258 david ilan Fig. 1. The site of Tel Dan. Iron Age I remains were found in all areas excavated the case of tel dan 259 Fig. 2. A plan of Area B, Stratum VI. Note the large numbers of pits Fig. 3. A plan of Area B, Stratum V. Note the small number of pits and large number of pithoi, relative to Stratum VI (Fig. 2) 260 david ilan Fig. 4. A stone-lined pit in Area B (L1225) containing a secondary deposit of refuse, most prominently fragmented ceramic vessels. This is of the more common cylindrical variety Fig. 5. Unlined pits sunk into an earlier consolidated Late Bronze Age pebble fill the case of tel dan 261 Fig. 6. A stone-lined pit in Area M (L8185) with the more unusual “beehive” shape Fig. 7. A row of pithoi lining a wall—their most frequent position in Iron Age I sites 262 david ilan Fig. 8. “Galilean” pithoi Fig. 9. Collared-rim pithoi the case of tel dan 263 Fig. 10. Tel Dan Stratum IVB, Area B, L4710: a possible feed bin abutting a wall (left) 

Israel Finkelstein Bene Israel Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Founding Editor M. H. E. Weippert Editors-in-Chief Thomas Schneider Editors Eckart Frahm, W. Randall Garr, B. Halpern, Theo P. J. van den Hout, Irene J. Winter VOLUME 31 Bene Israel Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein edited by Alexander Fantalkin and Assaf Yasur-Landau LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008 This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bene Israel : studies in the archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron ages in honour of Israel Finkelstein / edited by Alexander Fantalkin and Assaf Yasur-Landau. p. cm. — (Culture and history of the ancient Near East ; v. 31) Includes index. ISBN 978-90-04-15282-3 (alk. paper) 1. Bronze age—Palestine. 2. Iron age—Palestine. 3. Excavations (Archaeology)— Palestine. 4. Palestine—Antiquities. 5. Bronze age—Middle East. 6. Iron age—Middle East. 7. Excavations (Archaeology)—Middle East. 8. Middle East—Antiquities. I. Fantalkin, Alexander. II. Yasur-Landau, Assaf. III. Finkelstein, Israel. IV. Title. V. Series. GN778.32.P19B45 2008 933—dc22 2008014960 ISSN 1566-2055 ISBN 978 90 04 15282 3 © Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands CONTENTS Acknowledgments ....................................................................... List of Figures ............................................................................. Introduction ................................................................................ vii ix xv Urban Land Use Changes on the Southeastern Slope of Tel Megiddo during the Middle Bronze Age ............................ Eran Arie 1 The Appearance of Rock-Cut Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah as a Reflection of State Formation .................................. Alexander Fantalkin 17 Trademarks of the Omride Builders? ........................................ Norma Franklin Continuity and Change in the Late Bronze to Iron Age Transition in Israel’s Coastal Plain: A Long Term Perspective ................................................................................... Yuval Gadot 45 55 Permanent and Temporary Settlements in the South of the Lower Besor Region: Two Case Studies .................................... Dan Gazit 75 The Socioeconomic Implications of Grain Storage in Early Iron Age Canaan: The Case of Tel Dan ........................ David Ilan 87 A Re-analysis of the Archaeological Evidence for the Beginning of the Iron Age I ...................................................... Yitzhak Meitlis 105 vi contents Reassessing the Bronze and Iron Age Economy: Sheep and Goat Husbandry in the Southern Levant as a Model Case Study ........................................................................................... Aharon Sasson Settlement Patterns of Philistine City-States ............................. Alon Shavit 113 135 Levantine Standardized Luxury in the Late Bronze Age: Waste Management at Tell Atchana (Alalakh) .......................... Amir Sumakaxi Fink 165 Desert Outsiders: Extramural Neighborhoods in the Iron Age Negev .......................................................................................... Yifat Thareani-Sussely 197 A Message in a Jug: Canaanite, Philistine, and Cypriot Iconography and the “Orpheus Jug” ......................................... Assaf Yasur-Landau 213 Index ........................................................................................... Plates ........................................................................................... 231 247 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As the editors of present volume, we would like to express our thanks to a number of colleagues who had contributed significantly to its accomplishment. Inbal Samet spared no effort, helping immensely in preparation the manuscript for publication. Alon Shavit and Gocha R. Tsetskhladze has offered advice and help in a number of crucial points of the project. Baruch Halpern and Ephraim Lytle have read the entire manuscript, kindly providing their valuable comments, while Benjamin Sass, Eric H. Cline and David Ilan have kindly commented on several papers. We were privileged to have on our side Michiel Klein Swormink, Michael J. Mozina, and Jennifer Pavelko from the Brill staff, whose professional and dedicated work made the usually complicated task of producing an edited volume considerably simpler. Likewise, we would like to thank the editorial board of Brill’s Culture and History of the Ancient Near East series. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, this project could never has been materialized without the enthusiastic participation of our contributors. We have greatly enjoyed working with such knowledgeable, reliable and responsive colleagues as have come together for the present volume. A.F. A.Y.-L. LIST OF FIGURES Arie Fig. 1. The excavated area on the southeastern slope of Tel Megiddo (after Guy and Engberg 1938: Fig. 2) ...... Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of the Middle Bronze tombs on the southeastern slope (after Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 1) ................................................................................ 250 Franklin Fig. 1. The Mason’s Masks ........................................................ Fig. 2. The Megiddo—Palace 1723 .......................................... Fig. 3. Samaria—the Omride Palace ........................................ 251 251 252 Gadot Fig. 1. Map of central Coastal Plain with settlements dated to Late Bronze and Iron Age I periods .............................. Fig. 2. Reconstructed plan of Palace 4430 at Aphek ............... Fig. 3. Locally made Egyptian-styled vessels found at Aphek .............................................................................. Fig. 4. Philistine finds from Aphek that were manufactured at Ashkelon .......................................................................... Fig. 5. Types of cooking-pots found at Aphek X12 and at Tell Qasille XII–X .......................................................... Fig. 6. The transformation of sociopolitical order in the Yarkon-Ayalon basin ....................................................... Fig. 7. The Late Bronze-Iron Age transformation at Israel’s central Coastal Plain viewed as a furcative change ....... Ilan Fig. 1. The site of Tel Dan. Iron Age I remains were found in all areas excavated .......................................................... Fig. 2. A plan of Area B, Stratum VI. Note the large numbers of pits .............................................................. Fig. 3. A plan of Area B, Stratum V. Note the small number of pits and large number of pithoi, relative to Stratum VI (Fig. 2) ..................................................... 249 253 254 254 255 256 257 257 258 259 259 x list of figures Fig. 4. A stone-lined pit in Area B (L1225) containing a secondary deposit of refuse, most prominently fragmented ceramic vessels. This is of the more common cylindrical variety .......................................... Fig. 5. Unlined pits sunk into an earlier consolidated Late Bronze Age pebble fill .................................................. Fig. 6. A stone-lined pit in Area M (L8185) with the more unusual “beehive” shape .............................................. Fig. 7. A row of pithoi lining a wall—their most frequent position in Iron Age I sites ........................................... Fig. 8. “Galilean” pithoi ........................................................... Fig. 9. Collared-rim pithoi ....................................................... Fig. 10. Tel Dan Stratum IVB, Area B, L4710: a possible feed bin abutting a wall (left) ........................................ Sasson Fig. 1. Sites mentioned in the text ........................................... Fig. 2. Geographic regions of the Land of Israel ................... Shavit Fig. 1. The southern Coastal Plain and the boundaries of the settlement complexes .................................................... Fig. 2. The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 10th century BCE according to settlement size .......................................... Fig. 3. