El Kheleifah

Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal
Author(s): Gary D. Pratico

Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research , Summer, 1985, No. 259
(Summer, 1985), pp. 1-32
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The American Schools of
Oriental Research
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1356795
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The American Schools of Oriental Research and The University of Chicago Press are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research
This content downloaded from

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:511976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excavations at
Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal
GARY D. PRATICO
The Semitic Museum
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
The low mudbrick mound known today as Tell el-Kheleifeh is approximately

500 m from the northern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba, roughly equidistant between
modern Eilat and Aqaba. It was first surveyed in 1933 by Fritz Frank, who
identified Tell el-Kheleifeh with biblical Ezion-geber. Glueck directed three seasons
of excavation there between 1938 and 1940. Accepting Frank's identfication Glueck
discerned five major occupational periods, which he dated between the 10th and 5th
centuries B.c. The biblical site provided the historical and cultural context for inter-
pretation of Tell el-Khelefeh 's archaeological data.
The results of Glueck's three seasons have not been technically published. This
study reappraises his excavations with special attention to the site's stratigraphy,
architecture, and pottery traditions. The data suggest that Tell el-Kheleifeh was
occupied in two major phases; casemate fortress andfortified settlement. The pottery
horizons suggest an occupational history from the 8th to the 6th centuries B.C. with
a postscript of uncertain duration. Identification of the site is both an archaeological
and an historical problem.
INTRODUCTION site's occupational horizons were dated between

the Iron I and Persian periods (Glueck 1938a:
T he Jordanian site of Tell el-Kheleifeh is
3-17; 1938b: 2-13; 1939: 8-22; 1940a: 2-18; 1965:
located approximately 500 m from
70-87).the
He accepted Frank's identification of Tell
northern shore of the Gulf of el-Kheleifeh
Aqaba, with Ezion-geber and, although some
roughly equidistant between modern Eilat and
uncertainty is reflected in his field records and later
Aqaba. The western side of the mound, today(Glueck 1965: 71; 1977: 713), the
publications
clearly defined by the excavator's western equation
dumpremained the underlying premise for
(figs. 1-3), is some 6 m east of the fence that of the site's occupational history.
interpretation
demarcates the neutral zone between Jordan and Though Glueck's writings on Tell el-Kheleifeh
Israel. are numerous (Vogel 1970: 382-94; 1971: 85-86;
Tell el-Kheleifeh was first surveyed in 1933 by 1981: 49-50), the site's stratigraphy, architecture,
the German explorer F. Frank, who identified thepottery, and other artifact data have not been
site with biblical Ezion-geber (Frank 1934: 243- published in a technical report. The following
45). In November 1937, Nelson Glueck and others represents a distillation of a complete reappraisal
from the American School of Oriental Research in of Glueck's excavations, to be published under the
Jerusalem conducted a surface survey of this low auspices of the American Schools of Oriental
mudbrick mound, determining its outlines and Research.'
an
occupational history considered not later than the
8th century B.C. Glueck directed three seasons of THE SITE
excavation at the site between 1938 and 1940,
The excavated area at the end of the 1940
discerning six major periods of occupation (IA, IC,
II-V) with three subphases (IB, IVA, IVB). The season was ca. 80 m north-south, by 72 m eas

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
2 GARY D. PRATICO BASOR 259
During
west (fig. 4). The corner of a nearby garden the 1938 season, Glueck excav
wall
was chosen for the site benchmark, established
northern third of the site, exposing abou
at 3.99 m over the shore of the Gulf of(fig.
Aqaba.1).The
The mound's most impressive
highest point of the tell was southeast was uncovered
of its center in the northwest corner of the
(fig. 4; Square N: 17) at +2.84 m, corresponding to a building complex consisting of
excavated area,
the absolute height above sea level three
of +6.83
roughlym.
square units at the northern end and
The deepest excavated level, reportedly tolarger
three virgin
rectangular rooms extending to the
soil, was in Room 113 (fig. 5; Square 1:6) at south. The latter are 7.40 m in length and of
- 1.53 m, below benchmark level. The difference in varying widths (ca. 2.00-3.00 m). The building
height between the deepest wall foundation of the measures 13.20 m in length (north-south) and is
western casemate perimeter and the top of the 12.30 m wide on the north side and 13.20 m wide
preserved walls was 4.37 m. on the south side. The exterior walls are 1.20 m
Tell el-Kheleifeh is not a conspicuous site today. wide; interior walls vary between 0.95 and 1.05 m.
Its appearance is similar to that of the many The walls were preserved to a height of 2.70 m. The
surrounding hillocks. As studied during a surface building is almost entirely of mudbrick construc-
survey in August 1980, the area of extant architec- tion. Its bricks measure ca. 0.40 x 0.20 x 0.10 m
ture is little more than 12 square meters. A few and were laid in a roughly "header and stretcher
mudbrick walls have been preserved to a height of fashion.
ca 1.5 m. Unfortunately, the fragmentary remains Two horizontal rows of apertures were dis-
could not be located on the plans prepared by covered in both exterior and interior walls of this
Glueck's architect J. Pinkerfeld. It is likely that the building (Glueck 1938a: fig. 2). The lower course
existing walls represent an architectural potpourri was located at an average height of 1.00 m from the
from the various periods of occupation. They bottom of the walls. The upper row was some 0.70
appear to be located south-southeast of the site's m higher. Having abandoned his interpretation
largest structure (fig. 3). The excavator's northern, that these apertures were flues, Glueck later con-
eastern, and western dumps provided the reference sidered them evidence of a construction technique
points for location. There are no visible remains of for strengthening the walls (1965: 73-75). Wooden
the most distinctive architectural elements (the beams, halved in the case of Tell el-Kheleifeh, were
four-room building, the casemate or offsets/insets embedded across the widths of the walls, creating a
walls or the four-chambered gate). Of special stronger bond. The semicircular holes were all that
interest, however, was a wall in the northern remained after the timbers were consumed in a
section of preserved architecture, with two hori- destruction by fire. These features were also dis-
zontal rows of apertures, originally interpreted as covered elsewhere in the site's architecture, notably
flues (Glueck 1938a: 5-6, fig. 2; 1965: 73-75, in Room 49 (fig. 6; Square M:13). Eight installa-
fig. 3). tions, interpreted as hearths or ovens, were found
The mound has been disturbed at several points in this casemate unit.
by modern military installations, most notably an This building, variously interpreted by Glueck as
observation tower toward the southern end of a smelter, a citadel, or a granary, continued
Glueck's excavation area. Its foundations appear
throughout the site's occupational history, maintain-
to have cut undisturbed levels to a depth of
ingca.
its basic plan. Glueck's earliest level (Period
1.5 m. Several trenches have also been cut into the IA), as prepared for publication by Pinkerfeld, was
northern and western sections of the site. These composed of this isolated structure in its initial
phase of construction. Period IB designated a
disturbances produced a wealth of finds, including
a stamped Rhodian jar handle and a bronze second
trefoilphase in which a substantial reinforcing
arrowhead. The material remains gleaned wall
from was added on all four sides of the building
this survey provide a valuable complement (Glueck
to the 1938a: 10-11; 1940a: 3). As Glueck later
1938-40 assemblage. recognized (1977: 714), this building never existed
as an isolated structure but was a component in the
THE 1938-40 EXCAVATIONS site's earliest architectural phase, the casemate
fortress (fig. 5; Period IC).
The Four-Room Building The plan of Glueck's granary is a widely attested

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
1985 TELL EL-KHELEIFEH: A REAPPRAISAL 3
4uS a 44 t S
4,i..B * a" 2
44" ~ ~ ~ : 4 . . * .. lt
44 4
., .-..-'s
4? 1. . *
3: . F
44 * !9,
v . . " % ?? ' . ....
Cii; ~~ji~~s~? f ,;* r a 4"? ;?
" ~ir: ? d .8". 44 m.4 i

4
, .?"'
''} ' ' ,
* . 4
" .. o,:; . :.
*" p ; ' e -'". " t*.

*:' . 4 4. .. '' * ....:
A 44 *4
i* *4 4' . . . ;4 :
.. ; Br. r .* P
* : < t . a , ;^
4r ,
t - ; - * ' Q : i . . ;
" "
34 ,
'.i . ;
2.
124 4 4 4 $ -i ^ . w . ~ . ,i . ...
14: C)L
* , e i,
fl .N
41
fr
?* * S
-:* "t .^ 4..4 ? . t,.*' "
*^ ' - <: . . '". . -
.7; '
} *9
O' '*.
*. .. 4.
4 14
^ ^ .** -' ~.~ .
.l
4 * *
!. " ^:* *e 'V ? .'., . . : . .
. V . 1 'P|
t ." r
4 :' .
: .. : .
.t *?'
..W..~"'
4.
4 4
.. ..
I.. ?' ? '::.~ :
* , 4 4.
"Il!"?~
*f : 101,
4:$ t .
4 * ' * '4 V? ': Owy
.. .
^ } .4 ,
4?t 4
44'" 44444
4 4 *
* t . . 8 ?s,::is.
.b: * ? ~ a 4 4
. .... .
Q;
8k':Lii
..
"I :i
4 r
44 *4
A
.0 S ..
Fi
ar c
mental structures alike. Its architectural contexts
th
are urban, village, and fortress settlements (Cohen
ti
1979). In urban contexts, it is an architecturally
li
integrated building tradition (Shiloh 1978).
d

