's museums. 3-D data facilitates a process of repeated personal observation
Despite the fact that Kaplan did not act on behalf of the IDAM, that, if properly implemented and made widely accessible,
the body responsible for the implementation of the antiquities will extend the shelf life of excavated materials otherwise
laws in Israel, it seems that his opinion was quite influential. He inaccessibly stuffed away in the howels of storerooms. While
succeeded in entering a paragraph into the municipal regulations few projects may reach the point where it is possible to create
tor development and ctmstruction work in the old city of Jaffa that 3-D environments in which these scanned artifacts can be
prohibited any modern building activity in what was defined as an embedded or "re-situed," the useful life ot data stemming from
"archaeological reserve," identified with the tell today. the vast majority of projects will exponentially increase if it can
Jacob Kaplan, who passed away in 1989 (Anonymous 1990), be made available online.
published a number of articles on specific archaeological and A second byproduct is also made possible by a 3D scanner:
historical problems (e.g., Kaplan 1971; 1975) as well as general the illuscration of artifacts, particularly those requiring cross-
overviews of Jaffa and Tel Aviv, of which Jaffa has heen a part section drawings, such as for ceramics. This is accomplished
^ince 1950. His publication oí The Archaeology and History of Tel by cutting through the scan of the object and digitizing its
Aviv']uffa (Kaplan 1959; updated, summarized, and translated cross-section. Traditionally, this is undertaken by a professional
into English in Kaplan 1972), illustrated to Tel Aviv residents in illustrator who makes choices about what constitutes a
a semipopular manner that their city had a rich archaeological representative section through the vessel, while trying to
[Xist. While other articles (e.g., Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993) adhere to the individual, often idiosyncratic, conventions of
indicate his approach to publication, the crucial, comprehensive a given project's illustration needs. While the time and costs
final report of his work has been, unfortunately, lacking and is thus associated with this process (otten requiring the redrawing of
a main focus of The Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project. objects) vary from project to project, a cost can be ascribed to
each object's illustration. In the end, projects usually opt for
Martin Peilstöcker selective illustration, since it is often impossible to know in
Israel Antiquities Authority, Tel Aviv advance whether one or another or all of the exemplars of a
given type will be published in the final report.
Because 3'D scanners now permit the capture of high
 resolution, picture-quality data on top of the 3-D point
data, a third byproduct emerges: artifact image capture,
with the potential in some cases of replacing traditional
photographs of artifacts. While no scanner currently
available provides the type of images expected in published
reports using traditional methods oí photography, due to
lighting and the distortions inherent to the camera lens,
the methodological and analytical value of rendering
digital images from 3-D scans is clear. With 3-D scans,
it is possible, for example, to extract color data from
an image, which often distracts from observation of an
artifact's shape. Illustrations are used largely with the
hope of addressing this problem, but they are subject to
artistic interpretation and require an enormous number
of very precise measurements (made difficult by the size
of objects) in order to be accurate. Unlike developing
a traditional photo in black and white, the light source
in a 3-D environment can be moved to achieve the
optimal rendering of an object's surface. Anyone who
has attempted to arrange optimal lighting conditions for
photographing objects will appreciate this feature.
In addition to the methodological value of implementing
3-D scanning of artifacts as a standard part ot the
observation process, the financial savings are noteworthy,
a fact of no small significance, considering the overall
costs of archaeological research. Without calculating the
precise dollar amount, one can appreciate the potential
savings by considering a complete small ceramic bowl
( • •
.S N1-;.\R H A S l i i U N
like the Egyptian howls excavated by Kaplan. A 3-D
scan of the bowl can be completed within two and a half
htiurs, during which only half an hour of computer time
is required of the "scanning engineer"; the remainder of
the time is largely hands-off, as the scanner automates
the 360-degree scans. With an additional hour of work,
images (as screen captures) and a profile section of the
object can be produced by exporting the 3'D data to other
software packages. Thus, with approximately an hour and
a halt of total work time, a complete or restored vessel can
be rendered as a 3-D object, provided with a traditional
profile drawing, and rendered from requisite angles. Best
oí all, if the end product is found to be unsatisfactory
(most likely the result of postscanning procedures), the
artifact's derivatives can be rendered again even after the
t)bject is no longer accessible. Although there is certainly
a learning curve to the implementation of this process
and perhaps a need to acquire additional software, the net
value of this data-capture chain is the versatility of the
data generated and confidence that an artifact's spatial
dimensions have been captured as well as technology
permits and, for all intents and purposes, at a level of
detail that will be difficult to surpass. The average wide-
scan setting achieves an accuracy of within .005 inch, and
recent enhancements to the software permit even greater
accuracy; scans can also be done in high definition and in
macro, if necessary.
As with all technologies, there are certain limitations to
3-D scanning of artifacts permits the retrieval of levels
of data not permitted by conventional means such as
photographs, which are limited by the control of lighting,
and drawings, which are the visual interpretation of the
artist. This is best illustrated with inscribed, especially
incised, objects for which the control of the light source
is vital to reading the inscription. With 3-D scans, a level
of data that is often found missing after the fact is actually
captured and can be studied further when the object has
been stored away.
using a 3-D scanner. The size and weight of certain objects intensive collection of artifact data made possible with 3-D
limit, of course, those that can be scanned. Although a scanners encourages new avenues of research with such
cable extension permits scanning larger objects, because artifact collections. Consider, for example, an Egyptian
larger objects are further from the scanner, they will not inscription whose origin is likely Jaffa but that is as-of-
be scanned at the same level of resolution. In this process yet unknown to the community of scholars interested in
and others, users will certainly face a learning curve when Egypt's LB presence in Canaan, This new technology will
trying to decide how to scan certain objects. Bowls, for allow a firsthand opportunity to study the object and its
example, are not intuitively scanned sitting on their bases, inscription in a way not previously possible. By making it
since this complicates the attachment of scans of the available in this manner, it ¡s hoped that further details
hasc and interior to the tuU scan of the exterior wall of ciïncerning the artitact's function and meaning in Late
the howl, due to a lack of overlapping points between the Bronze Age Canaan will come to light. As we continue to
separate scans. Additionally, tbe sloping walls of bowls work through the publication of Kaplan's excavations to
mean that lighting across the exterior surface is uneven, tbe fullest extent possible, we look forward to making this
with shadows around the sides farthest from the scanner, collection accessible to the public in ways not yet pursued
often leading to discoloration of the final fused scan. by most excavations.
Instead, howls are best scanned like a radar disb, in two
360'degree rotations, providing the necessary overlapping
scans while reducing the total number of scans needed.
Aaron A. Burke
Still, users will learn that objects with sharp edges (e.g., University of California, Los Angeles
thin bowls with flaring rims), where it is difficult to
capture sufficient overlap between adjoining scans, may
prove mtire time-consuming than the average vessel. Of
course, the interior of closed vessels {e.g., jugs and jars)
cannot be scanned and thus will not permit the creation
of profile drawings from scanned data.
For all tbe deficiencies that are certainly to be
encountered during attempts to reconstruct the records
of earlier excavations, like those of Jacob Kaplan, the
 Figure 6. During the 1990s, Area C of Jacob Kaplan's excavations were incorporated within the subterranean Visitors' Center located
in Qedumim Square adjacent to St. Peter's Church on the eastern side of the tell of Jaffa. Kaplan encountered considerable remains
of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods during his soundings in the square. Recent renovations to the Visitors' Center
permitted an opportunity to renew excavations within Area C and revisit Kaplan's stratigraphy. Photo by Sky View. Courtesy of the
Israel Antiquities Authority.

In 2007, more than fifty years after the statt of Kaplan's
excavations, Aaron Burke and Martin Peilstöcker, co-directors
of the Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project, received permission from
the Israel Antiquities Authority to publish the Bronze and Iron
Age phases of Kaplan's excavations in Jaffa. The results of this
publication project are in turn informing the research design of
the renewed excavations. Excavations were also renewed at the
site in 2008 within Kaplan's Area C (Hellenistic and Roman
periods), culminating in 2009 with the exposure of impressive
remains of a Hellenistic huilding preserved more than a story
high (figs. 6, 7a-b). These excavations not only provide new
insights into the history of the site during the Hellenistic and
Roman periods hut also have contributed to our understanding
of Kaplan's earlier excavations in this area.' Once conserved,
the Area C architectural remains will he incorporated into the
renovations of the Visitors' Center in Qedumim Square, which
will also include an artifact display. Continued work on Kaplan's
unpublished corpus has proved, above all, an irreplaceable
element for understanding Jaffa's archaeological sequence in
advance of excavations by The Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project.
One particular aspect illuminated by the unpublished records is
Jaffa's central role in the Egyptian conquest and administration
of Canaan during the Late Bronze Age; the records thus
substantially expand and refine our understanding of the history
and archaeology of this important port along the Canaanite coast
during the late second millennium B.c.E.
The archaeological evidence exposed by Jacob Kaplan for
Egypt's imperial presence during the Late Bronze (LB) Age in
Jaffa is little known beyond the fragments of the Egyptian gate.
The bulk of the assemblage consists, however, of a large corpus
of Egyptian ceramics dating from LB IB to the early Iron Age (ca.
1460-1150 B.C.E.), as well as considerable aegyptiaca (artifacts of
Egyptian cultural provenience). As a whole, this collection points
to a long-term (ca. 250 years) and effectively permanent Egyptian
presence in Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age, which enables us
to flesh out Jaffa's role during Egyptian domination of Canaan.

10 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010)

These items also allow us to address questions related to Egyptian
settlement in Jaffa and the process of Egyptianization that has
l>een the focus of many recent studies addressing Egypt in Canaan
during the New Kingdom
period. In this article, we
review Jaffa's status during
rhc Late Bronze Age and
the light shed by our recent Figures 7a-b. In 2008 and 2009, the
Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project, under
efforts to examine ceramics
the co-direction of Aaron Burke and
from Jaffa's earliest phase of
Martin Peilstöcker, resumed excavations
Egyptian settlement, dated in Jaffa's Visitors' Center in Qedumim
to the fifteenth century, as Square {Kaplan's Area C). The excavations
well as unique evidence for encountered extensive building remains
local production of Egyp- of a Hellenistic building preserved up to
tian ceramics in Canaan the second story, which it was revealed
during the early Late underlay the entire eastern half of the
Bronze Age. excavation area dug by Jacob Kaplan in
1961 and 1965 and during the 1990s
by Etty Brand. Although the building's
Jaffa in the Late Bronze identification remains ambiguous, a
Age doorway has been identified in every wall
Oitr knowledge ahout of the structure, suggesting that it played
Jaffa d u r i n g the Late a largely public function. Photos by Aaron
A. Burke, i
Bronze Age begins in the
wake of the subjugation of
the central coast of Canaan
and the Galilee during the
reign of Thutmose III (ca.
1482-1428 B.C.E.), around
1460 B.C.E.: Jaffa Is listed as
site 62 on Tbutmose Ill's topo-
graphical list. Although histori-
cal sources do not clarify precisely
when Jaffa was developed as an
Egyptian fortress, it appears likely
rhat this took place in the after-
math of Thutmose Ill's conquest,
when the site would have been
turned into what Ellen Morris
has identitied as a /jtm-base for-
tress, a type of fortress intended
to make preparations for and to
supply Egyptian forces campaign-
ing throughout Canaan (2005:
138-39 n. 90). Regardless of the
terminology that might be used to
identify Jaffa, subsequent sources from the Late Bronze Age reveal the later tradition of the Trojan horse, tbe Egyptians loaded two
Jaffa's strategic importance to the Eg>ptians. hundred men into haskets, which were tben delivered by another
The next reference to Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age is five hundred soldiers into the city, where they were given entry,
found in the Egyptian tale The Capture of Joppa, which is surprisingly, without question. Springing from the baskets, the
preserved in Papyrus Harris 500 (see Pritcbard 1969: 22-23) and Egyptians retook the city; there is no report of a fight.
is accepted as set in the reign of Thutmose III. Although the first While it is reasonable to question tbe historical veracity of this
part of tbe document is not preserved, it is generally inferred that literary tradition, if it preserves a historical memory—and there is
the Canaanite inbahitants of Jaffa had managed to rebel against reason to believe tbat it may, which we shall discuss below—tben
rheir Egyptian overlord, leaving the Egyptian garrison and its as early as the reign of Thutmiise 111, Jaffa had become home to
commander outside the city. By employing a ruse that evokes 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
ANCIENT JAFFA
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.
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
I
n p T » > ' n ID
8-8 "irin
 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, Proto-
Maiolica, 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 fourteenth-
century 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
Egyptian construction
dated ca. 1230 B.C.E. (Singer 1983;
Horowitz, Oshima, and Sanders
in Canaan is often
2006: 3 5 - 3 7 ) . Together these
references invite consideration of
noted for its lack of
the relationship between Aphek and stone foundations.
Jaffa and the unique role that each
of these sites played within Egyptian
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)
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 Beth-
Shean, 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 Beth-
Shean (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.
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 sys-
tematically 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 com-
mon 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
also occur in the assemblage (fig. 9). In Egypt, Figure 10. At least one example of a
Nubia, and nortbern Sinai, this well-known neckless storejar was found in an LB IB
type appears most frequently in contexts dating context in Jaffa. The size and shape of
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. 1293- in 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 char-
the Late Bronze Age (LB I-IIA) additional restorable examples of this vessel have also acteristic Nile-silt types of
is within tbe same chronological been Identified. Photo by Krystal V. Lords. the Ramesside period, where they
borizon. Tbe special ovoid shape first appear in the early Nineteenth Dynas-
of this jar clearly identifies it as an Egyptian form, but evidence ty and peak in popularity during tbe Twentieth Dynasty (ca.
also appears in the presence of concentric circles surrounding 1176-1069 B.C.E.). Neckless storage jars are also found in Canaan
tbe body. These markings are similar to those around the bases of in thirteenth- and twelfth-century B.C.E. contexts at Ashkelon,
tbe Eg>'ptian bowls described above and probably result from the Beth-Shean, Deir el-Balab, Megiddo, Tel Mor, Tell es-Sa'idiyeh,
same production technique: and Tel Sera', corresponding to their Egyptian counterparts.
, 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
Figure 11. Neckless storejars are a these jars, few completely in size and shape to the "meat jars," Martin and Barako have
large category of storejar types, with intact examples of this hypothesized that these vessels might actually be local imitations
probably as many different roles as type have survived any- ot Egyptian "meat jars" rather than neckless storage jars (2007:
there are variations. Photo by Krystal where. In Egypt, these jars 143-45). Thanks to the LB IB stratigraphie context of the Jaffa
V. Lords.