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex in the Tel Miqne-Ekron region during the 10th century BCE ......................................................... Fig. 4. The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 9th century BCE according to settlement size .......................................... Fig. 5. The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size .......................................... Fig. 6. The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size .......................................... Fig. 7. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron during the 7th century BCE ........... 260 260 261 261 262 262 263 264 265 266 267 267 268 268 269 269 list of figures Fig. 8. The populated area in the region of Tel Miqne-Ekron during the different phases of the Iron Age II .................................................................... Fig. 9. The settled area at Tel ¶afit-Gath and the surrounding sites during the various stages of the Iron Age II .................................................................... Fig. 10. The settlement complex of Tel ¶afit-Gath: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size .......................................... Fig. 11. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel ¶afit-Gath in the 8th century BCE ....................... Fig. 12. The settlement complex of Tel ¶afit-Gath: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size .......................................... Fig. 13. The settlement complex of Tel Ashdod: the number of settlements during the 10th century BCE according to settlement size .......................................... Fig. 14. The settlement complex of Tel Ashdod: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size .......................................... Fig. 15. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel Ashdod in the 7th century BCE ............................ Fig. 16. The settlement complex of Tel Ashdod: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size .......................................... Fig. 17. The settlement complex of Tel Ashkelon: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size .......................................... Fig. 18. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel Ashkelon in the 7th century BCE ................................ Fig. 19. The settlement complex of Tel Ashkelon: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size ........................................................... Fig. 20. The settlement complex of the Na˜al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 10th century BCE according to the settlement size .......................... Fig. 21. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of the Na˜al Besor basin during the 10th century BCE ................................................................. xi 270 270 271 271 272 272 273 273 274 274 275 275 276 276 xii list of figures Fig. 22. The settlement complex of the Na˜al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 9th century BCE according to settlement size ............ Fig. 23. The settlement complex of the Na˜al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size ................................ Fig. 24. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex in the Na˜al Besor basin during the 7th century BCE ... Fig. 25. The settlement complex of the Na˜al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size ................................ Sumakaxi Fink Fig. 1. Toilets in Nuzi (after Starr 1937–1939; 163, Fig. 24). Reprinted by permission of the publishers from Nuzi: Report of the excavations at Yorgan Tepa near Kirkuk, p. 163, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Copyright © 1939 by the president and fellows of Harvard College ................... Fig. 2. The Level IV palace at Tell Atchana, where Woolley excavated four restrooms and three bathrooms (after Woolley 1955: Fig. 44). Reprinted by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London .......................................................................... Fig. 3. The toilets in room 5 of the Level IV palace (after Woolley 1955 Pl. XXVa). Reprinted by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London .................... Fig. 4. The Oriental Institute University of Chicago Expedition to Tell Atchana (Image by E. J. Struble) ... Fig. 5. The west wing of Area 2: Local Phase 2 (Image by E. J. Struble) .................................................................. Fig. 6. Rooms 03-2077 and 03-2092 in Square 44.45 (Image by E. J. Struble) ............................................................. Fig. 7. Restroom 03-2092 during the excavation (photo by N.-L. Roberts) ............................................................... Fig. 8. Drain 03-2039 (photo by N.-L. Roberts) ..................... Fig. 9. Plaster inside drain 03-2039 (photo by N.-L. Roberts) ............................................................... Fig. 10. Wall 03-2091 (photo by N.-L. Roberts) ....................... Fig. 11. Jug R03-1542 (photo by N.-L. Roberts) ....................... Fig. 12. Plate R03-1851 (photo by N.-L. Roberts) .................... 277 277 278 278 279 280 281 281 282 283 284 285 286 286 287 287 list of figures Thareani-Sussely Fig. 1. Map of Iron Age II sites in the Beersheba Valley ...... Fig. 2. Tel {Aroer—general plan .............................................. Fig. 3. Tel {Aroer, Area D—general plan ................................ Fig. 4. Tel {Aroer, Area D, L. 1003 and 1411—pottery assemblages ................................................................... Fig. 5. Tel {Aroer, Area D, L. 1417—pottery assemblage ...... Fig. 6. Tel {Aroer, Area D, L. 1417—pottery assemblage ...... Fig. 7. Tel {Aroer, Area D, L. 1421—pottery assemblage ...... Fig. 8. Tel {Aroer, Area D, L. 1421—pottery assemblage ...... Fig. 9. Tel {Aroer, Area D, L. 1443—pottery assemblage ...... Fig. 10. Tel {Aroer, Area D, L. 1443—pottery assemblage ...... Fig. 11. Tel {Aroer, Area A—general plan ................................ Fig. 12. Tel {Aroer, Area A—selected pottery ........................... Fig. 13. Tel {Aroer, Area A—selected pottery ........................... Fig. 14. Æorvat {Uza—general plan .......................................... Fig. 15. Tel {Aroer—southern Arabian inscription from Area D bearing the letter ‫ ח‬......................................... Yasur-Landau Fig. 1. 1. The “Orpheus Jug.” After Loud 1948: Pl. 76: 1 .......... 2. A krater from Ashdod, Stratum XIII. After Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 19: 3 .................................... 3. A krater from Ekron, Stratum VI. After Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 19: 2 ........................................... 4. A jug from Azor. After Dothan 1982: Fig. 48 .............. 5. A strainer jug from Tell {Aitun. After Dothan 1982: Fig. 29 ............................................................................ 6. A LHIIIC stirrup jar from Kalymnos. After Mountjoy 1999: Fig. 464: 19 .......................................................... Fig. 2. 1. A krater from Lachish, Fosse Temple III. After Tufnell, Inge, and Harding 1940: Pl. XLVIII: 250 ...... 2. A bowl from Lachish Level VI. After Aharoni 1975: Pl. 39: 11 ........................................................................ 3. An inscribed jug from Lachish, Fosse Temple III. After Keel and Uehlinger 1998: Illustration 81 ........... 4. A jar from Megiddo Stratum VIIB. After Loud 1948: Pl. 64: 4 .......................................................................... 5. A jug from Megiddo. After Guy 1938: Pl. 134 ............ xiii 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 303 303 303 303 303 304 304 304 304 304 xiv list of figures 6. A collar-necked jar from Kalymnos. After Mountjoy 1999: Fig. 463: 14 .......................................................... 7. A figurine from Revadim. After Keel and Uehlinger 1998: Fig. 89 .................................................................. Fig. 3. 1. A krater from Enkomi. After Wedde 2000: No. 644 ... 2. A pyxis from Tragana. After Wedde 2000: No. 643 .... 3. A seal from Tiryns. After Yasur-Landau 2001: Pl. Ca ............................................................................. 4. A stirrup jar from Syros. After Wedde 2000: No. 655 .......................................................................... 5. A krater from Aradippo, Cyprus. After Yasur-Landau 2001: Pl. Ce ................................................................... 6. A krater from Ashkelon, courtesy of Prof. L. E. Stager, Director of the Ashkelon Excavations .......................... 7. A figurine from Ashdod, Stratum XII. After Yasur-Landau 2001: Pl. XCIXa .................................... Fig. 4. 1. A painted shard from Megiddo. After Schumacher 1908: Pl. 24 .................................................................... 2. A zoomorphic vessel from Megiddo. After Loud 1948: Pl. 247: 7 ........................................................................ 