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
*
e f 4* *
Vj* ~ b .
a :k. ???:i'q:.~~
* ft+ C
????I???~
~~~~~~~~~ ri. *
c~ ~ ?~, ?:.i
s + ~~~~~~t
p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:
~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~Ji
9. r 9 *
qO, *, 4
'Ap
V? : i.'i I
4S4
4~~~~~~~4
. t .?... ..
*.tit.
*ii???E :~"~ I~~
.* & &t .. 44~ ~ ~~~;B' +
i% sn 9
Fig. 2. Tell el-Kheleifeh at the end of the 1939 seaso

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
04 *
C
i?ii%i? :B?
I.
..4l,.?.-
.A...
....
<?
.!
* ! "::
Fig. 3. Tell el-Kheleifeh at the end of the 1940 season.
"Negevite" sherds comprise the total artifact evi-

Shiloh has argued, from an architectural perspec-
dence saved by the excavator. In light of current
tive, that storage was not a primary function of the
larger buildings constructed on the four-room plan data, it appears that storage was not a primary
(1970: 190). Although this appears to be true atfunction.
Tell el-Kheleifeh, conclusions about function are Shiloh suggests that the monumental four-room
difficult. The artifact data are exceptionally lean
buildings, including the Tell el-Kheleifeh structure,
for this building. A clay stopper and a few dozenfunctioned as citadels. The conclusion is legitimate

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
D E F G H I JK L M N 0 P Q R ST U
I ".
/ .N
II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4.0
I --
Cy)~~ /O / I \
/ ,,
I
, , '//
- \ / \ _CO
if
0// 0)
///~~~~ /
I, /,
-: , /, \
.,', ,' ,.Y,,'~ :.' -,. .. / AR CIET
/M'
/-"
/
/ " i
5., '" / '

C\. Is
LD /40 454 /It

0 E F G H J K L MN OP Q R SJTJU/
CD E,,^j4 \I\ ^^~~~~',I"

K.'^ //[ f \ARCHITECTURE'
,MP R
*1. fixed point, ,' pi / 99 m,
Fig. 4. Topographical plan of the site with the two major

settlement) in outline (Kruschen, after Pinkerfeld).

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
Fig. 5. Tell el-Kheleifeh's earliest architectural phase, th

Pinkerfeld).

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
D E F G H I J K L M N O P R ST U
C\J C\,
C\JCO
j /, ,,,z
0 o
~co ,
,.J
t, .
'~ ,~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0') ' - .
H N 0 CM ,
Y U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i W A L (A
o^^^^^^^^ ' o^- al[[ffl GLACIS (B T-
\^^^^^ ^^^^y ^?/ \\\^ WALLS (C) --
CUC(0^^^ 0 FIREPLACE<--
r CV~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e
D~~~~~~~1
E F HI JKLMN
O^^^ J ~~l~f ~ ALST IUf
TOWER
lj 0 5 10 15 20 25m 00 CLAY HEARTH-
^TITrjmiGLACIStTC
Fig. 6. Pinkerfeld's plan of Period II, the earliest phase of the offsets/

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
D E F G H IJ K L M N OP Q R S T U
03
0) 0)
DEFGi I JT
. 0)
CM'
~~~~00 co~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8'lu rb~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GLACIS
N PERIOD If
DV Ec F LMNO QRST
D E F G H I J K L MN OP Q R ST IU
Fig. 7. Pinkerfeld's Period III p

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
Li t-l - ci H I J K L M N P c H S T U
,r,--'/ .-
b'1-
/I
hi 113 irh~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
13 ~ ,9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~C,~~~~~/
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:c~
-... /~ /'?
- ._. - , I t
}"/~F
XI"1'~~~~-- GOSRC'L
1~ 3 %[ ,i~~~
'"" .
/I '-' oo
Ir,~~~~ ?
~~~. ~ -
-, ,,,,
-. ~.,,.~, ,,~..\ N
,. ~ ~;,,, , ~.. . , i
(C
/ / ti~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I ~1"" ) F
// SECTPIOD L \
'iS j A 1 i = 3 T R A CH
~) F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.L??'
F -- ; ~ M ? N o P ISIT` iU-
Fig. 8. Pinkerfeld's general plan of Tell el-Kheleifeh, Periods

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
Fig. 9. View of the western perimeter of the casemate fortress (Glueck's Period IC) from the northeast. Rooms 114 (the
long casemate to the right), 113, 112, 111, 109, 107, and 103 are visible.
~~~~~~~~~l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~it~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~''
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_,.. i --rZ -_
;Y~ ; I L sb+ ,.3_ .
- . .k
_W~~~~~~~~ ii _
*,'Pi: "s
4.~ .
..?,t ??_ _J
I, ?
Fig. 10. The four-chambere

100A, 100B, and the later
visible. Water sources are located near the mound. Note
the modern gardens and wells to the south.

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
?.,~.~ ,, ?-.,x .. ~. * . ............. .. .?. .. ... ,. - ?. . .*n*r. .. .. . *. ....B;i.K wl . = . = . . ** A e 4 r= :' B .%:i- . ...
-,^ .=~...c, ll "~ '^', . = .'F * ^'% . . * . ' ..." '" .. . ' ...'"
*d , ..!-__~
~- --; "''~~" :" ". <"'" :~ '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~":'
. "- ':":a ....?.SZ. g?,Eiy: . _! U ;
.^^~~~~~~~ , . .,a,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.'=~?~ .,~.~=?:..
:::::?? ??
Y*" Yi_""ii(Y.bXI**1
-~ J~t ? ...,," ..,, ? rw;in?
IEi.ii4 `?a
'xV *
...
-^
... . ..
.
` ..
..... 5~-r ?
.'
'':: . ..!: X ' i
. .
;... : ^
., _
*, ./
_ *e ....
.., .'. L:. .
. ..-... .^
....ki :7 l .E
Fig. 11. General view of the four-chambered gate from the south. The blockings of Rooms 1
The blockings of Rooms 100A and 100B have been removed.
if the designation is defined in the excavated

contexton ofthe western, southern and eastern
sides
architecture, that is, a citadel conceived of of
as the
a enclosure (figs. 5, 9). The northern
stronghold or fortified place with a viewquadrant remains buried beneath the excavation's
to defense
northern
or refuge. The designation should not imply dump. Pinkerfeld described the casemate
specific
military, political, commercial, or domestic square func-
as a Gurtel of rooms which measured ca.
tions. The function of each four-room 45 building
m on each preserved side. Glueck first described
must be determined, if possible, in light the casemate
of its own complex as a row of industrial work-
evidence with recognition of the limitations of
shops associated with the nearby smelting installa-
anepigraphic data. tion, the four-room building (1938a: 10; 1939: 10;
1940a: 4). Several casemate rooms (25, 36A, 103,
107, 109, 111, 112 and others) yielded installations
that were interpreted as hearths or fireplaces.
These installations, together with associated hand-
The Casemate Fortress made pottery, appeared to support the smelting
hypothesis (Glueck 1965: 75-76). With subsequent
revision, the Gurtel of rooms was recognized as a
As is clear from the 1939 and 1940 aerial photo-
casemate
graphs (figs. 2-3), the casemate fortress was fortification.

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
The exterior of the casemate wall was constructed

of casemate rooms would be purely hypothetical.
with offsets and insets on the three preserved sides.units of this earliest phase continued
The casemate
Each side had three offsets and two insets; the
into later levels (figs. 3, 8).
length of each was ca. 9 m. The terminal and
middle salients vary in thickness between 1.05 m
and 1.10 m, and the recesses between 0.80 m and
0.85 m.
The interior wall of the casemate rooms was ca. Dating the Casemate Fortress
0.80 m thick on each side of the enclosure. There
was considerable irregularity, however, in room Designating this fortress as Ezion-geber I, Glueck
dimensions and orientation of access for the pre-assigned this level to the time of Solomon and its
served sides. The southern row of rooms yielded destruction to biblical Shishak (1939: 18; 1940a: 5;
the entryway to the fortress complex. In the center1965: 82). The primary dating tool for the
of the medial offset, the entrance or gateroom was Solomonic level was a pottery horizon, largely
discerned. The entryway, ca. 2.25 m in width, wasunknown at the time, described as "crude, hand-
located in the southeastern corner of Room 42 made, friable, smoke-blackened pots, many of
(fig 5:K12). Access to the inner courtyard was which were built up on a mat, and most of which
achieved, not in a straight line, but through the various simple types of horn or ledge-handles,
have
northwestern corner of this room. There appearsor combinations of both" (Glueck 1938a: 14). These
vessels were originally interpreted as crucibles and
to be no means of access to the fortress compound
other than that on the south side. Assured con- associated with the smelting of copper ores. The
importance of this pottery for Glueck, as a
clusions are difficult, however, without the north-
ern quadrant of the casemate wall. diagnostic horizon of the 10th century B.C., is
reflected in the unfortunate fact that only these
Except for this gateroom, the doorways of the
handmade wares were saved to document the
southern casemate rooms were consistently located
in the interior corner that faced the gate. The chronology of the four-room building. Altho
entrance is thus located in the interior eastern there are no photographs, drawings, or desc
tions, wheelmade pottery was uncovered in t
corner of the rooms to the west of the gate, in the
structure as recorded in the field notes.
interior western corner of those to the east of the
Glueck later revised his understanding of the
gate. The dimensions of these southern casemates
vary considerably. function and chronology of this pottery and
attributed it to the nomadic and seminomadic
On the eastern row, the casemates are of roughly
similar dimensions, ca. 4.00 x 2.10 m. The doordwellers
of of the Negev, specifically the "Kenite
Rechabites, Yerahmeelites and related inhabitan
each unit, with the exception of the southernmost,
was located in the interior southwest corner, of Sinai, the Negev, the Wadi Arabah and north
therefore, oriented toward the gate complex. The western Arabia (1971a: 46). The pottery is toda
interior partitions, separating the casemate units, known as "Negevite" ware, a tradition with bro
were not bonded into the main walls. chronological limits that embrace the Iron Age
The western casemates are again different in the very least. In light of what is presently known
terms of room dimensions and orientation of "Negevite" pottery is not chronologically (o
ethnically)
access. This row consisted of double rooms, that is, diagnostic and must itself be dated
associated
the discrete architectural unit was comprised of wheelmade forms. The Tell el-Kheleifeh
handmade repertoire will be discussed below.
two rooms with an interior partition. The latter
was not bonded into the main parallel walls.
Within this architectural entity, the unit entrances
were in opposite corners. The rooms that compose
the larger units vary between 3.25 m and 4.30 m in
length with a width of 2.00 m.
In light of the differences between the eastern,
The Offsets/Insets Settlement
western, and southern sides of the casemate
After the destruction of the casemate fortress,
fortress, a reconstruction of the northern complex