lö NHARHA.S'lliRN Ak('HAKt)[.(^(;Y 7i:l (2010)

examples, the connection between neckless storage jars and Intermediate period and are most common in the early to mid-
Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian "meat jars" appears even more Eighteenth Dynasty, with an apex during the reigns of Hatshepsut
concrete. Nevertheless, Egyptian marl-clay types were generally (1482-1461 B.C.E.) to Thutmose III. The majority of Egyptian
not imitated in Canaan, and there is little doubt, based on its carinated vessels in the Levant are of the broad-necked variety.
i^eneral shape, that these vessels are an Egyptian form. Carinated jars can also be stylistically dated according to the
motifs of painted decoration that commonly encircle the ves-
Carinated Jars sels. Almost all of the jars are burnished and covered in a cream
There is at least one form within the Egyptian assemblage in slip. The earliest carinated jars carry no other decoration than
Jaffa that was clearly imported. This group includes carinated the slip and burnishing and appear during the Hyksos period up
¡ars characterized by a squat, carinated body, a straight neck with to the beginning of Eighteenth Dynasty, whereas the painted
a shelf rim, and a slightly convex, round, flat, disc, or ring base specimens are found in later contexts dating from the reign of
(ñg. 12). Despite the somewhat soft cadnation, this form of ves- Hatshepsut to the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Decorative
sel is readily associated with the Egyptian family of carinated jars, motifs are usually painted in a dark red or brown color encircling
especially those of the broad-necked variet>'. In Egypt, catinated the body and/or neck of the jar. The designs are typically geo-
jars are common in the Second Intermediate period and the metric line patterns: horizontal stripes; bundles of vertical lines;
liijjhteenth Dynasty; the form decreases in popularity after the crisscross designs; wavy Unes; and ladders. The carinated jars
reign of Thutmose III and completely disappears by the end of with vertical line bundles and crisscross ornamentation seem to
the dynasty. Egyptian and Nubian sites with carinated jars include he earlier than those with only horizontal bands, the latter usu-
Tell el-Amarna, Aniba, Buhen, Hiu, Tell el-Daba, Fadrus, Deir el- ally being found in the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty during the reign
Medina, and Toschke. Egyptian carinated jars also appear in the of Thutmose III or later. A cream-colored slip and brown-paint-
.Hiuthern Levant, where, according to Bietak, the Upper Egyptian ed decoration have been preserved on all three of the carinated
lorm was not likely to appear earlier than the beginning of the jars from Jaffa, including one complete example of the broad-
Eighteenth Dynasty, therefore providing an important correlation necked variety (fig. 12). The painted designs on Jaffa exemplars
between the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning include crisscross patterns alternating with vertical line bundles.
of the New Kingdom in Egypt (Mazar 2003: 328 n. 4). These The complete vessel has five parallel vertical strokes followed by
impt)rted vessels
three lines that cross
have been discov- „^Ü^-Í. „.^^^^^^ - • — over another three
ered in LB IA to lines, forming an X.
LB IIA contexts in T h e s e two motifs
Canaan at Tell el- a l t e r n a t e with one
'Ajjul, Yoqne'am, another around the
Megiddo, Beth- body and hang down
She a n, a n d Te 1 from one horizontal
Dan. Chronological band that surrounds
indicators for cari- the neck of the ves-
nated jars include sel. The same pattern
the relative height decorates the partial
of the neck and jar from Jaffa, but only
the style of decora- four lines make up the
lion on the body. vertical bundle and
!n terms of relative only two lines cross
height, the jars are each other. The four
separated into two body sherds that make
lypes; short-necked up the remaining cari-
;md broad-necked. nated jar from Jaffa
While short-necked illustrate the criss-
carinated vessels cross design, using
occur from the Sec- three strokes as on the
ond Intermediate complete example.
period to the early These specific decora-
Eighteenth Dynas- Figure 12. In Egypt, carinated jars are common in the Second Intermediate period and the tive motifs stylistically
ty, broad-necked Eighteenth Dynasty; the form decreases in popularity after the reign of Thutmose III and date the imported car-
carinated vessels completely disappears by the end of the dynasty. Their decorative motifs styiisticaliy date inated jars at Jaffa no
appear only from the imported carinated jars from Jaffa no later than the reign of Thutmose III. Photo by
later than the reign of
the late Second Krystal V. Lords.
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).
Figure 13. Twenty "flowerpots" and a so-called "stand" were
Kaplan identified them as cult stands, but a closer examina- recovered from a single locus during the 1958 Jaffa excavations.
tion of their cross-section reveals that they are not comparable This assemblage of nearly complete vessels suggests that they
to Canaanite cult stands in their production, and mtwhere is experienced little to no use, which is corroborated by the discovery
there clear evidence of Egyptian use of these items as stands. 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 por- specimens and chunks of unused
tions of which are approxi- clay land in] another room
mately 30 cm in height, fea- nearby ... 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 fin- observes that these included
ished by hand through the "tall stands on a high, trumpet-
addition of a spout. When shaped hase," which apparently
they are placed in tbe same included "a small bowl on
orientation as the "flower- top" (pi. I), as well as "flower
pots," the upper portion or pots witb beavy, frequently
howl of the vessel, includ- perforated 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
the same production char- Figure 15. The type of vessel seen here, the shape of which resembles illustration reveals a perfect
acteristics as the body and a trumpet, has been identified as a vessel "stand" by Eliezer Oren at match for the Jaffa assemblage
rim of the "flowerpots." Haruba in northern Sinai. In Canaan, this vessel type has been identified even to the extent that at least
The only difference is only in Jaffa. Fired from the same fabric and in the same manner as the
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 bro-
ken off. The evidence ior the Egyptian
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
through (fig. 16). While Figure 16. A number of fragments of so-called "stands" have been the exemplars within the corpus
it is uncertain how these excavated from Jaffa. As indicated by the example on the left (and others
described above sheds new
vessels functioned, tbe not shown), the vessels are not pierced through and thus were not used
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 would have been placed atop these vessels. Photo by Aaron A. Burke. Not only is it possible to identity'
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
20 N t A R KASTERN A R C H A E O L O U Y 7 î : l (2010)
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 geodata-
base included aerial photographs taken since World War I,
satellite imagery, a modern civil plan of Jaffa in computer-
aided 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 architec-
tural 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
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 Building and road outlines supplied by the municipality of Tel
of Jaffa and its hinterland, including a swampy area to the Aviv-Yafo were overlaid on an 1842 British map by Skyring in
south labeled "tlaque d'eau," which may have been the order to determine how the features unearthed in the Ganor
Compound excavations related to Jaffa's fortifications in the
location of the ancient port (see Hanauer 1903).
Ottoman period. This process revealed that the excavation
Kaplan's fieldwork was integrated with recent IAA area was indeed outside the line of the Ottoman defenses
excavations and historical maps by georectiiying his plans in and that, as suspected, Yefet Street traces the line of the
GIS. Because Kaplan included known coordinate points on defensive ditch and adjacent
a pliin of the entire roll of Jaffa that included his excavation
grid, digitally manipulating this map to real-world coordinates their earlier counterparts (and even reused elements from
in the computer was straightforward. EoUowing this, the top the earlier walls), then the Crusader fortifications were likely
plans of the excavated areas on the tell were aligned using located on the northern side of Yefet Street, and the archi-
the excavation grid of squares ( 5 x 5 m) drawn by Kaplan. tecture exposed during the Ganor excavations lay outside
The process of digitally tracing each feature on the top plans the city walls. This strongly suggests that the city expanded
then began. Walls were traced stone for stone, while pits and beyond its fortifications during tbe Crusader period.
floors were outlined. Heights recorded on tbe top plan were Several advantages to the creation of the JCHP GIS
digitized as 3-D points, which enabled the numerous wails geodatabase are evident based on tbe experiences of the
in the portion of Area A where the Egyptian vessels were 2007, 2008, and 2009 excavations and extensive work with
discovered to be preliminarily phased according to height and Kaplan's data. The archaet)logical information represented
relative position above or below other walls. Work is currently on top plans will be preserved in a digital format available
underway to represent the various architectural features with for future queries, both predictive and analytical. Overall
their respective heights in a 3-D environment much like the plans for larger areas excavated by Kaplan, such as Area A,
current GIS work being done at Tel Beth-Shemesh. are possible by combining tbe top plans from the successive
seasons on the site. Data from more recent excavations that
As an illustration of combining "then" and "now" GIS
already have a spatial reference can easily be incorporated
data, an analysis integrating georectified historical maps,
into the geodatabase and permit more comprehensive analy-
CAD plans of the modern city, and digitally recorded archae-
ses of Jaffa's past. Archaeologists may also use the results of
ological features was performed during the 2007 excavations
this virtual mapping as a guideline in future excavations by
ot the Ganor Compound on the south side of Yefet Street
indicating wbat periods or types of remains may be encoun-
(Peilstöcker and Burke 2009). During the excavations, a
tered during fieldwork. The ongoing creation of digital data,
question arose about the proximity of the Crusader-period
refinement of Jaffa's stratigraphy, and further integration of
architecture unearthed to the city's fortifications. To answer
old and new excavations will surely provide more opportu-
this question, project members examined the digital top
nities to combine "landscape-as-then" and "landscape-as-
plans ot Ganor in relation to the modern civil plan and the
now" data, gain insight into Jaffa's cultural landscapes, and
1843 British map. The GIS indicated that a trackway along
preserve and present that heritage to future generations.
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 George A. Pierce
Street, as indicated by tbe modern city plans. If, as is likely, University of Califomiüj Los Angeles
the location of the Ottoman walls roughly approximated

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

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 leather-
hard, 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 open-
firing 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 MHA 2309
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 been recovered from excavations of any New Kingdom sites in
was retained. Nevertheless, this important evidence enables us Canaan. Further underscoring the significance of this discovery is
to conclude that the area was clearly associated with Egyptian the fact that Egyptian iconographie evidence for the production
ceramic production and is thus a unique contribution to our of "flowerpots" often associates the firing of "flííwerpots" with
knowledge of Egyptian New Kingdom settlement in Canaan food production (Bourriau, Nicholson, and R(5se 2000: 136).
«.luring the Late Bronze Age, since no comparable facility has The association between the firing of "flowerpots" and food

Figure 20. This photo of the open-

firing pit during Kaplan's 1958
excavations reveals that the twenty
"flowerpots" and one trumpet-
shaped "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)

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 the statue reliably date the piece to the Ramesside period. First,
Although the bulk of the evidence for Egyptian occupation of the clothing type, pose, and height of the hack pillar on the statue
Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age consists of ceramics, a variety of are typical of this era, and the beginning of the offering formula
New Kingdom Egyptian artifacts reveal that life in Jaffa was far contains a dative n, which is first attested in the Ramesside period
from spartan for its Egyptian community. Ae^ptiaca include three (Eranke 2003; 43). Based on the superior quality of the srone and
scarabs and a faience lotus-style bowl (fig. 23), all dated to the inscription, we can safely conclude that the statue represents an
Eighteenth Dynasty, and a fi-agment of an inscribed Ramesside- Egyptian official who held a high-ranking position. Although it
period statue (fig. 24; see also pp. 7-9). Archaeological evidence is probable that the statue was accidentally broken, the block as
oi possible relations between Egypt and Jaffa just prior to and it now appears is probably the result of its reshaping for use as
during the Amarna period comes from the discovery of three building material.
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 con-
text 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 offi-
cials residing in the Levant at sites such as
Jaffa (1998: 235).
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 popular-
ity during the reign of Thutmose III. The
method of manufacture tor these bowls
was relatively simple: a sheet of self-glaz- Figure 23. A faience lotus-style bowl of the Eighteenth Dynasty was
ing faience paste was laid over a hemi- found during the 1958 season. This style of bowl reached its peak in
spherical form, cut to shape, then fired popularity during the reign of Thutmose Ml, to whom is attributed the
(Nicholson and Peltenburg 2000: 182). initial Egyptian conquest of Jaffa. Although the use of these bowls
A design was then added in black paint remains uncertain, their decorative motifs, as with the Jaffa example,
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
domestic use has heen suggested, but since they are attested The new findings from our efforts to publish Jacob Kaplan's
mostly in temples and tombs in Egypt, others believe that faience excavations in Jaffa, particularly with regard to locally produced
bowls were used to present votive offerings (Pinch 1993; 280). Egyptian ceramics and the collection oí aegyptiaca, suggest a clear
Another Egyptian object discovered at Jaffa is an inscribed association with an Egyptian population, with limited evidence
quartzite statue fragment (fig. 24)- The statue is of a man wearing tor Jaffa's Canaanite inhabitants. It is so clear, in fact, that we
a tunic tied at the neck, with his left arm raised to his chest. A suggest that using terms such as Egyptian and Egyptianizt^d, as is
back pillar is positioned directly behind the man, ending just often done, in an attempt to qualify the uncertainty regarding the
below where the head would be situated; it is inscrihed with ethnic affiliations of those for whom such artifacts were produced
the typical Egyptian hip dj nswt, or offering formula. The exact only obfuscates the apparent cultural and ethnic association that
context of the statue has heen lost, but certain characteristics of existed between this assemblage, those who produced it, and the

ERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010) 27


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)
1
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.
Note
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.
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.
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:
Proceedings of the 7th Iniernaiional Congress Held at Tet Aviv, ed. S.
Applebaum. Tel Aviv: Students' Organization of Tel Aviv University.
. 1972. The Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Biblical
Archaeoh^st 35: 66-95.
— . 1975. Further
Palestine. Aspects
Zeitschrift of the Middle
des Deutschen Bronze Age
Palästina-Vereins 91:II Fortifications
1-17. in
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.
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
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.
Pritchard. J. B., ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament. .3rd ed. with suppl. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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
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

Following reports from these early travelers, especially Irby

Jordan's Stonehenge: and Mangles (1817-1818) and Conder (1881), archaeologists
have continued to examine many of these structures. Recent
The Endangered Chalcolithic/ discussions include Dubis and Savage 2001; Herr 2002; Han 2002;
Kafafi and Scheltema 2005; Mortensen and Thuesen 1998; and
Early Bronze Age Site at Palumbo 1998. Many dolmen fields have been mapped, and a few
individual dolmens have been excavated. The function of dolmens
al'Murayghat-Hajr al-Mansûb is still a matter of discussion among archaeologists. Later in this
issue ofNEA, Al-Shorman notes that dolmens are thought of as
Stephen H. Savage 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

A
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
harly Bronze IV burial places. The large, charnel house burial places at Bab edh-
2300-2000
Dhra (Schaub and Rast 1989) contain many secondary burials:
Early Bronze III 2700-2300 interments where the body is first buried elsewhere, with the bones
being bundled together and placed in a secondary location for
Early Bronze II 3000-2700 permanent burial

Early Bronze I 3600-3000 Al-Shorman further notes that some of the other possible
interpretations of dolmens may not be testable due to the lack
Chalcolithic 4500-3600 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 'fik..^

Î2 NEAREASÏERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010)

 Ifpll
Theories in Archaeology Today
Scheltema have lamented that, "Whereas nineteenth-century two concentric circles of fallen menhirs are within line of sight of
visitors spoke about thousands of dolmens, suggesting that modern- almost all the extant dolmens at the site. The larger site is spread
day Jordan was at that time still the most densely dolmen-covered across an area containing agricultural fields, which indicates some
part of the Mediterranean, considerably less than a thousand soil depth. Other, unplanted areas near the road from Ma'in reveal
in all seem to remain fairly intact nowadays" (2005, 8). Rapid approximately 1.5 m of gray, midden-like soil containing numerous
population expansion following the first and second Iraq wars artifacts. The site is located partly within a large gravel quarry
have spurred an unprecedented pace of urban and infrastructure whose excavation is currently destroying the hills upon which
development in Jordan. Dolmen fields are under attack directly the dolmen field is located and northeast of a more recent gravel
by urban expansion, as well as by stone and gravel quarries. quarry that threatens to expand into the western edge of the site.
Examples include the Damiyah dolmen field, which is currently Ceramic evidence demonstrates that al-Murayghât was occupied
endangered by a travertine quarry (Gerit van der Kooij, personal during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, though there are
communication; Scheltema 2008, 115), Rawdah, Adehmeh and indications that it was used over a much longer period of time. An
the dolmen field at al-Murayghât {Scheltema 2008, 115; Dubis Epipaleolithic component in the stone tools (Savage and Rollefson
and Savage 2001; Savage and Rollefson 2001). Dolmens that had 2001) indicates when the site was first used; the dominant ceramic
stood in Tila' al-'Ali, in western Amman, along Sharra Street, forms are from the EB I. Other researchers have indicated that
have very recently been removed for construction of a multistory a Chalcolithic component and possibly an EB III/IV component
commercial and residential building. are present as well, although a surface collection I conducted
This article focuses on the site of al-Murayghât (a.k.a. in 2000 did not identify ceramics from these periods. A small
el-Megheirat, el-Mareighât, Mugheirat), which has been called Roman/Byzantine component is also present. The site is currently
"Jordan's Stonehenge" {Harrison, personal communication) cultivated, and, in summer months, it is occupied by migratory
because of the striking character of its dolmen field and pastoralists. It is therefore subject to damage from agriculture,
configuration of menhirs and megalithic structures. Although erosion, vandalism, and, especially, by the expansion of gravel
unique, the site is currently in imminent danger of complete quarries located to the southwest and northeast of the site. This
destruction from rapidly expanding gravel quarries. article will describe the discovery of the site, its configuration and
Al-Murayghât is a large site southwest of Ma'in consisting of artifact assemblage, and discuss the impact on the site of ongoing
a series of circles and rectangles of standing stones {menhirs) grave! quarrying in the vicinity.
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

Figure 1. Three-dimensional view of

the al-Murayghât region showing
Al-Murayghat and the Hajr al-Mansub
OuickBird image draped over ASTER 30m OEM distribution of dolmen field and active
inciuaes copyngrited matenai ol DigitalGioDe inc . Ai< Rights Reserved. 1 h n fH Uortt QÍ iiTirtur gravel quarries near the site.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:1 (2010) 33