3. A tripod vessel in the Metropolitan Museum. After Iacovou 1988: 72, Fig. 33 .............................................. 4. The lyre player on the “Orpheus Jug” ......................... 5. A kalathos from Kouklia-Xerolimani T.9:7. After Iacovou 1988: 72, Fig. 70 .............................................. 6. A plate from Kouklia-Skales. After Iacovou 1988: 27 ......................................................................... 7. A jar from Megiddo Stratum VIA. After Loud 1948: Pl. 84: 5 .......................................................................... 304 304 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 INTRODUCTION We are honoured to present to Prof. Israel Finkelstein this collection of studies concerning the archaeology of Israel and the Levant. Professor Finkelstein holds the Jacob M. Alkow Chair in the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University. He is widely regarded not only as one of the leading scholars in the archaeology of the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages but also as a leader in the application of modern archaeological evidence to the reconstruction of biblical Israelite history. His pioneering work has been frequently recognized and widely acclaimed. Professor Finkelstein’s scholarship is not, however, the genesis of this Festschrift, the first in his honour. His scholarly achievements will no doubt be honoured in due time by a more august array of international researchers. Likewise, although the fact that Israel Finkelstein will celebrate his 60th birthday next year was doubtless taken into consideration, it was not necessarily the main impetus for producing of this volume. Rather, this Festschrift is born from and intends to honour Israel Finkelstein the teacher. Each of the twelve contributors to this volume was at one time a graduate student of Israel, mostly at Tel Aviv University. While continuing to conduct new research, publish excavation reports, and meet the arduous task of organizing the Megiddo project, Israel never loses sight of his students. Generous with his time and infectious with his energy, throughout the years Israel has done everything possible to hone the skills of his students, encouraging each of us to find our own paths in the field and we have all benefited immeasurably from his focused guidance. It is a tribute to his integrity that Israel takes pride in the fact that some of his students’ views are overtly opposed to his own. As a result, it should come as no surprise if the authors of the papers in this volume not infrequently disagree with their teacher on matters of archaeological method, historical interpretation or chronology. In essence, this lack of consensus is the best imaginable way to pay tribute to two of our teacher’s guiding principles: intellectual honesty and a healthy skepticism of communis opinio. xvi introduction The twelve articles contained within not only express a wide range of informed opinions, but also pursue research across a broad spectrum of interests, from subsistence economies to the symbolic realm of iconography. Their geographic scope, however, is limited: they all focus on Israel and the Levant, the region held dearest by Israel Finkelstein. Questions concerning city boundaries and their implications for our understanding of urban frameworks are investigated by both Arie and Thareani-Sussely, who point out that the evidence for extramural settlements during the Bronze and Iron Ages suggests a kind of urban sprawl in times of relative peace and stability. A case for change in land use is presented by Arie, who argues that during Middle Bronze Age II–III, the southeastern slope of Tell Megiddo was no longer used as an extramural cemetery. Traces of walls, masonry tombs, and infant jar burials suggest that during this period there was a change in land use, and the area became a neighborhood. Burying the deceased under the floors of buildings and courtyards was a common practice in the period. It is possible that the area was reused as a cemetery when the urban area constricted during the Late Bronze Age. The discovery of an extramural neighborhood at Megiddo increases the estimated size of the site to 13.5–15 ha. Moreover, it calls for a reevaluation of the total areas of other Middle Bronze Age sites, which in turn could have a significant impact on population estimates for the period. Thareani-Sussely discusses the multicultural and multifunctional nature of extramural neighborhoods in the late Iron Age II in the Negev. The complex sociopolitical reality in the area during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE allowed the development of extramural neighborhoods adjacent to settlements. Rather than serving squatters and the urban poor, solidly built structures outside the walls of {Aroer are connected with commercial activities; one structure, for example, is identified as a caravanserai. A different function is suggested for extramural structures at Æorvat {Uza and Arad, interpreted as houses for the family members of the garrisons stationed at the forts. Thareani-Sussely describes extramural neighborhoods not as the impoverished margin of the ancient city but as “a place of interaction between various population groups from different origins and social classes: merchants, caravaneers, nomads, and local population—all integral parts of the ancient urban community.” The concentration of a large number of people in a city created challenges of waste management, and Sumakaxi-Fink addresses the introduction xvii architecture of restrooms in the houses of the well-to-do residents of Alalakh. The role of toilets as “standardized luxury” and an integral part of elite architecture is seen in use of fine building materials such as orthostats, carefully applied plaster, and ceramic tiles. The presentation of several restrooms in various degrees of preservation at the site, as well as numerous parallels for different types of toilets from the Levant, will be of use for the identification of such installations at other sites. Gazit, following the traditional chronology and understanding of the Iron Age, presents a comparative study of settlement activity in Iron Age IB and the Byzantine period, based on the results of a survey undertaken south of the Lower Besor region. According to Gazit, the sudden appearance of the Iron Age IB settlement system in the Besor region during the second half of the 11th century BCE, followed by its disappearance after a period of some three generations, can by explained by the political and economical gap that was formed in south Canaan after the breakdown of Egyptian administration in the final days of the 20th Dynasty. On the other hand, in his opinion, during the Byzantine period, state systems possessed complete territorial control over both cultivated and wilderness territories. Meitlis investigates the beginning of Iron Age I culture in the highlands. He considers the similarity between the characteristics of Late Bronze material culture and those of Iron Age I, the lack of Late Bronze architectural remains under most Iron Age I sites, and several cases in which Late Bronze pottery imports co-exist with Iron Age I pottery, as evidence for a very early appearance of Iron Age I culture. Whether or not one accepts his chronology for the earliest appearance of vessels typical of the Iron Age in the central highlands, it is nevertheless possible that some processes connected with the emergence of Israel started, as Meitlis suggests, “at an earlier phase than has been posited in the past, and continued for a much longer period than has been suggested.” The socioeconomic implications of grain storage in Iron Age I are discussed by Ilan, who concentrates as a case-study on the storage facilities of Tel Dan (Strata VI–IVB). Ilan points out that these facilities underwent significant changes over the course of Iron Age I. These changes may serve as a clear indicator of socioeconomic and political change at the site and in the region as a whole. Indeed, the early phase at Tel Dan (Stratum VI) was characterized by a combination of many grain pits and some pithoi, which might have been a function xviii introduction of poor security. In Stratum V, most grain storage was transferred to above-ground containers (mostly pithoi), while pits seem to have been limited to one per household. It is possible that such a combination may reflect an improvement in security conditions. On the other hand, during the last phase (Stratum IVB), pits continued to be confined to one per household, but pithoi became few again. Ilan goes on to suggest that during this phase, part of the grain may have been stored in above-ground facilities that belonged to individual households, while other portions may have gone to a central storage place. This is believed to indicate increasing centralization of economic and political control during the last phase of the period. Sasson reassesses the Bronze and Iron Age economies of the southern Levant, based on his analysis of sheep and goat husbandry. According to Sasson, zooarchaeological