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
the changed
the plan of Tell el-Kheleifeh was radically earlier casemate fortress (figs. 10-11). The
entrance was, therefore, on the port side of the
(fig. 6). The fortress was replaced by a significantly
larger settlement with an offsets/insets settlement.
wall and The
a room complex was built on the
four-chambered gateway (figs. 10-11). A of
interior large
the line of the solid wall. In the
section of the earlier casemate fortress was retained,
earliest phase of construction the gate consist
now creating an inner enclosure or courtyard
of four in the and three sets of piers. Similar gat
rooms
of "four-chambered"
northwest quadrant of the new offsets/insets plan. design, are known from
The northern and western perimeters ofMegiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: fig. 86
the earlier
cf. Yadin 1970: 84-89),2 Beersheba (Y. Ahar
casemate wall were now outside the offsets/insets
1972: of
fortification, which also destroyed a portion 119-21;
the 1973: pl. 84), Tell Dan (Biran 19
northern wall of the four-room building.43-50, fig. 16; 1980: 176-79) and Tell Arad
Each side of the new wall was constructed with (Y. Aharoni 1981: 6-7), although the latter has
been largely reconstructed (cf. more recently
three offsets and two insets, the lengths of which
Herzog et al. 1984: figs. 10, 16, and 21).
varied from 9 m to 12 m. The salients were gentle,
protruding little more than 0.37 m. At the point ofThe overall measurements of the Tell el-Kheleifeh
gate, including what appear to be foundational
offset the width of the wall was 2.60 m-3.10 m; the
inset thickness was 2.20 m-2.60 m. The dimensionselements for a stairway on the east (Rooms 84-89),
of this solid wall measured 56 m (north) x 59 m are 16.50 m (north) x 10.50 m (east) x 17.60 m
(east) x 59 m (south) x 63 m (west). A sloping (south) x 10.60 m (west). The dimensions of the
revetment ca. 1.7 m in thickness was discerned in guardrooms vary: Room 100A (4.00 m x 2.30 m x
the southeast corner and reconstructed with sali- 4.75 m x 2.30 m), Room 100B (3.50 m x 2.30 m x
ents and recesses around the perimeter of the
3.60 m x 2.00 m), Room 100C (3.50 m x 2.20 m x
fortification. The total thickness of the wall, on the
3.75 m x 2.50 m) and Room 100D (3.30 m x
basis of reconstruction, varied from 3.90 to 4.80 2.00
m.m x 3.40 m x 2.00 m). The southernmost of
The new fortifications also included a poorly the three sets of piers provided a passageway of
preserved outer wall, which was described by
1.70 m. The gate's middle piers allowed an opening
Pinkerfeld as "a thin low outside wall, whose
of 3.20 m and the innermost set permitted a
purpose was to delay the assailant a little before he passage of 3.30 m.
could reach the main walls." A 47-m length of this Both Glueck and Pinkerfeld maintained that the
outer wall was preserved in the southeast corner of earliest offsets/insets plan was devoid of architec-
the site (fig. 6; Square 0:23). Another section was ture within the two courtyards created by the solid
preserved on the western side of the settlement, and casemate walls. According to Glueck, the later
some 4 m beyond the offsets/insets wall (Squares phases (Periods III-IVB; figs. 7-8) were charac-
F: 11 and G:9, 10). This western segment represented terized by continued building within these enclo-
a reuse of the exterior wall of the earlier casemate sures. Our reappraisal suggests, however, that the
fortification. earliest phase was a fortified settlement with in-
Brick dimensions constituted the criterion of terior architecture. Unfortunately, the extent and
distinction between the two phases. The casemate
plan of building within the walls cannot be
bricks were 0.14 m thick, whereas those of thereconstructed.
outer fortification were only 0.11 m thick. On the Very little can be said of the fragmentary architec-
basis of these two sections, this outer fortificationture of Period V, except to note an alignment
element was reconstructed around the entire com- different from that of the earlier fortified settle-
pound except the area fronting the four-chambered ment. Phoenician and Aramaic ostraca of the 5th
gateway. Its reconstructed dimensions are 69 m and early 4th centuries B.C. (Glueck 1971b: 229-34),
(north) x 72 m (east) x 70.50 m (south) x 76 m together with a handful of 5th century B.C. Greek
(west). The passage between the outer element and body sherds, constitute the most reliable dating
the main wall was ca. 2.50 m-3.00 m. criteria for this level. There are also a number of
The gate complex, constructed in the southern 6th-5th century B.C. bowls, jars, and storage
perimeter of the offsets/insets wall, was aligned on
vessels. The repertoire of forms that document a
a north-south axis with the gateway (Room 42) of post-Iron Age occupation is very limited.

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
COMPARATIVE ARCHITECTURE been assigned to the four-room building tradition.

The location of this structure within the perimeters
The Casemate Fortress of fortification is, admittedly, atypical of the for-
tress plan.
Tell el-Kheleifeh's earliest occupational phase,Although there are pronounced similarities
between the handmade pottery of Tell el-Kheleifeh
the casemate fortress, is similar in architectural
and that of the central Negev fortresses, the latter
plan to the central Negev fortress tradition (Cohen
1979; cf. also 1970: 6-24; 1976: 34-50; Meshel are currently dated to the Iron I period on the basis
1975: 49-56; 1977: 110-35). The Negev fortress, asof wheelmade forms.4 The wheelmade pottery of
an architectural abstraction, consists of a casemate Tell el-Kheleifeh, however, does not appear to date
fortification surrounding a courtyard that is usu- earlier than the 8th century B.C. (below). In light of
ally open, that is, devoid of architecture. There iscurrent data, the suggested parallel between the
significant variation, however, in the plan and size Tell el-Kheleifeh casemate phase and the plan of
of the fortresses; the size and number of casemate the Negev fortresses must remain a conclusion of
rooms; and the plan, position, and construction of comparative architecture and not of chronology.
the gateways. The entrance to the compound usu-The problem of dating this fortress level will be
discussed below.
ally consists of an open space in the line of the
casemate units.
In light of current data, it appears that the
groundplan is chronologically, functionally, and
typologically irrelevant (cf. Y. Aharoni 1967: 3; The Offsets/Insets Settlement5
Cohen 1979: 63). Rigidity in plan classification
seems precluded by the irregular plans exhibited by Tell Arad. From the perspective of architec-
such fortresses as those of Horvat Ketef Shivta, tural plan, the fortified settlements of Tell Arad,
Horvat Rahba, Ramat Matred Fort 146, Horvat specifically the offsets/insets settlements of Strata
Ramat Boqer, Mesad Hatira and even Horvat X-VIII (Y. Aharoni 1981: 6-7; more recently
Haluqim (Cohen 1979: figs. 3, 5). As suggested by Herzog et al. 1984: figs. 10, 16, and 21), provide
these examples, topography appears to be one of good parallels to Tell el-Kheleifeh's most developed
the primary considerations in the plan of fortress offsets/insets phase (cf. fig. 3).6 Similar features
construction.3 include an element of "monumental" architecture
Tell el-Kheleifeh's casemate phase resembles the in the northwest corner (although dissimilar in
groundplans of Nahal Raviv, Horvat Ritma, function), a main north-south street on the settle-
Horvat Mesora and the small fortress near 'Atar ment's eastern side (cf. plan in Y. Aharoni 1981:
6-7), inner-wall structures of similar plan and
Haro'a (Cohen 1979: fig. 7). Although the Tell
el-Kheleifeh fortress is significantly larger than
perhaps function and fortifications of similar design
those of similar plan, its dimensions are com- which created comparable dimensions for each of
the settlements.
parable to those of other design such as 'Ain
Qudeis, 'Atar Haro'a, Horvat Rahba, Mezad Unfortunately, there is not a consensus on the
Refed and Mesad Hatira. It is possible that the sizedating of these strata at Tell Arad and the discussion
and quality of the Tell el-Kheleifeh fortress werehas been hindered, until recently, by a lack of
determined by the site's strategic location and thepublished data (see now Herzog et al. 1984: 1-34).
mudbrick construction. The excavator dated these levels to the 9th and 8th
A distinctive architectural element of the central centuries B.C. (Y. Aharoni 1981: 4-9), chronologi-
Negev fortress tradition is the presence of nearby cal horizons supported by those who have taken up
domestic architecture, often constructed on the the task of Tell Arad's technical publication
four-room plan. These structures are located out-(Herzog et al. 1984: 4, 8-22). Others have suggested
side the perimeters of fortification (cf. 'Atarthe need for a downward revision of these dates.
Haro'a, Horvat Haluqim, Horvat Ramat Boqer, Such revisions have been proposed from the
Mesad Mishor Ha-Ruah, Horvat Mesora, and perspectives of masonry styles (Yadin 1965: 180)
Horvat Ritma). As noted, Glueck's granary hasand the palaeography of the Arad inscriptions

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
3 4
0 5 10 20
I . I I a I I
cm.
Fig. 12. "Negevite" potter

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
1985 1985 ~~TELL EL-KHELEIFEH: A REAPPRAISAL 1 17
1
2 3
4
56
7 8 9
10 11 12
13 I-r 14 15
0 5 10
IM , 'II cm.
Fig. 13. Selected "Negevite" types.