 (Pill (PI Pill

their early teens, if not before, following a brief general education lead to the ascertaining of the form of some of the
(see O'Brian 1995). Once at sea, as "young gentlemen," they were weapons and warlike apparel mentioned in Scripture.
expertly trained in a specific set oí skills, including gunnery, ship It is worth noticing, that however remote may he the
handling, command, and celestial navigation. They learned to period to which these sepulchers are to be referred,
write good, detailed reports. Their ideas about ancient history, the stature of those contained in them, is so far from
however, were infonned by the Old Testament, based on Ussher's gigantic, that it seems to have amounted to no more
six-thousand-year cbronology; their cultural outlook was framed
than the middle size of modern times. Not only this
by late Georgian and pre-Victorian mores and the indisputable
rocky eminence, upon which we first observed them,
supremacy of the Royal Navy. Although they had the permission
of high Ottoman officials to travel in the region, the trip was full is covered over on all sides with these barbarous
of incidents—as Irby and Mangles moved further into the interior, structures, hut some few are scattered in the fields
the fractious tribes paid less attention to Ottoman authorities. It upon a lower level, and a great many upon the sides
was a dangerous journey, the adventure of a lifetime. Their report, of the surrounding hills, insomuch that not less than
published in a series of extended "letters," remains a fascinating fifty were in sight at one time. (Irby and Mangles
read. 1985,465-66)
On June 9, 1818, Irhy and Mangles crossed the Wadi Wala,
moving northward, and noted the standing stones there. They Irby and Mangles apparently did not stop long at the site, and
camped that night near Ma'in and rode down toward the hot they did not record its name. Nevertheless, they observed several
springs the following morning: salient features about it that make it clear that it was
al-Murayghât. First, they recognized the isolated
We engaged a guide from our tents, menhir to the east of the site as marking its
who undertook to carry us to the boundary. It is a famous stone named by the
sources of hot-water; our route was
' .., the Mareighât group local tribes and marked with tribal glyphs,
but that information was not recorded for
S. W.; in less than half an hour we is perhaps the most 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,
those in the Wady-eï-Wale [Wadi suggestive monument yet 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
height, and in a great measure detached followed the narrow, dry watercourse that separates
from the surrounding hills. Some remarkable the central knoll of al-Murayghât from the taller hills where
objects, of which we got a glimpse, induced us to pass most of the dolmens are located (this path can still be traced
round on the other side of this knoll; they are rude today; fig. 1 clearly shows the road to the south of the central
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.
grave of the deceased; and, as there is no appearance He recorded the name of the site as "El Mareighât ... 'the things
of the tombs ever having heen violated, it probably smeared,' with oil, or blood, or other thick liquid" (Conder 1889,
protects them to this day. They would be a highly 184), which he connected to an ancient practice of anointing or
interesting object for excavation, as it might possibly smearing menhirs, either with blood or with oil, the former being
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 wine-
press 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\
Later Observations at al-Murayghât
Nelstm Glueck considered the Hajr al-Mansûb and al-Murayghât
as two distinct sites, assigning them site numbers 81 and 82 in
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
m m
then, al-Murayghât bas been visited by several archaeologists in
order to document tbe site's condition and further damage to it
by the quarry. In addition, satellite images from tbe 1960s onward
have been acquired, wbich bave enabled the project to monitor
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
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)
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.
 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 the south, and seven on or near the hill northeast of the central
at al-Murayghât. hill (placing them north of the Hajr al-Mansûb; see fig. 1).
hi spite of the proximity oí the stones that make up the uprights All but one of the dolmens are of the same type, with back and
on the central part of the site to the layered hedrock across the top stone slabs (see Dubis and Savage 2001). Most of the dolmens
small wadi used by Irby and Mangles, it is clear that considerable have rock-slab floors (in fact, bedrock), though a few have earthen
effort must have been expended to pry them out of the bedrock floors, and one has a cobblestone floor. Most have open entrances,
terraces and to bring them down the western hill, across the but one has a slab on the right side (looking in) that may have
wadi, and up onto the central hill of the site. Since the sherd been a blocking stone. With few exceptions, the dolmens face east,
and Iithic scatter is spread across an area of about 25 ha, but the northeast, or southeast, which can be explained by the side of the
megalithic structures themselves are restricted (excepting the Hajr slope on which they were built: notie faces into the hill. Several
al-Mansûb, a special boundary stone) to an area of about 1.6 ha have a stone "circle" that fences them offfromthe rest of the field,
(ca. 4 acres) on the central hill, it is clear that this part of the site
and Dolmen 17, shown in figure 9, has a double circle around it.
represented a place of special meaning to the inhabitants of the Many of the dolmens are damaged. Some are in a state of
atea. In conjunction with the large dolmen fields that face the complete ruin, while others have one side collapsed, and many
central hill, it clearly appears to form a ceremonial precinct. 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.

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
artifacts makes estimating their age problematic. Based on the 10:2 is also duck-billed in shape, but the edge of the handle has
ceramic evidence from the rest of the site, an EB I date is likely; been incised with a series of shallow grooves, and the top has tingcr-
however, other researchers have reported EB IV material from pinch marks where it was molded to the rest of the jar. The handle
al'Murayghât, so a later date cannot be ruled out. illustrated in figure 10:3 is also of duck-bill shape, with incised
marks around the edge that are deeper and more pronounced than
Ceramics
those from 10:2. Small finger-pinch marks are also visible on the
As noted above, previous visits to al-Miirayghât by a number top, near the body of the jar. In figure 10:4, the edge of the duck-
of archaeologists have resulted in the identification of several bill handle is decorated with shallow impressions, possibly made
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

 m m m\ ml

with a finger, but more likely with a small stick; as with 10:2 and the finger- or thumb-indented form is more typical of EB II. Amiran
3, there are small finger-pinch marks near the vessel wall. Tbe lumps all tbe incised and indented varieties into one type, her Type
handle illustrated in 10:5 may represent a very late EB I form, as 2, the thumb-indented type, which she dates to tbe EB I period.

AM '00 GSC/8/1 S.2 AM '00 GSC/a/1 S.3 AM '00 GSC/8/1 S. 5

EB ! Ledge Hondte EB 1 Ledge Handle EB I Ledge Handle
plain 'duck bill' with Incised edge with deeply Incised edge

AM '00 GSC/e/1 S, 4 AM '00 GSC/8/1 S. 6

EB I Ledge Handle EB I Ledge Hondle
with shallow I n d e n t a t i o n s with shallow finger Impressions AM '00 410/9070 S.2 EB I J a r

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<?) Holenouth Jar

V
AM '00 GSC/8/1 S.I EB [ P l a t t e r / B o w l
AM '00 330/8040 S.I EB I Bowl

AM 'CO 470/8020 S.g EB Snail Bowl

AM '00 400/7920 S.I EB I Deep Bowl

7
An '00 GSC/8/1 S, 7 EB 11/111(71 Bowl

AM '00 380/7990 S.2 EB I Bowl

5 10 15 20 25 en

Figure 10. Ceramics from al-Murayghât,

2000 season.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 7î:l (2010) 41

 1ÎS
However, the incised and stick-impressed forms seem more closely
related to the plain form than to the finger-im pressed type. More
recently, plain and indented types have been found in EBI contexts
at 'Umayri. London (1991, 385-88) believed that the variations
were the result of differential skill levels or stylistic choices of
the potters, not chronological indicators within the EB I period.
However, further excavation and analysis at 'Umayri suggest that
chronological development may be the preferred explanation.
Harrison reports that the duck-billed type showed up in Field Phase
7, Field D at 'Umayri (2000, fig. 5.15:18-22) and that the indented
type was associated with the slightly later Field Phase 6 (2000, fig.
5.23:24-27); both field phases were EB I. A wide variety of edge
treatments on ledge handles is present at Bâb edh-Dhrâ', and there
is some development of the indented type during the occupation
sequence at the site (Schaub and Rast 2003, 1:93-94. 148-49,
242-44, 382-84, figs. 7.2:17-19,9.5:6-12, 11.9:14). The only
published example with a sharply indented edge, probably done
with a thin stick, appears in Stratum II (Schaub and Rast 2003,
l:pl. 22:6)—the authors call this a "notched" form. This type is rare
at the site, while plain and pushed up types are common (Schaub
and Rast 2003, 2:passim).
Lithics
Prior to our fieldwork, no authors had discussed the lithics at
al-Murayghât. In 1999, we collected a dozen unifacially retouched
pieces and one small "Canaanean blade" from the central core
of tbe site. In 2000, our controlled surface collection garnered
many lithics from the site, including a Middle Paleolithic Levallois
blade, a MiddleAJpper Paleolithic double side-scraper on a blade,
one Upper/Epipaleolithic side-scraper-plus-burin on a blade, two
Epipaleolithic bladelet cores, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B naviform
blade, and a probable Pottery Neolithic truncation hurin. Five
artifacts could not he dated confidently, and the remainder of the
sample (671 total) appeared to be Chalcolithic/EB. We collected
scrapers and informal knives, burins, cores, primary and secondary
reduction flakes, preforms, retouched and utilized flakes, angular
shatter, and other debitage. Although there are several examples
of Canaanean blades, the informal blade made by unifacial retouch
on a large flake is more common. Sixteen Canaanean blades
were recovered, as opposed to 178 "ordinary" blades (Savage and
Rollefson 2001, 228-32). The Canaanean blade is associated with
plant-food harvesting in the EB (Rosen 1997, 44-50). The other
blades may be associated with animal processing at ai-Murayghat.
Their concentration near the center of the stone circles suggests
a ceremonial connection, perhaps related to animal sacdflce. The
blades do not seem to fit easily into Rosen's Canaanean typology,
and they lack the sickle sheen characteristic of plant harvesting.
Rosen (personal communication) suggests that these blades,
knives, and scrapers might he related to the less-formal lithic
assemblages found in regions of the southern Levant dominated
by pastoralism rather than settled agriculture, but the presence
of a few Canaanean blades suggests that both activities may
i: NHAR EA:^TKRN ARCI-iAEOLOCiY 7 i : l (2010)
I1Î1 \m
have occurred at the site. This indicates a greater participation
in the pastoral economy of the southern Levant than the cereal
agriculture economy at al-Murayghât.
Ground Stone
No complete ground-stone items were recovered from
al-Murayghât. Twenty-six fragments of vesicular basalt were
collected from sixteen of the surface collection units. Most were
irregular chunks that could he from broken implements or from
the manufacturing process. Two could be positively identified as
grindsttine fragments, indicating that cereal grains were processed
on the site.
Quarrying Activity at al-Murayghât
As figure 1 clearly shows, there are two large quarries at
al-Murayghât or in its immediate vicinity. The larger quarry to
the northwest oí the central knoll has existed at least since the
mid-1980s. It does not appear on circa 1967 CORONA satellite
images of the region hut is present in Landsat 5 images acquired
from 1987. SPOT satellite images from 1990-1992 show that the
quarry had grown substantially. When our initial fieldwork was
conducted in 2000 and 2001, the quarry had already expanded to
the point where it threatened the site; this fact was brought to the
attention of Jordanian government officials. Later we were assured
that the quarry had ceased operations on any faces that threatened
site features, but the 2006 QuickBird satellite image indicates that
the quarry is still in operation and has encroached even closer to
the dolmen field. In fact, the viewshed analysis descrihed below
indicates that it is quite likely that many dolmens have already
been destroyed by the main quarry.
Figure 11 illustrates the growth of the main quarry by
superimposing outlines digitized from several satellite images.
The approximate size of the quarry at various points in time is
shown in table 2. These figures were calculated from the outlines
in Arc View GIS. Note that there are some discrepancies in the
outlines because of the different resolutions of the satellite images
used as sources, especially with the Landsat 5 image, which has
28 m pixels, compared to the QuickBird image, which has 2 m
pixels. Nevertheless, figure 11 and table 2 show that the quarry has
grown from a modest 2-3 ha (4.9-7-4 acres) in the late 1980s to
nearly 35 ha (86.5 acres) in March 2006. The fact that the quarry
is still active is clearly shown in the QuickBird image, where many
large dump trucks are lined up waiting to receive their loads at
the main quarry and the newer quarry to the southwest of the
site; hy zooming in on the higher-resolution images east of the site
in Google Earth, one can count a number of dump trucks on the
road from the quarry to Ma'in. The expansion of the quarry has
probably already consumed many dolmens and clearly threatens
others. Figures 12 and 13 show the activity at the quarry in the
summer of 2004.
Table 2. Growth of the Main Quarry at al-Murayghât,
based on Satellite Imagery
Satellite, Image Resolution, Quarry
and Date(s) Size*
Landsat 5, 28 m resolution, ca. 1987 2.8 ha
SPOT, 10 m resolution, ca. 1990-1994 3.8 ha
Landsat 7, 14 m resolution, ca. 2000-2002 26.7 ha
QuickBird, 2 m resolution, March 2006 34.6 ha
* Quan-y size calculated by digitizing quarry footprint from the indicated
sateUite image. Since the image resolutions vary, the sizes are apí^roximatiom.
A second quarry was established southwest of al-Murayghât
sometime between 2002, when the Landsat 7 satellite images
were acquired, and 2006, when the QuickBird image was taken.
During this period, a third quarry was located farther to the
west. While these quarries are now fairly clear of the site,
A close-up of the QuickBird image shows intense activity at
hoth. Archaeological survey has not yet been completed west of
a!-Murayghát, so it is quite possible that other features or sites
will be destroyed by this activity. Elements of the Chalcolithic/
Early Bronze age ceremonial landscape are endangered by the
ongoing activity. Additional fieldwork in the region is needed
in the immediate future to document the remaining sites in the
vicinity of al-Murayghât.
Viewshed Analysis
As noted above, almost all the dolmens mapped at al-Murayghât
^ire within line of sight of the "shrine" on the central knoll. This is
clearly an important feature of the site, as is the Hajr ai-Mansûb.
These features probably played an important role in boundary
demarcation, as well as in the ceremonial activities that occurred
at the site. Furthermore, because so many of the dolmens art-
visible from the central knoll (and many from the Hajr al-MansCib
as well), we can examine other areas near the site to determine
whether it is likely that dolmens may have been present in places
that have already been impacted by the quarries. Viewshed analysis
is an effective method for this investigation.
A viewshed analysis is a line-of-sight examination of the
rerrain from one or more points of view to discover what parts
of the surrounding landscape are visible from the central points.
Significant advances have been made in these techniques in recent
years (see Gillings and Wheatly 2001 ; Wheatly and Gillings 2002).
The method essentially uses a digital terrain model to determine
which areas of the landscape are visible from one or more points,
caking into account factors such as tbe observer's height above
ground level and tbe elevation of target objects. One of the most
familiar archaeological uses of this method is determining wbicb of
a series of watchtowers or signaling stations in a region were visible
from each other or from a group of settlement sites. Christopherson
and Guertin's 1996 visibility analysis of ancient settlements in the
Tall 'Umayri region, on the northern Madaba Plain, illustrates tbe
method and some potential results. Using settlement data and GIS
applications of viewshed analysis, they showed that "[alltbough
Tall al-Umayri suffered from a restricted viewshed, tbe judicious
placement of watchtowers wt)uld have allowed tbe inbabitants
of Umayri to increase the size of their viewshed and thereby their
control of the region" (Christopherson and Guertin 1996).
A viewshed analysis of the al-Muraygbât region was undertaken
to determine which areas of the landscape potentially contained
dolmens that would have been visible from tbe central sbrine
at al-Muraygbât or the Hajr al-Mansub. In this case, tbe digital
elevation model (DEM) was obtained from NASA's ASTER
instrument, flying on tbe Terra Satellite (JPL 2006). Tbe DEM bas
30 m horizontal resolution, equivalent to digitizing from 1:50,000
scale maps. Elevation data is reported in 10 cm increments. Global
Mapper software was used to overlay the DEM with QuickBird
2 m resolution imagery (donated by Digital Globe, Inc., for this
study) and to produce a combined viewshed analysis based on
the locations of tbe central sbrine at al-Murayghât and tbe Hajr
al-MansLib. Tbe viewshed assumed observer and target heights
of 1.8 m above the ground surface, highlighting all areas witbin
three kilometers that are visible from these points. Tbe results
are shown in figure 14. Yellow-shaded areas are visible from the
central shrine, cyan-shaded areas from the Hajr al-Mansub, and
green-shaded areas from both.
These results indicate where additional dolmens were likely to
At-Murayghat and the Hajr al-Mansub Sites
Inug* SourcM'
Background :auickeird Zm. March 20M.
Dolmens
Quarry by 1990
Quarry by ftW: Landtit Í,
Qiurry by 1994: MIMA^POTIOm. Quarry by 1994
I Quarry by 2002
Quarry by 2002 Landut 7.
Figure 11. The growth of the main quarry at al-Murayghât.
I b A R t A S T t i R N ARCMAlLOUXiY 7î:I (2010) 4Î
im IfH

Figure 12. A photograph of the main quarry at al-Murayghât,

taken July 24, 2004, by H. G. Scheltema; used by permission. The
photo shows dolmens on top of the hill that is being worked by
quarry operations. The dolmens are also visible ¡n figure 11.