finds from the periods discussed point to a conservative household economy, clearly a function of a survival subsistence strategy. This strategy pursued the optimal utilization of resources balanced by a minimization of risk in order to maintain longterm survival. The immediate goal of the survival subsistence strategy would have been to preserve flock and territorial size at an optimum level without endangering the ecological resource base (i.e., water, pasture) and, according to Sasson, the reason this strategy was employed is that scarcity, not surplus played a central role in the lives of ancient populations. Based on the zoo-archaeological record of caprine (sheep and goats) from 68 Bronze and Iron Age southern Levantine sites, Sasson suggests that the mechanism for coping with scarcity included maximizing subsistence security while reducing risks and minimizing fluctuations in the resource base. In most sites examined by him, the relative frequency of sheep does not exceed 67% and this pattern occurs in all periods as well as all geographical regions in Israel. According to Sasson, it reflects a survival subsistence strategy that strived for balance between the demand for wool, produced of sheep, and the demand for herd security maintained mostly by goats. Likewise, Sasson recognizes an additional pattern of exploiting caprine for all of their products. This pattern stands in contrast with theories on specialization in production of meat, milk or wool in the Southern Levant and, according to Sasson, points to a self-sufficient economy and optimal exploitation of subsistence resources. Gadot uses the “longue durée” approach to explore continuity and change in the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age transition in Israel’s central introduction xix Coastal Plain. Relying on a nuanced analysis of this lengthy period, Gadot postulates that new sociopolitical organizations emerged along the Yarkon-Ayalon basin during the Late Bronze-Iron Age three times in succession. According to Gadot, the first system was created by the Egyptians who turned Jaffa into one of their strongholds in Canaan, and the plains along the Yarkon River into royal or temple estates. However, when the Egyptian system came to a violent end, the area was marginalized and no single centralized social group had control over the land. Only when the Philistines immigrated into the region from the south was a new sociopolitical order established again. Gadot concludes that in the area discussed, the initiation of a new social order was always brought about by an external political power taking advantage of fragmented local social groups in order to exploit the region economically. Shavit presents an investigation of the urban landscape through the lens of regional studies. Following his survey of Iron Age sites in Philistia, he addresses the apparent anomaly of the emergence of urban centers with almost no surrounding hinterland. This is an exceptional phenomenon in the landscape of ancient Israel, where urban settlement is usually a part of a multi-tiered settlement pattern. Based on parallels from the Late Bronze Aegean, Shavit suggests that Aegean concepts of urban settlement, imported by the Philistine migrants in the 12th century BCE had a long-lasting influence on the hinterlands of Tel Miqne-Ekron, Tel ¶afit-Gath, Tel Ashdod, Tel Ashkelon, and Gaza. Shavit describes the Philistine centers as “city-villages” or “quasi-cities,” isolated from their surroundings, with inhabitants who subsisted mostly on agriculture, and with an economy that did not rely on a hinterland. Fantalkin’s article deals with the appearance of burial practices connected to the use of rock-cut bench tombs in Iron Age Judah. In his opinion, the present scholarly consensus, which sees these tombs as a phenomenon characterizing both the United Monarchy and the Kingdom of Judah, fails to explain the fact that these tombs are attested in the Judean core area only as early as the 8th century BCE, while in other areas, such as the Judean foothills (the Shephelah) and the Coastal Plain, the development of such tombs is dated significantly earlier. Fantalkin hypothesizes that the aggressive expansionist policy of Aram-Damascus, which resulted in the decline of Gath and the temporary weakening of the Northern Kingdom in the second half of 9th century BCE, may have paved the way for Judah’s expansion into the xx introduction area of the Shephelah and the latter’s integration into the Kingdom of Judah. In this scenario, the widespread appearance of bench tombs throughout the Kingdom of Judah during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE may be seen as a sign of state formation as lowland elite burial practices were adopted by newly created Judahite urban elites. Franklin investigates anew the well-known Iron Age palaces at Samaria and Megiddo. According to her, both palaces share a distinctive set of architectural characteristics, which when view together with her re-analysis of the stratigraphy at Samaria and Megiddo, highlights the fact that their construction may be safely dated to the 9th century BCE. Two significant features present at both palaces are the use of specific masons’ marks and the utilization of the short cubit as the unit of measurement; these provide, in Franklin’s view, a clue to the identity of the builders. Yasur-Landau explores the iconographic message in what is arguably the most famous ceramic find from Megiddo, the “Orpheus Jug”. YasurLandau argues that the figural iconography on the jug suggests that it is not purely Philistine in origin. Cypriot imagery may have influenced the style of the animal and human figures on the “Orpheus Jug,” demonstrating new contacts with Cyprus at the end of the 11th century BCE. However, the topic of the scene is neither Cypriot nor Philistine, but belongs to a long tradition of Canaanite representations of sacred trees and animals, relating to Ashera or Astarte. These traditions continued at Megiddo, unhindered, into the Iron Age, an active manifestation of Canaanite cultural identity, while at Philistia representations of trees and animals were suppressed by the Philistine imagery of the bird, symbol of an Aegean Goddess. The twelve authors included here, a symbolic metaphor, represent in fact only a fraction of Israel’s many students. Professor Finklestein’s ongoing commitment to the training and guiding of students will no doubt continue to produce a steady flow of new archaeologists. More “Bene” and “Benot” Israel indeed. Alexander Fantalkin Assaf Yasur-Landau Tel Aviv 25.03.2008 THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF GRAIN STORAGE IN EARLY IRON AGE CANAAN: THE CASE OF TEL DAN David Ilan The way people store their yields in traditional agricultural societies can be an important indicator of social and economic organization. The starting point for the following study was Israel Finkelstein’s discussion of pits and grain storage in his classic work The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Finkelstein 1988: 264–269). Having additionally benefited from Israel’s careful guidance as my dissertation advisor, it is with great pleasure that I contribute this study to a festschrift in his honour. Concerning Pits Iron Age I remains were found in all excavation areas at Tel Dan (Fig. 1). All the Iron Age I levels contained pits—more in Stratum VI (Fig. 2), less in Stratum V (Fig. 3) and even less in Stratum IVB (Ilan 1999: Plan 6). The pits of Iron Age I Tel Dan—their construction, distribution, and their contents—allow us to arrive at a number of historical and socioeconomic inferences. The first step is to establish a hypothetical framework that will enable us to invalidate or substantiate various interpretive options. People dig pits for a number of reasons and several hypotheses can be forwarded for the function of pits in the Iron Age I context (Currid and Navon 1989 and further literature there). Of course, a given pit may have been subject to more than one use. Below are several possible pit functions and expectations for evidence that might support each interpretation: Grain storage: For the most part pits are considered grain-storage facilities. In Borowski’s typology of grain-storage facilities those most commonly found in Iron Age I contexts are “grain pits,” while only the much larger (and by inference, public) storage facilities like the famous 88 david ilan example at Megiddo Stratum III receive the appellation “silo” (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 66–68; Borowski 1987: 72). Borowski’s definitions are adopted here. Given ethnographic and literary evidence such pits are usually identified as grain pits. However, carbonized grain in the requisite quantities has been found (and reported) at only a few Iron Age I sites: Shiloh Stratum V, Silos 1400 and 1462, Tell Keisan Stratum 9a (probably coeval with Dan Stratum IVB), and Aphek Stratum 8 (the later being an early Iron Age IIA context, coeval with Dan Stratum IVA) (Kislev 1980; 1993: 354; Lederman and Finkelstein 1993: 47–48; Gadot 2003: 80–82). Despite the dearth of unequivocal evidence, I accept