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
~K...
2 3
0 .5 10 20
I . . . I I _ cm.
Fig. 14. Cooking pots and Qaws'anal jars.

4

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
'p-
-
4
2
3
I-I In f k~
5 7
6
-,--I
8 9
0 5 10
Iln i-- cm.
Fig. 15. An inverted rim krater and selected "Assyrian" and rel

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
- 0
1 2 3
<l i_) C 1 -. 5
5
7
2
6
9
10
0 5 10
_I- -71 cm.
Fig. 16. Selected juglets, bowls, saucer, and lamp.

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
_I
i:
(3
Fig. 17. Excavation photographs of the Edomite stamp impressions which were
read by Glueck Iqws nl Cbd hmlk, "belonging to Qaws canal, servant of the king."

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
(Cross 1979: 75-77; cf. Herzog et al. 1984:tive12, 13;

selection of Period IV (offsets/inset
figs. 14a and b). While selected horizons of Arad
ment) pottery types (Glueck 1967: 8-38;
XII-VIII pottery have been published (Y.51-59).
AharoniFurthermore, the excavation meth
1968: fig. 7; M. Aharoni 1981: 181-204; andHerzog et for recording artifacts preclud
system
al. 1984: figs. 5, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, and 25),
isolation of the casemate fortress and, t
informed conclusions must await fuller publication
extent, the fortified settlement pottery ho
of the data. There remains, however, the clear
This is true even for the excavated western
possibility, based on typological and palaeograph- perimeter of the casemate fortress situated outside
ical considerations, that the chronology of Stratum of the later offsets/insets wall. Probes in the
X and following (XII and XI as well) will be unexcavated northern perimeter of the casemate
revised downward. For the present, the suggested enclosure could yield a discrete horizon of the
similarities between the Tell el-Kheleifeh and Tell earliest occupational period. The wheelmade forms
of figs. 14-16 may confidently be assigned,
Arad offsets/insets settlements must be assigned to
the realm of architecture and not chronology. however, to the fortified settlement phase. Only
a handful of "Negevite" straight-walled and "hole-
mouth" cooking pots (cf. fig. 12: 1-5) can be
associated with the earliest level.
Tell el-Qudeirat (Kadesh-barnea) and Horvat
cUza. Two other fortified settlements offer instruc-
tive parallels for the study of Tell el-Kheleifeh's
offsets/insets phase: Tell el-Qudeirat (middle and
Chronology of the Pottery
latest phases; Cohen 1979: 72-74; 1981: 93-104)
and Horvat 'Uza (Y. Aharoni 1958: 33-35; Cohen Reappraisal of the wheelmade pottery has sug-
1979: 74-75). Although there are only general gested significant revisions in the site's chrono-
similarities in architectural plan, there are pro-
logical horizons. While acknowledging the presence
nounced similarities between the handmade and of a few forms that can be dated earlier, the pottery
wheelmade pottery horizons of each site, especially
must be assigned to the 8th-early 6th century B.C.
between Tell el-Qudeirat and Tell el-Kheleifeh. Isolated forms and epigraphic data document an
The pottery of Tell el-Qudeirat offers closer
occupation as late as the 4th century B.C. The
parallels to that of Tell el-Kheleifeh than any other
evidence that suggests a post-6th century date
site repertoire as a whole, although the fabrics comes
are from surface finds and the fragmentary
notably different. This is especially true for the
architectural remains of Glueck's Period V.
"Negevite" pottery attested in the three phasesLike at the fortresses and fortified settlements of
Tell el-Qudeirat (Cohen 1981: 101). The same the Negev, the pottery of Tell el-Kheleifeh falls
range of "Negevite" types is attested at both sites. into two categories of manufacturing technique:
The Tell el-Kheleifeh wares are most closely the crude, handmade "Negevite" wares and several
paralleled, however, by the handmade and wheel-horizons of wheelmade pottery. Included among
made pottery of Tell el-Qudeirat's middle and the wheelmade corpus are examples that belong
latest fortress phases, dated by the excavator to the so-called "Midianite," "Edomite," and
between the 8th and early 6th centuries B.C. "Assyrian" horizons. The former is represented by
six sherds whose stratigraphic context is uncertain
at best. Given the uncertainty of field provenance
THE POTTERY and the chronology of "Midianite" pottery, which
can antedate the Tell el-Kheleifeh assemblage by
some four centuries (Rothenberg and Glass 1981:
85-114; 1983: 100-1), these few sherds surely do
Pottery and Architecture not document an occupational horizon.
Studied over against the late Judaean repertoire,
The Tell el-Kheleifeh records do not thecontain
pottery isarecognizable and foreign at the same
compendium of the pottery assemblages time. Many that
of the diagnostic types of the late Iron
Glueck associated with each of the occupational
Age, such as the wide-rimmed, holemouth jars or
periods (IA-V), although he published a the
representa-
high-based lamps, are not attested. The distinc-

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
tive flared-rim cooking pot (Mazar, Dothan,

"Negevite"and
Types (figs. 12-13)
Dunayevsky 1966: fig. 18: 1-8; Y. Aharoni 1962:
pls. 11:24; 28:35-37; 1964: pls. 18:9, 10;At20:10) is
Tell el-Kheleifeh this handmade pottery is
represented by a single sherd. As recognized
attested in by
both casemate fortress and fortified
Glueck, the emphasis must be placed on the levels. There is a fairly wide range of
settlement
regional character of the pottery with affinities
types, although straight-walled and holemouth cook-
close to the assemblages of central and ingsouthern
pots predominate (fig. 12:1-5). The former
Transjordan and the Negev. frequently have two handles which exhibit a variety
of forms, including knobs, horns, ledge handles
and slight vertical applications. Straight-walled
cooking pots are well attested elsewhere (Meshel
1977: fig. 8:1, 7; Cohen 1970: fig. 11:1, 7, 9;
Y. Aharoni 1960: figs. 11:11, 13; 12:5, 6; Rothenberg
1972: figs. 31:1-3, 5; 35:2). Holemouth pots
commonly have horn, knob, or ledge handles. A
HANDMADE POTTERY
loop handle is preserved in one example (fig. 12:3).
This class is similarly well known (Meshel 1977:
fig. 8:2, 4; Cohen 1970: fig. 11:21; 1976: fig. 11:1-5;
Y. Aharoni 1960: fig. 11:3, 4, 7; Bennett 1975:
fig. 6:8).
Chronology and Distribution of "Negevite"Pottery
The "Negevite" bowls exhibit great variety in
The largest pottery horizon insize,
theshape, and handle
Tell el- types. An infrequent handle
type accurately
Kheleifeh repertoire is "Negevite" ware, consists of one to three small knobs clustered
on the upper portionof
described when first discovered as "fragments of the vessel's wall, just below
rough hand-made wares, thin-walled, the
of straight
grittyrim (fig. 12:6; cf. 13:4). In a few
clay
burnt very hard in an open hearth" (Woolley and the entire rim (cf. Cohen
examples, knobs decorate
Lawrence 1914-15: 67). It was first 1981: 98). Bowls
thought by are common in the "Negevite"
repertoire
Glueck to be a diagnostic horizon of the (Meshel
10th 1977: fig. 8:3; Cohen 1970:
fig. 11:4-6, 17; Y.
century B.C. Recent surveys and excavations Aharoni 1960: fig. 11:2; Rothen-
have
significantly refined the chronology bergand1972: fig. 45:8, 10, 11).
distribu-
Jars and cups are less frequent types, represented
tion of this pottery. It is surely attested throughout
by onlyand
the Iron Age and perhaps even earlier twelve examples at Tell el-Kheleifeh. Two
later
vessels have
(Rothenberg 1972: 153-54; Cohen 1981: 102). loop handles (fig. 13:5, 6), a handle
These wares have been found at numerous Iron type that is quite rare. General parallels to the class
come from 'Atar Haro'a (Cohen 1970: fig. 11:3),
Age sites, especially the fortresses and fortified
settlements of the Negev. They include Horvat Timna (Rothenberg 1972: fig. 45:12), Tell el-
Qudeirat (Cohen 1981: 101) and Buseirah (Bennett
Haluqim (Cohen 1976: 34-50), 'Atar Haro'a
1975: fig. 6:12).
(Cohen 1970: 6-24), Horvat Ritma (Meshel 1977:
110-35), Tell el-Qudeirat (Cohen 1981: 98-103) Juglets are of two types, both of which recall
wheelmade forms: (1) spherical or oval-shaped
and numerous lesser known sites (most accessible
vessels
in Cohen 1979: 75-77). A few "Negevite" vessels which are clearly reminiscent of Iron II
have been excavated at the Jordanian site of dipper juglets (fig. 13:7, 8) and (2) a flat-bottomed,
Buseirah (Bennett 1975: fig. 6:8, 12). elongated form (fig. 13:9). Handmade juglets are
not well attested elsewhere (Rothenberg 1972:
A typology of "Negevite" pottery has not been
fig. 45:9, 13).
established to date, although Cohen's excavations
at Tell el-Qudeirat clearly offer the prospect of Other handmade types, represented by only a
modest refinements (1979: 77; 1981: 102). Until few
a examples, include "teapots" (fig. 13:14; cf.
typology has been established, however, these Cohen 1970: fig. 11:11; Y. Aharoni 1958: pl. 50:A),
handmade wares must be dated by associated oil lamps (fig. 13:13; cf. Cohen 1981: 101 and
wheelmade forms. "Negevite" pottery cannot several unpublished examples from the last fortress
presently be used as a chronological tool. phase of Tell el-Qudeirat) and a small vessel with

