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 Sumaka‚i 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 Óafit-Gath and the surrounding sites during the various stages of the Iron Age II .................................................................... Fig. 10. The settlement complex of Tel Óafit-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 Óafit-Gath in the 8th century BCE ....................... Fig. 12. The settlement complex of Tel Óafit-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 ................................ Sumaka‚i 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. åorvat »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 åorvat »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 Sumaka‚i-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 Óafit-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 TRADEMARKS OF THE OMRIDE BUILDERS? Norma Franklin Two 9th-century sites hold the key to the chronological conundrum of the period: Samaria, the royal capital, and Megiddo, its sentinel emporium. Together they epitomize the power of the Northern Kingdom of Israel during the 9th century BCE. Samaria Samaria, a rocky hill-top site, first developed in the Early Iron Age as a lucrative oil and wine production center (Stager 1990: 93–107; Franklin 2004a: 189–202). Its earliest monumental buildings were erected by Omri in ca. 880 BCE, when he chose this economic hub as the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 16: 23–24). The Harvard Expedition (1908–1910) first excavated the site; G. Schumacher, who had just terminated his excavation at Megiddo, initially served as the temporary director until G. Reisner assumed the position in 1909. C. Fisher, who later became the first director of the Oriental Institute’s expedition to Megiddo, was appointed excavation architect. The Harvard Expedition was intent on revealing the city founded by Omri and so they concentrated their excavation on the summit. There they revealed a monumental building, which they immediately identified as the 9th-century “Palace of Omri” on the basis of the passage in 1 Kings 16: 23–24 (Reisner et al. 1924: 35, 60–61). The second expedition to Samaria, the Joint Expedition (1931–1935), was directed by J. W. Crowfoot, but it was K. Kenyon who continued excavations on the summit (Crowfoot et al. 1942). The Joint Expedition accepted the overall stratigraphic interpretation offered by the Harvard Expedition agreeing that there was no monumental architecture prior to the “Palace of Omri,” which they renamed Building Period I (ibid.: 7). 46 norma franklin In fact, during Building Period I, the natural rocky summit of Samaria delimited a royal compound—the “Palace of Omri”—isolated from its surroundings, on top of a 4-m-high artificial rock-cut scarp. To the west of the royal compound there were other Building Period I ancillary buildings, while immediately below the Omride palace two subterranean tombs where hewn into the bedrock. These tombs have recently been recognized as belonging to the Omride kings (Franklin 2003: 1–11). These elements, when viewed together, testify to Building Period I having been of a longer duration than previously thought, spanning the Omride dynasty in its entirety and at least a part of the Jehu dynasty (Franklin 2004a: 189–202). That is, the following period, Building Period II, was not the continuation, embellishment, and execution of an unfinished Building Period I blueprint, rather it signified a new era, a new regime during which time the summit of Samaria became a strictly administrative center (see Addendum). Megiddo Megiddo is a multilayered tell occupied continuously from the 3rd millennium BCE until the Persian period. G. Schumacher was the first to excavate the site (1903–1905) and expose the Iron Age levels (Schumacher 1908). The second expedition was instigated by the Oriental Institute of Chicago (1925–1939), directed initially by C. Fisher (who had served as the architect for the Harvard Expedition to Samaria) until he was forced to retire due to ill health, and succeeded by P. L. O. Guy (1927–1935). It was during Guy’s tenure that a monumental building, Palace 1723, was revealed in the south of the tell (Guy 1931; Lamon and Shipton 1939). The Chicago Expedition originally attributed Palace 1723 to the early part of the 10th century BCE but it was later down dated slightly by Yadin who associated it with the building activities of Solomon (Yadin 1960: 62–68). In addition, Stratum IVB (to which the palace was attributed) had been amalgamated by Albright with Stratum VA to form the composite Stratum VA–IVB (Albright 1943: 2–3). Following a re-analysis of the data it has become apparent that there was no premise for establishing Stratum IVB as a separate stratum, irrespective of whether it is paired with Stratum VA or not. Accordingly, the architecture from Stratum IVB has now been reassigned to either one of the phases of Stratum V or to Stratum IV (IVA). Palace trademarks of the omride builders? 