V Figure 13. A collapsed dolmen near the edge of the

quarry at al-Murayghât, taken July 24, 2004, by H. G.
Scheltema; used by permission.

of tbe quarries, it does

not seem unreasonable
to c o n c l u d e t h a t
many ot tbe estimated
fifty missing dolmens
were located within
the footprint of the
have been located, based on our mapping quarries, especially the
of one hundred dolmens over two field large one to the north-
seasons. Conder estimated the total northeast of the site.
number ot dolmens at the site, stating The quarry has already
that "including the seventy on the two destroyed a large area
knolls west of the Hajr el Mansúb, and where dolmens were
the knolls north of it, there are at least probably l o c a t e d ,
150 dolmens at this site" (1889, 187). and it is clear that its
He thus implies that as many as eighty ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ongoing operations
dolmens were located north of the Hajr threaten to destroy
al-Mansûb, where the main quarry now lies; he explicitly stated even more of the site. The newer quarry to the west of the site
that "other dolmens occur north of the 'erected stone' " (1889, threatens to engulf this side of al-Murayghât, as well as the knolls
185). Irby and Mangles noted that at least fifty dolmens were visible immediately west of the main site, where we have noted stone
at a time once the site was reached. Given Conder's observation structures and EB ceramics.
and the significant overlap between the viewsheds and the location The gravel quarries endanger the remaining dolmens in at
least two ways. First, the dolmens are directly
threatened by the expanding face of the quarry.
Second, the ongoing quarry activities include
periodic blasting to loosen stoties on the face
of the quarry and the operation of heavy rock-
crushing machinery to transform the bedrock

Figure 14. Viewshed analysis from al-Murayghât and

the Hajr al-Mansûb. Looking northwest, the yellow-
shaded areas are visible from the central shrine at
al-Murayghât; the cyan-shaded areas are visible from
the Hajr al-Mansûb; the light-green-shaded areas are
visible from both. Note how almost all the extant
dolmens (red squares) fall within these areas, and
most of the quarry is visible from the Hajr al-Mansûb.
• - * •
(Viewshed analysis created in Global Mapper with
ASTER 30 m digital elevation model, exported to
Google Earth Pro for visualization.)

44 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 7}: I (2010)

into gravel. The gravel is then loaded onto very large trucks for
transport. All these activities generate significant vibrations that
;ire transmitted thnmgh the ground to help topple the remaining
dolmens.
Summary
Al-Murayghât is a unique Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age
ceremonial site and thus a particularly important and significant
archaeological site from this period. Together with the stone-circle
.site being investigated by Danish archaeologists, the site forms part
of a sacred landscape on the western edge of the Madaba Plain.
Its unique character and broader cultural significance mean that
al-Murayghât needs to be preserved and protected. Unfortunately,
ihe site is endangered by the continued operation of large gravel
quarries located immediately north, northeast, and west of the
site. During our fieldwork, dump trucks moved out of the older
quarry north-northeast oí the site at the rate of about one every
three minutes. We have noted with increasing concern that the
quarrying continues, in spite of efforts to stop it, even up to the
present. Most of the dolmens surveyed in 2001 are located on hills
rhat are being rapidly destroyed by the quarry, and the viewshed
analysis presented here suggests that many of the fifty "missing"
dolmens have probably already been destroyed. If something is
not done to stop the quarry operations in this area soon, the rest
of the dolmens will be destroyed as well. Furthermore, since there
are menhirs located m)rth of the site, it is entirely possible that a
portion of the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age sacred landscape of
rfiL' region has already been destroyed.
Acknowledgments
1 ho tieldwork described here was conducted with the permission
.uid support of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan; I am
especially thankful to Dr. Fawwaz AI-Khraysheh, Director-
General, and to our Department Representatives, Rheem Shghour
(2000) and Musa Malkawy (2001). The field crews included Dayle
Elder and Tim Griffin (2000) and Monique Blom, Mohammad
Malkawy, Caroline Puzinas, and Sidney Rempel (2001). The
digital elevation model was provided by NASA as part of a grant
Lo the Geo-Archaeological Information Applications Lab for the
Digital Archaeological Atlas of the Holy Land project. Digital
Cilohe, Inc., donated the high-resolution QuickBird image to the
Moab Archaeological Resource Survey's effort to help save the
site at al-Murayghât. There has been an ongoing effort by several
archaeologists to monitor the expansion of the quarries since the
danger they represent to the site became known. I am grateful for
the photographs sent to me by Ambassador H. G. Scheltema, Dr.
Zeidiin Kefafi, and Dr. Timothy Harrison and especially for their
pemiission to use some of them in this article. Dr. Gary Rollefson
Lind Ambassador Scheltema confirmed the location of the site and
rhc Hajr with GPS readings. Finally, 1 would like to thank Tim
Harrison for reviewing an earlier version of this paper.
References
. A. 2010. Testing the Function of Early Bronze Age I Dolmens: A
GIS Investigation. Near Eastern Archaeoiogy 73:46-49.
Amiran, R. 1970. Ancient Pnttery of the H<Ay Land: From fcs Beginn(ri),'.i in the
Neolithic Period lo ihe End of ihe iron Age. New Brunswick, N.J.r Rutgers
University Press.
Cliristopherson, G. L-, and D. P. Guertin. 1996. Visibiiity Analysis and Ancient
Settlement Strategies in the Region of T;ill al-Umayri, Jordan. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameriean Schools of Oriental
Research, New Orleans, Louisiana. Online: http://www.casii.arizuna.edu/
MPP/viewshed/vspaper.html.
Conder, C. R. 1889. The Survey of Eastern Palestine. London: Palestine
Exploration Fund.
. 1998. The Survey o/Western Palestine, 1882-1888. London: Palestine
Exploration Ftind Archive Editions.
Dubis, E-, and S. H. Savage. 2001. The Dolmen Field at Al-Murayghât.
Archeolo^ 52:91-96 and plate XIX. Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology
and Ethnology of the Polisli Academy of Science.
Gillings, M., and D. Wheatley. 2001. Seeing Is Not Believing: Unresolved
Issues in Archaeiilogical Visibility Analysis. Pp. 25-36 inOntheGood Use
of Geo^aphical Informatiotx Syuems in Archaeological iuindscape Studies:
Pntceedings oftlie COST 0 2 WG2 Round T4íf>lí:, Ljiibljuiui, ¡8-20 December
J998. ed. B. SlapSak. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publicarions of the
European Communities.
Glueck, N. 1934. Explorations in Eastern Palestine 1. Annual of tho American
Schools of Oriental Research 14. New Haven: American Schools of
Oriental Research.
. 1939. Expiorations in Eastern Palestine IÍ]. Annual of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 18-19. New Haven: American Schools of
Oriontal Re.search.
Harrison, T. P 1997. Shifting Patterns of Settlement in the Highlands of
Central Jordan during the Early Bronze Age. BidleUn of the American
Schools ofOriciual Research 306:1-37.
. 2000. "Field D: The Lower Southern Terrace." Pp. 95-154 in Mudaba
Plains Project 4: The 1992 Seasim at Tall al-Vnuiyri and Subséquent StiuUns,
ed. L. G. Herr, D. R. Clark, L. T Geraty, R. W. Younker. and 0 . S.
LaBianca. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press.
Herr, L.G. 2002. 5,000-Year-Old Burials Discovered in Jordan. Near Eastern
Arcliaeobgy 65:282-83.
Ilan, D. 2002. Mortuary Practices in Early Bronze Age Canaan. Near Easiem
Arclweulogy 65:92-104.
Irby, C. L.. and j . Mangles. 1985. Travels in Egypt and Nuhia, Syria and Asia
Minor during the Years ¡817 & IS18. London; Darf
JPL. 2006. ASTER Digital Elevation Model. Online: htrp://astenveh.ipi.nasa.
gov/gdem.asp.
Kafafi, Z., and H. G. Scheltema. 2005. Megalithic Structures in Jordan.
Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5.2:5-22.
London, G. 1991. Aspects of Early Bronze and Late Iron Age Ceramic
Technology at Tell el-'Umeiri. Pp. 383-428 in Madaba Plaim Project 2:
The ¡987 Season at Tell e/-'Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequeui Studies,
ed. L. G. Herr, L. T Geraty, 0 . S. LaBianca, and R. W Younker. Berrien
Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press.
Mallon, A., R. Koeppel, and R. Neuville. 1934. Teleilat Ghassul I Compte
 HIHllHlIÎM
rendu des fouilles de ¡'Imitiur biblique pontifical. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute. Testing the Function of Early
Mortensen, E, and I. Thuesen. 1998. The Prehistoric Periods. Pp. S5-99
in Mount Nebo: New Arctiaeological Excavations, l967-¡997, ed. M. Bronze Age I Dolmens:
Bccirillo and E. AUiata. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum.
O'Brian, R 1995. Men-of-War. Life in Neiscn\'s Navy. New York: Norton. A GIS Investigation ,
Paiumbo, G. 1994. JortitiJi Antiquities Database and information System. Amman;
T~he Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the American Center for
Oriental Research.
Abdulla Al'Shorman
. 1998. T h e Bronze Age. Pp. 1 0 0 - 1 0 9 in Mounc Neho: New

J
Archaeolo^cal Excavations 1967-1997, ed. M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata.
ordan has more than twenty thousand Early Bronze Age I
Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. dobncns, often found in groups ranging between three hundred
Prag. K. 1995. The Dead Sea Dolmens: Death and the Landscape. Pp. 75-84 and a thousand. Conder was the first to survey these enigmatic
in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and structures northeast of the Dead Sea, defining them as "stone
A- Green. Oxbow Monograph 51. Oxford: Oxbow. structures, with a capstone supported on upright stones" (¡889,
Rosen, S. A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook ofSlone Tools from 302; see fig. ¡). Following this identification, dolmens became
the Levant. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Altamira. the subject of specific typological and archaeological investiga-
Savage, S. H., and G. RoUefson. 2001. The Moab Archaeological Resource tions (e.g.. Hemp ¡935; Lewis 1910; Neuville ¡930; Swauger
Survey: Some Results from the 2000 Field Season. Annual of the
¡97¡; Belmonte ¡997; hoh andji 2000). Archaeological surveys
Department of Antiijuities of Jordan 45:217-36.
everitually revealed tiuit dolmens are found throughout the Levant
Schaub, R. T, and W. E. Rast. 1989. Bâb edh-Dhä': Excavatitnis in ihe Cemeterv
Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965-67). Reports of the Expedition to the (Stékélis i960; Talbn 1958; Hermens ¡976) and Europe (Wells
Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. and Geddes ¡986; Walker ¡983).
. 2003. Bàh-edh-uhrâ': Excavations at the Town Site (¡975-1981). I vols.
Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 2. Winona Lake,
Ind.; Eisenbrauns.
Scheltema, H. G. ZOOS. Mega/it/tic Jordan. Amman: American Center of
Oriental Research.
Wheatly, D., and M. Gillings. 2002. S/)ati¿i¡ Tech-nolo^ and Archaeology: The
Archaeoio^al AppUcalions of GIS. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Figure 1. Drawing of dolmen from al-Murayghât. For

additional details, see Conder 1889, 188-89.

In spite of their abundance across the Jordanian landscape

and the wide scholarly attention they have received, dolmens
remain enigmatic structures. Many were constructed during the
Early Bronze Age 1 (Yasslne 1985; Hanbury-Tenison 1986) and
reused during the later Middle and Late Bronze Ages, as well
as the Iron Age (Prag 1995). Their functions are even more
mysterious, in large part due to the scarcity of recovered artifacts
from the structures. Since their discovery, scholars have debated

46 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 75:1 (2010)

 HIHllHlIÎM
rendu des fouilles de ¡'Imitiur biblique pontifical. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute. Testing the Function of Early
Mortensen, E, and I. Thuesen. 1998. The Prehistoric Periods. Pp. S5-99
in Mount Nebo: New Arctiaeological Excavations, l967-¡997, ed. M. Bronze Age I Dolmens:
Bccirillo and E. AUiata. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum.
O'Brian, R 1995. Men-of-War. Life in Neiscn\'s Navy. New York: Norton. A GIS Investigation ,
Paiumbo, G. 1994. JortitiJi Antiquities Database and information System. Amman;
T~he Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the American Center for
Oriental Research.
Abdulla Al'Shorman
. 1998. T h e Bronze Age. Pp. 1 0 0 - 1 0 9 in Mounc Neho: New

J
Archaeolo^cal Excavations 1967-1997, ed. M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata.
ordan has more than twenty thousand Early Bronze Age I
Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. dobncns, often found in groups ranging between three hundred
Prag. K. 1995. The Dead Sea Dolmens: Death and the Landscape. Pp. 75-84 and a thousand. Conder was the first to survey these enigmatic
in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and structures northeast of the Dead Sea, defining them as "stone
A- Green. Oxbow Monograph 51. Oxford: Oxbow. structures, with a capstone supported on upright stones" (¡889,
Rosen, S. A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook ofSlone Tools from 302; see fig. ¡). Following this identification, dolmens became
the Levant. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Altamira. the subject of specific typological and archaeological investiga-
Savage, S. H., and G. RoUefson. 2001. The Moab Archaeological Resource tions (e.g.. Hemp ¡935; Lewis 1910; Neuville ¡930; Swauger
Survey: Some Results from the 2000 Field Season. Annual of the
¡97¡; Belmonte ¡997; hoh andji 2000). Archaeological surveys
Department of Antiijuities of Jordan 45:217-36.
everitually revealed tiuit dolmens are found throughout the Levant
Schaub, R. T, and W. E. Rast. 1989. Bâb edh-Dhä': Excavatitnis in ihe Cemeterv
Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965-67). Reports of the Expedition to the (Stékélis i960; Talbn 1958; Hermens ¡976) and Europe (Wells
Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. and Geddes ¡986; Walker ¡983).
. 2003. Bàh-edh-uhrâ': Excavations at the Town Site (¡975-1981). I vols.
Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 2. Winona Lake,
Ind.; Eisenbrauns.
Scheltema, H. G. ZOOS. Mega/it/tic Jordan. Amman: American Center of
Oriental Research.
Wheatly, D., and M. Gillings. 2002. S/)ati¿i¡ Tech-nolo^ and Archaeology: The
Archaeoio^al AppUcalions of GIS. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Figure 1. Drawing of dolmen from al-Murayghât. For

additional details, see Conder 1889, 188-89.

In spite of their abundance across the Jordanian landscape

and the wide scholarly attention they have received, dolmens
remain enigmatic structures. Many were constructed during the
Early Bronze Age 1 (Yasslne 1985; Hanbury-Tenison 1986) and
reused during the later Middle and Late Bronze Ages, as well
as the Iron Age (Prag 1995). Their functions are even more
mysterious, in large part due to the scarcity of recovered artifacts
from the structures. Since their discovery, scholars have debated

46 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 75:1 (2010)

 \m\

m
their purpose, presenting answers as varied as
habitations, altars, or offering places (Conder
1889), winter camps for transhumant groups Figure 2. Deviational ellipse of
(Hemp 1935; Zohar 1989), places for exploiting the location of dolmens.
varied environmental zones (Finkelstein 1991),
or tombs (Smith 1913; Broome 1940; Negev
1972; Joussaume 1988; Piccirillo 2001; Prag
¡995).
The dolmens' geographic positions in the
landscape, however, have yet to he considered
when evaluating these various hypotheses.
Using only the registered dolmens in Jordan's Figure 3. The trend in the
Antiquities Database and Information System location of dolmens.
(JADIS), the east and north coordinates of
dolmen fields, the elevation above sea level,
the size of the archaeological sites to which
they are associated, and the topographic zone
of the sampled dolmens were all entered into
a relational database that was managed using
Geographic Information System (GIS) software.
These data were examined using a suite of tests
tound in Lee's statistical analysis, an extension of Arcview GIS YZ irend
Software 3.2 (Lee and Wong 2001). The dolmens' spatial patterns
were estimated using Quadrat analysis, a method that examines
how the density ot points changes over space. Next, a Kolmogorov-
Simirnov (K-S) test examined the dolmen's distribution pattern as
clustered or dispersed. The indices of a Moran and Geary test
examined the spatial autocorrelation coefficients of weighted
factors that included elevation, size, and topographic zone. Finally,
the spatial statistics of the Mean Center and the Deviational
Ellipse were used to discover the directional bias in the dolmens'
distribution. Quadrat analysis was performed using complete
coverage and a square quad shape. The result of deviational ellipse
is supported hy the trend analysis of the location of dolmens,
where it has a strong Y-coordinate trend (see table 1 and figs 2-3).

topographic zone, we used a statistical measure known as spatial

Table 1 autocorrelation coefficient, or Moran's Index and Geary's Ratio.
Moran's Index measures feature similarity based not only on feature
Quadrat length 24.68km Vari;incc 1 Î.08
locations or attribute values alone but on both feature locations
Vertical step 8 Variance/Mean ratio 42.33 ;ind feature values simultaneously. Given a set of features and an
associated attribute, it evaluates whether the pattern expressed is
Horizontal step 7 K'S D statistics 0.5 clustered, dispersed, or random. In general, a Moran's Index value
near +1.0 indicates clustering, while an index value near -1.0
X 2 a 0.05 indicates dispersion. The values of Geary's Ratio tend to range
between 0 and 2; values approaching 0 imply that similar values
trcqucncy 40 K'S critical value 0.13 of a variable tend to cluster (positive spatial autocorrelation), and
values approaching 2 indicate that dissimilar values tend to cluster.
Although Quadrat analysis detects the distribution pattern of The tests were run with site size and elevation. It turns out
dolmens, it ignores other factors that determined the pattern. To test that size is not significantly clustered (Moran Index = .05, prob-
it the dolmens share the same characteristics of elevation, size, and ability = .6064; Geary Ratio = .04, probability = .758; table 2),
 \m m\ \m\