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
tripod base (fig. 13:10) which appears Rahel (Y. Aharoni 1962: pls 11:24; 28:35
to be unique
to Tell el-Kheleifeh. Two other types pls.
of 18:9, 10; 20:10) and En-Gedi (Mazar
special
and
interest are six chalice fragments (fig. Dunayevsky
13:12) and 1966: figs. 8:14, 15; 18
two perforated vessels (fig. 13:11), interpreted as
Other grooved-rim cooking pot types ar
strainers or incense burners. Several of the chalices (cf. fig. 14:3).
are decorated with a denticulated ridge, a common
decoration on wheelmade forms of various pottery
types at Tell el-Kheleifeh and elsewhere (cf. fig. Jars. The most common jar form at
15:9). One "Negevite" chalice without denticula-Kheleifeh is presented in fig. 14:4. The
tion has been published from Tell el-Qudeiratdefined by a deeply grooved rim that r
(Cohen 1981: 101). An unpublished "incense rim profile and stance of the "Edomite
burner" from the same site comes from the latest pots; a thin, horizontal handle that ov
level. grooved rim and is attached to the upper
the shoulder; and a sagging, bag-shaped
It is uncertain whether a figurine (fig. 13:15)
rounded base. Most examples have a Qa
should be classified with the "Negevite" horizon.
stamp
Its fabric is notably different and, although it on either the upper or lower portio
handle.
evidences the characteristic crudity of this pottery,
the piece exhibits an element of decorative refine- With the exception of a single vessel from Umm
ment that seems out of place. el-Biyara (Bennett 1966: fig. 2:11; cf. fig. 4:2-4),
this jar type appears unique to Tell el-Kheleifeh.
However, specific features of this form that are
paralleled elsewhere include the bag-shaped body
(Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1966: figs. 9:14;
THE WHEELMADE POTTERY
22:3, 4; Y. Aharoni 1964: fig. 19:5; 1973: pl. 57:5;
Kempinski et al. 1981: pl. 11:16; Biran and
Cohen 1981: pl. 5:1) and the body profile that
recalls the distinctive late Iron Age holemouth jars
Selected Types (figs. 14-16) (Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1966: fig. 21:8;
Y. Aharoni 1962: fig. 29:10, 11; 1964: fig. 21:22, 23;
Cooking Pots. There are two predominant
1973: pl. 58:25-28). The above contexts clearly
cooking-pot types at Tell el-Kheleifeh: (1) the
date to the late Iron Age.
"Negevite" straight-walled and holemouth vessels,
generally interpreted as cooking pots (see above),
and (2) the so-called "Edomite" cooking pots (fig.
Inverted-Rim Kraters. Another vessel that fre-
14:1, 2). The latter clearly served inquently
this capacity
has the Qaws'anal stamp is the inverted-
and share the general form and fabric rimcharacteris-
krater (fig. 15:1). The form has either two or
tics of the class. The form is definedfourby a deeply
handles; a sharply inverted rim that is flattened
grooved rim that is basically rectangular in section,
and basically rectangular in section; handle attach-
typical cooking pot handles that overlap
ment at the rim,
the uppermost point of the rim; and occa-
and a rounded sidewall without a neck
sionally(cf. fig.upper-body carination. General
a subtle
14:3). Many of these pots have stamp impressions
parallels come from many sites, including En-Gedi
on the upper or lower portion of the handles.
(Mazar, Dothan,Theand Dunayevsky 1966: fig. 16:4,
most frequent type of stamp (fig. 17),
6),consistently
Beersheba (Y. Aharoni 1973: pis. 60:73-76;
located on the upper portion of the handle, has
64:8; 68:14; an 14), Ramat Rahel (Y. Aharoni
69:13,
inscription like that of fig. 17. It reads,
1964:IqwsCnl
figs. 18:5,Cbd
6; 20:3), Lachish (Y. Aharoni 1975:
hmlk, "belonging to Qawscanal, servant of
pl. 44:13), the (Biran and Cohen 1981: pls. 7:3;
Aro'er
king" (Glueck 1971b: 237-40; cf. 1938b:
8:3; 16:6),11-12,
Heshbon (Lugenbeal and Sauer 1972:
1940a: 15). The script is dateable to the late 7th
pl. 6:333-48, or 355, 358), Umm el-Biyara
350-52,
early 6th century B.C. (Bennett 1966: fig. 3:10) and unpublished examples
A single cooking-pot sherd was found whichand
from Buseirah is Tawilan. Few of these parallels
identical in form and fabric to a typepreserve
well attested
all the typical features of the Tell el-
in late Iron Age contexts, especially at Ramat
Kheleifeh krater. The differences are basically

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
twofold: a more triangular rim and ansouthern

upper-body
Jordan, including Buseirah (Bennett 1974:
carination that is frequently pronounced.
fig. 16:6), The
Meqabelein (Harding 1950: pl. 16:17,
18), Sahab (Harding 1947: figs. 98:31-34, 36-37;
former is not attested at Tell el-Kheleifeh and the
pl. 35:31, 35, 42, 43) and Amman (Harding 1944:
latter is infrequent. This vessel type further empha-
sizes the regional character of the Tell el-Kheleifeh
fig. 71:21, 22; pls. 17:22; 18:56; Harding and Tufnell
1953: fig. 22:94-99A).
horizon. The cited parallels provide contexts that
suggest a range from the late 8th to the early Reminiscent of the "Assyrian" cups are the
6th century B.C. numerous examples of "censers" (Crowfoot 1940:
190-93), designated "perforated cups" by Glueck
(1967: 30-33; cf. pp. 34, 37-38 and nn. 52, 63). One
of the typical forms is presented here in fig. 15:8.
"Assyrian" Pottery and Related Forms. The
Although there is some variety, the type exhibits
so-called "Assyrian" bowls in local imitation are
the following features: three stump legs or conical
ubiquitous at Tell el-Kheleifeh (fig. 15:2-6). This
knobs, generally two horizontal rows of perfora-
distinctive and well-known pottery class is the
tions, a double body carination, and a rounded or
second largest horizon at the site, after the "Negev-
somewhat flattened loop handle in most examples.
ite" wares. Glueck assigned this pottery to Period
Infrequently a flat or concave base is attested.
IV (the offsets/insets settlement) without distin-
These vessels were assigned to Period IV as were
guishing among IV, IVA, and IVB. The two basic
the "Assyrian" cups.
"carinated cup" categories, as discerned by Glueck
The finest example of the "windowed" censer is
(1967: 24-30), are correct with the need for slight
contained in the collections of the Jordan Archaeo-
refinements. Although there are modest differences
logical Museum (fig. 15:9; Glueck 1967: 31-34;
within the numerous examples of the first type, the
figs. 2:1; 5:1, 7). In place of the perforations, this
"Assyrian" cups with handles (fig. 15:2, 3), the
vessel has windows; and, unlike the perforated
class is quite monotonous in terms of form and
type, it has a lid. Five rectangular windows are
fabric. All examples are clearly local in origin.
preserved in a convex body. The denticulated
The second class, carinated cups without handles
fringe, located just below the windows, is a frequent
(fig. 15:4, 5), is composed of vessels that are consis-
decoration in Period IV pottery.
tently finer in form and fabric than those with
handles. Decoration and rim profile provide some
variation within the class. A few examples are
burnished and several, although not a majority as Juglets and Bowls. Selected examples of the
most
suggested by Glueck, are decorated with red bands common juglet and bowl types are presented
in
of paint (SR 3/2-3/4) in parallel lines on the rim fig. 16:1-8. Spherical or oval juglets with narrow
section above the body carination (fig. 15:6). neck (fig. 16:1, 2) are the most numerous forms,
Related to this type are several examples followed
of by an elongated type with rounded base
doubly carinated cups with high outturned rims and a neck slightly larger in diameter than that of
and rounded bases (fig. 15:7; cf. Glueck 1967: the first class (fig. 16:3). Vertical burnishing or
figs. 1:6; 4:2, 3). Most examples are decorated with painting is attested in a few examples. The spherical
brown (7.5 YR 3/2) and red (SR 3/2-3/4) bandsor ofoval juglets find a number of parallels at En-
paint in parallel lines from the rim to the lower Gedi (Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1966:
carination. figs. 9:1, 10; 19:1-4; 30:7), Beersheba (Y. Aharoni
These "Assyrian" types, as imports and in local 1973: pls. 44:6; 45:1, 3, 7, 9; 56:2, 4, 11; 62:114,
imitation, are widely attested (Tell el-Far'ah, Tell 120-22, 124, 125; 66:14-18; 67:6; 69:19; 72:19;
Jemmeh, Samaria, Dothan, Shechem, Umm el- 74:15), Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932: pls. 68:1-3;
Biyara, Tawilan and Buseirah, for example) in 69:7-18, 25; 1943: pls. 18:10, 11, 13-15; 26:6, 7, 14,
contexts of the late 8th century B.C. and later (cf. 15, 17), Lachish (Tufnell 1953: pl. 88:313, 319, 333;
Holladay 1976: 272). Y. Aharoni 1975: pl. 47:28), Amman (Harding
Possibly related to the "Assyrian" horizon are 1951: fig. 1:24) and elsewhere. The elongated type,
four "pointed bottle" fragments (Amiran 1970: which exhibits considerable variation within the
291, 294-97; see also Henschel-Simon 1944: 75-77). class, is similarly well known. Parallel forms include
The best parallels come from sites in central and the following: En-Gedi (Mazar, Dothan, and

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
Dunayevsky 1966: figs. 19:8, 9; 30:13-18),