47 1723 is now recognized as belonging to one of the earliest phases of Stratum V (Franklin 2006). Eventually, Stratum V, including Palace 1723, was partially dismantled and buried by the builders of Stratum IV, and a new city arose with a very different layout, topography, and function. The Stratum IV city became a vast commercial center with stables, storehouses, and courtyards, all contained within a city wall and built according to a specific blueprint (see Addendum; Franklin 2006). The Omride Palace at Samaria and Palace 1723 at Megiddo The Masons’ Marks (Fig. 1) At Samaria, twenty ashlars inscribed with distinctive masons’ marks have been excavated (Reisner et al. 1924: 119–120, Fig. 47, Pls. 90e, 90f; Crowfoot et al. 1942: 34–35). Only two of the inscribed ashlars were discovered in situ located in the foundation course of the Building Period I palace. The other inscribed ashlars were found in secondary use in Building Period II or later architecture (Shiloh 1979; Franklin 2004a: 201). At Megiddo some 52 ashlars inscribed with masons’ marks have been recorded (Schumacher 1908: Tafel XXXe; Lamon and Shipton 1939: 13, Figs. 16: 20, 26: 25, 32; Yadin 1970: 92, Fig. 17; Yadin 1972: 164; Shiloh 1979; Franklin 2001: 108). Only 19 of the inscribed ashlars were discovered in situ, all of which were located in the foundations of Palace 1723 (including Porch 1728). The remaining inscribed ashlars were found in secondary use in buildings from Strata IV, III, or II. It is significant that Samaria and Megiddo are the only sites with these particular types of masons’ marks (contra Shiloh 1979). That is, 44 different masons’ marks out of a total of the 73 excavated examples, or 8 out of the 17 basic known characters have been recorded at both sites (Franklin 2001: 110–111, Fig. 1). The marks are always inscribed on large, roughly hewn ashlars devoid of marginal drafting.1 These 1 Only one ashlar inscribed with a masons’ mark has marginal drafting. It is an ashlar used as a “strengthening corner” on the western foundation pier of Gate 1576. The ashlar is in secondary use and acquired its marginal drafting as an aid in aligning the structure correctly. 48 norma franklin plain, roughly hewn ashlars (with no interspersed fieldstones) were the standard type of ashlar used in the foundation courses of the monumental buildings there. In fact these “plain” ashlars are the typical building blocks used by the Building Period I (Samaria) and the Stratum V (Megiddo) builders. They differ from the Building Period II (Samaria) and Stratum IV (Megiddo) ashlars, which were often embellished with drafted margins (Franklin 2004a; 2006). In short, an analysis of the findspots of the inscribed ashlars when viewed together with the stratigraphic information at both sites confirms that these ashlars, inscribed with the distinctive masons’ marks, originate in the Stratum V palace (1723) at Megiddo and the Building Period I palace at Samaria. The Derivation of the Masons’ Marks The Harvard Expedition noted that some of the marks resembled ancient Hebrew (Sukenik 1957). It would be logical to suppose that the masons’ marks derived from a Phoenician tradition, however there are too many dissimilarities for them to be directly related to the Phoenician alphabet, and no masons’ marks are known from that region. Tantalizingly, it has been noted that the closest match for the masons’ marks is with the Carian alphabet (Franklin 2001: 107–116). Eighteen of the twenty masons’ marks appear in the established Carian alphabet and two match Carian quarry marks from Egypt (Gosline 1992). However, if the masons’ marks are related to the Carian alphabet then they predate by some two hundred years the first known use of the Carian alphabet. Until now the earliest known use of the Carian alphabet was in Egypt, rather than in Caria, where it predates the examples in Asia Minor by two or three centuries (Ray 1988: 150). Some three hundred inscriptions, written between the 7th and