Megiddo (Qibbutz): Preliminary Report Author(s): Robert S. Homsher, Yotam Tepper, Melissa S. Cradic, Adam B. Prins and Matthew J. Adams Source: Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel / ‫חדשות‬ ‫ כרך‬,2018 ,‫ חפירות וסקרים בישראל‬:‫&ארכיאולוגיות‬lrm; 130 (2018) Published by: Israel Antiquities Authority / ‫רשות העתיקות‬ Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26691726 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel / ‫ חפירות וסקרים בישראל‬:‫חדשות ארכיאולוגיות‬ This content downloaded from 73.127.91.124 on Tue, 09 Nov 2021 17:10:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Megiddo (Qibbutz) Robert S. Homsher, Yotam Tepper, Melissa S. Cradic, Adam B. Prins and Matthew J. Adams 06/11/2018 Preliminary Report In January 2017, a salvage excavation was conducted in the southern part of Kibbutz Megiddo (License No. B-449/2017; map ref. 2170–3/7201–2). The excavation, on behalf of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, was directed by M.J. Adams, R.S. Homsher (GIS) and Y. Tepper, with the assistance of M.S. Cradic and A. Lavi (field supervisors), the Israel Archaeological Services (administration and labor), A.B. Prins (photography; 3D modelling and GIS), E.J. Stern (pottery), Y. Gorin-Rosen (glass) and N. Marom (fauna). We thank the youth group, Tlamim, and other members of Kibbutz Megiddo for their help during the excavation. Two areas (A—map ref. 217040–50/720224–35; B—map ref. 217367/720105; Fig. 1) were opened on the southern slope of the hill on which Kibbutz Megiddo is situated. Area A was opened prior to the construction of a chicken coop building, and it revealed multiple superimposed layers of occupational debris, which contained various finds, mostly from the twelfth Century CE. Area B was opened inside the ruins of a building from the British Mandate, where antiquities looting had recently taken place; it revealed various finds from the late Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. An extensive survey was conducted in this area in the early twentieth century by Gottleib Schumacher, while he was excavating at nearby Tel Megiddo (Tell et-Mutesellim). He documented several Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic remains in the vicinity of Khirbat el-Lajjun (Schumacher 1908:4–7, 182–186, Pl. I). This area has been surveyed again in recent years (Tepper 2002:231–242; Tepper 2012; Tepper 2013a; Tepper 2013b). A previous excavation (Tepper 2013c; Fig. 1: A-5320), conducted between Areas A and B, revealed eight superimposed settlement strata (VIII–I) dated from the Hellenistic period to the modern era (Tepper 2013c). Based on the ancient remains and finds as well as historical references, we can reconstruct a Late Roman and Byzantine settlement (Maximianopolis), a Crusader estate (Leon) and an Early Islamic through Ottoman period settlement (Lajjun) on the southern part of Kibbutz Megiddo and in its vicinity. Area A. Two squares (F30, G30; Fig 2) were opened. An upper layer comprising gravel and sand covering dark brown, dense clayish silt was removed with a backhoe. It appears that this layer was brought in as an artificial fill prior to the construction of the chicken coops. A horizontal layer of light gray, sandy silt comprising occupation debris (L1, L2; thickness 0.3 m) with a large amount of pottery was revealed at a depth of 1.0–1.2 m below the surface; it sloped downward from north to south. Multiple similar layers were discerned in the vertical sections delimiting the excavated squares. Since no architecture whatsoever was uncovered, the excavation area was reduced to the southern half of Sq F30 (2.5 × 5.0 m). This small probe revealed c. 15 additional, similar, superimposed occupation layers (L4–L6; thickness 5–30 cm each; Fig. 3). These layers sloped downward from north to south at an average inclination of 7 degrees. The layers consisted of sediments ranging in color from light gray to medium brown. The interface between the layers often consisted of a band of dark-grayish black sediment (thickness 1–5 cm), probably the result of a fire. All the layers yielded similar finds, namely an This content downloaded from 73.127.91.124 on Tue, 09 Nov 2021 