1974: Beer-
figs. 14:1, 7, 8; 15:9; Saller 1966: fig. 34:1-8).
sheba (Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 45:8; 56:3, 12; It must be emphasized that only selected wheel-
62:115-18; 64:14), Bethel (Albright and Kelso 1968:
made forms have been presented above. Except for
pls. 65:15, 16, 18; 78:1, 2); Aro'er (Biran and the scant data of Glueck's Period V, the pottery
Cohen 1981: pl. 7:7), Umm el-Biyara (Bennettevidence indicates that Tell el-Kheleifeh was
1966: figs. 2:14; 3:1), Nebo (Saller 1966: 20:8, 9; occupied between the 8th and the early 6th centur
22:17, 18; 23:1, 2, 4; 34:21), Amman (Harding B.C. While acknowledging the presence of form
1944: 74:65, 66; 1951: fig. 1:20, 21) and others. A that can be dated earlier, these are the horizons
single example of a typical Iron II burnished presented by the site's pottery as a whole. Th
dipper juglet was found (cf. Mazar, Dothan, and pottery of Tell el-Kheleifeh has its closest affiniti
Dunayevsky 1966: fig. 30:1-6; Y. Aharoni 1973: with the horizons of En-Gedi V, Ramat Rahel V
pls. 45:10; 69:16; 72:22). Beersheba II, Lachish III-II, Gezer VI-V, Beth-
The bowls range from small to krater size with Zur III, Mesad Hashavyahu (second half of the 7th
considerable variation in form. The inverted rim to the end of the 6th century B.C.), Tel Masos (post-
type (fig. 16:4-6) is the most common, definedI; by
7th century B.C.), Beth-Shemesh IIC, Aro'er
the following features: rounded walls and some-III-II, Hazor VI-III, Tell el-Qudeirat (middle and
times a very slight body carination; flat, disc,
lastorphases), Heshbon (7th to 6th century B.C.) and
Dhiban (late Iron Age) among others. Numerous
ring base, though the latter two are more common;
and a thickened, inverted, or turned-over rim parallels come from the largely unpublished sites
of Umm el-Biyara and Tawilan. The published
which is triangular in section. Only a few sherds
are burnished. Several bar handles are attested. pottery from Buseirah offers many good parallels
For a range of the inverted rim forms, see Beer- from late Iron Age contexts. The Jordanian tomb
sheba (Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 55:1; 70:9; 72:6; 74:2),
groups are also important for comparative studies.
Although their chronology is uncertain, a date
Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932: pls. 61:8, 15; 62:4,
9, 18, 20; 63:1, 2, 4, 7, 9; 1943: pls. 20:3; 21:9;
between the 8th and the early 6th century B.C.
22:1; 23:2, 4, 7, 11), Lachish (Tufnell 1953:would
pl. be very close.
80:70, 72, 73, 75, 81-83, 86), Bethel (Albright and
Kelso 1968: pls. 62:6, 8; 63:22; 64:1, 2; 80:8),
Mesad Hashavyahu (Naveh 1962: fig. 4:13), Arocer
(Biran and Cohen 1981: figs. 10:1; 15:2, 4) and
elsewhere. Less frequent bowl types are presented
SUMMARY
in fig. 16:7, 8.
Although the juglets and bowls of Tell el-
Tell el-Kheleifeh was occupied in two m
Kheleifeh embrace the Iron II period, with some
architectural phases: casemate fortress and f
forms having antecedents in Iron I, the forms are
settlement. Further stratigraphic refine
also well attested in contexts of the 8th to early 6th
century B.C.
precluded by the excavation methodolo
recording system. The isolation of the p
horizons of these two phases is an uncertain
best. This is especially true for the earlie
Decanters and Saucers. Other diagnostic types The "Negevite" forms that can be assigne
include three decanter fragments of the so-called casemate fortress, provide no refined indica
"southern" type (Holladay 1976: 291-93) and three chronology. The date of this level cannot be
burnished saucers, including two nearly complete determined in light of current data. The fortresses
examples (fig. 16:9). The saucers have disc bases, of the central Negev provide the closest architec-
although most parallels have either a flat (often tural parallels. The pottery that can be associated
string-cut) or concave base, and a straight or with the levels of the offsets/insets settlement dates
slightly thickened rim. The form is widely attested between the 8th and the early 6th century B.C.
in the late Iron Age (cf. Mazar, Dothan, and These dates are also indicated by certain of the
Dunayevsky 1966: fig. 15:3, 4; Y. Aharoni 1962: epigraphic materials and studies in comparative
figs. 11:3; 26:1; 28:3-6; 1964: fig. 16:1-13, 17; architecture. Although both architectural and
Lugenbeal and Sauer 1972: pl. 9:504, 515; Bennett ceramic data are lean, the occupational history of

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
forIron
Tell el-Kheleifeh continued beyond the this chapter
Age, in the study of Syro-Palestinian
archaeology.
perhaps as late as the 4th century B.C.
The identification of Tell el-Kheleifeh is both an
archaeological and an historical problem. One may
argue the identification from the perspectives of IN MEMORY OF NELSON GLUECK (fig. 18)
possibility or probability but the problem of verifi-
cation precludes examination of the site in the It is appropriate to conclude with a comment on
context of biblical Ezion-geber and/or Elath. The the pioneering figure in whose memory this re-
biblical notices pertaining to these two sites are of appraisal is conducted. Revision is inevitable and
special importance, however, for providing a rough not to be confused with criticism. The refinements
chronological framework relative to Judaean or of excavation methodology and pottery typology
Edomite control or influence over the region. give the attempts of the late 1930s the appearance
The methodological prerequisite for the re- of prehistory. Those who are unwilling to concede
appraisal of Glueck's excavations has been thethat time will do the same to the archaeology of
demand for uncensored archaeological data 1985 delude themselves. Nelson Glueck remains
(Franken 1977: 3-11). Tell el-Kheleifeh mustthe paradigm, the focal point of interaction, for the
archaeology and historical geography of the Negev
be allowed to tell its own story in its own lan-
guage. Allowing Glueck's data to speak apartand Transjordan. He was a true pioneer, one who
from the historical contours of Ezion-geber andhas gone before into the wilderness, preparing the
way for others to follow.
Elath has produced a significantly different version
Fig. 18. Nelson Glueck (right) and Albert Henschel, Aqaba 1940.

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
NOTES
Shiloh 1980:in
'This project and its personnel were first announced 69-76 and Ussishkin 1980: 1-18.
the ASOR Newsletter (No. 6 [March 1982]: 6-11) and(1979: 17) classifies the central Negev for-
3Meshel
in the Biblical Archaeologist (45 [1982]: 120-21).
tresses,Re-
excluding Tell el-Qudeirat and Horvat 'Uza,
appraisal of Tell el-Kheleifeh's stratigraphy, architecture
according to size and topographical conformity.
4Cohen (1979: 77-78) dates the wheelmade vessels
and pottery will be the work of this writer. Contributors
include Frank Koucky, College of Woosterexclusively
(technicalto the 10th century B.C. and attributes the
presentation of the metals in the context of sites to the time of Solomon, (1979), whereas Meshel
regional
mining activity); Karl Kruschen of Toronto, datesOntario
the pottery to the 11th to 10th century B.C. and
associates
(decipherment of Jacob Pinkerfeld's architectural notes);the fortresses with "one of the kings who
Robert DiVito, a doctoral candidate at Harvard Univer-
defeated the Edomites and Amalekites" (Meshel and
sity and Bruce Zuckermann, University ofCohen 1980: 80), either Saul or David.
Southern
California (presentation of the epigraphic materials);
5The fortresses of the central Negev represent a tradi-
and Pamela Vandiver, Massachusetts Institute tionofofTech-
architecture similar to, although distinguishable
nology (pottery descriptions and analysis). from, the fortified settlements of Tell Arad, Tell el-
Several years of research, including three visits to the
Qudeirat and Horvat 'Uza. The sites that comprise both
site, have generated a lengthy list of acknowledgements,
categories are often interchangeably designated as "forts"
of which only a few will be mentioned here. Special
or "fortresses," although the distinctions are clear. The
gratitude is expressed to Helen Glueck for her support
central Negev fortresses are dated to the Iron I period
and patience with this project and to Eleanor K. Vogel
whereas the fortified settlements are substantially later
in preserva-
for her indefatigable efforts in the ordering and origin. In addition to chronology, the architectural
tion of the records and artifacts; also to Adnan Hadidi,of the fortified settlement tradition consti-
components
Director General of the Department of Antiquities
tute essentialof distinguishing criteria when compared with
Jordan, for his support and facilitation of various
those of the earlier fortresses. The latter may functionally
dimensions of research in Jordan; and to James Sauer, as garrisons or stations. Settlements are
be described
former Director of ACOR, for his interest, support and
often associated with these structures but are consistently
expertise. Dr. Sauer read the pottery fromlocated the 1980outside the perimeters of fortification. The later
survey. phases of Tell el-Qudeirat (middle and latest) and Tell
A number of scholars have generously shared their are settlements proper. The interiors are
Arad X-VIII
time and expertise, including Frank Cross and Michael by extensive architecture, not open court-
characterized
Coogan, my dissertation advisors at Harvard University;
yards as in the fortress tradition. The suggested distinc-
tion Univer-
Ze'ev Meshel, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv between fortress and fortified settlement is based,
sity; Rudolph Cohen, Department of Antiquities therefore, andon the broader chronological horizons of the
Museums, Jerusalem; Yigal Shiloh, Benjamin Mazar,
latter, their strategic location, the size and quality of
and Trude Dothan, Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew
their construction and, most importantly, the inclu-
University; Avraham Biran and his assistants sion at
of the
public and/or domestic architecture within the
Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of theof fortification.
perimeters
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion 6Although in the Tell Arad offsets/insets settlement
Jerusalem; Seymour Gitin, Director of the Albright
continued into Stratum VII with continued similarities
Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem;
to Tell Ze'ev
el-Kheleifeh, the addition of a parallel inner city
Herzog, Miriam Aharoni and the staff of the wall
Institute
createdof
a different fortress plan, combining the solid
Archaeology, Tel Aviv University; Ruth Amiran, Israel methods (Herzog et al. 1984: 22 and
and casemate
Museum, Jerusalem; Edward F. Campbell, McCormick
fig. 23). The full plan of the Stratum VII fortress has not
Theological Seminary in Chicago; and Crystal M. in technical detail. It should be noted, in
been published
Bennett, director of the excavations at Buseirah,
termsTawilan
of the Iron Age stratigraphy, that Stratum VII
and Umm el-Biyara. pottery provides the closest similarities to the Tell el-
2For discussions significant for the dating of the
Kheleifeh repertoire (Herzog et al. 1984: fig. 25: 3, 6 and
Megiddo four-chambered gate, see Yadin 1972: 15). 147-64;
1973: 330; 1980; Aharoni 1971a: 53-57; 1971b: 302-11;