IfH \m

on the scholarly investigation

of their original function in
the Early Bronze Age I period.
Moriin 0.05 ÜL'iiry 0.04
Spatial analysis indicates that
Expected Moran 0.009 Expected Geary 1 the stone features are found
at similar e l e v a t i o n s and
V;iri,uii.c i i i u l c r n o n i u l i i A 0.05 Víiri^tncc linder tiormíility 0.18
in the same hillside terrace
z-value 0.27 Z'Value -2.25 topographic zone. Because the
dolmens are located in a single
Viiriiincc UIKILT randümizLitiun 0.041 Varhmcc under randomization 1.85
ecological zone, the likelihood
z-value 0.32 2-value -0.7 is low that dolmens were used
as bases for exploiting varied
ecological zones. The possibility
that dolmens were winter camps
Moran 2.07 üear\' 0.01 is alsci low, since most dolmens
were built at higher elevations;
Expected Moran -0.009 Expected Geary 1 winter centers would appear
Variance under normality at lower elevations, such as in
Variance under noinialiiv 0.05 O.US
the Jordan Valley, where winter
2-value 8.7Ö z-value -2.32 temperatures were milder.
Territory marker was also an
Variance under rani^lniiuzaiion 0.05 Variance untlcr randomization 0,15
unlikely function, since the
z-vaiue 8.86 z-value -2.52 Voroni map in figure 4 shows
that the area around each
dolmen site varied. A single
but elevation is (Moran Index = 2.07, probability =.0192; Geary standing slab or even a pillar of stones like the ones agriculturalists
Ratio = .01, probability = .0059; table 3). These studies indicate still use in Jordan today would be sufficient to mark a territory.
rhat dolmens are found in statistically significant clusters located
The scarcity of recovered artifacts associated with dolmens
in a roughly north-south distribution on hillside terraces, primarily
prevents the testing of other possible functions, such as altars and
along the north and central Jordan Valley escarpment; a second
offering places. What little associated materials (e.g., skeletons)
series of dolmen clusters is scattered further to the east, again
have heen discovered suggests that at least some dolmens were
on a roughly north- used as tombs during the Early Bronze Age. Indeed, this time
south line (fig. 2). period witnessed a diversification in burial types that include
Dolmen clusters share tumuli (Schaub and Rast 1989; Nicolle, Steimer, and Humbert
a relatively common 1999), dolmens (Herr, Clark, and Trenchard 2001), artificial
elevation above sea caves (Hanbury-Tenison 1989), natural caves (Mabry 1989), and
level (fig. 3). The best cist graves surrounded by circular stones (Politis 1995). Many
method to test the ter- of these tomhs exhibit signs that Early Bronze Age society was
ritoriality of dolmens is hierarchically organized (Saxe 1970), especially when compared to
through using a Voroni the preceding transhumance society of the Chalcolithic period. If
map (fig. 4), which dolmens were used as tomhs, they would have likely been reserved
constructs a Thies- for prestigious individuals. Constructing a dolmen consumes a lot
sen polygon around of time and effort, especially the quarrying of the large, heavy slabs.
each dolmen site. This This brief study has tested a variety of hypotheses about the
method is very popular function of dolmens using spatial statistics and GIS. The results
in archaeology and has indicate that the majority of dolmens were constructed at the same
been widely used (Sav- elevation and topography, leading to the conclusion that dolmens
age 1990). were not constructed to help exploit a variety of ecological zones
These statistical or as winter centers for transhumant groups. Most likely is the
analyses of Jordan's possibility that the dolmens served as tombs for high-ranking
Figure 4. A Voroni map of dolmens shed new light members of Early Bronze Age I society.
the dolmens.
 IMIi

ífÜll lílíl ÍÜl

References Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965-67). Reports of tbe Expedition to the

Bchiuiíuc, J. 1997. MeJicerrancan Archaeotypology and Archaeoastronomy: Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Hisenbrauns.
Two Examples oí Dolmenic Necropolises in the Jordan Valley. Smitb,G.E. 1913. Tbe Origin of the Dolmen. Mdn 13:193-95.
Arclxaeoasironamy 22:37-4.Î. Stékélis, M. 1960. Las Necropohs mégalithique de Ala-Safa, TransJordania.
Ampurim 22.3:49-128.
Bmume, E. C , Jr. 1940. The Dolmens of Palestine and TransJordania. Journal
Swauger. J. 1971. The Three Dolmen Sites iii Jordan. Almogaren 2:239-51.
of Biblical Literature 59.-479-97.
Talion, M. 1958. Mt^numents mégalithique de Syria et du Liban. Melanges
Conder, C. R. 1889. T/ie Swrvej of Eastern Palestine. London: Palestine
l'Université Saint-Joseph 35:21-34.
Exploration Fund,
Walker, M. Í98Í. Laying a Mega-Myth: Dolmens and Drovers in Prehistoric
. 1890. Exhibitions of Drawings of Rude Stone Monuments East of
Spain. Workl Archaeology 15:37-50.
Jordan. The Journal of the Royal Anthropolo^cal Imiitute of Great Britain
and Ireland 19:65-66. Wells. P, and D. Geddes. 1986. Neolithic, Cbalcnlithic and Early Bronze in
Finkelsrein, 1. 1991. The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Brome West Mediterranean Europe. American Aiiti^it^i 51:763-78.
Age. Israel Exploratimt juunud 41:19-45. Yassine, K. 1985. Tbe Dolmens and Drovers in Prehistoric Spain. Bulletin of
ilanliur>'-Teni.son, J. 1989. Jabal Miitawwaq !986. Annual of the Departmeni of the American Schools of Oriental Research 259:63-69.
Antiquities Jordan 3}: 137-44. Zohar, M. 1989 Rogem Hiri: A Megalithic Monument in the Golan. Israel
Helms. S. and D. McCreery. 1988. Rescue Excavations at Umm el-Bighal, the Exploration Journal 39:18-31.
Pottery. Annual of ihe Deparimeiu of Antiquities af Jordan 32:319-41.
Hemp, W. J. 1935. Review of M. Stékélis, Les Mmmmems mégalithiques de
Palestine. Aiitiijiiil^ 10:237-38.
Hermens, R. 1976. Première Mission de Recherches Préhistoriques en
République Arabe du Yémen. LAnthropologie 8O;5-Î7.
Mcrr. L. G., D. R. Clark, and W C. TrencKard. 2001. Mâdabâ Plains Project:
Excavations at Tall Al-'Umayri, 2000. Annual of the Department of
AntitjHities of Jordan 45:237-52. Reflections of Empire
loussaume, R. 1988. Do/mem for the Dead: Megalithic-Building throughout the
World. Ithaca. N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Archaeological and
Lee, J. and D. W. S. Wong. 2001. Statistical Analysis with Arcview GIS. New Ethnographic Perspectives
York: John Wiley & Sons. on the Pottery of the
Lewis, A. L. 1910. O n Some Dolmens of Peculiar Types in France and Ottoman Levant
Elsewhere. The Journal of the Royal Anthrapological Institute of Great
edited by Bethany Walker
Britain and Ireland 40:336-48,
Loh, C. M., and C.-H. C. Ji. 2000. A Preliminary Report on the Human Ottoman archaeology in the
Remains from a Roek-Cut Chamber Tomb Near 'Iraq AI-'Amir. Annual of
last decade has progressed
tlie Department fif Antiquities of Jordan 44:201-9.
to a multi-faceted investigation of the history
Mabry, J. 1989. Investigations at Tell El-Handaquq, Jordan (1987-88). Annud
and societies of the longest-lived Muslim empire
of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33:59-95.
of the early modern era. Missing, however,
Megev, A., ed. 1972. Dolmens. P 92 in Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy
Lajul. New York: J. R Putnam's Sons.
have been technical studies of Ottoman-period
Neuville, R. 1930. La Nécropole mégalithique de'el-Adeimeh (TransJordanie}. ceramics that identify assemblages, define
Bíblica 2:249-65. typologies, and posit chronologies for specific
Nicolle, C , T. Steimer, und J.-B. Humbert. 1999. Almaräjim, Implemetation wares across entire regions. This volume
Rurale du Illème Millaníiire en Jordanie du Norde. Anmial of the assembles such technical studies for the region
Department of Antiquities of Jordan 43:91-98. of the Ottoman Levant: Cyprus, Israel, Palestine,
Piccirillü, M. 2001. Ricerca Storico-Archaeologica in Gioradnia XXI-2001.
and Jordan.
LiW-rAnntfUS 51:359-94.
Politis, K. D. 1995. Excavations and Restorations at Dayr Äyn Äbära 1994. American Schools of Oriental Research Annuals, Volume
AiiTiHíi/o/tk' Departynent of Antiquities of Jordan 39:477-9!. 64:, Series Editor Joseph A. Greene, ASOR 2009, 176 pages,
Frag, K. 1995. The Dead Sea Dolmens: Death and the Landscape. Pp. 75-84 59 b/ir fissures. 7 table, ISBN 97S-0~89757-0Sl-7. SS9.95.
in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and
A. Green. Oxbow Monograph 51. Oxford: Oxbow. Available from The David Brown Book Company
Saxe, A. 1970. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practice. Ph.D. dissertation, www..oxbow books.com
University of Michigan.
Schaub, R.T, and W E. Rast. 1989. B<îi> edh-Dhrà': Excavations m
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.
 Discoveries, Displays, and
The Great Revolt in
the Galilee
C
limbing to the crest ofGamla, the rocky camelback tlmt
symbolizes Rome's iron hmid in t}^ Galilee, pausing to rest
on her synagogue's süll-smooth seats, noting the hng-dry
miqvah (ritual bath) nearby and the ivall breach where excavators
uncovered hundreds of arrowheads and bullista balls (grapefruit-
sized stone "cannon" balls) : such an experience no museum would
dare pretend to replicate or even evoke. Nevertheless, through an
assemblage of key objects and, especially, through a deft hand at
design. University of Haifa's Hecht Museum gives visitors to its
NEAR EASTERN .ARCHAHOLOGY 71:1 (2010)
temporary exhibit, the Great Revolt in the Galilee, a sense of the
weight of the Roman impact and of the doomed Jewish Revolt of
66-73 c.E.,a rebellion popularly associated with the fall of Masada
in Ti C.E. but in fact first successfully suppressed in Jewish towns
far to Masada's north.
As Ofra Guri-Rinion, museum director and curator (and exhibit
curator) expresses in her preface to the catalogue (composed of
nearly a dozen or so excellent essays that can stand independently
of the exhibit), the exhibition presents finds "testifying to the
View of the Exhibit. A stark black Roman "road" on vi/hich three
soldiers stand and the "breached" stone walls representing
Jewish communities effectively evoke the strength and
determination on both sides of the conflict, the Romans and
the Jews. Courtesy of the Hecht Museum.
 Exhibitions of Special Note

material culture of Galilean settlements, Jewish and Gentile.

in the 1st century CE; finds representing the presence vf
Roman legions whose mission was to put down the rebellion;
and finds—presented to the public for the first time—that
bear living testimony to preparations made hy the Jews of the
Galilee in advance of the revolt" (Guri-Rimon 2008, 1-2).
Predictably, finds from the two large excavation sites, Gamla
and Yodefat make up the bulk of displayed items, but other
sites, especially Ktar Kanna, are represented and given fair
attention in the catalogue.
Kudos are due the designer who conceived the exhibit's
central element; a black swath to represent the Roman
road. Just as it cut through the Galilee, the road here cuts
diagonally to and through the heart of the exhibit, that
relatively small but airy area familiar to Hecht regulars as the Gamla Coins. Only nine of tbese crudely made
place most temporary shows are held, beside the open stairs (indicating quick improvisation) bronze coins are known,
and broad two-story windows. In such a setting—light, glassy, seven from the western quarter of Gamla. Tbe obverse
modern—the heavy black line of "road," although barely shows a cup and is similar to the contemporaneous
a meter wide (certainly not wide enough for a column that Jerusalem silver shekel that appeared in 66 C.E. and
also featured an Omer cup on its obverse. (Jerusalem
marched six abreast) dominates and almost protrudes but
coins were dated by the year of the war; I.e., an aleph
is not threatening. It provides counterpoint to the airiness
represented the first year.) The Gamla corns were
through which, overhead, "fly" arrows and spears of various probably produced immediately prior to the siege or
types, suspended from the ceiling and perhaps intended to even during it. The inscription has been read by some
.simulate siege. They look terrific, lifelike, lifted out of typical as "For the Redemption of Jerusalem the Holy," thus
showcase environments. (Believe it or not. the overhead underscoring the probable reference to Jerusalem,
arrows escape some visitors' notice.) where such an Omer cup would have been a temple
But back to the black road, our designer's artful route utensil. Courtesy Danny Syon.
through history. The section closest to the entrance is rubber,
lor walking, but the section in the center of the room is metal
on which are written, in Hebrew, several lines from Josephus's
description of the Roman order of march as Vespasian's army
moved out from Ptolemais (Akko) into the Gahlee. The
lengthy quotation (Josephus enumerates and describes at
least eighteen contingents from the advance archers to the
rearguard) begins, naturally, near the top of the metal slab,
beyond the center oí the room, so if you want to read more
chan the last few lines and the citation (Jewish War 3.6.2),
you must locate yourself at the very center of the exhibit. You
must actually do more than that. You must duck under or
dodge or at least walk around three life-size, laser-cut, sheet-
metal Roman s<ildiers who occupy the very vortex of the
exhibit. In other words, if you want to read Josephus's words,
you also, like Josephus, who joined the war on the side of the
zealots but eventually became Rome's historian of it, must
submit. That is the kind of road it was.
Given the exhibit designers' insight into the role of the
road and its centrality in the exhibit, it is hard to explain
the absence (or near absence) of what should have been the
road's counterbalancing element: the "why" of the rebellion.
There is much ado about Galilean society's material culture

¡EAR EASTIERN A R C H A E O L O G Y 73:1 (2010) 51

 m\\
generally^—a wepraving loom and weights, an amphora to represent the Judean rebellion, beginning with the Galilee. The dedication
the olive-oil industry, perfume bottles, oil lamps, a miscellany of stone is significant because it was down this road that Vespasian
pottery, a superb assortment of coins, and even a reconstituted marched to Akko, where he was joined by his son Titus and the
comer of a frescoed room from a mansion (and more than a mind Fifteenth Legion; from there the Roman army—eventually some
can absorb about the Roman military)—but, except for a one- sixty thousand soldiers, including auxilia—set out.
line written reference to miqva'ot and the prominent position Along the "road" and beyond the three "soldiers," even to
given the Gamla coin, which some numismatists read as "For the periphery of tbe room, stand a variety of installations and
the redemption of holy Jerusalem," there is precious little about showcases, including at least three stone walls. In fact, if there is
the ritualistic religiosities a Jewish counterpoint
that led the Jewish zealots to the Roman road,
to their doomed, desperate the walls would he
struggle. it. T h e walls, none
Is any visual sign of more than 2 m higb
the religious passion that and each 3-4 m long,
drove the zealots missing effectively underscore
here because the designers the failed fortification
assumed all visitors would system as well as they
already know and under- delineate display areas,
stand? The near absence p a r t i c u l a r l y since
is even harder to reconcile two of the walls are
when one remembers that "hreached"—low, with
the citizens of Gamla were major stones missing.
so religiously circumspect The first wall, to the
that they maintained a immediate right of
miqvah at their oil press or the entrance, behind
when the stirring words of the dedication stone,
Guri-Rimon's preface are blocks off a small,
considered. Guri-Rimon minor section t h a t
quotes Joseph Klausner, T h e . ' ' p , i-'-(-"y s i d e s o f t h i s s i t e p r e s e n t a seTT r : g r . ' M t m a t c h e s shows nonmilitary
a scholar o( the Second Josephus's description of Gamta, a pivotal battle site for the Great Revolt. first-century C.E. life
Temple period who explored throughout the Galilee,
and tried to explain the motivations for the rebellions, liberally not necessarily from siege sites: two ossuaries (Kefar Hittin and
sprinkling his lines with language full of ardor and spirit, conclud- Sepphoris); a sizeable showcase of a variety of oil lamps; two
ing that a Judea resigned to its fate might, yes, have for awhile showcases devoted to Jewish and non-Jewish burial finds; and
remained occupied with Torah—until soon trampled "like clay." some stone vessel fragments that whisper of ritual use.
Guri-Rimon (rightly) bemoans the fact that Klausner's style of per- The other two walls, the lower, "breached" ones, are not far from
sonal, passionate history-telling has passed. Perhaps the dominant the center of the room, within the soldiers' eyesight. Besides heing
Roman road motif and simultaneous invisibility of Jewish religious aesthetically effective—mass near the middle, bringing outdoors
life are somehow related to Klausner's words and her remem- i:i—these walls represent Gamla and Yodefat. A pile of two dozen
brance of them. basalt ballista balls, typical of the Golan's black rock, sits in front of
So with the otherwise excellent exhibit not providing the "why," the Gamla wall, representing the two thousand ballistae recovered
we look to the road for "how." The road directs the dramatic there so far. A pile of slightly smaller white balls sits in front ot the
narrative hy means of layout and artifact, beginning at the entrance. wall that is Yodefat, where white stones would be typical. Facing
Planted there, like gateposts, are a Roman road milestone you can the walls is a hands-on catapult (reconstruction). It is here that
walk around and a Roman road dedication stone, the former found the arrows seem to whiz overhead.
near Afula and the latter near Naharia beside the road running Showcased beautifully nearby, arranged almost as if one
between Antioch and Akko. (Both belong to the Israel Antiquities composed of many {in the glass, especially in this room, looking
Authority, which lent many items.) The milestone is dated to 69 like a school offish), is a collection of iron arrowheads, including
c.E. (the earliest ever found here) and the dedication stone to variants of trilobate and fíat and pyramid types, as well as spear
circa 56 c.E., shortly after the accession of Nero Caesar, whom it points and catapult bolts (Kfar Kanna) and limestone slingshots
honors and who, ten years later, selected Vespasian to suppress (Yodefat). Here is also located an assortment of fibulae (for keeping