the 4th centuries BCE, have been recorded in the area of ancient Caria (Shevoroshkin 1994: 131). Apparently, the Carians borrowed their alphabet (or more precisely: local alphabets) directly from some archaic Semitic writing system, for the Carian alphabet has elements of both North and South Semitic scripts (Shevoroshkin 1991–1992: 117–134). This alphabet is composed of some 48 letters, although it is thought that only 25 of them were actually used at any one time or in any one place (Ray 1987: 99; 1990: 56). In Caria there were at least five regional Carian alphabets (Ray 1982a: 78). Additionally, in Egypt the Carian alphabet is known to have varied greatly over time (Ray 1982b: 181). Therefore, had the masons’ trademarks of the omride builders? 49 marks been derived from an early form of the Carian alphabet they would have also exhibited chronological or regional variation. However, the use of “Carian-related alphabetic marks” as masons’ marks may suggest an ongoing vocational link rather than an ethnic link, for some of the masons’ marks reappear over a long period of time and are found in southwest Anatolian, Egyptian, and Persian contexts (Franklin 2001: 107–116). The function of these unique marks is unknown; they may have served an atropaic purpose or echoed the practices and origin of foreign construction workers. Furthermore, their apparent concurrent use, at both Samaria and Megiddo, implies a brief time period. The Use of the Short Cubit of 0.45 m The foundations of both the Omride palace at Samaria and Palace 1723 at Megiddo were laid out using the short cubit of 0.45 m as the unit of measurement.2 When dealing with the layout of a building it is the exterior measurements that are the crucial ones (Miroschedji 2001: 465–491). For example, the northern foundation wall of Palace 1723 has “setting-out” marks incised into the outermost ashlars in the foundation course (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 20, Fig. 29), and the use of the short cubit of 0.45 m is most noticeable when the ground plan of Palace 1723 is studied, for the foundations of the palace were preserved in their entirety and the complete plan of the building is known. Megiddo—Palace 1723 (Fig. 2) • The southern wall of the palace is 48-short-cubits long (ca. 21.25 m; 21.6 m = 48 cubits = 4 rods). • The western wall of the palace is also 48-short-cubits long, which can be further broken down into six lengths of 8 short cubits or three lengths of 16 short cubits. • The northern wall of the palace is 50-short-cubits long (ca. 22.975 m; 22.50 m = 50 cubits) (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 18: note 10). 2 There is a greater discrepancy regarding the application of the short-cubit to the palace at Megiddo in contrast to Samaria. This may be due to the settlement of Palace 1723, which was built on accumulated Tel debris, as opposed to the Omride Palace which was built on bedrock. In any event the short-cubit is the measurement that produces the least discrepancy when applied to these buildings. 50 norma franklin • The northern wall of the platform of the palace (Platform 1728) is 16-short-cubits long (ca. 7.7 m; 7.2 m = 16 cubits) (ibid.: 18). • The eastern wall of the palace is formed by Platform 1728. It extends the line of the northern wall by a length of 16 short cubits. Then the east wall runs south for a length of 8 short cubits. The platform is then set back by 6 short cubits and the east wall continues south for 16 short cubits. The platform is then once again set back, now by 10 short cubits, and the east wall of the platform is finally exposed for 16 short cubits before being recessed by 2 short cubits for a length of 8 short cubits. Samaria—The Omride Palace (Fig. 3) The use of the short cubit, particularly multiples of six, eight, and ten short cubits, is also evident in the ground plan of the palace at Samaria. Although most of the ashlar masonry did not survive, the fact that the palace was built on top of an artificially prepared 4-m-high rock scarp enables the extent of the palace to be defined (Franklin 2004a): • The long west wall of the palace scarp is 60-short-cubits long (ca. 27 m; 27 m = 60 cubits = 1/2 rope). • The scarp projects out from the main building line by 12 short cubits (ca. 5.5 m; 5.4 m = 12 cubits = 1 rod) in the north, and by 16 short cubits (ca. 7.5 m; 7.2 m = 16 cubits) in the south. • The southern section of the west face extends as far as the southern scarp a distance of 16 short cubits (ca. 