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aharoni, M. Albright, W. F.
1932 The
1981 The Pottery of Strata 12-11 of the Iron AgeExcavation of Tell Beit Mirsim I: The
Citadel of Arad. Eretz Israel 15: 181-204. Pottery of the First Three Campaigns. Annual
Aharoni, Y. of the American Schools of Oriental Research
1958 The Negeb of Judah. Israel Exploration 12. New Haven, CT: American Schools of
Journal 8: 26-38. Oriental Research.
1959 The Date of Casemate Walls in Judah and 1943 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, III: The
Israel and Their Purpose. Bulletin of the Iron Age. Annual of the American Schools of
American Schools of Oriental Research 154: Oriental Research 21-22. New Haven, CT:
35-39. American Schools of Oriental Research.
1960 An Israelite Agricultural Settlement at RamatAlbright, W. F., and Kelso, J.
Matred. Israel Exploration Journal 10: 23-26; 1968 The Excavation of Bethel. Annual of the
97-111. American Schools of Oriental Research 39.
1962 Excavations at Ramat Rahel, I, Seasons of Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental
1959 and 1960. Serie Archaeologica 2. Rome: Research.
Centro Di Studi Semitici, UniversityAmiran, of R.

Rome. 1970 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land From Its
1964 Excavations at Ramat Rahel, II, Seasons of Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End
1961 and 1962. Serie Archaeologica 6. Rome: of the Iron Age. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
Centro Di Studi Semitici, University of University.
Rome. Bartlett, J. R.
1967 Forerunners of the Limes: Iron Age For- 1969 The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of
tresses in the Negev. Israel Exploration Edom. Journal of Theological Studies
Journal 17: 1-12. 1-20.
1968 Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple. Biblical 1972 The Rise and Fall of the Kingdom of Edom.
Archaeologist 31: 2-32. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 104: 26-37.
1971a The Stratification of Israelite Megiddo. Eretz 1977 The Brotherhood of Edom. Journalfor the
Israel 10: 53-57. Study of the Old Testament 4: 2-27.
1971b The Stratification of Israelite Megiddo.Bennett, C. M.
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31: 302-11. 1966 Fouilles d'Umm el Biyara: Rapport Prelimi-
1972 Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba. Biblical naire. Revue Biblique 73: 372-403.
Archaeologist 35: 111-27. 1971a A Brief Note on Excavations at Tawilan,
1973 Beer-Sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba Jordan 1968-70. Levant 3: 5-7.
1969-1971 Seasons. Publications of the Insti-
1971b An Archaeological Survey of Biblical Edom.
tute of Archaeology 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of Perspective 12: 35-44.
Archaeology, University of Tel Aviv. 1973 Excavations at Buseirah, Southern Jordan,
1975 Investigations at Lachish, The Sanctuary and 1971: A Preliminary Report. Levant 5: 1-24.
the Residency (Lachish V). Publications of 1974 Excavations at Buseirah, Southern Jordan,
the Institute of Archaeology 4. Tel Aviv: Insti- 1972: Preliminary Report. Levant 6: 1-24.
tute of Archaeology, University of Tel Aviv. 1975 Excavations at Buseirah, Southern Jordan,
1981 Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Israel Explora- 1973: Third Preliminary Report. Levant 7:
1-19.
tion Society.
Aharoni, Y., and Aharoni, M. 1976 Excavations at Buseirah, Southern Jordan,
1976 The Stratification of Judahite Sites in the 8th 1974: Fourth Preliminary Report. Levant 9:
1-10.
and 7th Centuries B.C. Bulletin of the
1978 Some Reflections on Neo-Assyrian Influence
American Schools of Oriental Research 224:
73-90. in Transjordan. Pp. 165-71 in Archaeology
Aharoni, Y., and Amiran, R. in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon,
1958 A New Scheme for the Sub-Division of the eds. R. Moorey and P. J. Parr. Warminster,
Iron Age in Palestine. Israel Exploration England: Aris & Phillips.
Journal 8: 171-84.

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
Biran, A. Red Sea. Biblical Archaeologist 1: 13-16.

1974 Tel Dan. Biblical Archaeologist 37: 26-51. 1939 The Second Campaign at Tell el-Kheleife
1980 Tell Dan: Five Years Later. Biblical Archae- (Ezion-Geber: Elath). Bulletin of the Amer
ologist 43: 168-82. can Schools of Oriental Research 75: 8-22.
Biran A., and Cohen, R. 1940a The Third Season of Excavation at Tell el-
1981 Aroer in the Negev. Eretz Israel 15: 250-73. Kheleifeh. Bulletin of the American School
Cohen, R. of Oriental Research 79: 2-18.
1970 'Atar Haro'a. 'Atiqot (Hebrew Series) 6: 1940b Ostraca from Elath. Bulletin of the Americ
6-24. Schools of Oriental Research. 80: 3-10.
1976 Excavations at Horvat Haluqim. 'Atiqot 1940c Ezion-Geber: Elath, City of Bricks with
(English Series) 11: 34-50. Straw. Biblical Archaeologist 3: 51-55.
1979 The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negev. 1941 Ostraca from Elath. Bulletin of the American
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Schools of Oriental Research 82: 3-11.
Research 236: 61-79. 1965 Ezion-geber. Biblical Archaeologist 28: 70-87.
1981 Excavations at Kadesh-barnea, 1976-1978. 1967 Some Edomite Pottery from Tell el-Kheleifeh,
Biblical Archaeologist 44: 93-104. Parts 1 and II. Bulletin of the American
Cross, F. M. Schools of Oriental Research 188: 8-38.
1979 Two Offering Dishes with Phoenician Inscrip-1969 Some Ezion-Geber: Elath Iron II Pottery.
tions from the Sanctuary of 'Arad. Bulletin Eretz Israel 9: 51-59.
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 1971a Iron II Kenite and Edomite Pottery. Perspec-
235: 75-77. tive 12: 45-56.
Crowfoot, G. M. 1971b Tell el-Kheleifeh Inscriptions. Pp. 225-42 in
1940 Some Censer Types from Palestine. Palestine Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William
Exploration Quarterly (October) 150-53. Foxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke. Baltimore:
Dajani, R. W. Johns Hopkins.
1966 Four Iron Age Tombs from Irbid. Annual of 1971c Incense Altars. Eretz Israel 10: 120-25.
the Department of Antiquities of Jordan XI:1977 Tell el-Kheleifeh. Pp. 713-17 in Encyclopedia
88-101. of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Dothan, M. Land, eds. M. Avi-Yonah and E. Stern.
1965 The Fortress of Kadesh-Barnea. Israel Ex- Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society
ploration Journal 15: 134-51. and Massada Press.
Evenari, M.; Aharoni, Y.; Shanan, L.; and Tadmor, N.G. L.
Harding,
1958 The Ancient Desert Agriculture of the 1944 Negev.
The Iron Age Tombs from Amman. Quarterly
Israel Exploration Journal 8: 231-68. of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine
Frank, F. 11: 67-74.
1934 Aus der 'Arabah, I: Tell el-Chlefi. Zeitschrift 1947 An Iron Age Tomb at Sahab. Quarterly of
des Deutschen Paldstina- Vereins 57: 243-45. the Department of Antiquities of Palestine
Franken, H. J. 13: 92-102.
1977 The Problem of Identification in Biblical 1950 An Iron Age Tomb at Meqabelein. Quarterly
Archaeology. Palestine Exploration Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine
109: 3-11. 14: 44-48.
Gitin, S. 1951 Two Iron Age Tombs in Amman, Annual of
1976 A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, the Department of Antiquities of Jordan I:
Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer. 37-40.
Vols. I and II: Stratigraphy and Pottery. Harding, G. L., and Tufnell, O.
Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College-Jewish 1953 The Tomb of Adoni Nur in Amman. Palestine
Institute of Religion. Unpublished Doctoral Exploration Fund Annual VI: 48-72.
dissertation. Henschel-Simon, E.
Glueck, N. 1944 A Note on the Pottery of the 'Amman Tombs.
1938a The First Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities
(Ezion-Geber). Bulletin of the American of Palestine 11: 75-80.
Schools of Oriental Research 71: 3-17. Herzog, Z.
1938b The Topography and History of Ezion-Geber 1983 Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb and the
and Elath. Bulletin of the American Schools Wilderness of Beer-sheba. Bulletin of the
of Oriental Research 72: 2-13. American Schools of Oriental Research 250:
1938c Ezion-Geber: Solomon's Naval Base on the 41-49.