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOííY 7Î;1 (2010)

clothes closed), hobnails from the Roman soldiers' boots (shown diploma" dated 160 c.E. The diploma, a bronze tablet (10 cm
on a to-scale drawing), a metal eagle maybe 10 cm in length (the wide by 12.5 cm long) is a personalized copy of an imperial grant
symbol of Rome and always worn or carried), and, taking pride (conslítutío) that grants legal privileges, not the least of which is
of place, a Roman ownership/identification tag of sheet bronze, citizenship to children of a non-Roman wife, to soldiers who have
found at Gamla. The inscription is still readable: served twenty-five years in auxiliary units stationed in Rome's
provinces. The rare tablet is actually two tied together, although
>MVSI
the Hecht (for safety reasons) is displaying only one. The text was
.LMAGI
GALLI
Apparently it helonged to one Lucius Magius
Gallus of the Fifth Legion. This is not like
the "dogtag" worn hy American soldiers but
was attached to military equipment.
Most of the Roman military equipment,
as well as a showcase of roof tiles and bricks
bearing the Tenth Legion stamp, which
u ould be considered part of that army's
material culture, is displayed in a relatively
straight line along one side of the "road,"
just past the menacing mien of Vespasian's
marble bust (only the head; ca. 70 C.E.), part
of the Hecht's collection. Only an amphora
tound at Gamla's oil press is not related to
the Roman military.
A highlight o( this area is (part oO the
contents of an unusual concentration found
in a narrow alley at Gamla. There a Roman
officer (fleeing?) apparently discarded several
pieces of equipment. Found together were a
helmet handle, a cheek guard, a scabbard
chape, all exhibited here, as well as an umbo
(center boss ot a shield) and parts of strip
armor {lorica segméntala) and some other
items not exhibited. Two rare pieces of armor
found elsewhere—-a piece of iron armor from
Sepphoris and a piece of bronze armor from
the Megiddo area (Horvat Betzalit)—are
exhibited but cannot be shown in this review
because they are not yet published.
Also from Gamla, found at the main
breach, is a siege hook (falx muralis). It was
used for stabbing as well as grabbing the wall
to make climbing possible. Showcased with
the Gamla finds is a beautiful umbo similar
to the Gamla umbo, although not from
there. In his catalogue essay, Danny Syon Siege Hook. This piece of Roman military equipment, found at the
makes the point that although these finds are "Roman," we cannot breach of Gamla's wall, is believed by excavator Danny Syon to be
necessarily assign them to the Romans because the Jews used the only one of its type in Israel. It would have been used both for
essentially the same kinds of weapons and equipment. stabbing the wall and for hooking onto it for climbing. Usually it is
kept in the Qazrin Museum. Courtesy Danny Syon.
One important piece that is inarguably Roman, although only
indirectly related to the Galilean role in the Revolt, is a "military

N l i A R H A S T Ü R N A R C H A I i O L C X i V 7 î ; l ( 2 0 1 0 ) 5.Î

Chape and Cheekguard. Found together in a narrow
alley at Gamla were several items of military equipment
that excavators surmise may have been discarded by
a trapped or fleeing Roman officer. Among the items
were this scabbard chape and helmet cheekguard.
Courtesy Danny Syon.
written twice, once inside (for safekeeping) and once outside, then
tied together with twisted wire. On the back, the seals of seven
witnesses were attached to wire binding.
This constitutio was granted by Emperor Antoninus Pius in 160
C.E. to auxiliary soldiers in Syria Palestina (formerly Judea) under
Governor Maximus Lucilianus. Only four copies of this grant have
been found until now, all issued to veterans from Lycia Pamphilia
(south of modern Turkey). The dating of this piece indicates that
recruiting for auxilia was necessary some twenty-five years earlier,
the time of Bar Kokhba. Although not directly part of the Galilean
Revolt, the need to replenish recruits is still a testimony to the
resistance the Romans faced, says the display's legend. The tablet
is not shown here because it is unpublished, although Hannah
Cotton and Werner Eck plan to publish it in the Hecht Museum's
annual journal, according to the museum.
Perhaps the most intriguing ot the nonmilitary items is the
display of an underground hideaway system representing the
twenty-seven discovered thus far in the Galilee, specifically those
at Kfar Kanna (actually Karm er-Ras, at the western edge of Kfar
Kanna) and Yodefat. When the excavators of Karm er-Ras went
54 N E A R EASTERN ARCH.AF.OLOGY 7ÎH (2CI0)
m\ m m
beneath Roman-period partition walls (which seemed intriguingly
odd in their placement and height), they discovered that these
walls, between two Hellenistic walls, camouflaged three partially
stone-built, partially rock-cut underground units, all within some
25 square meters and connected by underground corridors. Those
of Area T and those of Area W, with Early Roman built directly
on Iron Age debris, are thoroughly described and illustrated in
the catalogue essay "The Archaeological Evidence of the Great
Revolt at Karm er-Ras (Kfar Kanna) in the Lower Galilee," hy
Yardenna Alexandre (worth the price of the book). The exhibit
explanation is, of course, less thorough, but an excellent drawing of
one hideaway system, a stone "manhole" cover set in a stone floor
pavement (like tlie excavators found), and several of the eleven
(some counts say thirteen) storage jars (ribbed-body, bag-shape)
found piled on their sides in pristine condition in one chamber of
Area W's hideaway together demonstrate the measures of defensive
preparedness, even if the houses above showed no destruction. (It
must be remembered that nearby Sepphoris was the first town to
capitulate.) Several of the Galilean hideaways cannot be so closely
dated as this one, which is confidently dated by a coin; two bronze
 ffiïll m\ \m
coins minted in the second year of the Great Revolt were found in
another chamber oí che multichamber, multilevel hideaway.
The lengthy legend for "Hiding Complexes" is typical of the
interesting, able treatment given various displays for those visitors
willing to read the tine print. Poster-size legends include "The
Jewish Population in the Galilee on the Eve of the Great Revolt
Luid Its Attitude"; "The Siege of Yodefat and Gamla"; and "Coins."
Furthermore, several appropriately placed copies of segments
trom Trajan's Column (Rome) illustrate in detail the life of the
army: medical care in the field; proportion of the umbo to shield,
tor instance; and height ot the standard. (1 particularly love the
catalogue's figure 65, which includes an apparently terrified
standard bearer peeking over his shoulder at the assault, his own
sbield tucked under his arm, as he must use two hands to hold the
standard high.) Also, many of the showcases make sense of what
would otherwise be, for example, mere pieces of helmet hardware;
simple black-and-white tine drawings show where each pin and
nail belong.
To be commended are Guri-Rimon and her assistant curator,
Shunit Netter-Marmelstein, and Peri Livne; the rest of the museum
staff; the science advisers (Prof. Uriel Rappaport, Dr. Jack Pastor,
Dr. Danny Syon, and Dr. Mordechai Aviam); the Tav Group for its
exhibition design; Noga Mizrachi for her catalogue design; and A.
M. Goldstein for English editing of the catalogue; and, lastly, the
Gesteht Haifa Ltd for printing. The exhibition is an education as
well as a pleasure. Let's hope many students take advantage of the
opportunity during the indefinite period, maybe two years, that the
exhibit lives.
(The Cirecu Revolt in the Galilee, Heche Mutieum, University of Haifa, Israel.
Available on the museum website at httpV/mushecht.haifa.ac.il/michmanim/
CataloHMenu_eng.aspx.'id —35.)
Camilla Luckey
Reference
Guri-Rimon, O. 2008. The Great Revolt in the Galikc. Hefah: Muie'on Helcht,
Universität Hefah,
Umbo. An umbo is the raised center, or boss, of a shield. This bronze
one, found at Gamla, closely resembles one displayed in the exhibit.
Others like it can be identified on shields in the many illustrations
drawn after Trajan's Column (Rome) used throughout both the exhibit
and its catalogue. Courtesy Danny Syon.
 m\ m m\
The New Acropolis Museum:
Where the Visual Feast
Trumps Education
T
he glittering new Acropolis Museum opened on June 20, 2009,
amidst a ßurry of international attention and press coverage.
The need for a new museum was already apparent in the ¡ 970s,
but it took the intervening thirty years to become a reality. The new
structure, designed by New York's Bernard Tschumi and curated by
Dimitrios Pandermalis, replaces a predecessor that first opened its doors
in i 874 and welcomed travelers, families, and archaeological superstars
for more than a hundred years.
56 NEAR Ü.ASTERN ARt;HAliOUXiY 7Î:1 (2010)
m\
The new incarnation is a far cry from its dark and crowded
ancestor. Located to the south of the Acropolis on Dicinysiou
AreopagitoLi, it rests on huge pylons above a recently excavated
portion of the ancient city. Visitors, after passing through a TSA-
worthy security apparatus, move up a wide ramp lined with artifacts
from the Acropolis's slopes. The second floor is shaped like a
colonnaded temple and contains the Archaic sculpture room,
several displays that highlight the Periklean building program, and
glowing niches set into the walls for smaller finds. The space is
organized both thematically and chronologically, beginning in the
Bronze Age and ending with a gleaming display of seventh-century
C.E. gold coins. The escalators, placed within the central "celta,"
glide up to the topfloor,where one can walk among the Parthenon
marbles while enjoying a spectacular view. The museum has two
gift shops, a well-priced café, and a balcony whose bold lunge
The Erechtheion's caryatids on display, now visible from all angles.
Courtesy of the Acropolis Museum.

toward the Acropolis provides an undisturbed view of hoth the
Parthenon and the meticulously coiffed olive grove included in the
museum's grounds.
Most striking about the artifacts on display are their sheer
luimber: about four thousand, too many to have ever graced the
older and much smaller museum. New visitors will he enthralled
by the veritable forest of Archaic sculptures. Any questions can be
answered by the discreetly hovering docents, employed specifically
to wander the museum and engage people in conversation. Th(5se
not troubled by vertigo will be thrilled to walk on glass floors above
the newly excavated remains of the Late Antique city; walkways
are planned that will allow guests to climb down among tbe ancient
streets. Those long familiar with the previous Acropolis Museum
will see well-known, old friends—the Kritios Boy, the Bluebeard
Pediment, the Rampin Rider—but will also be delighted hy the
newer additions; the Seated Scribes, the painted votive plaques,
the hordes of wedding vessels (kmtrophoroi). Expect to be pleasantly
surprised by details not normally visible in a display of this sort,
such as the chisel marks on the hack oí the Parthenon's frieze
blocks or the elaborate and lush braids trailing past the shoulders
of the Garyatids. Especially charming is the Hellenistic foundation
pyre that greets visitors upon entering; in a modern foundation
rite, a last pot was interred in the pyre and the deposit symbolically
sealed in the glass floor during the televised opening ceremony.
The objects themselves are gorgeously illuminated by the
natural light. The purified "low iron" glass used to make up the
walls eliminates the hot summer's glare and adds instead a soft,
.silvery- texture to the light. Thanks to the spacious 150,000 square
ieet, the sculptures and architectural fragments stand away from
walls and corners and can be minutely examined from all angles.
Other artifacts, such as metal attachments, votive terracottas, and
pottery, are displayed in recessed cases in the east and west walls;
the handful of free-standing cases are small and serve as accents to
display tine or two particular artifacts.
JÏ.0 »ïi:
The Parthenon
Gallery interacts
with the Athenian
Acropolis. Courtesy
of Bernard Tschumi
Architects.
As a whole, the building is a spectacular example of a site-
specific museum. The dialogue between the museum and the
adjacent Acropolis is at once subtle and unmistakable, already
evident as one takes in the exterior of the building. Towering
above visitors, its size and shape are akin to the huge limestone
outcrop that it celebrates. The wide ramp in the interior, lined
with artifacts from the slopes, recalls the entrance ramp that once
led supplicants upward to the sanctuary; present-day crowds make
the pilgrimage much like the ancient Athenians. In the Archaic
sculpture room, the white luster of marble contrasts with the slate
grey of the concrete piers and walls, recalling the interaction of
the white Pentelic marble and grey Eleusinian limestone on the
Acropolis, so heloved of architecture aficionados.
The topmost floor, aligned at an off-kilter angle that
directly mirrors the neighboring Parthenon, is a breath-taking
achievement. A magnificent, panoramic vista greets the visitor
upon exiting the central "celia." The concrete buildings of the
modern city stretch to the south, while to the north the green hills
of Lykabittos, Philopappos, and the Acropolis stand close enough
to touch, as if artfully arranged by long.-ago geological forces for
our viewing pleasure. The sight is so impressive that one has to
wrench one's gaze back toward the display, to what many consider
the entire ideological underpinning of the museum: the Parthenon
Marbles (Elgin Marbles), both the originals that remained in
Athens and the casts of those still in the British Museum. The
room's form abstractly replicates the sculptured façade of the
Parthenon, making it possible to wander along the temple's faux
colonnade, looking in toward the famed marble figures. With their
original, fifth-centur>' B.C.E. resting place visible beyond the glass
walls, the sculptures of the frieze, the metopes and the pediments
have been arranged around the central celia and hung at several
heights and planes, creating a segmented surface through which
the visitor can walk. This spatial partitioning encourages viewers
to zigzag in and out oí the Parthenon's external layers in a way
ÎIHIT

m m \m
never before possible. The design has, in fact, created an entirely museum's design seems to celebrate the nineteenth-century view
new way to experience the temple; it adds a distinct, schematic, of ancient Greece, highlighting rationality and simplicity. The lines
and original labyrinth that visitors can explore mere minutes after are clean and the fonns basic. Even the muted color palette serves
gazing at, photographing, but never entering, the temple on the to create a mood reflecting the idealized classical Acropolis—no
Acropolis itself. gaudy ancient color-clashing or Byzantine ochres here. Instead,
The casts of the missing pedimental sculptures, the center of so the shades are cool; the hard grey of limestone, the dusky blue
much media attention, stand at either end of the Parthenon Gallery, of the afternoon sky, the cream-colored marble of the temples.
facing east and west, as they did in antiquity; now, however, the Yet, for some, the color palette, combined with the museum's
modern viewer stands practically nose to nose with the classical concrete, metal, and glass, might have a cold and sterile feel; the
Greek gods of the pediments. One could not imagine a more architectonic lines, the industrial girders, the metallic lining of the
remarkable and intimate way to see and experience the Parthenon artifact cases—these may more readily bring to mind the skeletal
Marbles, a point made abundantly clear in the international media cranes and hardware of the Parthenon's reconstruction project
blitz surrounding the museum's opening. than any classical past.
Particularly characteristic of the Parthenon Gallery, and the While the aesthetic experience is stunning, it seems to have
museum at large, is the extensive use of glass, which floods the dictated and controlled the role of pedagogy in the museum's design.
interior with natural light. As anyone who visits will notice, there The press pamphlet mentions that "Signage has been developed
is a particular character to to be both visible and
the light that beats down on yet to be as discrete as
the Acropolis, something possible, recognizing that
that the museum's architect signage and wayfinding
has exploited to great effect. must not compete with
Glass is everywhere. Not only the artifacts" {Acropolis
are the walls composed of Museum Media Kit, 2009,
it, but so also are sections of 4). The signs and labels are
the floor and ceiling. With its easy to miss, because they
three levels and a basement fade into the background
housing an excavation, the and bear only regular,
glass building becomes a black text. The lack of
symbolic manifestation of an photographs, illustrated
archaeological site, a three- reconstructions, and t)ther
dimensional embodiment of drawings is conspicuous,
stratigraphy. Looking down especially given the rich
is a reminder of the many photographic tradition
ancient strata that lie beneath a v a i l a b l e from t h e
the modern city streets. excavations, as well as
Looking up, one sees a living the hundreds of drawings
palimpsest with the surreal and paintings showing the
scampering of children on later life of the Acropolis.
the floor above. Of course, as T h e re a r e very few
eye-popping as the effect may maps to aid orientation,
be, the designers were clearly although three charming
not women wearing skirts on and delicate models of the
a hot Athenian day. Visitors Acropolis are a pleasure
are strongly advised to dress to see; one can only wish
accordingly! that they had been larger,
so as to compete with the
Perhaps because of its more massive, beautifislly
modern sensibilities, the

The Archaic Gallery on the second

floor of the Acropolis Museum.
Courtesy of the Acropolis Museum.