the grain-pit interpretation as the likely one for most, though perhaps not all pits, at all periods. Subfloor Storage of Other Commodities: Many commodities would not have left obvious traces. It is documented, for example, that pits are often used to store fodder and make silage (Reynolds 1979: 77–79; Finkelstein 1986: 126 and references there). Perhaps phytolithic analysis can detect high proportions of fodder plants, but I know of no investigation yet carried out in the Levant with this goal in mind. In the making of silage, residues of lactic acid might form, which could be detected if looked for (Reynolds 1979: 78). Otherwise, one has no expectation of fodder plants being preserved in the archaeological record and an empty pit is to be expected. Other possibilities are salted meat (for which chemical analysis of side or base material could detect higher salt levels than is normal), short-term water storage (of which no signs will remain except for basal sedimentation that cannot be differentiated from post-use water-deposited silting).1 Storage of Household Items (pottery in particular, while the owner is absent): In this case, one would expect to find assemblages that are restorable, if broken, into complete objects, with no missing parts. Moreover, it seems unlikely that more than two or three pits for this purpose per extended household would be found. Rubbish Disposal: This was certainly the final use of some of the Iron Age I pits at Tel Dan, and a few at Shechem, Aphek, and Sasa (see 1 These are just some examples; for others, see Finkelstein 1986: 79; Currid and Navon 1989: 70–71. the case of tel dan 89 below). The large quantities of pottery and animal bones attest to this, as does the variety of vessels represented among the sherds.2 But quantities and typological variety are not enough. The key to identifying rubbish-disposal pits is that the sherds they contain can be joined to sherds found on floors, benches, and fills above them. Intact pits that contain large sherds that join to form incomplete vessels are an even better indication. However, the investment in the regular shape and stone lining of some of these pits suggests that their original, primary purpose was something other than sumps or garbage receptacles. Composting: One would be hard pressed to demonstrate such a use since the pit would be empty with the lapse of time. Perhaps one should search for a thin black line of organic material at the bottom of the pit similar to what is left when contaminated grain decays. Ritual Use ( favissa, bothros, or biblical xob): In this case one might expect a standardized repertoire of objects and materials left as offerings. This may take the form of organic materials that leave little or no discernible traces.3 One would also expect them to be concentrated in places imbued with cultic or spiritual meaning, rather than being widely distributed. Such places may have some surface manifestation of ritual activity as well. The archaeological and textual evidence for cultic pits associated with such phenomena is prodigious.4 I concur with the opinion that most of the pits in the Iron Age I levels at Tel Dan are grain pits (Finkelstein 1988: 102, 266–267). Though instances where such constructions actually contain grain are confined to the few examples cited above, the construction technique, the ethnographic record, and the fact that they are often empty but sometimes contain a secondary deposit of rubbish, all point to their probable first use as grain pits. The discussion below proceeds under this assumption. Synthetic treatments of Iron Age I archaeology unanimously consider the plethora of pits that agglomerate in excavated sites a hallmark of 2 Cf. Finkelstein 1996: 127. Indeed, this would most often be the case, if the ancient texts are any indication; see Hoffner 1967. 4 For archaeological manifestations see, for example, Ilan 1991 and references there. For textual references, including the Hebrew Bible, see Hoffner 1967 and references there. 3 90 david ilan the material culture of the period (e.g., Finkelstein 1988: 264–269; Mazar 1992: 289; Rosen 1994: 343–344; Bloch-Smith and Alpert Nakhai 1999: 75–76). The large number of pits excavated in successive Iron Age I contexts at Tel Dan were done so with a relatively high degree of stratigraphic control. This supplies a good opportunity for diachronic analysis that is matched perhaps only by {Izbet Âartah and Tell Beit Mirsim (Finkelstein 1986; Greenberg 1987).5 Pit Construction The great majority of pits at Tel Dan are cylinder shaped (Figs. 2, 4, 5) while a very few are beehive shaped (Fig. 6); sometimes, when the top has been lopped off, it is hard to know which is which. Some pits are stone lined but most are not. None showed unequivocal evidence of firing (a means of fumigation); though many contained ash that could be interpreted as such (Currid and Navon 1989: 75). Those that are not stone lined are usually inserted down into the hard-packed pebble fill of the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 5), which must have served the same purpose as the stone lining. When this fill was missing, a stone lining was provided—a sort of patch, as it were (Fig. 4). The stone lining is generally considered a means of isolating the contents of the pit or silo from the soil beyond, particularly in defense of rodents and insects. If not of stone, the lining may originally have been of basketry or mud plaster, sometimes fired hard, but these may not be detected by the excavator (Currid and Navon 1989: 70; Reynolds 1979: 72–76). When stone-lined and intact, pits are fairly easy to detect. At Tel Dan the lower sections of most pits in Area B-west were easily discerned because they were inserted into the hard-packed Late Bronze pebble layer (Fig. 5). Often, however, the upper sections were not so easy to make out and it is now clear that in several cases material from a pit was excavated together with material from an earlier floor or debris level. Particularly when empty, or if their contents have burned away in conflagration, the upper sections tend to collapse inward, mixing pottery from different contexts. 5 The Iron Age I context with the greatest number of pits uncovered thus far (a total of 198) is Tell en-Na‘beh Stratum IV. However, the diachronic aspect is less clear (Zorn 1993: 103–113). the case of tel dan 91 It is not clear how the pits were sealed in the period of their initial use. Ethnographic and other archaeological data indicate that a variety of capping techniques could be used: animal dung, clay and stones, or a combination of these (Currid and Navon 1989: 70, 72). But since all of the pits seem to have been emptied of their original contents, either by natural or human agents, we would not expect to find the sealing intact unless it is a feature, often a surface, of the following occupation. Pit Contents and Their Implications Many pits contain almost nothing aside from fill, and some of that comes from the penetrated earlier layers. At least nine Stratum VI pits contained no Iron Age I pottery whatsoever, only sherds dating to the Late Bronze Age or earlier from the sides and bases of the pits. The few pits of Strata V and IVB always contained at least some Iron Age I pottery, though Late Bronze ceramics can make up the majority, since here too, Late Bronze levels were penetrated. Some pits however, did contain complete, restorable pottery vessels, and large quantities of animal bones and destruction debris. Tel Dan is one of only a few Iron Age I sites where this is so (Fig. 4). The others that I have located are Hazor, Aphek (Stratum X8), Shechem, and Sasa (L5) (Ben-Ami 2001; Gadot 2003; Currid and Navon 1989: 69–70; Golani and Yogev 1996; respectively). It has been suggested that such finds represent rubbish rather than the original intended use of the pits (Finkelstein 1988: 267; Currid and Navon 1989: 71). As it turns out, this hunch is correct, but it must be proven and explained, as I do below for Tel Dan. In many cases at Tel Dan, pottery from pits could be restored with pottery from surfaces.6 While most of the debris was discarded into the pits, some fragments were missed and ended up on floors, benches, and other features of the subsequent occupation. This implies that the material in the pits is refuse from cleared floors. Why were the floors cleared rather than the debris being simply leveled down and built upon? The answer is probably twofold: The inhabitants wished to reuse their old architecture as much as possible, so they cleared the destruction debris out. They also wished to build over areas that had once been 6 For detailed contexts, see Ilan 1999. 