17:10:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 827 / 1346 abundance of pottery sherds, animal bones and glass fragments. Remarkably, there were no disturbances, cuts, installations or architecture whatsoever found within these layers. Between the lowest layer and the bedrock below (depth c. 1.6 m) was a thin horizon of medium-brown sandy clay, which was essentially devoid of finds and appeared to be a natural deposit overlying the bedrock. A preliminary reading of the pottery points to a Twelfth Century CE Frankish household assemblage. Although some finds from the Roman–Byzantine and early Islamic periods were found, these appear to be residual. There are several possibilities for the origin of these layers: (1) a dump, probably of domestic waste, but possibly including industrial waste as well; (2) an accumulation of debris from industrial activity that took place either in situ or in the vicinity but left no significant traces; (3) an intentional fill. All three possibilities include periodic burning. Based on the slope, the elevation, the finds and the broader topography, it appears that this area was part of the western edge of the Lajjun settlement during the twelfth century CE. Area B. During the looting, a shaft (c. 1 × 1 m, depth c. 4.5 m; Fig. 4) was cut in the tile floor of the building from the British Mandate and through archaeological layers. As a result, dirt and various finds were scattered around the shaft’s opening. About 0.5 m below the surface, a thin gray layer (2–3 cm) was visible in the southern section of the shaft—perhaps a floor. About 1.5 m below the surface, a stone wall was visible in the northern section of the shaft, possibly consisting of two courses. These finds point to the likelihood of multiple archaeological layers in this location. All the dirt around the opening of the shaft was sieved and then used to backfill the entire shaft. The sieving yielded several bags of potsherds, glass fragments, animal bones, shells and metal finds, including coins; these finds were preliminarily assessed to date from the late Byzantine and the Early Islamic periods. The layers of occupation debris revealed in Area A are probably related to a nearby settlement from the twelfth century CE and may contribute to a better understanding of the diet of the inhabitants of this settlement. Further study of the finds should yield more information about the occupants of this settlement and the activity that occurred here during this period. The finds from Area B, dating from the late Byzantine and the Early Islamic periods, allow us to locate settlement activity during these periods on the southeastern slope of the hill. Schumacher G. 1908. Tell el-Mutesellim I: Fundbericht A. Leipzig. Tepper Y. 2002. Lajjun–Legio in Israel: Results of a Survey in and around the Military Camp Area. In P. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T. Fiema and B. Hoffmann eds. Limes XVIII (Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies Held in Amman, Jordan, September 2000) I (BAR Int. This content downloaded from 73.127.91.124 on Tue, 09 Nov 2021 17:10:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 828 / 1346 S. 1084). Oxford. Tepper Y. 2012. Legio, Nahal Qeni Survey. HA-ESI 124. Tepper Y. 2013a. Megiddo–Yoqne’am–Megiddo Junctions, Survey (Road 66). HA-ESI 125. Tepper Y. 2013b. Megiddo, Survey. HA-ESI 125. Tepper Y. 2013c. Megiddo (Qibbuz). HA-ESI 125. 1. Location map 2. Area A, GIS plan. 3. The southern section in Sq F30. 4. Area B, the upper part of the shaft, looking southeast. This content downloaded from 73.127.91.124 on Tue, 09 Nov 2021 17:10:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 829 / 1346 1. Location map This content downloaded from 73.127.91.124 on Tue, 09 Nov 2021 17:10:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 830 / 1346 2. Area A, GIS plan. 3. The southern section in Sq F30. This content downloaded from 73.127.91.124 on Tue, 09 Nov 2021 17:10:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 831 / 1346 4. Area B, the upper part of the shaft, looking southeast. This content downloaded from 73.127.91.124 on Tue, 09 Nov 2021 17:10:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 832 / 1346