8 NEAR K.-XSTHRN AUCHAÍíOUKiV 7Î:1 (20101

 I üül IM

Pli

articulated, and gleaming-whitc poorly represented, both in objects and

models of the fifth-century Periklean labeling, so that visitors will have no idea
buildings. The information provided rhat a temple to Roma and Augustus
by the signs is generally too vague >-tood among the Classical structures
and elementary, lacking in detail or that Herodes Atticus once built a
and with little attention given I heater there in honor of his murdered
to chronology or disagreements wife. A beautifully filmed short video
in interpretation. For example, I m the top floor is the only concession
the function and contents of the to the p o s t - R o m a n A c r o p o l i s ;
Periklean buildings ate ignored in computerized reconstructions give a
favor of their architectural and Jelightful but extremely brief synopsis
sculptural details—there is no oí the Parthenon's histoty up until
discussion of the altars beneath the Elgin's departure. Unfortunately, the
Nike Temple, no mention of the video is too short to address the later
scholarly kerfuffle over whether the history of the building in any depth,
Parthenon was a temple, and no and it does not address the rest of the
exhibit dedicated to the cult statues, Acropolis. Most interested visitors
not even that most famous produci will nevL'r know that the Parthenon
of Phidias, the Athena Parthenon became a sacred site for the Byzantine
Fortunately, the objects from the worship of the Theotokos (Mother of
sanctuaries on the slopes highlight God); that in the medieval period the
daily life and the social function of .Acropolis was a fortified site, with a last
the slope sanctuaries. These displays remaining tower still standing to this
Lire especially strong on ancient day; that a mosque and minaret stood
marriage customs, gender roles, there in the midst of an Ottoman-era
and the domestic experience. The ; or that the Acropolis become a
slim discussion of ancient ritual, of resistance during the Nazi
however, notably the Panathenaic occupation. The entire account of the
prtïcession, the sacrifices to The entrance to the Acropolis Museum archaeological excavation is summed
Athena, and the various altars and includes a view of the recent excavations. up in one sentence. Ultimately, the
cult statues on the Acropolis, is Courtesy of Bernard Tschumi Architects. museum's presentation of the history
cause for disappointment. In short, of the Acropolis effectively terminates
the museum's approach to signage reflects a larger philosophy with the Roman period, all but ignoring its subsequent life.
evident throughout: the artifacts are central, while historical and The museum's architecture, though it has its detractors,
archaeological contexts pass to the wayside. mirrors and reinterprets the limestone rock and its buildings in
Melina Mcrcouri's campaign to retrieve the Parthenon Marbles, an enthralling and constantly surprising way. Moving through
begun in 1983, continues in the Parthenon Gallery, where dull the building and among its artifacts is an encounter that is to be
white plaster casts stand in place of the missing sculptures, Yet the highly recommended. That experience, however, subsumed the
sculptures removed hy Elgin are not the only glaring omission fiom didactic function of the museum. Those interested in exploring the
the Museum; t)ne likely to receive more attention as time passes is archaeological history of the Acropolis, rather than just its art, will
ihe absence of entire periods of history. The displays officially cover likely be disappointed. In the end, as an aesthetic experience, the
the Mycenaean through Roman periods, although the emphasis of new Acropolis Museum is a resounding triumph, but as a place to
the collection and its educational literature rests on the Archaic learn about the long, complex, and fascinating history of Athens's
;md Classical periods, a fact, one might argue, that was dictated most important cultural landmark, it is a missed opportunity.
more hy the interests of the nineteenth-century excavators than
by anything else. Still, even the geological history of the limestone Katie Rask
outcrop and its position in the topography of the Mesogeion plain
is not explored, so that the Acropolis is presented as having no
The Ohio State University
connection at all to its wider landscape (a trend continued by the
failure to connect the Acropolis's history in any way to the Agora
or other parts of the ancient city). The Roman period is very
 m m m m\
\m\ \m
Ancient Jordan from the Air
By David Kennedy and Robert Bew-
ley. London: Council for the British
Research in the Levant, 2004. Pp. 282.
Cloth, $68.00, ISBN 0-95391-022-9.
A; rchaeology in an age of satel-
lite imagery has prompted a new
chapter in the investigation of the Near
Eastern landscape. Like the survey
equipment of early European explor-
ers, satellite technologies and Global
Information Systems (GIS) software
have together become a robust, high-resolution lens through which
humans' relationship with the landscape are discerned. Despite
the imagery's and software's high expense, these technologies
have changed the nature of archaeological practice: no need to
purchase an expensive plane ticket to the region; no need to apply
for an excavation license from the national antiquities authority;
and for archaeologists who work in areas plagued by conflict or
occupied by foreign armies, they may continue their exploration
from the comfort of their office computers. Indeed, these methods
seem poised to surpass field archaeology in popularity, especially
as scholars lose access to particular comers of the Middle East and
funding sources dry up. But can pixilated spy photos and abstract
settlement pattern models help archaeologists grasp the nuances
of everyday life or the stratigraphie details of history that field
archaeology provides? Must archaeologists abandon their trowels
for comfortable office chairs?
A compromise between the office-bound and the field-bound
is David Kennedy and Robert Bewley's Ancient Jordan/rom the
Air. This book of breathtaking aerial photography picks readers
up out of their desk chairs and flies them across the Jordanian
landscape. A volume designed both for the scholar and layperson
(25-26), Ancient Jordan from the Air's chronological coverage is
thorough, documenting sites and features from prehistory through
the British Mandate period. The book includes an essay on
Jordan's environment (ch. 2), a summary of tbe kingdom's culture
history (ch. 3), and a discussion of methods in aerial archaeology
(ch. 4). The remaining ten chapters treat each cultural horizon
separately, combining half- and full-page colur images of key sites.
The accompanying text discusses the site's cultural and social
significance. Rarely is an impiirtant site overlooked. My strongest
critique is that a compact disk containing digital versions of the
images was not included with the book.
It is worth admiring this book for tbe unusual aerial perspective
Book Reviews of Interest
that the authors have worked so hard to produce. Between
1997 and 2003, Kennedy and Bewley, in collaboration with the
Jordanian Air Eorce, conducted several helicopter and small
plane flights over Jordan. They used a 35 mm camera along with a
variety of lenses and film to produce the book's images (53). These
authors encountered tbe usual problems that photographers
face in arid environments. Multiple complicating factors such as
vegetation, time of day, and angle and intensity of the sun—never
mind shouting directions to the pilot over the loud engine—-made
getting the perfect shot difficult. Capturing the right ratios of
shadow to light matter in this art, and in most instances the
authors have managed to produce crisp images that illustrate the
features of each site in great detail.
A collective examination of these images reveals how different
Jordan's ancient settlements are compared to those found
elsewhere in the Levant. Rural Jordan has experienced relatively
limited population growth compared to other areas of the Levant
(e.g., Lebanon). As a result, many sites stand apart from modern
settlements, making them easy to photograph. As one travels from
north to south, the large, deeply stratified sites like Tall el-Husn
(90-91) that are typical of ancient Near Eastern settlements give
way to smaller single-period settlements like Khirbat al-Mudayna
al-Aliya (108-9) whose architecture is often still visible on the
surface.
Chapter 12, on Early Islamic Jordan, is by far the book's
most successful chapter. After a one-page introduction to the
time period, images of the so-called "Desert Castles"—Qasr
al-Mshatta, Qasr Mushash, Qasr al-Kharaneh, Qusayr Amra,
Qasr al-Tuba—as well as other notable Umayyad and Ayyubid
settlements such as al-Qastal, Umm al-Walid, Ayla (Aqaba),
al-Fedein, Khirbat al-Makhul, and the pools and mansions of
the Azraq Oasis follow. In several instances, two images of each
site are presented from different distances and angles in order
to illustrate the site's broader context as well as a close-up of its
features. The image caption helpfully reports the film reference
and the date the photo was taken. Each site and its historical
significance are discussed in a four- or five-paragraph description
alongside the image.
But it is chapter 14, on the Ottoman and British Mandate
periods, that is the book's unique contribution. These two periods
often go overlooked in culture history surveys, but thanks to the
work of archaeologists and historians these recent periods are
witnessing more scholarly attention. Kennedy and Bewley provide
aerial photographs of tbe Ottoman pilgrimage forts that offered
water and protection to weary pilgrims as well as the road that
was worn into the landscape through centuries of traffic. Other
images include the late Ottoman-period towns of Dana and
Salt, the Hijaz Railway, and the few remaining military trenches
the Ottoman military constructed during World War I. Most
surprising are images of the few remaining features still visible
from the British Mandate period: police forts and airports, as well
as the circular airmail route markers that pilots followed from
Amman to the Iraqi town of Ramadi.
Readers who quickly flip through this book may conclude that
Ancienl Jordaji/ro7n the Air is a mere coffee-table book with pretty
pictures and that aerial archaeology is only adventure tourism in
disguise, generating results more suitable for National Geographic
enthusiasts than serious scholars. I would disagree on both
counts. The book is more than archaeological eye-candy, and the
book's images will prove useful in classroom and public lectures.
This book also serves as an exciting, albeit brief, introduction
to the archaeology of Jordan that complements more detailed
surveys of Jordan's archaeology such as MacDonald, Adams, and
Bienkowski's Arc/iíimíog^ of Jordan (2001).
Best of all, some of these images are useful for analysis. Upon
receiving the book, I hurriedly flipped to page 103, where images
of Dhiban, the site at which I currently work, were published.
A near-vertical image of the site (fig. 7.2B) revealed visible
architectural features that sit on or just below the surface. I
quickly scanned the image at a high resolution and imported it
into Adobe Illustrator. Using the program's vector drawing tool,
I traced the complicated building outline on the settlement's
western half, all from the convenience of my home computer!
In their description oí Dhiban's history, the authors point out
these visible features and suggest that fragments of a possible
casemate wall may be seen on the image's extreme right-hand
side, Dhiban's western edge. This is a reasonable observation to
make from an airplane's cockpit, but it also reveals how these
conjectures must be followed up with on-the-ground inspection.
The Dhiban Project's recent excavations and architectural survey
reveal that the suggested casemate system as well as the partially
submerged architecture date to Jordan's Mamluk and possibly
Ottoman occupation between the thirteenth and nineteenth
centuries c.E.
Ancient Jordan/rom the Air, like all aerial and satellite imagery,
provides archaeologists with a perspective that past societies
probably never imagined possible. Even today, this perspective
is a convenience in which only the select few may indulge—
most ordinary Jordanians and tourists to the kingdom experience
rhe landscape horizontally, while walking or driving. Realizing
this privileged position leads one to wonder the extent to which
this bird's-eye view oi' the landscape can satisfy archaeological
research goals. No doubt these technologies help begin the
search, identifying sites and piecing together the agricultural
strategies of ancient societies, but it does not readily lend itself
to reconstructing the very minute details of daily life in antiquity
or recovering the ancient documents that historians value as
primary sources. So long as these aspects of the discipline are
valued, archaeologists will need to get their boots dirty in the
field. For archaeologists working in Jordan, Kennedy and Bewley
take them part way there.
Benjamin W. Porter
University of California, Berkeley
The Persian Empire
By Lindsay Allen. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 2005. Pp. 208;
plates, maps. Cloth, $39.95, ISBN
0-226-01447-9.
L indsay Allen's volume was printed
initially as the historical accompa-
niment to the British Museum's lauded
"Forgotten Empire" exhibition of over
450 works of Achaemenid art and its
_ catalogue edited by curator J. E. Curtis
and N. Tallis (published by the British Museum and University oí
California Press). The British Museum's edition of Allen's text was
entitled specifically as a history; Chicago's version drops that line,
presumably to promote the book as a cultural-political treatment
written for a general audience, as the dust jacket describes. The
connection between Allen's book and the exhibition is not explicit,
but the high quality of some of tbe illustrations—seventy-five of
which are color—hints at the relationship. Allen has held numerous
research and teaching positions in England and tbe U.S. and has
worked in the Ancient Near Eastern departments of the British
and Metropolitan Museums, poising her to write a well-researched
narrative that speaks to nonspecialists.
The text is divided into seven chapters presented in more-
or-less chronological order from the Neo-Assyrian roots o{ the
empire to the reception of Achaemenid history and material
culture in modern Iran. (Presumably this interest justifies the
publisher's choice of Neo-Babylonian and nineteenth-century
objects on the front of the jacket, reserving a tiled lion relief
from Susa for the back cover.) Chapter 1 is concerned especially
with origins and the ties the Achaemenid Empire had to the
Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian traditions. The remainder of the
chapter offers an event-driven history of Cyrus II to the end
of Cambyses' reign. Chapter 2 picks up with Darius I, whom
Allen credits with tbe formation of a true "Persian identity,"
and leads us to the Ionian Revolt and its ramifications. The
3:1 {ZOIC) 01
surprising are images of the few remaining features still visible
from the British Mandate period: police forts and airports, as well
as the circular airmail route markers that pilots followed from
Amman to the Iraqi town of Ramadi.
Readers who quickly flip through this book may conclude that
Ancienl Jordaji/ro7n the Air is a mere coffee-table book with pretty
pictures and that aerial archaeology is only adventure tourism in
disguise, generating results more suitable for National Geographic
enthusiasts than serious scholars. I would disagree on both
counts. The book is more than archaeological eye-candy, and the
book's images will prove useful in classroom and public lectures.
This book also serves as an exciting, albeit brief, introduction
to the archaeology of Jordan that complements more detailed
surveys of Jordan's archaeology such as MacDonald, Adams, and
Bienkowski's Arc/iíimíog^ of Jordan (2001).
Best of all, some of these images are useful for analysis. Upon
receiving the book, I hurriedly flipped to page 103, where images
of Dhiban, the site at which I currently work, were published.
A near-vertical image of the site (fig. 7.2B) revealed visible
architectural features that sit on or just below the surface. I
quickly scanned the image at a high resolution and imported it
into Adobe Illustrator. Using the program's vector drawing tool,
I traced the complicated building outline on the settlement's
western half, all from the convenience of my home computer!
In their description oí Dhiban's history, the authors point out
these visible features and suggest that fragments of a possible
casemate wall may be seen on the image's extreme right-hand
side, Dhiban's western edge. This is a reasonable observation to
make from an airplane's cockpit, but it also reveals how these
conjectures must be followed up with on-the-ground inspection.
The Dhiban Project's recent excavations and architectural survey
reveal that the suggested casemate system as well as the partially
submerged architecture date to Jordan's Mamluk and possibly
Ottoman occupation between the thirteenth and nineteenth
centuries c.E.
Ancient Jordan/rom the Air, like all aerial and satellite imagery,
provides archaeologists with a perspective that past societies
probably never imagined possible. Even today, this perspective
is a convenience in which only the select few may indulge—
most ordinary Jordanians and tourists to the kingdom experience
rhe landscape horizontally, while walking or driving. Realizing
this privileged position leads one to wonder the extent to which
this bird's-eye view oi' the landscape can satisfy archaeological
research goals. No doubt these technologies help begin the
search, identifying sites and piecing together the agricultural
strategies of ancient societies, but it does not readily lend itself
to reconstructing the very minute details of daily life in antiquity
or recovering the ancient documents that historians value as
primary sources. So long as these aspects of the discipline are
valued, archaeologists will need to get their boots dirty in the
field. For archaeologists working in Jordan, Kennedy and Bewley
take them part way there.
Benjamin W. Porter
University of California, Berkeley
The Persian Empire
By Lindsay Allen. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 2005. Pp. 208;
plates, maps. Cloth, $39.95, ISBN
0-226-01447-9.
L indsay Allen's volume was printed
initially as the historical accompa-
niment to the British Museum's lauded
"Forgotten Empire" exhibition of over
450 works of Achaemenid art and its
_ catalogue edited by curator J. E. Curtis
and N. Tallis (published by the British Museum and University oí
California Press). The British Museum's edition of Allen's text was
entitled specifically as a history; Chicago's version drops that line,
presumably to promote the book as a cultural-political treatment
written for a general audience, as the dust jacket describes. The
connection between Allen's book and the exhibition is not explicit,
but the high quality of some of tbe illustrations—seventy-five of
which are color—hints at the relationship. Allen has held numerous
research and teaching positions in England and tbe U.S. and has
worked in the Ancient Near Eastern departments of the British
and Metropolitan Museums, poising her to write a well-researched
narrative that speaks to nonspecialists.
The text is divided into seven chapters presented in more-
or-less chronological order from the Neo-Assyrian roots o{ the
empire to the reception of Achaemenid history and material
culture in modern Iran. (Presumably this interest justifies the
publisher's choice of Neo-Babylonian and nineteenth-century
objects on the front of the jacket, reserving a tiled lion relief