92 david ilan densely arrayed with grain pits (Area B-west [Fig. 2] and Area M). For both these reasons the builders cleared the debris from the destroyed houses and filled in the troublesome pits, which must have been empty and visible, to provide a level surface for planned construction.7 The fact that so few pits contained household rubbish can be correlated to the sparseness of Stratum VI architecture; most of the pits were simply filled with soil and outdoor rubbish. It is also conceivable, though difficult to demonstrate at this point, that the open, pit-bearing areas were left neglected for some period of time. In this case, the “primary” and “secondary” infilling mechanisms described by Schiffer (1987: 218–220) would apply. In any event, a major implication is that the inhabitants no longer wished to make use of the pits—at least not these. How did the grain pits get empty enough (down to their bases) until it was possible to fill them with what are clearly the fractured contents of living floors? Were their contents first emptied en masse and the erstwhile pits left open? One possible explanation is that the grain had already been consumed entirely, perhaps in time of famine. It does not seem likely that the grain contents burned in conflagration since no recognizable quantities of carbonized grain were discerned (when the contents of a full grain pit burn, a certain portion at the core will be preserved in carbonized form [Zohary and Hopf 1994: 3–4]). Moreover, would not at least several pits have been forgotten or otherwise preserved with their contents intact? It is only fair at this juncture to remark that the excavation techniques used at Tel Dan were not as precise as one might desire, especially in the retrospective light of the questions raised here. Flotation was carried out in only a few cases and sealing materials, wall linings, and basal matter were not sampled for phytolithic or other microanalysis. This remains a project for the future. Intrasite Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Pits The ratio of pits to excavated area in Stratum VI (45: 975 m2, Fig. 2) is similar to that encountered at {Izbet Âartah Stratum II (43: 1275 m2) and Hazor Strata XI–XII (ca. 70 pits in an area of ca. 1000 m2), the 7 Another factor to keep in mind is that a series of terraces was constructed on the inner slopes of Tel Dan (which has a crater-like shape) in what appears to have been a unified preparation for house construction. 93 the case of tel dan sites and horizons with the densest array of pits reported until now (Finkelstein 1986; Ben-Ami 2001: 151–156). The Tel Dan ratios break down by area as follows: Table 1. Numbers of pits relative to excavated area in Stratum VI and Stratum V Area Stratum VI Excavated area (m2) Stratum V Excavated area (m2) B-east B-west H M Y 4 28 1 7 5 350 475 30 65 55 1 3 0? 0 0 400 550 30 85 70 Totals 45 975 4 1135 In Areas B-west and M there are many more pits relative to their excavated areas than there are in the other areas. Unlike Areas Y, B-east, and perhaps T, the former areas also display little or no architecture in Stratum VI. It therefore seems likely that Finkelstein is correct in asserting that Area B-west was a sector devoted to grain storage in Stratum VI—a sort of subsurface granary (Finkelstein 1988: 266)—much like the grain-pit fields of {Izbet Âartah, Hazor, and Tel Zeror. Plainly, these underground granaries were all outdoors. Very few of the pits at Dan overlap or disturb each other. In fact, a number are placed abutting each other, almost in rows (this is mainly true of Area B-west [Fig. 2]; cf. Shiloh Stratum V [Lederman and Finkelstein 1993: 46–48]). The implication is that they were largely contemporaneous and were somehow marked.8 Because there are so many pits that appear to be at least partly contemporaneous, logic also dictates that they may have been labeled with additional information—date of harvest, which commodity is contained (wheat, barely, or other), which is reserved for seed, and perhaps the family to which the pit belonged. 8 Currid and Navon (1989: 68) note that the Bedouin of the southern Shephelah identified their grain pits by stone markers. 94 david ilan The Implications of Grain Pits for Production and Social Organization The analysis of Iron Age I social structure and the architectural layout at Tel Dan lead us to expect that certain grain pits belonged to certain families (batei av in the biblical parlance [Stager 1985]). By “families” do we mean multiple-family, extended, or nuclear households, and on what level within the family was storage organized? The dense agglomerations of pits in Area B-west (and those from {Izbet Âartah Stratum II, for example), suggest that storage was organized by multiple-family households, and perhaps even by patrilineal clans that occupied a segment or neighborhood of the settlement (Gottwald 1979: 316). One would also expect that a given family’s holdings would be well-defined and recognized by the inhabitants of the settlement. The question is how these holdings were defined and whether it is possible to identify them in the archaeological record. When primordial Iron Age I levels are excavated and their layouts distinguished, the hypothetical holdings of compounds can be inferred because household units are individuated. Such might be the case at Giloh or {Izbet Âartah, for example (Mazar 1981; Finkelstein 1986). With regard to the Tel Dan pits, however, the difficulty in isolating Stratum VI dwelling units from within the Stratum V agglomeration makes it hard to assign a particular array of grain pits to a particular structure or complex. Finkelstein attempted to estimate the number of grain pits per dunam, the total number of grain pits, and the total tonnage of grain harvested by the inhabitants of {Izbet Âartah (Finkelstein 1986: 127–128). Such calculations presuppose: (a) an average distribution of pits throughout the site, similar to that of the excavated areas. However, as noted above, Finkelstein himself has suggested that many sites may have specific areas designated for grain storage; (b) a fixed measure of the pits’ contemporaneity, ignoring the probability that at a given point in time only a portion of the pits were in use; (c) that all the pits were used to store grain. While Rosen (1986: 172–173) did try to establish statistical limits to reduce the element of uncertainty in the above {Izbet Âartah calculations, there remain many unknown values. Such calculations may be useful as a heuristic device, but their accuracy is questionable. the case of tel dan 95 Throughout, Tel Dan Stratum VI has many more pits than do the two later Iron Age I strata, both in absolute numbers and relative to the extent of excavation (Table 1). Surely, this trend should be understood as reflecting social and economic change. Most Iron Age I sites lack both the diachronic resolution and aerial extent of the Tel Dan excavations, and this bears directly on the question of economic processes reflected by grain-pit distribution. Aside from Tel Dan, only {Izbet Âartah shows a clear process of changing priorities: Stratum III has a few pits (7), Stratum II many (43), and Stratum I, once again, few (10).9 I feel these patterns can be explained by a combination of demographics and security concerns (elaborated below). Why Did Iron Age I Inhabitants Store Grain in Pits? Most of the few detailed studies of Iron Age I pits have focused on determining their use and on their storage efficacy. The question of why pits, rather than other means, were chosen to store grain in this period has been touched upon, but not sufficiently. There can be no doubt that stone-lined, plastered, and sealed pits are an efficient means of storing grain and other perishable produce (e.g., Reynolds 1979: 71–82; Currid and Navon 1989; Rosen 1994: 344; and references in these). In Finkelstein’s view pit-digging is a “characteristic feature of populations in the process of sedentarization or of rural communities [my italics]” (Finkelstein 1986: 126 and see references there). In the context of his hypothesis that the settlement process was primarily an outcome of sedentarizing nomads,10 his emphasis was on the first part of the statement—that concerning settling nomads. While there is logic in this, the second part of the hypothesis deserves equal attention. Pit construction has been equally prevalent amongst farmers with long 9 These numbers assume that Finkelstein’s stratigraphic attributions for the grain pits are correct. The great majority are sited in an open area between the large central structure and the outer band of buildings (Finkelstein 1986: Figs. 3–5). Finkelstein’s criterion for assigning them to Stratum II is that they lack a light-colored brick debris that filled most of the Stratum III grain pits—not a criterion that inspires certainty. Many could be either Stratum III or Stratum I grain pits or belong to any combination of strata. 10 Revised to some degree to include population elements with other origins in Finkelstein and Naxaman 1994: 13. 