7.5 m; 7.2 m = 16 cubits). • The building has an enclosed rectangular courtyard, 24 short cubits (ca. 11 m; 10.8 m = 24 cubits = 2 rods) by 48 short cubits (ca. 21.25 m; 21.6 m = 48 cubits = 4 rods). The northern section of the west face (still partially preserved but hidden below later monumental architecture) appears to have reached the northern scarp, situated 100 short cubits to the north. The palaces in Samaria and in Megiddo appear to be unique regarding the use of the short cubit of 0.45 m (Franklin 2004b: 83–92). The short cubit was also known as the Egyptian short cubit, as it consisted of six palms and needed to be differentiated from the more common royal cubit of seven palms (Ben-David 1987: 27–28). The Egyptian short cubit eventually went out of use following the Third Intermediate Period and was superseded by the royal cubit (Iversen 1975: 16; Shaw trademarks of the omride builders? 51 and Nicholson 1995: 174). It should be noted that the second dynasty belonging to that period is the 22nd “Libyan” Dynasty (Kitchen 1986: 334–337), which partially coincides with the Israelite Omride dynasty that is credited with inaugurating Building Period I at Samaria. Addendum Samaria Building Period II and Megiddo Stratum IV The ground plan of the monumental architectural elements of Building Period II (Samaria) and Stratum IV (Megiddo) were constructed using the popular Assyrian cubit of 0.495 m. This cubit was first attested on a statue of Gudea, king of Lagash, at ca. 2170 BCE (Dilke 1987: 25), and it continued in use into the Assyrian period. The Assyrian cubit is close to the present-day metric standard and thus tends to conform to modern plans, making it the most easily recognized of all the ancient measures. The two Megiddo Stratum IV courtyards, Courtyard 977 (the Southern Stable courtyard) and Courtyard 1693, both measure 120 by 120 Assyrian cubits. This square unit of measurement is an Assyrian agricultural land measurement known as an iku. In addition, all the Megiddo Stratum IV monumental architecture: City Gate 2156, City Wall 325, and the stable units, were built using lengths of 8, 10, 12, 36, 40, 60, and 120 Assyrian cubits. At Samaria Building Period II while there were no stable complexes or city gates, there was a casemate wall system and the “Ostraca House,” both built using the Assyrian cubit of 0.495 m, with multiples of 2, 4, 25, 30, and 50 (Franklin 2004b: 83–92). In addition, the ashlar masonry used in these strata at both sites, most of which is in secondary use, was aligned with the aid of a drafted margin—a three-sided frame drafted in situ. The evidence for this final marginal drafting was a layer of limestone chips deposited at the base of these walls (Loud 1948: 47; Crowfoot et al. 1942: 99.). Moreover, the alignment of these ashlars was facilitated by the use of red guide lines. These guide lines were often preserved on the ashlar foundation courses and observed by the excavation teams at both sites (Reisner et al. 1924: 103–107, 111, Figs. 26, 30, 37; Guy 1931: 37; Crowfoot et al. 1942: 12, 98; Loud 1948: 48). Furthermore, the load-bearing walls and corners were built of integrated ashlars and fieldstones, often constructed in the 52 norma franklin Telalio pattern for added strength (Franklin 2006). All these techniques: the Assyrian cubit, the marginally drafted ashlars, the red guide lines, and the Telalio wall construction are peculiar to Building Period II at Samaria and Stratum IV at Megiddo, and noticeably different from the techniques used in the previous strata at both sites. Conclusion The use of the Egyptian short cubit as the unit of measurement is not unique, but its use on two palatial buildings that also have a unique set of masons’ marks must alert us to the fact that we have tangible evidence for the existence of a group of skilled foreign craftsmen working in the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the 9th century BCE. This hypothesis is strengthened when the monumental buildings in the subsequent strata at both sites are seen to exhibit very different structural techniques and are built using a different unit of measurement. The question must be raised: Is the simultaneous use of masons’ marks and the Egyptian short cubit the trademark of a foreign workforce? The Mesha Stele records that Israelite prisoners of war were employed as construction workers in Moab (Ahlström 1982: 15; Na‚aman 1997: 123). The Assyrians routinely subjugated to servitude their prisoners of war (Zaccagnini 1983: 260), and the Omride dynasty is also recorded as having used prisoners of war to further their building projects (Na‚aman 1997: 123). Is it possible that this unique set of trademarks was left by prisoners of war who were used as a labor force by the Omride dynasty, or were the builders a group of skilled craftsmen commissioned by the Omride dynasty to build these two palatial buildings? trademarks of the omride builders? 