from Susa for the back cover.) Chapter 1 is concerned especially
with origins and the ties the Achaemenid Empire had to the
Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian traditions. The remainder of the
chapter offers an event-driven history of Cyrus II to the end
of Cambyses' reign. Chapter 2 picks up with Darius I, whom
Allen credits with tbe formation of a true "Persian identity,"
and leads us to the Ionian Revolt and its ramifications. The
3:1 {ZOIC) 01
book (particularly its publisher) chooses to promote the Persian
invasion of mainland Greece as the watershed moment in Greek
identity-formation, emphasizing the Greeks' discovery through
this confrontation that they "were distinct from the peoples
of Asia" (49). While this notion is hardly controversial for a
general text, it is disappointing to see the author promote a
facile notion of Greek social history here when elsewhere she
suggests with more subtlety that Greeks had mixed responses to
the Persians.
Having brought the story through the death of Xerxes and
rise of Artaxerxes I, the book abandons its chronological
approach in chapter 3, which focuses on royal capitals. The
discussion of archaeological material is neither complete nor
particularly satisfying. Chapter 4 begins as art history. Here
the use of figures is uneven, some being ignored entirely in
the main discussion. The text manages to work its way hack
to history, bringing the narrative down to the fourth century.
Chapter 5 breaks rhythm again with a sociocultural address
to tbe makeup, administration, and religious traditions of the
empire. Chapter 6 recounts Alexander's Eastern campaigns and
their consequences. Allen presents Alexander as the "last of
the Achaemenids," allowing her to recount, sometimes in detail
excessive for a general audience, his conquests and how they
were perceived by contemporary and later audiences. Chapter 7
continues the intermittent style of the other "culture" chapters,
discussing various interesting topics of the post-Alexander age.
It offers some idea of how various Western groups came to be
involved in and contributed to Iranian archaeology and how the
Achaemenid past was treated before and after the revolution.
More attention to the state of archaeology in post-1979 Iran
would have heen illuminating.
The decision to present the material thematically, however
laudable, yields a sometimes disjointed text. Descriptions of
objects and sites, although occasionally insightful, seem generally
no more informative than good museum wall text. Tbe purpose of
the illustrations is not always evident. Figure captions are uneven
and inconsistent; dates are offered sporadically, as are dimensions
and material. It is nearly impossible to learn more about the
illustrations because of the choice to list the figure credits
alphabetically according to source and to omit all bibliography
from this section. The images themselves are sometimes
breathtaking, sometimes prosaic, and selected seemingly at whim.
While the landscapes and other views offer an important sense
of place, the illustration of several objects lacking provenance is
troublesome. The notes and bibliography are more solid.
Allen's text can offer a nice overview of events and is, at times,
rather insightful. Its strengths are its eagerness to highlight
lesser-known aspects and achievements of one of the lesser.-
known-—even "forgotten"—great empires and its willingness and
ability to handle postantique source material to investigate the
lasting impact of the Achaemenids. But the presentation seems
sometimes at odds with Chicago's promotion of an "accessible"
i>2 NkAli LA^ilbRN ARCMALOLOGV ï J : l (2010)
text. For example, in an otherwise interesting section on
perceptions of Alexander in the Near Eastern literary tradition,
the mythological character "Iskander" is introduced visually and
in a figure caption on pages 144-45 (fig. 6.9) without sufficient
explanation of his identity. Not until page 156 is his association
with Alexander explained clearly; later still, on page 159 (fig.
6.17), "Iskander" is glossed as "Alexander." Such editorial
oversights and confusing typos (e.g., "Iranian" for "Ionian") would
surely frustrate a nonspecialist reader, whereas the text may only
occasionally add enough to the general picture for a scholar to
choose it over others released recently that were written with an
academic audience in mind.
S. Rebecca Martin
Southeast Missouri State University
Studying the Ancient
Israelites: A Guide to
Sources and Methods
By Victor H. Matthews. Grand Rap-
ids: Baker; Nottingham, U.K.: Apol-
los, 2007. Pp. 232, including insets,
charts, illustrations, and photos.
Paper, $21.99. ISBN: 978-0-8010-
3197-7.
Studying
the Ancient
Israelites T: 'his is a helpful, easy-to-read vol-
ume that introduces students and
interested nonspecialists to important
issues in understanding and re-creat-
ing the culture of, and select historical events that took place within,
Israel and Judah. It is neatly arranged into an introduction and
five thematic chapters dealing, in order, with historical geography,
archaet)Iogy, literary approaches, social sciences, and history and
historiography. Terms are well-defined for the beginner, and many
present-day analogies are used to help show both continuity and
discontinuity with twenty-first-century Western culture. Matthews
follows the tripartite division of changes over time developed by the
Annales historical school, although this is not acknowledged and
may be sheer coincidence. Still, it is a logical way to move from the
big picture to specific events; historical geography shows how the
slowest rate of change, long duration, which reflects changes that
take pliice over millennia, still impacts on human decisions about
where to live and how to support oneself in that environment;
book (particularly its publisher) chooses to promote the Persian text. For example, in an otherwise interesting section on
invasion of mainland Greece as the watershed moment in Greek perceptions of Alexander in the Near Eastern literary tradition,
identity-formation, emphasizing the Greeks' discovery through the mythological character "Iskander" is introduced visually and
this confrontation that they "were distinct from the peoples in a figure caption on pages 144-45 (fig. 6.9) without sufficient
of Asia" (49). While this notion is hardly controversial for a explanation of his identity. Not until page 156 is his association
general text, it is disappointing to see the author promote a with Alexander explained clearly; later still, on page 159 (fig.
facile notion of Greek social history here when elsewhere she 6.17), "Iskander" is glossed as "Alexander." Such editorial
suggests with more subtlety that Greeks had mixed responses to oversights and confusing typos (e.g., "Iranian" for "Ionian") would
the Persians. surely frustrate a nonspecialist reader, whereas the text may only
Having brought the story through the death of Xerxes and occasionally add enough to the general picture for a scholar to
rise of Artaxerxes I, the book abandons its chronological choose it over others released recently that were written with an
approach in chapter 3, which focuses on royal capitals. The academic audience in mind.
discussion of archaeological material is neither complete nor
particularly satisfying. Ghapter 4 begins as art history, fiere S. Rebecca Martin
the use of figures is uneven, some being ignored entirely in Southeast Missouri State University
the main discussion. The text manages to work its way back
to history, bringing the narrative down to the fourth century.
Chapter 5 breaks rhythm again with a sociocultural address
to the makeup, administration, and religious traditions of the
empire. Ghapter 6 recounts Alexander's Eastern campaigns and
their consequences. Allen presents Alexander as the "last of
Studying the Ancient
the Achaemenids," allowing her to recount, sometimes in detail
excessive for a general audience, his conquests and how they
Israelites: A Guide to
were perceived by contemporary and later audiences. Ghapter 7
continues the intermittent style of the other "culture" chapters,
Sources and Methods
discussing various interesting topics of the post-Alexander age.
It offers some idea of how various Western groups came to be By Victor H. Matthews. Grand Rap-
involved in and contributed to Iranian archaeology and how the ids: Baker; Nottingham, U.K.: Apol-
Achaemenid past was treated before and after the revolution. los, 2007. Pp. 232, including insets,
More attention to the state of archaeology in post-1979 Iran charts, illustrations, and photos.
would have been illuminating. Paper, $21.99. ISBN: 978-0-8010-
The decision to present the material thematically, however 3197-7.
laudable, yields a sometimes disjointed text. Descriptions of Studying
objects and sites, although occasionally insightful, seem generally the Ancient
no more informative than good museum wall text. The purpose of s is a helpful, easy-to-read vol-
the illustrations is not always evident. Figure captions are uneven Israelites ume that introduces students and
and inconsistent; dates are offered sporadically, as are dimensions interested nonspecialists to important
and material. It is nearly impossible to learn more about the issues in understanding and re-creat-
illustrations because of the choice to list the figure credits ing the culture of, and select historical events that took place within,
alphabetically according to source and to omit all bibliography Israel and Judah. It is neatly arranged into an introduction and
from this section. The images themselves are sometimes five thematic chapters dealing, in order, with historical geography,
breathtaking, sometimes prosaic, and selected seemingly at whim. archaeology, literary approaches, social sciences, and history and
While the landscapes and other views offer an important sense historiography. Terms are well-defined for the beginner, and many
of place, the illustration of several objects lacking provenance is present-day analogies are used to help show both continuity and
troublesome. The notes and bibliography are more solid. discontinuity with twenty-first-century Western culture. Matthews
Allen's text can offer a nice overview of events and is, at times, follows the tripartite division of changes over time developed by the
rather insightful. Its strengths are its eagerness to highlight Annales historical school, although this is not acknowledged and
lesser-known aspects and achievements of one of the lesser- may be sheer coincidence. Still, it is a logical way to move from the
known—even "forgotten"—great empires and its willingness and big picture to specific events: historical geography shows how the
ability to handle postantique source material to investigate the slowest rate of change, long duration, which reflects changes that
lasting impact of the Achaemenids. But the presentation seems take place over millennia, still impacts on human decisions about
sometimes at odds with Chicago's promotion of an "accessible" where to live and how to support oneself in that environment;
 archaeology then demonstrates changes that take place at the rate records under this heading and to deal with the Bible in the
of multiple decades to centuries, or conjunction, documenting ensuing chapter. Matthews does begin the subsection by saying
trends within a given culture; texts give access to the fastest rate the Bible is also an ancient artifact (84), but this order of
of change, days to years, the level of event, providing names and presentation psychologically separates the biblical and nonbiblical
particulars about specific occurrences. written material in a way I think is unhelpful and potentially
The introduction needs not only a discussion of the multiple misleading. Most of the literary methods outlined under "Literary
meanings of Israel but also a discussion of ]udahites/}udeans. I Approaches" need to be applied to any ancient text, whatever its
suspect the term "ancient Israelites" was chosen for the title nature and country of origin. More importantly, although ostraca,
because it has a certain level of popular recognition for marketing inscriptions, clay tablets, and papyri can come to light through
purposes. However, I was surprised not to find a subsequent excavation, they provide direct evidence for the level of event
nuancing of its meaning, especially since the point of the book is and so are distinguishable from other cultural remains recovered
to help beginners understand the "real" world inhabited by "real" in the same way, which only illuminate the level of conjunction.
people. Those of us who teach undergraduates are well aware The chapter on literary approaches gives a succinct description
of the confusion in their minds that leads them to interchange of an array of critical approaches: just enough basic information
"Israelite" and "Israeli" and to call the people who were citizens to be useful but not overwhelming. I agree with Matthews,
of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah "Jews" indiscriminately. Thus, however, that the cumulative effect for the beginner might be
in such a primer as this, it is crucial to reinforce distinctions and despair, due to the complexity of the analytical task and so many
make students aware that "Israel" was once the name of a small possible approaches (121). There is no easy way to avoid this
Iron Age kingdom but also came to be the emic designation of sense under the circumstances. However, I think limited rehef
the emerging Jewish community in the Persian period, embraced could have been provided by grouping approaches into synthetic
by inhabitants of Samerina, Yehud, and the Judean diaspora; the or diachronic categories, beginning with the synthetic, final-form
possible influence within the Israelite diaspora cannot be gauged. readings. This is logically where all analysis begins, and only after
This book focuses on Israelites and Judahites who inhabited the the text has been understood at this level does the historian then
kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It would be worthwhile to stress move on to diachronic methods such as source criticism, form
that most of the Hebrew Bible was produced in southern circles, criticism, and tradition criticism, which need not be addressed by
Judahite/Judean, depending on when you date the first drafts of a literary critic. Matthews's claim that "scholars who concentrate
individual books, and so is testimony to the culture of Judah more their efforts on the literary and historical aspects of the biblical
so than of Israel. narrative are known as literary critics" is outdated (107). Over
The chapter on archaeology is generally well-balanced, but it the past twenty-five to thirty years, with the rise of synthetic
does not explain the basic reason why archaeology cannot prove approaches, there has been a parting of the ways between literary
or disprove the Bible. It is not only because of "the destructive critics and historians, who share the synthetic set of methods but
nature of time, the elements, and successive inhabitants of the no longer the diachronic ones.
region who systematically reused building materials and dug The chapter on social sciences provides a good guide for the
through ancient occupation layers" (60). These things are taken need to be aware of differences in culture between "us" and
into consideration when excavating, and the last two, one hopes, "them" and to realize that the Hebrew Bible, like all literature,
are caught in the process of recording and phasing an area. encodes its society's customs, practices, and views of reality. The
Students need to understand that archaeology illuminates the scribes who composed each book assumed their audience would
level of conjunction, which is the backdrop against which events share all sorts of common presuppositions and knowledge. Thus,
take place. Remains of the material culture of a given group, readers from another culture and different time can deduce and
which primarily are datable by changes in pottery and shifts in infer aspects of their social world, cultural values, and institutions
handwriting, give access to trends that tend to change at the rate through careful attention to story details. But is this to be done as
of a century or more. Thus, nonwritten artifacts do not provide a synthetic task or as a diachronic one? Matthews says that taking
direct evidence for the level of event. A stratum cannot be dated into account cultural layering must precede the identification
on archaeological criteria alone to the reign of a specific king. of separate layers and their editing (128). I do not understand
Students would also have benefited here from a discussion of what he means in practical terms. Similarly (or contrarily?), I find
absolute and relative dating so they see how even small objects baffling the statement that "[t]he social context presented in these
such as scarabs or coins with specific historical information texts is revealed as its layers are stripped away in much the same
cannot absolutely date a given layer, due to the heirloom factor way that an archaeologist strips away the soil in an excavation"
and animal activity. (126). To what method is he referring? Ancient Judahite and
While I understand the logic of saying that texts are artifacts Judean cultural dimensions are embedded in Matthews's use
of a sort and so can be included in a discussion of archaeology, it of language to convey his message and so are operative on the
was somewhat artificial to include inscriptions and extrabiblical synthetic level. Conflicting/competing ideologies, practices, and
beliefs found within a passage are the main means of identifying
editorial work so as to recognize diachronic layers present in an
account. More clarity about these two aspects is needed.
This volume has a number of strengths that would make it quite
useful as a primary or supplementary text for an introductory-
level course or module. Eor this reason, I would like to see the
points raised above addressed to enhance a second edition even
further. As it stands, the book can be used by a wide audience,
from both faith and nonfaith backgrounds, and it gives a helpful
emphasis to reading texts of the Hebrew Bible within their ancient-
contexts, which differ from our modern Western one dramatically
and from more traditional societies less so but still in important
ways that need to be acknowledged. If the trends in final-form
and reader-response approaches to biblical texts continue, the
process of creating meaning can still be enhanced by making the
reader aware that she or he is far from being a member of the
author's ideal narrative audience or from targeted actual ancient
audiences. In choosing to bridge this gap by learning more about
the ancient Judahite, Judean, and Jewish worldviews and literary
conventions, a reader can become more self-aware and better
attuned to the contributions made by the authors who created the
texts and the reader who is responding to it by drawing on his or
her own experience and current worldview.
Diana Edelman
University of Sheffield

Andrews
University Press
SMALL FINDS: STUDIES OF BONE, IRON, GLASS,
FIGURINES, AND STONE OBJECTS FROM TELL
HESBAN AND VICINITY Small Finds:
Studies of Bone, Iron, Glass,
Figurines, and Stone Objects
Edited by Paul J. Ray, Jr. from Tell llesban
and Vicinity

Hesban 12 coordinates the reports of a spectrum of specialists dealing with

Arab, Greek, Latin and Ammonite inscriptions, bone, iron samples, glass frag-
ments, domestic stone objects, ceramic figurines, scarabs, textile tools, cosmetic
objects, jewelry, coins and other objects recovered during the excavations at
Tell Hesban, its cemeteries, probes and regional-survey sites from 1968-76.

ISBN 978-0-943872-28-5
2009 xxi + 414 pp. cloth: 8.5 x 11" $74.99

Phone:269-471-6134 * Toll Free: 1-800-467-6369 * Fax 269-471-6224 * Email: aupo@andrews.edu

website: universitypress.andrews.edu