96 david ilan traditions of permanent residence and land ownership both in Palestine and without, in ancient times and until the not-very-distant past (see references to Hyde et al. 1973 and Ilan 1974 in Finkelstein 1986: 127; Currid and Navon 1989). Apparently, it was not a common practice either before or after the Iron Age I, that is, in the Late Bronze Age or during the Iron Age II.11 Rosen has remarked that grain pits were constructed “to the very minimum,” that is, so as to expend the least effort for the most benefit (Rosen 1994: 344). He called this “‘value engineering’—calculated and conscious saving in building activity.” Larger, above-ground facilities, he reasons, are characteristic of periods of sophisticated, more complex administration. But it would be easier and equally efficient to store grain in pithoi, (indeed, this is probably what happened in Tel Dan Stratum V), or in jars, such as have been found in 10th-century-BCE Æorbat Rosh Zayit (Gal and Alexandre 2000: 21–22; Kislev and Melamed 2000). There is perhaps another correlate of complex, sophisticated administration that may better explain the use of the grain pit when such an administration does not exist or is perceived to be hostile. One of the primary reasons grain is stored in subterranean facilities is to hide it—from robbers, the government tax collector, or from other enemies (see, e.g., references in Currid and Navon 1989: notes 2, 3). Indeed, the Bible refers to grain storage mainly in metaphors of insecurity and refuge ( Jer. 41: 8; 2 Sam. 17: 15–20; Judg. 6: 1–4). The Egyptians often timed military campaigns with the harvest and in the Late Bronze Age at least, local farmers were obliged to provide the Egyptian garrisons and functionaries with grain (Redford 1992: 211, citing Sethe 1907: 719). We have noted that grain pits were probably marked, but they can be quickly “unmarked” and therefore safeguarded. Even if some of the grain pits were uncovered and their contents taken by an adversary, other pits would go undetected and thus, unplundered. Hence, subterranean grain storage was a matter of expediency rather than the ideal method. One imagines that some grain pits were sited purposely in even more obscure, more distant locations, just-in-case. The Iron Age I is documented as a period of social and political turbulence; this, it can be asserted, is an important reason for subterranean storage. 11 Multiple grain pits found in the recent excavations at the Iron Age II site of Mo·a require that this statement be moderated somewhat (De-Groot and Greenhut 2005). the case of tel dan 97 Although it is true that pits are found in Iron Age I “settlement” sites from the northern Negev to the Upper Galilee, more are made where there is soil underfoot. Where the site is founded at or near bedrock, there are usually few or none, particularly if the bedrock is hard limestone or dolomite rather than chalk. This is clear from Finkelstein’s survey of pits in Iron Age I sites (Finkelstein 1986: 124–128).12 The depth of a pit may also have been affected by the depth of soil above bedrock; Finkelstein suggests, for example, that the {Izbet Âartah Stratum II pits were shallow and more numerous than at other sites for this reason (ibid.: 127). Rock-hewn pits are found at Beer-sheba (attributed to Stratum IX) and at Tell el-Ful (Lapp 1981: 56–62; Herzog 1984: 8–11, 70), but it is usually difficult to date and assign a function to rock-cut features. Why did the inhabitants not make larger grain pits? After all, each family, whether a nuclear, extended, or multiple-family household, must have harvested much more than the contents of a single grain pit. The answer is probably that grain keeps best when undisturbed, and a household will consume only so much grain at a time. A larger silo would mean more grain exposed to moisture, blight, and vermin for a longer time. Thus, the volume of a grain pit, which is surprisingly uniform across the country (generally averaging 1.8–2.5 m3), was calculated by experience to match a given rate of consumption.13 Once a grain pit was opened, its contents were removed in their entirety and stored short-term in bins or jars—also vermin proof—located inside the home.14 It is also likely that the use of smaller but more numerous pits was a means of reducing risk of spoilage: If a small pit is penetrated by moisture or vermin, or spoiled by bacterial or fungal activity, only a small quantity is lost. 12 Chalk would have been a positive byproduct for enhancing agricultural yields and for lime plaster. At Tell en-Na‘beh however, with the largest number of Iron Age I grain pits excavated anywhere, they were hewn into limestone bedrock (Zorn 1993: 104–105), perhaps an indication of insecurity. 13 cf. Zorn 1993: 104–105 concerning the averages and variation of capacity at Tell en-Na‘beh. 14 And from that point on, see Rosen 1994: 343. 98 david ilan Why Grain Pits Went Out of Vogue In some locations, pits may never have been hewn to begin with, particularly where a settlement was established directly on hard, karstic bedrock. The sites of the Upper Galilee Highlands show relatively few pits. In these places we may hypothesize that pithoi may have been used (although I do not know of an Iron Age I pithos containing charred grain). Finkelstein has asserted that settlements with small numbers of pits could not have produced the quantities of grain sufficient for subsistence and must therefore have depended on exchange with better grain-producing areas to make up the difference (Finkelstein 1988: 269). But the presence or absence of pits (“silos”) cannot be the criterion, by itself, for such a judgment.15 It is almost certain that grain pits (and pits with other functions) went out of use from time to time. By way of example, Reynolds gives the following explanation for a farmer abandoning his pit: Apart from ritual reasons which we shall never be able to establish by excavation, the only possible cause for abandoning a pit is the farmer’s reaction to failure. When the stored grain is affected by water, the effects are remarkable. The fungal and bacterial infestation can cause strange and weird colourations, such as shiny reds, dull browns and violent greens. Faced with such a prospect, which is not enhanced by the accompanying ill odour, no farmer could be blamed for digging a new pit and abandoning the old to the evil spirits. Yet there is nothing wrong at all with the pit itself, only with the stored grain. One experiment in operation at present is to monitor its disintegration. Ultimately, the grain should rot down to nothing more than a thin black layer. Such layers have been recorded but never analysed. (Reynolds 1979: 76) This one example illustrates how individual pits might remain unused, visible, and empty, while others were filled. In fact, the whole process of grain pits going out of style was probably a gradual one. Pits did continue to be used, and even to be dug, in Strata V and IVB at Tel Dan. The same holds true for {Izbet Âartah Stratum I. The process of pits going out of vogue may be reconstructed in three stages: 15 Carrying-capacity analysis is a better tool and its results depend on how much of the slopes were terraced—almost impossible to gauge at this stage. the case of tel dan 99 1. Political stability increased and security conditions improved. These allowed the consideration of other storage methods that were less arduous (i.e. better “value engineered,” to quote Rosen [1994: 344]) and less prone to spoilage, spontaneous combustion, misplacement, and theft. 2. Under these new conditions, and given the disadvantages of underground storage, it was found preferable to store grain in pithoi and jars, of which there are prodigious numbers in Stratum V. For one thing, perhaps grain was now more frequently transported as an exchanged commodity and better access was required. And perhaps, there developed a problem in keeping track of grain pits in a larger, more densely populated and builtup settlement. Perhaps too, the number of vermin expanded with increased population density and pithoi were deemed better protection against pests. Moreover, as suggested above, perhaps problems with high groundwater, poor winter drainage, and pit plugs being removed by rainfall and runoff made it much more sensible to store grain above ground, in sealed pithoi, under a roof; that is, as soon as you were not afraid of someone taking your stores. 