53 References Ahlström, G. W. 1982. Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine. Leiden. Albright, W. F. 1943. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. 3: The Iron Age (AASOR 21–22: 2–3). New Haven. Ben-David, A. 1987. The Hebrew-Phoenician Cubit. PEQ 110: 27–28. Crowfoot, J. W., Kenyon, K. M., and Sukenik, E. L. 1942. The Buildings at Samaria (Samaria-Sebaste No. 1). London. de Miroschedji, P. 2001. Notes on Early Bronze Age Metrology and the Birth of Architecture in Ancient Palestine. In: Wolff, S. R., ed. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse (SAOC 59, ASOR Books No. 5). Chicago: 465–491. Dilke, O. A. W. 1987. Mathematics and Measurement. Berkeley. Franklin, N. 2001. Masons’ Marks from the 9th Century BCE Northern Kingdom of Israel: Evidence of the Nascent Carian Alphabet? Kadmos 40: 107–116. ——. 2003. The Tombs of the Kings of Israel: Two Recently Identified 9th Century Tombs from Omride Samaria. ZDPV 119/1: 1–11. ——. 2004a. Samaria: From the Bedrock to the Omride Palace. Levant 36: 189–202. ——. 2004b. Metrological Investigations at 9th and 8th c. Samaria and Megiddo, Israel. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 4/2: 83–92. ——. 2006. Revealing Stratum V at Megiddo. BASOR 342: 95–111. Gosline, S. L. 1992. Carian Quarry Markings on Elephantine Island. Kadmos 31: 43–50. Guy, P. L. O. 1931. New Light from Armageddon: Second Provisional Report (1927–1929) on the Excavations at Megiddo in Palestine (The Oriental Institute Communications 9). Chicago. Iversen, E. 1975. Canon and Proportions in Egyptian Art (2nd edition). Warminster. Kitchen, K. A. 1986. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (110–650 BC) (2nd edition). Warminster. Lamon, R. and Shipton, G. M. 1939. Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34, Strata I–V (Oriental Institute Publications 42). Chicago. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39 (Oriental Institute Publications 62). Chicago. Na‚aman, N. 1997. Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24: 122–128. Ray, J. D. 1982a. The Carian Script. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 208/28: 77–89. ——. 1982b. The Carian Inscriptions from Egypt. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 68: 181–198. ——. 1987. The Egyptian Approach to Carian. Kadmos 26: 98–103. ——. 1988. Ussollos in Caria. Kadmos 27: 150–154. ——. 1990. An Outline of Carian Grammar. Kadmos 29: 54–58. Reisner, G. A., Fisher, C. S., and Lyon, D. G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910. Vols. 1–2 (Harvard Semitic Series). Cambridge, MA. Schumacher, G. 1908. Tell el-Mutesellim, Band I: Bericht über die 1903 bis 1905 mit Unterstützung Sr. Majestät des Deutschen Kaisers und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft vom Deutschen verein zur Erforschung Palästinas versanstalteten Ausgrabungen. Leipzig. Shaw, I. and Nicholson, P. 1995. British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. London. Shevoroshkin, V. V. 1991/92. On Carian Language and Writing. In: Pearson, R., ed. Perspectives on Indo-European Language, Culture and Religion: Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Vol. 1 ( Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph No. 7). McLean, VA: 117–135. 54 norma franklin ——. 1994. Carian—Three Decades Later. In: Giannnotta, M. E., Gusmani, R., et al., eds., La decifrazione del Cario (Monografie Scientifiche. Serie Scienze umane e sociali). Roma: 131–166. Shiloh, Y. 1979. The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry (Qedem 11). Jerusalem. Stager, L. 1990. Shemer’s Estate. BASOR 277–278: 93–107. Sukenik, E. L. 1957. In: Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G. M., and Kenyon, K. M. The Objects from Samaria (Samaria-Sebaste No. 3). London: 34. Yadin, Y. 1960. New Light on Solomon’s Megiddo. BA 23: 62–68. ——. 1970. Megiddo and the Kings of Israel. BA 33: 66–96. ——. 1972. Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1970). London. Zaccagnini, C. 1983. Patterns of Mobility among Ancient Near Eastern Craftsmen. JNES 42: 245–264.