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
Herzog, Z.; Aharoni, M.; Rainey, A.; and Moshkovitz, S. 12: 89-113.
1984 The Israelite Fortress at Arad. BulletinOlavarri,
of theE.
American Schools of Oriental Research 254:
1965 Sondages a 'Ar6'er sur l'Arnon. Revue
1-34. Biblique. 72: 77-94.
Holladay, J. S. Parr, P. J.
1976 Of Sherds and Strata: Contributions Toward 1978 Pottery, People and Politics. Pp. 203-9 in
an Understanding of the Archaeology of the Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for
Divided Monarchy. Pp. 253-93 in Magnalia Kathleen Kenyon, eds. R. Moorey and P. J.
Dei: The Mighty Acts of God, eds. F. M. Parr. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips.
Cross, W. E. Lemke and P. D. Miller. Garden 1982 Contacts Between North West Arabia and
City, N.Y.; Doubleday. Jordan in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages.
Kempinski, A. and Fritz, V. Pp. 127-33 in Studies in the History an
1977 Excavations at Tel Masos (Khirbet el- Archaeology of Jordan: I, ed. A. Hadidi.
Meshash), Preliminary Report on the Third Amman: Department of Antiquities, Hashe-
Season. Tel Aviv 4: 136-58. mite Kingdom of Jordan.
Kempinski, A.; Zimchoni, D.; Gilboa, E.; and Rosel, N.
Rothenberg, B.
1981 Excavations at Tel Masos: 1972, 1974, 1975. 1962 Ancient Copper Industries in the Western
Eretz Israel 15: 154-80. Arabah. Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Lamon, R. S. and Shipton, G. M. (January-June): 44-56.
1939 Megiddo I. Seasons of 1925-34, Strata I- V. 1970 An Archaeological Survey of South Sinai.
Chicago: University of Chicago. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 102: 4-29.
Lapp, N. L. 1972 Timna, Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines.
1976 Casemate Walls in Palestine and the Late London: Thames & Hudson.
Iron II Casemate at Tell el-Ful (Gibeah). Rothenberg, B. and Glass, J.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental 1981 Midianite Pottery. Eretz Israel 15: 85-114.
Research 223: 25-42. 1983 The Midianite Pottery. Pp. 65-124 in Midian
Lugenbeal, E. N., and Sauer, J. A. Moab and Edom: The History and Archae-
1972 Seventh-Sixth Century B.C. Pottery from ology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan
Area B at Heshbon. Andrews University and North- West Arabia, eds. J. F. A. Sawyer
Seminary Studies 10: 21-69. and D. J. A. Clines. Sheffield, England:
McNicoll, A.; Smith, R. H.; and Hennessy, B. Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament,
1982 Pella in Jordan I: An Interim Report on Supplement Series, Vol. 24.
the Joint University of Sydney and the Sailer, S. J.
College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1966 Iron Age Tombs at Nebo, Jordan. Liber
1979-1981. (2 vols.). Canberra: Australian Annuus 16: 165-298.
National Gallery. Sheffer, A.
Mazar, B. 1976 Comparative Analysis of a "Negev Ware"
1975 Ezion-Geber and Ebronah. Eretz Israel 12: Textile Impression from Tel Masos. Tel Aviv
46-48. 3: 81-88.
Mazar, B.; Dothan, T.; and Dunayevsky, I. Shiloh, Y.
1966 En-Gedi: The First and Second Seasons of 1970 The Four-Room House - Its Situation and
Excavations, 1961-1962. 'Atiqot V (English Function in the Israelite City. Israel Explo
Series). tion Journal 20: 180-90.
Meshel, Z. 1978 Elements in the Development of Town Plan-
1975 On the Problem of Tell el-Kheleifeh, Elath ning in the Israelite City. Israel Exploration
and Ezion-Geber. Eretz Israel 12: 49-56. Journal 28: 36-51.
1977 Horvat Ritma-An Iron Age Fortress in the1980 Solomon's Gate at Megiddo as Recorded by
Negev Highlands. Tel Aviv 4: 110-35. Its Excavator, R. Lamon, Chicago. Levant
1979 Who Built the "Israelite Fortresses" in the 12: 69-76.
Stager, L. E.
Negev Highlands. Cathedra 11: 4-28 (Hebrew).
Meshel, Z., and Cohen, R. 1975 Ancient Agriculture in the Judaean Desert: A
1980 Refed and Hatira: Two Iron Age Fortresses Case Study of the Buqe'ah Valley in the Iron
in the Northern Negev. Tel Aviv 7: 70-81. Age. Cambridge, MA: Unpublished Doctoral
Naveh, J. dissertation, Harvard University.
1962 The Excavations at Mesad Hashavyahu, Pre- Tufnell, O.
liminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 1953 Lachish III: The Iron Age. Vols. I and II:

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC
Text and Plates. London: Oxford University.

Winnett, F. V., and Reed, W. L.
Tushingham, A. D. 1964 The Excavations at Dibon (DhTban) in M
1954 Excavations at Dibon in Moab, 1952-53. Annual of the American Schools of Orienta
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 36-37. New Haven, CT: Americ
Research 133: 6-25. Schools of Oriental Research.
1972 The Excavations at Dibon (Dhiban) in Moab.
Woolley, C.L., and Lawrence, T. E.
Annual of the American Schools of Oriental 1914-15 The Wilderness of Zin. Palestine Exploration
Research 40. Cambridge, MA: American Fund Annual 3. London: Palestine Explora-
Schools of Oriental Research. tion Fund.
Ussishkin, D. Wright, G. E.
1980 Was the "Solomonic" City Gate at Megiddo 1961 The Archaeology of Palestine. Pp. 85-139 in
Built by King Solomon. Bulletin of the The Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed.
American Schools of Oriental Research 239: G. E. Wright. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
1-18. Yadin, Y.
Vogel, E. 1965 A Note on the Stratigraphy of Arad. Israel
1970 Bibliography of Nelson Glueck. Pp. 382-94 Exploration Journal 15: 180.
in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth 1970 Megiddo of the Kings of Israel. Biblical
Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, Archaeologist 33: 66-96.
ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden City, N.Y.: 1972 Hazor. London: Oxford University.
Doubleday. 1973 A Note on the Stratigraphy of Israelite
1971 Bibliography of Holy Land Archaeological Megiddo. Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Sites. Hebrew Union College Annual 42: 32: 330.
85-86.
1980 A Rejoinder. Bulletin of the American
1981 Bibliography of Holy Land Sites, Part II. Schools of Oriental Research 239: 19-23.
Hebrew Union College Annual 52: 49-50.
"I: a '
A NEW PUBLICATION
TELL ES-SA'IDIYEH from

Excavations on the Tell, 1964-1966
James B. Pritchard
The University Museum
The findings from three seasons of excavations (1964-1966) of Archaeology/Anthropology
at a prominent mound in the central Jordan Valley are
presented in drawings, photographs and descriptive text by
the excavator. Seven strata of occupation are distinguished, nAW
extending from the late 9th century B.C. through the Roman
period, and each is described in terms of its architecture, pot-
tery and other artifacts. Among the unique features of the city
of about the middle of the 8th century is the evidence for city
planning, to be seen in twelve houses built as a unit, each of
the same plan and size. The domestic area of the 8th century Other Monographs
city was later utilized for the storage of grain in 98 pits The and Cemetery at Tell es-sa'Idiyeh, Jord
2 rectangular bins. The city was protected by massive defen-James B. Pritchard.
sive walls and a stepped tunnel that in times of siege allowed
University Museum Monograph no. 41. (1980).
access from inside to the springs at the base of the tell. Ninety-
xii+104 pp. 66 lllus. Bibllog. Softbound.
five of the steps of this water system were found. Public $16.00
build-
ings of the Persian and Hellenistic periods are studied in de-
tail in this first complete publication of the results of
excavations that document the culture of this little-known
Remittance must accompany orders from individuals.
area of Jordan.
We pay postage and handling on pre-paid orders.
University Museum Monograph no. 60. (1985).
216 pp., 191 figures (including map pocket). Make checks, drawn on U.S. banks, payable to The University Museum
ISBN 0-934718-60-1
and send to: Publications Division. The University Museum. 33rd and
$60.00 Spruce Streets, Philadelphia. PA 19104 USA.
I ( _ _ I II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

86.108.32.155 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 07:23:51 UTC

El Kheleifah

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

El Kheleifah

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal

Author(s): Gary D. Pratico

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1356795

This content downloaded from

The low mudbrick mound known today as Tell el-Kheleifeh is approximately

INTRODUCTION site's occupational horizons were dated between

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

" ~ir: ? d .8". 44 m.4 i

*" p ; ' e -'". " t*.

4 * ' * '4 V? ': Owy

This content downloaded from

.* & &t .. 44~ ~ ~~~;B' +

Fig. 2. Tell el-Kheleifeh at the end of the 1939 seaso

This content downloaded from

Fig. 3. Tell el-Kheleifeh at the end of the 1940 season.

"Negevite" sherds comprise the total artifact evi-

This content downloaded from

5., '" / '

LD /40 454 /It

CD E,,^j4 \I\ ^^~~~~',I"

*1. fixed point, ,' pi / 99 m,

Fig. 4. Topographical plan of the site with the two major

This content downloaded from

Fig. 5. Tell el-Kheleifeh's earliest architectural phase, th

This content downloaded from

o^^^^^^^^ ' o^- al[[ffl GLACIS (B T-

\^^^^^ ^^^^y ^?/ \\\^ WALLS (C) --

This content downloaded from

Fig. 7. Pinkerfeld's Period III p

This content downloaded from

Fig. 8. Pinkerfeld's general plan of Tell el-Kheleifeh, Periods

This content downloaded from

;Y~ ; I L sb+ ,.3_ .

Fig. 10. The four-chambere

This content downloaded from

if the designation is defined in the excavated

This content downloaded from

The exterior of the casemate wall was constructed

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

COMPARATIVE ARCHITECTURE been assigned to the four-room building tradition.

This content downloaded from

Fig. 12. "Negevite" potter

This content downloaded from

Fig. 13. Selected "Negevite" types.

This content downloaded from

Fig. 14. Cooking pots and Qaws'anal jars.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Fig. 16. Selected juglets, bowls, saucer, and lamp.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

(Cross 1979: 75-77; cf. Herzog et al. 1984:tive12, 13;

This content downloaded from

tive flared-rim cooking pot (Mazar, Dothan,

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

twofold: a more triangular rim and ansouthern

This content downloaded from

Dunayevsky 1966: figs. 19:8, 9; 30:13-18),

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

" p ; ' e -'". " t.