3. At some point, probably well-advanced by the destruction of Stratum IVB, beit av economics (the domestic mode of production) were gradually supplanted by an increasing centralization of production and storage. Perhaps central storage facilities were established (real “silos” in Borowski’s terminology [Borowski 1987: 72]) in lieu of erstwhile household facilities. There is only negative evidence for this at Tel Dan; in Stratum IVB the numbers of pithoi (and pits) are much lower than in Stratum V. It is hard to imagine that yields were significantly less, or that all the grain was stored in storage jars, of which there are many, but not substantially more than in Stratum V. Part of the grain may have been stored in above-ground facilities that belonged to individual households—those chambers without doorways (see below). Other portions may have been going to a central storage place or facility, such as those located in contemporaneous and slightly later contexts (e.g., Tel Hadar Stratum IV, Horbat Rosh Zayit) (Kochavi 1998; Gal and Alexandre 2000), though none has been found yet at Dan. We can summarize the change in grain storage techniques with the following diagram: 100 Stratum VI Stratum V Stratum IVB david ilan > many grain pits and some pithoi > many pithoi, few pits and bins > large above-ground household silos, few pits and bins, few pithoi A similar scenario for diachronic changes in methods of grain storage, albeit better documented in all its stages, has been reported at Early Bronze Age Arad (Amiran and Ilan 1996: 145–147). Pithoi and Their Distribution In Stratum V pithoi were generally found propped up against walls (Fig. 7) and, lacking evidence to the contrary, we can only presume that the same would have been true for Stratum VI—even in the unlikely event that the walls were made of reeds.16 The pits of Stratum VI contain both classic collared-rim and “Galilean” pithoi, fragmentary and complete, in approximately equal numbers.17 But they seem to occur in segregated groups and are not often mixed as whole vessels. Where more than one pithos occurs in a room or pit, the types almost always group together: either “Galilean” pithoi (Fig. 8) or collared-rim pithoi (Fig. 9). This may be an indication of commodity separation and identification, or perhaps it is a question of cultural preference, a point that is dealt with elsewhere (Ilan 1999: 81–85). Silos No feature could be identified unequivocally as a large, central grain storage facility like that of Tel Hadar Stratum IV or Megiddo Stratum III. One of the characteristics of such facilities is a lack of doorways; if anything, smaller openings are the rule. One chamber in Tel Dan Stratum IVB—Locus 605 in Squares B–C/19–20—was a small, completely closed-off room, 1.8 × 2 m in size. No carbonized grain 16 Cf. Geva 1984. In at least two cases, however, in Stratum VI (Area B-west L7140 and L7183), pithoi were deeply sunk into the ground (when pithoi are sunk they are clearly in situ). 17 For the different types, see Biran 1989; Ilan 1999. the case of tel dan 101 was noted by the excavators, but it is hard to come up with another explanation. In any event, Stratum IVB is the first Iron Age I context where such a closed chamber was encountered, and this at a time when other bulk storage features (pits, pithoi, and bins) were much fewer than in the previous two strata. The circumstantial evidence points to concentrated bulk storage taking place in locations other than where it had been focused before. Bins or Troughs In several places, semi-circular bins were found built up against walls (e.g., Square U18, L4710 in Fig. 10). Obviously, these represent ground floor installations; since they would not have been found intact had they collapsed from an upper floor. Perhaps the best explanation for them is that they were animal feed troughs (Stager 1985: 13–15). At least one also had a large stone basin next to it (again, in Area B-west, L4710). However, they also had the capacity to contain a complete vessel or two: a cooking-pot in Area Y, L3175 and a storage jar in Area B-west, L4710. Hence they may also have served as temporary, ad hoc storage. Summary and Conclusions The storage facilities of Iron Age I Tel Dan underwent marked change from the early part of the period (Stratum VI) to its late part (Stratum IVB). This change is a clear indication of socioeconomic and political change at the site and in the region as a whole. Bulk storage in the early phase (Stratum VI) was characterized by a combination of pit and pithos containers, prevalent throughout the site, but with pit concentrations in open areas. In Stratum V pithoi occur in large numbers while pits seem to have been limited to one per household. In both of the above phases above-floor bins and troughs occur in households as well. In the last phase (Stratum IVB) pits continued to be confined to one per household, but pithoi too are few—again: one or two per household. Bins and troughs are apparently also markedly less frequent. I have suggested that the storage of grain in pits was initially and primarily a function of poor security, not simply a matter of efficacy. 102 david ilan When security improved, most grain storage was transferred to aboveground containers, perhaps mainly pithoi. In the final Iron Age I stage of Tel Dan, Stratum IVB, grain storage and livestock appear to have been concentrated elsewhere, not in private homes. This is held to indicate increasing centralization of economic and political control. the case of tel dan 103 References Amiran, R. and Ilan, O. 1996. Early Arad II. Jerusalem. Ben-Ami, D. 2001. The Iron I at Tel Hazor in Light of the Renewed Excavations. IEJ 51: 148–170. Biran, A. 1989. The Collared-Rim Jars and the Settlement of the Tribe of Dan. In: Gitin, S. and Dever, W. G., eds. Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology (AASOR 49) Winona Lake, IA: 71–96. Bloch-Smith, E. and Alpert Nakhai, B. 1999. A Landscape Comes to Life: The Iron Age I. Near Eastern Archaeology 62: 62–92, 101–127. Borowski, O. 1987. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, IA. Currid, J. D. and Navon, A. 1989. Iron Age Pits and the Lahav (Tell Halif ) Grain Storage Project. BASOR 273: 67–78. De-Groot, A. and Greenhut, Z. 2005. Mo·a, 2041-A. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 117: 83. Finkelstein, I. 1986. {Izbet Âartah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha{ayin, Israel (BAR International Series 299). Oxford. ——. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. and Naxaman, N. 1994. Introduction. In: Finkelstein, I. and Naxaman, N., eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 9–17. Gadot, Y. 2003. Continuity and Change: Cultural Processes in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Israel’s Central Coastal Plain (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Gal, Z. and Alexandre, Y. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (IAA Reports 8). Jerusalem. Geva, S. 1984. The Settlement Pattern of Hazor Stratum XII. EI 17: 158–161 (Hebrew). Golani, A. and Yogev, O. 1996. The 1980 Excavations at Tel Sasa. {Atiqot 28: 41–58. Gottwald, N. K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh. New York. Greenberg, R. 1987. New Light on the Early Iron Age at Tell Beit Mirsim. BASOR 265: 55–80. Herzog, Z. 1984. Beer-Sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 7). Tel Aviv. Hoffner, H. 1967. Second Millennium Antecedents to the Hebrew xOb. JBL 86: 385–401. Hyde, M. B., Baker, A. A., Ross, A. C., and Lopez, C. O. 1973. Airtight Grain Storage (Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 17). Rome. Ilan, D. 1991. A Middle Bronze Age Offering from Tel Dan and the Politics of Cultic Gifting. Tel Aviv 19: 247–266. ——. 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. Ilan, S. 1974. The Traditional Arab Agriculture, Its Methods and Its Relationship to the Palestinian Landscape during the End of the Ottoman Period (M.A. thesis, Hebrew University). Jerusalem. Kislev, M. 1980. Contenu d’un silo a blé de l’époque du fer ancient. In: Briend, J. and Humbert, J.-H. Tell Keisan, 1971–976: Une cité phénicienne en Galilée. Fribourg and Paris: 361–379. ——. 1993. Food Remains. In: Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 10). Tel Aviv. Kislev, M. E. and Melamed, Y. 2000. Ancient Infested Wheat and Horsebean from Horbat Rosh Zayit. In: Gal, Z. and Alexandre, Y. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (IAA Reports 8). Jerusalem: 206–220. 104 david ilan Kochavi, M. 1998. The Eleventh Century BCE Tripartite Pillar Building at Tel Hadar. In: Gitin, S., Mazar, A., and Stern, E., eds. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: 468–478. Lamon, R. S. and Shipton, G. 1939. Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34, Strata I–V (Oriental Institute Publications 42). Chicago. Lapp, N. L., ed. 1981. The Third Campaign at Tell el-Ful: The Excavations of 1964 (AASOR 45). Cambridge, MA. Lederman, Z. and Finkelstein, I. 1993. Area D: Middle Bronze Age Stone and Earth Works, Late Bronze Age Dumped Debris and Iron Age I Silos. In: Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 10). Tel Aviv: 35–48. Mazar, A. 1981. Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site near Jerusalem. IEJ 31: 1–36. ——. 1992. The Iron Age I. In: Ben-Tor, A., ed. The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven and London: 258–301. Redford, D. B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton. Reynolds, P. J. 1979. Iron Age Farm: The Butser Experiment. London. Rosen, B. 1986. Subsistence Economy of Stratum II, In: Finkelstein, I. {Izbet Âartah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha{ayin, Israel (BAR International Series 299). Oxford: 156–185. ——. 1994. Subsistence Economy in the Iron I. In: Finkelstein, I. and Naxaman, N., eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 339–351. Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albequerque. Sethe, K. 1907 (republished 1984). Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Text der Hefte 9–12 (Urkunden des Agyptisches Altertums IV). Berlin. Stager, L. 1985. The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. BASOR 260: 1–35. Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. 1994. Domestication of Plants in the Old World (2nd ed.). Oxford. Zorn, J. R. 1993. Tell en-Na‘beh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley). Berkeley.